Sitting of 20 October 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.
MR. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the Imprisonment of a Member—
Sligo,
17th Oct., 1902.
Sir,—I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, M.P. for North Leitrim, was yesterday convicted of conspiracy and intimidation and sentenced by me and Mr. Harrell, R.M., to a term of two calendar months imprisonment in Sligo Gaol with hard labour. Against this conviction Mr. M'Hugh has appealed to the nest Quarter Sessions here, which begin on 25th inst.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
ROBERT L. BROWN, R.M.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: In this case the conviction took place on Thursday or Friday. Now, Sir, is it not within your knowledge that Mr. M'Hugh has has appealed and is out of custody? I again ask under what circumstances the fact of the arrest of several other hon. Gentlemen who have been imprisoned has not in the same way been communicated to you.
MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest to the hon. Member that, as there are Questions on the Paper intended to elicit information on this point, he would do well to defer raising the question until they have been answered.
MR. DELANY: I was in the Court at Birr on September 23, when two hon. Members were sentenced to imprisonment by two Removable Magistrates, and I desire to ask the Speaker whether he has received any communication in respect of the two hon. Members.
MR SPEAKER: I have received an intimation in regard to the hon. Member for the Birr Division, and also as to another hon. Member whose name I cannot, at the moment, remember.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY (NEW LINKS, ETC.) BILL [LORDS].
  (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED.)—Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (CONSOLLDATED) BILL [LORD].
  (KINGS CONSENT SIGNIFIED.) —Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  RAILWAY BILLS.
  Ordered, That the Committee on Group 12 of Railway Bills be revived, and that they have leave to sit and proceed with the remaining Bills in the Group, tomorrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock. (The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  LANARKSHIRE (MIDDLE WARD DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  DUMBARTON CORPORATION (FURTHER POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER,
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Marlow Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Marlow Water," presented.
  Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour).
  Bill accordingly read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 297].

PETITIONS.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for the abolition of restrictions: From Rugby; Maidenhead; Canonby; Earley; Cargrave; Barnoldswick; Cowes; Worcester; Summerseat; Denton; Marylebone; Irvine; Hyde; Hollingworth; Chelmsford; Alltwen; Exeter; Brentwood; Holyhead; Saffron Walden; Aberdare; Bradford; Cathcart; Pollokshaws; Cambridge; West Stanley; Consett; Shotley Bridge; Annfield Plain; Farnworth; Glasgow; Fleetwood; Hulme; Fylde; Walmer; Blackpool; Blaina; Lees; Guiseley: Tunbridge; Bingley; Tipton; Leith.; and Ripley; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Pendleton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Maidenhead; Speenhamland; Cowes; Denton; Canonby; Cargrave; Colne; Barnoldswick; Summerseat; Marylebone; Irvine; Hollingworth; Hyde; Worcester; Rugby; Alltwen and Pontardawe; Holyhead; Saffron Walden; Aberdare; Bradford; Cambridge; West Stanley; Consett; Shotley Bridge; Annfield Plain; Farnworth and Kearsley; Glasgow; Fleetwood; Fylde; Walmer Bridge; Blackpool; Lees and Cross Roads; Blaina; Guiseley; Tunbridge Wells: Tipton; Leith; Exeter; Ripley; Chelmsford; Hulme; and Brentwood; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PARISH COUNCIL LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petitions for legislation: From Rugby; Maidenhead; Cowes; Summerseat; Denton; Marylebone; Canonley; Gargrave; Earley; Barnoldswick; Irvine; Hyde; Hollingworth; Worcester; Alltwen; Farnworth; Holyhead; Saffron Walden; Aberdare; Lees; Hume; Exeter; Bradford; Pollokshaws; Cathcart; Cambridge; West Stanley; Consett; Shotley Bridge; Annfield Plain; Glasgow; Fleetwood; Fylde; Walmer; Blackpool; Blaina; Guiseley; Tunbridge Wells; Tipton; Leith; Brentwood; Bingley; Ripley; and Chelmsford; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Heywood, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copy presented, of Two Orders dated the 1st September, 1902, entitled respectively, the Bristol (Cumberland Tidal Basin) Foreign Animals Wharf Revocation Order of 1902, and the Bristol (Cumberland Basin) Foreign Animals Wharf Order of 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHINA (No. 2, 1902).
  Copy presented, of Despatch from His Majesty's Special Commissioner enclosing the Treaty between Great Britain and China, signed at Shanghai 5th September, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

    India—Public Sale of Confidential Government Documents.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in a catalogue

    205
    recently issued by a London bookseller a number of papers issued by the Indian Government and marked confidential, among them being Routes in Central Asia, compiled under the orders of Lord Roberts, in six volumes, and other volumes compiled in the Intelligence Branch of the Quartermaster General's Department, wore offered for sale; and whether steps will be, or have been, taken to prevent the recurrence of a public sale of Indian Government confidential reports; and if the offence is not punishable under existing Acts, whether the necessary powers will be sought for by fresh legislation.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton..) My attention was drawn to the catalogue in question, and steps were taken to prevent such of the books as were still of a confidential nature from passing into improper hands. The books in question appear to have passed out of official custody many years ago. During more recent years stricter regulations have been in force to prevent Indian Government reports of a confidential character getting into the market. I am advised that, under certain circumstances, if an officer of Government offered such books for sale, it might be possible to charge him with breach of trust under The Official Secrets Act, 1889, and that the advertisement and sale of such books might, in certain circumstances, be restrained by injunction. I am not aware that any fresh legislation on this subject is proposed in this country.

    Afghanistan—Purchase of Arms, etc., in Germany.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether a consignment of arms purchased in Germany by the Ameer's agent, consisting of a battery of twelve quick-firing mountain guns, two howitzers, eighteen field pieces, and over 850 cases of ammunition and other war material, has been landed at Kurrachee ex: the Hansa liner "Wartburg" and forwarded to Peshawur en route for Cabul; and whether it is consistent with the relations of the Afghan and British Governments that a portion of the British subsidy should be employed in purchasing arms in Germany and conveying them to their destination across British territory.
    206
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) It is the case that the late Amir of Afghanistan purchased in Germany certain guns and munitions of. war. This transaction is not inconsistent with the Agreement entered into by the late Amir and His Majesty's Government.

    Corn, Sugar, and Coal Export Duties.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount which has been received for import duties on corn and sugar, and for export duties on coal during the three quarters of the present financial year which expired on the 30th September last.
    (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) One-half only of the financial year had expired on the 30th September, and the amounts collected during that period were as follows:—

    Corn, etc.

    £1,183,337

    Sugar

    1,991,852

    Coal

    963,365

    Soldier Convicts in Civil Prisons.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will state the number of soldiers now undergoing punishment in the local and convict prisons of the United Kingdom.
    (Answered by Mr. Akers-Douglas.) The number is 450 (431 in local and 19 in convict prisons.)

    Lewes Naval Prison,
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, having regard to the fact that the prison now used as a naval prison at Lewes was condemned as unfit for a local or convict prison, he will state the grounds upon which this prison is used for men in His Majesty's Navy who have been sentenced for disciplinary offences.
    (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I am not aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member alludes in the first part of his Question, but they must have occurred many years ago, as Lewes has been used as a naval prison for forty years. It was selected

    207
    for the purpose after consultation with the Home Office, and, with the additions and alterations made from time to time in the accommodation, it has always been found suitable. The reports of the visitors, and the results of the periodical inspections by the Commander in Chief, Portsmouth, and the Medical Director General of the Navy, are quite satisfactory, and the health of the prisoners has always been very good.

    Kish Lightship—Constitution of Irish Lights Board.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that sometime since the mail steamer "Leinster" ran down the Kish Lightship; and, seeing that it is alleged that the system of warning vessels from the lightship is defective, he can state if any steps are being taken to render it effective; and if the Government have any intention of introducing a Bill to amend the system under which the Irish Lights Board are nominated.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Shortly after the occurrence of the casualty at Kish Bank, the Board of Trade asked the Commissioners of Irish Lights to consider the possibility of improving the system of warning vessels from the lightship, and have been assured that the matter will receive every attention. The reply to the concluding part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

    Foreshore Rights, Stoney Estate, Mallaranny, Mayo.
    DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the owner of Rostock Castle, county Mayo, is prosecuting migratory labourers for gathering seaweed on the foreshore of the Stoney Estate, near Mallaranny, county Mayo, and that this estate has been sold by the owner to the Congested Districts Board, and that, during the negotiations for purchase, the Congested Districts Board refused to entertain his title to the foreshore, he being unable to produce any title: And, seeing that these rights belong to the Crown, will he, in order to protect these people who are harvesting in England and Scotland at
    208
    present, see that the Crown will be represented at the trial at the next Quarter Sessions in Castlebar, and that its rights are finally asserted.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I understand that the statements in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question are generally correct. The Board of Trade will be represented at the trial at Castlebar on the 27th instant.

    Russia and Afghanistan—Recent Diplomatic Communications.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government has any information, either through its diplomatic agents in Russia, or through the agents of the Government of India, or otherwise, of any intention or endeavours on the part of the Russian Government to establish diplomatic or commercial relations with Afghanistan, or to obtain Russian influence in that country; whether he can give the Mouse an assurance that no demands to this effect, either in this country, in India, or in Afghanistan, have been brought to the knowledge of the British or Indian Governments, whether confidentially or otherwise; and whether it continues to be an understanding between the Russian and British Governments that Afghanistan is to remain outside the sphere of Russian influence.
    (Answered by Viscount Cranhorne.) His Majesty's Government have received a communication from the Russian Government proposing that direct relations should be established between Russia and Afghanistan with regard to frontier matters. It was stated that these relations would have no political character, as the Russian Government maintained their former engagements, and continued to consider Afghanistan as being outside the sphere of Russian influence. His Majesty's Government, having regard to the understanding by which Afghanistan is outside the sphere of Russian influence, have replied that it would be impossible for them to take into consideration any change in existing arrangements, or to frame proposals to be brought before the Ameer without some more precise explanation in regard

    209
    to the method which the Russian Government would desire to see adopted for the exchange of such communications between the frontier officials, the limitations to be placed on them, and the means of insuring that those limitations would be observed. To this communication no answer has yet been received.

    Conduct of Police at Limerick.
    MR. JOYCE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that notices, calling a meeting of the citizens of Limerick on the 8th of September last, to welcome Mr. P. J. Linnane, J.P., and Mr. O'Sulivan on their release from Limerick Jail, after serving a term of three months imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, were torn down and defaced by the police; and will he state by whose authority did the police act.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The notices were removed by the police in the belief that they were of an illegal character. The police acted in error, and were so informed. Full instructions on the point have since been issued to the force.

    Liscannor Harbour, Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state when the provisions of the Marine Works (Ireland) Bill, in respect to Liscannor Harbour, county Clare, are likely to be carried out.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) At an early date. It is necessary, as the hon. Member is aware, to come to an understanding with the County Council, and also with persons pecuniarily interested, who may reasonably be asked to contribute in money or otherwise. In the case of Liscannor it is also necessary to confer with the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.

    Proclamation of Queen's County— Crime Statistics.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, seeing that the last Quarterly Return of
    210
    Agrarian Outrages in Ireland shows that no offence was committed in Queen's County during the three months preceding the 30th June last, that the Return for the quarter ending 31st March, 1902, shows a similar blank, and that the Chairman of the County Council and other local magistrates have protested against the proclamation of the county under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, he proposes to recommend the withdrawal of the proclamation of the county.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There have been five agrarian outrages in the Queen's County since the 30th June, namely, two cases of injury to cattle and one of injury to property in July, one injury to property in August, and a threatening notice in October. It is not at present proposed to withdraw the proclamation.

    Staigue Fort, Castle Cove, Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the attention of the Board of Works or other public Department has been called to the condition of Staigue Fort, one of the stone forts in Ireland, which is situate near Castle Cove, county Kerry; and whether the necessary steps will be taken, by the erection of a door, or otherwise, to prevent the stones being dislodged by cattle.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) This fort was recently placed in the custody of the Board of Public Works by the owner. The Board is aware of its condition, and has given directions for the erection of a gate to prevent damage to the structure by cattle.

    Closing of Irish County Prisons.
    MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the number of prisons in Ireland, originally classed as county prisons, which were closed last December on the order of the General Prisons Board; and whether he can say in what, districts or localities these prisons were situated.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There were five such prisons, situated at Carrick-on-Shannon, Enniskillen, Mullingar, Omagh, and Wicklow.

    Irish Local Government Board—Mr. T. P. Nolan.
    MR. FLYNN: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can say what position is occupied by Thomas Patrick Nolan in the employment of the Local Government Board, and what are his duties; whether he is required under the conditions of service to give his entire time to the duties of the office; and, is it in accordance with the regulations of the Board that Mr. Nolan should occupy a position on a local paper, and also act as handwriting expert at trials in different parts of Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham) Mr. Nolan is employed as a clerk in the department of the Local Government Board, and performs such clerical duties as may be assigned to him by the Board. The only regulation bearing on the subject of his employment is that contained in Orders in Council, dated 21st March 1890, and 15th August 1890, and is as follows:—
    No officer shall be allowed to accept any part in the management of any society, or any trading, commercial, or financial company, of whatever description, which would require the attendance of such officer at any time between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
    I am not aware whether he is in any way connected with any newspaper. His attendance at courts of justice as a handwriting expert was only permitted occasionally when it did not interfere with the discharge of his official duties.

    Irish Agriculture—Basic Slag.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that a quantity of basic slag has recently been imported into Ireland for use as a fertilizer, which, though represented as being of the standard quality, is so inferior as to be little better than ground brick-dust; whether he is aware that the wholesale merchant who sold this slag to buyers in Ireland has instituted a prosecution against the foreign exporter; will he state what steps are being taken by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland to put in force the provisions of the Fertilizer and Feeding Stuffs Act, and to ensure that this article Is not being supplied to the farmers of
    212
    Ireland as genuine 38–45 per cent, quality, which the brand upon the bags purports it to be.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It has been represented to the Department that a quantity of inferior basic slag has recently been imported into Ireland, and the attention of the Department has been drawn to a newspaper report of the prosecution referred to in the Question. The Department is inquiring into the matter with a view to such further action being taken as may be practicable in the circumstances.

    Admission to Theatres of Soldiers in Uniform.
    MAJOR RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been directed to the case of a private in the Foot Guards having been refused admission to a London theatre on account of his uniform, and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter with reference to opposing the licence or otherwise.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have had private information of this occurrence, but have not received a report from any of the regiments in London, as the case has not been identified. I understand the managers of the theatre in question maintain that the exclusion was only from a part of the theatre reserved for those in evening dress. Uniform is an equivalent of every dress, and if this principle is not recognised by theatrical managers I shall take such legal steps as I may be advised to secure soldiers against a recurrence of such exclusion.

    Grievances of Discharged Reservists.
    SIR CHARLES M'LAREN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, if his attention has been called to the public meeting in London of discharged Reservists, and to the grievances of which they complain; and will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick). My attention has been drawn to the public meeting referred to by the hon. Member. The regulations for the prompt payment of all claims are most explicit, and some weeks ago orders were issued that a return should be made from each

    213
    district of any claim a month overdue. Inquiries have been promptly made into all individual cases of grievances which have reached me. A large number have been found to be unfounded, but in cases where delay has unavoidably occurred prompt action has been taken. As regards employment, the War Office have taken the only action in their power by laying it open to all men who cannot find employment to return to the colours for short periods. I need hardly add how earnestly I hope that all employers will second our endeavours by giving the preference to Reservists in regard to any places they have open.

    Continental Military Long-Distance Rides —Participation of British. Officers.
    MR. JACOBY: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the fact that a lieutenant of the Royal Field Artillery took part in the military ride from Brussels to Ostend, a distance of upwards of eighty miles, on27th August, on which occasion it is stated that his horse was so exhausted that it was necessary to destroy it; whether this officer was authorised by his superiors to become a competitor on this occasion; whether any notice has been taken of this officer's action; and whether steps have been, or will be, taken to prevent British officers from taking part in such competitions in future.
    MR. NORMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will say whether officers are required to ask permission before engaging in an international sporting contest; whether a lieutenant of the Royal Field Artillery asked permission to take part in the ride from Brussels to Ostend; whether the participation of a British officer in such a performance has the sanction of the Commander-in-Chief; and whether any communication has been addressed to this officer on the subject.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) A lieutenant of the Royal Field Artillery did take part in this ride, after duly obtaining leave to travel abroad for this purpose. Instructions have since been issued by the Commander-in-Chief to General Officers Commanding that he was of opinion that British officers should
    214
    not take part in these competitions, as he failed to see that any good result could ensue from them.

    Remounts—Hungarian Purchases.
    MR. NORMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that after the first purchase of Hungarian horses, General Truman was visited by a Hungarian gentleman well qualified to give advice upon the subject, and advised to purchase from a different source, and that the same gentleman subsequently tendered similar advice at personal interviews to Lord Roberts and the Quartermaster General, by which latter official it was reported to the Secretary of State for War; and will he say why this advice was ignored.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Will the honourable Member kindly give me the name of the Hungarian gentleman, and the dates of his interviews with the officers mentioned? I have received such a large number of suggestions that it is necessary to obtain the information I now ask from the hon. Member to trace the specific case to which he refers.

    Remissions of Sentences for Military Offences.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will state what steps are being taken to reconsider the sentences of soldiers undergoing imprisonment in military prisons for military offences, having regard to the fact that a recent visit of the Commander in Chief to Dover Military Prison brought about the liberation of soldiers undergoing sentences in that prison.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The sentences of all military prisoners sent home from South Africa have been carefully reviewed from time to time, and considerable remissions granted in eases where they could be made with a due regard to the interests of discipline. In particular all sentences of penal servitude have been investigated, and in every case where possible have been commuted to a term of imprisonment so as to avoid the committal of the prisoners to civil prisons. Instructions were recently issued to General Officers Commanding, directing them to review the cases of all military prisoners from South Africa in the military prisons in their command, and to

    215
    grant such remissions as they might consider desirable. As regards other military prisoners the remission of sentences is left to the discretion of confirming officers. If any sentence seems to the Judge Advocate General to be unnecessarily severe he brings the case to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief.

    South Africa—Remount Farms—Court martial on Captain Gordon Turner.
    COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that at the court-martial on Captain Gordon Turner, assembled at Queenstown, South Africa, 7th April 1902, it was shown in evidence that remount farms at Clark's Siding, Cape Colony, had been leased to Government as containing 14,000 acres at a monthly rent of £10 per 1,000 acres, whereas the lessor only possessed 9,030 acres, thereby incurring a loss to the public of £50 per month; and whether he is aware that during those leases the lessor sold to Government for some time 600,000 lbs. of green forage daily, at £40 a day, grown on the leased farms; whether he will communicate to Parliament full particulars of these transactions, and the action taken by the military authorities to end this loss to the public and punish those responsible.
    COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Secresary of State for War, if he can say by whom the remount farms at Clark's Siding were inspected previous to April, 1902; and whether the inspecting officer reported the loss Government was incurring to the Officer Commanding Eastern District, Cape Colony.
    COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the General Officer Commanding Eastern District, Capo Colony, by sanctioning the leases of the remount farms at Clark's Siding, made himself responsible that the public interest was duly considered and I safe-guarded in them.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The points raised in the three Questions on this subject require very careful consideration, and it has been necessary to refer the matters to the authorities in South Africa, the information at my disposal being incomplete. I am afraid, therefore, I shall not be able to give any reply for some time.

    Motor Car Regulations.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the reports, of the Chief Constables of Surrey and other counties as to the danger caused by the excessive speed at which motor cars are driven. And, whether he will obtain facilities for the early consideration of the Bill promoted by the Automobile Club and introduced by the hon. Member for the New Forest Division of Hants, providing for the identification of motor cars by a conspicuous number, and for the licensing of motor drivers, or adopt other measures for the safety of the public.
    (Answered by Mr. Waller Long.) I have seen a recent report of the Chief Constable of Surrey, and I am aware that complaints frequently have been made as to the danger caused by the excessive speed of motor cars. The latter part of the Question is really one for my right hon. friend the head of the Government, but I am afraid there is no probability that the Bill referred to could be proceeded with during the present Session.

    Fiji—Proposed Federation with New Zealand.
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that a short time ago a petition was presented to His Majesty the King, signed by several thousand Fijians, asking that their islands may be federated with New Zealand, if he will say what reply has been given to the petition; and will he lay the petition and reply on the Table of the House.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) No such petition has reached me.

    Opium Importation into Ceylon.
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that the importation of opium into Ceylon last year was 21,005 lbs., in 1895 12,827 lbs., in 1880 10,116 lbs., while in 1870 it was only 2,499 lbs., thus increasing over eight-fold in thirty years; and whether he will order an inquiry into the causes of this increase, with a view to its abatement.

    217
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The figures quoted appear to be correct, except for the year 1870, when the imports amounted to 12,449 lbs., and not 2.499 lbs. I will ask the Governor of Ceylon to make inquiry into the causes of any increase.

    South Africa—War Contribution from the New Colonies.
    MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether His Majesty's Government have settled upon any specific sum as the amount of the indebtedness of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I presume that the hon. Member refers to the contribution in aid of the cost of the war. If so, the answer is that no specific amount has yet been fixed by His Majesty's Government.

    War Taxation of the Transvaal.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether it is intended that Transvaal mines, already existing and still to be opened up, shall be taxed on the same basis and be equally subject to the 10 per cent, tax on profits; whether it is intended to increase the tax on profits beyond the 10 per cent, rate now in force; whether the profits of this tax will be devoted to the ordinary expenditure of the colony, or partially or entirely devoted to meet the service of any loan issued in respect of the cost of the war; and whether he is in a position to in dicate the course to be followed in regard to making the colony responsible for the cost of the war.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I regret that I am not at present prepared to add anything to the statement made in this House on the 29th July, in which I laid down the general principles on which His Majesty's Government would proceed. †
    MR. DALZIEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is yet in a position to give any indication as to the date
    †see preceding volume, page 42,
    218
    when he will be able to make an announcement in reference to the amount of the war expenditure which the Transvaal is to be called upon to bear.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    Gibraltar Dock Labourers' Strike —Military and Police Assistance to Employers.
    MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that vessels trading in the interest of private owners have been unloaded at Government wharves in Gibraltar during the recent labour dispute there; that soldiers and police have, by the orders of the Governor, been employed in the unloading of such ships; and will he say if the employment of soldiers in such a manner is consistent with the regulations of the service, and has the approval of His Majesty's Government; and whether he is aware that Government vessels have been used to convey Moorish and other labourers to Gibraltar to replace the men locked out by the dock companies.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) No vessels were unloaded at the Government Wharves at Gibraltar during the recent labour disputes, nor were soldiers or police employed in connection with the unloading of vessels, except in eases where Government stores, or stores intended for important public works, had to be landed. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the action of the Governor in this matter did not go beyond what was required for the protection of Government interests. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

    Sierra Leone Government Steam Launch.
    MR. MOON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether a yacht or steam launch was purchased by or for the Sierra Leone Government; and, if so, at what price, and for what object, and at what date.
    (Answered by Mr Secretary Chamberlain.) A steam launch was constructed for the Sierra Leone Government by Messrs. J. S. White and Company, of Cowes, at a

    219
    cost of £4,805. The launch is required for the general services of the colony in the place of the old colonial steamer, which has been condemned as unfit for further use, and it arrived in the colony on the 21st of March. The cost mentioned above is exclusive of the cost of the armament (one Hotchkiss 37 m.m. Q.F. gun and one rifle calibre Maxim gun), which amounted to £594 5s. 11d.

    Lagos Lifeboat.
    MR. MOON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether a lifeboat worth £3,000 was recently sent out to the Lagos Government, and, being condemned immediately on her arrival by the harbour master, now lies useless in the harbour.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) A lifeboat, of which the total cost, including freight to the Colony, was £2,256 9s. 6d., was sent out to Lagos early in 1900. No lifeboat has been sent out since then, and no complaints have been received with regard to the one sent out in 1900, but inquiry will be made.

    Sekondi Pier.
    MR. MOON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what has been the I expense of constructing the pier at Sekondi; when it was finished; and whether there are any statistics showing the extent to which it has been used.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The expense of constructing the pier at Sekondi was £26,887. The pier was finished in April, 1902. There are no statistics in the Colonial Office showing the extent to which it has been used.

    Roumania—American Note on Treatment of Jews.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the correspondence upon the note of the American Government regarding the treatment of the Jews in Roumania will be published, and whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the question.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The correspondence upon the note of the United States Government to which my honourable friend refers is not completre,
    220
    and I am not therefore in a position to answer the concluding part of the question.

    Sugar Convention.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the stipulation in the Sugar Convention that it shall be ratified on the 1st February, 1903, he proposes, during the present session, to ask the sanction of Parliament to that Convention.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Effect cannot be given to the provisions of the Sugar Convention without an Act of Parliament. The Convention, however, does not come into force until 1st September, 1903, although it has to be ratified by the 1st February next. The Government propose to ask for the sanction of Parliament by way of Resolution, which will enable them to ratify it before the latter date, 1st February.

    Sentences on Members—Communications to the Speaker.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he proposes to take any action to vindicate the right of the House to receive immediate reports of the withdrawal by a sentence of a Court of Law of any Member from the service of the House.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The practice is for a communication to be made to the Speaker when the Member is committed to prison, bail not being allowed. I understand that there has in fact been no infraction of this custom.

    Board of Education—President's Salary.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can say how it is proposed to provide for the salary, during the current financial year, of the President of the Board of Education, who was appointed to that office on the 11th of August last.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The salary will be charged against the Education Vote. If this be insufficient a Supplementary Estimate will be presented towards the close of the financial year.

    Honours—Ministers and the Royal Prerogative.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Royal Prerogative of conferring orders and honorific distinctions is exercised by His Majesty upon the advice of His Majesty's Ministers, or otherwise.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I trust that my hon. friend will not think it necessary to deal by way of Question with the subject of Prerogative.

    Bestowal of the Garter on Sovereigns not of Christian Faith.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, can he state, or will he agree to a Return stating, the number of foreign Sovereigns on whom the Order of the Garter has been conferred since the year 1837, and the number of those Sovereigns who were not of Christian faith.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) There is, I believe, no objection to such a Return, though perhaps my hon. friend will be content with the statement that only three names would appear in such a Return of Sovereigns not of the Christian faith, namely, the Sultans of Turkey, Abdul Medjid and Abdul Aziz, and the late Shah of Persia.

    Greenwich Hospital and Patriotic Funds.
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is able to announce any decision which may have been reached with regard to relieving the Greenwich Hospital Funds in respect of pensions to widows of seamen killed on duty; and, whether he is prepared to consider the possibility of devoting a portion at least of the Patriotic Fund to this purpose.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am, afraid I am not yet in a position to announce any decision in this matter, but I hope before long to be able to do so.

    New Procedure Rules—"Orer in Debate."
    MR. CHAPLIN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the condition in which the new Rule of
    222
    Procedure relating to Order in Debate is left by the Government at present, and having regard to the occurrences of Thursday last and their possible recurrence, he proposes to take steps, and, if so, when, to give effect to the intention expressed by himself to complete that Rule before the close of the session.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I have not absolutely given up the hope that the House may be able to deal with the Order referred to by my right hon. friend in the course of the present Session, but the arrangements for proceeding with it must necessarily depend upon the progress made with public business.

    Royal Progress on 25th October—Bank Holiday Proclamation.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is proposed to declare 25th October a Bank Holiday, at least so far as London is concerned.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Yes, so far as London is concerned, there will be a Bank Holiday on Saturday next. It is correctly stated in a public announcement today that the proclamation is solely intended for the necessities of bankers' business arising out of the probable congestion in the streets along the route of the Royal progress, and will not affect the shop-keeping community at large nor enjoin a general suspension of employment.

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The Operations in Somaliland
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Have the Government any further information as to events in Somaliland?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANEBORNE,): I have very little to communicate to the House beyond what appeared in the newspapers this morning, sent by the Foreign Office. I think I ought to begin by saying on behalf of the Secretary of State how deeply he regrets the lamentable loss of life that

    223
    has taken place, and the possible results of the retirement which has followed. We have every confidence in Colonel Swayne, who is a very experienced officer in those regions, but, of course, Colonel Swayne is at the front, and he cannot be responsible for sending forward reinforcements. Fortunately, in the ordinary course of his duties, General Manning, who is the principal military adviser in the Foreign Office Protectorates, arrived at Aden yesterday morning, and we have placed at his disposal, after communicating with the India Office, an Indian battalion, and also have ordered from Central Africa the reserve battalion of the Protectorate's own forces. We have informed him that if he does not consider this force sufficient we shall be quite ready to supply other troops. The House ought to remember, in considering these events, that the country over which these operations had to take place is exceedingly difficult. Not only is the actual battlefield apparently covered with very thick bush, but, in order to get there, a large extent of perfectly barren and waterless country had to be crossed, throwing great difficulties in the way of forces advancing in such a country. In these circumstances it is not surprising that after so severe an action Colonel Swayne thought it better to retire. But we do not conceal from ourselves the fact that that may necessitate very much more prolonged operations than we had hoped, and a larger force than we had at first thought would be sufficient. That is all I have to tell the House at present.
    MR. LLEWELLYN: Has the noble Lord any further information with regard to casualties?
    LORD CRANBORNE: Not beyond what has been published.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the War Office or the Foreign Office responsible for the conduct of the campaign?
    LORD CRANBORNE: The Foreign Office.

    H. M. S. "Terrible"—Design of Gun-carriage used at Ladysmith.
    SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what was the date of H.M.S. "Terrible's" leaving Hong Kong, and the number of days occupied by her voyage to Portsmouth; what was the amount of coal she consumed on the voyage; and if she can now steam her designed speed of 22 knots; and if he will state who designed the gun-carriage for the guns used at Ladysmith.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,: The "Terrible" left Hong Kong on. 29th July, and arrived at Portsmouth on 18th September, occupying fifty-one days on the voyage, of which thirty-four were steaming days, the remaining seventeen being spent in harbour. The amount of coal consumed on the voyage was 8,670 tons, of which 7,466 tons were consumed when under way. On her last full-speed trial, in July, 1901, she developed 24·693 horse-power for four hours. No full-speed trial has been made since that date. It is doubtful whether the ship can now maintain her designed speed for any length of time, as her boilers, engines, and auxiliary machinery require extensive repairs, such as may be expected at the close of a long commission. The gun-carriages for the guns used at Ladysmith were designed by Captain Percy Scott, and were constructed under his immediate supervision.
    SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the gun-carriage was designed by Assistant Engineer Roscoe, and not by Captain Percy Scott?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am not aware of that fact, and I am clear that the facts are as I have stated them.

    Military Service in India.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the correspondence which commenced with the telegram of the 26th February to the Government of India as to the conditions of service of British troops in India is complete, and when the Papers showing the views of the Government of India will be laid before Parliament.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): There has been some delay in completing this correspondence, but I expect in a short time to got the final views of the Government of India; until I receive their despatch I cannot reply as to what Papers will be laid before Parliament. As the War Office and India Office were unable to agree as to what the relative apportionment of increased charge arising out of the change of the conditions of service should be, the matter will be referred to arbitration.

    Indian Imperial Council.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will give the names of the present members of the Indian Imperial Council established at the New Year of 1877 by Lord Lytton, under the Command of the late Queen-Empress; and whether, looking to the desire then proclaimed of obtaining in matters of importance the counsel and advice of the Princes and Chiefs of India, and of associating them with the Paramount Power in a manner honourable to themselves and advantageous to the Empire, he will state whether at the Delhi Coronation Durbar occasion will be taken to hold a session of the Council, and thus further the objects of the institution.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Council of the Empire at present consists solely of ex officio members, and there is no intention of holding a session at Delhi on the occasion of the Coronation Durbar.
    MR. CAINE: Is it worth while continuing this Council in existence? It has not met for many years.
    (No answer was given.)

    Assam Tea Gardens-German Liquor Shops.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if his attention has been called to the memorandum submitted to the Chief Commissioner of Assam by the Hon. James Buckingham, C.I.E., lately a member of the Vice-Regal Council of India, on the crime and disorder produced among coolies in the
    226
    Assam tea gardens by the excessive number of liquor shops established by the Government throughout the tea area of that State; and if he has observed the statement of the Chief Commissioner in Clause 3 of his resolution on the Excise Report of 1901–2, to the effect that, although the policy of the administration in regard to the sale of liquor has been repeatedly inquired into during the past twenty years, a fresh investigation will now be opened; will he state what is the nature of this promised investigation, is it now in progress, and will he lay upon the Table of the House a copy of Mr. Buckingham's memorandum, the correspondence which has taken place between the Chief Commissioner of Assam and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Districts in Assam, particulars of the inquiries into the administration in regard to the sale of liquor referred to in the Chief Commissioner's resolution, and a statement of the nature of the promised fresh investigation?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I understand that the memorandum in question has engaged the attention of the local administration which has undertaken to make a fresh inquiry into the excise arrangement of the Province. I am in communication with the Viceroy on the subject, and when I receive the information I have asked for, I will consider what papers can be presented.
    MR. SCHWANN: Will the Question be considered whether the Government ought to be interested in the drink traffic in India?
    (No answer was returned.)

    Savings Bank Funds.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, and, if so, when, it is proposed to take steps to carry out the report and recommendations of the Select Committee on Savings Banks Funds, including certain administrative reforms; audit it is intended to reduce the interest payable to the banks by one-eighth per cent., from what date such reduction is likely to take place, and whether notice will be given to the banks and to the public.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have a Bill prepared to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee, reducing the interest from 20th May next in the case of the Trustee Banks, and from 1st July next in the case of the Post Office Banks, and I think it will perhaps be advisable to introduce it in the hope that it may pass unopposed. Otherwise it must be re-introduced early next session with a view to passing it by the dates named, in which case the notice to depositors will be much shorter. Further postponement of the reduction in the rate of interest would involve a heavy charge on the taxpayers.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of making the date uniform in the case of each class of banks? It is important there should be notice to depositors.
    MR. LOUGH; And, if there is opposition, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give reasonable facilities for the consideration of this important matter?
    MR. RITCHIE: I do not think that, with the business at present before the House, we can possibly hope to get through a Bill of tins kind if it has really contentious matter in it.
    MR. LOUGH: There will be.
    MR. RITCHIE: But it must be introduced early next session. As to the Question of my hon. friend, the financial year is different in the case of each class of banks, and, in order to make the date uniform, they would have to change their financial year. That would be attended with some difficulty, and I do not want to add anything more to the work we have to do in connection with the matter.

    Agreements with Cunard Company and Atlantic Shipping Trust.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether His Majesty's Government propose to lay upon the Table of this House the terms of the agreements come to respectively with the Cunard Company as to their ships, and with Mr. Pierpont Morgan as to the ships acquired by the American Corporation known as
    228
    the Atlantic Shipping Trust; and, if so, when; whether, during the present session, any opportunity will be afforded to this House of discussing those agreements; and on what date the first payments to be made by His Majesty's Government under either of these agreements will become due.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Government propose to lay upon the Table of the House the formal agreements with the Cunard Steamship Company and the Atlantic Shipping Trust when these have been duly executed. My right hon friend the Prime Minister informs me that he will be prepared to find some evening for a discussion of the subject, if desired, after the agreements have been laid. It is unlikely that any payment under the agreement with the Cunard Steamship Company will fall due during the present financial year. The agreement with the Atlantic Shipping Trust does not involve any additional burden on the Exchequer.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give an indication as to when the Papers are likely to be laid on the Table of the House?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot name a date, but I hope it will not be very long.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We are told it is to involve no financial burden on the Exchequer. But at what rate of interest is the money to be advanced?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No money is to be advanced to the Atlantic Shipping Trust.

    Argentine Cattle Trade—Remount Supplies.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the late rise in the prices of meat, negotiations have yet been conducted and carried to a favourable issue with the Government of the Argentine Republic for the admission of live cattle for slaughter at certain ports in this country, due precautions having been taken before embarkation to inquire

    229
    into the healthy condition of the cattle; and will he say when such admission will be allowed.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Before my right, hon. friend answers that Question may I ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry upon the question of remounts:—
    "They (the horses) were all subject to final approval in Buenos Ayres, where they were collected in large cattle pens which had been erected for the storing of cattle, but which were then vacant owing to the existence of the foot-and-mouth disease."
    And whether, under those circumstances, the admission of live cattle from Argentina for slaughter might not inflict incalculable mischief on this country.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): The negotiations referred to in the Question are not yet concluded. Admission will be allowed when the Argentine regulations are such as to afford adequate security against the admission of diseased animals into this country. The hon. Member is, I presume, aware that both this year and last we have received more meat from the Argentine than ever previously—and that the first nine months of this year especially show a very large excess above the record of any previous nine months. At the present rate the imports of meat from the Argentine this year should be about 20 per cent, more than in 1899, the year before the ports were closed to live cattle.
    MR. SCHWANN: But is it not the fact that the total imports of meat into the United Kingdom during last year show a considerable reduction?
    MR. HANBURY: That may be true, but the fact that there has been a drought in Australia and a shortage of maize in the United States is no argument for doing that which would involve the risk of importing disease into this country from the Argentine.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity of discussing this question of the restrictions on the importation of cattle from Argentina before they are removed?
    MR. HANBURY: That is a Question which must be put to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury.

    Limerick Postmastership.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there is a vacancy for post-master at Limerick; and whether, seeing that five-sixths of the population of the city are Roman Catholics, and that all local superior appointments, with one exception, are held by Protestants, and that no Roman Catholic has filled the position for the past thirty-five years, he will now consider the advisability of selecting an Irishman and a Roman Catholic for the post.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The vacancy has been notified in the usual manner in the Post Office Circular, and in due course I shall appoint the candidate who, in my opinion, is best qualified for the post without inquiring as to his nationality or religious belief.

    Monasterevan (Ireland) Railway Accident.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to an accident which occurred at Monasterevan, Great Southern and Western Railway, Ireland, on the 11th of November last year, when the line gave way under the 10.5 p.m. train from Kingsbridge to Cork, causing a milk truck and the guard's van to roll down the embankment, injuring the, guard; and, if so, will he state the cause of the line giving way and the date the Company reported such accident to the Board of Trade.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to the accident referred to. It would appear from the Railway Company's explanations that relaying operations had been in progress at the place in question, and from some cause which has not been ascertained the rear portion of a goods train was derailed. The Company's officers were unable to agree as to the cause of the accident, and as the occurrence was not reported to the Board

    231
    of Trade until the 21st August last, the Department had not an opportunity of ordering an inquiry at a time when a formal investigation would have been of service. The Company have explained that the delay in reporting the accident was due to an oversight, which they regret, and they state that steps have been taken to ensure that any future accidents shall be promptly reported to the Board.

    Cork Steamship Service — Subsidy to Clyde Shipping Company.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the fact that a subsidy of,£500 has again been granted by the Congested Districts Board to the Clyde Shipping Company for running a steamer from Cork to the south-western seaboard of Ireland; and whether, seeing that the Limerick Harbour Board and Chamber of Commerce have protested strongly against this grant in view of a similar subsidy having been refused to Limerick, which is a competing port, he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Representations in favour of a continuance of the subsidy were received from the Kerry County Council, the Cork Chamber of Commerce, and from a number of other local bodies and leading traders. The Board has approved of payment of the subsidy, as a tentative measure, for a further period of one year.

    Convictions of Nationalist Members— Communications to the Speaker.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many Members of the House of Commons have been arrested under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, on the warrants of resident magistrates, and sentenced to imprisonment by resident magistrates in the interval between the adjournment of the House of Commons on 8th August and the present time; and whether he can state the names of the Gentlemen so arrested and sentenced and the terms of their imprisonment; and whether he
    232
    has any, and, if so, what explanation to give of the neglect in any case of the resident magistrates to communicate to the Speaker of the House of Commons the fact of the arrest and commitment by them of Members of this House.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Three hon. Members—for the Birr Division of King's County, for South Mayo, and for East Galway—having failed to appear in answer to summonses, were arrested on the warrants of resident magistrates and sentenced to two months with hard labour, three months with hard labour, and four months with hard labour respectively. On appeal, the sentence on the first hon. Member was confirmed, but the hard labour was remitted. In the other two cases appeals are pending. No other hon. Members have been arrested, but the hon. Member for the Tullamore Division of King's County was sentenced to two months with hard labour. This sentence has been reduced on appeal to one month without hard labour. Two hon. Members, therefore—for the Birr Division and the Tullamore Division—are debarred from attending this House. Two others— for South Mayo and EastGalway—having been arrested on warrants, are at liberty pending appeal. In reply to the second part of the Question, communications, whether from resident magistrates or County Court judges, are addressed directly to Mr. Speaker, and not through the Irish Government. I understand that Mr. Speaker received a communication in respect of the two hon. Members who are debarred from attending the House, but that no communication reached him in respect to the hon. Members for South Mayo and East Galway, who are not so debarred. [Laughter.]
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: This is no laughing matter.
    MR. MACVEAGH: And you will soon learn that.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I want to ask whether the resident magistrates have, in any case whatever, sent letters to Mr. Speaker which have been suppressed in Dublin Castle by the right hon. Gentleman's orders.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir, I do not think the hon. Member listened to my answer. I said that all these communications go direct to Mr. Speaker, and not to the Irish Office.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Now, I will ask another Question. I want to know this—whether it was not at the instance of the Executive Government that the resident magistrates failed to comply with the ordinary courtesies to this House, and whether it is not in accordance with precedent that, immediately a warrant is issued against a Member of this House and he is arrested, a communication should be addressed to Mr. Speaker, and why that was not done in this case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I will not go into the question of precedent, but I will say that no action was taken, and no action was left undone, at the instance of the Executive Government.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the whole sentence in each case? Is it not the fact that each hon. Member was, in addition, required to go to prison for three months in lieu of giving bail, on the expiration of each sentence, for his future good behaviour?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have endeavoured to answer the Question on the Paper. [Nationalist cries of "You have not."] It is impossible to give all the details. I have answered the Question on the Paper. [Nationalist cries of "You have not."] I have endeavoured to give all the information that is material. The hon. Member is quite right in stating that certainly in one case, in the case of the hon. Member for South Mayo, it is present to my mind that he was called upon to give bail, and I dare say in some of the other cases.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: These are what the right hon. Gentleman calls matters of detail‡ Is it not the fact that the sentences actually imposed on these men are just double what the right hon. Gentleman has stated to the House?
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Are we to understand that there has been any failure on the part of any judicial officer in Ireland to perform the immemorial practice of acquainting you, Sir, officially with the sentence passed?
    MR. SPEAKER: Upon the facts stated by the right hon. Gentleman, I do not understand that there has been any failure. Four cases have been referred to; in two of them the hon. Members in question were committed to prison, and in those cases notices have been given. The other two were cases in which there was an arrest of two hon. Members in order that they might answer to a charge which they were summoned to answer; when those cases came before the magistrates, I think I am right in saying they were convicted, but were let out on bail during an appeal. In such a case the duty of the magistrate does not arise. It is laid down in "May s Parliamentary Practice"—and I think correctly laid down—that the duty of the magistrate arises when he has committed a criminal to prison and when he is detained there without bail. In all the cases in which the duty arose it seems to me to have been complied with. As far as I am competent to judge, it has also been complied with in the case of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, who was convicted on Thursday. I have read this afternoon to the House a letter from the resident magistrate stating his conviction and sentence.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: In Mr. M'Hugh's case he has appealed, and he is at liberty. I wish to bring under your notice the fact that one of the resident magistrates, whose name I heard you, Sir, read out, a Mr. Brown, presided in two Courts in which Members of this House have been convicted; they appealed, but he did not communicate with you. If he has communicated with you now, what is the meaning of this variance?
    MR. SPEAKER: The facts are as I stated them, as far as I am aware, and they seem to me to be in accordance with the ordinary rule.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not a fact that King's County is at present deprived of all representation in this House?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ That does not arise out of the Question. The Question on the Paper has been fully answered. If hon. Members desire to ask other Questions on this matter, they must put them down on the Paper.
    MR. LOGAN: I wish to ask—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ I have said that the Question has been fully answered.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Permit me—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ‡ If any hon. Member wishes to ask a further Question he must put it down in the ordinary way.
    MR. DELANY: On a point of order, I wish to ask whether you, Sir, are aware that the hon. Member for the Birr Division was in prison under arrest, pending his trial on a warrant for non-appearance, for nine days in Tullamore Jail.
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not know how the fact was; I will assume that the hon. Member is quite correct, but that does not affect what I have stated.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But if that is so, ought not you to have been informed?
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated what I conceive to be the duty laid down for magistrates under the practice of this House. I cannot allow it to be argued.
    MR. MACVEAGH: It will be argued, anyhow. I wish to ask whether Mr. Speaker is aware that the hon. Member for East Gal way will be committed to prison tomorrow, and that Questions put down on the Paper now cannot be asked before the hon. Member is committed.
    MR. SPEAKER: That certainly does not arise out of this Question.

    Convictions under the Crimes Act.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will: state how many persons were sentenced to terms of imprisonment with hard labour under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, since its enactment in July, 1887, and the suspension of its operation in Ireland under the provisions of the Statute in 1892; and how many persons have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment with hard labour since the Proclamation of April, 1902, placing certain counties of Ireland under the operation of this Act, and the present time.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The number in the first-mentioned period was 1,601. The number since April last is forty-eight; this latter number includes cases in which sentences have been varied on appeal, and also cases in which appeals are now pending.

    Sergeant Sullivan, Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who was one of the accomplices of ex-Sergeant Sheridan of that force in the perpetration of crime and the conviction by perjured evidence of innocent persons for the crime so perpetrated, is still a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. WYNDHAM: One constable admitted at the Inquiry that the chief part of his evidence was not true of his own knowledge, but urged that he believed it to be true, because Sergeant Sheridan told him so. Sheridan's other accomplices resigned, but this constable refused to do so, and has been stationed at the depôt since August, 1901.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And is this man to remain in the pay of the Crown while Irish Members are put on a plank bed?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the case in which this constable gave admittedly false evidence?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The course pursued by the Government in this matter was explained by me so recently as on the 23rd July last.† I must refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement made by me on that occasion.
    MR. T.P.O'CONNOR: But this is a question which can be immediately answered. There were three or four cases in which Sheridan committed perjury, and I want to know the particular case in which this constable who is retained in the force did so.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I can only refer the hon. Member to my previous statement. To that I adhere.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this constable is at the depôt giving instruction to new entrants into the force.?

    Nationalist Members Imprisoned for Speeches.
    MR. LEAMY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, how many Members of this House representing Irish constituencies have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment in Ireland during the past twelve months on charges based upon political speeches made by them; how many of them have been sentenced to hard labour; and will he say if such sentence involves sleeping on a plank bed and a dietary for several days of bread and water.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Exclusive of the case of the hon. Member for East Clare, who has been ordered by the King's Bench Division to give sureties for good behaviour or to go to prison in default, seven Members wore convicted and sentenced to imprisonment during the past twelve months. One was convicted on three different occasions, and one on two occasions. Appeals were lodged against seven convictions; in four cases the convictions were confirmed, and in three the appeals are pending. Another
    †See (4) Debates, cxi., 1072, et seq
    238
    conviction came before the Superior Court on a case stated, which was dismissed. Four Members were sentenced to hard labour; on appeal, this was removed in two cases. A sentence of hard labour involves sleeping on a plank bed, without a mattress, for the first fourteen days of sentence, unless the Medical Officer shall otherwise order.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What about the raiders?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What about Jameson? [Nationalist cheers and disorder.]
    MR. WYNDHAM (continuing): The Irish Prison Rules, like those in operation in England, prescribe that every prisoner shall be supplied with "a sufficient quantity of wholesome food, according to a scale or scales of diet." If the hon. Member will refer to these Rules, which have been laid on the Table of the House, he will find that a sentence of hard labour does not entail a dietary of bread and water.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there has been any case before of proceedings under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act of 1887 where sentences of hard labour were imposed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: In reply to a previous Question, I stated that there were 1,601. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: That was the total convictions.]
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Cases with hard labour?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; 1,601 cases where the sentence imposed by the Court of First Instance entailed hard labour.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Utterly wrong.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Do you mean that under the administration of the Prime Minister in Ireland there were 1,601 cases of hard labour?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Under me, and subsequently.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: 1,601 cases of hard labour?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That is so.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I mean, of course, for offences under the Criminal Law Procedure Amendment Act (Ireland), 1887?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir.
    MR. LOGAN: I desire to ask whether I am right in supposing that a sentence which carries with it hard labour also carries disqualification to sit as a county or district councillor.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ That does not arise out of the Question. The Question has been fully answered.
    MR. DEVLIN: I would ask, Sir——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Closure him; he has only spoken once, like O'Donnell.
    MR. DEVLINagain rose.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ‡ There must be some end to these supplementary Questions.
    MR. DEVLINonce more rose.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise on a point of order?
    MR. DEVLIN: Yes, Sir. I want to know whether hard labour was inflicted on Mr. O'Brien when he was convicted.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ I must ask the hon. Member to conform to the rules of the House. Rightly or wrongly, the Speaker has to be the judge in these matters, and I have given my decision.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDrose to put a further Question.
    MR SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been long in the House, and he must know that business cannot be properly conducted if Members persist in putting these supplementary Questions.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have no desire whatever to unduly prolong Questions, but am I not entitled to ask a Question arising out of a reply of the right hon. Gentleman as to the accuracy of one of the statements he made?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put down his Question. The Question on the Paper has been fully answered.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I beg to give notice that I will put down a Question.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Are you aware that the Clerks at the Table have repeatedly ruled that they cannot allow a Question bearing upon a Question which has already been answered?
    MR. SPEAKER: The rulings are given by me, and not by the Clerks at the Table. A Question may be put to elicit a particular fact without referring to an answer previously given.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Mine has been rejected for that reason.

    Judge Curran and the Mullingar Grand Jury.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has he observed that at the Mullingar Quarter Sessions, in the proclaimed county of Westmeath, there was no criminal case for trial except a charge of burglary against a soldier, and that the Grand Jury unanimously passed a resolution respectfully requesting the Government to remove the proclamation of the county on account of its peaceful and crimeless condition; whether he is aware that County Court Judge Curran, who presided, tore up the resolution and threw the pieces of paper towards the Grand Jury, and, when one

    241
    of the Grand Jury asked to be informed of any case of boycotting in the county, the judge threatened him with imprisonment; and seeing that Grand Juries in Ireland have habitually passed resolutions dealing with the state of the country which have been received by the judges, will the Government take any steps to secure the freedom of speech of Grand Juries, when respectfully representing to the Government the crimelessness of proclaimed districts.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen a newspaper account of the proceedings in question. The learned judge is reported to have congratulated the Grand Jury on the freedom of the district from ordinary crime. He expressed regret, however, at the introduction of the, "thin edge of boycotting,'' and referred, from his lengthened experience, to the serious result of the system. To what extent the newspaper report is an accurate record of what took place I cannot say. The Government has no responsibility in the matter mentioned in the concluding part of the Question.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May I ask whether the Chief Secretary has given us an official communication from the countycourt judge; and whether it is not a fact that all the newspapers reported that after tearing up the resolution and throwing it at the Grand Jury the judge said, "There's your precious resolution"? Will the right hon. Gentleman inform Judge Curran that if on a question of local knowledge twenty-three Grand Jurymen living in the neighbourhood——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ‡ This is really making a speech on the Question.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I think you might allow me to finish my Question. When I have put it I will bow at once to your ruling. What I desire to ask is whether, if a difference of opinion arises on a local matter between the judge and the jury, the Chief Secretary will inform the judge that the difference of opinion ought not to be treated as a crime for which Grand Jurors are to be committed to prison?
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; I never make communications to judges.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is very hard to put a Question amid the bursts of laughter of the hon. Members opposite who do not know what imprisonment is.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Some of them do.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Judge Curran is to try Mr. O'Donnell's appeal?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ That does not arise out of the Question.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: In reference to the last reply of the Chief Secretary, might I ask the Prime Minister whether, now that the County Courts in Ireland form a portion of the exceptional tribunals——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.‡ The hon. Member cannot ask a Question of the Prime Minister now.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Why not? I have asked them hundreds of times.
    MR. SPEAKER: Because the Question on the Paper is disposed of, and the proper order is to take the next Question.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Well, but Mr. Speaker, this is a Question entirely and directly arising out of the answer of the Chief Secretary.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Question was addressed to a different Minister altogether, and he cannot interpolate Questions to any Minister.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Then I shall put the Question to the Chief Secretary himself. I beg to ask him whether, having regard to his answer that it is not possible for him at present to address any communications to county court judges in reference to any controversial questions, he will not recommend that the salaries of those judges should be taken off the Consolidated Fund, so that it may be possible for us to criticise their action?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ‡ That does not arise out of the Question.
    MR. MURPHY: May I ask the Chief Secretary why Judge Curran was removed——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That does not arise out of the Question.
    MR. MURPHY: Will you allow me to complete it?
    MR. SPEAKER: No, I will not.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Because he is an Irishman.
    MR. MURPHY: Then I will put it down.
    MR. DELANY: Do not the criminal statistics for the last three months show—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ‡ That does not arise out of the Question.
    MR. DELANY: Show there is no crime——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ‡

    Sergeant Sullivan, Royal Irish Constabulary—Position of Mr. T. P. Nolan.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence of Thomas Patrick Nolan, expert in handwriting, an official of the Local Government Board, on the hearing of the prosecution against the editor, manager, and printer of the Irish People newspaper, that he agreed with Mr. Gurrin, the Treasury expert, that the forged letter, purporting to come from Mr. John MacHale, president of the West Mayo United Irish League, arranging for a murderous outrage, was in the handwriting of Sergeant Sullivan, Royal Irish Constabulary, of Mulranny; whether he is aware that Nolan further avowed that, notwithstanding his own conclusion, he was employed by Sergeant Sullivan at the Sligo and Dublin trials to discredit the evidence of Mr. Gurrin and so shield Sergeant Sullivan from justice; and will he say whether Sergeant Sullivan has been called upon for any explanation; has he been dismissed from the force; and whether any steps will be taken to prosecute him for perjury.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Chief Crown Solicitor reports that on the occasion mentioned Mr. Nolan, in answer to
    244
    questions put to him on cross-examination, stated that in the Sullivan case three or four experts had not come to an opposite conclusion to his, and further that, as far as he was aware, Mr. Gurrin had not come to an opposite conclusion to his. These are the only avowals made by Mr. Nolan. There is no foundation, so far as I know, for the other statements concerning him contained in the Question. Sergeant Sullivan was tried and acquitted on the charge of writing a certain letter. He cannot, of course, be prosecuted on the same charge, nor would it be right to speculate on the possible effect which another expert witness might have produced on the minds of a jury who acquitted a man in opposition to evidence of the experts who were examined as witnesses against him.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will any special steps be taken to prevent this man committing further acts of perjury—I respectfully press for an answer.
    MR. WYNDHAM.The hon. Member must know—
    NATIONALIST cries: No, no ‡
    MR. WYNDHAMresumed his seat.

    Imprisonment of Mr. O'Flanagan, J.P.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if Mr. O'Flanagan. J.P., Chairman of the District Council of Cordfin, was recently sentenced to four months imprisonment with hard labour under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, and if he will state what was the character of his punishment; whether he had to sleep on a plank bed: whether he had for any time, and, if so, for how long a time, to subsist on bread and water; and if he has become insane, and has had to be transferred to a lunatic asylum.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The following report has been made by the Governor of Limerick Prison through the General Prisons Board—
    "Mr. Flanagan was committed to this prison from Corofin Petty Sessions on 17th June last for four calendar months' hard labour under the Act referred to. He slept on a

    245
    plank for the two nights succeeding his commitment to prison, after which he was given a full bed on the recommendation of the medical officer. He was not subjected to any punishment, and at no time did he get or subsist on bread and water. His employment for the first month of his sentence was chopping wood for manufacture into firewood, and during the remainder of his time he was engaged at carpentry work. On the 12th September, having complained of being unwell, he was placed under medical treatment, and on the 13th was removed to the prison hospital. On the 14th September, typhoid having developed, the medical officer recommended his discharge from prison, and he was accordingly released on the 15th September, by order of the Lords Justices, and removed to the County Limerick Infirmary under the supervision of the medical officer, who is physician to the Infirmary. He remained there under treatment, in the meantime, but having lately become insane he was on the 11th instant committed from the Infirmary to the Limerick District Lunatic Asylum. During the thirteen weeks he had been in custody at this prison he made no complaint as to his treatment. When he had been only three weeks in prison he got a pint of new milk extra, daily, which was continued up to the time of his removal to hospital and since the 8th August he had been getting C. Diet instead of 15. diet."
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I hold the hon. Gentleman responsible for this man's condition.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will a sworn inquiry be held into this case?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice of that.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ It is now five minutes to three, and Questions must stop, except those relating to business and matters of urgent public importance.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to take the Education Bill continuously at each afternoon sitting in the course of this week and on Friday, and to put down the London Water Bill as second Order. At the evening sitting to-day I propose to take the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, Consideration of the Patent Law Amendmant Bill, and Local Authorities (Bills in Parliament) Bill, Second Reading. The same Bills will be proceeded with to-morrow, but I am afraid I cannot answer at present as to the evening sittings on Wednesday or Thursday.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It would perhaps meet the desires of a good many Members, in the present some-what fluid condition of the Rules, if I ask what becomes of the remaining Questions which have not been put to-day, and whether they will come on at a definite time or drop altogether.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answers will be printed and circulated with the Votes tomorrow.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Could we not now have an answer to a Question in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs.
MR. SPEAKER: No; all the Questions that have not been answered will be answered in the Votes tomorrow.

IRISH AFFAIRS—NATIONALIST DEMAND FOR A GENERAL DISCUSSION.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask him whether he has reconsidered the demand of the Irish Members for an opportunity of discussing the state of affairs in Ireland.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: Perhaps it will be better if I make the matter perfectly clear, though it was my intention to do so before. The position, as I understand, with regard to a discussion upon Irish affairs, is this. There was a long and important debate upon the proclamation under the Crimes Act last session. There was, subsequent to that, another long and important debate upon the condition of Ireland on Irish Supply. That took place, I think, it July. Had it not been for the circumstance to which we owe this meeting at the present time, the opportunity which hon. Gentlemen desire could not have occurred. I think I stated on Thursday that it is in conformity with the invariable practice of the House that we cannot break into the ordinary procedure, except on the demand of the Opposition as a whole. [NATIONALIST cries of "Who are the Opposition?"] That is perfectly well understood. But, quite outside and beyond that well known safety valve for criticism upon the administration, there is, of course, that supplied by the power which hon. Gentlemen have, if they get the necessary support, of moving the adjournment. I do

247
hope the hon. Gentleman will think that not an insufficient nor a wholly unsympathetic reply to his Question.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Speaking for my colleagues, I say we consider the answer most unsatisfactory.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to-day and on a previous day to the action which may he taken by the Opposition as a whole, I would venture to submit to him that that reference to my friends and myself is hardly so much in accordance as he thinks with established practice. I pass by the point, which is very important, that when the Crimes Act was made permanent there was a distinct promise given—I think by the right hon. Gentleman himself in another capacity than that which he now occupies—that the House, on any important action being taken under the new law, should have an opportunity of being informed of the whole subject. But, leaving that on one side, I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that here we have a purely Irish question, and any of us can sec by reading the newspapers and by the events that are passing under our observation every day, what reason there is for the representatives of Ireland to challenge, if they choose, the administration of affairs, I and elicit from the Government a statement of the grounds upon which they are proceeding. The question is an Irish one, and this is a demand made by the constitutional representatives of Ireland. I should have thought that demand, in the circumstances, could not be refused. I cannot imagine, for instance, such a series of events occurring in Scotland and Scottish Members making such a demand and its being refused. I cordially and sincerely join with the Irish Members in supporting the demand for an opportunity of discussing the question, and I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to observe that it is to the constitutional demand of the Irish representatives that I think he owes it, and not to any instance or desire on the part of my friends here.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must frankly say that I cannot accept the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, which seems to me to be of a wholly Separatist kind. He seems to think that the misgovernment of Ireland, if it be
248
misgovernment, or good government, is a purely Irish question, I do not admit that for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman says he supports the demand of the Irish Members. If, by supporting their demand, he means that he joins, as Leader of the Opposition, in making it, that demand will be at once granted, but I think there was a certain ambiguity in the phraseology of the right hon. Gentleman, which, perhaps, lie will clear up.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have said that I entirely support the demand of the Irish Members, but that I consider it should be their demand and not mine.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what state of mind he is now in, what answer he has to give to the Question which I put?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a perfectly clear and definite meaning I attached to the process I described. The hon. Gentleman asks what state of mind I am in now. I am in lather a confused state of mind as to the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As soon as that is cleared up I will give the hon. Gentleman an answer.

SERGEANT SULLIVAN, ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the conduct of the Government in Ireland in reference to the charges of forgery, manufacture of outrage and perjury against Sergeant Sullivan of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the danger of his absconding:" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 17, until the Evening Sitting, this day.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Ordered, That Mr. Austen Chamberlain be discharged form the Select Committee.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Hayes Fisher be added to the Select Committee.".—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I have a Motion on the Paper to substitute the name of Mr. Michael Reddy.
MR. SPEAKER: The Motion cannot be made, but the hon. Gentlemen may object to the name which has been proposed.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I do object, and with regard to the Gentlemen whose name I proposed I say the Motion may be unusual but the Irish Party desire to mark their appreciation, the admiration and esteem of their colleague who is now in prison. This is the opportunity they take of doing so. Although Mr. Reddy is at present under going hard labour in Tullamore Gaol, his colleagues, under the circumstances, appreciate him far more in prison than if he were on the floor of the House. Mr. Reddy was sentenced to imprisonment, and that sentence was confirmed by a
county court judge who, within the last week, disgraced himself on the bench——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ‡ These observations are not relevant to the Question before the House, namely, whether or not Mr. Hayes Fisher should be added to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman objected to that name, because he thought that another Irish representative should be on the Committee; but the hon. Member cannot discuss the merits of a particular name or person on the present Motion.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I object most strongly‡—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ Only one speech can be made.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (addressing Captain Donelan): You have not finished your speech yet.
CAPTAIN DONELN: I venture to point out that Mr. Hayes Fisher——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ The hon. Member has already spoken.
(3.18.) Question put by Mr. Speaker in pursuance of Standing Order No. l6.
The House divided:—Ayes, 222: Noes, 76. (Division List No.394.)

AYES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Brown Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Davenport, Wm. Bromley-

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Burt, Thomas

Denny, Colonel

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Caldwell, James

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Arrot, Sir William

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Doughlas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Causton, Richard Knight

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Balcarres, Lord

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

Emmott, Alfred

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

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Faher, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fardell, Sir T. Geroge

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Farqunarson, Dr. Robert

Bartley, George C. T.

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Chapman, Edward

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Bignold, Arthur

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bill, Charles

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Black, Alexander William

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fison, Frederick William

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Boulnois, Edmund

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Craig, Robert Hunter

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Cranborne, Viscount

Flower, Ernest

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Crombie, John William

Forster, Henry William

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Galloway, William Johnson

Long, Col. Charles. W. (Evesham

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Gardner, Ernest

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

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Garfit, William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

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

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Macdona, John Cumming

Spear, John Ward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Manners, Lord Cecil

Stevenson, Francis S.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hain, Edward

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

Stroyan, John

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morrison, James Archibald

Thomas, J. A. (Glam'rg'n, Gower

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Thornton, Percy M.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Mount, William Arthur

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Myers, William Henry

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hay, Hon. Claude Geroge

Nicholson, William Graham

Valentia, Viscount

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Wallace, Robert

Helme, Norval Watson

Partington, Oswald

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E

Paulton, James Mellor

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Horniman, Frederick John

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wason, Eugene

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Pemberton, John S. G

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (T'unt'n

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Percy, Earl

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Hudson, Geroge Bickersteth

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Jacoby, James Alfred

Plummer, Walter R.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Kemp, George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Pretyman, Ernest George

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Knowles, Lees

Purvis, Robert

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Randles, John S.

Wolff, Guatav Wilhelm

Lawson, John Grant

Rankin, Sir James

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

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

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Rutherford, John

NOES

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Field, William

Mooney, John J.

Ambrose, Robert

Flynn, James Christopher

Murphy, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gilhooly, James

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Barlow, John Emmott

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

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

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Bell, Richard

Harwood, George

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

Boland, John

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Buxton, Sydney Charles

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Caine, William Sproston

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

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

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Dowd, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Cremer, William Randal

Leamy, Edmund

O'Malley, William

Cullinan, J.

Lloyd-George, David

O'Shee, James John

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lundon, W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Delany, William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Reckitt, Harold James

Devlin, Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Schwann, Charles E.

Doogan, P. C.

M'Govern, T.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Kenna, Reginald

Shipman, Dr. John G,

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sullivan, Donal

252

253

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Weir, James Galloway

Young, Samuel

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Yoxall, James Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had an Amendment down to insert in page 3, line 6, after the word "necessary" the words "and which are provided by them." He wished to omit all the words after "necessary" to the end of the Clause.
MR. SEELYreminded the Chairman that he had handed in an Amendment upon this point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Both those Amendments are out of order. It has already been decided to include "all elementary schools," and the Committee have decided to include the provided as well as the non-provided schools.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that surely the word "necessary" was a limitation of the word "all." As the Clause stood, it was absolutely ungrammatieal. This would be the only opportunity they would have of raising the question of the responsibility of the local authority to maintain out of the rates denominational schools, and they ought to have a clear issue in regard to this matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: But the matter has already been discussed. On Friday last we discussed the question of leaving out "shall" to insert "may," and the debate turned upon whether a distinction was to be drawn between the schools provided and non-provided. The whole argument turned upon that, and the question was raised in that form.
MR. TREVELYANsaid that was only a question of discretion on the part of the local authority.
MR. M'KENNApointed out that the local authority would have had power as proposed, but under this Amendment the local authority would not have the power.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think you ought to have moved to omit the word "all." "All" means "all."
MR, M'KENNAsaid that if "all" meant "all" and included all qualifications, it must mean all unnecessary schools as well as necessary. "Necessary" was a qualification of "all."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcontended that, it having been ruled that "all" meant "all," the Clause was out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: The test is, what did the House mean when it passed the word "all." The Clause provides for "all public elementary schools within their area which are necessary." I think the intention of the Committee was to include all schools whether provided or not provided. I will deal as fairly as I can with hon. Members if they will deal fairly with me. ["Oh, oh ‡"]
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he hoped that observation did not apply to him. He submitted that the Opposition were entitled to discuss this issue. He contended that they ought to be allowed to discuss the question of rate-aid in some form or other.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that surely they had to consider the words grammatically. The words were "all public elementary schools," but that provision was subject to conditions which were afterwards added. The word "all" did not exclude all conditions, and why should this condition be excluded. "Which are necessary" was a condition put upon the word "all." Therefore, if there was one condition there might be another.
THE CHAIRMAN: According to the general rule of interpretation upon which we have always acted where any general

255
word such as "all" or "every" is inserted, the Committee intend that it shall have some signification, and that it is to have more signification than a word such as ''a" or "the." In this case, however, there is a difference because of the words "which are necessary." That being so, I will give the hon. Member for Carnarvon the benefit of the doubt.
MR. SEELYsaid the object of the Amendment he had to move was to raise the question whether it was desirable that the voluntary schools should be compulsorily placed upon the county and borough rates. He did not move this Amendment from any motive of hostility to the Bill, which he thought would bring about a great improvement in education, but he was very anxious to avoid difficulties in the future. As an old manager, and a strong advocate for voluntary schools, he thought the method he was about to propose was better on the whole than the one which was at present in the Bill He foresaw very great difficulties in regard to the arrangement contained in the Bill if it came into force. Ultimately they would find that the people who paid the money for education would call the tune, and unless the voluntary subscribers continued to pay a reasonable share of the expenses of their schools, they would find these schools taken from them. Two proposals had come to the front during the agitation in the country this autumn. One was the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Newark Division, that four of the managers should be elected by the public authorities, and two by the foundation managers. Secondly, there was the proposal foreshadowed in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury at Manchester, in which he spoke of the position of the managers as being like those under the School Board for London. In London managers were the servants of the School Board, and, as an advocate for voluntary schools, and a manager of them now, he did not appreciate the idea of being made simply the servant of the local education authority. He did not think the advantage they gained by this change would be maintained if the managers wore deprived of all authority, deprived of the power of appointing and dismissing teachers, and relegated to the position of managers
256
under the London School Board. He did not think there would be the great I difficulty which, some people seemed to think in obtaining the money from voluntary subscribers. He had put down an Amendment later on in the Bill to deal with the difficulty in those cases where subscriptions were not sufficient to maintain the schools in a state of efficiency. The Amendment was that instead of compelling the counties to support the voluntary schools the counties and boroughs should be given the power, if they chose to exercise it, and if they could agree with the voluntary school managers, to give the voluntary schools such assistance as they required. That was all that was necessary. There was no real hostility between the voluntary schools and the public schools in the district generally. The voluntary schools were liked, and they got on very well with the people. Under a system of freedom, instead of a system of compulsion, these people would be able to manage their own affairs, and would lie able to get over any difficulty and get sufficient money to support the schools in a state of efficiency. It was for that reason that he brought forward the Amendment, and it was for that reason that he pressed it upon the consideration of the Government and those anxious to maintain the voluntary schools in their present position. Many were anxious to maintain them for several reasons; for the sake of religious education—he did not mean for the sake of any particular dogmatic religious doctrine, but for the sake of the general religious atmosphere in the school—which, on the whole, had been preserved in the voluntary schools, and for the maintenance of which the continuation of the voluntary schools was exceedingly desirable. The number of board schools against which the allegation could be made that they had not given religious education was very small indeed, but the allegation had been made, and, having been made, it would be a great pity to do away with those schools which, at the present time, definitely stated that they wished to preserve a religious atmosphere. The Committee had heard a great deal as to giving to the School Board control over secular education, and no control to the managers over religious education. The superiority of the voluntary schools

257
over the very small board schools in the country districts was due to the fact that the clergyman of the district was actively engaged in the welfare of the schools. he was the only educated man in the locality who had the time to give to its welfare. He usually had a university education and a knowledge of educational matters; at the same time, from the nature of his office, he was not a man who would be particularly anxious to submit himself to popular election and all the controversies arising therefrom; so that it was only by maintaining a system: similar to the present voluntary school system that the interest of the large class of educated men in the country, who had sufficient time and opportunity for the purpose of maintaining their interest in elementary schools, could be retained. If full control were given to an outside body over the short time devoted to religious education, it would have the effect of taking away from the country schools one of the most valuable elements in their management. Under these circumstances it was most desirable to get over the difficulty in some way which would leave the voluntary schools in the same position as they were under the present system; not by giving greater control over secular education to the County Councils, but by leaving the voluntary schools as they were and giving an optional power to every borough council, and an opportunity to every voluntary school to obtain assistance from the rates. By such means every difficulty which had been urged upon the Committee could be got rid of. The difficulty of taxation without representation would be got over, because there would be no compulsory rate for the school. With the consent of the authority they could obviate the difficulty of the possibility of a rate going for the support of a school where the clergyman was foolish, and insisted upon teaching to the children doctrines contrary to the Church, because no County Council would give assistance to a man of that kind. It seemed to him that, while this would keep the Bill with all its value for the co-ordination of primary and secondary education in this country, it would place the voluntary schools in as strong a position as they were before,
258
instead of placing them in the weaker position that they would be placed in under this Bill. There was one other thing that would have to be done if this proposal were adopted; the Clause in; which the cost of the school was placed entirely on the county rate would have to be altered, and the cost of the annual maintenance, like the cost of the building, would have to be put on the individual parish in which the building was situated. There would be no difficulty in such a course, which had several advantages to commend it. It provided a way out of the difficulty of what to do with the endowed schools. What was to happen to the endowed schools under this Bill? The people in the parishes possessed of an endowed school had now no school cost, neither had they any school rate, yet these schools with their endowments were going to be placed under the whole county rate. Were these people going to be allowed to pay the county rate and get nothing for it? Or was the rate going to be taken away from them? Whatever was done, it would be found that the lumping of the parishes which managed their schools economically together with those which had been extravagant, would be very unpopular, and such a course would be strenuously opposed by the country. The county rate would be unpopular, and it would end in one thing and one thing only, the taking away in some way or another of the whole of the power of the management of the voluntary schools. For these reasons he urged the Government to think seriously before they attempted to compel the county authorities to support the voluntary schools out of the rates, and before they compelled the voluntary schools to receive money from the rates.
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 6, to leave out from the word "are," to the word "to," in line 7, and insert the words "provided by them, and, in the case of schools not provided by them, shall pay over to the managers of the school all moneys, including the annual Parliamentary grant received by them on account of the said school, subject"—(Mr. Seely.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'necessary' stand part of the Clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I had rather hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon, who, as I

259
understand, has a similar Amendment on the Paper, would have risen before I addressed the House upon this subject. The form of the Amendment by the omission of the word "necessary" agrees with that of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, though the object of my hon. friend is fundamentally opposed to that of the hon. Member opposite. It may be almost sufficient to remind the Committee that the acceptance of the Amendment would mean the actual destruction of the scheme of education which this legislation is to carry out. I do not agree to my hon. friend's Amendment, and cannot accept it, though I agree with much that has been said in its favour. I have never attempted to disguise the fact that there are voluntary schools in many parts of the country where the managers are under no pecuniary strain or difficulty, and regard the Bill as a very great interference with managerial rights which they have hitherto exercised, subject to no control but that from Whitehall. My hon. friend says that if this Amendment were passed many voluntary schools would assent, and I am not disposed to dissent from him. I have always said in the House, and out of it, that the great scheme of national education which the Government asks the country to accept, is one which requires some sacrifices from almost every class engaged in working the anomalous, unsatisfactory, and contradictory system under which the country; groans. While I so far agree with my hon. friend, I hope he will notice that the whole plan of the Government for co-ordinating primary education would be absolutely shattered by the Amendment. It would be absolutely shattered, as far as voluntary schools are concerned by the fact that some would deliberately stay out of the scheme and others would be kept out by the action of a hostile or indifferent local authority. But it would not merely touch the voluntary schools, it would touch also the board schools. My hon. friend has truly pointed out that you could not possibly accept this Amendment without altering the whole principle of the county rate. The county rate would have to be abolished, and you would have to revert to the system which now prevails in the county area of having a
260
local rate for each local school. That is an absolute destruction of the central county authority. From the very terms of the Amendment, that education authority would be excluded from the management of the voluntary schools except in those cases where they came to some kind of arrangement with the managers, and it would also be clearly impossible to maintain their authority over the present board schools. They will have authority over the provided schools for the future, because they pay for them, but as soon as you put the whole charge for the provided schools, upon the locality, then the locality has a conclusive and irresistible right to manage the schools which it entirely maintains. Therefore I feel that, whatever else may be said, this Amendment is so absolutely revolutionary in character, it cuts so deeply at the very root of the Bill, and so effectually destroys the foundation on which the Bill is built, that it is one the Government could not possibly accept. I hope under these circumstances the hon. Member will think it hardly worth while to press it to a division.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the question raised by the Amendment was really that of the application of rates to the support of denominational schools. He was not surprised that the hon. Member saw the danger of the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, on the previous Saturday, had justified the Clause, on the ground that it satisfied the Church of England. It was a matter for thankfulness that a clause had been devised which did satisfy the Church of England, but that was hardly a sufficient justification for the Committee accepting the proposal of the Government.
SIR JOHN GORSTpointed out that he did not say it was a justification for the support of voluntary schools out of the rates, but that it was a provision which satisfied the Church of England and other religious bodies as to the maintenance of the denominational character of their schools, and that on that ground it might be acceptable.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONaccepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but thought it was not an argument which could be expected to justify the use of rates for the maintenance of voluntary schools. It was very convenient to use the county rather than the local rate, as by that means much local jealousy would be obviated, but it was still the use of rates for denominational purposes. If the right hon. Gentleman had a right to differentiate as to the management of the schools, the authority had a right to differentiate with regard to the treatment of the money which they provided out of the rates.
MR. YOXALLthought the hon. Member for Lincoln had based his Amendment largely upon his fear that the Bill in its present form would ultimately bring about the downfall of the denominational management of denominational schools. That was a contingency which perhaps the friends and foes of the Bill had not sufficiently perceived. In practice, the anticipation was likely to come true, and he was not concerned that it should not. The downfall of the denominational management of denominational schools was a condition precedent to any complete reform of the primary educational system of the country. He took it that the promoters of the Bill were as wide awake to the probable result of the measure in that respect as others could be, but possibly they thought that a plan whereby they got rid of denominational management, and yet retained the right to give denominational teaching in denominational schools, was one worth having amidst the general downfall which might come upon the system in other respects. The present Amendment, however, was only the preamble to another. Its mover was anxious to exclude from the compulsory part of the Bill voluntary schools as such, and to leave in their present unfair condition towards other schools the voluntary schools in parishes which at present did not contribute adequately, or even at all, by rates or otherwise, to the local cost of education. The effect of the Amendment would be that in the more than one-third of the country which contributed to education not at all by local rate, and very meagrely by subscription, this national and local
262
grievance would remain untouched, and the great majority of voluntary schools would be left for an indefinite period in the present inefficient condition. By a subsequent Amendment the hon. Member for Lincoln proposed to empower the County or Borough Council, or other local rating authority, to extend to the voluntary schools within its area aid for the rates, if the Council could arrange with the voluntary school managers for that to be done. But that proposal depended on the Amendment before the Committee, and under the Bill the extension of rate-aid to denominational schools could take place only on conditions laid down in the Bill. Those conditions were certainly better than no. statutory conditions at all. By the proposal of the hon. Member for Lincoln the County or Borough Council was to be free to come to terms in regard to rate-aid. This was very seldom done now, although the School Board could do it upon the condition that the management for secular purposes should be wholly under the control of the School Board. If this difficulty was so great under the statutory limitations of this Bill, how much greater would it be under the absolute absence of limitation which was foreshadowed by the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite. Option in this matter either from the point of view of education, or the welfare of the children was a mistake, and he should vote against the Amendment.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was surprised that this Amendment should come from the quarter it-had done, because upon a former Clause the hon. Member voted in favour of striking out this option.
MR. SEELY: I voted against it.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he understood that the hon. Member was rather anxious for the future of the denominational system, but he (Dr. Macnamara) was not. He was more anxious to get something done for the children. He had taken the trouble to turn up a Parliament Paper issued in 1900 which gave particulars for all elementary schools in England and Wales. It was issued in

263
August, 1899, and it gave the expenditure on all items. He would quote a few instances of schools in the County of Lincolnshire. In one school, with an average attendance of thirty-two, the expenditure on fuel, light, cleaning, repairs, taxes, and rent for the whole school for one year was 13s. 6d. or about 3d. per child. The effect of this Amendment would be that this school would continue with an expenditure of 3d. per child. In another school there were; sixty-four children in average attendance, and upon the items he had mentioned they spent 5s. or about Id. per child. Another column in the same Return gave the entire expenditure on books, apparatus, stationery, and furniture, and in one Lincolnshire school upon these items they spent 11s. 2d., or less than 2d. per child for seventy-five children. That would be continued under this Amendment. He objected to the continuance of this starved condition of education. In another Church school in the same county, with 150 children, the total expenditure upon the items he had mentioned was 26s. 4d. There were also schools in Carnarvonshire where they spent only 33s. 4d. on books, apparatus, stationery, and furniture for the whole year, and 29s. 7d. for lighting, fuel, cleaning, and repairs. This Parliamentary Paper was full of such instances. If they left these schools to the voluntary contributor, he would not pay, and those schools would continue in their present condition. The proposal of the Government he admitted would cause trouble, but the only way they could get a reform of their educational system was through the medium of a row. He did not object to a row at all. This Bill, at any rate, would wake up the English people, and he believed that the result would surprise his hon. friends opposite. He was, however, more concerned about the village schools being efficiently maintained. Rate-aid would cause great trouble and controversy, and if they had to have a row the sooner it came the better, and the sooner they got their schools on a proper basis, maintained from the public funds, the better.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid the figures quoted by the hon. Member for North
264
Camberwell could be easily explained. They knew perfectly well that it was the custom on some estates to provide the whole of the fuel for a school in the shape of coal and firewood. With regard to the cost of apparatus and other items mentioned by the hon. Member, he would remind the Committee that in those small country schools the cost might be very small one year because in the previous year a large amount had been expended upon those items. The argument of his hon. friend was therefore not valid as regarded those small schools. His hon. friend the Member for West Nottingham said he should vote against this proposal, because of a subsequent Amendment on the Paper. They were rarely logical having regard to Amendments. What they had to consider was the Amendment itself on its merits. If he understood the hon. Member for Lincoln, his proposal was: "Let the present state of things remain." That was to say, so long as the voluntary schools were carried on in this country efficiently and in every respect equal to the board schools, and what would now be the now county schools, they could go on on condition of receiving no rate-aid at all. He should be perfectly ready that the education authority should take over the schools if they were starved, and were inefficient, but he knew that in his own county the schools were as a rule carried on perfectly well and efficiently with the aid of subscriptions of money they received from the Government grant, and it was utterly unnecessary and quite gratuitous to impose these schools on the local rates of the county. The First Lord of the Treasury said the Amendment would destroy his great scheme. Well, undoubtedly it would destroy his great scheme of increasing the county rate. When the ratepayers were complaining of the rising rates in the country, the Government were proposing to put on the county rates a charge which was altogether unnecessary, they were going to take away a large part, if not the whole, of the benefit which had resulted from the passing of the Agricultural Rating Act. On these grounds he would support the Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the policy on which the hon. Member for North Camberwell opposed this Amendment

265
was: "Let us do evil that good may come." The hon. Member wanted a row. That was a very proper spirit in which to approach the consideration of this subject. At the same time they might as well try to make a good Bill, and if they failed they would all be ready for a row. Some cases in Wales had been mentioned, and although he did not catch the names, he had no doubt that what the: hon. Member said was in substance correct. One parish was mentioned where the charges amounted to 33s., but if the hon. Member only knew that parish he would know that this sum would go a long way. At the same time he was perfectly certain that what was now proposed would serve the purpose he had in view. Would it raise the level of education in that parish? There were parts of the country where they had very efficient School Boards. In these districts there was a rate of probably 1s. There was 1s. rate in the particular parish in which he lived. What would be the result if they had to levy rates for education all through the country? Places which were at present doing good work for education would suffer. They would be pulled down to the level of the country. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment supported it from the point of view of the voluntary schools. If the Amendment were rejected there was going to be great trouble and difficulty, and it was just possible that education might suffer for a whole generation. At the same time one would like to see his own generation get full educational facilities. That was the point of view he and his friends took. They objected to rate-aid being given to schools which were not managed by the ratepayers and where doctrines were taught which the majority of the ratepayers in a large number of districts thoroughly disapproved of. He knew it was asked why should they discriminate between rates and taxes? Well it was the genius of the English people. It was a genius which went in for illogical compromises. In Scotland, where there was a logical race, they did not draw the distinction, and a logical system was the outcome. In Wales, where there was a logical race, they objected to the Government proposal.
266
That was the only reason he could give for discriminating between rates and taxes on this particular point. When they objected to the payment of taxes they could not really say how much went to education and how much to other objects, but they could do it when they paid rates. In connection with the payment of rates they could say how much in the pound in a particular county would go towards education in voluntary schools, but when they paid taxes on tobacco, beer, and tea they could not possibly divide. The reason why they discriminated between rates and taxes was that in the case of taxes it was utterly impossible to ascertain the amount contributed to a particular object. The amount contributed by a particular Church per child in the voluntary schools was about 6s. That covered the time that was devoted to the teaching of dogma and doctrine. Now the whole time was placed on the rates—the time given to dogma and that given to secular instruction—and, therefore, the Nonconformists said that in future religious instruction would be ' placed on the rates for the first time. It was said, "You want a religious atmosphere." That was the point of view of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. But they wanted the atmosphere of their own particular sect. There was a good deal to be said for a good atmosphere in these schools, but what sort of atmosphere had they in hundreds of squalid little schools throughout the country? It was an Anglican atmosphere, and he objected to any rates going in aid of that atmosphere. At present a certain sect enjoyed privileges by which they were enabled to increase the number of their adherents in the Sunday schools. They had the patronage of 60,000 teachers, and they had all the honour, and glory, and glamour which came from managing the most important State communal institutions in 14,000 parishes in the country. What were they going to pay for it? It was all very well for the Member for Greenwich to say "If you decline to pay rates for our schools, we will decline to pay rates for your schools." Half the School Boards of the country were manned by Churchmen. The

267
School Boards of Manchester and Liverpool, and, until recently, the great School Board of London, and even the School Board of Birmingham were manned by denominationalists. Wherever Churchmen were in a majority they manned the board schools, but if they went to the sectarian districts it did not matter whether the Nonconformists were in a majority or not, they had not this monopoly of the management. In the board schools the majority of the teachers were Churchmen. In a board school nothing was taught which was of offence to the conscience of any Churchman, but he could point to many cases of voluntary schools in which doctrines were taught which were of offence to the Nonconformist parishioners. Was it not therefore fair that those who had special privileges, advantages, and patronage should be asked to contribute something towards the maintenance of these schools? If this were done—he did not say it would remove their objections—at any rate there would be still substantial objections remaining—but it would remove a certain objection. It would simply put them on the same footing as did the Bill of 1895–6, which provided for a grant in aid, subject to conditions-That Bill was objected to, but this Bill was far worse and more offensive. All that they asked was, to begin with, that rate-aid should be eliminated from the Bill, and that this special privilege given to the Church should be paid for. The same thing applied to all the other sects. If that were done pressure could be brought to bear by the County Councils to improve the school buildings, and the condition of the Church schools would thereby be forced up and put on a level of efficiency with the board schools. He insisted that the Government would do wisely, and in the interest of their Bill, if they did something to eliminate this matter. They must know perfectly well that this rate business was intolerable to the vast majority of the electors of the country. [Cries of "No‡" from the Ministerial Benches.] The hon. Member opposite who cried "No" represented a constituency not far removed from Devonport. What about rate-aid there? Did the Conservative candidate stand for rate-aid there to the voluntary schools?
268
On the contrary, he avoided all reference to rate-aid, but talked of a grant-in-aid to the dockyard labourers. If he were elected and came into the House it was not rate-aid for voluntary schools he would support the Government on, but if the Government did not give the extra shilling to the dockyard labourers he would, Education Bill or no Education Bill, vote against them. Really this Education Bill was running up a big account against the Government. It would cost them 1s. a week extra to the dockyard labourers, as it had cost them £900,000 in the interest of their own supporters. If the Government accepted this Amendment the Colonial Secretary would then be free to address an open meeting in Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman need not then lock the doors against his own constituents and turn out the reporters. He need not unnerve them all by his lurid pictures of what would happen if he did not control the destinies of the world. They might return to their normal condition and discuss things, afterwards on a purely educational basis. Let the Government eliminate this great controversial issue of rate-aid to the voluntary schools and then they could go on to the next Amendment.
MR. M'KENNAsaid he wished to say a few words in regard to the Nonconformist objections to paying the educational rate for voluntary schools. That objection had been misunderstood by the First Lord of the Treasury. In his speech in Manchester the right hon. Gentleman said—
"Well, I make a challenge. I make a challenge of a very simple kind. Will any one tell me what this fundamental principle of morality is? I will engage to show either that it is, on the face of it, not a fundamental, principle of morality, or that if it is, it has been consistently violated in England and Scotland by Nonconformists for the last thirty-years."
Although he was a humble member of the Nonconformist body, he nevertheless ventured to take up the challenge and to show the right hon. Gentleman that there was a moral ground on the part of Nonconformists to resist paying education rates under this Bill, and that that moral ground had not been consistently violated for the last thirty years. There was a vital

269
difference between the payment of rates and taxes for the support of voluntary schools. The payment of taxes during the last thirty years was for work done, viz., the teaching of certain defined secular subjects—the value of that teaching being tested by inspection and examination. That was the principle of the Bill of 1870. On the Second Reading of the Bill of 1870 Mr. Gladstone said—
"It was in our view essential to the success of this measure that so far as the funds of the State—and I use the term now in the narrow sense of that which proceeds from the Imperial Treasury—that so far as the funds of the State were concerned they should be applied only for secular results."*
Then later in the same speech Mr. Gladstone said—
"On the one hand, there is a very strong and vivid opinion among a large and active part of the community, that the safe course in the matter of national education is to limit the application of public funds to secular instruction. That is the principle on which our Privy Council System has always been founded; because, although it may be said that you had deviated from the rigour of that system in permitting inspection in regard to religious results, yet it has been always seen that the amount of public aid has left a large void to be supplied by private benevolence, and this it is which supplies the means of religious instruction."†
Again, in the same speech, the right hon. Gentleman said—
"We may entirely escape from the evils attending these controversies in the local Boards in connection with voluntary schools, and we may, at the same time, do justice to these voluntary schools, and prevent any of that action of religious prejudice against particular, and possibly, in some places, obnoxious, Communions, which may give cause of complaint; and we may at the same time adhere to what 1 hold to be the fundamental principle of the Bill——"
nothing could be clearer than this—
"Namely, that the funds of the Exchequer, whatever discretion yougive to the local Boards, are to be dispersed solely and exclusively for secular results."
That was the account of 1870: the funds of the State were to be "dispersed solely and exclusively for secular results."‡ A margin was to be found for the provision of a religious atmosphere by the voluntary subscribers. It was that margin which was now under this Bill to be put
* (3) Debates ccii., 269
†(3) Debates ccii., 272
‡(3) Debates ccii., 279
270
on the rates. Therefore, the Nonconformists said that they had a moral ground of objection to supplying the money for the teaching of denominational creeds and dogmas in which they did not believe. It might be said that that was only a technical objection to voting money to pay for religious instruction, and that there was margin enough in the payment for the schools and their maintenance and repair to cover the cost of the religious teaching. That contention was altogether fallacious. In the first place they had it on the very highest authority that the teaching in the denominational schools must include the maintenance of the religious atmosphere; and, therefore, it was idle to say that the religious instruction was limited to two or three hours in the week. The instruction must be in an Anglican atmosphere, because it was only in that way that the schools could be used as a back door to the Church.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that that was putting his views in a manner in which he did not recognise them at all.
MR. M'KENNAsaid he understood the noble Lord to claim that in the denominational schools, it was necessary that the religious atmosphere should be maintained.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he did not remember saying that. He was referring to the training colleges, and perhaps that was what the hon. Member was thinking of.
MR. M'KENNAsaid he was referring to a most eloquent speech which the noble Lord delivered on the Second. Reading of the Bill.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that he certainly did not say so in that speech.
MR. M'KENNAsaid that then, in that case, he would withdraw his remark. Whether it had been said by the noble Lord himself or not, the point had certainly been raised over and over again by persons responsible for controlling the voluntary schools. It was raised at the Church Congress: and it had certainly been raised in behalf of the Roman

271
Catholics. Therefore, it could not be said that three, four, or five hours per week of denominational teaching covered the whole of the expenditure of public money. The point raised by his hon. friend remained unanswered. The Government proposed not only to give rate-aid to those denominational schools, but to allow to the Anglican Church the whole of the patronage of 70,000 civil servants, which the schoolmasters would become, drawing salaries amounting in the aggregate, to not less than £4,000,000 sterling a year. Was it to be said that that annual asset would be covered by the annual value of the buildings used? The Nonconformists objection to the payment of the education rate was, therefore, not merely technical, but a matter of principle, and they were justified in drawing a distinction between taxes and rates. Formerly, the voluntary schools were private schools used by the State for giving secular instruction, but now they were to be made public schools, and the rates were to be used for the direct purpose of denominational education.
MR. SEELYsaid he should like before the debate closed, to say a word or two in regard to it. The First Lord of the Treasury had said he could not accept the Amendment, because it would destroy the Bill; but he would like to urge on the right hon. Gentleman for his future consideration that this Clause was not an essential part of the Bill. It seemed to him that the really essential and valuable parts of the Bill in the point of view of the country were two—first, that providing for secondary instruction, and second, that providing for the co-ordination of education in the hands of the County Councils and District Councils. Those objects would not be interfered with by this Amendment, which would provide a way out of the difficulties which were not so obvious in this House, but which in the country were very real and very grave indeed. A number of public authorities had declared that they were not willing to carry out the provisions of this Bill unless a majority of the managers of the voluntary schools were given to their appointment. That difficulty might be overridden, but great difficulty would be placed in the way of the working of this Bill if it was sought to override these authorities. His opinion
272
was that it would be wiser to give up the compulsory assistance from the rates to the voluntary schools, and make it optional. Hon. Members opposite in their opposition to the Amendment had rather let the cat out of the bag, and had shown that those interested in the teachers had been exerting a similar kind of pressure to that which was being put upon candidates at Devonport at the present time. The desire for the County rate was not so strong on the part of managers and those interested in education, as it was in the interest of a number of people who desired to have an unlimited fund into which they might put their hand. He asked County Members to consider what would occur under this Bill. All over the country pressure would be exercised to raise every school up to the position of the most expensive, quite regardless of efficiency or any necessity for it, but simply because every parish would desire to get as much out of the rates as possible. He was not prepared to agree with what had fallen from hon. Members as to the inefficiency of voluntary schools. He knew many of them, and his experience was that they were thoroughly efficient. And when all this talk was heard as to the want of education in I the country; of the loss of trade and commerce because of the want of education, without which we could not compete with foreign countries; of commercial travellers being unable to compete with foreigners owing to their ignorance of foreign languages, he would point out that that was not primary but secondary education. His contention was that by retaining the compulsory power in the Bill they were, so far from doing good to education, doing evil, and it was for that reason that he had moved this Amendment, and not, as it had been suggested, for the purpose of destroying the Bill. He did not wish to detain the House, and as it was well known that at the present time a division was simply a waste of time he begged leave to be allowed to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No."]
MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought it was a novel method on the part of an hon. Member to initiate a discussion lasting an hour and a quarter, and then to ask leave to

273
withdraw the Amendment. In his opinion it would be no waste of time to go to a division, and he trusted the House would not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn without an opportunity being given to divide upon it. Why was it a waste of time? Was it because the whip of the Party opposite was so strong that hon. Members opposite dare not vote for it? Had the command gone forth that any one might voice their opinion, and that when the time came to divide they must walk out of the House? The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member was a very invidious one. He had not appreciated the full importance of it when listening to the first speech of the hon. and gallant Member, but in his second speech he had thrown a great deal of light upon it. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken about option. Who was to have the option? The position which the hon. Member had advocated, appeared to be that wherever these schools could be maintained the managers need not go to the educational authority, and could say "Hands off ‡" so that there would be no power over these schools, although the grant from the Treasury was going to be increased. Then the hon. and gallant Member took up the position that if these schools did desire a contribution they were to have it. The option was altogether on one side, and it showed that the desire was to keep the denominational schools intact, and entirely separate. As the Prime Minister had said, if the speech of the hon. Member carried the Amendment, the whole of the Bill would be gone, but the real object of the Amendment was to see that
the voluntary schools were aided either by grants or rates. He submitted that the voluntary schools had no right to receive assistance unless they were governed by the people themselves.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he was not surprised that the Prime Minister was unable to accept the Amendment, because it certainly went to the heart of the Bill. The Bill aimed at replacing the voluntary sub-sections by compulsory sub-sections in the form of rates. The voluntary subscribers came to the House and said, "We will subscribe no longer; will you put the ratepayers in such a position as to be compelled to subscribe to these schools? "In this case the old proverb, "Beggars cannot be choosers," apparently did not hold good, because the Church in this matter wished to do the begging and to choose as well. That was what the country resented. The Vice President of the Council had said at Cambridge recently that the Church, managers had come and said they would accept certain conditions, and the Government agreed. That was what was objected to. If the Church came in forma pauperis, and said she could no longer afford to carry on these schools, it was only right that the ratepayers who had to support them should choose the conditions under which they should continue to exist. If the Amendment went to a division he should support it.
(5.13) Question put.
Committee divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 99. (Division List, No. 395.)

AYES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bill, Charles

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc

Aird, Sir John

Bond, Edward

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Chapman, Edward

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Charrington, Spencer

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bowles, T. (Gibson (King's Lynn

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Arrol, Sir William

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Butcher, John George

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Balcarres, Lord

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Baldwin, Alfred

Carew, James Laurence

Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Bartley, George C. T.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Davenport, William Bromley-

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Bignold, Arthur

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Denny, Colonel

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rankin, Sir James

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Howard, John (Kent, Fav'sham

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Remnant, James Farquharson

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Duke, Henry Edward

Johnstone, Heywood

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Kemp George

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kimber, Henry

Rutherford John

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Knowles, Lees

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limestone)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

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

Finch, George H.

Lawson, John Grant

Seton-Karr, Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Shaw-Stewart, H. M. (Renfrew)

Fison, Frederick William

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

Spear, John Ward

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Flower, Ernest

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesbam

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Forster, Henry William

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

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Galloway, William Johnson

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stroyan, John

Garfit, William

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thornton, Percy M.

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

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Manners, Lord Cecil

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Graham, Henry Robert

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Valentia, Viscount

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Milvain, Thomas

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H. (Sheffield

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Gunter, Sir Robert

Morgan, David J. (Walth'stow)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hain, Edward

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morrison, James Archibald

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hambro, Charles Eric

Mount, William Arthur

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Myers, William Henry

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Harwood, George

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Worsley, Taylor, Henry Wilson

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pemberton, John S. G.

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

Healy, Timothy Michael

Percy, Earl

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Heaton, John Henniker

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Younger, William

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Plummer, Walter R.

Yoxall, James Henry

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Hogg, Lindsay

Pretyman, Ernest George

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Purvis, Robert

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Randles, John S.

NOES

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Burt, Thomas

Davies, M Vaughan-(Cardigan

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Caine, William Sproston

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Barlow, John Emmott

Caldwell, James

Duncan, J. Hastings

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dunn, Sir William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Causton, Richard Knight

Edwards, Frank

Bell, Richard

Craig, Robert Hunter

Ellis, John Edward

Black, Alexander William

Cremer, William Randal

Emmott, Alfred

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Crombie, John William

Evans, Samel T. (Glamorgan)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

276

277

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Stevenson, Francis S.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Mather, Sir William

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Newnes, Sir George

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

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Norman, Henry

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hayne, Kt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Partington, Oswald

Wallace, Robert

Helme, Norval Watson

Paulton, James Mellor

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

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

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pickard, Benjamin

Wason, Eugene

Horniman, Frederick John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Weir, James Galloway

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Priestley, Arthur

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reckitt, Harold James

Whitley, George (York, W. R.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rigg, Richard

Whitley, J. H (Halifax)

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Layland-Barratt, Francis.

Runciman, Walter

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Schwann, Charles E.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Lewis, John Herbert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Seely and Mr. Lloyd-George.

Logan, John William

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

M'Kenna, Reginald

Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants

MR. HELMEthought all would agree that they should try to make the new educational machinery work as smoothly as possible. According to the recent reports of inspectors, many schools in different parts of the country were not structurally suitable for the purposes for which they were used. At present the grants made to schools were dependent on certain conditions, and returns had been presented of schools that failed to comply with those conditions. Under the Code, the Board of Education required to be satisfied that the school premises were healthy, properly constructed and arranged for teaching, efficiently lighted, drained, and ventilated, and so on; but a number of schools, both voluntary and Board, failed to come up to the standard required by the State. It was therefore very desirable that before the great transfer to the new local authorities took place due inquiry should be made into these matters, and that in order to avoid the friction which might otherwise arise, it should lie enacted that only such schools as were structurally suitable were to be put on the local authorities. In the interests of the smooth working of the scheme the Committee would do well to accept the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 6, after the word "necessary," to insert the words "and for which the buildings are structurally suitable."—(Mr. Helme.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said that everyone would cordially sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member to improve the structural and sanitary conditions and the general convenience and comfort of the schools, but it took time and persistence to effect those improvements. The attention of successive Presidents of the Board of Education had been directed to that end, but the result was not yet wholly satisfactory. The new local authorities, however, would almost inevitably strengthen the hands of the Board of Education in this matter. Would the Amendment really promote the object the hon. Member had in view? Its effect might be to postpone the whole operation of the Bill while a general inquiry was being made, and the buildings from end to end of the United Kingdom surveyed—until the local authorities and the Board of Education between them came to the conclusion that the buildings were structurally suitable and such as they would wish to see provided for the education of the children. That would not only cause considerable delay and inconvenience, but would for some time postpone the stimulating and strengthening influence of the local authority. The object of the hon. Member would be better attained by letting the Bill come into immediate operation, because as soon
278

279
as the local authority acquired its powers, so far as the schools provided by itself were concerned, the matter would be in its own hands, while, as regarded the schools not provided, one of the conditions under which assistance from the rates would be secured was that the managers made such alterations and improvements in the buildings as might reasonably be required, and if any question arose between the local authority and the managers as to that "reasonable requirement" it would be settled by the Board of Education. The Board would welcome the strengthening and stimulating influence of the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had recently declared that under the present sinister influences which prevailed, the best energies of the President and Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education would be devoted to thwarting the praiseworthy efforts of local authorities to put the education of the country on a proper footing. He assured the Committee, however, that so long as he had anything to do with the Board of Education the suggestions of the local authorities would not be regarded by him—and he was sure he could say the same of his noble friend the President—as primâ face unreasonable, but would receive the most careful attention. For the reasons he had given he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the hon. Member was entirely mistaken in supposing he attributed any sinister motives to him; on the contrary, he said he would act under the most conscientious convictions. The objection raised by his hon. friend, and one which the ratepayers would feel very strongly, was to the local authority being called upon to take over at once a quantity of dilapidated property which was unfit for the purpose to which it was devoted. If the Amendment were carried and the voluntary managers were told that they would not have the benefit of the Bill until the buildings were put in a decent state of repair, the alterations would be done at once; but if they were enabled to get the aid of the rates in respect of schools which were unsuitable, there would be a great deal of delay before the improvements and repairs were carried out. The machinery under the Bill was that they were to be called upon by the
280
Board of Education to put the buildings in repair. That would take some time, and consequently the proprietors of these entirely unsuitable buildings would get—
SIR WILLIAM ANSONreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the buildings, so far from being entirely unsuitable, had to be found structurally suitable before they could get the Parliamentary grant.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid his complaint was that the Board did not enforce that requirement, otherwise schools would not be structurally unsuitable. They did not wish an intolerable strain to be put upon the only people who were to make contributions to voluntary schools. They ought to have the security that before these schools derived the advantage of the rates they ought not to compel the local authority to take over unsuitable; buildings. If that principle were: established they would get the buildings made suitable at once, but if not, heaven knew how long they would have to wait. Suppose that such a demand were made upon the foundation managers, correspondence would take place with. Whitehall upon the subject of some particular improvement, and anyone who knew anything about controversies of that kind knew that it might be a very long time before they got anything done under those circumstances. His hon. friend wished that before these schools were taken over this question should be settled.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was-very glad to hear the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education, because he recognised that they were-now raising a question which was really vital to the health as well as to the education of the children. If they compelled people to send their children, to school they must see that the schools were suitable. Many of the voluntary schools were in a dilapidated condition, and it was a fact that some of His Majesty's Inspectors of schools were guilty of a conspiracy of silence in respect of a great many of these buildings, which they "wink" at because they know the managers could not put them into a proper condition. There must not be any more winking at these schools,

281
and they must see that a really reasonable standard of efficiency was maintained. The first grant for the building of these schools was made in 1839. He had consulted a Blue-book on this subject issued in February, 1840, in which it was stated that a good barn might easily be converted into a schoolroom. If they acted on the advice of the Government at that time, and utilised the barns, what must be the condition of those schools sixty years after? They must now take up a more rigid attitude altogether as regarded the suitability of those buildings. Three years ago, Mr. Fisher, the Inspector for the Plymouth District, said that two schools in his area were at present under sentence of condemnation. In one case part of the ground floor was used as a stable, which was underneath the main room in which the scholars were taught. The other school was built in a churchyard where burials took place, and where a grave was made within a few feet of the schoolroom window. Those were extreme cases, but there were many unsuitable schools, and they ought to alter all that state of things now. In one instance there was a school in as bad a condition as it could possibly be, and yet it might go on for years as a voluntary school. At last the managers gave up the struggle and transferred it. It was at once condemned, and the School Board had to build a new school. They wanted to see that there could not be any more of those unsuitable premises. He deplored very much indeed the recent speech made by the Marquess of Londonderry, for it seemed to him to be an intimation to the inspectors of schools to go on passing badly-lighted and badly equipped schools. Lord Londonderry spoke of the luxurious accommodation provided by the School Board for London. London board schools were clean, well lighted, and well ventilated, but they were not luxurious, and were only equipped with the ordinary necessities of school life. Lord Londonderry said that although some of the country schools were deficient they gave the very best education. He denied that. He granted that they met the requirements of the Board of Education, and he wondered that they were able to produce the results they did from an intellectual point
282
of view under such difficulties. There was another side to the question. He; could introduce the Lord President to many country teachers and children who I have suffered because of the undesirable character of the premises in which they spent their days. He should like to know how many teachers were on the Invalid Fund under the Teachers Superannuation Bill on account of the bad condition of the village schools. Some years ago he tabulated 421 returns of most of the village schools and the older voluntary schools of the towns, and he found that more than 25 per cent, of them were schools which ought to have been condemned long ago, because of their unsuitability. The hon. Member for North West Ham, in a presidential address to the National Union of Teachers, said he had no hesitation in saying that many of the buildings used as schools were in such a disgraceful condition that it was impossible for children to spend five hours per day in them without suffering physical and moral injury. The schools were reported to be damp, not in good repair, the ventilation was not good, and they were not well lighted. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education showed that ho desired that this thing should be improved, and as a practical man he must proceed step by step and do the best he could in the circumstances. He hoped that the Board of Education would be more strenuous in future, and that the inspectors would not pass so many of these buildings. He had never spoken strongly on the matter in the past because he felt that if they had not the money they could do nothing. Probably the inspectors took the view that if they condemned these buildings the result would be to set up a village School Board. He admitted at once that a village School Board as an alternative to the voluntary school managers was not always to be chosen as the best educational expedient. If time permitted he could give startling instances of the incapacity of the village School Board. Speaking generally, a country village was too small as a unit of administration. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to. Clause 8 of the Bill, and it was no doubt set forth there that—
"The managers of the school shall, out of funds provided by them, keep the school house

283
in good repair, and make such alterations and improvements in the buildings sis may be reasonably required by the local education authority."
He had a rather serious question to bring before the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to this. Many of the buildings ought not to be used as schools, being entirely unfit for the purpose. The local education authority ought to say, and must say, to the voluntary school managers that they must build a new school, or they would build one themselves out of the public funds. What was the standard the local authority was to go on? Up to last year there was an admirable schedule in the Education Code dealing with the planning of elementary schools.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The building rules will very shortly be in the hands of hon. Members. There is no need for any anxiety on the matter.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had a little anxiety on the matter. He thought he was entitled to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the schedule dealing with the planning of school buildings had suddenly and mysteriously disappeared from the Code on the eve of Parliament imposing a new obligation on the local authorities. The circumstance was suspicious, to say the least of it, for it seemed as if the Government were afraid to put in the hands of the new local authorities a standard which would make it difficult for the managers to carry out their work in existing buildings, many of which were unsuitable for the purposes of educational work.
SIR HENRY FOWLERthought the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to this Amendment was based on an incorrect foundation. The hon. Baronet stated that an immense time would have to elapse between the passing of the Bill and its coming into operation. He could not appreciate the force of that objection at all. The Act would come into operation at once. The question was whether the buildings now in use were or were not fit for use as schools. He thought the Committee had a right to say that before these schools and other buildings were taken over and provided for in
284
future out of public funds they should be structurally suitable, at least, for carrying on the work of a school. If the buildings were structurally unsuitable for the work of a school to be carried on, if the denominational authority practically provided nothing for the school, where was the force of the Prime Minister's argument that this authority should have a preponderating voice in the management of the school? The supporters of the Amendment had a right to ask the Government to insert it, or equivalent words, in the Clause to say that the denominational managers should provide structurally suitable buildings, and that this need should be complied with at once on the requisition of the education authority before money was found for the carrying on of these schools. But how were they to compel the voluntary managers, and where were the funds to come from? Were they to compel the managers to raise a subscription? They could do nothing in this respect, and the money would have to be found out of the rates. As the public authority, therefore, would insist upon having buildings structurally suitable and properly equipped, the argument of those who supported the Amendment was strengthened if the public money was to be spent, not only in carrying on the school, but really in building a new school. The grant of that public money should be accompanied by popular control.
MR. SAMUELEVANSsaid that on every ground some such words as these ought to be accepted by the Government. He regarded the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary as a mere temporising speech to stave over a difficulty. The new authorities were to be overlookers of the education of the country and Parliament ought not to saddle them with schools which were totally unfit for the work to be carried on. The Parliamentary Secretary said the matter would be looked into by the Board of Education in London, but everybody knew that the Board winked at these defects. When the country was making a new start in educational policy liberty ought to be conceded to the new authorities to say whether or not in their opinion the work of education should be continued in these buildings. He declined

285
to entrust Lord Londonderry with a decision of this kind. He was not sure that according to the Bill even the Marquess of Londonderry would have any power. At any rate he would have very little power, because the subsection of the Bill to which reference had been made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell referred merely to alterations and improvements of existing buildings, and he made bold to say that, in a dispute between the managers of a denominational school and the new education authority, the latter could not for a moment with success contend that they could order the building to be pulled down. How could they make a cow house, or a stable, or a barn into a good school? It could not be done, and yet that was all the power that was given to the new education authority. The first essential for elementary education was to have a proper building, not one adapted from an erection which was structurally unfit. He maintained that the House had an absolute right to declare first, that the new education authorities should not be burdened with improper structures, and, secondly, that, having the duty cast upon them to provide proper education, they must provide it in proper places under proper conditions, and that they themselves should decide, without appeal, whether a school was suitable or not. If there was to be any delay at all, it would arise from this appeal to the Board of Education. Did the friends of the Bill really mean to say that the education authority should do everything else in education, but should not be empowered to say whether a room was fit for educational purposes? A good solid test of the bonâ fides of the intentions of the Government on the question of efficiency in education could be had in their attitude to this question. If the Government intended that education ought to be properly given in properly-constructed buildings they would at once accept the Amendment.
MR. TREVELYANsaid that the question was what authority was to be trusted to improve the structural condition of the voluntary schools. There was no difference of opinion that they wanted improvement. There were three authorities—the Board of Education, the local authority, and the managers. The Parliamentary Secretary had said that the education authority was capable of applying
286
pressure to those school managers, and was to be trusted to do it, but the most emphatic sentence in Lord Londonderry's speech on Friday, in addressing the school inspectors, was—what no doubt was a truism—that education was not confined to seats and desks and good buildings. It was a very good thing that Lord Londonderry should address himself to the kind of education given by the teachers, but he went on to say that he deprecated the too rigid application of building rules. So much for the Department; but what about the managers? Unfortunately they found in many parts of England the managers of the voluntary schools were declaring that it was very likely that they would not, be able to find the money for the structural necessities of the school buildings. The Leamington and Warwick Clerical Society had said it had yet to be shown that the rank and file of the Church school managers had the funds, or where these were to be found. Of course, the subscriptions would cease, for they would not pay as subscribers and be taxed at the same time. If the Church school managers were not going to find the money for structural repairs, one of two things must happen—either the structural repairs would not be made, or the Government would have to drop out the Clause at a later stage. The Amendment proposed to call in the assistance of the only remaining authority to insist on the alterations being made—that authority which the Government said they trusted so implicitly.
MR. M'KENNAasked how the Government proposed to compel the managers to make the school buildings structurally suitable. The Secretary to the Board of Education had said that sub-Clause (d) provided for keeping the school house in proper repair; but, supposing the managers did not obey, what was to happen? It was conceivable that, for want of funds, the managers could not make such reasonable alterations as might be required. Would the First Lord accept one or other of the Amendments standing later on the Paper which provided that, "If the managers are unable or unwilling to carry out these requirements, or fail to carry

287
them out with due despatch, the local education authority shall have the right themselves to make such repairs, alterations, and improvements as are sanctioned by the Board of Education, and any school thereafter maintained in such buildings shall be held to be a school provided by that authority." If the First Lord would accept that Amendment he would advise his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that if the hon. Member would read Clause 8, he would see that one condition under ‡ which a school was maintained was that the managers did what was provided in sub-Section (d). That being so, what would happen in case of non-compliance would be that the school would cease to be maintained.
MR. M'KENNAsaid that time would be lost if the local authority had to go to the Board of Education to get their sanction to build another school. The managers would have the local education authority in the hollow of their hand, and he submitted that the remedy apparently was to stop education in the school and district.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that he hoped that some answer would be given to the arguments urged in favour of the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had listened with great patience to the debate. Some hon. Gentlemen surely wished to defeat the Bill, and if the Bill was defeated those schools would go on exactly as they were at present. The second alternative was that if the Bill passed, the local authority would in any case in which the structure of a school required alteration and improvement, inform the managers. The managers would either be able to carry out the instructions given to them or not. If they could not carry them out, the school would cease to be a voluntary school, the education authority would have to provide its school, and that school would be a publicly provided school. There would be no further denominational education, and he would have thought that hon. Gentleman opposite would
288
have much preferred that, so that he could not really see what it was that those gentlemen had to complain of.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he would not have risen after the speech of the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, if they had had a more satisfactory answer to the arguments put before the Committee from that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that there were a large number of schools which were structurally unfit, and surely it was not desirable that the new local authority should take over bad schools. The point made was simply this—a large number of the voluntary schools were in an undesirable condition, and the local authorities, if they were to fall back on the school managers of these schools, would find that they were really bankrupt. For that there was no provision in this Bill, except with that undue delay which the Secretary to the Board of Education deprecated. It seemed to him that these words were the necessary complement of sub-Section (d) and were by no means, unnecessary. The whole trouble was that there were a large number of schools in which education was not carried on properly at the present time, and which, in the future, if their education was to become efficient, would have to fall back on the voluntary subscribers. It was because the voluntary schools were behind that this Bill was brought in, yet, the schools were told that they were to trust in the future to the efforts which had not been successful in the past.
MR. FLETCHER MOULTONsaid the remedy, if there was no obedience to this condition, was not that the school ceased to be a school earning the support of the local education authority, but the only punishment was that it lost the Parliamentary grant. The obligation, however, to keep the school going and to maintain it was found in the first words of Clause 8, and was not removed by this disobedience. The disobedience of the managers would therefore punish the local education authority, who would be obliged to maintain the school without the aid of the Parliamentary Grant. What they wanted to do by this Amendment

289
was simply to make the structural suitability of the school a condition precedent, if he might use a legal term, to the taking of it over. As the matter stood, it was not a condition precedent, and the sole remedy was for the educational authority to proceed against the managers, and possibly get a mandamus against them, but the duty to maintain the school without the Parliamentary grant remained just as before. If the Premier would accept an Amendment to sub-Section 2, and make it stand thus: "in order that it may rank as a public elementary school" they would be quite satisfied, but all it said at present was "in order to maintain the Parliamentary grant,' and so long as it stood in that form it was quite possible for a school to continue under inferior conditions in defiance of the local authority.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman might be right or he might be wrong as to the legal interpretation of the Clause as it stool, that he (Mr. Balfour) had stated the policy of the Government in this matter very frequently If the Clause did not carry that out, let them get on to that part of it where this Amendment was thought to be necessary, and if it was necessary it would be accepted. This was not the point at which it was required.
MR. BRYCEsaid he differed entirely from the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the point of the Amendment, which was that no school should be taken over at all if its building was not in a condition structurally suitable. That was, by the Amendment, to be a condition precedent to any operation of the Bill. Surely that was a most reasonable view to take of this matter. It had already been admitted by the Secretary to the Board of Education that there were in the country now a great number of schools structurally unsuitable, and owing to the construction of the Bill all these schools would be taken over, however bad they might be, and the first thing the County Councils would have to do would be to press the managers to put them into a suitable condition structurally. But there was
290
no means in the Bill as it stood of coercing the managers. If this change was not made in the Clause, the managers would hold the key of the position, for they would only have to say, "Here are the schools you are required to take over" He submitted that time would be saved in the long run if they had made it a condition precedent rather than that the matter should be made the means of a controversy between the educational authorities and the managers.
MR. DUKEsaid the right hon. Gentlemen's proposal amounted to this, that although the managers of the schools continued to carry on their schools in buildings which for twenty or thirty years had been approved for the purpose, a hostile local authority might at the end of this year refuse to provide anything for the expenditure which had been incurred. The proposal was a monstrous one, and was intended to destroy the voluntary schools.
MR. WALLACEwas amazed at the application of the word "monstrous" to an Amendment which merely sought to provide that the schools were structurally suitable. He had understood from the Prime Minister that the whole basis of the Bill was trust in the local authorities, and he could not imagine for a moment that there was a single Member in the House who thought that a building which was structurally unsuitable for a school should be forced upon the local authority, yet that was the proposition which was made by the Bill as it stood.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked what was to be done if the local authorities said to the managers "You must repair your buildings" and the latter declined or neglected to comply with the demand? The school might be closed for eighteen months while the matter was being fought out. How would they bridge over that interval, during which time there might be no school at all in the parish? All that was asked by the Amendment was that there should be the same remedy as that which they had in the matter of roads at the present moment. When it was a question of taking over a road, the highway

291
authority said "We will take over your road provided that in the first place you put it into proper repair" They desired that that principle should be incorporated in this Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he failed to see that this Amendment saved any time, except that it might save the time required for asking the Education
Department to investigate the justice of the claims put forward by the local authority. If that was the only difference between them, it ought to be decided not on this Clause, but on the subsequent one.
(6.48.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 249. (Division List No. 396.)

AYES

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Rigg, Richard

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harwood, George

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Helme, Norval Watson

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Barlow, John Emmott

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

Runciman, Walter

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Horniman, Frederick John

Scott, Charles Prestwich (Leigh

Bell, Richard

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Shackleton, David James

Black, Alexander William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Joicey, Sir James

Soares, Ernest J.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Burns, John

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Stevenson, Francis S.

Burt, Thomas

Kitson, Sir James

Strachey, Sir Edward

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Caine, William Sproston

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Caldwell, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, JA (Gl'morgan, Gower

Causton, Richard Knight

Lloyd-George, David

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

Cremer, William Randal

Logan, John William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crombie, John William

Lough, Thomas

Wallace, Robert

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Kenna, Reginald

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Wason, Eugene

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Weir, James Galloway

Duncan, J. Hastings

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dunn, Sir William

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Edwards, Frank

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Emmott, Alfred

Moss, Samuel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Newnes, Sir George

Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Norman, Henry

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

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Partington, Oswald

Yoxall, James Henry

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Grant, Corrie

Perks, Robert William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Griffith, Ellis J.

Priestley, Arthur

Mr. William M'Arthur.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Reckitt, Harold James

NOES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Carlile, William Walter

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Aird, Sir John

Bignold, Arthur

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bigwood, James

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bill, Charles

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Arrol, Sir William

Bond, Edward

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. (Birm.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A. (Worc

Balcarres, Lord

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Chapman, Edward

Baldwin, Alfred

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Charrington, Spencer

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

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Brown, Alexander H.

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

Banbury, Frederick George

Butcher, John George

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Bartley, George C. T.

Carew, James Laurence

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Healy, Timothy Michael

Percy, Earl

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Pierpoint, Robert

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.)

Plummer, Walter R.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Heaton, John Henniker

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

Purvis, Robert

Cust, Henry John C.

Hogg, Lindsay

Randles, John S.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Rankin, Sir James

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Denny, Colonel

Hoult, Joseph

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Howard, John (Kent, Fav'sh'm

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Haward, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hutton, John (York. N. R)

Rutherford, John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Duke, Henry Edward

Johnstone, Heywood

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Kemp George

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Kenyon, Hon Geo. T. (Denbigh

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

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Kenvon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Keswick, William

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Fellowes, Hon Aylwyn Edward

Kimber, Henry

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Finch, George H.

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Spear, John Ward

Fisher, William Hayes

Lawson, John Grant

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Fison, Frederick William

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Flower, Ernest

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

Stroyan, John

Forster, Henry William

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Galloway, William Johnson

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gardner, Ernest

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

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

Garfit, William

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Thornton, Percy M.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

Macartney. Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

Valentia, Viscount

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Manners, Lord Cecil

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Milvain, Thomas

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Grenfell, William Henry

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Greville, Hon. Ronald

More, Robet Jasper (Shropshire)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w)

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

Gunter, Sir Robert

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Hain, Edward

Morrison, James Archibald

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Mount, William Arthur

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

Hambro, Charles Eric

Mowbary, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Younger, William

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Myers, William Henry

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicholson, William Graham

Harries, Federick Leverton

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pemberton, John S. G.

(7.0.) Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 6, after the word 'necessary,' to insert the words ' and have the control of all
294
expenditure required for that purpose other than expenditure for which under this Act provision is to be made by the managers.'"—(Mr. Alexander Brown)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."—(Mr. Alexander Brown)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I accept this Amendment.
DR. MACNAMARA,pointing out that the Amendment proposed to give the control of expenditure to the local authority, asked how far the unrepealed portion of the Act of 1870 would permit the local authority absolutely and entirely to delegate all that financial control to the managers. The First Lord of the Treasury, at Manchester, was under a serious misapprehension when he said—
"We have borrowed the term manager from the Act of 1870, and in that Act the terms 'managers' and 'management' do not carry with them the idea of control."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I ought to have said "necessarily"
DR. MACNAMARA (continuing)quoted Section 15 of the Act of 1870.
"The School Board may, if they think fit, from time to time delegate any of their powers under this Act, except the power of raising money, and in particular, may delegate the control… and management of the schools'."
He thought it very desirable that the Government should look over that section and see whether it would not be necessary to repeal some part of it if that financial control was not to be directly delegated. There might be no objection to a directly elected body delegating this control, but there was a serious objection to a nominated body delegating the control to another body of persons, only two out of six of whom represented the public.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said his impression was that it would not be necessary to repeal any portion of the section referred to. The responsibility for the control of this expenditure would rest with the local education authority, who would be subject to audit in the manner provided. He would, however, look into the matter before the repealing clauses were reached.
MR. M'KENNA MR. M'KENNA moved to insert after "have" in the Amendment, the word "sole," in order that it might be perfectly clear that the local authority should have sole control. Under the Bill the control
296
of expenditure was in the hands of the managers, and but for this Amendment would remain exclusively in their hands. There was such a thing as joint control, and his contention was that the managers should have no control whatever over a single penny of public money. As the Bill stood the managers had sole control over the expenditure. The relations—whether of dependence or semi-dependence—between the managers and the local authority were nowhere defined. By sub-Clause (c) of Clause 8, the consent of the local education authority was required to the appointment of teachers. That meant, if anything, that the managers had the appointment of teachers.
THE CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Member do not seem to be relevant to the Amendment. The Amendment is simply the difference between "control" and "sole control."
MR. M'KENNAsaid the relevancy was that if the managers had the sole control over the appointment and payment of teachers they had the sole control over the expenditure. The Amendment was to give the control to the local authority. But that would not take away the control of the managers. His point was that managers should have no control at all. From beginning to end there was no power given in the Bill to the managers to appoint the teachers, but it was obviously assumed by the words of sub-Clause (c) of Section 8. That was the only possible construction of the Section. Consequently, the control of the expenditure was in the hands of the managers, and it was not altered by giving a concurrent control to the local authority. The insertion of the word "sole" was therefore necessary.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After the first word 'the,' to insert the word 'sole.'"—
Question proposed, "That the word 'sole' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."—
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid there was not a single syllable in the whole Bill giving the managers any control whatever over

297
expenditure. The hon. Member had read a sub-Section dealing with the functions of the managers, but the question with which the Amendment dealt was that of expenditure.
MR. M'KENNApointed out that he was really continuing an argument which he began on the previous Friday. The existing voluntary school managers had control over expenditure, and he had argued all along that it was assumed that the raw voluntary school managers would have the same control as the old managers had had, subject to such reductions as were contained in Clause 8.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that that was what he denied. The use of the word "sole" would lead to the supposition that its insertion was for the purpose of freeing the local education authority from any conditions or restrictions as to expenditure imposed by the Board of Education, whereas it was intended, of course, that the authority should be subject to the general law.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the argument seemed to be that the whole of the expenditure was not to be at the disposal of the education authority ("No.") The Attorney General had said they were to be subject to restrictions.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: What I said was that they would be subject to such general restrictions as by statute are imposed with reference to expenditure.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then the expenditure is controlled by the Education Department at Whitehall?
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Subject to the general law.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked what then was the general law? The Councils would be very anxious to know the law that was to restrain them from dealing with their own money. The Attorney General had opened a very large question, and before they proceeded further the Committee were entitled to know what these restrictions were. They ought to know what the general law was by which the Government, through the Education Department, would govern the local authority in the expenditure of money from the rate. They could
298
not pass that over as an insignificant thing. He did not know, and, with great respect, he did not think the Attorney General knew, what those powers were. Perhaps the Attorney General would be good enough to say what they were and lay them on the Table.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that the point made by his hon. friend in favour of the Amendment had not been met. The Government contended that the whole of the control of the expenditure, or the sole control, should be vested in the education authority, but his hon. friend said that that was not so under the Bill. The position of the managers was not made clear by the Bill. They could test this in a very simple way. A very important part of the expenditure would be that in regard to the appointment of teacher's. Ho wished to know who would fix the salary of those teachers.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The local education authority.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked, if any claim was made by a schoolmaster, would it be decided by the managers or by the education authority.
SIR W. HART DYKE: It would be the local education authority. That was a most explicit statement made by the Prime Minister.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he was quite satisfied with the answer given by the Attorney General.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he should like the Attorney General to explain this matter a little further, for he could not follow the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the insertion of the word "sole" He instanced the legal control with regard to the Government grants, but the introduction of the word "sole" could not affect Government grants. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to have any real objection to the word "sole"
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The accounts must be subject to audit.
SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that the words with regard to audit were contained in the Bill itself, and the insertion of the word "sole" could not override them.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Attorney General had made an important statement. He stated that the managers had no powers vested in them except those accorded by this Act.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I said they had no power with regard to expenditure.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEdid not see why the Attorney General should discriminate between expenditure and anything else. His hon. friend said the managers had powers invested in them as voluntary managers. He wished to know, were those powers taken away by this Act? If so, then they had no power to appoint teachers.
THE CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was simply taking that as an illustration. The Attorney General said there were no powers vested in these managers except the powers accorded by this Act. He was simply pointing out that under this Act there were no powers to appoint teachers. Therefore, the Government must have it in their minds that the managers refer to something else not in the Act, and he thought they were entitled to know where those powers came from—whether they proposed to put them into a schedule. And how were they to get a definition of the controlling power's of the managers unless they had some words inserted in the Act? Apparently there was something contemplated by the Government which was not in the Act. Where was the law that created the powers of the managers apart from the Bill?
MR. M'KENNAsaid he thought the Attorney General ought to answer that question.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid this had nothing to do with the Amendment, for they were now dealing with the expenditure only.
MR. M'KENNAcontended that they had the same powers over expenditure as over anything else, and the Bill implied that they had powers over the teachers' salaries.
MR. WALLACEasked whether the control could be delegated by the education authority to the managers or not.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the whole responsibility must remain with the local education authority. He did not say that, as a matter of convenience, the petty expenditure might not by be left in the managers' hands.
DR. MACNAMARAasked if it would be possible for the local authority to draw up their own Budget of expenditure and hand it over to the managers, saying, "Here it is; expend it." Would that be possible under this scheme for a year?
SIR ROBERT FTNLAY: I think the local education authority would need to approve or condemn that expenditure.
(7.23.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 241. (Division List No. 397.)

AYES

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Causton, Richard Knight

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cawley, Frederick

Fuller, J. M. F.

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Craig, Robert Hunter

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Barlow, John Emmott

Crombie, John William

Grant, Corrie

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Dalziel, James Henry

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

Bell, Richard

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Black, Alexander William

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Duncan, J. Hastings

Harwood, George

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Dunn, Sir William

Helme, Norval Watson

Burns, John

Edwards, Frank

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

Burt, Thomas

Emmott, Alfred

Holland, Sir William Henry

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Horniman, Frederick John

Caine, William Sproston

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Caldwell, James

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Joicey, Sir James

Newnes, Sir George

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Partington, Oswald

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

Kitson, Sir James

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wallace, Robert

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Priestley, Arthur

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Reckitt, Harold James

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Rigg, Richard

Wason, Eugene

Lloyd-George, David

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Weir, James Galloway

Logan, John William

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lough, Thomas

Runciman, Walter

Whiteley, George (York., W. R.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Schwann, Charles E.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

M'Arthnr, William (Cornwall)

Shackleton, David James

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

M'Kenna, Reginald

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Markham, Arthur Basil.

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Spencer, Rt Hn. CR. (Northants

Yoxall, James Henry

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Moss, Samuel

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Moulton, John Fletcher

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Mr. William M'Arthur.

NOES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hanbury Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Aird, Sir John

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Denny, Colonel

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Arrol, Sir William

Digby, John K. D Wingfield-

Hatch, Ernest Frederick George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Balcarres, Lord

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Baldwin, Alfred

Doughty, George

Heaton, John Henniker

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Banbury, Frederick George

Duke, Henry Edward

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hogg, Lindsay

Bartley, George C. T.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Bignold, Arthur

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hoult, Joseph

Bigwood, James

Finch, George H.

Howard, John (K'nt, Faversh'm

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Bond, Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fison, Frederick William

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Johnstone, Heywood

Butcher, John George

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Flower, Ernest

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Carlile, William Walter

Forster, Henry William

Keswick, William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W

Kimber, Henry

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.

Galloway, William Johnson

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Gardner, Ernest

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Garfit, William

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

Lawson, John Grant

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. Birm.

Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby-(Salop

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon JA (Worc.

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

Lees, Sir Elliott Birkenhead)

Chapman, Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Charrington, Spencer

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.)

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesbam

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

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

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Greenfell, William Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Cox, Irwin, Edward Bainbridge

Gunter, Sir Robert

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hain, Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hall, Edward Marshall

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas H.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Cust, Henry John C.

Hambro, Charles Eric

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

302

303

Manners, Lord Cecil

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Thornton, Percy M.

Milvain, Thomas

Remnant, James Farquharson

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Richards, Henry Charles

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Valentia, Viscount

Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Morrell, George Herbert

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

Morrison, James Archibald

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Mount, William Arthur

Rutherford, John

Webb, Colonel William George

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

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

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Myers, William Henry

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Whiteley, H. (Asht'nund. Lyne

Nicholson, William Graham

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Pease, Herbret Pike (Darlington

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

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

Pemberton, John S. G.

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

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

Percy, Earl

Spear, John Ward

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Pierpoint, Robert

Stanley, Hon, Arthur (Ormsk'rk

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

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Plummer, Walter R.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Younger, William

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stroyan, John

Purvis, Robert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Randles, John S.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Rankin, Sir James

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."—Debate arising.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
(7.38.) Question put, "That the Question-be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 240 Noes, 88. (Division List No. 398.)

AYES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Duke, Henry Edward

Aird, Sir John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. Birm.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon JA (Worc'r

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Chapman, Edward

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

Arrol, Sir William

Charrington, Spencer

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Clive, Captain Percy

Finch, George H

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyney

Balcarres, Lord

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fisher, William Hayes

Baldwin, Alfred

Colomb, Sir John Charles Reade

Fison, Frederick William

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

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athol

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Banbury, Frederick George

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bartley, George C. T.

Cox, Irwin, Edward Bainbridge

Flower Ernest

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Forster, Henry William

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W

Bignold, Arthur

Crossley, Sir Savile

Galloway, William Johnson

Bigwood, James

Cust, Henry John C.

Gardner, Ernest

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Garfit, William

Bond, Edward

Davenport, William Bromley-

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Denny, Colonel

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

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

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

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Butcher, John George

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Carlile, William Walter

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Graham, Henry Robert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.

Doughty, George

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Grenfell, William Henry

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

Rutherford, John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Gunter, sir Robert

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Hain, Edward

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Shaw-Stewart, H. M. (Renfrew)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Macdona, John Cumming

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Manners, Lord Cecil

Spear, John Ward

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Milvain, Thomas

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Montagu, G. (Huntington)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hay, Hon. Claude George

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w

Stroyan, John

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W)

Morrell, George Herbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrison, James Archibald

Strutt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Mount, William Arthur

Talbot, Lord E. (Chicester)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Talbot, Rt Hn J. G (Oxford Univ.

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Thornton, Percy M.

Hogg, Lindsay

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Myers, William Henry

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Valentia, Viscount

Hoult, Joseph

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Percy, Earl

Webb, Colonel William George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Plummer, Walter E.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Johnston, Heywood

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Keswick, William

Purvis, Robert

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Kimber, Henry

Randles, John S.

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rankin, Sir James

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glascow)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lawson, John Grant

Richards, Henry Charles

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Younger, William

Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robertson, Herbert Hackney)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Royds, Clement Molyneux

NOES

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kitson, Sir James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Duncan, J. Hastings

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Barlow, John Emmott

Edwards, Frank

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Emmott, Alfred

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Bell, Richard

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Lewis, John Herbert

Black, Alexander William

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lloyd-George, David

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Logan, John William

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lough, Thomas

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Reginald

Burns, John

Grant, Corrie

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Burt, Thomas

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

Markham, Arthur Basil

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Caine, William Sproston

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Caldwell, James

Helme, Norval Watson

Moss, Samuel

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

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

Newnes, Sir George

Causton, Richard Knight

Holland, Sir William Henry

Partington, Oswald

Cawley, Frederick

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dalziel, James Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

Priestley, Arthur

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Joicey, Sir James

Reckitt, Harold James

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Rigg, Richard

306

307

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Williams, Osmono (Merioneth)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid)

Runciman, Walter

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Schwann, Charles E.

Wallace, Robert

Yoxall, James Henry

Shackleton, David James

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Weir, James Galloway

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Soares, Ernest J

Whiteley, George (York., W. R)

Mr. Herbet Gladstone and

Spencer, Rt Hn C.R. (Northants

Whitley, J. H. (Halfax)

Mr. Wm. M'Arthur.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and agreed to.

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 to-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  SERGEANT SULLIVAN, ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. WILLIAM OBRIEN(9.0.) MR. WILLIAM OBRIEN (Cork) moved the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the conduct of the Government in Ireland in reference to the charges of forgery, manufacture of outrage, and perjury against Sergeant Sullivan of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the danger of his absconding." The hon. Member said he would confine himself as far as possible to a plain statement of the facts of this case, and he would earnestly invite the attention of the House to what had occurred. He was quite aware that a very genuine shock was caused to English feeling by the case of Sergeant Sheridan, and that had made it somewhat difficult, perhaps, for Englishmen to believe that two such cases of atrocity could have occurred at the same time and in the same force. It was easy to understand that Englishmen who did not know Dublin Castle should be impressed by the fact that Sergeant Sheridan was for very special reasons disavowed and dismissed from the force, while it was evident from the half-hearted, and, he was afraid he must say shifty, reply of the Chief Secretary this afternoon that Dublin Castle had not yet made up its mind to throw over Sergeant Sullivan, but had been trying even to this day to hush up the matter and retain him in the police force. It was a task of almost incredible difficulty for a private individual to follow
  308
  up a matter of this sort in the face of official obstruction, but the matter had now been brought to a stage at which he thought any fair-minded person who gave any attention to the facts would find that this charge had not been made without clear and overwhelming evidence. This was a case in many respects of even more gravity than the case of Sergeant Sheridan, because the outrage that was organised in this case was part of a plot against the honour and reputation of the United Irish League and its leaders, a plot of exactly the same character as that of The Times forgeries, or the Pigott forgeries, against Mr. Parnell, and he thought it would be made only too evident that the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates in Dublin Castle were saddled with the knowledge of this Sergeant Sullivan's guilt by their own expert in handwriting, and that nevertheless they deliberately, as he would show, packed a jury in Sligo to acquit that man while they were posing as his nominal prosecutors, and paid enormous sums out of the public funds in order to recoup that man for the expense that had been incurred in defending him and shielding him from public justice. More than that, the special urgency of this Motion was this. He was afraid there was only too much reason to apprehend that Sergeant Sullivan might be allowed to flee the country as Sergeant Sheridan, unless the Government were promptly brought to book and made answerable for his appearance.
  He would explain in a moment the methods by which they had been up to the present, and he was sorry to say this very day, baffled in attempting to bring this man to justice. A wholly new situation bad been now created by the providential disclosure that occurred quite unexpectedly during the recent prosecutions under the Coercion Act in Dublin. The Government called an expert in handwriting, an official of the Local Government Board, named Thomas Patrick Nolan, and in the course of his cross-examination there came out some

  309
  extraordinary admissions which ought to be read to the House. The witness, under cross-examination by Mr. M'Swinney, said he was not examined on the occasion of the trial of Sullivan at Sligo, and that he thought it necessary to explain that the jury acquitted Sergeant Sullivan without going into the defence, and the suggestion he made to the magistrate was that he was not examined at Sligo simply because there was already an overwhelming case as to the innocence of Sullivan. He was asked "Were you examined?" and he replied "No, there were other ways of availing oneself of my services." Yes, there are ways of propping up perjuries by the suggestio falsi which this man did not dare go into the box and pledge himself to. The witness was then pressed as to the conclusion at which he had arrived on the question of handwriting, and eventually he said it was a very awkward question. He thought the House would agree that it was. He was ordered to say whether three or four other experts, including Mr. Gurrin, the Treasury expert, did not differ from his opinion, and he replied they did not, whereupon there was sensation in court. The hon. Member (Mr O'BRIEN) said he was present the whole time in court, and that man did not dare—in spite of the quibble to which the House had been treated at the Table this day—to deny that it was Sergeant Sullivan's handwriting. The House would see that there was a shocking confession by the Government's own expert in handwriting, that he was all along fully convinced of Sergeant Sullivan's guilt, and the attempt that had been made, as far as he could understand by the Chief Secretary in his reply today, to say that Mr. Nolan's swearing that he did not differ from Mr. Gurrin was an evasion. It was an evasion not quite worthy of a great-grandson of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, but it was quite worthy of Dublin Castle. What Mr. Gurrin, the most eminent expert in this kingdom, swore, was that he was so certain that this forged letter was in the handwriting of Sergeant Sullivan that he could scarcely be more certain if he actually saw him write it, and if Mr. Nolan swore he did not differ from Mr. Gurrin, what in Heaven's name is the meaning of this
  310
  contemptible hair-splitting about words when it is as plain as daylight. He did agree with Mr. Gurrin as to Sullivan's guilt, and the confession was wrung out of him like drops of blood under the threats of the examining magistrate, and only after he had protested piteously did he answer the awkward question. It would be observed that before that admission was got out of him, this expert, Mr. Nolan, swore that although he agreed with Mr. Gurrin that this man was the writer of that forged letter, he was, nevertheless, employed at the Sligo trial, and at the Dublin trial, in order to discredit Mr. Gurrin's evidence, which he heartily believed in himself, and in order to brazen out Sergeant Sullivan's perjured story as to his innocence. What was worst of all, it was now perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates in Dublin Castle were at this time aware from their own expert that he believed Sergeant Sullivan to be guilty, and, notwithstanding that, the Crown had actually paid this man's fee for bolstering up that lie, and paid the enormous expenses of Sullivan's perjured evidence, and both the perjured policeman and the dishonest expert were to this day retained in the service of the Crown, and sheltered and defended this evening.
  He would ask the House's indulgence while he briefly recalled how this transaction arose. It occurred at the time when the United Irish League was just beginning to establish itself strongly in Mayo. At the very outset of this League, which beyond a doubt had succeeded and had been the means of banishing completely and for ever crime from the armoury of agitation in Ireland—this affair was part of a concerted scheme, a diabolical scheme to crush the League by involving it and its leaders in the guilt of a most frightful crime. Some young men were summoned at Westfort for some trivial offence. [Mr. O'Brien was here subjected to some Ministerial interruption, and turning to the Speaker said: I must really appeal against this rude and asinine interruption.] He continued: The local Crown solicitor did a thing which no English prosecutor would ever have dreamt of doing. He went outside the case before the court, and delivered a violent harangue against the leaders of

  311
  the United Irish League, who were not before the court at all, and threatened in the coarsest language that we should get something that would surprise us. The result of that harangue was that the policemen who were listening to him rushed from the court, and delivered a savage baton charge upon a lot of de-fenceless people, and in a few days afterwards a large force of extra policemen, under two resident magistrates, was quartered upon the district, at the expense of £1,900 a year to the ratepayers of the district, which neither then nor since has been marked with a single serious crime. This standing army of idlers were simply swarming all over the district. There had to be some justification invented for their presence. The League had, by hook or by crook, to be dragged into some responsibility, and then this Sergeant Sullivan of Mulranny, who was on the list for promotion, thought his time had come. Shortly afterwards an admittedly forged letter was sent to a young country fellow—a powerfully-built, reckless young fellow, who was supposed to be just the material for the thing, and money was enclosed. It purported to come from Mr. John M'Thale, the President of the Westmill United Irish League. The letter instructed this young man, James Kelly, and a party of young men with blackened; faces, to go to a house that was named, the house of an unpopular person in the neighbourhood, on a night that was named and commit an outrage. The writer, of course, took it for granted that this young man was acquainted with Mr. M'Thale, who lived only a few miles away, and that he was just the stamp of adventuring young fellow who might easily enough have obeyed instructions. If he had done so, the result would have been a most horrible tragedy, for it turned out afterwards to be the fact that, upon the very night named in the letter, that at the very house named, Sergeant Sullivan of Mulranny, with an armed police patrol, was lying for three hours in ambush behind a fence waiting for his victims. Not only one police patrol, but by some extraordinary coincidence there happened to be concentrated that very night at that very spot a doubly-armed police patrol, and if this young man had
  312
  turned out he would have been entrapped into a most frightful crime, and the rafters of this House would have rung for many a night with the guilt and with the complicity of myself and every leader of the Irish Party. As it happened, this young man Kelly was not acquainted with Mr. M'Hale, and had never opened his lips to him in his life. He was amazed at getting this letter, and instead of falling into the trap he handed it over to his friends, and the result was that an odious plot was baulked. Sergeant Sullivan and his two police patrols were lying in ambush in vain that night, and the most frightful wrong that ever was done to a political association was averted. Fortunately for the accused, Sullivan had a great many peculiarities about his writing, and the moment that the forged letter and some admitted specimens of his handwriting were submitted to the Treasury expert in London, he came to the conclusion that they were in the same handwriting. This gentleman, who was the confidential adviser of the Treasury and the Post Office in all the most weighty of their affairs, staked his reputation on the statement that he could not have been a bit more sure that the letter was written by Sergeant Sullivan if he had actually seen him write it.
  Then came the difficulty of bringing this man to justice in the face of such a combination as that of the policeman's superior officers, Dublin Castle, and the magistrates. For a long time it seemed absolutely hopeless to try to get at him. They first applied to the local magistrates to report informations against him, but the local; magistrates, being the local landlords and the sworn enemies of the League, instantly and ostentatiously took his side, and not I only refused the informations, but Lord Sligo, the magistrate who presided, actually got hold of the forged letter and refused to give it up. It was only when their counsel, The Macdermott, a former Attorney General, threatened him with instant proceedings in the Court of King's Bench that the letter was given up, and, but for that, their last chance would have been destroyed of bringing this miscreant to justice. On the hearing of the case before the magistrate, the police patrol book was produced. It purported to show that Sergeant Sullivan and his police patrol had been lying in ambush from 10 to 11 p.m. on that night. One of the policemen in the Mulranny Barracks named

  313
  Curtain, who up to that time had not in any way, directly or indirectly, interfered in the case, saw this statement reported in next day's papers. He had seen the police patrol book only a few days before, and he was amazed at the statement, for he remembered that what he saw in the police patrol book was, that they lay in ambush from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. He went again to the police patrol book, and found that a most vital alteration had been made during the few days which had elapsed since he formerly saw it—that was to say, since the prosecution was instituted. The alteration made it appear that the ambush had lasted from 10 to 11 p.m., instead of, as it originally stood, from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. With a courage that did him honour, Constable Curtain, feeling that a shameful attempt had been made to mutilate the police record, and in view of the most frightful charge, reported the matter to his superior officer, District Inspector Oulton. The officer treated him with the utmost rudeness and brutality. He told this poor constable to mind his own business. When the policeman went back that night to his barrack at Mulranny, he was told by Sergeant Sullivan, the incriminated man, that he was to be removed to the desolate island of Inishkea, twelve miles from the mainland. This was the spirit that created Sergeant Sullivans.
  What happened after this? This Constable Curtain was punished by being sent to that wild island, boycotted, and eventually tortured out of the force, for they did not dare to dismiss him, there not being a black mark against him. He thought it his duty to communicate to the prosecution this vital alteration which had been made in the police book. The consequence was that they were able to send up an indictment to the Grand Jury. In the face of this evidence even the Grand Jury of landlords of County Mayo were obliged to return Sullivan for trial. One would suppose that at this day, at all events, the Castle officials would restrain their partisanship towards a man committed for trial for this appalling crime, and as to whom everybody, of course, knew that he could only be brought to justice by fairness and determination on the part of police officers. They might have been expected to steer an even keel, at all events, and to make the truth known
  314
  whatever the consequences might be. What happened? The very man who stepped forward and offered himself as bail for Sergeant Sullivan was County Inspector Milling, the principal police officer in the county. The other bail was Sergeant Sullivan's superior officer, District Inspector Oulton, of Newport, who had rebuked and upbraided Curtain for his indiscreet conscientiousness in divulging the mutilation of the police record. Of course Sergeant Sullivan was liberated, and a national defence fund was raised, every police barrack in the country contributing. There was a furious agitation among the police instituted, and it might have cost some of those connected with the prosecution their lives. They showed unbridled ferocity towards them, and it was in an atmosphere of that kind that the Crown took up the prosecution. The Crown was asked, as a gauge of fair play in so desperately important a matter, to employ The Macdermott, who was engaged in the private prosecution, and who was cognisant of the facts. The Crown was represented by Sir Patrick Coll, the father-in-law of Mr. Malachy Kelly, the Crown solicitor. Sir Patrick Coll insolently declined to allow The Macdermott to have any voice in the prosecution. Sir Patrick Coll instructed his own son-in-law to work up the evidence for the prosecution, and that man spent the greater part of his time in the police barrack with Sergeant Sullivan and his brother policemen. Every witness for the prosecution—he had it from the lips of Mr. Gurrin himself—was treated with a rudeness that left no possible doubt as to what they were to expect at the trial. Sullivan was tried at Sligo Winter Assizes, at which also poor M'Goohan, of whom the House had heard so much, became the innocent victim of Sheridan. In that case there was a miscarriage of justice which the Chief Secretary was now one of the loudest and most penitent to avow and proclaim. The House would remember that in the case of this poor creature the jury was carefully packed to convict. Every Catholic and every Nationalist was ordered to stand aside. Of course the jury packing in that case had its effect. That was one portion of the jury packing operations of the Crown at these assizes. But there was another portion. Having convicted

  315
  an innocent man, they passed on to acquit a guilty policeman. In the case of Sullivan the jury packing was carefully manipulated by Mr. Malachy Kelly, who was nominally the Crown prosecutor, but who was the prime mover in this. They had the disgusting spectacle of a wholly Protestant, wholly Unionist, and largely Orange jury, sworn in this venue where nine-tenths of the inhabitants were Roman Catholic. The hon. Member was present at the trial at Sligo, and certainly, since the part that "Honest Iago" took in the duel between Othello and Cassio, there never was witnessed a more dishonest or a more revolting performance. The Crown Counsel addressed the jury with their tongues in their cheeks, plainly apologising for the necessity of submitting the case. The Nationalist witnesses Were badgered as if they were dogs, with the connivance of the Crown Prosecutor, and, to crown all, the partisanship of this Orange jury was so naked, so ostentatious, that they actually announced their verdict before the evidence of one of the most important witnesses—Police Constable Curtain—had been heard. Mr. Justice Gibson rebuked the jury for this, and ordered them to retire; but subsequently the jury returned with the verdict as had been already stated. This jury, without even calling for witnesses for the defence, insisted upon acquitting Sergeant Sullivan, although they knew now that if the witnesses for the defence had been produced, the first and principal witness, Nolan, expert in handwriting, and official of the Local Government Board, would have been obliged to avow that he agreed with Gurrin that Sergeant Sullivan was the writer of the letter. When the foreman of the jury stated that they had unanimously made up their minds before hearing Constable Curtain, Justice Gibson said he had never heard of such a case. No human being ever before heard of such a thing happening in a civilised community. After Sullivan was acquitted, these men went about Sligo drunk, and insulting all the prosecution witnesses. Some of his friends in Sligo, who were not very nervous people, thought it necessary to accompany him in the train that night, just as the stalwart Minister of Agriculture sidled up to the First Lord of the Treasury the other night when an Irish Member approached him. That was a specimen of the spirit
  316
  which had been created by Dublin Castle, and of the spirit in which this disgusting bogus prosecution was conducted.
  He had forgotten to mention one circumstance as to the perfect network of obstruction caused by all sorts of officials. The Sligo trial had put an end to any chance of bringing this man to trial for a criminal offence. To be quite candid, the expense of all those proceedings was so heavy as to be almost too crushing for him to bear; but the thing was so atrocious, and it seemed so intolerable to let the truth be smothered in that foul way, that a civil action for libel was brought in Dublin. Of course in a civil action in Dublin there could be no hope of packing the jury. On the other hand, the special jurors in the County of Dublin were chiefly Unionists and Protestants, and there could be no hocussing such a jury by the evidence given in the bogus trial in Sligo. The jury heard the case, and the more the facts were sifted the more they were convinced of the truth of the case for the United League. The result was that eleven out of the twelve jurors were firmly convinced of this man's guilt. It was a matter of public notoriety that the universal opinion in the Four Courts, which was not particularly favourable to the Nationalist cause, was that they had proved their case up to the hilt, in spite of the wanton obstruction. When the trial was about to come on in Dublin he received a telegram from his solicitor, stating that for the convenience of counsel, it was intended to apply on the following day for the postponement of the action to the next sitting, unless he wired to the solicitor to the contrary. He instantly telegraphed that on no account was the action to be delayed for a single hour. That telegram was handed in to the telegraph office at Westport, and received by a clerk named Robinson, a friend of Sullivan's, with whom he had been seen drinking the previous night. That telegram was never delivered in Dublin; it was burked, and suppressed. Fortunately, feeling so strongly as he did that any delay would be fatal, in addition to telegraphing he wrote to his solicitor. The suppression of that telegram was brought before the House by his hon. friend, and the only sort of excuse given by the Postmaster General for the disappearance of this vital telegram was that

  317
  it had failed in transmission on the wires between Westport and Dublin ‡ Did any one ever hear of such an excuse? He had the best proof what a lie it was, for that very day he had sent other telegrams along these failing wires from West port to Dublin, and every one of them arrived safely. Of course they understood that the failure of transmission on the wires was the desperate invention of an official who desired to shield this man. Again and again they had asked for a public and open investigation into this most dreadful scandal as to the abuse of the telegraph wires, but it was all of no use. Many months afterwards the telegraph clerk Robinson was dismissed from the service on some other pretext, but it had never been admitted that the wires had been rigged in order to shield Sullivan. That was only one of hundreds of specimens of what they had had to go through in this case. There was a regular conspiracy, a sort of freemasonry among the officials in Ireland to make discovery in such a case as this impossible. He did not think it would be denied by the Crown that thousands of pounds of public money had been spent in the defence of this man, both at the bogus trial in Sligo and at the trial at Dublin. It turned out to be a fact that when the Government paid these vast sums for the defence of this man they must have been aware that their own expert in handwriting believed in his heart that Sullivan was guilty, and that he had been forced to the same conclusion as Mr. Gurrin. The evidence of Mr. Nolan proved that while he himself agreed with Mr. Gurrin that this man was a forger, he was employed for the purpose of defeating' justice and discrediting Mr. Gurrin's evidence. He knew of no story in the administration of justice more horrible. This perjured policeman and this expert witness were now in the service of the Government, and were honoured, and more or less defended by the Attorney General. In some respects this was, to his thinking, an even more serious case than that of Sergeant Sheridan, because the Chief Secretary had said that when he was convinced of Sheridan's guilt he was dismissed. Undoubtedly, if the Chief Secretary had not done so, the Irish Members would have worn away their lives before they could have convinced the House of Sheridan's guilt. And this was the Government of
  318
  a country which was so horrified at the miscarriage of justice in the Dreyfus case!
  He wanted to know now what the Government were going to do besides shivering at that table. (A laugh.) The laugh was not impressive, but the shivering was impressive. Were the Government going to dismiss this man Sullivan from the force? What were they going to do with the police accomplices. It was stated that, owing to the malfeasance of the Crown, Sullivan could not be prosecuted for forgery, but he could be prosecuted for perjury, and it was known that in twenty-four hours they could make the proof of this man's guilt overwhelming. The real danger at this moment was that when this man read in Ireland the discussion in the House of Commons it was not at all impossible that he might follow Sergeant Sheridan to America, because he knew that they were not going to allow this matter to die. It. was so atrocious that at any hazard and at any cost they would not allow this crime to go unexposcd. It had been said in the House that they vilified the Royal Irish Constabulary, who were their own countrymen. They had never done anything of the kind. In his own experience nine out of every ten constables were honest and respectable young Irishmen, who were most reluctantly driven by poverty and the absence of a career in their own country to take service against their own countrymen. But, while nine out of every ten were decent and respectable men, the tenth was a thorough ruffian; and it was always the ruffian who was picked out, honoured, and given promotion. The greater the scandal, the more rapid the promotion, and a shield would be thrown over their misdeeds by Dublin Castle. Sheridan was foolish enough to fall out with his superior officer, when he was thrown overboard without mercy. Sergeant Sullivan was championed by his district inspectors, and Dublin Castle held on to him. This was not a twopenny-halfpenny legal question, but a question deeply affecting the whole of Ireland, and he asked the Chief Secretary what he was going to do. Was he going to dismiss Sullivan, or send him out of the country, or give him a compassionate allowance? They would drag the truth of this case out no matter what were the obstacles, or who might have to suffer.
  MR. CONORO'KELLYsaid he wished to congratulate the hon. Member for Cork on his masterly address, and he hoped that the Motion, which he was proud to second, would be carried. He knew Mr. M'Hale perfectly well, and he was thoroughly satisfied that that young man would rather see his right hand wither from his body than have written that letter. It was quite obvious, where crime was rare, and the people peaceable, and where promotion in the police force was very slow indeed, the temptations to create crimes as a means of securing promotion were very great. If the letter had been delivered to Kelly, to whom it was addressed, possibly that young man would have been shot in cold blood, or he would have been arrested and returned for trial by a packed jury, and it would not have been the fault of Sullivan if evidence had not been forthcoming to convict him. Moveover, the district would have been branded with a suspicion of crime, and the inevitable sequel would have been that Sullivan would have been hailed as an efficient officer who had been successful in the suppression of crime. The Chief Secretary had said that the evidence on which Sergeant Sheridan was dismissed could not have possibly secured a conviction, but the case against Sergeant Sullivan was far stronger, especially as his own expert witness believed in his guilt, and also because of the fact that ten out of twelve Dublin jurors were convinced that he was guilty. Recent developments made it plainer than ever that Sullivan did write the letter, and instead of wearing the uniform of a police officer he should be wearing the garb of a convict. For the last four years he had been Chairman of the County Council of his own county, and one of the districts in which extra police were quartered was the very district in which Sullivan was stationed. Representations were made by Sullivan and his officers to Dublin Castle that that district needed the protection of extra police, and the people were penalised by having to pay for them. No case from the district was ever sent to the assizes; it was a perfectly peaceable district, but, notwithstanding that, the County Council during the first two years of its existence received communications from the Inspector general of the Royal Irish Constabulary, calling
  320
  on it to pay £1,900 a year for extra police to be levied off one of the most poverty-stricken districts in the West of Ireland, and at the same time one of the most peaceful districts. The County Council asked for an inquiry. It pointed out that the district was peaceful, but Dublin Castle turned a deaf ear to its representations. The statistics of the Government showed that there was no crime in the district, yet it was mulcted for the maintenance of an extra police force; and it was only when the County Council threatened to throw on the Government the task of conducting the affairs of the county, and to allow the whole structure of Local Government to tumble to the ground, that the extra force was absorbed into the general force, the district being no longer responsible for its maintenance. So long as it was the policy of the Government to allow men like Sergeant Sullivan to defeat it, how could the Irish people be blamed if they were confirmed in their worst suspicions of the doings of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr William, O'Brien.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)said, as nine-tenths or nineteen- twentieths of the speech of the hon. Member for Cork was concerned with matters which took place before his right hon. friend assumed his present position, and were concerned with criminal prosecutions for which he was entirely responsible, it was becoming that he should put the House in possession of the facts, which from the be ginning to the end of the hon. Member's oration had been strangely misrepresented. He would not say deliberately misrepresented, because he believed the hon. Member was so possessed of the notion of the iniquity of Sergeant Sullivan——
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: So is your own expert.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid Mr. O'Brien was so persuaded of the iniquity of every Crown official in Ireland that that must account for his distorted view, and for the way in which he had pursued Sullivan with

  321
  the most implacable hate, and by methods which, as far at all events as he conceived, were inconsistent with the very rudiments of justice. There was scarcely an hon. Member in the House who would believe that the hon. Member had prosecuted this man and that he had been acquitted. He had sued him civilly in a venue he had himself selected. The action was pending at the present moment. Unless he was greatly mistaken, it still remained on the file.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: The action is not pending.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it was on the file of the Court at the present hour, and yet the hon. Member thought it consistent with fair play, with what was just and right, and even decent, to avail himself of his position in the House to vilify the man he failed to convict either before a civil or a criminal Court. The hon. Member said something about the venue in the Court of Dublin. That was his own venue; he selected it himself, and if he were not satisfied with it why did he not ask the Court to change? If the hon. Member thought that the disclosure that has been recently made of the evidence of this man Nolan was sufficient to bring home conviction to any man of the truth and justice of the case he made against this man Sullivan, why did he not go on with the civil action? No, he was too cowardly. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I will ask you, sir, whether or not that is a disorderly remark.
  MR. SPEAKER: I could have wished the right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself in more moderate language. At the same time, I am bound to say I did not take it as if he had spoken of the hon. Member as a coward, or else I should have interrupted him. I thought he was speaking rather of the policy and tone of the speech of the hon. Member, which he has a right to characterise.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I fling back the word "coward."
  MR. SPEAKER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he would withdraw that expression.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: He did not. Let him say it now.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he would withdraw the word "cowardly," as he had already done; but he would say the hon. Member adopted a course which, at all events, he thought was an unfair course. If, as he contended tonight, he had obtained evidence which must convict this man Sullivan of this charge, why did he not have it further investigated in the Civil Court? It would have been not only fair, but just and right to bring his action to test.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: So I will; but it is your duty.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that at all events that was the way the matter stood. A criminal action had been tried, and this man has been acquitted. A civil action had been tried for practically the same thing as in the criminal trial. He was accused of promoting outrage by means of a letter. A civil action was brought for libel on that same letter, and the real question in the controversy in both trials was whether he was the writer of the letter or not. But the hon. Member, instead of proceeding with the civil action, preferred to assail this man in this way before this House. What was it the hon. Gentleman asked? He asked that my right hon. friend should try the case again. Could it be demanded in this House that a man who had been once tried before the tribunals of the land and acquitted should be tried again for the same offence? There was no power to try him again. It would be monstrous to try him again for the same offence, even if the verdict given against him was as unsatisfactory as any man who fairly approached the consideration of the case must hold it to be satisfactory. He would not attempt on this occasion to go through that case again, for the House of Commons was the most unsuitable assembly to decide what was the just and fair conclusion from the evidence of a great many witnesses, and a long and complicated cross-examination. He bad read the case many times, and read the evidence before the prosecution was instituted: he had read the report of the trial, and he said no man could read that

  323
  without coming to the conclusion that there was a fair case one way or the other, even on the evidence of the Crown, for a jury to say that this man was guilty or that he was not; either the letter was a concoction or it was not; either he had written it, or somebody else had forged it, and made the charge against him. The jury chose one alternative, and now, because that conclusion was disagreeable to the hon. Member, he assailed the verdict. That was a most iniquitous thing. He would not stop to refer more to the first prosecution were it not that the hon. Member had chosen to make some reflections upon the different persons who were engaged in it. He has made, first of all, a statement that there was what he called jury-packing. The facts were that there were nine jurors set aside by the Crown, and five were; challenged by the prisoner. He did not know what religion they were. Hon. Members make statements in the House that so and so was a Protestant and so and so a Roman Catholic, but they must be aware at the time they make them there was no possibility of checking them. At all events, if they were Roman; Catholics who were set aside and Protestants who were selected, certainly that was not his fault. He had directed every stage of this prosecution, and he took the precaution of sending a special circular to the Crown Solicitor who had charge of the case, which was to this effect:—
  "As the action of the Crown in this case is likely to be misrepresented, no matter what it may be, I wish particularly to call your attention to the fact that you should examine the panel most carefully, and consult the Crown Solicitor."
  [Much interruption from Nationalist Members.]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Hon. Members should abstain from these long and frequent interruptions. The attack was listened to with extreme courtesy and attention, and I do hope hon. Gentlemen; will show the same courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SWIFT MCNEILL: It is the local Crown Solicitor to whom the letter was sent.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, the local Crown Solicitor.
  "I desire, moreover, in this and all other cases in which local prejudice may be excited, or juries influenced by fear, you will do your utmost to secure that a fair and impartial jury shall be empanelled. In that endeavour you will act strictly on the lines of the circular to the Crown Solicitors of the 12th February, 1894, and signed by my predecessor in office, a copy of which, no doubt, you have in your office."
  The Crown Rules provided that no man should be set aside on account of his religious belief. Hon. Members would say, of course, he was not sincere in all that—that that was the usual complimentary strain—that he had his tongue in his cheek all the while he was giving that direction; but if he had, why should the Crown Solicitor, who gets I that instruction, deliberately, and for ‡ no purpose, violate his duty, and sot aside men for such reasons? Those were the instructions given, and he had every reason to believe those instructions were carried out. The gentleman who got those instructions was a Roman Catholic, a gentleman of well-known character and position, one of the most respectable; solicitors in Ireland, and a gentleman whom all classes in Ireland respected. I He sent down to conduct the case the; senior Crown Prosecutor in Ireland, who was a colleague of his, and was now a member of the judicial bench in Ireland, and he wound up his speech by saving his instructions were that no favour of any kind was to be shown to this man. He would cite a passage from his speech—
  "This is not a case for sympathy in a court of justice, and the jury should deal out the same justice to the sergeant as they would to the humblest subject of the community."
  The hon. Member for Cork said, "All this is a bogus thing," but when it suited him, when he was trying to get the verdict of the jury in Dublin, those who represented him did not say it, because he knew such a thing would be rejected with scorn. Mr. O'Shaughnessy, K.C., was his counsel and, in addressing the jury he said that, no one, in the Court or out of it, would for a moment believe Mr. Geo. Wright who was counsel for the Crown in the criminal case ever did anything unworthy of the profession of which he was such a distinguished member, or of himself. Then as to Mr. Malachy Kelly he said that why the Crown solicitor should have been brought into the ease he could

  325
  not understand. They had not in the slightest manner reflected on that gentleman, and as far as he (counsel) was concerned it was wholly unnecessary to defend him.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he had great respect for Mr. O'Shaughnessy as a counsel, but he should be as sorry to be bound by Mr. O'Shaughnessy's politics as he was sure Mr. O'Shaughnessy would be to be bound by his.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that that was not the point at all. The hon. Member had made aspersions on the Crown counsel of the Crown Solicitor who conducted the previous prosecution, but he knew perfectly well that he dare not state them before any independent and honest tribunal, and his counsel in his presence retracted every one of them.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid that Mr. O'Shaughnessy was not his counsel. If he identified himself with Mr. M'Hale, because his honour was struck at as well as Mr. M'Hale's, that did not alter the fact that the action was brought by Mr. M'Hale and that he was in no way responsible.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Member now stated that he was not concerned in the action. He would quote from the report of the trial to show the position of the hon. Member. Mr. M'Hale, the president of the local branch of the League, was the prosecutor in the criminal trial and the plaintiff in the criminal action. He was asked "Are you the nominal or the real prosecutor in the case? "I am not the nominal but the real prosecutor. I may have said that. "Was it true?" "Well no. It was not exactly true, except that I could not fight." Then he was asked by his lordship what he meant by saying he was not the nominal but the real prosecutor and he replied, "I am the real prosecutor in the case because I am the man whose name was forged, but I had no money myself to go on with it." Then he was asked "who did you look to as your paymaster?" and he
  326
  replied "Mr. O'Brien." [Here, according to the report, Mr. O'Brien interrupted with, "Yes."]
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: There is some mistake there. This is a personal matter, and we ought to have common fair play. I did not open my lips in the whole course of this libel prosecution.
  MR ATKINSON: Criminal prosecution.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: No, not once. It is a misprint; it must be.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am reading from the shorthand-writer's transcript of the evidence. [Nationalist cries of "Where was it published?" and "A police reporter."]
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I pledge my word I never opened my lips in the Court. [Some Ministerial cries of "Sit down."] I will not sit down, we are fighting in this House against terrific odds. I never opened my lips in the course of that trial, but I have no difficulty whatever in saying now that, rather than see this poor creature crushed under' this frightful imputation for want of money, to the best extent of my means, as well as of the local organization's means, we would have done our best to vindicate justice and our own honour.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that of course, he accepted the assurance of the hon. Member. The hon. Member would not deny that he financed this man, but why did he not repudiate the disclaimer of his counsel? Why did he not make those statements then, when they could be tested? The jury in the criminal case did not hear the prisoner's defence, and although counsel for the Crown pressed them to reconsider the matter, they said that they were perfectly satisfied that the case was not sustained. Then the civil action went on and the hon. Member said that eleven of the jurors were in his favour. There was no way in which the hon. Member could legally

  327
  ascertain that. All he knew was that there was a disagreement in the venue selected by the hon. Member himself. Was it right or fair, while the courts were still open to the hon. Member to revive a discussion of events which took place four years ago, and in reference to which a full debate took place more than three years ago? A man named Nolan was apparently employed by Sullivan, for what did not appear clear from the newspaper report of the evidence. He would however assume, if the hon. Member wished it, that he was employed to give evidence as an expert. The executive Government had no control over him, and had nothing to do with him. He was the witness of the accused and was brought down to Sligo, but was not examined because the prisoner's case was not opened. Were the Crown responsible for that? Were the Crown to step in and prevent the accused man from being acquitted? Nolan was also brought to Dublin, but was not examined. He was not responsible, and the executive Government were not responsible for that. Why he was not examined he did not know. Some short time ago Nolan, in answer to a question in Green Street, denied that he delivered any opinion, and the moment he said that the hon. Member for Cork City believed he was brought down to Sligo to commit perjury, though he now admitted that he was willing to swear he did not agree with Mr. Gurrin. The next assumption of the hon. Member was that the Crown knew that the prisoner's expert would confirm the evidence of Mr. Gurrin, and that the Crown brought down this man to swear a falsehood. He could pledge his reputation and his position that, until Nolan was examined in Green Street, he never knew he was employed by Sergeant Sullivan, he never knew what his evidence would be, he knew absolutely nothing about it. It was a monstrous practice, daily resorted to by hon. Members opposite, without one tittle of proof to sustain them, to use their position in the House to bring the most infamous charges against the executive Government. Such charges, made and repeated in that House without proof, were less derogatory to those against whom they were directed
  328
  than to the men who made them. The employment of The Mac Dermott as counsel for the prosecution he refused because that gentleman had been counsel against the prisoner in the initial private litigation, and for the Attorney General to brief him would have been for the Crown to take sides. The hon. Member for Cork said that while nine-tenths of the constabulary force were honest men, it was the other tenth—the scoundrels—that secured promotion. The House must see how difficult it would be to organise a police force on those lines. The hon. Member apparently believed that when a charge was brought against a policeman he ought to be hunted to-death, and that every man was a low conspirator and a criminal who came forward to obtain for him a fair trial. He would point out that the Crown was-bound to pay the expenses of every prisoner who was brought from his own county for trial at the Winter Assizes, and he presumed the hon. Member thought that because the accused was a policeman that rule should be departed from. What would be thought of him and what charges would be brought against him if, instead of holding himself aloof from both parties, he allied himself with one side? The hon. Member asked what course the Government intended to-take. That was a matter more for his right hon. friend than for him to answer. But he had no objection to tell the hon. Member, upon his experience as a counsel of some standing, what advice he would give his right hon. friend, and that was that it would be a most monstrous outrage on justice to put a man for a second time on his trial for the same offence for which he had been acquitted.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid' he desired to put one question to the right hon. Gentleman, which would test the bona fides of the speech he had just delivered. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he was responsible for the whole proceedings in this case. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman as a man of honour to say whether he had ever compared the forged letter with the admitted handwriting of sergeant Sullivan.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he had seen photographs of both documents.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid he had compared both, and he had too long an acquaintance with the right hon. Gentleman in his profession to believe for a moment that lie would pledge his word that the forged letter was not in Sullivan's handwriting. That was a sufficient answer to all that the right hon. Gentleman had said. Why should it be left in Ireland to a private citizen to vindicate the law? And if Sergeant Sullivan failed before the Dublin jury to get himself acquitted on a charge of forgery, was he to be retained in His Majesty's service? The right hon. Gentleman dwelt with great force on the fact that the venue chosen by Mr. M'Hale and his counsel was the venue of the court of Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman knew that eleven out of the twelve jurors were in favour of a verdict against Sullivan, and that one juror succeeded in defeating the ends of justice; and yet the right hon. Gentleman rode off in triumph on that, just as if Sullivan had been acquitted. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on the fact that his hon. friend the Member for Cork had supplied funds in the case. That was after the Crown had been appealed to to take up the case, and after it had been given every facility. It was the duty of the Crown to have the law respected and vindicated, yet it blocked every step in the case.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that the Grown Solicitor was advised within five hours of the time the prosecution was instituted.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that prosecutions by a private individual were almost unknown in Ireland. The whole machinery of the law was set in motion by the Government, and it was recognised as their duty to investigate the circumstances and to institute a prosecution. This case was bruited about for months; every policeman knew that the charge was about to be laid; Sullivan's officers knew it; and instead of instituting a prosecution, they used every means in their power to get up a defence for Sullivan. The Chief Secretary went so far as to justify two of his inspectors in giving bail for this man, and asked whether they were to assume that a man was
  330
  guilty because a charge was alleged against him. No, but not a single case could be cited, among all the innocent people who had been put on trial, in which the county or district inspector went security for the accused. Among a people so sensitive to injustice as the Irish all the logic of the Attorney General would never move the impression that the whole force of Dublin Castle was behind this man. Why was the person of Sullivan more sacred than that of any other person put upon his trial? He himself was not professionally engaged in this case, but he was in the district at the time defending other prisoners, and under his cross-examination of policemen they admitted, in the presence of their superiors, that a collection was made in the barracks and contributed to the officers for the defence of this man. The mere fact of the false entry in the patrol book was evidence to them that, whether the man was guilty or not, an endeavour was being made to make up a false case for the defence. The Attorney General, although responsible for vindicating the law in Ireland, had never; troubled to compare the alleged forged document with the admitted handwriting of Sullivan. Would the Chief Secretary mend the hand of the Attorney-General? The expert employed for the defence had now confessed in open court that he agreed with the other experts that the two handwritings were the same. Surely the fact must force itself upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Here was a man guilty of deliberate incitement to crime and outrage still being maintained by the Government. It was a case the Government was bound to probe to the bottom, and he had sufficient confidence in the Chief Secretary to say that if he took the matter up he would come to the same conclusion that he had.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he had paused, hoping the Chief Secretary would rise, and he was quite prepared to give way if the right hon. Gentleman wished to speak.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT (Mr. WYNDHAM,: If the hon. Member has any fresh arguments to urge or fresh charges

  331
  to make, it is better that he should speak first; otherwise I am ready to go on. (Mr. T. P. O'Connor giving way, the right hon. Gentleman continued:) Having been directly challenged by the hon. Member for the Harbour Division, and way having been made for me, I rise, although, after listening to the lucid and exhaustive speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland, I am rather in doubt as to the necessity, because a more destructive piece of criticism I have seldom listened to. Nothing of the charge preferred remains, but evidently some hon. Members think something does remain, because the question pointedly put to me is whether I have seen the letter alleged to be forged, and, if not, whether I will compare it with specimens of Sergeant Sullivan's handwriting, and if I think there is similarity between the alleged forged document and authentic pieces of the officer's handwriting, will I do—what? Order a man who has been tried and acquitted, apparently, to be tried again, or if it is impossible, will I act as if the man had been tried and condemned? That is the "definite matter of urgent public importance" we have brought before us. It is definite: it has turned solely upon a charge preferred more than four years ago against a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It would have been important if the question had not already been decided, for such an allegation against a public official is always a matter of the gravest importance until the question has been decided one way or the other. Its urgency can only be argued if a new fact has occurred which causes men of ordinary intelligence to hold that the question has not been decided. This matter has been going on for a very long time. With the exception of the alleged new fact, every single argument, every fact, every allegation, every imputation has been trotted out again, again, and again. Just as we are today debating the case four years after it has been decided, so originally the House was asked to debate it while it was pending. The first debate on the case in this House was on 9th August, 1898, after a true bill had been preferred against Sullivan, and when he was awaiting his trial, which did not take place until December 1890.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that what really occurred on that occasion, was that the Member for East Mayo asked the Chief Secretary not to allow Sullivan to go on with constabulary duty pending his trial.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am glad the hon. Member has reminded me that the hon. Member for East Mayo took part in that debate, because I also read the debate this afternoon, and I was struck by one sentence in the speech of the hon. Member. What the hon. Member for East Mayo said was, "If he is tried and acquitted, then I presume he will return to duty." The presumption was verified. Sullivan was tried and acquitted in 1898, and he returned to duty. Having been tried in December, 1898, a civil action was brought against him in 1899, and this matter was debated in another place in June, 1899, and in the House of Commons on 22nd June, 1899. There have been two trials, two debates in this House, and one debate in another place, and now we are asked to debate it again because a new fact has come to light. What is that new fact? The hon. Member for Cork has read a long extract from the report given by the Freeman's Journal of a cross-examination in a recent trial which had nothing to do with Sullivan. I will not go into the evidence which was given under the stress of that cross-examination, because I am perfectly prepared, for the sake of my argument, and for the sake of my argument only, to take the most extreme construction which the hon. Member himself has placed upon it, viz., that an expert witness in handwriting stated that he agreed with two other experts who had given evidence in the original trial, which took place more than four years ago. The jury heard these two experts say that the letter was, in their opinion, written by Sergeant Sullivan in a feigned handwriting, but having heard a great deal of other evidence for the prosecution, and, above all, the cross- examination of the witnesses by Mr. Seymour Bush, acquitted the prisoner without troubling to retire from the box. I will not speculate as to the exact nature of the impression created in the minds of the jury by Mr. Seymour Bush, who dwelt

  333
  upon the fact that people had been anxious to secure specimens of Sergeant Sullivan's handwriting before the alleged forged letter was sent. That may or may not, in the minds of the jury, have seemed to have some bearing on the matter. Again, Mr. Seymour Bush, in his able cross-examination, elicited the fact that, whereas the two handwriting experts, Mr. Gurrin and Mr. Price, stated that in their opinion the alleged forged letter was written by Sullivan, but in a feigned hand, all the other witnesses said it was written in Sullivan's ordinary handwriting. That discrepancy may have had some effect on the minds of the jury. But why speculate? The jury acquitted the man, and now we are asked to believe that if a third expert in handwriting—and admittedly an expert of not such high standing as Mr. Gurrin—had been produced the jury would have come to an opposite conclusion. I decline to indulge in these hypothetical speculations, and I certainly decline to act as if a man who has been found innocent by his peers had indeed been found guilty because I am told that a third expert in handwriting would have given evidence of the same character as was tendered by the two other experts and disregarded by the jury.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he had hoped that the Chief Secretary, having to his honour helped to expose Sergeant Sheridan, would have hesitated to protect Sergeant Sullivan. What was the position of the Government? Many as had been the heartbreaking Irish debates to which he had listened during the last twenty-two years, none had more filled him with despair than the one just concluding. Sergeant Sheridan admittedly had by perjury sent three innocent men to gaol, but, without any attempt being made to bring him to justice, he had been allowed to escape to America, two of his confederates had received compassionate allowances, and another was still allowed to wear the uniform of the monarch of the country. Now there was the case of Sergeant Sullivan, who, according to the testimony of the highest experts, was guilty of incitement to crime by means of
  334
  forgery, and yet was retained in the service of the Crown. But, said the right hon. Gentleman, Sullivan had been acquitted. It was a remarkable and sinister coincidence that this man was acquitted at the very same assizes at which M'Goohan, the innocent victim of Sheridan, was convicted. At the same assizes, before the same judge, and by the same kind of jury, Sullivan, the forger, the inciter to crime, was, and with the connivance of the Crown—for he charged them with it—acquitted. The Attorney General was almost indignant because attention had been called to this matter, and asked why the hon. Member did not go on with his case. Had the right hon. Gentleman no duty to the police force under his control? Where there was a prima facie case was it a matter for a private individual to take up? Where was the Government? The right hon. Gentleman himself was head of the police, and he should take care of their honour; and yet he made it a reproach that my hon. friend out of his own pocket paid the expenses of this man having his case brought to justice. The Attorney General had had the face to say that he did not know the character and composition of the jury. He thought it was about time he went over to Ireland, for he evidently wanted a little native air. The right hon. Gentleman had almost become an Irish Cockney like himself. As a matter of fact, he believed there were thirteen people told to stand aside.
  MR. ATKINSON: No, there were nine.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid there were nine asked to stand aside by the Crown and five by the prisoner. The Crown and the prisoner, however, were quite the same person. He wished to ask was there a single one of the fourteen persons asked to stand aside a Protestant or a Unionist? Since the days of George IV, there never had been such a professionally ignorant person as the right hon. Gentleman. Every one of those who were asked to stand aside was a Nationalist. By the joint action of the bogus prosecutor and of the prisoner,

  335
  there was a fine, true blue Protestant and Unionist jury empanelled which was as ready to acquit the friend of the Government as to convict a political prisoner. How like this was the Drey fus case. The jury which tried Sullivan was packed, and they wanted to stop the case in the middle of it before they had heard the chief evidence.
  MR. ATKINSON: No, no. They never indicated any opinion of that sort until afterwards, when they stated that they had come to the same conclusion that morning.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes, they had come to that conclusion in the morning, before they had heard the principal witness. It was stated in court that the case was a strong one without the evidence of this witness, but his evidence was a tremendous corroboration. Before the witness, a police constable from the same barracks as Sullivan, gave his evidence, this impartial jury were ready and willing to acquit Sullivan and almost ready to apologise to the prisoner. That Was the impartial trial in Sligo which acquitted this man without a stain upon his character. He for his part thought Sullivan guilty because it required so much jury packing to acquit him. The whole thing reminded him of the man who was acquitted after twelve or thirteen convictions had been established against him, and was told by the judge that he might leave the dock without any further stain upon his character. Let them compare that with what took place in England. In one case which happened recently in London, the evidence of a police officer was suspected to be false, and within a few weeks he
  336
  was tried and convicted. Let them compare that with the state of things in Ireland. If the police in London were menaced every man was ready to give them help, because they knew that the police, as a rule, were an honourable body of men, and if they did anything dishonourable there was the authority of public opinion and of the Government of the day to bring the police immediately to trial and justice. Therefore the police man in London was regarded as the honourable defender of the liberty o every man. Here was a man whom the Attorney General dared not declare innocent, but he had to fall back upon the verdict of a packed jury. According to the highest expert testimony, this man was guilty of a forged incitement to crime, and yet he was retained in the service of the Crown in Ireland. This ought not to be a Party question, and whatever might lie their opinion as to the particular form of government and the particular relations between the two countries, all parties ought to be united in preserving the honour, honesty and integrity of the guardians of the peace in Ireland. And yet the Government were retaining in their service a man whom everybody in Ireland, and some great authorities in England, believed to be guilty of forgery. They had made their appeal and they know how it would be answered and what the verdict would ultimately be, namely, that the right hon. Gentleman would have to confess that Sergeant Sullivan belonged to the same class as Sergeant Sheridan.
  (11.48.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes,—117; Noes, 215. (Division List No, 399.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Malley, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Bell, Richard

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Black, Alexander William

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brigg, John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Rigg, Richard

  Burns, John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Runciman, Watler

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Crean, Eugene

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crombie, John William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soares, Ernest J.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R (Northants

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theodore Cook

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Edwards, Frank

  Mooney, John J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Moss, Samuel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Murphy, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Field, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Wilson., Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Fuller, J. M. F.

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

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Young, Samuel

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Dowd, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardener, James Tynte

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manchr.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Butcher, John George

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bartley, George C T.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bignold, Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Bigwood, James

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cavendish, V C. W (Derbyshire

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bond, Edward

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  338

  339

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A (Worc'r

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfr'd

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Percy, Earl

  Charrington, Spencer

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Plummer, Walter R

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Prettyman, Ernest George

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Helder, Augustus

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheflield, Brightside

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ranklin, Sir James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rasch, Major Fredrick Carne

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Ratcliff R F

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Ridley, S Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Rutherford, John

  Denny, Colonel

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kemp, George

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Keswick, William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Doughty, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Shaw-Stewart, M H (Renfrew

  Doxferd, Sir William Theodore

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Legge, Colonel Hon. Heneage

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Spear, John Ward

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

  Finch, George H.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Thornton, Percy M

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm Edw M

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Fison, Frederick William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Forster, Henry William

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

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Webb, Col William George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (Su. Albans)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Welby, Sir Charles G E (Notts

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und Lyne

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

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  More, Robert Jasper (Shropshire

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

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson-Todd, Wm H (Yorks

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Gretton, John

  Myers, William Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. FLYNNcommenced to address the House.
  It being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  LAND PURCHASE ACTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On the Motion that the order for the Second Reading of this Bill be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn,
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it was surprising that the hon. Baronet should have made a Motion like this without giving the House some notice. He thought they were entitled to a statement with regard to the Motion to discharge this Order. He did not know whether Mr. Speaker would take his formal objection, but he respectfully submitted that with regard to a Bill brought in by a Cabinet Minister they were entitled to debate the question upon a Motion discharging the Order. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot put that, I think the Government are entitled to discharge this Order. It is always done as a matter of course.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that, with great respect, he thought Mr. Speaker would hardly come to that conclusion if he examined the precedents. He thought it would be found that there were a number of precedents in which speeches had been made upon the discharge of Orders. Upon a matter of this kind he thought they were entitled to a statement from His Majesty's Government, with regard to the measure which was to replace it.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question cannot be debated. I have known no case of a debate taking place upon a Motion that an Order be discharged.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that until recent years it had been the custom to have two Motions, firstly that the Order be discharged, and secondly that the Bill be withdrawn. It was only in recent years that they had been put as one Motion. He remembered that at one time they frequently debated Motions of this kind, although he admitted that in recent years the practice had fallen into desuetude. He had frequently debated such Motions himself. In the present state of the Irish Question, and seeing that they were being denied any opportunity of discussing Irish affairs generally, he thought they should be allowed to ask for some explanation from the Chief Secretary as to what were the future intentions of the Government. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what he intended should take the place of this Bill after the Order had been discharged? Had he any scheme for the future, or were they to go to the Irish people again without knowing the intentions of the Government, and without one word of hope as to what was to be done in the future?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not know whether I shall be in order in replying, MR. Speaker.
  MR. SPEAKER: My opinion is that this matter cannot be debated, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to give an answer to the question put to him by the hon. Member I will not object to his doing so.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Some misappre hension might arise if this matter were left where the hon. and learned Member has placed it. I understand that I should be out of order in debating this question. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that, although I was not aware that this matter was going to be raised, I will say that the Motion to ask leave to discharge this Order must throw no other interpretation upon the intentions of the Government in respect to the Land Purchase Acts than might be reasonably inferred from the speeches I have made in this House, and out of it during the present year. This Motion arises only from the fact that we are met during an autumn session mainly, and as far as may be exclusively, to conclude the Education Bill. But for the fact that the Education Bill had taken up much more of the time of the House than was originally anticipated I should have had an opportunity of proceeding further with the Bill now before the House than has unfortunately been the case. It is idle now to suppose that this Bill can be passed into law this year in addition to the Education Hill. That being so, we do not wish to leave it on the Order Paper, as by so doing we may give rise to a false impression. But next year, undoubtedly, it will be the
  344
  principal measure of the session. I shall hope then to bring in what I may properly call the Bill of the session, but, of course, a Hill embodying such modifications and Amendments as I should myself have been most ready to introduce into the present Bill if it had been referred to a Committee. Of course such a Bill, if it is to carry out the views expressed in the speech I made in Belfast in January this year, must be a Bill to facilitate a voluntary arrangement between the parties to assist the landlords in turning the price they may receive to the best account, and to assist the tenants to offer a price which the landlords may accept, without prescribing exactly the terms themselves.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid the Irish Party accepted the withdrawal of the Bill without a tear.
  Order for Second Heading discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS (PROSECUTIONS) (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [LORDS].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  MR. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.