Sitting of 16 October 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
NEW WRITS.
  FOR COUNTY OF ORKNEY AND SHETLAND.
  In the room of John Cathcart Wason, Esq. (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  BOROUGH OF DEVONPORT.
  Edward John Chalmers Morton, Esq., deceased.—(Mr. William M'Arthur.)

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1887) (IMPRISONMENT OF MEMBEKS).
  Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the imprisonment of two Members:—
  "Dublin,
  "58 Palmerston Road,
  "6th October, 1902.
  "SIR,—I have the honour to inform you that Haviland-Burke, Esq., Member for the Tullamore Division of the King's County, and Michael Reddy, Esq., Member for the Birr Division of the said county, were, on the 2nd day of October instant, on appeal, convicted by me, sitting at Birr in said county, as sole judge under the provisions of The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887.
  "For that they with others, on the 15th day of August, 1902, at Birr, in the King's County aforesaid, being a proclaimed district under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, did wrongfully and with out legal authority unlawfully use intimidation towards certain shopkeepers residing in the town of Birr aforesaid, with the view to cause the said shopkeepers to do an act which they had a legal right to abstain from doing, namely, to join a certain Society or Association commonly called the United Irish League.
  "And further, that they, on the said 15th day of August, 1902, at Birr aforesaid, being a proclaimed district as aforesaid, did unlawfully and without legal authority unlawfully incite certain other persons whose names are unknown, to use intimidation towards certain shopkeepers

  13
  whose names are unknown, residing in the town of Birr aforesaid, with a view to cause the said shopkeepers to do an act which they had a legal right to abstain from doing, namely, to join a certain Society or Association commonly called the United Irish League.
  "And further, that they on the day and year aforesaid and at the place aforesaid, took part in an unlawful assembly, to wit, that they, together with other persons to the number of five and more whose names are unknown, unlawfully did assemble together to the disturbance of the public peace and with intent to stir up hatred and ill will between divers classes of His Majesty's subjects, and with the further intent unlawfully to incite said other persons to enter into a Criminal Conspiracy to compel certain traders in the town of Birr, whose names are unknown, to do what they had a legal right to abstain from doing, namely, to join a certain Society or Association, commonly called the United Irish League.
  "The said Haviland-Burke, Esq., M.P., was sentenced by me to one calendar month's imprisonment without hard labour on each count.
  "And the said Michael Reddy, Esq., M.P., was sentenced by me to two calendar months' imprisonment, without hard labour on each count, and that at the expiration of said term of imprisonment the said Michael Reddy, M.P., eater into sureties to be of the peace and good behaviour towards all His Majesty's subjects for twelve calendar months, himself in the sum of £50, and two solvent sureties in the sum of £25each, and in default of entering into such sureties to be imprisoned for a further period of three months without hard labour unless he shall sooner enter into such sureties.
  "Such sentences upon the said several counts to run concurrently in the case of both Mr. Haviland-Burke and Mr. Michael Reddy.
  "I have the honour to remain, Sir,
  "Your obedient servant,
  "JOHM ADYE CURRAN.
  "Chairman of Quarter Sessions.
  "for King's County.
  "To the Right Honourable the Speaker,
  "House of Commons.
  MR. SWIFT MACXEILL: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received any letters from resident magistrates announcing the arrest of Irish Members under the Coercion Act? No fewer than ten Irish Members have been arrested on the warrants of removable coercion magistrates since the House rose in August last and imprisoned on criminal charges.
  MR. SPEAKER: No, I have not received any such letters.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then, as a matter of privilege, I understand it is the bounden duty of the person by whose authority such warrants are executed, to communicate the facts as to the arrests to
  14
  MR. Speaker at once, whether Parliament is sitting or not, and whether adjourned or prorogued. The resident magistrates in Ireland, however, have not done so, although some of these arrests are two months old, and thus they have violated the privileges of this House.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not a breach of privilege, although it would have been the usual and proper course to take. I do not know the circumstances, nor can they be inquired into at this moment. The magistrates may have some reason to offer when they write and inform me, as they probably will do, why they have not communicated sooner.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I submit that it is not a matter for the magistrates so much as for the House to consider. No distinction ought to be made in a matter of this kind between an Irish and a British Member.
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope that if the hon. Member raises a point of order he will do so in the ordinary way, and not make suggestions of that kind, which are wholly unfounded.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That, Sir, is a matter of opinion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ‡ An hon. Member expressing his opinion in this House must do so with due respect to the Chair, upon which I understand him to be reflecting.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I had not the slightest intention of acting disrespect-fully to the Chair, but I still maintain that there should be no difference in the treatment of Members. It has always been laid down that an hon. Member is primâfacie protected in reference to criminal proceedings, unless they are announced to this House, and it is a privilege of a Member of this House that the fact of his arrest should be communicated at the earliest possible moment. I shall be prepared at the proper time to prove that since the 8th August last, ten Members of this House have been arrested on criminal charges.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already stated that, and I have

  15
  informed him that the failure to communicate the fact to me has never to my recollection been treated as a breach of privilege, although the course referred to is the proper and courteous one for a magistrate or judge to take.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Would I be in order in putting a Motion on the Paper expressing the dissatisfaction of this House at the want of courtesy shown them in not so communicating?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have no doubt a Motion could be framed that would be in order.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will do my best, Sir.

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  The right hon. Sir William Hood Walrond, baronet for County of Devon (North-Eastern or Tiverton Division).
  The right hon. Joseph Austen Chamberlain, County of Worcester (Eastern Division).
  Henry William Forster, esquire, County of Kent (Western or Sevenoaks Division).
  Thomas Henry Sloane, esquire, Borough of Belfast (South Belfast Division).

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Mexborough; and Maidstone; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petition from Lambeth, for alteration to lie upon the Table.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petitions for legislation; From Grays Malvern; Chard: Yeovil; Maidstone; Keynsham; Salisbury; Rothwell; Murton; Brighouse; Queensbury; Low Moorsley; Cardiff; Easington Lane; Lea and Holloway; Great Horton; Sheffield; Keyworth; North Shields; Hucknall Torkard; Peterborough; St. George; Wolverton; Shepshed; Fenny Stratford; Stoney Stanton; Ashby de la Zouch; Pendleton; Huntingdon; Cinderford; Abersychan; Slough; Castle
  16
  Howard; Manchester; Thirsk; Wirksworth; Ulverston; Cinderhill; Silsoe; Wishaw; Glossop Dale; Compstall; Ynysybwl; Bream; Ramsgate; Margate; Bromsgrove; Rugeley; Tamworth; New Mills; Hadfield; Carluke; Strathaven; Long Eaton; Stapleford; Langley Mill; and, High Wycombe; to lie upon the Table.

  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for the abolition of restricsions; From Maidstone; Grays; Malvern; Chard; Yeovil; Cardiff; Huntingdon; Keynsham; Salisbury; Rothwell; Brighouse; Murton; Queens-bury; Low Moorsley; Easington Lane, Great Horton; Lea and Holloway; Sheffield; Silsoe; Shepshed; Keyworth; Hucknall Torkard; North Shields; High Wycombe; St. George; Ashby de la Zouch; Wolverton; Stoney Stanton; Abersyehan; Fenny Stratford; Pendleton; Slough; Newtonshaw; Alva; Manchester; Alloa; Wirksworth; Ulverston; Cinderhill; Thirsk; Wishaw; Peterborough; Glossop Dale; Compstall; Cinderford; Bream; Ynysybwl; Ramsgato; Margate; Bromsgrove; Tamworth; Rugeley; Hayfield; New Mills; Hadfield; Carluke; Strathaven; Langley Mills and Alderear; Long Eaton; and Stapleford; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAXD AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; From Queensbury; Maidstone; Grays; Malvern; Chard; Yeovil; Keynsham; Salisbury; Murton Colliery; Rothwell; Brighouse; Low Moorsley; Cardiff; Easington Lane; Larkhall; Lea and Holloway; Sheffield; Keyworth; North Shields; Hucknall Torkard; Peterborough; Glasgow; Shepshed; Bletchley; Ashby de la Zonch; Stoney Stanton; Wolverton; Huntingdon; Abersychan; High Wycombe; Castle Howard; Manchester; Wirksworth; Ulverston; Cinderhill; Silsoe; Thirsk; Wishaw; Glossop Dale; Compstall; Slough; Cinderford; Ynysybwl; Bream; Ramsgate; Margate; Bromsgrove; Tamworth; Ruge; lay; Hayfield; New Mills; Hadfield-Carluke; Strathaven; Long Eaton; Stapleford; and Langley Mill; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
  The following papers, presented by Command of His Majesty during the Recess, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August 1896:—
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Nos. 2875 to 2906.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Nos. 580 to 583.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 12, 1902).
  Copy of Convention regulating the Telephone Service between Great Britain and France. Signed at Paris, 29th July. 1902.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copies of Reports, Nos. 359 (Gibraltar, Annual Report for 1901), 360 (Straits Settlements, Annual Report for 1901), 361 (Sierra Leone, Annual Report for 1901), 362 (British Honduras, Annual Report for 1901), 363 (Turks and Caicos Islands, Annual Report for 1901), 364 (Seychelles, Annual Report for 1901), 365 (Bahamas, Annual Report for 1901–2, with a Report on the Salt Industry of Inagna), 366 (Fiji, Annual Report for 1901), 367 (Ceylon, Annual Report for 1901), 368 (Barbados, Annual Report for 1901–2).
  COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS).
  Copies of Reports, No 20 (Wei-hai-Wei) [General Report by Mr. G. J. Hare, Acting-Assistant Commissioner], and No. 21 [Dominica (Reports on the Caribs of Dominica)].
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy of Papers relating to an interview between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and Generals Botha, De Wet, and De la Rey, on 5th September, 1902.
  WEST INDIES.
  Copy of Correspondence relating to the Volcanic Eruptions in St. Vincent and Martinique, in May, 1902, with Map and Appendix.
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (FEDERATED MALAY STATES).
  Copy of Reports on the Federated Malay States for 1901.
  QUEENSLAND.
  Copy of Papers relating to the Pacific Island Labourers' Act 1901, of the Commonwealth of Australia.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy of Genearal Report and Statistics for the year 1901, Part III., Output; Genearal Report and Statistics relating to the Output and Value of the Minerals raised in the United Kingdom, the amount and value of the metals produced, and the exports and imports of Minerals.
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy of Report of the Commissioners of Prisons and the Directors of Convict Prisons, with Appendices, for the year ended 31St March, 1902.
  Copy of Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1901. Part II. Tables.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
  Copy of Forty-fifth Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools for 1901. Part II. General Report and Appendices III. to XI.
  VENTILATION OF FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  Copy of First Report with Appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into the Ventilation of Factories and Workshops.
  EXPLOSIONS (EXPLOSION OF DETONATORS AT THE PATENT ELECTRIC SHOT-FIRING COMPAY'S FACTORY, NEAR CHORLEY, LANCASHIRE).
  Copy of Report by Major A. Cooper-Key, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an accident which occurred at the factory of the patent Electric Shot-Firing Company, near Chorley, Lancashire on the 19th June, 1902.
  EXPLOSIONS (ACCIDENT AT MESSRS. PAIN AND SONS' FACTORY AT MITCHAM, SURREY).
  Copy of Report by Captain A. P. H. Desborough, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an accident which occurred in the building for non-explosive ingredients at the factory of Messrs. James Pain and Sons, at Mitcham, Surrey, on the 5th June, 1902.
  SALMON FISHERIES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy of Report of the Royal Commissioners on Salmon Fisheries (Part II., Minutes of Evidence and Indexes; Part III., Appendix, Sections I. and II.).
  Copy of Fortieth Report of the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund.
  Copy of Report on the Discipline and Management of Military Prisons, 1901.
  ARMY (REMOUNT DEPARTMENT).
  Copy of Report of the Court of Inquiry on the Administration of the Army Remount Department.
  ARMY (SELF-PROPELLED LORRIES).
  Copy of Report on Trials of Self-propelled Lorries for Military purposes, held at Aldershot from 4th to 19th December, 1901.
  ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
  Copy of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1902, of Pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and 1207 of the Army Pay Warrant.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Copy of Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1901. Part I. General Report.
  LUNACY (IRELAND).
  Copy of Fifty-first Report, with Appendices, of Inspectors of Lunatics (Ireland) for the year 1901.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy of Abstracts showing the Acre-age under Crops and the number of Live Stock in each County and Province of Ireland for the year 1901–2.
  Copy of Twentieth Report of the Royal University of Ireland, being for the year 1901.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy of Return of Proceedings during the months of April, May, June, and July, 1902.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Copy of Return for the month of December, 1901.
  BANKING, RAILWAY, AND SHIPPING STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy of Report on the Banking, Railway, and Shipping Statistics of Ireland for the half-year ended 30th June, 1902.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy of Twentieth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1901, Part III.
  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1898.
  Copy of Return showing the Total Payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account for the financial year 1901–2.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy of Report for the year 1901 on the Museums, Colleges, and Institutions under the administration of the Board of Education.
  Copy of Lists of Schools under the administration of the Board of Education, 1901–2.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy of (1) Grants paid to School Boards under Section 97 Elementary Education Act, 1870, (2) School Board Accounts, (3) List of Loans, for 1901–2.
  Copy of Report of the Board of Education for the year 1901–2.
  Copy of Annual Report of the Imperial Institute (Indian Section) for the year 1901–2.
  EAST INDIA (TRADE).
  Copy of Review of the Trade of India, 1901–2.
  EAST INDIA (STATISTICAL ABSTRACT).
  Copy of Statistical Abstract relating to British India, from 1891–2 to 1900–1901. Thirty-sixth Number.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the six-months ended 30th June, 1902, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into.
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Copy of Return, in pursuance of Section 4 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, of Railway Servants of certain classes who were on one or more occasions during the month of December, 1901, on duty on the railways of the United Kingdom for more than twelve hours at a time; or who, after being on duty more than twelve hours were allowed to resume work with less than nine hours' rest.
  CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 1901.
  Copy of Census of England and Wales, 1901, (Counties of Devon, Hants (Southampton), Surrey, Gloucester, Sussex, Northumberland, Nottingham, Worcester, Derby, Lincoln, and Norfolk).

  Copy of Report respecting Peterhead Harbour Works.
  Ordered, That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

  SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACT, 1883.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 11th July: Mr Moore]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account presented, of Receipts and Expenditure of the Paymaster General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the Funds of Suitors of the Court in the year ended 28th February, 1902, and of Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of Funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General there-on [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 353.]
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 14th August, 1902, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Inspector of Fisheries. Board of Trade, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 2nd September, 1902, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the offices of such Veterinary Inspectors and Assistant Veterinary Inspectors (Board of Agriculture) at Ports as do give then whole time to their official duties, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 1st October, 1902, declaring that Robert Henry. Engineer, Revenue Cruiser "Vigilant," Customs, 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.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 3rd September, 1902, declaring

  23
  that John Sands, lad, 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.

  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of return of all Loans raised in England, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 30th September, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 354.]
  EAST INDIA (EXAMINATIONS).
  Copy presented, of Regulations for Examinations for the Civil Service of India [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Fortieth Report of the Inspector for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Appendix, Section III. to the Sixty-eighth Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (PROCLAMATIONS).
  Copies presented, of Seventeen Proclamations, dated 1st September. 1902, applying certain of the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, to the counties, county boroughs, and rural and urban districts in Ireland therein respectively mentioned [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rules made by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, pursuant to the provisions of the Capital Punishment Amendment Act, 1868. for regulating the execution of Capital Sentences in Ireland [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Additional Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, dated 3rd September, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAWNBROKERS' RETURNS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin for the year ended 31st December 1901, [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (COURTS MARTIAL).
  Copy presented, of Return of the number of Courts Martial held and Summary Punishments inflicted during the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (SHIPS' BOILERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 13th May; Lord Charles Beresford]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL TRAINING SHIPS.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 19th June; Mr. Charles M'Arthur]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF WARWICK).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Warwick on the 5th May, 1902, altering certain Polling Districts in the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Northumberland altering certain Polling Districts in the County [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (SPECIAL EXCEPTION—NIGHT WORK —LEAD AND ZINC MINES).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 22nd August, 1902, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 54 of the Factory and Workshop Act. 1901, extending the special exception under that section to concentration works at Lead and Zinc Mines, so far as regards young persons of the age of 16 years and upwards [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (DANGERORS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Regulations dated 12th August, 1902, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 79 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, for the manufacture of felt hats where any inflammable solvent is used [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, closing the existing Prison of Inverness [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 13, 1902).
  Copy presented, of Declaration amending Article XI of the Treaty between the United Kingdom and Austria-Hungary, of 3rd December, 1873, for the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals. Signed at London, 26th June, 1901. Ratifications exchanged at London, 25th June, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (REMOUNT DEPARTMENT).
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Court of Inquiry on the Administration of the Army Remount Department, together with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (REMOUNT DEPARTMENT).
  Copy presented, of Reports by Officers appointed by the Commander-in Chief to inquire into the working of the Remount Department Abroad [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
  1. Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890.—Copy of General Rule made pursuant to Section 26 of The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, dated 14th August, 1902 [by Act].
  2. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.—Copy of Accounts of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board for the year ending 1st July, 1902 [by Act].
  3. Public Records (Treasury).—Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents which have been removed from the
  26
  Solicitor's Department of the Treasury to the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify the preservation therein [by Act].

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if the Motion he intends to move presently will allow the discussion after twelve o'clock at night of what are called "Forty days on the Table" Motions. It is just possible there may be a Home Office Rule laid on the Table of these autumn sittings to which we may wish to call attention: hence my Question.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Yes, I think the right hon. Baronet is right. I do not think it would be proper for the House to exclude from itself the possibility of discussing such a matter as this.

  THE CONDITION OF IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I desire, on behalf of the Irish party, to ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of recent occurrences in Ireland, he is prepared to give early, ample, and special time for the discussion of the condition of things in that country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of this Question. I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to give the special facilities which the hon. Gentleman seeks.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I would ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that my hon. friend speaks for eighty-two of the representatives of Ireland, and that the events that are occurring in Ireland are matters requiring immediate discussion, he will not look into the question a little further and see if he can not give us at least one day for the discussion of these matters, and whether even the loss of a day might not possibly turn out to be a good economy of time for the Government, while giving common fair play to the representatives of Ireland.
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be an economy of time to have a day formally given up to the discussion of Irish affairs in addition to all the opportunities which no doubt hon. Gentlemen will find for dealing with affairs in Ireland.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Without at all interfering or expressing an opinion as to the policy of the Government in Ireland, may I not put it to the right hon. Gentleman that in former time sit was always the practice to introduce a coercive system for Ireland by long discussions in this House? The right hon. Gentleman introduced and passed a Bill—perhaps wisely; I do not pass any opinion upon that—which prevented any form of discussion before coercion was introduced. I would submit to him for consideration whether he should not on this occasion, when so large a portion of Ireland has been placed under exceptional law, grant the request of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman probably remembers that we had a discussion upon the placing of certain parts of Ireland under proclamation during the earlier part of this Session, and I do not know that a renewed discussion on the same topic would serve any public interest. Of course, if the Front Opposition Bench were to take such a view of the government of Ireland as to justify them in asking for a day in order to condemn formally the policy of the Government, that day would at once be granted. I do not think it is in conformity with the ordinary usages and practices of this House to grant the request in the form in which it has been made this afternoon.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask whether, in giving his answer, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that amongst the occurrences we have to complain of since the House last met is the proclamation of the city of Dublin, where, on the authority of the Judges themselves, there is absolutely no crime.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ The hon. Member is now debating the question.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has not just now laid down the position that he will give a day for the discussion of the grievances of Ireland if a British party demand it, but that he will not give a day for that purpose when it is demanded by five-sixths of the representatives of Ireland.
  AN IRISH MEMBER: It's the old story.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Precisely. It is the old story. I am following, as I propose to follow, the time-honoured tradition of this House, under which a day for a vote of censure is not granted except on the demand of the Opposition.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And I was called to order a few minutes ago for saying that there was one law for the British and another for the Irish Member.
  MR. MCVEAGH: So there is.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask if I am to assume that his reply to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench is a reply to me, and that we will get a day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman must settle that with his friends on the Front Opposition Bench

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (AUTUMN SITTINGS).
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise, Sir, to move the resolution which was placed on the paper before the House separated in August last—namely, "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government business do have precedence at every sitting, and at the conclusion of Government business on each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put." I have very little to say on the subject except what the House is already thoroughly familiar with. We have resumed our work at this early date because we have before us the business of dealing with the Education Bill, and of carrying our proceedings on that Bill to a successful termination. There is one

  29
  other large and important measure which we must also finish and on which substantial progress has been made I mean the London Water Bill, which is a measure of the greatest importance to the metropolis. There are some other absolutely necessary matters which would have been dealt with in the earlier part of the session had we not thought it desirable to make continuous progress with the Education Bill, and reserve them for the autumn. We must pass the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and we must have a resolution in connection with the treaty on the sugar bounties. We ought certainly to introduce a Bill making it practically possible for the nation to accept the gracious gift which His Majesty has made in respect to Osborne. There must be a Vote in Supply to carry out the conditions of peace in connection with the Transvaal, and I must ask the House to turn the new Sessional Orders into Standing Orders—a matter which I do not think ought to lake any very great time—and, of course, we will deal with the Indian Budget, and it may be that we shall also have to deal with the question of the Uganda Railway. I do not anticipate that the list I have read out will in any way prolong the length or our autumnal labours, because, as the House is aware, there must be some interstices in the consideration of the Education Bill which may thus be usefully filled up. There are a few other measures on the Order Paper, which I think, are uncontroversial. With regard to these I shall certainly not think of asking the House to make any exceptional exertions, but, if there is a general desire that they should pass, I think they ought to pass into law. That, Sir, is really the statement which the House probably desires I should make on the question. I am not going to justify the course we have pursued in asking the House to meet again in the autumn. Those reasons are perfectly well known to all parties, and it will be sufficient, therefore, if I now ask you to put the Resolution from the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business do have precedence at every Sitting, and at the conclusion
  30
  of Government Business on each day, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put." (Mr. Balfour.)
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is there not a supplementary Vote of £3,000 for the allowance to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland which must be passed? I am very anxious about that Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that there is any necessity to bring in a supplementary Vote on that subject. If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question to me on the matter I will inquire into it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You certainly told me so last session
  MR. BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had given the House a most meagre statement, and one far from satisfying the natural curiosity of the House. Of course none of them desired to prolong their sitting beyond what was absolutely necessary. He would not now comment upon the main purpose for which the right hon. Gentleman had called them together, although he was tempted to ask him whether, after the expression of opinion he had received from the country during the recess, he would not have done better to reconsider his position. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that they were not afraid of coming to close quarters with him on the Education Bill. The House must not forget that there were several important differences between the position in which they stood now and that in which the House stood in 1893, when time was given to the Government for carrying on the business that stood over from the earlier part of the Session. In 1893 they met in the autumn in order to carry the Parish Councils Bill. That was a Bill upon which both sides of the House were agreed, and the second reading of which was not opposed. They had now a Bill which was not merely a question of the keenest controversy between the majority and the minority, but also between the majority of this House and the country. In 1893 there was a safety valve in the power of moving the adjournment at Question time—a power which had since been so greatly

  31
  curtailed as to have been practically extinguished. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give the House an assurance that when any question of urgency and importance arose, he would allow the House an opportunity of discussing it. One such question had arisen in regard to Ireland—the question of the use which the Government were making of the powers which the law placed in their hands—and it might at any moment assume an even more menacing aspect. There were questions connected with the state of things in South Africa. He was afraid the position in South Africa was full of difficulty, and that these difficulties were not diminishing. Then, in the last fortnight we had seen the smouldering embers of unrest in the East again bursting into flame. These were only three of many questions which might arise, and which the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would tell him that such an opportunity would be given if a vote of no confidence were proposed. But that was not by any means the most convenient way of dealing with such matters. There were many cases in which the House had a right to fuller or better information than could be elicited by means of Questions across; the Table, and they desired to have opportunities of expressing their opinions on subjects which could not be suitably raised by a vote of no confidence. The right hon. Gentleman had not given them some information which he thought they were entitled to have. Would he give an undertaking that there would be no suspension of the Twelve O'Clock Rule? He had already made a very severe demand on the health and patience of hon. Members by calling them together this autumn, and they ought to have some assurance that they would not be required to sit after midnight. Again, the right hon. Gentleman had not indicated the order in which he proposed to take the business. Did he propose to carry the Education Bill through all its stages before taking up the London Water Bill? At what point between now and Christmas did he propose to ask the House to consider the Sugar Bounties Convention, and the Uganda Railway? Again, the Vote for
  32
  carrying out the conditions of peace in the Transvaal involved very important questions, and the House certainly ought to have plenty of time to make up its mind in regard to them. Lastly, he came to the Rules of Proceedure. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to reserve them until the very end of the sitting? If so. he would like to utter one word of warning. There were large and difficult questions which had been left unsettled, and one Rule had actually been left hanging in the air since the middle of the session. Another Rule which provided for the beginning of business at two o'clock had given rise to very general disapproval and discontent, and he was sure the House would very much object to not having ample time for debating these questions. Would it not be better to relegate them to the commencement of next session? Seeing that so much of the time of the House would necessarily be given to the highly controversial measure which the right hon. Gentleman had put in the fore-front of his programme, he did hope the right hon. Gentleman would reduce his demands as much as possible, and not force the House to deal with questions of great importance with undue and unreasonable haste.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Gentlemen had not made any allusion to the circumstances under which he had been compelled to make this Motion. The House unanimously put into the Rules of the Procedure—on the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn—a proviso dealing with autumn sittings, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to have mentioned that the Motion was more severe and drastic than he had expected it to be. and the question he put to the Prime Minister a little earlier in the sitting—with reference to "Forty days on the Table" Motions, only illustrated the tightness with which it had been drawn. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to tell him that motions of the character to which he then referred—were not to be precluded from discussion, but he feared that unless the right hon. Gentleman modified his present proposal it would be found impossible to debate them after midnight. He would like to ask the

  33
  House to consider the language used by the Government in reference to the opportunities of private Members for discussion under the Rules of Procedure. When the Prime Minister was attacked by some of them for having deprived the House of opportunities of free discussion, the right hon. Gentleman replied that whilst the proper rights of Members were largely intrenched upon, the Government gave a valuable consideration in exchange—namely, that two nights a week would not be disturbed by Government interference, and that the Government would not in the future come down and say they required the whole of the time for Government business. The Prime Minister had also made the statement that the real privileges of Members would be greatly increased. The matter of the autumn sittings had been raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who pointed out that as there was every prospect that the House would have to sit through the winter, it would be monstrous to deny them their right to discuss matters other than the particular business which had necessitated the autumn sitting. For his own part he did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would not be within his rights in asking at some period of the autumn sittings for some portion of Members' time, but after the words the right hon. Gentleman had used about the rights of private Members it was amazing that the rule should have been drawn so tight, and without a word of explanation to the House. This was not a matter which solely affected private Members. It was one in which the whole country was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen seemed inclined to think his appeal was likely to be accepted by the Government, but the answer which had been made to the request of the Irish Members for an opportunity of discussing the condition of Ireland was by no means encouraging. It was suggested that Motions for Adjournment would afford an opportunity of discussing important questions, but they were not always the most convenient way of obtaining the judgment of the House. During the autumn the Government would have to consider their legislative programme for next year. As a matter
  34
  of fact, there were many subjects on which the Government could legislate with more safety to themselves and satisfaction to the country than the Education Bill for which this demand was made. There were matters on which the Government were pledged to legislate, and on which the House ought to have an opportunity of expressing its views in a constitutional way. There was, for instance, the question of the efficiency of the public service. Surely that was not a matter which could be dealt with on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. There was the Bill dealing with the hours of shop assistants, and that was a matter which interested a great number of people. The Government were pledged to deal with this question. How were they to induce the Government to act up to their pledge unless they possessed the only opportunity which a free Parliament gave? The Government were also virtually pledged to deal with the amendment of the Compensation Act. There was a grave danger if they had no opportunity of discussing these matters that those pledges would be forgotten and others would take their place, with the result that those reforms which the country desired to possess would be rendered impossible of attainment simply because they would be no longer a free Parliament. They would have no sort of freedom about their deliberations during this autumn session. The programme put before the House would run them right up to the beginning of the next financial year. Therefore they would find themselves a muzzled and dumb Parliament as regarded all the matters which they really desired to discuss, and they would be dealing with two Bills to which he believed the majority of the people were opposed, namely, the London Water Bill and the Education Bill. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."] He was convinced that that was the case, and they would test it pretty soon at the County Council Elections. The House would be tied up discussing these two measures only, and would be prevented from discussing any of those proposals which might more advantageously have been brought before the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought His Majesty's Government

  35
  were, under the circumstances, fully justified in asking for the time of the House for the Education Bill. It was perfectly true, as alleged, that if the Government had taken the usual course they could have avoided this Motion. They could have done what other prudent Governments had done; they could have brought in their Bill at the commencement of the session and stuck to it to the end instead of dealing with the new Rules. But that was not done. That milk was spilt, and for the Education Bill the Government were fully entitled to ask the House to give precedence. The original design of the Bill was so good, and its promise so great of accepting all such compromises as would not destroy the Bill, that too much time could not be given to it. He hoped it was in the spirit of compromise that the measure would be conducted through the House. Under those circumstances, he thought the Government were entitled to ask for time. But were the Government entitled to all the time they were now asking for? It was barely six months ago that the House came to a new bargain about the Rules, made upon a Motion moved by himself and accepted by the First Lord of the Treasury. By that Motion the private Member would be entitled to about one quarter of the whole time of the House. Surely that was not a very large amount of time to leave to all the various matters which a private Member was entitled to raise. Perhaps in the course of this discussion the First Lord of the Treasury might be induced to still leave them Tuesday or Wednesday evening. If he did, then they would not suffer so much, and they would have an opportunity of raising matters of very considerable importance. Take, for instance, the Shipping Combine. The right hon. Gentleman had made no allusion to that, and at present the only means of raising a matter of so serious national importance would be by moving the adjournment. If His Majesty's Government asked for the time of the House for the purpose of the Education Bill alone he thought that, under the circumstances, they would be justified in that course, and the House would grant it. But that was not the case, for there were many Bills set down and promised.
  36
  There was the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Were they sure that that would not be discussed by hon. Members from Ireland and other hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal Benches? Then there was to be a resolution on the sugar bounties, and that would afford discussion for days upon days. The First Lord of the Treasury must be aware that the very greatest interest was taken in the question, for it raised the whole question of free trade and protection. Next, there was to be a Vote in Supply for the Transvaal. They had also to pass the Sessional Orders into Standing Orders, and that was an interminable job. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the time he had taken to pass the first and easiest part of the new Rules showed that he must look forward a protracted discussion. Then there was the Indian Budget. Had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that on going into Committee on the Indian Budget there was the one opportunity offered of moving an Amendment to the Motion "that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair" and upon that Motion a very long and considerable discussion might take place. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to take Votes in Supply. That course involved the setting up again of Supply and the Motion "that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair" on each class of Supply to be dealt with. He was not sure that this could be done under the new Supply Rule. He was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciated the effect of it. He did not think the Government could not take extra days beyond the twenty-three already allotted. The Committee of Supply was closed and the Appropriation Act was passed, and it was contrary to all precedent under the circumstances to set up Supply again. He did not know whether this point had been considered by those who had been elevated to the Treasury Bench since the House last met, but he seriously committed this question to their attention. His belief was that as regarded Supply they could not set it up again. Such a course would be contrary to the Sessional Supply Order they had already passed. He believed that it was wholly unprecedented for any Minister to set up Supply in an Autumn end of a Session. It was not done in 1882 or in 1893, and what was not

  37
  attempted then could not, he thought, I be proposed now, either according to the ordinary Rules of the House or on account of the particular Rules which the House adopted this session. He thought His Majesty's Government would be well advised to restrict their business during this Session to the Education Bill, and to that alone, and he was perfectly convinced that they would have very considerable resistance to the Motion as it now stood. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was certainly right in saving that the Motion as it stood would preclude the consideration of any of the forty days orders after two o'clock, because the Motion ordersat the conclusion of Government busines Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without Question put. As His Majesty's Government had come to this session with the set purpose of passing the Education Bill by making all those reasonable compromises which tender consciences might require, and which reason did not forbid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to restrict his demand for the time of the House to the Education Bill alone.
  MR. CAINEsaid he wanted to make an appeal to the Prime Minister with regard to the Indian Budget. It was of the very greatest importance that this question, should be discussed early in the session) and protests had always been made from time to time against its being delayed.
  At this point the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Wyndham, Dover) entered the House, and was received with hisses from the Irish Members.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid hon. Members making that noise must desist. Such a proceeding was quite unheard of.
  MR. CAINE,resuming, said that those interested in the Indian Budget felt that, when the discussion was postponed, the House had not sufficient opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject of Indian finance. The Indian Budget had in ordinary sessions been postponed to near the end, and if it was postponed now, until near Christmas Day, it would be absolutely impossible to have a discussion in this House with regard to
  38
  the financial proposals of the Government. He did not remember any year in which there were so many events of burning interest which ought to be discussed in this House. There was one particular question which would have to be discussed—that of the Indian tea planters. Tea planting was one of the important industries of India, and in connection with that there was the question of forcing liquor shops on, the tea planters against their will in order that the liquor might be consumed by the coolies. He hoped that the Prime Minister would arrange for the Indian Budget being taken before the 15th of next month. Such a course would give the greatest satisfaction not only to the increasing number of persons in this House who wore taking an interest in Indian questions, but also to the people of India. The Secretary and the Under Secretary for India were now in this House, and two very long and important speeches would be made on behalf of the India Office. He hoped the Prime Minister would take into consideration the desire of those interested in Indian questions that he would give an early opportunity for their discussion.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid that after the reply given to hon. Member for Kilkenny, the Premier would scarcely expect that this Motion would be accepted by the representatives of Ireland without whatever opposition they could give it. If the Motion were passed it would mean that so far as the Government were concerned five-sixths of the representatives of Ireland were to be gagged and closured for the entire period of this winter, while the Government were engaged in torturing their country to the very verge of revolt. It would be a better day's work perhaps for England, and possibly for the future of the existing Administration, if this were a Motion to give the entire time of the House to the affairs of Ireland. Instead of that they had not spent a single day in the whole of this prolonged session in remedying what they confessed to be the pressing necessities of Ireland, while they had wasted many a day in trying to still further silence the representatives of Ireland, and to wound and insult the feelings of the people. They were willing to spend any amount

  39
  of time and money upon any subject or country on the face of the globe except that place, of all others within their dominions which most required attention from Parliament. One fragment of a night was given, something like six months ago, to the affairs of Ireland, when a Land Bill was introduced. It had never been heard of since, and he was glad to learn from this morning's papers that it would never be heard of again. It was actually made a crime on the part of the Irish representatives that they did not immediately accept that Bill without demur, although the Chief Secretary for Ireland now publicly confessed in his speech last night at Bolton that that Bill would not settle the Irish land question, and that, in fact, no English Government could settle it. The right hon. Gentleman had not settled anything in Ireland, but he had unsettled everything there. In a way, Ireland possibly would be better deserving of the attention of this House than even the educational civil war in which the Government proposed to spend the winter. It was the duty of every Irish Member to solemnly warn every man—if there were any on the other side who; had not made up their minds to support outrage—that the people's good-will would be of more value than all the people of the Rand, and to warn the House that the Chief Secretary, whose conduct they were not to discuss any more this winter, was creating a state of feeling among the Irish people wantonly and without a scrap of justification in the way of crime, without even believing himself in the policy of coercion he was carrying out. He was creating a feeling among the Irish people, and the Irish race, of revolution and of bitter indignation which the hon. Member did not care to dwell upon. He knew no more terrible indictment of the infatuation and the perfect hopelessness of English rule in Ireland than that this state of things was occurring in Ireland, when Parliament was asked and forced to turn the whole of its attention for the next four or five months to a matter which, though important, might have been disposed of if the Government had devoted to it the time wasted on the ridiculous new Rules, and if they had closed in good time with the compromise suggested by his hon.
  40
  friend the Member for East Mayo. He would refer briefly to what was going on in Ireland. He would call no other witness than the Chief Secretary himself, who was in nominal command of the coercion campaign. The right hon. Gentleman had placed on record the now memorable declaration that what was going on in Ireland was a struggle between two great organisations—the landlords' organisation and the tenants' organisation—and that not he, not the Government, and not this House alone could bring the Irish land question to a satisfactory settlement.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid these matters could not be debated on this Motion.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether it would be in order for the hon. Member to put down an Amendment that this particular topic should be discussed.
  MR. SPEAKER: Whatever the Amendment proposed, it must be relevant to this Motion, and no Amendment would be in order which is not relevant to the Motion.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he anticipated the objection of Mr. Speaker. He was sure Mr. Speaker would allow him to say that his view was that the Chief Secretary had practically thrown up the sponge as to the Government of Ireland, and that the right hon. Gentleman was simply going blind in the affairs of that country. His subordinates in Ireland were carrying on the Government in the most unconstitutional and barbarous way, and this was a matter of far more urgency and importance to England, as well as Ireland, than even the Education Bill. It must be remembered that if this Motion were passed they should have still two days in each week on which it would be possible for them to press these matters on the attention of the House; and in order to justify their claim for the retention of these two days, he respectfully submitted that it ought not to be made impossible for the Irish Members to go into some of the particulars of the unjustifiable state of the Government of Ireland in order to illustrate the state of Ireland. No further did he intend to go.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ I observe that the hon. Member is desirous to comply with the Rules of the House; but it is impossible for me to permit an argument of that kind on this Motion. The hon. Member will see that if that were not so, any hon. Member might say, "I object to this Motion because the Education Bill is so bad that I wish to alter it, and I. wish, in order to illustrate my argument, to make a Second Reading speech." I regret that the Rules of the House prevent me from allowing the hon. Member to proceed in that direction.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I submit that after the words in the Motion "for the remainder of the session, Government Business do have precedence at every sitting." there might be inserted. "except those days when any Bill or Motion relating to the affairs of Ireland is set down."
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member could not discuss upon that Motion the action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he did not intend to controvert the ruling of Mr. Speaker. He was sure these new Rules had brought more trouble to Mr. Speaker than to the Irish Members. His experience in this House was that in the older times and under the older Rules there was still something like free speech.
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not say that this is any new Rule. These Motions for the Government taking the time of House have been made for many many years in this House, and upon all occasions no debate of the kind the hon. Member is proposing to initiate would have been in order.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he should not contest the matter further. [Laughter from the Government Benches, and cries of "Order‡" and a voice: "The Education of England ‡" That was simply the: kind of thing which made English-men loved in Ireland [Loud cheers from the Irish Benches.] He simply desired to state that if this
  42
  Motion was rejected by the House, if they still got time to address this House on the grievances of Ireland, it would be perfectly easy for them to show—and that was the lines of the argument he urged as against this Motion—that what was going on in Ireland was not a war against crime, but a war against public opinion, against the whole mass of the elected representatives of the people of every category—of Parliament, of Corporations, of County Councils, and of District Councils. They should be able to show the House that the Government were doing absolutely a new thing, the most unwarrantable thing in the whole history of Ireland, in imposing such a tyranny on a country which was without any crime or bloodshed, and on a question in which the Chief Secretary himself confessed that the Irish Members were in the right and their opponents in the wrong. But this he would say: that the Government might cut themselves out of the opportunity of discussing these things here, as well as in Ireland; they might sit on the safety valve; but they knew very little of Irish nature, or indeed of ordinary human nature, if they imagined that they could go on in that way without raising a spirit for which their worst enemies, perhaps, would thank them.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he had no objection to the proposal of the Prime Minister, but in the discussion which had taken place in regard to the subjects on which the House was to occupy the autumn there had been no reference to one which appeared to him to be of urgent importance, in which time was a chief factor, and one which affected great public and private interests. He meant the subject of the Savings Banks. A Select Committee on Savings Banks sat last session under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and attention was given to the question of the deficiency which existed, and would be largely increased, after the automatic reduction of the interest on Consols in 1903. The Committee recommended that there should be a reduction of the interest paid by the State to the Savings Banks to the extent of an-eighth per cent., and also several administrative reforms. The Savings Banks year

  43
  commenced and ended in November, and he could hardly conceive it possible that there could be legislation afterwards of a retrospective character, which would be injurious to the banks and most inconvenient to the large bodies of the depositors. He suggested this matter to the Government for their consideration, though personally he had not favoured any reduction of interest, and did not desire it or think it absolutely necessary, and asked them to say whether, and if so when, they proposed to deal with this question, which affected both the State and private individuals to a large extent. He believed that the result of the Government failing to say this definitely would lead to uncertainty, which already existed, and which was highly disadvantageous to the people, and to the greatest inconvenience on the part of the bank managers. Inasmuch as time was of the greatest importance in this regard, and if legislation was to take effect next year, the latter must be accomplished soon, so as to give ample notice to all concerned, and the House should be informed what the Government meant to do.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that before coming to the question of the Education Bill, he wished to refer in a few words to two other points. Shortly before the adjournment he had asked the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the Vote for the Transvaal, and was informed that that would not be necessary at all. He was very glad to hear that the Government had changed their mind, and that an opportunity would be given to discuss that Vote. He had also asked a Question as to the pecuniary grant that was to be made to the Cunard Company. He did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman whether any opportunity would be given for discussing that matter. He hoped, however, that if a grant of money were to be made to the Cunard Company such an opportunity for discussing it would be afforded in the present session. But, after all, they had been summoned together to proceed primarily with the discussion of the Education Bill. ["Hear, hear‡" from the Government Benches.] That cheer was a very feeble one, which, he thought,
  44
  was rather indicative of the measure of the support which the Bill would receive, and that was one of the reasons why he was going to oppose the Motion before the House. What was the position they were in? Here was a Bill of which they had disposed of two pages, and which they had yet to go over again; while there were still seventy pages of Amendments to dispose of. Looking to the number of those Amendments the Bill was on the "wrong grass," to use the phrase of a right hon. Gentleman opposite—even if this were a Bill which the country really demanded. [An HON. MEMBER on the Government Benches: ''It does."] The interruption came from an hon. representative of a constituency to which the Bill did not apply; that was a London Member. This was a Bill that clearly nobody wanted. He was perfectly certain that the Prime Minister did not want it, and that the right hon. Gentleman would be very glad if he had never had anything to do with it. And yet the House was asked to give facilities for it, to the exclusion of every other subject, such, for instance, as the condition of Ireland, which was one of the most important topics which the House could discuss. He did not think any Government had the right to press through the House of Commons a Bill like this, and ask for extra facilities for practically five months. Any Parliamentarian who went through the Amendments on the Paper must come to the conclusion that if the Prime Minister wished to force through the Bill he could not do so without the use of the closure, which would be monstrously unfair, before March next year. [Ministerial cries of "No, no ‡"] He asked hon. Members who had taken the same trouble to go through the Amendments as he had done, whether they must not come to the conclusion that there was great substance in them and that they must be fully discussed, especially when the state of public feeling in the country in regard to them was considered? [An HON. MEMBER on the Ministerial Benches: "No."] That was the voice of another Member for London; but he asked Members for constituencies which the Bill affected whether they imagined that their constituencies really wanted the Bill, and whether, on the contrary, they

  45
  would not prefer that it should be put off? He asked the Prime Minister to take into account the health of his supporters. He had been reading every day in the columns of the Morning Post a long list of casualties, and he found that these supporters were breaking down under the strain. Already they had leave to take rest of from six weeks to three months. An hon. Gentleman on the other side who supported the Nonconformist view on this Bill had so considerably broken down under the strain that he had booked a passage to the West Indies and he had had to find an under-study. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley would take up the râle, now that he was out of employment. He cautioned the Prime Minister not to put an intolerable; strain on his supporters to go against the wishes of their constituents, in the endeavour to pass a Bill which nobody asked for, for which the Government had no mandate, and for which the country had, by every constitutional method, indicated its clear antipathy. Certain hon. Members opposite questioned that statement. They must have spent the recess out of the country and therefore had not been convinced; let them look at all the indications, not merely at the great demonstrations, the great public meetings, but all the indications. They had the greatest test as to whether the noisy fanatics at these meetings were the majority of the opponents of the Bill or whether they were the minority, in the remarkable character of the recent elections. How many hon. Members opposite had been addressing public demonstrations in support of the Bill? He observed that during the last few days they had been exhorting each other and saying "we must do something to support the Government," but that was rather an exhortation to someone else to go on and do something. He did not observe that those gentlemen addressed meetings themselves. They had had private meetings in support of the Bill, but even in Birmingham they could not hold a public meeting in support, not even when the Colonial Secretary addressed it himself ‡ That was a remarkable indication in itself, but the arguments used by the Colonial Secretary with regard to the Bill showed
  46
  that he clearly realised that his own supporters were against it. He did not say "this Bill is a good one," but "if you do not carry this Bill I will resign," and then he said "and mark the consequences. There shall be neither dew nor rain in the British Empire for seven long years," and a shudder passed over the Birmingham Liberal Unionists which lasted for four resolutions. They then recovered themselves, and another resolution was passed, which resulted in a terrible threat being used. Another meeting took place, when the only argument used was that the Bill was opposed by the Pro-Boers. The Liberal Unionists then in the House, who addressed that meeting, did not like the Bill and could not say much for it, but said "we have got to stick together or there will be a dissolution." When such a condition of things existed, when every constitutional method had been exhausted by the country to show that it disagreed with this measure, and whilst on the other hand nobody wanted the Bill except perhaps the Church, no Government had a right without a mandate from the people to misappropriate the trust funds of the State for such a purpose. It was a revolution in the educational system of the country; it offended the convictions of millions of the best citizens of the land, and without an express mandate the Government had no right to legislate upon it. Where a case of great urgency arose and it became necessary to legislate immediately, an Autumn Session might be summoned and the whole time given to that legislation, but even then it the country rose against it, as it had risen against the Education Bill, such legislation could not be proceeded with. The Government should go to the country and say "We have got to get this Bill through and we come to you for your judgment upon it." It was only the great personal popularity of the Prime Minister which would enable this Bill to be carried, but the right hon. Gentleman had no right to use his personal popularity for the purpose of flouting the opinion of the country and taking advantage of a verdict obtained on another issue for the purpose of carrying through a Bill against the wishes of thousands of

  47
  the people who placed him in power. He did not think the House of Commons ought to give the right hon. Gentleman any privilege for doing anything of the kind. The Prime Minister, in his opinion, was not entitled to call upon the House to sit for four or five months and suspend the ordinary operation of the Rules of the House for the purpose of forcing through this Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid as the right hon. Gentleman had spoken upon the subject of the Estimates which he purposed to ask for this year, he desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the bearing of the new Rule passed upon the subject: "Any additional Estimate for any new matter not included in the Estimates for the year shall be submitted for consideration in Committee of Supply on some day not exceeding two days before the Committee is closed." So far as he could read the Rule, it appeared to him that it would debar the production of new Estimates after the Committee of Supply was closed. It was a very unusual practice to close Committee of Supply in the middle of a session, but it was done in 1893 and the late Lord Randolph Churchill took the objection at the time, that after the Committee was closed no further business of that character could be brought forward. He (Sir William Harcourt) expressed the opinion then that such a proposition could not be maintained. But that was not a question of bringing forward new Estimates, and he thought he was right in saving that no question was ever raied of introducing new Estimates after Committee of Supply had been closed. Having listened to what the hon. Member for King's Lynn had said, which he thought was well founded, he had come to the conclusion that the Rule did include new Estimates to be brought forward after the Committee of Supply had been closed. As this was the middle of the session and it was a matter of great importance that the finances of the country should be safeguarded, it would be as well to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question in
  48
  reference to a matter raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, which deals with a point on which I should not like to give a, conclusive opinion now, nor is it relevant really to this discussion. I was asked to make a general statement as to the views of the Government in regard to business, and I explained to the House that one of the things we ought to deal with was the necessity of finding money for the Transvaal, and possibly also for the Uganda Railway. I think a statement to that effect was made by my noble friend the Under Secretary at an earlier period of the session. With regard to the need for finding money for the Transvaal, that, as the House knows, arises directly out of the arrangements come to at the time peace was signed. I indicated to the House the method which I think ought to be pursued; I will consider any difficulty that has been raised, in the course of this debate, and the proper time to discuss those difficulties will be when the Government make their definite proposals on those subjects to the House. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean wanted to know whether it would be possible—probable, at least—should an occasion arise, to have a discussion on one of those resolutions which by Statute have to lie forty days on the Table of the House. I think by a practice known to the House, it would, be possible if that should be necessary. An appeal was made to me by an hon. Gentleman opposite not only to bring on the Indian Budget early, but, I think, to devote two days or more to it. I think, that is a somewhat excessive demand on the time of the House. I do not at all say that the subject is not one of great importance, but after all, we must cut our coat according to our cloth, and we must have some proportion in the time allowed to the various subjects under discussion. I cannot hold out hope to the hon. Gentleman that I should gladly or willingly see two days devoted to the; Indian Budget.
  MR. CAINE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be taken early?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have consulted my noble friend the Secretary of State for India as to when it will be brought in, but I do not know what

  49
  great gain is to be obtained by an early discussion of the subject. My hon. friend the Member for South Islington asked me whether we ought not to introduce a Bill this year dealing with the difficulty which undoubtedly will arise when the rate of interest on Consols is compulsorily reduced, as I think it will be on the 1st April next. That, no doubt, does raise a question of importance in relation to the interest to be paid to Savings Bank depositors; but I gather from my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will not be necessary to deal with that matter at present. May I say in regard to the general statement as to the business to be taken, that while I have endeavoured to indicate to the House the business, other than the Education Bill or the Water Bill, which we ought to take, I must not be held to pledge the Government not to deal with public necessities should public necessities arise. I am not giving a pledge to the House or the country on this subject. I am indicating the general intention of the Government, and I hope it will be distinctly understood on all sides of the House that the Government will ask the House to deal with anything else that it is pressingly and obviously necessary in the public interest should be immediately dealt with. The only general pledge I give to the House is that it will not be asked to discuss general legislative questions which, however interesting or important, can be deferred to a subsequent session. I believe, in that connection, I ought to mention in the first place a one-clause Bill which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War will introduce and explain in good time, and which he tells me ought to be passed without any undue delay. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs opposed this Motion on the ground that the country, in his opinion, dislikes the Education Bill. I am not going to enter into the question as to whether the country likes or dislikes that Bill, or as to whether it will like it more when it knows more about it, or as to whether the Bill will grow in favour or grow in disfavour. These are questions which any man may estimate and may judge for himself, but I absolutely deny the constitutional principle which the hon.
  50
  Gentleman has laid down, which is that this House is incapable of dealing with any measure if a certain number of Gentlemen express their own opinion that the country dislikes it. May I call the attention of the House to the extraordinary difference in the principle which appears to animate hon. Gentlemen when they are dealing with the present situation, and the principle which animated, these very hon. Gentlemen when they were dealing with the position of public business in 1893–4. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, on behalf of the Opposition, did attempt to draw a parallel between the present situation and the situation in 1893, very much to the advantage of the situation in 1893. He said that it was quite true that the Government of that day asked the House to re-assemble in the autumn, but it was not in order to discuss a controversial Bill, but in order to discuss the Parish Councils Bill, which, passed its Second Reading without a division. That I believe is quite a true statement of fact. But how did the Government of 1893 ever get to the position which, enabled them to devote an autumn session to a Bill which was not opposed on its Second Reading? They did it by closuring in compartments the Home Rule Bill mouths earlier. If we had adopted that operation in regard to the Education Bill, we need not have had an autumn session at all for a Bill either controversial or uncontroversial. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs thinks that our procedure in this matter should be regulated by his estimate of the popular favour held by the constituencies for the moment in reference to the Education Bill. I do not know whether he thinks that the Home Rule Bill was so passionately liked, by the constituencies that it was proper and right for those then in charge of the business of the House to take the course they did. I hardly think the hon. Gentleman would take up that position.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: They were elected on that issue, after all. This Government was not elected to deal with education; it was elected for the war.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman raises that issue, I would ask

  51
  what he thinks of the Home Rule Bill introduced in 1886. It does seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is adopting a very extravagant position when he says that the Government of 1893 were justified in prolonging the session, because the Bill they asked the House to consider was not divided against on the Second Reading, when the only method by which the Government ever reached that relatively favourable position in regard to public business was by closuring in compartments the Home Rule Bill in the preceding July. The only other observation of an argumentative character which I think I need make is that arising out of the claim made by a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite that, although we have met for the purpose, in the main, of dealing with the Education Bill this autumn, we ought to leave the ordinary arrangements for private Members' business as if this were an ordinary part of an ordinary session. There can be no justification for a practice so absolutely novel. Never has Parliament put upon itself the great strain of meeting in the autumn to finish measures which could not be completed during the early part of the session, without giving to the Government the facilities for which we now ask. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean will, I think, admit the historical accuracy of what I say; but if I understood his speech aright, he contends that a new principle or a new practice has been introduced by the new Rules of the House. He asks, having regard to the pledges and the statement of policy made by myself in introducing these Rules, and inasmuch as I had stated my hope with reference to the new Rules that however much they might interfere with the paper privileges of unofficial Members, the real privileges of unofficial Members would be greatly augmented, how was it consistent with that general undertaking that I gave when I asked the House to reform or to revolutionise its proceedings. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the report in Hansard he will see that an Amendment was discussed which makes it necessary for me to make this Motion today, and without which this Motion would not have been made. That Amendment was supported from the
  52
  other side of the House, and I accepted it with reluctance, but I distinctly stated:—
  "The universal experience of the House had shown that when the House met for an autumn session after an adjournment it met to finish up Government Bills." [(4) Debates, cv., 1491.]
  Although I did not think it an improvement on the Rule, I had no objection to accepting, for the sake of peace and of the progress of the discussion of the Rule, an Amendment which could be disposed of at the beginning of the autumn session at no unreasonable length. I think that is all I need say on the argumentative part of the speeches which have been delivered, and the only additional observation that I think it necessary to make is as to the length of time we have devoted——
  MR. BRYCE: What about ordinary business?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give any pledge with regard to ordinary business. The main business every week will be the Education Bill. No doubt there will be evening sittings, and possibly an occasional morning sitting, at which other business will be taken. I cannot give any general programme on that subject, but the general policy of the Government is plain. The Education Bill is what, in the main, we have met to deal with, and to that the main bulk of our time must be devoted.
  MR. LOUGH: When will the Water Bill be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be taken, with the other measures to which I have referred, when we are not taking the Education Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What about the Cunard subsidy?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that no Estimate will be required for that this year. So I am informed. I suppose there will be an Estimate next year. May I ask the House now to consent to bring the debate to a conclusion? May I read one sentence from the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford, who was addressing himself to the Amendment to the Rule to which I have referred? I am

  53
  quoting from the same page of Hansard. The hon. Member said—
  "The right hon. Gentleman said that Parliament never met under those circumstances except to discuss some business which was so urgent that the whole House was anxious to discuss it, and to devote all their time to it. Suppose that was the case, why should the Government be afraid of having a discussion under those circumstances which could not last more than a couple of hours."
  That was the estimate of the hon. Member for Waterford as to the length of time this discussion should take. I commend it to the House as a very reasonable estimate of the length of time this discussion should take, and I ask the House, whether hon. Gentlemen approve of the Education Bill or not, whether they think it ought to be dropped or not, to admit that if it is to be considered the Government must have facilities. Surely it is waste of time to debate these preliminaries at greater length, and I earnestly suggest that we should as soon as possible deal with the main subject which has called us together—I mean the discussion of the remaining clauses of the Education Bill.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the House must have been surprised at the entire omission from the right hon. Gentleman's speech of any reference to Ireland. The hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs had spoken of the feeling of England with regard to the present Government. That was a matter he would leave to English Members, but as to the opinion of Ireland he would simply point the right hon. Gentleman to the first chapter of Revelations, where reference was made to the Church of the Laodiceans. What was there said would happen to those who were neither hot nor cold very well represented the physical proceeding which in a political form the people of Ireland would inflict upon the present Government if they had the opportunity. The present debate had had an instructive prologue. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had asked for a day for the discussion of the condition of Ireland. To that request one of the most extraordinary answers ever given in the House of Commons had been returned. It was not a denial of the gravity of the condition of Ireland,
  54
  but a promise that if the demand were made, not by representatives of Ireland, but by the representative of an English s party, it would be granted. And yet the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the "doctrines of Separatists‡" What would have been said if Wales were in a condition approaching revolution, and the leader of the Welsh Members, on asking for a day for the discussion of the condition of that country, had been told that the request would be granted only if made by an Englishman or a Scotsman? He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish party had been in alliance with more than one party in the House of Commons It was an alliance which had been sometimes injurious and sometimes beneficial; it had been injurious to a Party which honestly took up the cause of Ireland, and beneficial to a Party which hypocritically attempted to use the Irish Party for its own purposes. But when the Prime Minister and the Members of the Fourth Party were hunting in couples with the Irish Parnellite Party, and secret interviews and secret understandings were taking place, the Irish Members were not called the slaves of their Tory allies. Nor were, they the slaves of the Liberals today. The Liberals did not want to impose their official position upon the Irish Party, and if they did the Irish Members would not accept it. They simply demanded in the name of Ireland a day for the discussion of the condition of their country, and it was an additional insult to Ireland to say that that demand would be refused when made by the representatives of Ireland, but granted if put forward by an English Party. So far as the Government could carry out its policy the voice of National Ireland was stifled. If public meetings were held, the police dispeised them. If public men made speeches, the Chief Secretary called in two of his despicable tools from Dublin Castle—tools as base as those who did to death the Lord Edward Fitzgerald whose blood ran in the right hon. Gentleman's veins. The successors of Major Sirr had been used by a Geraldine for the purpose of putting into prisons a Geraldine's political opponents. The voice of Irish representatives was being stifled in jail by

  55
  sentences which England alone passed upon political offenders, and these methods were being employed against political opponents by one who ran round the House asking Irish Members to support a request to put into a different category prisoners of his own political persuasion—men who were indeed political offenders, but men on whoso souls rested the guilt of as bloody and unjust a war as ever devastated a country.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the present was not an occasion for discussing generally the policy of the Government in Ire and.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he was not discussing the policy of the Government in Ireland; he was discussing the state of Ireland, and urging that as a reason for demanding time for discussion, instead of Irish representatives being gagged.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he had already explained the limits within which that might be done. The hon. Member was not at liberty to debate the question of Ireland. He was entitled to urge that time should not be taken by the Government because it left no opportunity for discussing the needs of Ireland, but he was not entitled to go in detail into the question, otherwise every question which could possibly be the subject of a Motion or Bill could be discussed on the present Motion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORrepeated that he was not discussing the policy of the Government, he was discussing the state of Ireland, just as a Welsh Member had been permitted to discuss the state of England.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs had commented on the statement of the First Lord that time was asked for the consideration of the Education Bill, and he argued that time ought not to be granted because the Bill was unpopular. He had then given reasons for stating the Bill was unpopular. But that was a totally different thing from what the hon. Member for Scotland Division was doing, for the hon. Member,
  56
  on the question of the time of the House being taken by the Government, was proposing to discuss the condition of Ireland.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he thought that if the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was allowed to discuss the popularity of the Education Bill in this country, certainly he might be allowed to say something of the popularity of the Government in a country where the constitution was suspended. However, he did not want to even approach anything like a controversy with the Chair, because its authority must be preserved in an assembly like the House of Commons, and he would pass the matter by simply with the observation that he had sometimes longed to be a Welshman but he never longed so much, as he did now. What was the position of the Prime Minister with regard to their demand? Their demand was so fair, modest and urgent, and so required by the necessities of the case that ho thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been ashamed to refuse it. Their demand was that as the Government had silenced the Irish people, as far as they could, at least in this great Parliament the voice of Ireland might be heard. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was always telling them that they could get full justice for Ireland in Parliament, and that they could get more justice from an English Parliament than on the floor of an Irish Assembly. They came to the House with Ireland coerced and gagged, and they asked for one day to have the condition of the country discussed, but the Prime Minister replied that if a mere Irishman made the demand it would be refused, but if the demand had the sanction and patronage of one of the superior races then the request would be granted and Ireland would be heard. He was not sorry for the incidents of this debate. He was not sorry for the words used that afternoon, by whomsoever spoken, for they carried their lesson. They had had a brief debate, but it would be a fruitful one, and if Ireland had any doubt of its right and its duty to appeal from this unjust House and this unjust Government to a House and Government of its own

  57
  people, then the Irish people were too blind to read the signs which were dearly written on the wall.
  T. M. HEALYsaid he rose for the purpose of saying a few words upon the subject of the Uganda Railway. (Laughter.) In this he was greatly encouraged by the flattering way in which the subject was received by the House. Speaking as a native of Uganda, he wished to thank the Government for the great measure of advance they had made in Uganda, which he was sure would bring calm to Kerry and balm to Ballydehob. He thanked the Government for the proposed expenditure upon that country of further millions of public money and for proposing to take up the time of the House, as promised by the Prime Minister, with further discussions on this project. When ho contemplated the condition of portions of the Empire he could not help felicitating the Government upon the proposal to spend time and money upon the inhabitants of that distant and neglected island at a time of great stringency when the Education Bill was exciting so much passion! There must be some reason for this flattering attention which Uganda had received, He believed it was a perfectly crimeless country. Its administration was in the bands of the most virtuous "removables" the British Empire could afford. There law and order proceeded with a regularity of which they had no example in this country, and hence it was that, at a moment when Party passions had been roused to then highest pitch, the British Parliament was prepared to turn aside from mere paltry topics such as the affairs of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales, and devote itself with one voice to the necessities of the people of that afflicted area. The Prime Minister was new to his office, but, by his promise to Uganda, he. had given a pledge to the Empire at large which would resound through Australia, Canada, and through every Colony and Republic absorbed by England, assuring distant peoples that however much this Parliament, which they were told only yesterday devoted so much time to sticking pins in pin cushions, might have its hands full yet it they had a nigger, a
  58
  painted savage, or a heathen roaming in in the woods, the Prime Minister of England still had a tear at his disposal, and was prepared to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pour out the gold of England for the benefit of benighted mankind. Irish Members had long gloried in being Members of this Parliament and might now take comfort in the destruction of their own Parliament, for could they imagine within the narrow walls of an Irish Parliament such disinterestedness. When their own country was palpitating with emotion, could they imagine an Irish Parliament showing such altruism and turning aside to contemplate the condition of Uganda? No, it was here alone that they could contemplate such unselfishness. Irish Members would return to their own country, elevated and ennobled by the reflection, that though Connaught might be desolate and Munster miserable this House at least had a watchful care for the people of Uganda.
  MR. FLYNNsaid Irishmen were invited to leave the discussion of their own affairs, which at present were being run under the Coercion Act, to come here and listen to discussions on the English Education Bill, which seemed to satisfy nobody, not even the Prime Minister. His hon. and learned friend the Member for North Louth had discussed the question of the further advances to the Uganda Railway, and the question of squandering further sums on the trackless sands of African deserts. He proposed to move an Amendment dealing with a specific question, and it was this. This was a most unseasonable time to withdraw from the consideration of Parliament proceedings in Ireland, which were absolutely unique and unprecedented in Irish history. Here there were 86 members out of 670, who charged the Government of the day with violating the fundamental principles of the constitution in Ireland, and the only answer was, "No, we gag you in Ireland and we gag you on the floor of the House of Commons." What were the Government afraid of? Were they ashamed of the removable magistrates? Were they afraid of an exposure being made of the abuse and prostitution of the forms of law

  59
  which at present obtained in Ireland? They were afraid of it. If not, they would not hesitate to give a day or two for the discussion of this exceptional state of things. It had been said that in former times the excuse for coercion was that a state of crime and outrage prevailed. Not even the most hardened Member of the Cabinet had the face and the effrontery to make that statement now, and yet savage, vindictive, contemptible, and cruel sentences were being passed on public men in Ireland for what were called offences—men against whom no moral stigma was attached. The most powerful Government of modern times were afraid to give a few hours for the discussion of a state of things which was fomented by their own agents, and which was a disgrace to the Empire. It would be a disgrace to the most oppressive tyranny that ever oppressed a people. The representatives of Ireland did not make any considerable demand on the time of the House, but they did demand that if this violation of the constitution was to continue, they should not be denied for months time and opportunity for exposing what they denounced as the cruel wrongs under which Ireland was at the present moment suffering through the practical suspension of the constitutional rights and guarantees of the people. He moved his Amendment as a protest against the action of the Government, on behalf of the Irish Parliamentary Party and the Irish people. If the Government did not accept the Amendment, it was a plain declaration to Ireland that they were; afraid to discuss the dirty work their tools were doing in that country.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After the word 'Sitting,' to insert the words 'except at such Sitting for which Motions dealing with proceedings under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887 are set down, and which, but for this Motion, would have precedence."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Debate arising.
  MR. DELANYseconded the Amendment. It occurred to him that almost any subject may be discussed in this House except the condition of Ireland. In the programme the Prime Minister had put before the House for the Autumn Session he had omitted one
  60
  very important measure. The right hon. Gentleman had not been unmindful of public opinion in England and Wales in regard to the Education Bill. The Non-conformists had declared that they would strike, against the rate if the Education Bill were passed in its present form. Did the Prime Minister propose to pass a Coercion Act for England and Wales, or did he propose to extend to thorn the Jubilee Coercion Act at present in force in Ireland? That appeared to be one great flaw in the proposal of the Prime Minister. He was sure the Chief Secretary would be obliging enough to give him a dozen removable magistrates to enforce the Education Act in England. Ireland could afford to lose them. Members of Parliament were sent to prison for the action they took on behalf of their countrymen, and yet their colleagues were denied the opportunity of discussing the state of affairs in Ireland. They were supposed to live under the British Constitution, bat the British Constitution did not exist in Ireland. To all intents and purposes they might as well live under the Turk. They would be better in Russia, because there there was only one despot. In Ireland he did not know how many despots there were. Besides the Chief Secretary there were Lord Cronbrock, Lord Abercorn and Lord Barrymore, and he could name half-a-dozen other despots. Give him Russian or Turkish rule. He had a greater stake in Ireland than the Chief Secretary, and he had nothing to gain by outrage and crime. The greatest enemy of law and order in Ireland was the man who sowed the seed which must inevitably lead to disorder. There was order now because the national movement had brought the people from other courses and made them put their confidence in the national struggle. The present course pursued by the Government in Ireland was calculated to drive the people to desperation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised at my not being able to accept the Amendment proposed. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division has expressed surprise that I have made no reference to what has been said earlier in the debate in regard to Ireland. It escaped my memory, and it was not due to

  61
  discourtesy of any kind to the Gentleman who discussed that subject. It is not correct to say that there will be no opportunity for debates on Ireland at all during the latter part of the present year. If an occasion should arise which seems to require debate, the power remains with the hon. Gentleman to move the adjournment of the House. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen say that that power was now limited. It is not more limited now than it was in 1893, The limitation of which he spoke was that which arises out of the rulings of successive Speakers that the adjournment of the House cannot be moved on any subject with regard to which there is a Motion on the Paper.
  MR. BUYCEsaid his point was that in 1893 no use was made of the Rule under which Motions for the Adjournment of the House were ruled out by putting on the Paper a Motion dealing with the same question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Nor do I think that the Rule to which he has referred has been used to prevent Motions for the adjournment of the House. My memory does not recall a single case in which the discussion of an Irish grievance has been prevented by the fact of a Motion being placed on the Paper. Therefore, at all events so far as Ireland is concerned, I do not think there has been any encroachment on the rights—sometimes in my opinion greatly abused, sometimes greatly taken advantage of—in connection with moving the adjournment of the House. It is only necessary for me to say in connection with the Amendment before the House that it would be a total violation of the practice of all former Governments in the case of Autumn Sessions. It would be in itself highly inconvenient, and I do not think it is necessary that we should debate the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved. Even without the Amendment there will be far greater opportunities afforded for the discussion of Irish grievances in the Autumn Session than if the Government had followed the usual procedure and had not had an Autumn Session at all.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I only wish to express my strong, opinion, after the discussion we have had in this House, that the Irish Members have a right to a day for the discussion of the condition of Ireland, which, as we know, is at present under the Coercion Act. It is a fact that there is need at the present time for the early discussion of the condition of affairs in, Ireland. The question is whether the Irish representatives appearing in the House of Commons should or should not have the right to state their case in this Autumn Session. In my opinion they have that right and ought to be supported, and so far as regards my vote, at all events, it will be given in favour of their having the opportunity. The Government have got at their disposal the time of the House. Of course the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech that the Government were going to deal with an important subject. [A HON. MEMBER: "Uganda,"]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let the hon. Gentleman wait till he sees what the Uganda Vote really is.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Whatever importance attaches to the case of Uganda, the case of suspension of the ordinary law in Ireland is still more important and is very urgent. It is a subject on which the people of England, as well as those of Ireland, ought to be satisfied as to its necessity, just as much as in the case of. martial law. Martial law is justified, where the necessity is proved to the people of the country, and the people of this country ought to be satisfied as to the necessity of the suspension of the ordinary law in Ireland. The Government can easily give time for the purpose of an Irish sitting in which the Irish Members may have an opportunity of stating their case. In my opinion it is just and fair that they should be given that opportunity, and therefore I shall vote in favour of any Motion which has that effect.
  MR. LEAMYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to think-that he had disposed of the Irish claim for a day to discuss the condition of Ireland when he said

  63
  that if there had not been an Autumn Session the Irish Members would not have been there. Why were they there? They had their own Parliament, of which England had robbed them; and now that they were in the Imperial Parliament they had the same rights as the right hon. the Member for Dover. That right hon. Gentleman, however, had gone over to Ireland, and with the assistance of his removable magistrates had caused ten Members of this House to be arrested, and in some cases imprisoned, because they had made political speeches displeasing to him. The Prime Minister had said that, because he wanted to pass an Education Bill for England, the Irish Members had no right to open their mouths for Ireland. But they would open their mouths for Ireland, and he told the right hon. Gentleman that he would be sick and sore at heart for the refusal which he had given that day to their demand. The right hon. Gentleman thought he could stifle the voice of Ireland. Before the session was many days older the Leader of the Irish Party, which represented five-sixths of the people of Ireland, would be addressing the representatives of 20 millions of the Irish race in the first free city of America, and he told the right hon. Gentleman that the most eloquent speech which the Leader of the Irish Party would make to that assemblage would not be half so eloquent proof of the injustice done by England to Ireland as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in this House today. Attempts had formerly been made to drive discontent under the surface in Ireland, and he did not think they had ever been too successful. It was not often they saw two Irishmen on the Front Bench opposite. There were now two right hon. Gentlemen there who had known Ireland for more than twenty years, and he could not believe that the Solicitor General for England or the Attorney General for Ireland agreed that the Prime Minister was acting wisely in refusing to give Ireland a day. The Education Bill had been exciting great commotion in England. He had been reading the newspapers, which it was said the Prime Minister never did, and therefore he was in a position to be better acquainted with the feeling in England than the right hon.
  64
  Gentleman. He had been reading speeches made by people of high position—some by clergymen, some by Members of Parliament, some by men distinguished in various walks of life, and he found that many of them had called upon their constituencies and the people to combine and refuse to pay rates. Now, rent was no more sacred than rates; but if two or three Members of Parliament, or others, stood on a platform in Ireland, and called upon the people not to pay rent, the Member for Dover came along with his "removables," and hauled them up under a charge of conspiracy, and sent them to prison with hard labour. Yet in England they could combine to defy the law and refuse to pay the rates with impunity. He would like to see the right hon. Gentleman venture to bring down a brace of "removables" to any constituency in England for the purpose of arresting and imprisoning any Member of this House. He was inclined to thank the Prime Minister for doing something to compel the Irish Members to realise that which, perhaps, they had not yet fully recognised—the degradation of being governed by this House. Thank God the right hon. Gentleman had given them an eye-opener. There were at present in Ireland some people who thought that what was necessary for the preservation of Ireland was to keep the right hon. Gentleman in power, but he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for ringing the knell of English Government in Ireland. He denied that any justice was to be got for Ireland from a Tory Government. The Prime Minister, who had pitched the right hon. Member for Dover into his Cabinet, had stood idly by when the latter dragged Irish Members to prison for exercising the right of free speech. He could not help saying that the right hon. Gentleman had done a good thing for Ireland by his speech tonight. That speech would be flashed across to America, and would do good there also, because it showed that the right hon. Gentleman had been stifling the ventilation of the grievances of Ireland.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: A point was raised almost at the beginning of our proceedings tonight which is relevant to the

  65
  Amendment now under discussion, and to which I venture to draw the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury. The point is that some ten or more Members of this House have been withdrawn from the service of the House by sentence of Courts of Law. As to the constitution; of those Courts I make no remark at all; they are Courts sitting by the authority of Acts of Parliament; but it is an extraordinary circumstance the for the first time so far as I understand, Members have been withdrawn from the service of the House without any communication of the fact being made to this House by Mr. Speaker. Whether I can put it so high as to assert that this House has a right to exact instantaneous reports to this House of the withdrawal of Members from the service of the House, I am not in a position to say; but this I can certainly state, from my own experience, which is not inconsiderable, that if there is not such a right it is an established custom. Plenty of Members of Parliament have been sent to prison within the last twenty years, but I do not believe that (with deference to your own investigations, Mr. Speaker), a single case has occurred of a sentence of imprisonment being passed upon a Member of this House which was not followed with the least possible interval of time by a report of the circumstances to Mr. Speaker. I therefore want to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to take any action, and if so what action, to call the attention of those, which I venture to call defaulting Courts, which have made default in regard to the usage of this House. If not, what is to be the understanding for the future? Is a resident magistrate, or other legally constituted Court, to be in a position to withdraw Members of this House from the service of the House without making any report, or drawing the attention of the House to it? For my part, without any hesitation whatever, I wish to say that I support the Amendment now under discussion. The House does not seem to realise, and it is a very mournful thing that it should be so, what is the exact meaning and significance of the present state of the case in Ireland. I am not going into the history of the Crimes Act of 1887, but the House will remember that one of the strongest arguments used by the First Lord of the Treasury in
  66
  making the Crimes Act perpetual, when we made the objection that the Government would be able under that Act to withdraw the representatives of the sister kingdom from the service of the House without discussion—the argument the right hon. Gentleman used constantly, with the utmost vehemence, but not more vehement than was right, was—and he assured and re-assured the House on that point—that there was no chance whatever of these exceptional powers being brought into operation without the House having full opportunity of discussing the case which was to be made for such a proceeding. Let us consider what would happen in England and Scotland if the Government were to withdraw either of these countries, or the larger portion of them, including the capital of the country, from the operation of the ordinary law. I should like to see it tried in Scotland ‡ And yet, in this House, we are grudged an opportunity, though not absolutely refused, to discuss such an extraordinary and serious step of this importance in the case of Ireland. Personally I for one cannot refrain from supporting hon. Gentlemen; below the gangway when they demand an opportunity for discussing proceedings which have withdrawn one eighth of their number from the service of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was only speaking from report, he was not present when, as he understood, Mr. Speaker read the letter which referred to two of the hon. Gentlemen only who were withdrawn from the service of the House by a sentence of a court of law. He was making inquiries into the circumstances of the other cases, and if the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member would put a Question to him either tomorrow or at an early date he-would be able to give a full answer to it
  MR. RENEDMONDsaid as a Member of the House of many years standing he, like all other Members elected for Irish constituencies, had had frequent occasion to observe the difficulties with which they had to contend in order to do any good for their country in this House, but never before had the incapacity of this assembly

  67
  to do justice to Ireland been so emphasised. The present circumstances amply illustrated the system by which Ireland was governed. The majority of the Irish Members demanded that the House should give one day in the course of the next two months in order that they might criticise the government of their country, and a more reasonable and moderate demand had never been put forward by any Member of any party in the House. It was characteristic of what he might term the contemptuous insolence with which the Irish people were continuously treated that while this moderate and legitimate demand was being made the man who had been sent by the House and by the Government to conduct the administration of the law in Ireland did not even think it worth his while to be in his seat to hear what Irish Members had to say. Even those who were inclined to hold that the Irish Members were not justified in continually complaining of the treatment meted out to their country, would, he thought, be obliged to admit that under these circumstances there was ground for complaint. If the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland were in his place, he would ask him whether he was prepared to declare that in his opinion Irish Members were not justified in demanding that at least a short time should be given to them for the discussion of the affairs of their country, and he would be much interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman come and support the demand which was made? He could only form the conclusion that it was because the right hon. Gentleman was afraid of the criticisms that would be offered to his mode of administration; criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman knew the Irish Members would direct against him. If he were the Chief Secretary, responsible for the administration of Ireland at the present time, he would welcome criticism and have at least the courage to hear what his opponents had to urge against his conduct. But the right hon. Gentleman was afraid that the opinion of the House would be so stirred by the story of what was being done in Ireland in the name of England, that he refused to allow a single day to be given in order to raise the question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman t Member for Montrose put before the House what must have been in the minds
  68
  of many when he asked what would happen in England if a state of affairs existed there similar to that which existed in Ireland at the present time; if ten British Members were prosecuted, not under the general laws but under a special law, and sentenced as common criminals and withdrawn from the service of those who elected them, and the Members of this House demanded that a day should be allotted to the treatment of that case. Would it be refused? The public of England would insist on the utmost publicity being given to the treatment of those Members of Parliament. But what happened in Ireland? The representatives of the people were sentenced by an extraordinary tribunal which existed only in that country, and this House was not allowed to listen to the case in which their fellow-Members were involved. The Prime Minister, a few moments previously, had stated in his speech that the case of Ireland had slipped from his memory. How could people complain of the Irish people being discontented and disloyal when they were treated in this way—when they were represented in such a way that so little did Ireland occupy the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that its very existence escaped him? Then, on the motion of the hon. Member for Cork, that this Rule should not apply to days when Irish matters were under discussion, the Prime Minister had said the Irish representatives were not in such hard case, because if they wished to discuss Irish affairs they could easily move the adjournment of the House. This was the first occasion on which he had heard such advice given by a member of the Government, and even if that advice were accepted, the right hon. Gentleman knew only too well that that course would be absolutely inadequate, because moving the adjournment of the House only meant a three hours debate from nine to twelve, which would not give an adequate opportunity of putting the facts before the House. The Irish Members were tonight face to face with a state of affairs to which they were unfortunately too long accustomed. They were allowed to come to this House in order that the world might be told that Ireland was governed constitutionally, and in the House they were denied the right of even having one day—twenty-four hours—to discuss the government of their country. Such treatment would justify the Irish people over and over

  69
  again in having recourse to every method in their power in order to put an end to a system of government so unfair, so unconstitutional, and so scandalous. It was impossible for him to know from the rulings of Mr. Speaker whether it was in his competence to discuss to any extent whatever the condition of Ireland, under the system of coercion which had been put into force there. The hon. Member for Carnarvon was undoubtedly permitted to discuss in some detail the bearing of the Education Bill, for which the House was told the Autumn Session was inaugurated by the Government, but the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, upon the other hand, had been several times called to order because he referred, with not nearly so much detail as the hon. Member for Carnarvon in the case of the Education Bill, to the condition of affairs in Ireland. If Members of the House had an opportunity of listening to the statement that could be made as to the operation of the Coercion Act at the present time, it would make those who were opposed to the Irish party as indignant as the Irish party itself. He contended that it was an outrageous misuse of the power of the Government to treat as ordinary criminals well-known Members of this House. The Chief Secretary, who, he observed, was now in his place, would himself admit that Ireland was a crimeless country; there was neither outrage or bloodshed, nor attacks on person or property. There was nothing but a combination of the people—no stronger and quite as legitimate as any labour combination in this country. Yet men who were Members of this House, because they advised the people of Ireland to put their face against outrage, crime, and violence, and place their reliance in this combination, had been sentenced to imprisonment, not as political offenders, but as common criminals, with all the attendant circumstances of degradation and misery which had no equal in this country. One hon. Member of the House, returned by an overwhelming majority, had been sentenced to three months hard labour, and in order that his punishment might be the greater, he was sentenced to three separate terms of one month each, the effect of which was that for the
  70
  first fortnight of each of those periods he was compelled to sleep on the hard wood bed, was deprived of exercise, and starved upon bread and water. Yet that hon. Member was a gentleman against whose honour not a word could be spoken. He was a man with whom Members of this House were used to associate, and yet he and the Member for East Galway were to be treated like the lowest description of criminals. [Here a remark, which was inaudible in the gallery, was made by a Unionist Member.] He would not pay any attention to the remarks of hon. Members who sneered at the degradation inflicted upon their fellow-Members. He knew that there were Members on the other side of the House who did not approve of such proceedings, and he heartily believed that the majority of the Unionists had no sympathy with the action of cads. He would probably not have an opportunity for some time of speaking in this House, and he was anxious to state how strongly Irish opinion was inflamed by the administration of the law at the present time. He remembered when feeling ran high in this country on the subject of the war, when men were robbed and assaulted, and riotous mobs marched through Scarborough. Then they were told that allowances had to be made for human nature. No allowance had been made for human nature in Ireland, and it was not unnatural that a feeling of indignation should be cherished by the Irish people and their representatives in this House, when they contemplated the punishment, degradation, and misery put upon certain Irish Members, not for any crime, or riot, or disturbance which had been created by them, but because they had advocated, as they were quite entitled to do, a combination of the people and tenants of Ireland in the great struggle which was now taking place between the tenantry and the landlords of that country. Ten hon. Members had been treated in this way, the capital of Ireland had been proclaimed, and newspaper editors and others were being prosecuted all over the country, yet when the representatives of the Irish people asked that one day might be given to them in order that they might justify their proceedings before the world, that time was refused them. He supposed they would be asked next

  71
  to support the Prime Minister in the division lobbies, but all he could say was that he thought the Irish Party should take the first opportunity to hurl the Government from office. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland imagined that by the course he was pursuing he would break up the combination of the people, and break the spirit, and turn the Irish Members from their course, the right hon. Gentleman was greatly mistaken. There were few among those who sat for Irish constituencies who were not prepared to suffer ten thousand times all the cruelties and all the tyrannies of law that could be put upon them, either by the right hon. Gentleman or any one who might occupy his position. The right hon. Gentleman was upholding a system in Ireland for which over and over again he had expressed his disgust and contempt. Over and over again had the right hon. Gentleman expressed his disgust at the system by which England held Ireland, yet such was his ambition, such his greed of power, that he did not hesitate to fill the position he did in the Government, which enabled him to inflict so much degradation on his colleagues in this House. He invited the House to compare what was being done under the Coercion Act in Ireland with what was being done in England, whore outrage and crime of the most dastardly description were punished without half the suffering with which these offences were treated in Ireland. If hon. Members would do that, they would well understand why the Irish people were in a state of semi-revolt at the present time. He devoutly wished and prayed to God that the Irish people had even the remotest chance, with their representatives, of striking with arms in their hands against the violent tyrannies to which they were subjected. If they had but the remotest chance of success they would do it. After all, it was impossible to explain in the British House of Commons the feelings of the Irish people with regard to the treatment meted out to their representatives. But the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have reason to know in the future, as they had had reason to know too well in the past, that the Irish representatives were not likely to flinch from the duty entrusted to them. They did not ask that the sentences
  72
  should be lightened; they did not complain of the paltry imprisonment to which they were subjected; all they asked was that the men who were sentenced in Ireland to these punishments should not be asked to undergo the degradation which was only meted out in this country to the worst class of criminals. Nothing more contemptible, nothing more cowardly or more totally lacking in all the instincts of gentility, could be imagined than the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in endeavouring to degrade the men who were politically opposed to him. It would be said that these Gentlemen were imprisoned for infraction of the law. It was no such thing. The pretence was too transparent. They were imprisoned because they were political opponents of the Chief Secretary and the Government. If hon. Members compared the administration of the law in the North and South of Ireland they would find that while in the South representative men who openly made speeches were treated as common criminals, in the streets of Belfast blasphemous ruffians were allowed to disturb the public peace and insult the religion of the majority of the people, almost without hindrance. Yet they were told to admire and respect the impartiality with which the law was administered‡ All he could say was that the refusal of the Government to grant even one day for the discussion of the condition of Ireland proved that the Chief Secretary was fully aware that his doings in that country would not bear exposure and criticism. He therefore hoped that every Member who was not bound to the Government in slavish obedience would support the demand which had been made on behalf of the vast majority of the Irish people.
  MR. LOUGHappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. The Irish Party had refrained from moving the adjournment of the House, he believed, out of a desire to promote Government business, and, that being so, it was very astonishing that they should be met as they had been. The right hon. Gentleman was adopting a course which would bestrew his path with difficulties right up to Christmas. The usual practice of the House, when such a state of affairs

  73
  as was to be seen in Ireland existed, was to grant a reasonable demand for discussion. That was a more convenient way of dealing with the question than by Motions for adjournment, of which, if a day were not granted, there might possibly be half a dozen. During the recess he had visited Ireland, spending the greater part of his time in one of the proclaimed districts. There was not a vestige of crime to justify the proclamation of that area, and a certain incident which it had been thought might lead to crime and was the cause of the proclamation had, as a matter of fact, been peaceably settled. That showed that the House would not be in a position to judge of this question if it confined its attention to the violent aspects of the matter. There was almost a total upheaval of the social system in Ireland. Every class in every part of the country was discontented. Ulster rivalled the West and South in its discontent; the landlords, who used to be the bulwarks of English rule in Ireland, were, if possible, more discontented than the tenants. Under these circumstances it was surely a strong thing for the Prime Minister to say that he would not give the slightest opportunity for discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said anything of the kind.
  MR. LOUGHhad no desire to put words into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman, but surely he would admit that he had driven Irish Members back on Motions for Adjournment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that I have followed ordinary precedent in saying that the business of the House at an Autumn Session should be Government business. Unquestionably there must be some safety-valve or some opportunity for discussing other matters, but that is provided for by the Rule of the House in regard to Motions for adjournment on matters of urgent public importance—a privilege which I have never sought to withdraw from the House. In addition to that, there is the more solemn and elaborate method by which, when the Opposition formally demand a day for a
  74
  vote of censure on the Government, that day is given. This question of the extension of the Crimes Act has already been debated at great length this session
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the question that had been debated was that of the application of the Crimes Act without proclamation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I am right in saying the question was very elaborately debated, although there may have been a certain number of counties added since. Whatever may be said of the action of the Government, I hope it will not be said that it has been discourteous to hon. Members opposite.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he would say nothing more about Motions for Adjournment, except that in the present instance they were most unsuitable and did not at all meet the reasonable demands of Irishmen. The Prime Minister had said a day would be granted if the regular Opposition asked for it. But that raised a very difficult question. The Irish Party were, perhaps, the strongest section of the Opposition to the Government, and, seeing that the demand was supported by so many Members, it would be well not to persist in requiring them to submit to the humiliation of asking an English Member to make this request. As to the point that the proclamation had already been discussed, that was almost a disingenuous answer. The situation was daily getting worse, and the request for an opportunity of discussing it was ruthlessly, almost rudely, refused. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs for supporting the Amendment, and hoped many Members would join him in voting for it in the lobby.
  MR. NANNETTIpointed out that since the House adjourned in August ten Irish Members had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment. He claimed this as an extraordinary state of affairs, and as such they were justified in claiming a day to put their case before the House. If Members were gagged in the House they had no alternative but to

  75
  go back to Ireland and take to the platform, with the result that they would be put into gaol. Thus, whether they came to the House or went to their constituents, justice was denied to them. Look at the manner in which they were treated in the House of Commons. It had been said that the Irish people would be justified in taking every means in their power to strike a blow back at England if this state of things went on. He welcomed what had been done by the Chief Secretary and the First Lord of the Treasury, and the people of Ireland must be ready to strike back blow for blow. He sat in the House as the representative of one of the divisions of the capital of Ireland, and he protested against the proclaiming of the City of Dublin. He denied that there was any reason for this Act, and he challenged the Chief Secretary to show that there was. After this injustice had been done to them the Prime Minister denied Irish Members even the common justice of being heard in their own defence. That proclamation had done much to convert Conservatives in Ireland to Nationalist principles, and many of them were now prepared to assist the Nationalists in getting a Parliament of their own. He had been told this by many Conservatives, who protested against the wanton insult inflicted upon the Irish people by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He appealed to both sides of the House to look at what all this meant. They had "removables" to try them and cast them into gaol. If trouble arose in Ireland it would have been created by the Chief Secretary. If the House of Commons refused to hear them that day they would return to the public platforms in Ireland and tell the people that it was no use sending them to the English Parliament where they could not get justice. For whatever might occur in Ireland during the coming winter the responsibility would lie upon the Members on the Treasury Bench. Irish Members knew their duty, and while they had the confidence of the people of Ireland they would carry on this struggle until they achieved their object, and that was the right to manage their own affairs. It was unworthy of a powerful Government to deny to Irish representatives the discussion of such an extraordinary state of things as existed in Ireland at the present moment. The nigger and the painted
  76
  savage in Uganda got consideration, but the Irish Members only got the plank bed and "skilly." He wished to enter his protest against the action as the Prime Minister, and they would do their best to make things hot for the Government.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that after listening to the debate he had been led to ask himself the fundamental question, what did the House of Commons exist for? He objected to the whole Motion before the House, and he wished to ask the Prime Minister to go back to his earlier days in regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech a good many years ago, when he was in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, in which he said that the House of Commons was not to be judged by its output, or as a machine upon which a Minister could take a handle and throw an important part out of gear, but it was an assembly to consider the wants and wishes and aspirations of the people. He saw a notice in one of the papers to the effect that this Motion would be the first matter before the House, but the width, breadth, and extent of this proposal had hardly been appreciated. The Prime Minister had refrained from quoting any precedent for this Motion, and the precedent of 1893 was not at all connected with the question before the House. Could they fancy such a state of things in the old times? Could they imagine any Leader of the House refusing a day's debate on the state of Ireland in the condition in which that country was at the present moment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not refused it.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid they came to the House of Commons to discuss affairs of the greatest importance to their constituents. If anything of this kind was occurring in the counties of England, and if any request of this nature was made by any representative for a county division, such a request would be granted at once. A Motion like this, and, above all, the exclusion of any opportunity to Irish Members to bring their grievances before the House, was a derogation of one of the most sacred duties of this mother of Parliaments.
  MR. POWERsaid that earlier in the afternoon Mr. Speaker read two letters announcing that two Members of this House were under arrest, and undergoing hard labour in one of the prisons of Ireland. Mr. Speaker was then reminded that these were not the only eases, and that seven other Irish Members had been arrested, and no notification had been sent to the authorities of this House They all recognised that Irish Members did not stand on a par with other hon. Members of this House, for the authorities in Ireland had given them an example that such was the case, If any English, Scotch, or Welsh Members were arrested, would anybody say that the authorities would not communicate with this House? They happened to be Irish Members, and that was the reason. They had another object lesson in the way the First Lord of the Treasury had treated the Motion made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He said that he did not see what ground his hon. friend had for that Motion, and he asked what had occurred in Ireland to justify such a Motion. What did the right hon. Gentleman want to occur in Ireland? Did he want them to go back to the old system of outrage? The Prime Minister himself was in charge of this Coercion Act when it was introduced and passed through the House of Commons, and if any Coercion Act should be reviewed in this House it was the Act of the right hon. Gentleman, which was a perpetual one, and not in the same category as other Coercion Acts. Upon other occasions the Minister in charge proved that exceptional crime existed in the country, but now they had little or no crime in Ireland; and because Ireland was not turbulent, and Irish representatives asked for an opportunity for discussing Irish administration, their request was refused. It was idle for the Prime Minister to say that he had not deprived them of this opportunity. He should like to know what opportunity a Motion for the adjournment of the House gave for discussing matters of that description. In dealing with the way in which coercion was administered they could go into details, but on a Motion for the adjournment of the House that was impossible. The First Lord of the Treasury
  78
  had in previous sessions given specimens of the way in which he regarded the Irish Members. When they were labelled in the Press and two gentlemen were brought to the bar of the House, Jus action indicated the amount of respect he had for the representatives of Ireland. The hon. Member ventured to say that the action of the right hon. Gentleman this evening was a new proof that there was one law and rule for the Irish Members and other laws and rules for other Members. Even from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view the attitude he had taken up this evening would not facilitate matters in that House. Was it not enough that the constitution should be suspended throughout the whole country where crime did not exist? Members returned by that country to state the case in the House of Commons, and to show that coercion win aimed not at crime and criminals in the ordinary sense, but at political opponents and organisations, were refused a hearing. He had never been more amazed than by the action of the Government in this matter. Honourable men were sent to prison to herd with garrotters and pickpockets, because they endeavoured to defend the interests of the people. The mouthpiece of the Government had stated that the Government were unable to settle the land question. That was only another illustration of the incompetence of the British Government to manage Irish affairs in accordance with Irish opinion. He firmly believed that the lesson given to the Irish people tonight would not be lost on them.
  MR. BELLsaid he desired to say only a few words in support of the Amendment and against the proposal of the Prime Minister to take the whole time of the House for Government business during the remainder of the session. He did so apart from the fact that he was convinced the state of Ireland was such as to warrant some part of their time being devoted to its consideration. There were many subjects of vital importance to the working classes of this country, which hon. Members had not had an opportunity of raising during the recent session, and which during the present session they ought to

  79
  have an opportunity of discussing. They had been given to understand that the Education Bill was to occupy the greatest part of the time of the House. The education question, he admitted——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise on the Amendment.
  MR. BELL: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, but could I not extend that to apply not only to the grievances of Ireland but to other grievances also?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that could not be done.
  MR. CONDONsaid he would not intervene in the debate were it not that he desired to place before the House certain information which he had acquired as a magistrate, and which strengthened the demand made for a day to discuss the condition of affairs in Ireland. He was well known at home to be an uncompromising foe of British rule in Ireland. He believed the Prime Minister had contributed to no small extent to the promotion of their views in Ireland by his attitude to the Irish representatives this evening, and his refusal to give a day for the discussion of the state of affairs in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the request would have been conceded if it had been made by a British representative. That was an object lesson which would burn into the hearts of the Irish people. The administration of the Coercion Act in Ireland at present was cowardly and unmanly. The principal reason why he asked a day for the discussion of Irish affairs was that he had personal knowledge of what his friends were enduring day by day in His Majesty's prisons under the Coercion Act. He was Visiting Justice of one of the jails where day after day his friends were subjected to indignities by being compelled, while wearing prison clothes, to pick oakum, to work in wash-houses and stone-yards. The Irish Members wished to have the opportunity of placing before the Members of this House the facts in regard to the alleged offences for which these men had been sent to prison. He believed in his soul that if it could be brought home to the minds of hon. Members that respectable men in Ireland were sent to prison for what were really not
  80
  offences at all, they would not follow the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary into the lobby. Never was there an occasion when they had a more absolute right to demand a day for the discussion of the affairs of their country than the present. There were hundreds of Members of this House, on both sides, who knew nothing whatever of the conditions prevailing in Ireland. Ireland was practically on the verge of revolt at present. The Chief Secretary had acknowledged that neither he nor the Government could settle the question in dispute between the landlords' combination and the tenants' combination. There was no crime or outrage in the country. The judges' charges proved that. Criminal statistics, or rather the want of criminal statistics, proved that day by day. Respectable men were being sent to jail because they held opinions contrary to the landlord class in that country. If their request for a day to discuss that state of affairs were not granted now, they would get it yet, whether the Government would or not. They did not ask it as a favour. If the Government refused to grant it, on their heads be the responsibility. The Irish Members were prepared to take theirs.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELLrose to continue the debate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  MR. SPEAKERproceeded to put the Question, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELLremained standing in his place, amid cheers from the Irish Members, and cries of "Gag," "Cowardly," and "Fair Play." The cries of "Order" and the noise throughout, the House prevented the words of the hon. Member for South Mayo being heard. He moved nearer the Speaker, and endeavoured to address the House while standing in the second row behind the Front Opposition Bench, but the prevailing noise rendered any report impossible. When the hubbub had partially subsided—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid: The hon. Member is not in order in addressing the House, and I hope he will not persist.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELLdeclined to resume his seat, and Mr. SPEAKER named him for disregarding the authority of the Chair. Speaking amid considerable tumult, the hon. Member cried, "It is not enough for the Prime Minister and Chief Secretary to put me into jail for six months, but they are now trying to gag me." Mr. O'DONNELL then crossed the floor of the House, and standing near Mr. A. J. Balfour, between the Table and the Treasury Bench, addressed the right hon. Gentleman individually, but the words did not reach the reporters' gallery. When going back to his place, the hon. Member turned round and shouted "I despise you, I despise you."†
  MR. SPEAKERat this stage gave an instruction to the Sergeant-at-Arms, to open the doors, which had been closed for the division on the Closure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR moved that the hon. Member for South Mayo be suspended from the service of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, that Mr. John O'Donnell be suspended from the service of the House.

  † The Parliamentary representative of the Freeman's Journal was "informed" that the words addressed by the hon. Member to Mr. Balfour were as follows:—"Where is that coward Wyndham? When I speak in Ireland he puts me in gaol. When I attempt to speak here you gag me. You are his accomplice in this cowardly business. I despise you both."

  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What has became of the Closure Motion?
  MR. MACVEAGH: On a point of order, I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for you to put that Motion when there is already a division proceeding on another Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes. If disorder intervenes, requiring the action of the Chair, it is in the power of the Chair to interrupt the division and order the doors to be opened.
  MR. NANNETTI: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether, when we come back from the division lobbies, we will be entitled to take the same position with reference to the action of the Prime Minister, that the hon. Member for South Mayo has taken.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order at all.
  (6.28.) Question put, "That Mr. John O'Donnell be suspended from the service of the House."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 341; Noes, 51. Division List, No. 385.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Aird, Sir John

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bigwood, James

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bill, Charles

  Cawley, Frederick

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bond, Edward

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brigg, John

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Chapman, Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brown Alexander H. (Shropsh.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

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

  Bull, William James

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Bullard, Sir Harrv

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Burt, Thomas

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Caine, William Sproston

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Barry, Sir Francis T (Windsor)

  Caldwell, James

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen-Benjamin

  Carlile, William Walter

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D).

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Crombie, John William

  Heath, James (Scaffords. N.W.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Norman, Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Denny, Colonel

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Partington, Oswald

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Horner, Frederick William

  Percy, Earl

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Perks, Robert William

  Doughty, George

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pilkmgton, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Kemp, George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Edwards, Frank

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Purvis, Robert

  Evans, Sir FrancisH.(Maidst'ne

  Keswick, William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Faber, George Dem-on (York)

  Kimber, Henry

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Randles, John S.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

  Langley, Batty

  Rea, Russell

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Remnant, James Farquharson.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawson, John Grant

  Renwick, George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Ridley, S. Forde(BethualGreen

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Flannery, Sir Forteseue

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Flower, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol S.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Rutherford, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Lowther, Rt HnJ W(Cum. Penr.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred rick

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'm'ts

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Macartney, Rt Hn W.G. Ellison

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS. Edm'ds

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Grenfell, William Henry

  M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Gretton, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Groves, James Grimble

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Smith, H.C.(N'rth'mb. Tyn'side.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Spear, John Ward

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Milvain, Thomas

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  Morgan, DavidJ.(W'lth'mstow

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stroyan, John

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morton, Arthur H. A.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chicester)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  84

  85

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Warde, Colonel C E.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wason, Eugene

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

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

  Toulmin, George

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Younger, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Wallace, Robert

  Williams, RtHnJ. Powell-(Birm

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Sir Alex. Acland-Hood,

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  and Mr. Austruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Lloyd-George, David

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Logan, John William

  O'Malley, William

  Boland, John

  Lundon, W.

  O'Mara, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Shee, James John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, John

  Cullianan, J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Devlin, Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  (6.40.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 263 Noes, 148. (Division List, No. 386.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Gl'sgow

  Aird, Sir John

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bull, William James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Arrol, Sir William

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, RtHn. J. A (Gla-gow

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Carhle, William Walter

  Denny, Colonel

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cavendish, R. F. (North Lancs.)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

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

  Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Doughty, George

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Chamberlayne, T. (S hampton

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Chapman, Edward

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bignold, Arthur

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bigwood, James

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Bill, Charles

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Bond, Edward

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

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fison, Frederick William

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Long, RtHn. Walter(Bristol, S.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rutherford, John

  Flower, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Forster, Henry William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Samuel, Hairy S. (Limehouse)

  Foster, Phil. S.(Warwick, S W.

  Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Macartney, RtHn W.G. Ellison

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Seton-Karr, Henry

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Calmont, Col. H.L. D(C'mbs.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

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

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin., W.)

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Greene, SirEW(B'ryS Edm'nds

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Spear, John Ward

  Gretton, John

  Milvain, Thomas

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  More Robt. Joseph(Shropshire)

  Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hambro, Charles, Eric

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stroyan, John

  Hamilton, Rt HnLord G. (Mid' x

  Morton, Arthur H.A.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Nicolson, William Graham

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Heath, James(Staffords, N. W.)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Vincent, Col. SirCEH (Sheffield

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walrond, RtHnSir William H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pembroke, John S. G.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Perey, Earl

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pier point, Robert

  Webb, Col. William George

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Welby, Lt-Col. ACE (Taunton

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Welby, SirCharlesG.E.(Notts.)

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Purvis, Robert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pym, C. Guy

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Kemp, George

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohn H.

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Keswick, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Kimber, Henry

  Renwick, George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Younger, William

  Lee, ArthurH (Hants, Fareham

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Brigg, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burt, Thomas

  Crombie, John William

  Asquith, Rt Hn Herbert Henry

  Caine, William Sproston

  Cullinan, J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Caldwell, James

  Dalziel, James Henry.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cameron, Robert

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Barren, Roland Hirst

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Delany, William

  Bayley, Thomas, (Derbyshire)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Devlin, Joseph

  Bell, Richard

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh

  Boland, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  88

  89

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Dunn, Sir William

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Edwards, Frank

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roche, John

  Ellis, John Edward

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Evans, SirFrancis H (Maidstone

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Govern, T.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo North)

  Spencer, Rt HnC. R. (Northants

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gilhooly, James

  Mather, Sir William

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Grant, Corrie

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Newnes, Sir George

  Tomkinson, James

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Norman, Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'aryMid)

  Wallace, Robert

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Walton, JohnLawson (Leeds, S.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, J, (Liverpool)

  Wason Eugene

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Dowd, John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  O'Malley, William

  Whitley, George (York. W. R.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Mara, James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Langley, Batty

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

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

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Leese, SirJoseph F.(Accrington

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lloyd-George David

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

  Logan, John William

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Patrick O'Brien

  (6.58.) Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 262. (Division List, No. 387.)

  AYES.

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Allan, Sir Wm. (Gateshead)

  Crombie, John William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cullinan, J.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Asquith, Rt Hn. HerbertHenry

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Davies, M Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Delany, William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Barry E. (Cork, S.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Jones, David Brynmor(SW'nsea

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Bell, Richard

  Doogan, P. C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Boland, John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Edwards, Frank

  Kitson, Sir James

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Langley, Batty

  Brigg, John

  Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Leamy, Edmund

  Burt, Thomas.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Leese, SirJoseph F.(Accringt'n

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Flynn. James Christopher

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Caine, William Sproston

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Caldwell, James

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Cameron, Robert

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Logan, John William

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Lundon, W.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. HerbertJohn

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Grant, Corrie

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwal

  Crean, Eugene

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Govern, T.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Toulmin, George

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Perks, Robert William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Wallace, Robert

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Mather, Sir William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Rea, Russell

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wason, Eugene

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Weir, James Galloway

  Newnes, Sir George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Norman, Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

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

  Roche, John

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ryMid

  Roe Sir Thomas

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R (Northants

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Kelly, Conor, (Mayo, N.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'd

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Sullivan, Donal

  O'Malley, William

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  O'Mara, James

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Shee, James John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

  Partington, Oswald

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

  William O'Brien.

  Paul ton, James Mellor

  Tomkinson, James

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

  Aird, Sir John

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

  Arrol, Sir William

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gretton, John

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Corbett A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

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

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christeh.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon Robert Wm.

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Denny, Colonel

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cock field

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

  Bigwood, James

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

  Bill, Charles

  Doughty, George

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Bond, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Bowles T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dyke, Rt. Hn Sir William Hart

  Hobhouse, Henry, Somerset, E.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bull, William James

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Campbell, Rt Hon J A (Glasg'w

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kemp, George

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Keswick, William

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Flower, Ernest

  Kimber, Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. (Birm.

  Forster, Henry William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lawson, John Grant

  Chapman, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  92

  93

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stewart, Sir Mark. J. M 'Taggart

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stroyan, John

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Purvis, Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Macartney, Rt Hon W G Ellison

  Randles, John S.

  Tomlinson. Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Renwick, George

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

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

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam H.

  M'Iver, SirLewis (Edinburgh W

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Milvain, Thomas

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Whitmore, Charles Algeron

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Morgan, David J (Walth'inst'w

  Rutherford, John

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Morton, Arthur H. A.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isleof Wight)

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

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Nicholson, William (Graham

  Skewer-Cox, Thomas

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

  Wyndham Quin, Major W. H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Smith, H.C. (North'mb Tyn'side

  Younger, William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlingt'n)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES,

  Percy, Earl

  Spear, John Ward

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther

  Mr. A. J. BALFOURclaimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  (7.13.) Main Question put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 145. (Division List, No. 388)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Aird, Sir John

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brookfield. Colonel Montagu

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bull, William James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Corbett, A. Cameron, (Gl'sgow

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carlile, William Walter

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

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

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Denny, Colonel

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cock field

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thamptn.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chapman, Edward

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Charrington, Spencer

  Doughty, George

  Bigwood, James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Bill, Charles

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kimber, Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rutherford, John

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(M'nc'r

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Seely, Chas Halton (Lincoln)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (IsleofWight

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Regmald J.(Portsmouth

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Flower, Ernest

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Foster, Philips. (Warwick, SW

  MacIver, D. (Liverpool)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

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

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

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

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Grey, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stroyan, John

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'rySEdm'ds

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Gretton John

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morgan, DavidJ.(Walth'mst'w

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morton, Arthur H. A.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G.Mid'x

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Hardy, Laurenee(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Harris, Frederick Loverton

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

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

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Perey, Earl

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Randles, John S.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Younger, William

  Kemp, George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Renwick, George

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalyb'dge

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Keswick, William

  Ridley, S. Forde (B'thn'lGr'n)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

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

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Allan, Sir Wm. (Gateshead)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Brigg, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Bell, Richard

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Boland, John

  Caine, William Sproston.

  96

  97

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cameron, Robert

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cawley Frederick

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Leamy, Edmund

  Roche, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Crombie, John William

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cullinan, J.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Logan, John William

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lundon, W.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Delany, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Govern, T.

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P.C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

  Toulmin, George

  Ellis, John Edward

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Evans, Sir FrancisH(Maidstone

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wallace, Robert

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Newnes, Sir George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norman, Henry

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  Wason, Eugene

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fuller, J. M. F.

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John

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

  Whiteley, Geo. (York, W.R.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Dowd, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O'Malley, William

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

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Mara, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Holland, Sir Wm. Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Perks, Robert William

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Ordered, That for the remainder of the session, Government business do have precedence at every sitting, and at the conclusion of Government business on each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.
  Clause 8:—
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGEthought the Committee ought not to be asked to take up this subject within three minutes of the suspension of the siting. Moreover, before proceeding to the dis-
  98
  cussion of Amendments Members were entitled to some general statement from the Government as to their intentions. If the Prime Minister's Manchester speech was an indication of what the right hon. Gentleman thought the Education Bill ought to be, it was clear he ought to put down a series of Amendments to effect the necessary alterations. Then there was the famous Birmingham. Amendment, framed with the assistance of the Colonial Secretary; was that to be included in the Bill? Was the spirit of compromise about which so much had been heard to extend to giving not merely the control, but the management, as far as secular education was concerned, to the ratepayers? Before the House adjourned for the holidays the Prime Minister promised to place on the Paper a number of Amendments, including one with regard to rent. That was a matter of great importance, because three-fifths, if not three-fourths, of the so-called voluntary

  99
  Subscriptions were simply rent raised in another form. That and other Amendments had not been placed on the Paper.
  It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again this evening.

OPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  LORDs' Amendments to Commons, Amendments considered.
  LORDs' Amendment to Commons, Amendments, Clause 4B, Section 2, at commencement of section, insert (" Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section") the first Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  MR. CLAUDE HAYopposed the Amendment on the ground that its acceptance would amount to setting the public law at nought by means of a private Bill. He had objected to the Bill before the Recess, because it interfered with the legal rights of parties in a pending action. The case was now much stronger, because on 8th August the Milton Creek Conservators obtained an injunction in the High Court compelling the Railway Company to keep open the bridge for any vessel navigating the Swale, and not having masts capable of being lowered. But the effect of the Lords' Amendments, which were inserted at the instance of the First Lord of the Admiralty, would be to render the injunction nugatory, and to deprive the traders of the district of the existing facilities for navigating the waterway. The Company had closed the bridge without asking leave of anybody: hence the action of the Milton Creek Conservators under their Statutory Powers
  100
  conferred on them in 1899. Last year the Company promoted a Bill which would have enabled them to erect a fixed bridge, instead of one which could be opened, but the Admiralty and the Conservators successfully opposed that. Then came the Bill of the present year, and it was only when the measure reached the House of Lords in the dog days that the First Lord of the Admiralty, in an empty House and without discussion, introduced a clause which rendered nugatory the recent decision of the High Courts. It was remarkable that though the First Lord of the Admiralty had given notice of such a Clause in the Commons, the Department failed to move it in the House or before the Commons Committee. An opening bridge was necessary in the interests of the trade of the district. Although since 1899 the Companies had alleged that they had no power to deal with this matter except by fresh authority from Parliament, within a very recent period indeed they pretended they had discovered that Section 16 of the Railway Clauses Act gave them power to build a new bridge, and they had deprived the industry of the district of privileges it ought to enjoy by keeping the bridge closed for three years. The action of the Admiralty had not been all that could be desired, The parties interested in safe-guarding the shipping interests had approached the Admiralty with a view of securing its assistance, but instead of obtaining it the authorities decided at the last moment to assist the railway company in setting aside the decision of the High Court. There were important questions of public policy involved in this matter, and he submitted that it was not proper that the legal rights of interested parties—particularly Statutory bodies called into existence to protect the trade of a district—should be taken from them in this manner by a clause in a private Bill.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk,said his hon. friend was hardly justified in saying that the Admiralty were setting aside public law by a private Act, because the injunction which had been obtained in regard to the Swale

  101
  bridge was founded on a private Act passed in 1861. The Admiralty had no desire or intention to prevent the opening of this bridge for vessels navigating the Swale. But it was the duty of the Admiralty in the first place to protect a much greater interest than that of the trade under the Swale bridge—namely, the national interest of Sheerness Dockyard. That dockyard was on an island, and this bridge was the only means of communication between the dockyard and the mainland. While the bridge had been closed there had been a very large increase of tonnage under it and this traffic, although inconvenienced at present. would probably not have increased very much more had the bridge been open. The Admiralty had nothing to do with the repair of the bridge. Unfortunately the railway company had allowed the bridge to fall into disrepair, and that it might be repaired it was necessary that it should be either open or closed for a certain length of time. Of the two alternatives it was best, in the interests of the dockyard that it should be closed, so that traffic might go over it, especially the traffic of naval ratings to and from the gunnery school and other establishments.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Can my hon. friend give me figures as to that?
  MR. PRETYMAN: I do not know if there are any such figures available, but there is constant traffic over the bridge, and it would be most detrimental to naval interests to close it. The interest of the Admiralty in the bridge was recognised to be paramount from its inception by the Act of 1856, to which the Act of 1861 was only a rider. The Act of 1856 gave the Admiralty power to make rules and regulations respecting the opening of the swing bridge.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Has the Admiralty ever issued any such regulations?
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he had not stated that it had; he had only called attention to the fact that it had power to make regulations as to the opening and closing of the bridge.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Were any ever made?
  MR. PRETYMANsaid none had been made, but it was clear that the interests of the Admiralty in regard to this bridge had been recognised and power had been given to regulate the working of it, if it were considered that such a step were necessary in the national interest. If the power that the bridge should not be permanently closed, or closed for any length of time against the public interest, were given they could rely upon it that that power would be carefully exercised, and he assured the House that everything would be done not to prevent, but to assist and encourage, the immediate repair of the bridge so that it might be open to traffic under as well as over it. The consent of the Admiralty had already been accorded to the alterations referred to in the statement issued to hon. Members by the Conservators. There was no intention, on the part of the Admiralty to exercise any such powers as those which had there been referred to. On behalf of the Admiralty he submitted that the Amendments inserted by the Lords were the minimum necessity in the public interest, and the powers which were thereby sought to be exercised by the Admiralty would cause no injury either to the Conservators or to the interests they represented. He had not received the letter which the hon. Member referred to, and it was hardly necessary for him to say that had he received that letter it would have received an immediate reply. The course taken by the Admiralty was perfectly clear, and in. the absence of any further information to the contrary his hon. friend might have safely assumed, and evidently did assume, that the Amendments inserted by the Lords would be persisted in. Careful consideration had been necessary, and it was only that afternoon that a final decision had been come to by the law officers of the Crown. Therefore he asked the House not to agree with his hon. friend's proposal.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid that as the Chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill he thought it was his

  103
  duty to inform the House of the reasons why he objected to the Lords' Amendments. The first and second clauses were prepared with very great care, and were submitted to the Admiralty, and they fully protected all the Admiralty interests. At the time of the recommittal of the Bill they had the advantage of the presence of an official of the Admiralty.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Does my hon. friend say that the first and second sub-sections were submitted to the Admiralty?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: Yes.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid his hon. friend would remember that the first subsection only was submitted to the Admiralty, and when it went to the Committee the Admiralty did not know that the second sub-section would be added.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONagreed that the sub-section for the protection of the Conservancy Board was added, but they were both submitted to the Admiralty before.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid the whole of the first sub-section was submitted and agreed to, but the second sub-section was not known to the Admiralty, and was first seen by them after it had been inserted in Committee.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONthought the two paragraphs agreed to were quite sufficient for the protection of the Admiralty, and when the witness from the Admiralty was asked if he had any clauses to submit, he replied that he had not, and therefore the Committee considered that they had the option of proposing whatever clauses they chose for the protection of the Admiralty. The Admiralty was not the only party to be protected. Evidence came before the Committee in regard to the previous history of this railway company with reference to this bridge, and that evidence did not give the Committee any confidence as to the action of the company in the future. The railway company got rid of the portion of the Bill referring to the bridge, and there was no obligation upon them either to build a
  104
  new bridge, or do anything to get a permanently fixed bridge, and what the Committee did was in the interests of the Conservators, who were the only protectors of the traders in that district. There was slipped into the Bill of 1861 a clause by which seventh-eighths of the value of the first Bill as regarded interference with the rights of the public were rendered ineffective. When companies came forward for new powers it was usual that the whole question should be reconsidered, and the Committee had so little confidence that this company would do their duty to the public that they felt bound to put in these particular clauses. By this proposal they made the powers of the Conservators subsidiary to the Admiralty, and they took away the public rights which the Conservators had of protecting the traders. He asked the House seriously to consider these points before agreeing to the Lords' Amendments.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he thought there was some misunderstanding in regard to these private Bills. If none of these Bills had been passed there would have been a public right of way which this Bill would have infringed. The Lords' Amendments, went between the arrangement of the Committee of this House for the protection of the public and the Admiralty. The railway company objected to make a new bridge, and so the Admiralty proposed these Amendments, which were not made before in Committee. These alterations had been brought in without a word of discussion, and the Secretary to the Admiralty was one of the very few people who took any interest in them. Therefore these Amendments were passed and brought down to this House without having been discussed at all. The changes proposed reversed the decision of the Committee that the private rights involved should be protected and the rights of private citizens were to be multiplied by a clause giving the Admiralty full control. In the Bill of 1856 the Admiralty were given an absolute right to make rules, but they never made any, and they allowed the bridge to be closed up, and the public rights were put aside altogether. He thought they ought to

  105
  stick to the clause inserted by the Committee, and not allow private rights to be overridden by an Amendment inserted at the instigation of the railway company in order to save them the expense of building a new bridge. He trusted the House would not agree to these Amendments, for this appeared to him to be a case of the Admiralty legislating for the country instead of the Houses of Parliament.
  SIR W. HART DYKEsaid that as far as the company were concerned, every pledge they had given had been absolutely kept. The hon. Member opposite seemed to have got a little mixed upon this question, for he asserted that the company wanted to avoid making a new bridge. He held in his hand a letter showing that in June last the company sent a special agent over to America in reference to the building of a new bridge, and steps had already been taken for the carrying out of this work. A new bridge would be built over the old one, and its construction would be carried out without obstructing the traffic for more than two days. The Amendments moved by the Admiralty had been intended to secure the traffic to the Sheerness Dockyard. When they heard of this new bridge it was not unnatural that they should wish to secure the traffic, and the companies had no objection to these Amendments if the Government thought they ought to be inserted in order to secure absolutely the traffic during the reconstruction of the bridge. Personally, he thought the House ought to loyally support the Admiralty in this matter.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,said he desired to say a word or two upon this question, because he was afraid the issue was not quite clearly before the House. Certain disputes had been introduced between the railway company and the Conservators, but with those disputes the Admiralty had absolutely nothing to do. All the Admiralty had to do was to safeguard the public interests committed to their care. The traffic was chiefly barge traffic, but there was a still more important matter, and that was the
  106
  maintaining without any interruption of communication between the mainland and Sheerness. It was necessary to secure that there should not be any interruption of an important public service for which this bridge was absolutely necessary. For this purpose a clause was inserted providing that the closing of the bridge for the purpose of repairs should be subject to the consent of the Admiralty. That seemed to him to be a very harmless provision. The idea that the Admiralty were going to exercise that power in a vexatious way, so as to interfere with the traffic and the proper navigation of the river, was absolutely chimerical. He was quite sure that those who objected to these Amendments could not seriously entertain any doubt as to the perfect competence of the Admiralty to deal with such matters. The whole question was how were those two interests to be reconciled? As the Bill now stood, it provided that nothing in the section was to interfere with the rights of the Conservators or other, persons to free navigation of the river, subject to the provision that the closing of the bridge for the purpose of necessary repairs might take place under the control of the Admiralty. The Chairman of the Committee seemed to think that these Amendments were not properly, considered. If there was any want of consideration it was in inserting the second sub-section without fully appreciating its effect upon the first. The hon. Member said that the first sub-section submitted to the Admiralty was adequate for the protection of the public interests. He thought his hon. friend the Chairman, of the Committee failed properly, if he might say so with very great deference, to appreciate that point, and all that the Lords had done was what the Chairman of the Committee had intended to do. The Amendment safeguarded the rights of the Conservators. That was the whole matter, and it was an extremely simple one. He thought the ground on which his hon. friend opposed the Amendment was entirely an imaginary one. It would be found that there would not be the slightest difficulty in the matter. Ha asked the House not to interfere with the Admiralty in a matter which they thought important.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it appeared to him that the words did interfere with certain vested interests contained in the Acts mentioned.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid they did not destroy the rights, but qualified their exercise so that they should not interfere with the public service.

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

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

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

  Arrol, Sir William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Milvain, Thomas

  Balcarres, Lord

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Flower, Ernest.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. A.

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bigwood, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Bill, Charles

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Percy, Earl

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Perks, Robert William

  Bond, Edward

  Gretton, John

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Groves, James Grimble

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Midd'x

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Purvis, Robert

  Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Randles, John S.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Haslam, Sir Alfred, S.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bull, William James

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick, Geo.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Caldwell, James

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Renwick, George.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Royds, Clement, Molyneux

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kemp, George

  Rutherford, John

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Keswick, William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar, (Glasgow

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Layland Barratt, Francis

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Spear, John Ward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dickson Poynder, Sir John P.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stewart, Sir Mark, J. M Taggart

  Dorington Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Stroyan, John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lowther, Rt Hn JW (Cum. Penr.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Tritton, Charles, Ernest

  Emmott, Alfred

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It appears to me that the words might be interpreted as relieving the companies.
  (9.56.) Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes 191; Noe 62. (Division List No. 389.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Younger, William

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  Willough by de Eresby, Lord

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Grant, Corrie

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Burns, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Tomkinson, James

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Toulmin, George

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Wallace, Robert

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Leese, Sir, Joseph F.(Accrington

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Crombie, John William

  Levy, Maurice

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Edwards, Frank

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Price, Robert John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Rea, Russell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Mr. Claude Hay and Mr.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  Mansfield.

  Subsequent Lords' Amendments to Commons Amendments agreed to.

  RICHMOND HILL (PRESERVATION OF VIEW) BILL
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. BULLcalled attention to the proposal to put two stations on Hampstead Heath. That was something which was not understood before. It seemed to him a very serious thing to pass the Third Reading of the Bill when they knew there were to be two stations on the summit of Hampstead Heath. There was a very good alternative route by which that could be avoided, and he felt bound to protest against the route proposed.

  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

  BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY (NEW LINES, ETC.) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER(10.20.) SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham) moved an Amendment to Clause 20, page 17, lines 20 and 21, to leave out "after twelve o'clock noon." This applied to workmen's return tickets, and there was only one other line in London which had this limit to the use of workmen's return tickets for the return journey. He believed the promoters of the Bill were quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
  MR. PERKSsaid that the object of the Amendment was to enable working men to return home before twelve o'clock in the day, instead of having to wait after that hour. The promoters of the Bill thought that was a reasonable condition, although it did not apply to all the Tube Railways at present authorised. He believed the District Railway had always allowed bonâfide working men to pass the barrier before twelve o'clock; but the Clause was originally inserted to protect the Company against persons who were not working men, such as members of

  111
  the Bar and other gentlemen travelling with workmen's tickets. As the legislature had not defined a "working man," there was no method of testing in a court of law who was and who was not a "working man," the promoters were, in the circumstances, perfectly prepared to accept a statutory obligation to do what, as a matter of fact, they had always tried to do when ever they recognised that a bonâfide working man was desirous to travel with his return ticket before noon;
  The Amendment was agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time.

  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (CONSOLIDATED) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  As Amended, considered; Bill to be read the third time.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERin the chair.
  Clause 8:—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not think the Committee should proceed with the consideration of this Clause until they really knew what the intentions of the Government were in regard to it. He therefore moved the postponement of the Clause in order to enable the Government to put down their Amendments to it. This was the last Clause on which they would be able to discuss the management of voluntary schools and the relations between, the education authority and the managers. It was clear from a recent speech of the Prime Minister that his intentions were not clearly expressed in the Clause. Here they had a long list of the things which the managers were to do and not to do; but that was not the line which the Prime Minister had taken in his speech in Manchester. There he spoke
  112
  as if the relations between the managers and the Education Committee were to be the same as the relations between the London School Board and their managers—for instance in regard to the appointment of their teachers, which was a most important question. The London School Board appointed their own teachers, although the managers might recommend. Was the final appointment of teachers to vest in the local authorities, as in the case of the London School Board? There was a second question which the Prime Minister had indicated in his Manchester speech. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose that there should be an appeal not merely on the appointment, but on the dismissal, of teachers by the managers, to the local authority? He put it to the Attorney General that at any rate that was not the meaning of the Clause as it stood. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared now to make clear what his ideas were with regard to the relations between the local education authority and the managers in regard to the appointment and dismissal of teachers, and generally what control the education authority would have over the managers? The words of the Clause were that "The managers of the school shall carry out any direction of the local education authority." What did that mean? Did it mean that the whole of the power was in the local education authority? How far, for instance, did it go in regard to the appointment of pupil teachers, and in regard to the number and the quality of the teachers, and things of that kind? He contended that the Committee ought to get a complete answer from the Prime Minister in regard to these points before the Clause was proceeded with, and therefore he moved that the Clause be postponed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed," That Clause 8 be postponed."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was in some difficulty, not that he had really any uncertainty as to the general policy of the Government, but because he had some doubt whether the discussion of these details was in order on a Motion to postpone the Clause. The hon. Gentleman wanted him to make an explanation on various points.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Amendments to be proposed by the Government were not down on the Paper, and that was his objection to going on with the Clause at present. The Prime Minister asked the Committee to proceed with a Clause which the house of Commons was not to be asked to sanction. The Committee were entitled to ask, before they proceeded to the discussion of the Clause, to have the proposals of the Government in writing.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if the Amendments to be proposed were fundamentally different from the Clause in the Bill there might be some justification for the argument of the hon. Gentleman; but while the Government had indicated their desire to accept Amendments in certain directions those Amendments would be in no sense, if accepted, as he hoped they would be, counter to the general sense of the Clause. The hon. Gentleman had referred to a phrase which fell from him in Manchester a few nights ago, and lie seemed to interpret that speech in the sense that he (the Prime Minister) had indicated that in his view the relations between the managers of voluntary schools and the education authority ought to be precisely identical with the relations of the managers of the London School Board to that authority. That was not what he said. [Cries of "Oh, oh‡"] He thought if hon. Gentlemen would look at any full report of his speech they would find that what, he stated was correct. What he did say was that there had been the greatest misconception and the most extraordinary misrepresentations on the subject of managerial authority. What he said was that the word "manager" lent itself, no doubt, to misrepresentation, intentional or unintentional, and that he regretted that it had been found to be necessary to use the word. But that necessity had been practically forced upon the Government from a drafting point of view, from the fact that that word was the word used in the original Act of 1870, and if anybody would look at that Act he would see that the word did not carry with it the idea of control. He further pointed to the relations between the London School Board and its managers by way of illustration, and asked, Could there be a
  114
  greater proof, not in the English language but in Statute, language, that the word "manager" did not carry with it the notion of control which had been foisted, into these controversies in connection, with it? But he never said that the relations between managers of voluntary schools and the local education authority should be identical in all respects with the relations between managers of. London Board Schools and the London School Board. What he did say, and what he adhered to, was that, so far as secular education was concerned, it was not the managers who should control the voluntary schools, but the education authority, and he indicated the readiness of the Government—if the House were doubtful that the Bill carried out that policy—to accept words which would make the matter clear. Then the hon. Gentleman had also asked him whether he was prepared to put down an Amendment which would give an appeal to the local education authority in the case of the dismissal of a teacher by the managers on religious grounds. He thought that in such a case there ought not to be an appeal. But if the hon. Gentleman had put to him another question, which was often asked—namely, whether, if a teacher was incompetent adequately to deal with secular education given in the school—if he was not either by his scholastic qualifications, or if for any other reason, competent to deal adequately with secular education—the education authority should require his dismissal—he had not the slightest hesitation in answering it in the affirmative. In his opinion the education authority had under the Bill, and ought to have it, that power.
  MR. LLOYD-GEOKGEasked what would happen suppose a question arose about the Church Sunday School? He could give many instances of that. Would that be a religious ground?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that question was hardly relevant to the point at the present stage of the Bill. That question was inopportune; and he was not certain whether he had not been trespassing order in referring even remotely to it. He hoped that after the answer he had given the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee to come to the discussion of the Clause itself.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had clearly grasped the point of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech at Manchester had dealt with Clause 8 as if it were fundamentally different from the Clause in the Bill, and they asked that the Clause should be postponed until they knew exactly what were the intentions of the Government in regard to it. At Manchester the Prime Minister said:—
  "I think some of the difficulty has arisen owing to a misunderstanding of one of the terms used in the Government Bill, the term 'managers.' I think it is very natural that anybody who saw the term manager in the Bill would say, 'These are the people who have got control of the schools.' It is a mistake, but it is a natural mistake. I don't think it is a mistake for which either the Government draughtsman or the Government are responsible, because we have borrowed the term manager from the preceding Act of 1870, and in the Act of 1870 'management' and 'manager' are terms which do not carry with them the idea of control."
  But sub-Clause (a) stated:—
  "The managers of the school shall carry out any directions of the local education authority as to the secular instruction to be given in the school."
  What did the insertion of that sub-clause mean? It meant that if it were not in the Bill the managers need not carry out any directions of the local education authority. Hon. Members opposite might not be familiar with the construction of an Act of Parliament. There was no definition in the Bill of the terms, ''managers" and "management," nor any reference whatever to the terms "managers" and "management" in the Act of 1870, and he would show that the terms used in the Act of 1870 could not apply. They had to construe the intention of Parliament from the Bill itself. When an express provision such as he had read, was put into the Bill it implied that, but for the express provision, the managers would not be bound to carry out the directions of the local authority in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. If the local authority had power to call upon the managers to carry out any directions as to secular instruction to be given in the schools, there would be no necessity to insert a special sub-Clause in the Bill. Sub-Clause (b) stated that "the accounts of the managers shall be subject to audit
  116
  by that authority." If the managers were to be mere creatures of the local authority, and were to have no control independent of the local authority, the accounts of the managers would be the accounts of the local authority. But when the accounts of the managers were to be submitted to the audit of the local authority, that implied that the accounts of the managers were not to be the accounts of the local authority. Sub Clause (c) stated" The consent of the local education authority shall be required to the appointment of teachers, but that consent shall not be withheld except on educational grounds." What did that mean? It meant that consent should not be withheld, for instance, on financial grounds. If the managers chose to double the salaries of the teachers, the local authority would have no power to object. There was no provision in the Bill stating what were to be the general powers of the local education authority over the managers. The local authority was to be given the power of refusing assent to the appointment of teachers on one ground, and one ground only. The veriest tyro in the construction of an Act of Parliament knew that the mention of that express condition implied that but for it the local education authority would have no right to refuse assent to the appointment of teachers at all. That brought him to another quotation from the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury at Manchester, which he submitted was an entire, but, of course, an innocent misrepresentation of Clause 8 as it now stood in the Bill. He therefore assumed that there would have to be a new Clause 8, and that was a good ground for asking for the postponement of the present Clause. The First Lord of the Treasury said:—
  "Who raise the rate, who pay the rate? The County Council and the Borough Council raise the rate. The constituency of the Borough Council and the constituency of the County Council pay the rate. Let them manage the schools. Let them have the real control over secular education. If, for example, in a country parish you were to make the real controllers of the school the local managers, if you allow them to draw upon the funds of the County Council, then, indeed, you would violate that constitutional principle; then, indeed, you would divorce representation from taxation; then, indeed, you would be open to some of the criticisms which in my judgment are most unfairly passed upon this Bill."

  117
  Now it was surprising, it was almost incredible, but the Bill actually did what the First Lord of the Treasury admitted would give good ground for the criticisms of the Bill by its opponents. The Bill did allow the managers to call upon the local authority for funds. The voluntary schools at the present time were managed by trustees who drew their funds from grants, and any deficiency had to be made up by voluntary subscriptions. It was the trustees who settled the teachers' salaries, who bought the books and the necessary equipment, and who were responsible for all the expenditure in the school. Under the Bill nothing was taken away from the powers of the managers of voluntary schools, but, instead of their having to call upon voluntary subscribers to make up a deficiency, under the 'Clause all they would have to do would be to send in the Bill to the local education authority and the local education authority would be bound to pay it. That was the Clause as it now stood. [Hon. Members: "No, no"‡] He challenged any hon. Member opposite to point to any single provision in the Bill which was capable of a different meaning. In support of what he said he would again refer to sub-Clause (b).
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member really seems to be doing what he is asking the Committee not to do, namely to discuss the Clause. The hon. Member is going through the Clause sub-clause by sub-clause, and is discussing it in relation to the other parts of the Bill. The motion before the Committee is that the Clause shall not be discussed. The hon. Member must give some reasons for not discussing it, and these reasons must be so put as not to lead to a discussion of the Clause.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he thought the argument was perfectly simple. He was showing that the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury as to the intention of the Government referred to something wholly different from the existing Clause8, and, therefore, he assumed that the Government proposed to introduce Amendments which would make Clause 8 consistent with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He argued,
  118
  therefore, that the discussion of Clause 8 should be postponed until they had on the Paper the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman which were necessary to carry out his stated purpose at Manchester. He argued further that, as the Clause stood, the local education authority would have no control over expenditure in the voluntary schools, other than by the audit of the accounts, and that the First Lord of the Treasury stated something wholly different from that at Manchester. He therefore suggested that it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce Amendments in order that they might have the Clause in its final form before they began to discuss it. If the managers could not spend money except on the previous authorisation of the local education authority, the accounts of the managers would be the accounts of that authority. The managers would merely be the agents of the local authority. They did not speak of a principal auditing the accounts of his agents. The accounts of the agents were the accounts of the principal. At present the Local Government Board audited the accounts of the School Boards and exactly the same control over the accounts of the voluntary school managers was to be given under the Clause to the local education authority. It was not only the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that led him to that conclusion. He was also led to it by the statement of the Colonial Secretary at Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman apparently had no doubt about the construction of the Clause. He admitted that taxation and representation did not go completely together. He said it was a mere matter of degree, and he admitted that there was not complete control over the expenditure. The First Lord of the Treasury said there was, but if that were so why did he at Manchester advise the supporters of the Bill to move Amendments to strengthen the already existing complete control of the local education authority over secular education. The right hon. Gentleman invited Amendments to strengthen control which he declared to be already absolute and complete. The Clause as it now stood gave the managers of voluntary schools exactly the same power that the existing managers of voluntary schools had, subject to such modifications as existed in Clause 8. They would have complete control over the expenditure,

  119
  with power to send in the bill to the local education authority, who would have to pay it whether they liked it or not, their only control being the control of the audit. Under those circumstances he submitted that the Clause was altogether different from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at Manchester, and that they were therefore entitled to have before them the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce before they proceeded to consider the Clause. Did the First Lord of the Treasury think that the Clause as it now stood gave the local education authority complete financial control? If he did, he was anxious to hear his arguments on that point before ho said anything about the misrepresentations of the Bill as it stood.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURmade an appeal to the Committee. The hon. Member had made a speech which was more appropriate to the question that the Clause be added to the Bill. If when the Clause had been discussed in Committee, and when the Government had accepted Amendments, it was then found to be inconsistent with anything he had said in; public there would be good grounds for the objections now urged. But surely the Committee should begin first of all; with the Clause, and see whether it did not carry out in detail the general policy of the Government. If it failed to do this, then they ought to see whether Amendments could not be introduced to make the Clause conform with what had been stated. The arguments advanced by hon. Members were a reason not for postponing the Clause, but for amending it. If the hon. Gentleman would give his intelligent support in the discussion of the Clause, they might be able to bring it into general harmony with the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  MR BRYCEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to appreciate the benevolent intentions with which the Amendment had been moved. His hon. friend's object was to save the time of the Government. His hon. friends understood, possibly erroneously, the right hon. Gentleman at Manchester to mean that he conceived that the Clause ought to give control to the local authority over
  120
  the local managers, as far as secular education was concerned, so complete that the local managers would be nothing more than the mere agents of the local authority, that they would have no independent status at all, and that they would be more or less in the position in which the managers under the School Boards at present were. That was the impression which the right hon. Gentleman conveyed, but when they looked at the Clause they found nothing to carry out that intention. They found, on the contrary, that the Clause assumed a semi-independent authority, because it was necessary to give special powers of audit, to make provision for veto in particular cases, and because there was no provision at all with regard to the dismissal of teachers. Therefore, his hon. friends naturally concluded that the position of the managers was to be a quasi- independent position. If that was not the intention of the Government, why should his hon. friends encumber the Notice Paper with a largo number of Amendments to carry out what they conceived to be the intention of the Government. Let the right hon. Gentleman put down his own Amendments. If they met the wishes of his hon. friends then they need not put down their Amendments, and the discussion of the Clause would be expedited. He hoped that even now they would elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a declaration as to the substance of the Amendments which he would propose, and in that case he had no doubt his hon. friend would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid that there was some misconception on this point. He was represented as having at Manchester started a new theory about the Bill. He had sent for the speech which he made in introducing the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Manchester."] He was appealing against that speech to what he said on the introduction of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does the Bill say?"] He was speaking of the policy of the Government. If the hon. Member thought that the Clause did not carry out that policy let the Committee amend it. He had not shown himself to be hostile to Amendments in conformity with the policy of the Bill. But what was the policy of the Bill? Was it a,

  121
  new policy started in Manchester, or was it the original policy of the Bill? These were the words used by him on the introduction of the Bill:—
  "So much for the authority; now for its powers. We lay it down, in the most absolute terms, that the new education authority is, in the words of the Bill, to control all secular instruction in public elementary schools in its district. Whether those schools are voluntary or whether they are rate-erected, in future, if this Bill becomes law, the local education authority which we create will be absolutely the master of the whole scheme of secular education in every elementary school in its district, voluntary or otherwise."
  Those words put an end to all idea of a new interpretation. Let the House now consider the Clause, and, if it did not carry out the policy announced if the introduction of the Bill, and again at Manchester, see if they could not bring it into full conformity with this most explicit statement of policy, which he ventured to say could not be made clearer by any amount of explanation.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid it was not the first time that the Committee had experienced a similar inconvenience in connection with the Bill. They went through the same experience in clause 7, to which the First Lord of the Treasury put down very substantial Amendments, at a very late hour, which practically changed the whole intention and scope of the Clause. It was then found that they did not carry out the right hon. Gentleman's intention, and they had to be removed and other Amendments substituted. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman should repeat that action with regard to Clause 8. The right hon. Gentleman had described on various occasions the action of the Bill in respect of managers in a manner which he thought did not agree with the words of Clause 8, and he declared that he was going to make certain proposals. These proposals, however, should be put on the Paper and not left until the last moment, as in the case of Clause 7. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was some misunderstanding about the word "managers." He himself doubted that. It was true that the word was taken from the Act of 1870, but the right hon. Gentleman was probably aware that the word "managers" was always used in the code issued by the Education Department.
  122
  All the work under the code was given to the managers, and in no case was it given to the School Boards. He thought that there was less misunderstanding about the word "managers" than about the powers and duties of the education authority. The right hon. Gentleman in an attempt to make the words "managers" and "management" clearer referred to the London School Board working through its managers. If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that Clause 8 should square with t be work carried on by the London School Board through its managers, and that the methods adopted by that Board should be also adopted by the managers appointed under Clause 7, he was at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have alluded to the London School Board at all. The only possible inference was that the managers would be the creatures of the local education authority, and should be only able to carry out such work as was deputed to them by that authority. But that was not the case at all. What they wanted to know was what were the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman intended to put down. When the right hon. Gentleman said that the whole object he had in view was to give control to the education authority and not to the managers, he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the amount of control to be apportioned between the local authority and the managers almost entirely referred to the appointment and dismissal of teachers. That was a matter on which the right hon. Gentleman had promised Amendments, and they ought to have them on the Paper and avoid the confusion which arose on Clause 7. That was their demand, and he thought it was a very fair and reasonable one.
  MR. ERXEST GRAYsaid that for months past they had heard that one of the main objections to the Bill, in the view of its opponents, was that it did not give popular control over voluntary schools. Here was a Clause under which the Government claimed, and in his judgment rightly claimed, that that control was given.

  123
  The opportunity was open to hon. Members who did not consider that full control was given to put down Amendments making that control clearer, stronger and more emphatic, but, instead of seeking to carry out what they had claimed to be their great desire for months past, there was now a Motion to postpone the consideration of the Clause. He thought that in order to accomplish the object which hon. Members opposite declared to be theirs, and also in order to remove what was evidently the wildest misapprehension as to the interpretation of the Clause itself, they should proceed with its discussion at once. He would remind hon. Members that every penny of money now received out of Government grants by the managers of the voluntary schools would in future be paid to the education authority with perfect freedom to dole it out exactly as they liked. The education authority would receive the whole of the money, and the managers of the schools would be bound to carry out all the instructions of that authority with regard to secular education. There was not a word in the Bill which told the local authority to hand over a single penny to the managers. It was the local authority which would be responsible for the maintenance of the schools, not the managers. There was not a shadow of doubt that if the local authority chose, they might, and no doubt in the great majority of cases they would, as the large School Boards at present did, pay the salaries of the teachers from a central office on the scale adopted by the county. That authority would also, for purposes of economy, equip the schools from one central store, and not allow every set of managers to purchase for themselves. All the money would go into the hands of the central authority, the control would be in the hands of the persons holding the purse; and they would be at liberty to impose whatever directions they pleased Hon. Members opposite objected to the consideration of the Clause on the ground that the speech of the Prime Minister at Manchester was not a correct paraphrase of the Bill. Ho had read that speech with the greatest care, and, in his judgment, it would have been impossible to have given a more accurate paraphrase of the Clause than was given by the Prime
  124
  Minister on that occasion. All who had; studied the Bill would recognise its absolute accuracy. Surely hon. Members I could not now contend that the Government had executed a volte face and were about to introduce a fresh scheme? He hoped, therefore, that not merely for the enlightenment of the Committee, but for the removal of misapprehension in the country, they might be allowed to come to a detailed and careful consideration of: the Clause, which, from first to last, they had claimed did give popular control over every voluntary school.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, but he understood that at Manchester the Prime Minister had used the case of the managers under the London School Board as an illustration of the whole system of management under the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not heard his speech. What he used the illustration of the London School Board for was to show that under the interpretation given to the word "manager" in their statutes manager did not imply control.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that he had read the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at Manchester. The managers under the School Board of London were first of all the servants of a directly elected Board of Education for London.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the question before the Committee is the postponement of the Clause.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he desired to correct a serious misapprehension into which the Prime Minister had fallen in regard to the system of management under the School Board for London.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That willarise when we reach the word "manager." It is not relevant to the discussion now before the Committee.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he thought it was desirable that the clause should be postponed until they got the mater cleared up
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the clause is postponed it will become impossible to clear up
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to point out that they would find plenty of opportunites for discussing the matter, even, if the clause were postponed altogether. What he wished to point out was that the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury at Manchester was not in accordance with the facts. The system of management under the School Board for London was not the system of management under this Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALORE: I never said it was.
  DR. MACNNAMARAsaid that the right hon. Gentleman certainly used the London School Board as an illustration after describing the term "manager "in this Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member really ought to have made himself acquainted with what has passed. The quotation he is about to read has been once, if not twice already, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should inflict it again on the Committee.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to say on behalf of the London School Board that there was really no connection whatever between the system of management proposed in this Bill and the system of management in the London School Board. Was the First Lord prepared to say that the public authority should have the entire appointment of the teachers as the School Board for London had?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether it was in order to discuss a speech he made at Manchester, to put on it an interpretation which he absolutely denied and did not think the words bore, and then to argue upon that as if it were the policy of the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have pointed out to the hon. Member already once or twice that his speech is really not relevant to the question before the Committee. The only question before the Committee is that the Clause be postponed.
  DR. MACNAMARsaid he was anxious for the postponement of the Clause in order that the Prime Minister might make himself more fully acquainted with the real system under the London School Board.
  SIR W. HART DYKEsaid he wished to appeal to the Committee to proceed with the Clause. They were touching on the crux of the big question, and the debate turned on whether the local authority was to be the supreme authority on education or not. He had always assumed that under the Bill the local authority would be absolutely supreme in future in regard to all matters of secular education, and for the

  127
  very substantial reason that they were to be holders of the purse strings. They would hold the money and would distribute it. They would have the power over the schools which the Board of Education at present had, and by which the Board were enabled to with hold grants and to apply a penal remedy where anything was wrong. He assumed that a similar penal remedy would rest in the hands of the local authority in the future, and that where the managers voluntary schools abused their trust the local authority would be sufficiently supreme and would have sufficient power to refuse grants. Surely, therefore, as practical men they should proceed to deal with the Clause line by line, and endeavour where the Clause was weak as regarded that supremacy to strengthen it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he thought they were entitled after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who was such an authority on education, to ask the Prime Minister whether he accepted the interpretation which had just been put upon the Clause. If he did, then it was not Clause 8, and that was a good reason for postponing the Clause until they got hold of some words which expressed, as clearly as the right hon. Gentleman had, the intentions of the Government. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman had not put a proper interpretation on the Clause, that showed that the Clause was not even clear to the supporters of the Government themselves. The right hon. Gentleman either understood the Clause or he did not. If his interpretation were correct, then the Clause ought to be altered. The point before the Committee was that the
  128
  Clause did not carry out the intentions; of the Government as declared by the Prime Minister at Manchester that night or as declared by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and certainly not as declared by the hon. Member for North-West Ham, who said that the managers were to be reduced to mere dummies. Was that the view the voluntary school managers took of their position? He wondered whether that was the interpretation placed on the Clause by the Archbishop of Canterbury. If it were, he could hardly believe that the Church Congress would have passed a strong resolution in favour of a Bill which reduced the managers to the position of dummies in regard to voluntary schools. [An HON. MEMBER: As regards secular education.] Secular education was given by the teachers, and if teachers were appointed by a certain body, the members of that body were something more than dummies. The man who appointed the manager of a works was not a dummy in connection with such works. The Prime Minister charged them with misrepresentation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never charged the hon. Gentleman with misrepresentation, as far as I know.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was glad to hear that. At Manchester the right hon. Gentleman's speech would lead any ordinary average intelligence, like that represented at his meeting, to believe that the position of the managers in regard to the local authority was exactly the position of managers under the London School Board. [HoN. MEMBERS: No, no.] That was his proposi-

  129
  tion, and he would prove it. At Manchester the Prime Minister said—
  "But the London School Board has the control of its schools. In each of these schools—"
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked if the hon. Gentleman would read what led up to that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly.
  "It is only necessary to remind you of the case, for example, of the London School Board. The London School Hoard controls all the rate-supported schools in London, and the rate supported schools in London contain the majority of the children in London, and, as you know, the metropolitan area is the largest area probably which ever has been, which ever could be, placed under the control of one local education authority. But the London School Board has the control of its schools. In every board school under the London School Board there are managers, but they have not got the control, and the theory of our Bill is that the control should be not with the manages, but with the Borough Council or with the County Council as the case may be, and I would venture to urge upon those friends of the Bill—for in this part of my speech I am dealing with the friends of the Bill—I shall have a word to say about its enemies directly—I would say to the friends of the Bill, that if they desire, as the Government most heartily desire, that public control should be made a reality—and it shall be adequate to the amount of support given out of pubic funds—I would earnestly ask them to turn their attention, not to the balance of power among the managers for secular education, but to increasing the authority of the Borough Council or County Council as the case may be."
  What did those words mean?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that what he was trying to show was that the Government had used the word "managers" in the Bill as it was used in the Act of 1S70; the term was used without carrying with it the idea of control. He did not intend to show that they meant that the precise degree of subordination
  130
  of the managers in the voluntary schools should be that of the managers under: the London School Board.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he quite agreed with the interpretation put on the first part, that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to distinguish between management and control. But he quoted the example of the London School Board, and it was obvious what interpretation would be put on the speech by every man of intelligence who listened to it. If any other interpretation was intended, the right hon. Gentleman was quite capable of putting it into clearer and less misleading terms. Did the Prime Minister mean that these managers should be "dummies," as stated by the hon. Member for North West Ham.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he had not the faintest recollection of using the word "dummies."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought the substance of the hon. Member's remarks was that the managers would have no real control over the schools.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: As regards secular instruction.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGEasked whether the hon. Member included in "secular instruction" the appointment of teachers, if not, what did it all mean? The Government ought really to give the Committee some clear idea of what they intended.
  MR. MCKENNAASKED whether the First Lord of the Treasury accepted

  131
  the interpretation of Clause 8 as prohibiting school managers from spending money except that provided by endowment or voluntary subscription unless the expenditure were authorised by the local authority.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: Certainly.
  MR. MCKENNA: But that was not the view taken at the Church Congress,
  when the Bishop of Coventry suggested certain modifications of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the time to raise that point would be when the Clause was reached. The hon. Member was not entitled to take the cream off all the Amendments.
  (11.43.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 227. (Division List No. 390.)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

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

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Balfour, Kenneth K. (Christch.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Flower, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Forster, Henry William

  M Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S. W

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

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bignold, Arthur

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bigwood, James

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bill, Charles

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

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Bond, Edward

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morgan, David J. (W'lthamst'w

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry SE dm'nd)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray, C.

  Brown, AlexanderH. (Shropsh.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsburys

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Gretton, John

  Carew, James Laurence

  Groves, James Grimble

  Carlile, William Walter

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pease, Herbt. Pike(Darlington

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rdG (Midd'x

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc 'h

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Percy, Earl

  Chapman, Edward

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Pryce-Jones Lt.-Col. Edward

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pym, C. Guy

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Randles, John S.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cubitt, hon. Henry

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hornby, Sir Willam Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Renwick, George

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Ridley, Hon. M.W(Stalybridge

  Denny, Colonel

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Keswick, William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rutherford, John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm 'th

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Lawson, John Grant

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehonse)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants., Fareham

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Faber, George Denison (York

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, HC(N'rth'mb. Tyneside

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

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

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  134

  135

  Stroyan, John

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

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

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

  Younger, William

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Whitemore, Charles Algernon

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H(Sheffield

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  LONDON ELECTIONS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  POLICE EXPENSES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  HOSPITALS (CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL. [LORDS].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  NAVAL PRIZE BILL [LORDS].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  DOGS' REGULATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  In pursuance of the Order of the House this day, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the following Papers having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. CXI. viz.—
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS—I. ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2875. West Africa (Liberia). (August 13).
  No. 2876. France (French Guiana). (August 13.)
  No. 2877. France (Society Islands). (August 13.)
  No. 2878. Japan (Shimonoski and Maji). (August 14.)
  No. 2879. Sweden (Gothenburg). August 16.)
  No. 2880 Portugal (Quilimane). August 16.)
  No. 2881 France (Algeria). (August 16.)
  No. 2882. Finances of Netherlands. (August 19.)
  No. 2883. Netherlands (Dutch Guinea). (Augsut 21.)
  No. 2884. Turkey (Baghdad). (August 21.)
  No. 2885. Chile. (August 26.)
  No. 2886. Paraguay. (August 26.)
  No. 2887. Italy (Sicily). (August 27.)
  No. 2888. Brazil (Bahia and Sergipe). (August 27.)
  2889. United States (Philippine Islands). (August 28).
  No. 2890. Portugal (Oporto). (August 28.)
  No. 2891. France (New Caledonia). (August 28.)
  No. 2892. Germany (Dantzig). (August 29.)
  No. 2893. Zanzibar. (September 8.)
  No. 2894. United States. (September 8.)
  No. 2895. Austria-Hungary (Fiume). (September 8.)
  No. 2896. Italy (Rome and District). (September 10.)
  No. 2897. Russia (Finland). (September 10.)
  No. 2898. Siam (Bangkok). (September 10.)
  No. 2899. Japan (Nagasaki). (September 10.)
  No. 2900. Japan (Hakodate). September 10.)
  No. 2901. Belgium. (September 16.)
  No. 2902. Netherlands (Curacoa and Dependencies). (September 20.)
  No. 2903. Africa (East Africa Protectorate). (September 25.)
  No. 2904. Russia (Odessa). (September 25).
  No. 2905. China (Kiungchow). (October 3).
  No. 2906. China (Ichang). (October 11.)

  II. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 580. United States: Coal Industry of the Consular District of Chicago. (September 20.)
  No. 581. United States: Report on; the Cattle and Meat Trade. (October 10.)
  No. 582. France: Chemical and Metal Industries of Lyons District. (October 10).
  No. 583. United States: Report on the Iron Ore Industry. (October 11).

  COLONIES—I. ANNUAL REPORTS.
  No. 359. Gibraltar, 1901. (August 13.)
  No. 360. Straits Settlements, 1901. (September 2.)
  No. 361. Sierra Leone, 1901. (September 5.)
  No. 362. British Honduras, 1901. (September 8.)
  No. 363. Turks and Caicos Islands, 1901. (September 8.)
  No. 364. Seychelles, 1901. (September 26.)
  No. 365. Bahamas, 1901; with Report on Salt Industry of Inagua. (September 27.)
  No. 366. Fiji, 1901. (October 3.)
  No. 367. Ceylon, 1901. (October 10.)
  No. 368. Barbados, 1901. (October 14.)

  II MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS.
  No. 20. Wei-Hai-Wei. (September 2.)
  No. 21. Dominica. (October 10.)

  PATRIOTIC FUND.
  Fortieth Report of the Royal Commissioners. (August 14.)
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Abstracts showing the acreage under crops and the number of live stock in each county and province, 1901–1902. (August 18.)
  LUNACY (IRELAND).
  Fifty-first Report with appendices of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland, for the year 1901. (August 18.)
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the sea and inland fisheries of Ireland, for the year 1901. Part I. General Report. (August 18.)

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  1. (Judicial Rents)—Return for the month of December, 1901. (August 20.)
  2. (Proceedings)—Return for the months of April, May, and June, 1902. (August 22.)
  Return for the month of July, 1902, (September 23.)

  SALMON FISHERIES (ROYAL COMMISSION ON SALMON FISHERIES).
  Report of the Commissioners on Salmon Fisheries—

  Part II. Minutes of evidence and indices. (August 22.)

  Part III. Appendix (Section I. and II.). (September 1.)

  CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES (1901).
  Area, houses, and population: population classified by ages, condition as to marriage, occupations, birthplaces and infirmities—

  1. County of Devon. (August 26.)

  2. County of Hants (Southampton). (August 26.)

  3. County of Surrey. (August 26.)

  4. County of Gloucester. (September 10.)

  5. County of Sussex. (September 10.)

  6. County of Worcester. (September 20.)

  7. County of Northumberland. (September 20.)

  8. County of Nottingham. (September 20.)

  9. County of Norfolk. (October 13.)

  10. County of Lincoln. (October 13.)

  11. County of Derby. (October 13.)

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  The Twentieth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, for the year 1901. Part III. Scientific Investigation. (August 26.)

  EXPLOSIVES.
  1. Accident at Messrs. Pain, and Sons Factory at Mitcham, Surrey, Report to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain A. P. H. Desborough, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an accident which occurred in the building for non-explosive ingredients at the factory of Messrs. James Pain and Sons at Mitcham, Surrey, on the th of June, 1902. (August 27.)

  2. Explosion of Detonators at the Patent Electric Shot Firing Company's Factory near Chorley, Lancashire). Report to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Major A. O. Key, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an accident which occurred at the factory of the Patent Electric Shot Firing Company, near Chorley, Lancashire, on the l9th June, 1902. (September 16.)

  BANKING, RAILWAY, AND SHIPPING STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report for the year 1902. (August 29.)
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALKS).
  Report of the Commissioners of Prisons and the Directors of Convict Prisons, with appendices, for the year ended 31st March, 1902. (August 29.)

  ARMY.
  1. Report on trials of self-propelled lorries for military purposes, at Aldershot from 4th to 19th December, 1901. (August 29.)
  2. Special Pensions—Return for the year ended 31st March, 1902, of pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and the Army Pay Warrant, (September 3.)
  3. Report on the discipline and management of military prisons. (September 20.)
  4. Report of the Court of Enquiry on the administration of the Army Re-mount Department. (October 3.)
  5. War in South Africa—Return of Military Forces in South Africa, 1899–1902; strength of garrison on 1st August, 1899; re-inforcements and casualties, etc., between 1st August 1899 and 31st May, 1902; continuation of [Cd. 89.] (August 29.)

  INDIA.
  1. Statistical Abstract relating to British India from 1891–1892 to 1901: Thirty-sixth Number. (September 3).
  2. Review of the Trade of India in 1900–1901. (Septembers 5.)

  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE (INDIAN SECTION).
  Annual Report for the year 1901–1902. (September 3).
  WEST INDIES.
  Correspondence relating to the volcanic eruptions in St. Vincent and Martinique in May. 1902; with map and appendix. (September 4).
  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1898.
  Return showing the total payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, for the financial year 1901–1902. (September 4.)
  Reports respecting Peterhead Harbour Works (in continuation of [Cd. 813.]). (September 5.)
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Papers relating to an interview between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and Generals Botha, De Wet, and De La Rey, on 5th September, 1902, (September 8.)

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Lists of Schools under the administration of the Board, 1901–1902.
  Report for the year 1901 on the Museums, Colleges, and Institutions under the administration of the Board.
  Grants paid to School Boards under Section 97, Elementary Education Act, 1870.
  School Board Accounts.
  List of Loans.
  Report of the Board for the year 1901–1902. (September 11.)

  TREATY SERIES, No. 12. (1902.)
  Convention regulating the telephone service between Great Britain and France; signed at Paris, 29th July, 1902. (September 13.)
  QUEENSLAND.
  Papers relating to the Pacific Island Labourers Act (1901) of the Commonwealth of Australia. (September 20.)
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Annual Report for the year 1901. (September 22).
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops, for the year 1901. Part II. Tables. (September 27).
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  Reports on the Federated Malay States for 1901. (October 3).
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
  Forty-fifth Report, for the year 1901, of the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools. Part II. General Report and Appendices III. to XI. (October 3).
  VENTILATION OF FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  First Report, with Appendices, of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into the ventilation of factories and workshops. (October 13).

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Return, in pursuance of Section 4 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1899, of railway servants of certain classes who were on one or more occasions during the month of December, 1901, on duty on the railways of the United Kingdom for more than twelve hours at a time, or who after being on duty more than twelve hours were allowed to resume work with less than nine hours' rest. (October 14).
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  TPEATY SERIES, No. 13 (1902).
  Declaration amending Article XI of the Treaty between the United Kingdom and Austria-Hungary of 3rd December 1873, for the mutual surrender of
  8
  fugitive criminals; signed at London, 26th June, 1901 (Ratifications exchanged at London, 25th Juno, (1902).

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the six months ending June, 1902, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871; together with reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Appendix, Section III., to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1901.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  Fortieth Report of the Inspector, for the year 1901.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COMPANIES (WINDING UP) ACT, 1890.
  General rule, dated 14th August, 1902.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  I. Treasury Minutes, dated 14th August and 2nd September, 1902. declaring that, for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of (a.) Inspector of Fisheries (Board of Trade), and (b.) such Veterinary Inspectors and Assistant Veterinary Inspectors (Board of Agriculture) at ports as give their whole time to their official duties, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required.
  II. Treasury Minutes, dated—

  1. 3rd September, 1902, declaring that John Sands, Lad, Royal Laboratory, War Office;

  2. 1st October, 1902, declaring that Robert Henry, Engineer. Revenue Cruiser "Vigilant," Customs;

  were appointed without civil service certificates through inadvertence on the part of the heads of their department.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account of the receipts and expenditure of the Paymaster General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the funds of Suitors of the Court, in the year ended 28th February, 1902: Also, account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period, in respect of funds held by them on be-half of the Supreme Court of Judicature, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (TREASURY).
  Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents which have been removed from the Solicitor's Department of the Treasury to the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein.
  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  Seventeen proclamations, dated 1st September. 1902, applying certain of the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1S87, to the counties, county boroughs, and rural avid urban districts therein respectively mentioned.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Additional Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, dated 3rd September, 1902.
  PAWNBROKERS' RETURNS (IRELAND).
  Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin, for the year ended 31st December, 1901.
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1868.
  Rules made by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, pursuant to the provisions of the Act for regulating the execution of capital sentences in Ireland.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877, AND SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND ACTS, 1885 to l889.
  Order by the Secretary for Scotland closing the existing Prison of Inverness.

  INDIA.
  I. Loans raised in England—Return of all loans raised in England under the
  10
  provisions of any Acts of Parliament chargeable on the revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the half year ended on the 30th September, 1902, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, etc.
  II. Examinations—Regulations for examinations for the Civil Service of India.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Special Exemption: Night Work (Lead and Zinc Mines)—Order, dated 22nd August, 1902, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 54 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending the special exception under that section to concentration works at lead and zinc mines, so far as regards young persons of the age of 16 years and upwards.
  Dangerous and Unhealthy Industries—Regulations, dated 12th August, 1902, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 79 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, for the manufacture of felt hats where any inflammable solvent is used.

  POLLING DISTRICTS.
  Orders made by the County Councils of—

  I. The county of Warwick.

  II. The county of Northumberland; altering certain polling districts in the said counties.

  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR HOARD.
  Accounts for the year ending 1st July. 1902: delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  EARL SPENCER: Perhaps the noble Duke will inform the House what he proposes should be done with regard to the sittings of this House during this adjourned Session of Parliament?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): Your lordships are aware that there are no Orders or notices on the Paper today,

  11
  and so far as I can learn there is no probability of there being any business for this House to consider immediately. Probably it will therefore be convenient that we should adjourn for a short time, and I would suggest that we should adjourn for a little more than a fortnight, until Monday, November 3.
  EARL SPENCER: So far as I have heard from friends of mine, and as far as I feel myself on the subject, I should certainly be quite ready to agree to the proposal the noble Duke has made. May I refer to another matter? There was a Select Committee appointed just before the adjournment, and I had the honour to be selected as Chairman at the only meeting which took place—I refer to the Light Load Line Committee. Since then the representative of the Government on the Committee has become Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and I hardly think that my noble friend will have such anxiety to take part in the business of the House and this Committee that he will come over from Ireland for the Purpose. That may be a reason for reconsidering the constitution of the Committee. I do not believe it is usual or customary for Select Committees to sit when the House meets as it now does—I think it would be very inconvenient to noble Lords who are on this Committee that it should sit when the House will be only sitting on occasional days. I do not know whether the noble Duke will have any objection to it, but I should certainly propose that the sittings of this Committee should be postponed until the ordinary meeting of Parliament next year.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The reason given by my noble friend with reference to the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland will no doubt render it necessary to make a fresh appointment to this Committee. I think it would certainly be most highly inconvenient that noble Lords should be expected to attend the sittings of a Committee when the House is not regularly sitting; and unless the business before a Committee is of so urgent a character as not to permit of postponement, I think the preferable course would be that its sittings should be adjourned to the regular Session. I think this
  12
  observation entirely applies to the Committee referred to, and I suggest therefore that the proceedings should be adjourned until the ordinary Session.
  House adjourned at twenty-five before Five o'clock, to Monday, the 3rd of November next, a quarter past Four o'clock.