Sitting of 11 August 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ayr Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Glasgow Corporation (Sewage) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Post Office Bill Edinburgh and District Water Order

209
Confirmation Bill; Glasgow and South Western Railway (Darvel and Lanarkshire Railway Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill; Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill; Carlisle Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords]; De Trafford Estate Bill [Lords]; Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [Lords]; Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]; Oakengates and Dawley Joint Water Board Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Barry; Hafod; Hopkinstown; and Ynysybwl; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CONVENT NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 10th August] to be printed. [No. 340.]
  LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for Scotland for the year 1902–3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 341.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April, 1903, to 31st March, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Seventieth Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, being for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board
  210
  of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st March, 1904, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers, Assistant Inspecting Officers, and Sub-Inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVAL EXPENDITURE AND MERCANTILE MARINE (GREAT BRITAIN, ETC.).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th June; Sir John Colomb];to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 342.]
  DIPLOMATIC REPORTS (COAL).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th July; Mr. Fenwick]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 343.]
  CONTINENTAL FREE PORTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th June; Mr. Charles McArthur]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 344.]
  ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd August; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 345.]
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1888 AND 1894.
  Copy presented, of Eighth Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under Section 31 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, including Proceedings upon complaints made under Section 1 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 346.]
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 347.]
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade on their Proceedings and Business under the Weights and Measures Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 348.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3252 to 3255 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 618 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Wiltshire). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901; Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 349.]
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham), Inquiry into Charities (Gateshead County Borough), Inquiry into Charities (Sunderland County Borough). Further Returns relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900, and 9th February, 1904; Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 350.]
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham), Inquiry into Charities (Gateshead County Borough), Inquiry into Charities (Sunderland County Borough). Further Returns relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900, and

  Name of county.

  Name of petty Sessions District or Amalgamated Districts.

  Population of same as Census of 1901.

  Salary and emoluments of Clerk on the day of July' 1874.

  Salary and emoluments 1st day of July' 1884.

  Salary and emoluments of Clerk on the 1st day of July' 1894.

  Salary and emoluments of Clerk on the day of July' 1904.

  Remarks.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  9th February, 1901; Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 351.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster), Inquiry into Charities (County Borough of Oldham). Further Return and Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898, and 10th August, 1904; Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 352.]

  CYPRUS.
  Return ordered, "of all sums paid in the years 1902–3 and 1903–4, respectively, out of the moneys arising from the Revenues of Cyprus, in discharge of the interest upon the Turkish loan guaranteed by tins country and France in 1855; of all sums voted by Parliament during the same period in aid of the administration of Cyprus; and of the surplus remaining in each year over and above the payments made, with interest thereon (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 352, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Pierpoint.)
  GRADUATED INCOME-TAX.
  Address for "Return showing which of the Colonies have established systems of graduated Income-Tax, or of Income-Tax levied at different rates on earned and on unearned Incomes, or both, with particulars in each case of the rates of Tax and the system of assessment and collection."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
  PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND) (SALARIES.)
  Return ordered, "of Salaries of Petty Sessions Clerks in Ireland, in the following form:—

  ALCOHOL (EXEMPTION FROM DUTY).
  Return ordered, "for the years 1902–3 and 1903–4, respectively, showing the

  Year.

  Applications for Trade purposes.

  Applications for Scientific or Educational purposes.

  Number received.

  Number granted.

  Quantity of spirits on which exemption was granted.

  Number received

  Number granted.

  Quantity of spirits on which exemption was granted.

  1902–3

  1903–4

  —(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)

  GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE AUTHORITIES, ETC.
  Return ordered, "(1) of the names, ages, occupations, and dates of appointment of the present Members of the Trinity House of Deptford Stroud, of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and of the Commissioners of Irish Lights; and the mode in which, or persons by whom, they were respectively appointed, and the duration of their office. distinguishing (in the case of the Elder Brethren) those who have been in command of vessels in the Royal Navy or Merchant Service and the dates when they retired from those services, and those who are in active service on board Trinity House vessels; (2) of the amount of remuneration, if any, received by each Member of the three Boards during the last financial year, whether in the form of salary, allowances, or fees; (3) of the names, stations, salaries, and dates of appointment of the principal Officers of the three Boards; (4) of the total Income of each Board, specifying the sources; (5) of the Expenses of each Board, with the percentage which these bear to Income."—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)

  EDUCATION (IRELAND) (COMMISSIONERS' ORDERS).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) number of Orders made by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, between the 1st day of April, 1900, and the 1st day of April, 1904, cancelling the Salaries of Assistant Teachers in National Schools owing to the average attendance being
  214
  applications for Exemption for (1) trade purposes, (2) scientific or educational; purposes, in the following form:—
  under sixty; (2) and number of such appointments that would not have been cancelled if the average attendance for an Assistant were recognised at fifty instead of sixty; (3) also, up to what date and for what period previously was an average attendance of fifty accepted by the Commissioners as sufficient to qualify a School for the services of an Assistant."—(Mr. Boland.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Flogging in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL6: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether H.M.S. "Calliope" is tow cruising round the Irish coast for the purpose of naval enlistments; whether the provisions in the King's Naval Regulations authorising the infliction, for trivial offences, of scourgings of twenty-four strokes with birches nine oz. in weight, and of twelve strokes with canes for trivial offences, will be explained to boys and youths in Ireland before they enlist in the Royal Navy, and whether intending candidates in Ireland for enlistment in the Royal Navy will have an opportunity of seeing the cat-o'-nine-tails, birches, and canes supplied to every ship of war and training ship by the Dockyards in accordance with the regulation patterns kept in these establishments; and what steps, if any, will the naval authorities take to secure

  215
  that not merely intending candidates in Ireland for enlistment in the Navy but their parents and guardians may be apprised of the flogging régime to which boys and youths in the Navy are subjected.
  (Answered be Mr. Pretyman.) The "Calliope" is at present on the coast of Ireland carrying out her second summer cruise. With reference to the rest of his Question, I must refer the hon. Member to replies I have already given to former Question on the same subject.

  Expenditure on Piers and Harbours in Ireland.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how much public money has been expended on piers and harbours in Ireland, other than piers and harbours in congested districts, since January. 1900; from what sources the money was supplied; and whether the sums were loans from the Board of Works or grants from the Treasury.
  Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Expenditure in period from 1st January, 1900, to 31st July, 1904.

  £

  1. Grants from Sea Fisheries Fund

  14,351†

  2. Expenditure at Liscannor under Marine Works Act, 1902

  97

  3. Expenditure on Royal Harbours (Vote for Public Works)

  50,088

  4. Grants made by Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

  462

  Total Grants

  £64,998

  5. Loans (from Local Loans Fund)

  27,060

  Grand Total

  £92,058

  Coleraine Urban Council—Prosecution of Patrick Clarke.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  † Including a sum of £1,030, being a proportionate amount of a total of £1,625 expended on the Engineering staff out of this Fund
  216
  of Ireland if he is aware that at the hearing of the case brought at the suit of the Coleraine Urban Council v. Patrick Clarke, Prolisk at Coleraine Petty Sessions. held on the 12th March, 1904, Mr. Gribbon, J.P., chairman of the urban council, and Mr. Baxter, J.P., member of the council, adjudicated as magistrates, both being present at the meeting of the urban council when the prosecution was directed; that Clarke was convicted and the conviction quashed in the superior Courts; and that Messrs. Gribbon and Baxter on several occasions have adjudicated on cases at petty sessions instituted at the suit of the council of which they are members, although objected to by solicitors for the defence; and, if so, will the attention of the Lord Chancellor be directed to this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The conviction in this case was quashed on several grounds, one of which was that Messrs. Gribbon and Baxter had been members of a body which directed the prosecution, in the hearing and adjudication of which they took part. These justices appear to have presided in ignorance of the technical rules of law applicable to such matters and not from any improper motives. That this was the opinion of the superior Court was evident from the fact that Clarke was directed to pay their costs to the extent of £3 3s. They have not acted on several occasions in similar cases at petty sessions, although objected to. The matter is not one for reference to the Lord Chancellor.

  Ridley Estate, County West-meath.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that certain tenants on the Ridley Estate, county Westmeath, have been served with writs because they would not agree to the landlord's terms of purchase; and if he will take steps to ensure an inspection by the Estates Commissioners of any holdings agreed to be purchased under such conditions.
  (Answered ty Mr. Wyndham.) Only one tenant has been served with a writ, the reason being that he withheld payment of his rent. He has since paid. Should the estate come before the

  217
  Commissioners, they will be guided in any action they may take by the provisions of the law.

  Compassionate Allowance for Widow of Rural Postman Bartholomew Somers, of Dromohair.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Bartholomew Somers, who died at Dromohair, country Leitrim, on 17th March last, had been rural postman for thirty years; will he say whether Somers would have been entitled to a retiring allowance at the time of his death had he applied for it; and whether, in view of this man's character during his period of service and the circumstances of his widow and family, he will consider the advisability of making a compassionate allowance to them.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware that Somers was employed for nearly thirty years; but he had held an established appointment for little more than three years. Only his established service was of a character that could have been taken into account for superannuation purposes. During his previous service his duties did not require his whole time, and such service is not pensionable. In these circumstances Somers would not have been eligible for a pension if, before his death, he had been certified to be unfit for further service. At the most, a gratuity calculated on the short period of his established service could have been obtained for him. I regret that, as the Superannuation Acts made no provision for the widows and families of deceased Civil servants, it is not in my power to obtain a compassionate allowance for Somers' widow and family.

  Postal Employees—Compensation for Loss of Clothing.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether, seeing that private employers are compelled to safeguard the clothing of those they employ, which is left on the premises of the employers while the employees are at work, and to pay compensation in case of loss, he will arrange for similar treatment as regards postal employees.
  218
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Reasonable precautions are taken to safeguard the clothing of Post Office servants in their offices, and I regret that I cannot see my way to lay down any general rule for granting compensation in such cases. Special cases will be dealt with on their merits, as heretofore; but any decision to allow such claims in general would be open to obvious objections.

  Hours Worked by Dressmakers.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to a statement in the report of the principal lady inspector of factories (p. 237 of Annual Report for 1903) in which the magistrate is said to have described the case of a defendant charged with employing dressmakers for twenty-four consecutive hours, with under two hours' break for meals, as the very worst case he had ever had before him, and to have stated that he had never heard anything like it since the Factory Act had been in operation; and, if so, will he say what penalty was inflicted for this offence, and whether any security has been taken against the possibility of its recurrence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am aware of the case referred to in the Question. The penalties imposed by the magistrate amounted to £17 and the costs to £1 12s.—eight informations being laid by the inspector. There is no power under the Act to take security from the occupier against a repetition of the offence, but the workshop will be kept under observation, and I hope that the censure of the magistrate, together with the heavy penalty imposed, will act as a deterrent.

  Report of the Chester Jones Commission.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the Chester-Jones Commission Report of the inquiry as to Draft Regulations affecting Docks, Wharves, and Quays will be issued; and when the suggested rules are likely to come into operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I understand that Mr. Chester

  219
  Jones will present his Report on this inquiry to me very shortly. When I receive it, I shall take it into consideration at once, and proceed to the final making of the regulations with all due speed.

  Reply toy Memorials of Assistant Clerks.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can now state when a reply will be given to the memorials dated December, 1903, and January, 1904, from the assistant clerks (new class).
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The matter is still under consideration; but I hope that a decision will be arrived at very shortly.

  Reports at the Royal Courts of Justice.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can arrange that the copies of the Law Reports provided for the public service at the Royal Courts of Justice shall be periodically noted up, so as to bring them up to date.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cartvendish.)
  I will inquire into the matter and communicate with the hon. Member.

  Encouragement of Swimming and Life- Saving.
  MR. GRENFELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that more than 3,000 lives are lost on an average annually in England and Wales by drowning; and whether he will, when considering the new regulations for evening schools, technical institutions, and science and art classes, make some provision for encouraging instruction in swimming and life-saving.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) In administering their regulations for evening schools, the Board recognise these subjects, and grants are payable for courses of instruction which comprise treatment of persons apparently drowned. The importance of the matter will not be overlooked.

  Area of Spheres of the Gendarmerie Officers of the Five Powers in Macedonia.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
  220
  Affairs whether he will specify the areas in the three vilayets commonly called Macedonia, which have been respectively allocated as the spheres of the gendarmerie officers of the five Powers, and approximately the superficial extent and population of each of the five areas.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The areas in the three vilayets have been assigned as the spheres of the gendarmerie officers of the five Powers, in the following manner:—

  1. Great Britain:

  Sandjak of Drama (all the cazas);

  Population about 52,000;

  Area about 1,080 square miles.

  2. France:

  Sandjak of Serres (all the cazas);

  Population about 330,000;

  Area about 4,920 square miles.

  3. Russia:

  Sandjak of Salonica (all the cazas);

  Population about 272,000;

  Area about 7,300 square miles.

  4. Italy:

  Sandjak of Monastir (all the cazas except Ochrida) and the caza of Kastoria, in the sandjak of Koritza;

  Population about 200,000;

  Area about 3,780 square miles.

  5. Austria:

  Sandjak of Uscub (all the cazas);

  Population about 500,000;

  Area about 4,150 square miles.

  Papers on Macedonia
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the reports recently received by the Foreign Office from the Austro-Hungarian Embassy of the progress made by the Civil Agents in Macedonia can be laid on the Table of the House; and whether it is proposed to lay any further Papers relating to Macedonia before the prorogation of Parliament.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) Papers relating to Macedonia will be laid as soon as possible. They will include information furnished by the Austro-Hugarian

  221
  Government as to the progress made by the Civil Agents.

  Housing of Orphans and Destitute Poor in Egypt Publication of Lord Cromer's Report.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under - Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Lord Cromer's Report in regard to the housing of orphan children and destitute poor in Egypt will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The whole of the information received from Lord Cromer has already been communicated in substance to the hon. Member. In these circumstances it is not proposed to lay any Paper on this subject.

  The Anglo-French Agreement.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any secret clauses attached to the Anglo-French Agreement which have reference to Egypt.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) Speculation and conjecture as to the existence or non-existence of secret clauses in inter national treaties is a public privilege, the maintenance of which depends upon official reticence.

  Protection of Ancient Walls at Berwick on Tweed.
  MR. BRYCE: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any progress has yet been made for the protection of the ancient walls of Berwick-on-Tweed, dating from the time of King Edward the First; and whether he can assure the House that all steps which His Majesty's Government can take will be taken to secure this interesting historical monument from further injury.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The First Commissioner has not yet learnt the result of the negotiations with the town council; but he has no reason to doubt that they will be brought to a successful conclusion. He will take what steps lie can for the protection of the monument.

  Co-operative Societies and Income-Tax.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the complaint of traders respecting the exemption of the Army and Navy and Civil Service Stores and co-operative societies from the payment of income-tax on profits; whether he can state upon what grounds those trading associations are exempted; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing co-operative business societies upon the same basis as others in similar trades.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) There is no exemption from income-tax granted, as is popularly supposed, to co-operative societies or their members. In only one respect does their position with regard to the tax differ from that of the ordinary society or company. The ordinary society or company deducts income-tax from the member's or shareholder's dividend before it is paid over to him, leaving it to him either to bear the tax or to reclaim the amount deducted from the Inland Revenue authorities, if his income falls within the limit of exemption. In the case of co-operative societies, most of the members are working men whose incomes fall within the limit. Accordingly, to deduct income-tax in their case from the dividend before paying it over would involve nearly all the members claiming repayment. Nothing would be gained to the Revenue, and infinite annoyance and trouble would be given both to those who had to make the claims and to the Revenue officials in dealing wit h the enormous number of claims so made. It is therefore provided that, if certain conditions are satisfied, income-tax need not be deducted from the profits of co-operative societies before their distribution as dividends to individual members. No exemption, however, is given, as every individual member, whose income is above the exemption line, is liable to the tax on his share of those profits when received by him. The Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Limited, and Civil Service Cooperative Society, Limited, to which the hon. Member refers, do not fulfil the necessary conditions, and are, therefore, directly assessed to the income-tax.

  Kilrushughter School—Grant for Agricultural Instruction.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief' Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Kilrushughter School, county Sligo, was, previous to 1893, recognised as an agricultural school for upwards of twenty-five years; that the conditions on which it was sanctioned for continuance, in September, 1899, differed from those which existed in September, 1893; that the Commissioners of National Education gave instructions, on the 23rd September, 1893, to their agricultural superintendent to visit the farm; if so, will he state on what date were these instructions carried out; on what dates did the superintendent visit the farm, subsequent to these instuctions; and whether, in view of the loss the teacher sustains through' this neglect on the part of the agricultural superintendent, the Commissioners will reconsider the inclusion, in accordance with Rule 200, of the sum of £13 14s. 6d. in his consolidated salary, which he earned as agricultural fees and gratuities prior to the 31st Match, 1900.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) This school was not recognised as an agricultural school. The farm held by the teacher, Mr. Melville, was recognised, prior to 1893, as a school farm. in connection with which special fees were paid to the teacher by the Commissioners for the instruction of the pupils in practical agriculture. The farm, being the property of the teacher, ceased to be a school farm on the retirement of Mr. Melville from the position of principal of the school. From the 1st April, 1885, it was a requirement that a teacher appointed to conduct a national school with a farm attached must possess a certificate of attendance at a course of agricultural instruction at the Albert Istitution, Glasnevin, or a certificate of competency from some other authority satisfactory to the Commissioners, as a condition of payment of the special agricultural fees. Mr. Healy was appointed principal on 1st September, 1893. On the 3rd September the manager of the school applied for the recognition as a school farm of certain land held by Mr. Healy, on condition, inter alia, that the teacher gave a guarantee to attend one of the courses of training at the
  224
  Albert Institution. Mr. Healy was summoned to the course of instruction held in September, 1894. He did not attend, nor did he attend any subsequent course of instruction in agriculture. On 20th September, 1893, the manager's application for the official registration of Mr. Healy's farm as a school farm was referred for report to the agricultural superintendent, who took the opportunity of viewing the farm when visiting the neighbouring schools of Doonflynn and Ballacutranta for the purpose of annual inspection. The definite consideration of the case was necessarily postponed pending Mr. Healy's attendance at the prescribed course of instruction at the Albert Institution. The Commissioners do not admit liability in the 'matter of Mr. Healv's claim. He received no payment" as agricultural fees and gratuities prior to the 31st March, 1900." To his failure to attend a course of agricultural instruction must be attributed the delay in the settlement of the case. The attendance was an obligation on his part of which he was fully aware; and although it may have been inconvenient for him to have attended in September, 1894, no reason has been adduced for his non-attendance at any subsequent session of instruction.

  Lapsed Licence of Mrs. Keating of Donaghmore,
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a memorial has been received by His Excellency from Mrs. Cathern Keating, Donaghmore, Queen's County, to the effect that, having got a transfer of publican's licence last April from the name of her husband, Michael Keating, deceased, and neglecting to serve the required twenty-one days notice for the June quarter sessions, the licence has lapsed; and whether, as the memorial was signed by the local magistrates, and as Mrs. Keating has no other livelihood, favourable consideration will be given to the prayer thereof.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The memorial has been received and will be considered.

  Delay in Sale of Nixon Property, County Fermanagh.
  MR. JORDAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland whether he can explain the delay in the sale of the Nixon property, in the county of Fermanagh, consisting of the townlands of Leam, Mare, and Tonyloam (barony of Clenawly) and Carrickaheana and Kilmalanopy (barony of Tukemedy), the order for which was made in November, 1903; and will the Estates Commissioners take steps towards expediting the sale
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Applica-cation for the sale of this property was lodged with the Commissioners on the 12th July, and will be dealt with in due course.

  Alleged Poaching by Police on the Clements' Property, County Galway.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a short time ago Mr. A. Crawford, estate steward on the Clements' property, near Maam, county Galway, reported to the district inspector that three policemen were found poaching on this estate; did the district inspector make any report on the matter; and, if so, will he state what action has been taken against the offenders.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Mr. Crawford informed the district inspector that he saw a sergeant and two constables on the property, that one of the latter was carrying a gun and was in pursuit of game. The district inspector investigated the matter, and found that the police were on revenue duty on the date in question, and that none of them had a gun on the occasion.

  Nuns Appointed as Nurses at Newry Workhouse.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the meeting of the Newry Board of Guardians, three nuns from the convent in Wexford were appointed as nurses to Newry Workhouse; if he can say where these nurses were trained, and what is their qualification; and why these appointments were given to members of a religious order.
  226
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Three nuns, who were employed in the workhouse infirmary, have recently resigned, and the guardians have elected three other nuns in their places. The latter have had several years experience as nurses in union infirmaries, including that at Wexford. Protestant patients at Newry are in charge of a Protestant nurse.

  Retiring Allowances of Professors of Queen's Colleges and of Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the incomes of the professors in the Queen's Colleges, who, being equally distinguished in literature and science and doing the same work as the Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, are paid by the State, on the average, less than half the incomes of those Fellows; and that these gentlemen never receive more on retirement than two-thirds of their existing salaries, while Trinity College pays to this class of its superannuated teachers a minimum salary of £1,400, amounting in all to between one third and one-fourth of its total revenue; and why are the incomes of the Queen's College professors, who are in the service of the British Government, less than the incomes paid to its Fellows by Trinity College, Dublin, which finds itself in want of funds to provide the equipment necessary for modern requirements.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The retiring allowances payable to professors in Queen's Colleges are regulated by statute. I have no information as to the incomes and retiring, allowances of Fellows of Trinity College.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Special Crimes Sergeant.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the longest period for a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary to act in the capacity of special crimes sergeant, and receive the special allowance attached to that position; and how many are holding the position longer than the specified number of years.

  227
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There is no fixed period of employment, which is regulated by a consideration of the fitness of any particular sergeant to discharge work of this special character.

  Musketry Regulations—Teleramic Target.
  COLONEL McCALMONT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will consider the advisability of introducing the Teleramic target into the Musketry Regulations, as it has already been adopted in His Majesty's service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Musketry Regulations are now under revision, and the subject of Teleramic targets will be fully considered in connection therewith. I must point out that these targets have not been officially adopted for supply by the War Office.

  Epizootic Lymphangitis amongst Army Horses
  MR. HAYES FISHER: To ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he has taken to prevent civilian horses, requisitioned for manœuvres, coming into contact with occult cases of epizootic lymphangitis, as the continued existence of the disease is causing anxiety to civilian horse owners; also what steps he has taken to prevent occult cases of the disease being transferred from one station to another, and of coming into contact with horses in other regiments free of disease during manœuvres; and if he has now decided to slaughter all horses still suffering from the disease, especially as such a small percentage of attacked horses recovered, while such a large percentage have been slaughtered.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) As regards the first part of the Question, no horses liable to be affected will be taken on manœuvres; therefore the possibility of conveying the disease to civilian horses is remote, especially as steps will be taken to keep the latter away from contact with military horses. As regards the second part of the Question, careful veterinary inspection is made of all horses removing or being received at either station within six months of cases occurring. As regards the third
  228
  part of the Question, the majority of horses suffering from the disease are slaughtered, but it is not considered necessary to destroy those cases which show probability of recovery, and for which facilities of complete isolation and treatment exist.

  The New Army Scheme.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the effect of his proposals to divide the Regular Army into two by the creation of a home-service force and a foreign-service force, by the reduction of Colonial regiments and of their establishments, by the absorption of the Militia, and of a reduction in the Volunteers, and to the fact that no evidence has been adduced that they are recommended by the military members of the Army Council on their professional responsibility, he will consent to postpone taking any steps to put them into effect until Parliament has had further opportunity of considering them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Steps will be taken by the Army Council to carry out the policy of the Government with regard to the Army. These steps will be taken gradually after full consideration in each case.

THE CORK VACANCY.
MR. TULLYsaid he wished to move that a writ should be issued to fill the vacancy in the representation of the City of Cork, caused by the resignation of Mr. William O'Brien. He might explain that, in consequence of a correspondence which had appeared in the Press, he had determined to take this action. The representation of the constituency had been vacant for nearly a year. Mr. William O'Brien had stated in a letter that he would not allow himself to be condemned until the public had had the facts put before them. But it was not right that the seat should remain vacant, and he had therefore given notice to the three Whips of the Nationalist Party that unless they moved for the issue of the writ on Wednesday he would move for it the following day. He noticed that yesterday at Dublin—
MR. SPEAKER: These matters cannot be gone into in moving for a new writ, I understand that the hon. Member bases his action on the fact that the seat is vacant and the constituency un-represented.
MR. TULLY: Very well then, Mr. Speaker, I move that you do issue the writ.
MR. BLAKEsaid he wished to have the ruling of Mr. Speaker on a question of order. The vacancy had existed for a very considerable time, and a period of the session had been reached when it would be impossible for an election to take place and a Member to be returned early enough to take his seat before Parliament prorogued. He therefore asked whether a question of privilege did not arise—a question of privilege connected with the question of recency and urgency and with the inability of a new Member, if returned, to take his seat till Parliament next met. There was also a question as to the practice usually observed, which was, so far as his experience went, that, if it was desired that a writ should be moved for notice should be given to the Whips of the Party in connection with which the vacancy occurred. In this case the hon. Member for South Leitrim had given notice, but it was addressed to the three Whips who were absent in Dublin on political duties, and one, who was in London did not receive it. The question was, had reasonable and sufficient notice been given to the representatives of the Party to which the late holder of the seat belonged.
MR. TULLY: I was not aware of their absence.
MR. SPEAKER: On the question of order, I do not think there is any reason why I should not put this Question. The fact that the election could not come off in time to enable the newly-elected Member to take his seat in the present session is not a bar to the Motion.
MR. TULLY: And the seat has been long vacant. As a matter of personal explanation, may I say—
MR. SPEAKER: On the question of order I am with the hon. Member.
MR. TULLY: Certain charges have been made against me. I have the greatest personal respect for the hon. and learned Member, but I wish to point out that Mr. W. O'Brien is now practically in the same position as I am. He has been condemned by them and—
MR. SPEAKER: Order! These personal matters need not be gone into. Of course, the writ may be moved for by any Member. It is customary, however, to give notice to the Whips of the Party to which the former Member belonged, and though the hon. Member gave such notice in this case there appears to be some doubt whether it was a sufficient notice. I should therefore recommend the hon. Member to postpone his Motion. I think that the House would hardly approve of it being gone on with now.
MR. TULLY: I am prepared to postpone it until to-morrow or Monday.
MR. SPEAKER: To-morrow then.
MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I am one of the Whips of the Party.
MR. TULLY: I do not recognise you.
MR. SPEAKER: These are controversies which had better not be raised now.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Wages Disputes in Government Departments.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of establishing a Standing Commission or Board, to which might be referred questions of wages and other matters which may be in dispute between any Government Department and the workpeople in its employ.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)The subject

  231
  is one which has caused great anxiety to this Government and its predecessors, and is likely to cause anxiety to its successors. We cannot discuss it by Question and Answer across the floor, but I admit that the question is a very important one.

  Army Sanitary Re-organisation Scheme.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a scheme of sanitary re-organisation has yet been prepared for the Army, or proposed by the Medical Advisory Board. if so, whether there is included in it the sterilisation of all fluids employed as drinks at manœuvres, on service abroad, and during active service, and by what means this sterilisation is to be secured; whether steps have been taken to secure the instruction, practical training, and examination of non-medical officers of all ranks, in their respective units or commands, in methods of camp sanitation, especially with a view to the prevention of enteric fever, dysentery. and cholera; and whether, after such training and examination, the comparative responsibility of such nonmedical officers for the occurrence of these diseases in their respective commands or units is to be recognised.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY To THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): The Medical Advisory Board recommend the appointment of specialist sanitary officers to Army Corps and commands; and there are eleven of these appointments at home and eight in Egypt and the Colonies, in addition to the five already existing in India. Instructions regarding the sterilisation of all fluids employed as drinks, which are applicable to manœuvres, service abroad, and active service, have been included in the "Manual of Combined Training." Heat, and, in some instances, filtration, are the means recommended. Lectures are regularly given to the cadets at Sandhurst and Woolwich, and a more advanced course in military hygiene is provided for officers at the Staff College. Instructions in hygienic matters are also given by the specialist sanitary officers. The regulations are also being revised in the direction of devolving more responsibility
  232
  upon non-medical officers in the supervision of sanitary services in barracks and camps.

  Rhodesia and the Chartered Company.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that representations were made on behalf of the inhabitants of Rhodesia to Lord Milner, to the effect that the country can make no progress while the Chartered Company retains either commercial or administrative control; and that, on the advice of Lord Milner, a delegation representing the inhabitants is now in London; and, if so, will he say whether His Majesty's Government are acquainted with the negotiations which have taken place between the Chartered Company and the delegates; whether the Chartered Company have asked the delegates to pledge the future credit and resources of Rhodesia; and, if so, whether he will undertake that any arrangements between the parties shall be subject to the acquiescence or consent either of His Majesty's Government or of His Majesty's Government and Parliament.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The right hon. Baronet's information is not entirely accurate. At a conference of delegates from all parts of Southern Rhodesia, a resolution was passed to the elect that the country "can make no true progress so long as the British South Africa Company, as an administrative or commercial body, has any control or power in the direction of public affairs." At the same conference a deputation was elected for the purpose of "discussing and arranging a basis of a general settlement with the British South Africa Company." The deputation forwarded the resolutions of the conference to Lord Milner, and requested am interview. Lord Milner replied that he did not think that any advice he could give them would compensate for the expense and trouble of coming to see him, and suggested that it was for the colonists and the company to discuss the situation in the first instance. The deputation is now in this country. Some private information of an unofficial

  233
  character has just reached me as to the negotiations which are taking place between the deputation and the company. Any arrangement involving a change in the charter or in the constitution of Southern Rhodesia, or in its financial status, would be subject to the approval of His Majesty's Government.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say wherein my Question is inaccurate?
  MR. LYTTELTON: said as to the advice of Lord Milner that the delegation should proceed to London.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman said that the arrangement would be subject to the approval of His Majesty's Government. Ought it not to be subject to the approval of this House?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  French Congo—British Merchants Claims.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can approximately state the time when he expects to be in a position to make an announcement with respect to the negotiations with the French Government for the settlement of the claims of British merchants in French Congo, and for the interpretation of the Free Trade Clauses of the Berlin Act.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: As regards the general question, His Majesty's Government understand the position of the French Government to be that they are ready to submit it to arbitration, but that they have not yet decided upon the terms of reference. As regards the claims of the British firms, it was not until last May that the direct negotiations between the British and French merchants were finally abandoned, and the French Government have not yet communicated the results of the investigation which has been made into the subject by the authorities at the Colonial Office. They have, however, expressed a great desire to discover some means of effecting a
  234
  reasonable arrangement with the British firms concerned.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Were not these claims considered during the negotiations which ended in the Anglo-French Convention?
  EARL PERCY: No, Sir

  Export of British Herrings to Archangel.
  MR. MACONOCHIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to reply regarding the importation of British herrings into Archangel.
  EARL PERCY: The Vice-Consul at Archangel reports that no Scotch herrings have vet been imported there. It is laid down in the Russian tariff that fresh fish of all kinds, even if unaccompanied by certificates proving their Russian origin, as well as fresh, salted, dried, and air-dried fish of all kinds imported in Russian vessels at ports in the Government of Archangel by inhabitants of that district are free of duty. It has been ascertained from His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg that these regulations for the duty-free import of herrings at Archangel apply to all countries.

  Patent Still Spirit.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of gallons of patent still spirit imported into the United Kingdom in the years 1901, 1902, and 1903 respectively; and how much of this spirit entered bonded warehouses.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: I find that no distinction is made in the records of imports between spirits produced from patent stills and those produced from pot stills, and I am therefore unable to furnish the information desired.
  MR. FLYNN: Is there such a thing as spirit distilled in pot stills?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to say. I am prepared to accept the hon. Member's statement in view of his knowledge of the trade.

  Alleged Poison in Patent Spirit.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the results to public health of the use of sulphuric acid in the manufacture of glucose, afterwards resulting in beer poisoning; and as sulphuric acid is used in the manufacture of patent spirit from molasses, will steps be taken by the Excise authorities or the Local Government Board to prevent this product being sold to the public as genuine whisky.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My attention and that of my advisers has for a long time been directed to this matter. A Royal Commission was appointed in 1901 "to inquire into arsenical poisoning from the consumption of beer and other articles of food and drink" and issued its final Report last November. The President of the Local Government Board and myself are considering whether in the public interest any further legal powers should be given to the Departments concerned. The Board of Inland Revenue have not under the present law any control over the sale of patent spirits made from molasses which has been inverted by the use of sulphuric acid; and I do not anticipate that it will be necessary to give them any such power. There is no evidence that arsenic or other similar poison has been found in patent spirit, and I am advised that even if such poison existed in any material, such as molasses or malt, before distillation, it would not be found in the distilled spirit.

  Promotion in the Liverpool Post Office.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in the month of October, 1903, Mr. Rowland Jones was promoted to a clerkship in the Liverpool head office over thirty-two then senior to him in the same class, including Mr. T. Rogers and Mr. Lascelles; that on the 14th May, 1904, Mr. T. Rogers was similarly promoted over the thirteen then senior to him in
  236
  the same class; that, in the month of June, 1904, Mr. Lascelles was also promoted over the heads of twenty-seven senior to him; and, if so, will he explain why Rogers and Lascelles were passed over in October, 1903, and were subsequently promoted; and whether, seeing that many of the men passed over on each of these three occasions have for some time been actually performing the duties of the class from which they have been excluded, he will make inquiries into the system of promotion adopted in this office.
  THE POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: I am considering the papers in this case. I will endeavour to answer the Question before the close of the session, but, if not, I will send my hon. friend a written Answer.

  Hereditary Imbecility among Paupers.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the system of preparation of accounts and returns of Poor Law Administration, which makes it impossible to obtain statistics of the number of children born of weak-minded, imbecile, or insane mothers in the workhouses and other institutions subject to the supervision of the Department; and whether, having regard to the importance of the subject of heredity, he will undertake that instructions shall be given to make such alterations in the system that in future information to this effect will be available.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WAITER LONG,): I am afraid that there are practical difficulties in this matter. Thus there is the question what persons are to be deemed "weak-minded" or "imbecile," and different views on this subject would probably be taken by the officers of different institutions. I will, however, consider whether anything can be done to attain the object which my hon. friend has in view.

  Tuberculosis—Compensation to Meat Traders.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local

  237
  Government Board whether he has yet considered the Report of the Select Committee in favour of partial compensation to meat traders who sustain loss when carcases purchased in good faith are subsequently found to be in a tuberculous condition, and are then distroyed in the interests of public health; and whether he would advise His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation in the next session of Parliament giving effect to the Report of this Committee.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given before the Select Committee on the Tuberculosis (Animals) Compensation Bill with regard to the injury inflicted on the home trade in bath live and dead pigs, owing to the diversity of practice with regard to condemnation in cases of localised tuberculosis; and whether he will consider the desirability of issuing some regulations which shall protect the home trade against the competition which ensues when foreign-bred pigs are imported with the evidence of localised tuberculosis removed.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Select Committee on the Tuberculosis (Animals) Compensation Bill, and, in particular to the injury inflicted on meat traders by the want of uniformity of practice in seizing and condemning carcases affected with tuberculosis, and also to the damage inflicted on such traders by conducting publicly the proceedings associated with condemnation in cases where no evil intent is alleged; and whether he will issue a circular to local authorities impressing upon them the necessity for adopting a uniform practice with regard to condemnation and of conducting the proceedings associated with condemnation privately in all cases where no suggestion of criminality arises.
  MR. WALTER LONG: My hon. friend has three Questions on the Paper with
  238
  reference to the Report of the Select Committee on the Tuberculosis (Animals) Compensation Bill, and perhaps he will allow me to answer them together. I have given attention to the Report, but the evidence taken by the Committee has not yet been published, and, in the absence of it, I have not felt myself able to come to a conclusion as to the course which I should adopt as regards the recommendations of the Committee, and any legislation which might be necessary to give effect to them. As regards the compensation recommended, I may point out that the matter concerns my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as myself, a, it is proposed that the sum to be paid should be provided by the Imperial Exchequer. As regards the other matter to which my hon. friend refers I shall carefully consider them when the evidence appears, and if it seems to me that circulars to the local authorities pressing upon them uniformity of practice would be likely to be useful, I shall be glad to issue them.

  Welsh National Council of Education.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board of Education have sanctioned a proposal for a separate National Council of Education for Wales.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO TAE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs on May 5th.† The draft scheme has not vet been adopted by, I believe, any of the county councils concerned, and has not been submitted to the Board of Education for approval.

  Education Statistics—Demands of Local Authorities.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, whether his attention has been called to the number of reports and returns, often of a complicated character, which local education authorities are now requiring from managers and teachers; and, if so, whether he will remind those authorities of the loss which the children sustain
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 539.

  239
  when teachers are withdrawn from the duty for which they have been trained in order to prepare such returns.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Doubtless in the early stages of the administration of a new Act the local education authorities are anxious to obtain a large amount of information for their guidance. I have every hope that their requirements will rapidly decrease, and that in a normal state of things this difficulty will not be felt. It must be obvious to local authorities that the time of the teaching staff cannot be so occupied without some detriment to the work of the school. To remind them of the fact, I think, would be superfluous.

  Hyde Park Corner Arches—Bas- Reliefs.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been drawn to the decaying condition of the bas-reliefs on the arches at the entrance of the Park at Hyde Park Corner; and whether he will give instructions for their restoration.
  LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner has had these bas-reliefs examined. The stone-work is reported to him to be in a fair condition, although there are parts somewhat decayed. Experiments are being tried as to the effects of Professor Church's baryta solution on outside Portland stone; when the result is ascertained, the First Commissioner will consider its application to these bas-reliefs for the arrest of the decay. There seems to be nothing requiring urgent attention, and having regard to the great need for restricting public expenditure at this time, the First Commissioner regrets that he cannot promise now to undertake a restoration.

  Inscription on Pedestal of Statue of King James II.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been drawn to an error in the Latin inscription on the pedestal of the statue of King James II. now standing at the back of the
  240
  Admiralty; and whether he will give instructions to have it corrected.
  LORD BALCARRES: The inscription is a facsimile of that on the original pedestal. When the statue was removed some years ago from Whitehall Yard it was found to be necessary to renew the pedestal; but it was thought best to make no alteration in the old inscription, which was probably contemporaneous with the statue. In the circumstances the First Commissioner considers it would be preferable to leave it alone.
  MR. PIERPOINTasked what authority there was for saving this was the ancient inscription, and if the First Commissioner of Works would refer to Magnae Britanniae Notitia, published early in the eighteenth century.
  LORD BALCARRES: The authority of the book, is in our opinion, not so correct as the rubbings we possess of the original stone.

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction—Accounts.
  MR. LONSDALE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have yet decided to publish their accounts, showing what allocation of the funds at their disposal in each financial year has been made to each respective county in Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Department hopes to be in a position to give this information, so far as may be practicable, in its next annual Report.

  Sir Neville Chamberlain, R.I.C.
  MR. LONSDALE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what date Sir Neville Chamberlain resumed his duties as Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary after his absence on leave which was continuing on 11th to 15th September, 1903.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Inspector-General was on leave of absence from 16th September to the 19th October, both days inclusive.

  Carlingford Magistrates.
  MR. LONSDALE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is no justice of the peace resident within five miles of Omeath, in the Carlingford petty sessions district; and whether, in view of the inconvenience resulting from this fact, he will urge upon the proper authority the desirability of appointing some suitable person, such as D. Glenn, as soon as possible.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts, I am informed, are correctly stated in the Question. Recommendations for appointment to the Commission of the Peace are made to the Lieutenant of the County or to the Lord Chancellor. I have referred my hon. friend's Question to the Lord Chancellor for consideration.

  Land Purchase in Galway—Intimidation of Landlords.
  MR. LONSDALE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the intimidation practised on the Daly and other estates in Galway to compel the landlords to sell their estates on certain terms; is he aware that many of Colonel Daly's tenants have refused to pay any rent; that his workpeople have been threatened with violence if they continue to work for him; and that on the night of 28th July two shots were tired into the house of a herd of Colonel Daly named Burke, and three shots fired into the house of one of his labourers named Ward; and, if so, whether he intends to put the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act in force in the district, or, if not, what steps will be taken to protect life and to preserve order.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Government is fully seized of the condition of things on this property and in its immediate neighbourhood. Shots were fired into houses
  242
  on the two occasions referred to. A large number of extra police have been drafted into the locality to prevent intimidation and protect life and property. As at present advised the Government does not propose to resort to the procedure of the Criminal Law and Procedure Act.

  Evicted Tenants on the Marquess of Waterford's Estate.
  MR. DELANY: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken, or will be taken, by the Estates Commissioners to bring about the reinstatement in their former holdings of evicted tenants, or to secure untenanted land in connection with the sale of the Marquess of Waterford's estate in the county of Waterford now pending, under the provisions of the Land Act of 1903, with the view of providing farms for tenants who formerly held on this estate.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the reinstatement of the evicted tenants in their former, or other holdings, will be considered by the Commissioners when their inspector's report on the property is before them.

  Earl Fitzwilliam's Tenants.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of processes for arrears of rent which have been issued since the 1st of January last by Earl Fitzwilliam; and how many of the tenants have agreed to purchase their holdings since they were served with the processes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Applications for processes for arrears of rent were heard in twenty-four cases since the date mentioned. The police are unable to say how many were issued. I have no information on the subject of the concluding inquiry.

  Expenditure on Irish Piers and Harbours.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how much public money has been expended on piers and harbours in Ireland, other

  243
  tan piers and harbours in congested districts, since January, 1900; from what sources the money was supplied; and whether the sums were loans from the Board of Works or grants from the Treasury.
  Ma. WYNDHAM: A reply to this Question cannot conveniently be given by word of mouth. With the hon. Member's permission the reply will be circulated with to-day's Votes.
  Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) (Salaries) Clerks in Ireland, in the following form:—

  Name of County.

  Name of Petty Sessions District or Amalgamated Districts.

  Population of same as per Census of 1901.

  Salary and emoluments of Clerk on the 1st day of July, 1874.

  Salary and emoluments of Clerk on the 1st day of July, 1884.

  Salary and emoluments of Clerk on the 1st day of July, 1894.

  Salary and emoluments of Clerk on the 1st day of July, 1904.

  Remarks.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Catholic Clerks of the Veterinary Branch and the Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the document described as offensive by the Agricultural Department was sent by the Catholic clerks of the Veterinary Branch in reply to a minute from the secretary deprecating the Parliamentary action taken in their case, he will have copies of both documents laid on the Table of the House; and whether, also, he will indicate in what respects the reply of the Catholic clerks was inconsistent with facts.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to both Questions is in the negative. I have nothing to add to my former replies.

  Irish National Schools—Assistant Teachers.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to do anything this year to reduce the average required for a second assistant in primary schools, in accordance with the request of the Kerry Catholic clerical managers and others as to the necessity for such reduction.

  Irish Petty Sessions Clerks' Salaries.
  MR. FRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return on this day's Paper relating to the Salaries of Petty Sessions Clerks in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Return will be granted.
  The Return referred to is as follows—
  —Returns of Salaries of Petty Sessions
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Development Grant revised Estimate contains provision for the reduction of the average required for one assistant teacher.

  Lauder Estate, King's County.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of the delay in the sale to the tenants of the Lauder Estate, Clonfanlough, King's County, now in Judge Ross's Court, as the residential portion of the property at Moydare, Ferbane, has been disposed of; and whether the Estates Commissioners will take steps to acquire the property, it being congested and mostly held in rundale.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This estate has been brought before the Estates Commissioners to be dealt with. They have referred it to their inspector for inspection.

  Irish Labourers Legislation.
  Ma. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how he proposes to carry out the promised legislation for the benefit of

  245
  Irish labourers, having regard to the dropping of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill of the present session.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to make any announcement on the subject.

  Mitchelstown Land Appeal—Mr. Ahern's Case.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether any inspection of the holding of Mr. Patrick Ahern, Ballylough, Mitchelstown, took place before the hearing of the appeal; whether any fresh evidence was given upon the question of value; and by whom was the inspection of the holding conducted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Jeffcott was the inspector who originally inspected the holding. There was no second inspection before the appeal. I have stated that the case was reheard on appeal by the Judicial Commissioners, and that the rent was fixed upon consideration of all the evidence giving at the rehearing.

  Smallpox in Armagh.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there has been a sudden outbreak of smallpox in the city of Armagh, and that the efforts of the local authorities to check the spread of the disease are being hampered by the failure of the Local Government Board to furnish an adequate supply of vaccine lymph; and whether he will take immediate steps to remedy this deficiency.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An outbreak of smallpox has occured at Armagh. There has been no failure on the part of the Local Government Board to send an adequate supply of lymph. The Board forwarded 1,500 tubes between the 4th and 8th inst., and will continue to supply as many as may be required.

  Redmond Estate, County Wexford.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the agreements for purchase on the Redmond Estate,
  246
  county Wexford, have yet been lodged with the Land Commission; do thee show the rent, valuation, and price in every case; if so, can he give the figures to the House; and, if not, when will they be published in the official Returns to Parliament.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not prepared to discuss the terms of sale on individual estates.
  MR. TULLY: But I may point that the particulars are given in connection with other estates.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Returns recently presented by me only deal with counties, not with individual estates.
  MR. TULLY: You cannot have read the Blue-book.

  Trinity College Cahirciveen Tenants.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an opportunity will be afforded to the tenants of Trinity College, in Cahirciveen and district, to lay a statement of their position before the Commission; and, if so, can he say on what day the Commission sit at Cahirciveen.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners propose to hold a sitting at Kenmare and Listowel for the convenience of tenants from this district. The sitting at Kenmare has been fixed for Tuesday, and at Listowel on Thursday next.
  MR. MURPHY: I hope the tenants will be duly informed. There are a great many under-tenants much affected.

  Ridley Estate, County Westmeath.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that certain tenants on the Ridley Estate, county Westmeath, have been served with writs because they would not agree to the landlord's terms of purchase; and if he will take steps to ensure an inspection by the Estates Commissioners of any holdings agreed to be purchased under such conditions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Only one tenant has been served with a writ, the reason being that he withheld payment of his rent. He has since paid. Should the estate come before the Commissioners they will be guided in any action they may take by the provisions of the law.

  Cattle Breeding in Wexford.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why the Board of Agriculture purchase bulls in Scotland and send them to the county Wexford, ignoring the local breeders, geeing that at the spring show in 1903 out of fifty-four entries in the aged bull class, seven of the first twelve were Wexford bulls; can he say how much has been paid to Scotch breeders for the bulls sent by the Department to Wexford; and what is the amount of tax levied on the rate payers of that county for the purposes of the Committee of Agriculture.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Of the thirteen bulls purchased for premiums in county Wexford this year three were bred in the county, four in other parts of Ireland, one in England, and five in Scotland. The price paid for the five Scotch bulls was £184. Owing to the scarcity of suitable bulls in 1903, five of the premiums offered were not taken up. In order to assist the county committee to secure the full number this year the Department sold the five Scotch bulls to farmers in Wexford, who selected the animals themselves out of a number in the hands of the Department. A rate of one penny in the £ is raised over the whole county under the Act of 1899 and is estimated to produce £1,460.

  Belfast Market Tolls.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire- land whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the complaints made in Belfast that the Market Committee of the Belfast Corporation exact a levy, varying from £60 to £100 a year, for the fat extracted from the carcases of the animals seized by the meat inspectors, while no compensation is paid to the owners of the condemned animals; and what steps the Local Government Board propose to take to put an end to this practice.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Hon. Member has been misinformed. The market committee do not exact and never have received any payment such as mentioned.

  Cootehall National School Teacher's Salary.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chie Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education can explain why the salary of the principal teacher of the Cootehall Male National School, Circuit 7A, Roll No. 7402, was reduced on the 1st January last from £134 to £116, seeing that this teacher has been 34 years in office and in the first division of first class for the last 20 years; whether he is aware that the average attendance in this school, calculated on 200 school days, had been for year ending 31st December last 34·46; and whether, seeing that the school had been in operation for only 203 days of the year, and the latter six months had been exceptionally wet, the Board will take these circumstances into consideration and order this teacher to be paid his full salary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The salary of this teacher was reduced because the average attendance for the preceding year failed to reach 35, the mimimum number which would, under the Commissioners' Rules, warrant the continuance of first grade salary. The average was 34·1 only—and even if it were 34·46 as mentioned, the Commissioners could not regard it as having reached the required minimum.

  Butler Estate, County Kildare.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Mr. P. J. McLaughlin, an evicted tenant on the Butler Estate, near Castledermott, county Kildare; and, if so, whether the Estates Commissioners have communicated with the landlord, agent, or present occupier of Mr. McLaughlin's holding with a view to his reinstatement; and will he say what powers the Estates Commissioners possess to make compensation to occupiers in possession of evicted farms who are

  249
  willing to surrender in favour of the reinstatement of evicted tenants.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An application has been received from this evicted tenant, who is stated to be at present in America. The application will be duly considered. In reply to the concluding query, I refer to my statement in answer to the Question on the 19th July, by the hon. Member for South Tipperary.†

  Cork Police.
  MR. SLOAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the practice to have at least one Protectant head constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed in the city of Cork, he will say whether there is one stationed there at present; and, if not, whether he will order one to be sent there as soon as possible.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I replied to a similar Question by my hon. friend the hon. Member for South Belfast on the 18th July.‡

  Belfast Police—Sergeant M'Gunn's Case.
  MR. SLOAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he was aware that Sergeant M'Gunn, R.I.C., stationed at Sprinfield Road, Belfast, was ordered to be severely reprimanded and transferred to a county station for engaging in trade contrary to the regulations; that the transfer to a county was subsequently cancelled, and M'Gunn was transferred to another station in the city; that Head Constable M'Gauran, who was in charge of M'Gunn's station, was also ordered to be transferred to county Cork for permitting such a breach of the regulations; and that the transfer in his case also was cancelled; if so, will he state what mitigating circumstances led to these cancellations; and what person or persons, not members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, communicated with the Inspector-General on the subject.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the facts are generally as stated in the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 407.
  ‡ (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 277.
  250
  Question. Both men appealed to the Inspector-General to suspend the orders for their transfer in view of their lengthened service and of their declared intention shortly to retire from the force. The Inspector-General acceded to their applications. He received no communications on the subject from persons unconnected with the force.

  Tralee Technical Schools.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Tralee Technical Schools asking for permission to start, during the coming winter, an evening school in connection with the National Board; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On the 28th July the Commissioners communicated to the secretary of the Technical School Committee the official form of application which it is necessary to fill up in such cases. This form has not yet been returned to the Commissioners.

  "Calliope's" Visit to Lough Swilly.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state at whose request and for what purpose a training ship is about to be sent to Lough Swilly; and if representations are made to him by the inhabitants as to the undesirability of having a training ship in the locality, he will take steps to prevent the placing of the ship in Lough Swilly.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The "Calliope," sea-going training ship, is about to visit Lough Swilly in the course of her second summer cruise. There is, however, no intention of stationing a training ship at this port.
  MR. MURPHY: The ship is being sent there against the wishes of the inhabitants.

  Moyne Sub-Postmastership.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has decided to sanction the appointment of Mrs. Smyth to the vacant

  251
  sub-post office of Moyne; and whether, having regard to the protest made against this appointment by local residents in the district, he will cancel this appointment, and give the office to one of the other applicants for this vacancy.
  LORD STANLEY: I decided to appoint Mrs. Smyth to the vacant sub-post office at Moyne, as from the information furnished in the first instance she appeared to be the most suitable candidate. I have since ascertained, however, that a serious impediment in Mrs. Smyth's speech would interfere with the proper discharge of her duties, and I have therefore altered my decision, and propose to appoint Mrs. Gray.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCE: May I ask when the Prime Minister proposes to take the Lords Amendments to the Licensing Bill and the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, if he did not misrepresent the feeling on either side of the House, he thought it was in the direction of showing that it was desired, as soon as they reasonably could, to draw the necessary business of the session to a close. After the Appropriation Bill was concluded he proposed to take the Committee stage of the Irish Land Bill. He would then propose to take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. They might then take the Licensing Bill, the subjects for discussion in which were not very important, so far as he was able to judge. Then he proposed to take the Public Works Loans Bill and the Isle of Man Customs Bill. There might be some other Bills which were wholly of an uncontroversial character, but those he had mentioned would be taken first.
MR. BRYCEsaid that of course they did not know how long discussion of the Appropriation Bill would last, but it would be very undesirable to take the Lords Amendments to the Licensing Bill in the small hours.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman
252
does not intend to take the Whales Scotland) Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not if my hon. friend has the same keen, but not friendly, interest in big fishes that he has in small. But I think by agreement that Bill might be taken.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked after what time the Amendments to the Licensing Bill would not be taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he would not like to put a limit to that. He hoped that they would come to some friendly arrangement about business, but he might say specifically that he did not propose to take the Cunard Agreement or the Capital Expenditure Bill that night.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Do you propose to take the Army Council Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that it was quite impossible to pass that Bill.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: And also the Anglo-French Convention Bill? inasmuch as it is not likely, I understand, to be ratified by the French Chamber.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not want to enter into broad questions of international policy, but I think the right hon. Baronet will see that it would be a pity if we did not pass this. It would mean that for six months longer the matter would hang in suspense. I think the French Chamber will probably deal with the Bill the moment they meet; but of course if they refuse to ratify it there will be no injury to this country owing to our having passed it.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not want to stand in the way of the Bill, but he simply raised the point because he had information that the Chamber were not likely to ratify it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, I think they are.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will there be a Saturday sitting?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it would be necessary to have a Saturday sitting. He trusted that it would be the last sitting of the session, but that would depend on the friendly arrangements with regard to business which they might make.
MR. H. J. WILSON: At what hour will the Saturday sitting be held?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: According to the almost invariable practice, at 12 o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An act to Amend the Acts relating to Electric Lighting." [Supply of Electricity Bill [Lords.]
That they communicate Copies of Reports from the Select Committees on Supply of Electricity Bill, Weights and Measures (Metric System) Bill, Sea Fisheries Bill, Chantrey Trust, appointed be their Lordships in the present session of Parliament, together with the Minutes of Evidence, Proceedings of the Committees, etc., as desired by this House.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. BRYCEsaid there were many topics one might be tempted to comment upon at the close of the Parliamentary year, but he would resist that temptation, although he might have referred to the extraordinary character of the session, which had been unprecedented for the confusion of business, for the harsh and wild methods by which Bills of great importance, and upon which there had been no obstruction, had been scamped through, upon the further degradation which had been inflicted upon the House, or upon the sort of "game of hide and seek" which
254
His Majesty's Ministers had played with the House in endeavouring to avoid disclosures of their convictions, if they had any, and their intentions, if such existed, provided the Government were not waiting to learn the views of the country. But he passed from these matters, because the country might safely be left to give its own verdict upon them, and he turned to two topics of some interest to them, and on which every one would agree it was well that something should be said, namely, questions which had arisen out of the war between Russia and Japan, particularly with reference to contraband of war, and the question of the condition of South Africa, especially in view of the very important statement recently made by the Colonial Secretary. He was unwilling to do anything which would in any way embarrass the Government in the negotiations which they were carrying on with the Russian Government over concrete cases, or over general rules and principles. He was sure the First Lord of the Treasury would admit that on the Opposition side of the House every possible forbearance had been shown in not raising these questions unduly and pressing the Government upon them. He did not take any credit for that, for it was no more than the duty of any one who had regard to the extreme difficulty in which the Government was placed; but for that reason he would not press Ministers to make any further disclosure either of the actual state of the negotiations, or of the views which they intended to enforce, beyond what they considered could be made with advantage to the public service. It was, therefore, perhaps better to pass by the concrete cases, to which reference had been made already—such, for instance, as the case of the "Knight Commander," with regard to which he hoped that they might feel that the Government were taking the proper steps to indicate the principles which this country believed to be in accordance with international law. But there was the general principle, which, he thought, might fairly be discussed, and on which the Government might fairly be asked to express an opinion; that was the question of what was to be deemed contraband of war.
Russia appeared to be trying to extend very widely beyond all recent rule and

255
precedent the definition of what might be called either absolute or prima facie contraband of war. In particular it had extended that definition so as to make it include such articles as raw cotton and foodstuffs. The general principle was perfectly clear. There were certain articles which were obviously used for military and naval purposes and which from the very beginning of things had always been held to be contraband of war. But there was a large category of articles which might conceivably in some cases be used for war, but which were equally likely to be in transit on the seas for purposes of peaceful life and commerce. There had been a great deal of divergence in the practice of different nations, even in the practice of the same nation at different times, in regard to these, but the general principle was that they were to be treated as contraband of war only when it could be clearly proved that they were designed for a warlike use. He would take two articles—food, and such a raw material of industry as cotton. Food, by the general consent of nations, was not contraband of war unless it could be clearly proved to be intended for military or naval purposes. As one well known authority had declared it was unjustifiable so to treat it merely because of some uncertainty as to its ultimate destination. In 1885 an attempt was made by the French Government to treat rice as contraband of war. Lord Granville protested in the most energetic way, and stated that we would not recognise any decision of a French Prize Court which treated rice in that category and in point of fact rice never was treated is contraband of war. Maritime commerce would be paralysed if such articles as raw cotton and food were held to be contraband. It would be a serious matter for every populous commercial country if the principle were recognised that trade was practically to be suspended and the pacific population of a country actually at war was to be put in need either of the articles for carrying on its pacific industries or of its food supply by a harsh and undue exercise of belligerent rights. The United States had unmistakably shown its view on the subject, and he hoped His Majesty's Government would act in concert with the United States in endeavouring to make good that view.
256
There was the question of the use that could be made of neutral ports by the armed vessels of a belligerent. The facts with regard to Russia's action were sufficiently clear to show that she had gone very near the edge, if not over the edge, in using neutral ports for the purpose of repairing and equipping vessels which had in point of fact been stopping neutral ships and exercising belligerent rights. The law was fairly well settled on that subject. A belligerent Power had no right to use a neutral port as a naval base. She must not make it a means of carrying on armed action either against the enemy's vessels or against neutral vessels. A very limited use of neutral ports had been conceded, and it was clearly in the general interest that that limited use should not be allowed to extend. He hoped the Government was alive to the importance of the question, and would see that nothing more was done than was clearly recognised by the existing law as being within the rights of belligerent Powers.
Now he desired to pass to a different topic altogether, viz., to the South African question, as to which a very important statement had recently been made by the Colonial Secretary. It was extremely difficult to ascertain what was really happening in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, but enough was known to oblige them to regard the position with some anxiety. There had been great disappointment of the hopes entertained with regard to the development of the country and with regard to its fitness for the reception of British settlers. They knew there was great depression in its principal industry, and that in the case of Johannesburg the depression had almost reached destitution, and they knew that there was in both elements of the population a considerable measure of discontent. The disappointment that existed would not surprise those who knew something about the true facts of South Africa. There never was ground for the extravagant hopes held out to the people of this country about the development of the Transvaal; it was part of the general policy of misleading the people of this country by which, added no doubt to a blundering diplomacy, we were brought into an entirely unnecessary and a very

257
costly and deplorable war. Everybody who knew South Africa in 1895 knew that white men would not do the hard labour of the Transvaal. But nothing was said of that when the war was being hatched. If the facts to which the country had now been awakened by the discussions on Chinese labour had been known before, the opinions entertained on the whole subject of the war would have been very different. There was also very serious financial trouble in the Transvaal. There had been a great deal of extravagance, and the discontent which existed was considerably aggravated by the fact that unduly high salaries had been paid to officials, many of whom had not, in the opinion of the people, shown very high competence for their work. There had been considerable waste upon the project of land settlement, which those acquainted with South Africa knew could not come to much, and the financial difficulties would have been still greater were it not that the troops were being made to do at the cost of the British Treasury a good deal of work originally intended to be done by the South African Constabulary and paid for out of local funds.
He trusted that the Colonial Secretary would do all he could to remove the cause of discontent among the Dutch as soon as possible and before any further constitutional development took place. One of these causes was the treatment given to the Dutch language. That was a matter on which all experience showed it would be good policy to meet the wishes of the Boers. He did not say that these grievances were very great, but the very fact that they were not should make it easy to remove them. He believed a comparatively small concession would remove them and would not weaken, but would strengthen, the position of Great Britain in the country. Another matter was the non-payment of receipts given by British officers. The money, after all, was not so important as the removal of the sense of injustice which prevailed. Then there was the question of the payment of debts due from the late Government to private individuals but not recognised by our Government. Those debts, he thought. ought to have passed with the assets. He considered that the situation showed two bright spots—the very considerate way
258
in which Sir A. Lawley was endeavouring to meet the Boers, and the testimony to the law-abiding spirit of the Boers which was to be found in the reports of the resident magistrates, which showed that the Boers were endeavouring, in the present state of things, to abide by the law. There was ground for satisfaction in that fact—for everyone knew it took a long time after a war was concluded to reestablish normal peaceful life. He would like to know whether the policy of granting some electoral representation to the people of the Transvaal was to be extended to the Orange River Colony, the population of which was more homogeneous than that of the Transvaal, and would consequently present fewer difficulties to the adoption of such a policy. He hoped his right hon. friend would state the general lines on which it was proposed to proceed, and that the system would be plain and simple and free from any ingenious device which would be an obstacle to true representation. He believed it was still possible to bring the Dutch population into perfect concord with their British neighbours. The policy pursued during the next few years might decide the future for a very long period, and it was important, not only to give evidence of the good intention of the people of this country, but also to smooth the path as far as possible for that fuller form of self-government, of which he believed the Colonial Secretary himself was in favour.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that as Parliament was about to be prorogued, the Government would have a free hand for something like six months, and would have unfettered control of matters of the highest moment and involving material issues. It seemed to him that it had teas almost to be a Conservative Government Each department of power now had at its head a Liberal Unionist; that was the case at the War Office, the Navy, the Exchequer, the Colonial Office, and the Foreign Office, and it seemed as if by sonic self-denying ordinance the Conservatives had stood aside and agreed to hold only the ornamental offices, leaving all the real power to their allies. The Liberal Unionists had still one thing to achieve, and that was the conversion of the country, and possibly of the Prime

259
Minister to the system of protection, which had recently been proposed. He would not dwell on these topics, however, interesting as they were. He intended instead to deal with two matters relating to foreign affairs. The first was the Anglo-French Convention. Up to the present the French had refused to ratify this Convention, and he was not at all sure that the hopes expressed by the Prime Minister of ratification were justified. There was a strong party in France opposed to it The Newfoundlanders, who lit bonfires on hilltops at the outset, were now feeling that their action was premature, and were resisting the interpretation which the Government were being forced to put upon it. He considered the declarations with reference to the partition of Siam and with reference to Morocco as no less than a crime. Morocco was likely to give us a great deal of trouble, and serious questions would arise, one of which might be our retention of Gibraltar. He wished to ask whether, if the Convention were not ratified, the two separate agreements would fall with it.
Regarding the very important question of belligerent rights and Russian seizures and contraband of war, he agreed that it was the duty of Members not to embarass the Government, but he did not think that that meant that silence should be kept. By voicing the great apprehensions entertained outside the House Members would afford the Government an opportunity of making declarations which he trusted would be sufficient to allay those apprehensions. He need hardly remind the House that in the treaties of 1851, 1856, and 1871 the public law of Europe was defined, accepted, and guaranteed by all the Powers of Europe, namely, that in time of peace the Straits of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles would be closed to vessels of war. That meant a most important principle and it was one which we, of all other people in Europe, had a great deal of interest in maintaining, and indeed defending if it should be attacked. That had been constantly gnawed at, and there had been repeated infractions of the principle. That could not be denied, and only so recently as 1902 there were repeated attempts on the part of Russia to send
260
what were practically armed vessels through the Straits in defiance of the declarations of the public law which he had cited. He, in October, 1902, called the attention of His Majesty's Government to the infractions of the principles laid down. Again, in February, 1903, he suggested what he believed then, and still believed, to be the true method of arriving at a solution of the view taken by Russia and ourselves, namely, to submit to the Hague tribunal what was, after all, a question as to the interpretation of the three treaties he had cited. He very much regretted that in 1902 and the early part of 1903 His Majesty's Government, instead of almost rebuking him for his assurance for calling attention to so high a matter and refraining from doing anything, did not accept the suggestion he made, or adopt any other suggestion for the settlement of this most important matter. The result was that we were now confronted with a concrete case of the most serious importance—no less a question than whether the "Petersburg" and other vessels which went through the Straits were or were not lawfully commissioned. His opinion was that it was not possible for a State to lawfully commission a vessel as a man-of-war except in one of its own ports. His belief was that these vessels were commissioned in Russian ports—Sebastopol or Odessa—and,if afterwards they used deceit in order to pass the Straits, that, to his mind, did not impair the right of visitation, search, and seizure they possessed. They might have passed through the straits by deception practised on the Turkish authorities, and by pretending to be what they were not—merchant vessels. He believed it gave us strong ground for remonstrance with the Russian Government that it had thus been enabled to break through the public law of Europe, but to his mind it did not affect the right of these vessels, if they were duly commissioned, to exercise belligerent rights on the high seas. That matter of the Straits should have been settled in 1902, and if not then in 1903. Many of the doubts and difficulties which now surrounded the discussion of this matter of belligerent rights would then have disappeared. He certainly commended it now, at any rate, to the attention of His Majesty's Government, for if it was not settled there would be

261
one volunteer ship coming down after another from the Black Sea, or perhaps the whole of the Black Sea fleet. We should then have to look to ourselves in a very special manner, and to our strength in the Mediterranean.
He came now to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He could not but feel that it was presumptuous in him to pretend to say anything in this House on the subject, but what he had to say was the result of serious study of these matters during a great many years. He would confine himself, so far as he could, to citations from the great jurists who had written on the subject. He must deal first with an extraordinary delusion which seemed to possess many people in this country with regard to the laws of war. A great number of people were possessed by the idea that in war there were no laws, that war was an end of law, and that once a country had declared war everyone might do as he liked. The contrary was the truth. In time of war they must look after the wounded, they must have some regard to the prisoners who fell into their hands, they must, therefore, have flag of truce and cartel ships, and they must have regard to a whole network of regulations. So far from its being true that the beginning of war was the end of law, it was more nearly true that the beginning of war was the beginning of a new and more detailed system of acknowledged law than existed before between one nation and another. There were others who said that if there was law, it was this law of nations which they were constantly citing, and that that was no law because it had no sanction. But it had the greatest sanction—the sanction of common agreement. The principles it laid down had been accepted and were always appealed to by all the great nations of the world. It was true that there were doubtful points, yet there was agreement between all the great nations of the world on the general principles of the law of nations to which they all had to appeal, and to which, in this House, they were now appealing. War was not, and could not be expected to be, the occasion of profit to neutrals, but rather of loss and damage. In war the belligerent gained new rights, and the neutral had imposed on him new duties. To no nation was it so important
262
that the exercise of belligerent rights should be kept intact as it was to this nation. He trusted that would always remain in the mind of every man who dealt with these questions. But if that were so, no nation should be so tolerant as we of the fair exercise of the belligerent rights which were so vital to us. As neutrals it behoved us to be patient, long-suffering, and correct in any representation we might make, and in the conduct we might hold, while at the same time, no doubt, we must stand steadfast against anything like unauthorised violence committed under the name of acts of war. Neutrality consisted in abstention from the war. It did not consist in helping both sides equally, but in helping neither side. It was necessary to affirm this principle, because it lay at the bottom of the whole question of contraband. It had never been pretended that a belligerent had the right to prevent a neutral from carrying on his peaceable commerce with the other belligerent. But the question whether it was peaceable depended on certain considerations. If the neutral carried arms and munitions of war and things which were only apt for the conduct of war then he did it at his own risk. There was no law in this country, or in any other country he know of, to prevent the subject of a neutral from furnishing the enemy with contraband of war at his own risk. If he was seized and if his property was confiscated, then the State which had a proper appreciation of the laws of war would leave him to his fate as he deserved.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite had given a definition of contraband of war which was right so far as it went. But he had omitted an essential thing about contraband of war—that was, its destination. Destination was of the essence of contraband. To a belligerent destination many things would be contraband which otherwise would be harmless. The right hon. Gentleman had truly said that there were two or three things to be considered. First of all there were things which had no relation to and which were of no use in war at all. They never could be contraband. A grand piano or a lady's bonnet could not be contraband, because it was impossible to use them in war. Then there was merchandise applicable to war and to war

263
alone, such as guns and ammunition. That was always contraband when it was to the destination of a belligerent. Then came things of ambiguous and equivocal use and things of double use. Provisions, for instance, destined to a civil population were undoubtedly not contraband of war. But provisions destined for a fleet at a naval port of equipment, and provisions destined for an army carrying on a campaign were contraband of war and liable to seizure. The doctrine which he had laid down was not his own. It was one which he gathered from the great jurists. It was evident that the question whether or not things which were of ambiguous or double use were contraband of war entirely depended on the surrounding circumstances, such as the true destination of the cargo, the place and circumstances under which the vessels were found, and so forth. These were all questions which could be decided alone by the Prize Court, and they could not be decided otherwise than by the Court conducting a regular judicial investigation. That, to his mind, rendered nugatory any declaration by a State setting forth what should be considered contraband and what should not.
A great deal had been made of the Russian list of contraband of war. That list was published in the London Gazette on the 18th of March, and ever since that His Majesty's Government had made no opposition to the list. If they were to take any exception to it that should have been done in March and not in August. If they objected to the list, the objection should have been taken then. He hardly thought, however, that great exception could be taken to the Russian list. That list was not a declaration of what was contraband of war, but of what the Russian Government considered was contraband of war, subject to the decision of the Prize Court. He could not believe from the language of this very document that the Russian Government would do other than leave the decision as to what was contraband of war to a properly constituted Prize Court. He had heard it said that a Prize Court in a belligerent country would administer the belligerent law; but Prize Courts in all countries—and no one had laid that down more emphatically than Lord Stowell—sat to administer not the local law of the country, but
264
the great law of nations—the common law of Europe. If that were so, he did not know on what grounds England could question the decision of a properly constituted Prize Court, and he was shocked to hear it suggested that, because the decision of the Prize Court did not exactly square with our desires or the desire of our shipowners, we should refuse to be bound by it, thereby inviting the world to question every decision of our own Prize Courts.
He thought that the statement which he had made as to contraband of war would not be challenged; but he now came to the really burning part of the question. In order to ascertain whether a vessel was engaged in lawful traffic it was absolutely necessary to exercise the right of visit and search, in order to ascertain the flag under which the ship sailed, the quality of the cargo, and the port to which she was destined. But that right only appertained to a duly-commissioned man-of-war. He laid stress on the fact that it must be a duly-commissioned man-of-war which had the right to search a ship, examine the captain, question the passengers, and inspect the log-book. But the right was only a right of visit, search, and detention, not a right of trial, judgment, and compensation. To get that, the ship must be carried to the port of Prize Court with bulk of cargo unbroken. The reason was that unless the cargo on board remained intact the Prize Court could not have all the evidence before it. Looking at all the facts in relation to the "Allanton" it seemed to him that the proceedings in that case had been absolutely correct.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked if his hon. friend was aware that the bulk of cargo on board the "Allanton" was broken before the ship was taken to the Prize Court.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was not aware of that. In his opinion, in the case of the "Malacca" that vessel was duly detained, but there were very serious irregularities alleged to have been committed by the captors in attempts to bribe the ship's officers, and in removing and detaining the ship' papers. Nevertheless, as the case had been closed by a compromise, he would not press it. He thought that it might be politic to accept

265
that compromise without too much question. The case of the "Knight Commander" was of quite a different character. Nothing could be more clear than the right of a duly-commissioned man-of-war to search an enemy's ship on the high sea, and to sink it if that ship could not be taken into a Prize Court; although it was not usually advisable to do so, because in that event the prize was lost. But that applied to enemy's ships with enemy cargoes, and to those alone. No jurist of any repute had ever hinted at the right to sink a neutral ship as an alternative to taking the vessel before a Prize Court. It might be that the facts and circumstances would induce the Prize Court to release the ship altogether. It might be that, although a part of the cargo which was contraband would be forfeited, the rest of the cargo would be released. It might be that the whole of the cargo would be forfeited, but the ship would be left free. The captain of a cruiser could not have the knowledge such as would guide a Court to a decision, and for him to constitute himself into a Court, Judge, and jury, and sink a neutral vessel on his own fiat, was one of the greatest outrages against the law of nations ever committed on the high seas. The captain had at once hanged his prisoner and destroyed the evidence on which he had convicted him. He had been more surprised than he could say to read a letter by Professor Holland in The Times of 6th August. Professor Holland was our great adviser in these matters, and had taken a great part in the compilation of the Admiralty Manual on Naval Prize Law. That Manual would certainly require a great deal of revision and alteration, or else our naval officers would be falling into the errors committed by the Russian commanders. Professor Holland in that letter said—
"The statement of these rules (as to prize) by Lord Stowell, who speaks of them as 'clear in principle and established in practice,' may, I think, be summarised as follows:—An enemy's ship, after her crew has been placed in safety, may be destroyed. Where there is any ground for believing that the ship, or any part of her cargo, is neutral property, such action is justifiable only in cases of the gravest importance to the captor's own State, after securing the ship's papers and subject to the right of neutral owners to receive full compensation."
266
And then Professor Holland gave a reference to the case of the "Felicity." Professor Holland had not verified his references; had he done so, he would have seen that Lord Stowell did not admit that importance to the captor's own State ever justified sinking a neutral. In Dobson's Admiralty Reports, vol. 2, p. 386, in Lord Stowell's judgment of 26th November, 1819, the words were—
"Where it (the ship) is neutral the act of destruction cannot be justified to the neutral owner by the gravest importance of such an act to the public service of the captor's own State; to the neutral it can only be justified under any such circumstances by a full restitution on value."
According to Lord Stowell, therefore, the action of sinking a neutral was not, as Professor Holland suggested, justifiable in cases of gravest importance to the captor's own State. It was not justifiable even in that case. It was not justifiable at all. It follows that such an act as the sinking of the "Knight Commander" could not be justified. Full restitution in value was required, and full amends for what he could not but call an outrage on the British flag. We must feel certain, or at any rate he did, that the Russian Government would, on proper representations, make proper amends, and he was as certain, aye, more certain, that it was the bounden duty of His Majesty's Government to insist upon the claim with firmness.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the House that afternoon had been lucky in hearing the speeches of two such masters of this question as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen and the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had spoken with humility about his own knowledge of this subject, but those who had had to follow the writings on this subject for many years were aware that the hon. Member had made a most careful study of the question, and was a very high authority upon it. The hon. Member was, perhaps, a trifle old-fashioned in some of his views on international law, and had fallen foul of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen. It was probable that in the course of the debate hon. Members might differ on certain details; but it was extremely important that the main points at issue on which there was substantial

267
agreement in the House should be emphasised. There were questions and considerations upon which an immediate decision must be come to. He would put aside the arguments of the hon. Member for King's Lynn with reference to the Straits. The question of the Straits was a dangerous one for a long time, but was not a pressing one at the present moment. It was one capable, as the Prime Minister had said in answer to Questions, of being made to slumber by judicious treatment of the two parties concerned, who could not come to a complete and immediate agreement on the subject. There were, however, other questions on which an immediate agreement should be arrived at. There was no disagreement between the hon. Member for King's Lynn and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen as to the international law which governed the question at issue at the moment. As regarded the attempt of Russia to treat food and raw material under all circumstances as contraband of war simply because they were destined for Japan, that was an interpretation which it was impossible for this country to accept.
There was a certain difference of language between the statement of the Leader of this House and the statement of the Leader of the other House the other day on these questions. The difference was on two points. One had reference to the "Knight Commander," and the other was on the question of contraband. Lord Lansdowne did not lecture the shippers of this country for trading in contraband of war; but the Prime Minister appended to his statement a sort of caution to shippers in this country in regard to contraband, which he himself thought gave away the case of this country. He listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement with some anxiety at the moment. It was perfectly true that, ordinarily, there could be no objection to the right hon. Gentleman's statement; it was the connection in which it was made. The right hon. Gentleman uttered a little word of warning to shippers not to engage in contraband trade. That was what shippers understood from the right hon. Gentleman.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In that case the shippers must have misapprehended what I said. My answer had nothing whatever to do with any cargo shippers chose to ship. That is their lookout. What I pointed out was that neutrals had duties, one of which was to stop when summoned, and to show the ship's papers. I never presumed to lecture shippers on the trade they should carry on.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not know if that referred to the "Malacca" and the "Knight Commander" only, or if it had general application.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, on the points of stopping the ship and showing the papers.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that that was a perfectly satisfactory statement, and he would not pursue the matter further. Statements had been published in the Russian semi-official Press which supported the view taken in the original declaration of the Russian Government as to contraband. There was, however, an undoubted objection to the principle laid down, and to the explanation given by the Russian papers in connection with the action which had been taken. They in this House had to deal with the practical facts with great delicacy, because they did not know the Russian case, and could only gather it from semi-official sources. What the country was alarmed about was whether there was not an attempt on the part of some persons in Russia, if not of the Russian Government, to use the doctrine of contraband for the purpose of annoying and depressing British trade. The question was whether the action of the Government was intended as a legitimate act, or whether it was simply intended to annoy British trade. Under any circumstances the doctrine set up would have caused natural alarm to the British shipping trade and to the British community generally. Both his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn and his I right hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen had spoken with great force with reference to the use of neutral ports as a basis for a blockade, and for

269
interference with trade in an annoying and dangerous form. The interference which had occurred had already had a very remarkable effect in preventing the more responsible steamship lines from accepting goods for Japan, or from trading at all. He ventured to ask a question some months ago about the first P. and O. ship which was stopped by a Russian vessel using neutral ports. She had coaled at neutral ports on several occasions, and she undoubtedly interfered with trade in a manner which was entirely indefensible. There was no authority under international law which could support the establishment of a blockade of this kind by a vessel using neutral ports. This country should be the first to protest against any such contention. Indeed it was impossible that this country could put up with it.
There was the case of the "Knight Commander." A few years ago, at a moment when dangerous complications appeared to be imminent with a great Power, and when it was admitted that another great Power had attempted to get up an alliance of three great Powers against this country, Sir Thomas Sutherland called a private conference of Members of both Houses and others to consider these questions. A few gentlemen who were present were now prominent members of the Government. They considered these very questions under the chairmanship and able guidance of Sir Thomas Sutherland, including the use of neutral ports as the basis for a quasi-blockade. The matter was referred to by the Prime Minister and Lord Lansdowne in the case of the "Knight Commander" in clear and explicit language, and they even went so far as to describe the affair as an outrage. The effect of the sinking of the "Knight Commander" and the other events which had occurred had had the result of discouraging British shipping. Three or four of the leading steamship lines had been obliged to cease trade with Japan, which trade was now being taken by other Powers.
MR. LEAMYasked why the other Powers were not afraid.
SIR CHARLES DILKSsaid he could not explain, because it was a matter of
270
hypothesis; but the facts were as he had stated. He should like to know what steps the Government were taking to carry out the principle laid down by Lord Lansdowne. That declaration was clear and perfectly plain; and he wished to know what reply had been given by the Russian Government to it. The view of the British Government had not been accepted by the Russian semi-official Press; and the result was that the British shipping trade was being discouraged.
There were two other questions he should like to mention. The Prime Minister had stated that the Opposition should have the main responsibility of choosing the subjects to be discussed in Committee of Supply. He was quite sure that the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury did all he could to meet the wishes of hon. Members in carrying out that arrangement. There were two subjects it would have been desirable to discuss but which were not discussed owing to the tendency to take unimportant Votes in the early part of the session and on the days immediately following the reassembling of the House after the Easter and Whitsuntide holidays. The result was that certain questions were never discussed at all. One of these questions was the Protectorates Vote, and particularly the East African Protectorate, which was of wider importance than the career of Sir Charles Eliot. Members of the Opposition had protested against monopoly concessions of large tracts of territory by the Congo State and by France in the French Congo, and his view was that the East African Proctectorate should be subject to the same principle. The other question related to the conditions of labour prevailing in the Army Clothing Factory. Certain promises which were made to a deputation by the representatives of the War Office had not been carried out, and he hoped, generally speaking, that next year a more careful arrangement of the time devoted to discussions in Supply would be made so as to allow the House to discuss Votes relating to questions of first-rate public interest. He hoped to hear from the Prime Minister a statement as to the steps that were being taken to carry out the admirable principles laid down a fortnight ago by Lord Lansdowne as to interference with British trade. An

271
assurance was needed from the Government to the effect that they were taking active steps at the present time in respect of what was becoming not a mere theoretical grievance of this country, but a practical grievance, arising from interference with British trade.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A good many questions have been asked me, the majority of them relating to questions of international law and practice; indeed, those questions formed the substance of the speech of my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, and occupied the greater part of the speech of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet, however, by way of parenthesis, towards the end of his speech introduced come criticisms as to the method in which the Government had allocated the business of Supply during the session. I do not think he will assert that when the Opposition have made a claim for a subject to be brought forward for discussion, that claim has been refused.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Not refused, but claims have been put off until during the last month they have jostled one another. Days were wasted earlier in the session.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Surely, if there has been such waste, the responsibility falls quite as much on the Opposition as it does on the members of the Government. It must be remembered that each week an appeal is made to us, and each week we endeavour to carry out the arrangement made; and, no doubt, had the Opposition been agreed that it was desirable to discuss the question of Government factories or any special Government factory, an opportunity would have been found at an earlier period of the session. I am sorry that the question has not been discussed, and also the question of the protectorates; but any one who will go through the statistics of the session and examine the actual number of days spent in Committee of Supply will not be disposed to think that too little time out of the whole time at our disposal has been used for the criticism of the Government and too much time for legislation. The contrary is really the fact.
272
I do not know that I need refer to the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen. They were, I suppose, merely a general in troduction to his speech in which, in the course of five or six lines, he made five or six rather serious charges against the Government. It is not worth while to enter into a controversy with the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it can be said that he did not seem to take much interest in the Bills himself. But the right hon. Gentleman did make a very interesting speech on international law, and the other speeches on the same subject are entirely worthy of a rather important occasion. The right hon. Gentleman speaks on that subject both as an historian and as a jurist with a very special knowledge and special authority. I must express on my own behalf a general concurrence with the views on international law expressed by all the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. This does not mean that I agree with all they have said; it is with the general principle rather than with the particular details that I express agreement. Such authorities as the hon. Member for King's Lynn and the two right hon. Gentlemen did come into some small collision in the course of their speeches, so that the three authorities on international law are not wholly agreed. But if I do not criticise the details of the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I do think he laid down one proposition to which I take specific objection. It was that a belligerent who captured a neutral vessel had the right to examine the papers, but had not the right to examine the cargo. I think that my hon. friend is mistaken. I think that the authorities are on the other side. It is not a matter of very great importance, for indeed I may say parenthetically that one of the difficulties which now affect the traditional and authorised practice of international law is in this respect of examining a ship's cargo. Difficulties now exist which never existed at the time when international law was in the making during the years of the great European war. It was then probably an easy matter to examine the contents of a ship's cargo. Then the amount of the cargo could not be more

273
than a few hundred tons; but the steamships of the present day carry 7,000 or 10,000 tors of cargo, and the process of conducting an examination of that, although not forbidden by international law, is almost forbidden by the excessive difficulty of the operation. Then let the House observe what difficulties that involves also for all concerned. The belligerent makes a prize of a great liner, a ship carrying 7,000 or 10,000 tons of cargo; it takes it into a Prize Court; examines it; finds that there is no contraband; and the damages that ought to be paid, of course, are of an enormous amount. And it is one point which the Russian Government have got to recollect in this case, just as we have got to recollect it among other similar questions, that damages in the case of an improper capture or improper condemnation of a ship may mount up, and roust mount up, if prizes are largely taken into Court for examination, to sums which amount to a most formidable total.
Then, leaving that point of the right of search, on which I think my hon. friend was mistaken, I would say that my comment upon his speech, which is of the greatest substance, relates to his view of the authority of Prize Courts. My hon. friend's view appears to be this: That any nation may lay down, if it pleases, what list it chooses of articles which it declares to be unconditional contraband of war, and that against that there is no remedy except the remedy of the Prize Courts belonging to that nation itself. Well I will frankly admit that if that doctrine of my hon. friend is to be accepted without reserve, the dangers to neutrals are of a very formidable kind.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES.—What I intended to say was that no declaration by a State of what it considers to be contraband of war is of any binding effect at all; that it is only the decision of the Prize Court. which may or may not take that view of the case, that is of binding effect.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, to that statement I make some demur. It is perfectly true that a Russian Prize Court is not bound by the declaration of the Russian Government as to what the
274
Russian Government chooses to consider unconditional contraband of war. That is true. But as a matter of fact. I presume, and I think I am not going too far when I say, that a Russian Prize Court would be greatly influenced a declaration of its own Government that it regarded this or that object as unconditional contraband of war. But in any case I traverse the doctrine that when that Prize Court has given its decision, if that decision be contrary to the law of nations, it is to be accepted by the neutral. I do not know whether my hon. friend intended it, but I think some of his audience probably were moved, as I was, to suppose that his view was that when the Court finally decided that such and such a neutral ship was carrying what in the opinion of that Court was contraband of war, the whole subject then necessarily dropped and it was, as it were, a decision of a final Court of Appeal, like the decision of a final Court of Appeal in this country over the citizens of this country, and that there was nothing more to be said. Well, no doubt nobody would desire to quarrel with the decision of a properly constituted Prize Court of a belligerent country dealing with these matters; but if it be found that that Prize Court had condemned as contraband of war things which the law of nations set out as not contraband of war, I do not think it would be possible for a neutral to sit down absolutely quiescent under a decision of that character. I do not know that there has been any such decision even of a Prize Court of First Instance in Russia upon those subjects; but we certainly have felt it to be our duty to point out to the Russian Government that we protest in the strongest way against the idea that, for example, food is to be regarded as contraband of war, and that we hold it open to ourselves—this statement was made at the very beginning of the proceedings, in the very earliest days of the war—that we hold it open to ourselves to make representations on other matters declared to be contraband of war. Certainly that is a privilege of which we have already availed ourselves and of which we may have to avail ourselves even more still. But I trust not.

275
Let it be remembered that miscarriages are more likely to occur at the beginning than towards the end of a war. Of course if there is ill-will between the parties, a desire to quarrel or to trample upon them or ride rough shod over their privileges or convenience, then of course matters go from bad to worse; but the natural course, and what ordinarily happens, is that at the beginning of the war the mistakes are made by officers, rights are driven too far, then remonstrances are made, and practically the things of which great and just complaint has been made are not repeated, and matters grow not worse, but better. I really hope, and I believe it that that will be the case in the present instance. Therefore I would protest rather against a phrase which dropped from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that practices were creeping in which threatened the rights of neutrals now, or, it may be, the rights of belligerents at a later date. I do not think that that is so. I am absolutely and perfectly confident that we shall have no repetition of the difficulties winch occurred in the case of the "Petersburg" and the "Smolensk," and I am perfectly confident that no neutral will again be sunk by any Russian vessel. We have expressed in this House and in the other House of Parliament the very strong view we hold upon the international outrage—I think that was the word used by my noble friend in another place and by the hon. Gentleman here—of sinking a neutral ship. I will not go over the grounds why we think that a wrong. I think I stated hem myself in this House; if I did not they were stated with great lucidity by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and other speakers in this debate, and I need not repeat the reasons. I will only say again that I agree with them, that the Government agree with them, and that we have conveyed in the very clearest language to the Russian Government the view which we take upon this particular transaction. I do not know that on that I need say anything more, or that anything stronger need be said. I feel personally, and my colleagues feel also, great satisfaction at the fact that we are able to make this statement to the House—namely, that whatever be the abstract views of the Russian Govern-
276
ment, in which I think they differ from the jurists of all countries, upon the right of belligerents to sink neutrals in certain circumstances, they will not in the concrete carry out any such proceedings.
There is only one other point which I have not touched upon, and that is the use of neutral ports as bases of operations for cruisers. Again, I think that is one of the things that may have occurred. But it is somewhat obscure, and to show how obscure it is, I think the right hon. Gentleman made an error of fact when he said the "Osiris" was taken in the Red Sea. I think it was taken in the Ionian Sea. But it is not the past that matters so much, it is the future; and we are, of course, absolutely clear, and I think all nations agree with us, that the essence of the matter is that neutral ports shall not be made bases for hostile operations. Of course, as everybody who has studied these questions in the concrete knows, it is very much easier to lay down a general proposition with which everybody agrees than to deal with every case which ingenuity can suggest and in regard to which it is asked, does this come under
your rule or does it not? I could, were it desirable or even worth while, present to the House a great many hard cases on this point, but I will not do it. The only case, I think, which can be alleged is the case of the use of Jibuti.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: There was a case at an Egyptian port. The ship that took the "Osiris" took coal both at Jibuti and at an Egyptian port.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, the right hon. Baronet means one of the Canal ports. A Canal port, of course, is regulated by a special commission of international force, which, although it does not differ at all from the nations generally as to the principles which it holds, may differ as to the actual method by which those principles are carried out. For example, as the House knows, we have rules regulating the use of coal and our power to give coal to belligerent ships. I am not aware that the French have laid down in detail rules in regard to that. In special cases the practice of

277
the French may differ from the practice of the British; but the French will not be less ardent than ourselves in declaring the fixed policy of nations to be that neutrals are not to allow their ports or coal or anything else that is theirs to be used to facilitate hostile operations, either on the part of one belligerent or another.
My hon. friend asked me a question about the Anglo-French Agreement. I can say that we have always taken the view that the whole Agreement stood together and have refused to discuss hypothetical conditions. My hon. friend has asked me what will occur if the French refuse to pass the necessary measures which correspond to our Act of Parliament; but I hope he will allow me to put off discussing that, I trust, most improbable contingency until it has actually occurred. I do not think anything can be gained by dealing with a hypothetical problem which has not yet come before us. It certainly would not facilitate the solution of that problem were it to be dealt with in that way. I trust that I have surveyed the whole ground now; and as regards this all-important question of contraband of war, important. I think, not merely for the commerce of this country, but I may almost say for the future peace of the world, and the future relations between belligerents and neutrals, I hope I have been clear and satisfactory in my statements. If I have not been so, I shall be glad to supplement the statement I have made, so that the position may be quite unambiguous, and that on this, the last occasion on which we can fittingly discuss the subject before the holidays, no doubt can be felt in the minds either of the House or of the country as to the policy which we are pursuing.
MR. BELLsaid this was one of those debates in which they introduced a variety of questions and it was rather difficult to know at what point a particular subject ended. This particular question which had been before the House had been brought to a conclusion by the reply of the Prime Minister. He desired to offer a few observations to the President of the Board of Trade as this was the last opportunity he should have for about another six months. The subject he desired to bring forward was one
278
in which he took a very deep interest, namely, the safety of those employed on the railways of the United Kingdom. The number of killed and injured each year did not diminish by anything like the proportion which would give satisfaction to him and other hon. Members. He was not going to charge the railway companies with not taking the same amount of interest in this matter as himself, but he knew that the railway companies had at present, and had had for some time their hands full looking after other matters. The Act of 1900 had been partially put into operation, but he should like to see it more stringently administered. He thought insufficient pressure had been brought to bear by the Board of Trade to work this Act to its fullest capacity. For the last four years the Estimates had allowed money for additional sub-inspectors, and the President of the Board of Trade last year promised that they would be appointed this year, but one only had been appointed. Under the Home Office there were over 150 inspectors of all classes for factories and workshops. For the mines they had about forty inspectors of all classes, but for the railways of the United Kingdom, which was an equally dangerous occupation, they had only seven inspectors of all classes. Three of these were chief inspectors entirely occupied in investigating and inquiring into occurrences connected with the working of passenger trains, and the other four were totally insufficient to inspect the whole of the railways of the United Kingdom. He believed that the boards of directors of railways and the chief officials were as earnest as anybody else in their desire that everything should be done to diminish as far as possible the number of accidents, both fatal and nonfatal, but the heads of railways could not see all the details that required attention and they had to rely largely upon subordinates, some of whom he knew from experience were not as careful as even their superiors desired them to be, and they avoided doing a great many things because they were likely to incur expense.
He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the proposal which he had introduced for recording accidents in the future, for he believed it would be a great improvement upon past methods.

279
They would in future be able to dissect preventable and non-preventable accidents and classify very serious and minor ones. The returns each year, so far as the numbers were concerned, were very unsatisfactory and he believed that the last returns showed an increase. There was an increase in the fatal accidents and a very slight decrease in the non-fatal accidents. He was satisfied that it was possible to reduce the number of both these classes of accidents to a very large extent.
With regard to brakes this was a question which had occupied the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for the last three or four years, and he fully appreciated the difficulty which he had in pressing forward this matter, because the railway companies of this country were a very powerful organisation. He was aware that the President of the Board of Trade had through his Department endeavoured to bring pressure to bear upon the railway companies to adopt the either-side brake principle in regard to railway trucks, but they did not appear to be very willing to work harmony with the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this question. The President of the Board of Trade had not taken this matter into his own hands, but had left it to the railway companies, and they had had a series of trials with certain classes of brakes the selection of which had been left entirely to railway officials. The consequence was that certain brakes had been admitted which were totally impracticable, whilst on the other hand they had excluded some of the best brakes on the market. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should undertake to test these brakes under the supervision of his own Department. There might be a Committee formed consisting of representatives of the railway companies, the Board of Trade, and the men, to test these various kinds of brakes and to recommend the best. The soone something of this kind was done the better it would be for all concerned. Every year thousands of new trucks were being built for private owners, and for railway companies, and if this matter was not settled the result would be that both railway companies and private owners might be put to an enormous expense
280
when the Board of Trade decided upon the adoption of a particular kind of brake. The brakes would have to be taken on the new trucks and other brakes put on. If instructions were given now that all new trucks should have the new brake fitted on them the cost would be very little more. In his opinion, that was a practical suggestion, and one which would be beneficial to railway companies, railway men, private owners, and all concerned. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestion, for he could assure him that by doing so he would receive the gratitude of thousands of men employed on the railways whose lives and limbs were dependent on the appliances used in connection with their occupation. No one would say that he himself was unduly harsh on railway companies or private owners. He only wanted that which was reasonable and fair. Brakes were now being fitted on trucks which might afterwards have to be taken off in order that another kind might be adopted. That would involve unnecessary expense, which he wished to avoid. He had spoken on the question of brakes and of the necessity for the appointment of an additional inspector. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give these matters his earnest attention, believing that if action were taken on the lines he had indicated there would be in a few years a diminution in the number of accidents to those employed on railways.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said nobody could deny the interest which the hon. Member took in the safety of those whom he so ably and moderately represented in the House; but he hardly thought the hon. Member would expect him to acknowledge the justice of the strictures which he had passed on the Board of Trade. The hon. Member had said that he had promised that two additional sub-inspectors should be appointed within the year. That was not quite accurate. As the hon. Member knew, one additional sub-inspector had already been appointed, and if it appeared to him that a second could be usefully added to the staff he should not hesitate to make the appointment. Such an appointment, the hon. Member

281
said, would largely diminish the number of accidents. The Board of Trade had now introduced a new system of recording and analysing accidents; and had he known that the hon. Member intended to raise this matter, he thought he could have shown that the number of preventable accidents was much smaller than was supposed, and that the larger number of accidents which occurred could not be prevented by any law which the House might pass. As to the introduction of the either-side brake, the Department had always been in favour of that. When the hon. Gentleman said he was under the impression that in the experiments that had been made some of the best brakes had been excluded and inferior brakes admitted, he could only say that if the hon. Member had informed the Board of Trade what brakes he considered should be tested he did not think they would have had any difficulty in persuading the companies to include them in their experiments. At any rate, if when further experiments were made—and he understood that the companies were ready to make them—the hon. Member would do that, there would be no difficulty about getting any brakes tested. As to the appointment of a committee to decide what brakes should be experimented with, he was quite ready to consider that carefully; but he thought that the suggestion he had made was simpler and better.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he hoped he would not be considered as breaking the orthodox routine of the House on an occasion like this if he asked leave to say a little on the Bill itself. It was rather an important Bill, seeing that it gave Parliamentary approval to all the expenditure sanctioned in detail by the House. He doubted if many Members of the House had ever seen or read the Bill, for he understood it was never circulated. He deplored and deprecated the lax habits the House had fallen into regarding the expenditure of public money. The result was the destruction of the financial and administrative control of the House. The First Lord of the Treasury either did not know or had skilfully evaded the real charge against him. It was that by taking a large Vote on Account at the beginning of the session and making use
282
of the automatic closure at the end of the session the Government had made themselves independent of financial criticism in the House. The large sum voted at the beginning of the year on account of the Civil Services had been far in excess of the amount required for those services, and the Army and Navy Votes had lived for weeks on the money arising out of it. That was not creditable The money granted for the Army and Navy was exhausted long ago. That had been admitted even by the Prime Minister. He did not know whether hon. Members knew to what he was referring. He was referring to the first Consolidated Fund Bill, in which the grants in Supply for the Army and Navy had been by no means sufficient. The grants in Supply, authorised before 31st March, were only for ten weeks Supply in the case of the Army, and for eleven weeks in the case of the Navy. The result was that the Army and Navy Vote had been financed out of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which included not only the Military and Naval Services, but the Civil Services. He was quite certain that the House never intended or knew that that was to be the result.
There were other deplorable methods of conducting business. One was to prevent discussion by every known means, and by waste of time under the new rules. Supporters of the Government had wasted time by talking against time in the evening. Then time was wasted, as far as Supply was concerned, by private Bills being put down for consideration on Supply nights. Another cause of waste was the extraordinarily difficult form in which all the financial proposals of the Government were submitted to the House. In this Bill itself there was a clause founded on a Resolution passed the previous night which he ventured to advance not three Members in the House understood, it was so extremely difficult and technical. He dared say it was all right; but when important matters were presented to the House in that way—so complicated and so unintelligent—one could not wonder that the financial conscience of the House was becoming year by year more slack. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why these borrowing powers were given to the Government? Were they co-extensive with the whole expenditure

283
authorised? That would only be justifiable when the ordinary revenue system of the country had broken down. But the borrowing powers given to the Treasury by this Bill were co-extensive with the actual wants, and altogether ignored the fact that the revenue coming in was equal, or almost equal, to the requirements of the Supply Expenditure with which this Bill dealt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, early in the year, had made his Budget on a Supply expenditure of £113,000,000. He, himself, had looked into the figures in the schedule of the Bill and he found that they did not correspond with that statement. If the right hon. Gentleman would make a calculation he would find that the Supply Expenditure for the Army and Navy, and the Civil Service and Revenue Departments amounted to £112,700,000; but in looking into accounts he found that the estimated expenditure was £500,000 less than what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said that was disposed of by £500,000 being estimated for the Somaliland Expedition, the accounts of which had not yet been received from the India Office, and for which the Indian Government was primarily responsible.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that, in other words, the Estimate for Somaliland, which accounted for £500,000, had no place in the Appropriation Bill at all, and would probably appear in a Supplementary Estimate next year. The practice of having these Supplementary Estimates was a bad one, and it became more extremely bad when it was done deliberately as in this case. No Appropriation Bill had had so little to say for itself as this one in the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons. It was impossible to find within its four corners a true picture of the national expenditure, because alongside of the legitimate expenditure there had arisen in recent years what was called the other day an irregular expenditure, over which, especially in respect of borrowed money, the House had ceased to have control. Up to March last the money spent in this irregular way amounted to £32,000,000. This system
284
made it impossible for the House to see what really was the expenditure for the current year. He referred in particular to naval works, the statement on which had been delayed until it was impossible properly to discuss the details, although there had been repeated promises given to the House that there would be an opportunity for discussion on all these points. That was not all. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman, who had been at the Admiralty himself, and who took as much interest as any one in naval affairs, that he hardly seemed to know the contents of this Paper. Last year the Naval Works Bill contained three great Votes for works—the Rosyth Naval Base, Chatham Dockyard extension, and various other items, but the Admiralty could not tell the House what was the estimated cost of these works. They put down a nominal sum such as £500,000 or £100,000 and the House was given to understand that this year it would have real and fully considered Estimates. His astonishment was profound when he found that the figures were precisely the same as last year. He was told the other day that the only case in which an approximate estimate could be given was that of the Chatham Dockyard extension, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said might cost about £4,500,000.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood his hon. friend.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that was the explanation. He was rot aware that any explanation had been made as to the total amount. If that was an official statement, why was it not, printed upon the Admiralty Paper? Under the system upon which they were-proceeding, not only were they incurring liabilities side by side with the work provided for in the Estimates, but they did not know the extent of those liabilities. They did not know in the case of Rosyth, Chatham, or the Coastguard stations to what extent they were committed, and that was not a safe or creditable position for the finances of the country to be in. They did not know what the expenditure would be in the future upon all these great and important works. The Civil Service

285
Estimates amounted to £28,000,000 a year, the Navy Estimates to £37,000,000, and the Army Estimates to more than £29,000,000. The total expenditure of the two fighting services of this country amounted to £66,000,000. The National Debt was a legacy of ancient wars, and they had to add to the £66,000,000 pro vided for warlike purposes, £27,000,000 which our old wars were costing the country. Therefore £93,000,000 was what this country was paying for fighting purposes, past and present. That was the price they were paying for what had been described as an "aggressive Empire."
He wished to point out that this vast expenditure upon the two services represented no settled policy at all. They had not had that year any real Army Estimates, and the Secretary for War himself had described them as interim Estimates. They were sham Estimates upon which sham debates had taken place. After the debates which had taken place in both Houses it was impossible to maintain that even the present Navy Estimates represented any longer a settled policy, and it was clear that the two-Power standard had gone. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had practically given it up and even the Secretary to the Admiralty did not really attempt to defend or define this two-Power standard. It could neither be defended or defined, and they must get some other formula. A large portion of the expenditure upon the Army and the Navy provided for in this Bill was for the protection of the Colonies, in which the people of this country personally had no concern. Although the people of the United Kingdom numbered about one-tenth of the population of the whole Empire they were paying under this Bill 99 per cent. of the whole cost of the Navy! And what about the Army? He confessed that in the present confusion of Army affairs he could not hazard anything but a guess, and unfair as the burden of the Navy was upon this country he thought it would be found to be still greater in regard to the Army. Take either the Estimates this year or the possible Estimates under the new system, and ask how much of
286
the £30,000,000 spent upon the Army this year was due to the defence of the United Kingdom alone and how much was due to the defence of other parts of the Empire. This country was called upon to pay for an Army used for outside purposes including the defence of our self-governing Colonies.
With regard to the National Debt it had not directly grown larger this year but it stood now at £800,000,000. In addition to that they had contingent liabilities so-called amounting to about £20,000,000, and, above all, they had guaranteed loans amounting to over £150,000,000, which he feared would tend to increase and not diminish. That was over and above the contribution to the National Debt of £12,000,000 in the present year. Considering the cost of the Cunard Agreement, and taking into account other items, instead of being better off by the amount of the Sinking Fund they were at least £6,000,000 worse off than they were the year before. That was a very serious matter. All these burdens had been imposed upon a long-suffering people, many of whom were extremely poor, and they were being imposed by a Parliament which had long ceased to be representative and by a Government which no longer had the confidence of the majority who kept them in power.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite who had just sat down had referred to him with regard to one or two points. Upon One particularly, upon which the hon. Gentleman had expected his support, he desired to say a word. He had asserted that we had no settled policy with regard to the Navy. With that he could not agree. With regard to the two-Power standard he saw no difference between the statement made a night or two previously in another place and the statements which had been made for several years past. Nobody who had really considered the matter could imagine that a relative standard could be set up for all vessels. We could have a two-Power standard for the batole line but we could not have a two-Power standard for the whole of the Navy. We must have regard to the geographical conditions of the Empire and what we

287
had to protect. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to a Return which had recently been laid before the House, and he (Sir John) desired to say a few words with regard to one great question which everyone was trying to smother but which would have to be faced. This Bill was to appropriate and sanction certain expenditure for the year, and that expenditure might be separated into two groups, the expenditure which concerned the United Kingdom only, and the expenditure which concerned the Empire as a whole, and which did not concern the United Kingdom except as part of the Empire. If the schedule of the Appropriation Bill of ten years ago was compared with the schedule of the present Bill it would be found that those items which represented Imperial Expenditure as distinct from those which concerned the United Kingdom only, namely, the Army, Navy, Diplomatic and Consular Services, had very nearly doubled. On further exanimation it would be found that the sum necessarily allocated to the Navy in the present Appropriation Bill was as great as the total charge for those three services ten years ago. That would give the House some idea of the growth of expenditure.
As to the naval charge it was no use crying out about it because we had to pay it and he would show the House how it had arisen. If they took the three great Powers, the United States, Germany, and Russia, and compared their aggregate Navy Estimates of ten years ago and of the present time, the House would find that their aggregate naval expenditure had trebled while our own naval expenditure had only doubled. It was obvious that if we were to defend our sea interests we must keep up our command of sea power and do what was necessary to be done, otherwise our Empire would go to pieces. The expenditure for the Navy was not an expenditure which had been pressed upon the country by the wishes of Ministers; it was an expenditure consequent on the necessity of competing with the action of other Powers. The Navy was to protect the whole of the sea interests under the flag, and he thought that recent events, as to which they had had such a satisfactory state-
288
ment from the First Lord of the Treasury that day, in connection with certain matters of maritime war must open the eves of everybody as to what maritime war meant for us. The Navy was the necessity of every citizen of the Empire, and that being so, how long were we going to try and run it out of the resources of the United Kingdom alone? The aggregate British revenue raised outside the United Kingdom was greater than that raised within the United Kingdom.
MR, LOUGH: What revenue?
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the aggregate revenue of the outlying Empire was £148,000,000 a year, and out of that revenue the outlying Empire only contributed £384,604 to the maintenance of the Navy. The revenue of the outlying Empire was greater than that of the United States, but the United States this Year was spending £16,000,000 on her Navy. Let the House take another point. Take our sea interests as measured by our sea trade. What did they find? They found that the contribution to the Navy regarded as an insurance charge was 4 per cent. on the annual value of the United Kingdom's sea trade, whilst that of the outlying Empire did not amount to 1s. 6d. in the £100 annual value. No country in the world gave such preferential treatment with regard to providing naval security for its various States as we, and when we talked of the consolidation of the Empire this was a point to be remembered, for we had to look on both sides. He had brought this matter before the House on every opportunity; he admitted, and every one realised, the difficulties of it; but what was wanted was a little more plain speaking, a little more bringing of these facts out by responsible Ministers. Our fellow citizens in the Colonies were, like ourselves, reasonable men, and it should be made plain to them once and for all that a Navy for the purposes of the whole Empire could not be run from the resources of the United Kingdom alone. He trusted the House would forgive him for treating this important matter in this hasty way, but he desired to get others to look into it because we were shutting our eves to it, and the sooner

289
the question was raised in a rational way the better it would be. In all our history the two Ministers who had spoken most plainly to our Colonies in this matter were the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and Lord Selborne.
MR. DELANYsaid although it might be true that the Colonies did not pay anything like a proper contribution towards the upkeep of the Navy, and the burdens laid upon this country in consequence might be considered excessive, the English people had not so much to complain of because of the amount of money that found its way back to the great shipbuilding yards on the Clyde and elsewhere. But this was not the case with regard to Ireland whose dockyards were empty and whose people were not even given a share of the repairs of the Fleet. Ireland got no return for the contribution she made. He rose, however, not to discuss the question of the Navy, and the House would forgive him for drawing attention to a more practical question. What he now desired to raise was the question of the evicted tenants, which was a burning, in fact the all-absorbing, question in Ireland at the present time.
MR. SPEAKER:I do not see how that arises on the Estimates.
MR. DELANY: Is there not a Vote on the Estimates for the Congested Districts Board, Sir, or a Vote for the Chief Secretary. Does the Chief Secretary do his work for nothing?
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will reflect for a moment he will see that it is not in the power of administrative officers to restore evicted tenants.
MR. DELANYsubmitted with great respect that he was entitled to raise this question having regard to the fact that the Chief Secretary was practically the head of every board in Ireland.
MR. SPEAKERintimated that the matter to which the hon. Member was referring had nothing to do with the Estimates; it was a question of law and could not be raised on the Appropriation Bill.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORcalled attention to the recent Return of the business transacted by the Crowd Agents during the last five years. The amount of business done was represented by £7,500,000 in 1899; £,9,500,000 in 1900; £14,000,000 in 1901; £23,000,000 in 1902; and nearly £94,000,000 in 1903, the last named amount including certain extraordinary financial operations in connection with the Transvaal. These figures showed the enormous and progressive importance of the business done by the Crown Agents. Their commission during the same period had increased from £24,000 to £46,000. That Return, he thought, was worthy of consideration, if only to get an idea of the extraordinary character of the British Empire outside the self-governing Colonies and India. When people used the phrase "British interests" they did not always realise what it represented, but a study of this Return would help them to realise the enormous responsibilities of the Empire and, therefore, of these Crown Agents, who were practically the commercial and financial agents for the whole of the Empire outside the self-governing Colonies and India. Certain charges had been brought against the Crown Agents of inefficiency, red-tape, and general delay in the execution of commissions entrusted to them, but the point he wished to urge was that there was no effective supervision of these officials, they being in an absolutely irresponsible position so far as Parliament was concerned. The recent Return was probably the first for fifty years that had been laid before Parliament giving details of the gigantic business done by them, and his object in rising was to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary the immense desirability of securing the presentation of a similar Return every year, so that Members might have an opportunity of understanding what was going on in connection with this business.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,)thought that the demand of his hon. friend was not an excessive or an immoderate one, and he would favourably consider the course which he suggested. One expression used by his hon. friend might convey a

291
somewhat erroneous impression. He spoke of the commission which the Crown Agents received. They were not paid by commission, but by salary, and the commission went towards the expenses of the office, and their salaries were not altered by the magnitude of business or the magnitude of the expenses which they undertook. He had always been willing to investigate any specific cases brought before him, but he confessed that, considering the enormous magnitude of the business, it was most remarkable that no specific instances of the kind complained of had been brought against the gentlemen who carried on this business.
His right hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen had called attention to certain matters which he said were causing discontent to the Boers at the present moment. With regard to the Dutch language, that matter was brought by the Boers themselves to the notice of Sir Arthur Lawley at the late conference at Pretoria, and Sir Arthur Lawley then pointed out that the Dutch language was in no danger in the Transvaal. It was the colloquial language, of course, of a majority of the population, and it was not considered necessary to take very elaborate precautions to maintain it, because obviously it maintained itself. But if there were any such necessity, he thought the House would feel that it was fully met by the precaution that an hour a day should be given in the schools to the teaching of the Dutch language. That would enable the children of the Boers to learn a somewhat more classical and grammatical form of Dutch than the Taal, which they themselves employed in the ordinary relations of everyday life. The experience of those who had administered the country was that the Boers throughout had been extremely eager to learn the English language. The second point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was the non-payment of the military receipts given by British officers during the war. He had urged the rapid discharge of any obligations which might now be outstanding, and those obligations were being dealt with by a Commission at the present moment. The third point related to the discharge of the debts due from the late Boer Government. That formed the subject
292
of very specific negotiation at the time of the treaty. The British Government from the first repudiated any obligation to discharge those debts incurred during the war. A distinct agreement was made by which £3,000,000 was set aside as a free grant to the burghers, but no admission was made with regard to the obligations of the late Boer Government other than that when they were considering payments out of the sum of £3,000,000 to the Boers, the Government would regard as evidence of war losses notes which the Boers had themselves from their late Government. That had been carried out, and, as it was a matter of the distinctest understanding, it was quite impossible to say that we had ever departed in the least from the agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman had asked about the propositions for representative government for the Transvaal which had been made by His Majesty's Government and communicated to Lord Milner, but, inasmuch as the despatch conveying those propositions would not reach Lord Milner before the end of this week, he could not go into detail at all in regard to the proposal. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the propositions carrying out the intentions of the Government should be made plain, straightforward, and simple, so far as the conditions of the problem enabled them to be so. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the great disappointment which had been experienced in the development of South Africa in the last two or three years. Well, he had dealt with that subject elaborately upon the Colonial Vote, and showed the colossal effort that had been made to reconstitute the economic condition of the country as it existed at the beginning of the war. After the war the country was left in a condition of general desolation, but enormous efforts had been made, and enormous expenditure had been incurred to remedy this. Those efforts were rendered still more arduous and difficult because of the drought, which necessitated practically the keeping alive of a great population, not for the period of six months which was anticipated, but for a period of not less than eighteen months. No one who read the figures could deny that in addition to that the great shortage

293
of labour which had existed at the mines, and which still existed, had made the task of development even more difficult than it would otherwise have been. That shortage, in broad figures, amounted to something like 25,000 labourers at the present moment, as compared with the state of things before the war. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the misrepresentations which had been made with regard to the war, and the pictures that were drawn as to the hopes which white labourers and working men in this country might cherish in regard to the Transvaal, and he spoke of the misrepresentation which had lured this country into the war. He must utterly deny the historical accuracy of that account. The war was not fought upon that pretext. It was fought for reasons very familiar to the House, and it had the assent of the enormous majority of the people of the country and of the House, and it had the assent of many of the right hon. Gentleman's own colleagues. That assent, so widely prevalent and universal, would never have been given for the merely material reason alleged by the right hon. Gentleman.
THE MASTER OF ELIBANKasked whether the Crown Agents had protested against the Elder Dempster monopoly in regard to the West Coast of Africa.
MR. BRYCEasked the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it was proposed to give electoral representation to the Orange River Colony.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid the Government had not yet received the reports on this subject of the Governor of the Orange River Colony. The conditions in that Colony were very different from those in the Transvaal.
Ma. BRYCEobserved that the difference was in favour of the Orange River Colony.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he was not saying for a moment that the Orange River Colony was not in a most satisfactory condition. It was in a very satisfactory condition, but the conditions of the two Colonies were very different. No
294
absolutely final decision had been come to at the present moment. The Government had not received the reports from the Orange River Colony. He thought it would probably be desirable that the Colonies should be dealt with one at a time, and that some experience of the experiment made in the Transvaal should be gained before similar proposals were made in regard to the Orange River Colony. He could not answer the Question put by the hon. Member for Midlothian.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he wished to call attention to the conditions under which the workers in the Army Clothing Department were employed, a subject which the House had discussed from time to time during a number of years. The fact that general discontent existed in the department was in itself proof that there was need for reform. He and other hon. Members who had directed attention to this subject had said that the wages paid by the department were not fair and reasonable for the work performed. They had alleged, and lie believed it could be proved, that a number of women were employed in the department at a wage of less than 10s. a week each, and that the condition of the workrooms, from a sanitary point of view, was not what it ought to be. Something should be done to put the rooms into the condition in which they would have to be if the workpeople were in private employ. No Government Department should have a preference over private employers in regard to matters relating to the health of their workpeople, and the condition of their workrooms. Not only had that been so however, but the Government had not given attention to complaints made in that House, as they ought to have done. This year evidence in support of the representations made was forthcoming from an outside source—an organisation called the Christain Social Union, composed of persons whose aim was to improve the social condition of the people, and having, as the president of its committee, the wife of an ex-Minister of the Tory Party. That body confirmed in every detail the statements which had been made in that House for years and years past in regard to the Army Clothing

295
Department. Attention had been called in previous debates to the lack of ventilation in the pressing rooms in the department's factory, and the results of the inspection which had been made concerning those complaints were not at all satisfactory. They knew as a fact that the department was aware that the inspection was to be made, and that all preparations were made in order that the place might be clean, tidy, and fresh. No inspection of that sort deserved a moment's consideration. There ought to be an independent inspection, just as there was of private factories, by one of the qualified inspectors who did such work throughout the country, and in whom the workpeople had confidence.
Complaint was made that too much of the time of the House was taken up with detailed criticism of the hours of labour and the wages of the workpeople in Government establishments, and it was sometimes said that undue pressure was brought to bear upon Members representing dockyard towns and other places in which Government establishments were situated to raise the complaints of the employees in that House. The House ought to be the ultimate place in which to deal with such questions, but it was an absurdity that individual complaints should be brought there. To remedy that the Government should give full right of making representations to accredited men representing the work-people, and such representatives should receive complaints and have power to deal with them. This course was followed in many private factories, and he could say from experience that a great number of complaints could thus be quickly disposed of. He thought the Government had gone a step backwards in this matter. Why should the Government put themselves in a different position from the ordinary employer? He objected to the principle that these men should have to make their complaint individually before the Secretary of State. Let the head of the Department be placed in the position of the manager of a great public works, and let him receive the complaints of the workpeople through their accredited representatives. The workpeople ought to be kept in the background. He be-believed that that was the only way to
296
remedy the constant influence which was brought to bear on Members of Parliament to bring grievances before the House.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wished to call attention to a matter which affected the Home Office. Within the last two or three days Questions had been addressed to the Home Secretary as to the case of two young women whose hair had been cut in Holloway Prison when they were under remand. Although adequate time had. been available for inquiry to be made, he complained that they had had nothing but vague replies to the Questions which had been put to the Treasury Bench on this subject. Haircutting on the plea of removing vermin from the roots of the hair was ridiculous when the hair, as in the case of these two women, was not cut shorter than that of the Home Secretary. In every workhouse insecticide was found to be the only means of eradicating vermin from the hair; then why should the hair be cut in prison when the prisoner under remand was just as innocent of crime as the inmate of the workhouse? Moreover, in the cases of Pratt and Hudson he was satisfied after careful personal investigation that the hair was cut by a prisoner and not by a wardress, and that the medical officer inspected these women's heads after and not before the haircutting. The whole case was a scandal. He submitted that it was a grievous wrong that these young women, while under remand on a charge of stealing, which charge was subsequently dismissed by the police magistrate, should have had their hair cropped and been compelled to go from the Police Court with the mark of a convict upon them. It was a gross indignity. This might seem a small matter, but it affected the rights of every innocent citizen in the country. Then there was a case of a well-known tradesman who went to "Lords" to witness a cricket match, and was arrested for stealing opera glasses, because he happened to have a pair of opera glasses of his own in his pocket. He was taken to prison on a Saturday, and although he was ready to establish his identity he was forbidden to telegraph to his friends, and he was retained in custody until the following Tuesday, when the magistrate

297
dismissed the case against him. The Home Office ought to see that prisoners under remand were properly protected. The time had come when servants of the Crown should be expected to conform to the views and instructions of the House of Commons. At present some of the high officials of the Home Office did not attempt to conceal their contempt for Parliament. Another question he wished to raise was in relation to the telephone service of the country. Certainly, the Postmaster-General said he would communicate to the House any agreement with the Telephone Company; but what he was anxious about was that no binding agreement should be entered into without Parliament having had a full opportunity of discussing its terms. That was all the more necessary because, when the last agreement with the company was discussed, they were told they could discuss it as much as they liked, but that the bargain which had been entered into would not be altered.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,)said that there was, without doubt, the right of full and free access to the employer in the case of the Army Clothing Factory. The rules were perfectly clear and plain. Any man or any women having a grievance might go to the chief ordnance officer. He agreed that the proper person to deal with small grievances was the superintendent of the factory. If a grievance affected a class it might be represented by a deputation, provided only that they were servants employed by the Government. It had been suggested that trade unions outside and having no dealings whatever with the factory should have the right of representing a grievance; but it was most undesirable that an outside authority should have the right to intervene. There were, however, certain circumstances in which the Secretary of State and himself had received deputations from trade unions, and would continue to receive them. With regard to the death of the unfortunate girl Alice Wright, it had been suggested that had it not been for the want of some action on the part of the War Office she would have been alive today. That was a very serious accusation,
298
and there was no ground whatever for it. This girl suffered from extremely bad health. She was continually away from her work, and the medical officer declared that she was hardly fit for ordinary employment, much less for employment in such an institution as the Army Clothing Factory. It was suggested that the factory was badly ventilated, but that was certainly not the case. Was the hon. Member ever at the factory?
MR. SHACKLETON: No, certainly not.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that he could tell the hon. Gentleman that it was one of the finest factories in the country. He was there a short time ago on one of the hottest days, and he observed that the temperature of the room in which Alice Wright had worked was 74 degrees. The inspection of the factory was carried out by a Home Office official; there was no preparation for his visit, and the workpeople were not withdrawn while he made his tests. There was no ground for the charge brought against an officer of the highest credentials whose personal reputation and character had secured for him an appointment the duties of which he discharged with credit.
MR. WEIRcalled attention to the illegal trawling which took place around the North of Scotland and the Western Islands. He pointed out that from 1896 to 1902 the number of trawlers had increased from 109 to 275, an increase in six years of 166. With the increase of these piratical trawlers he submitted that there ought to have been an increase in the number of fishery cruisers or sea police, instead of which there had been, as he would show, a decrease. He had always contended that these trawlers should be kept out at sea, but they came within the three mile limit and broke the law. He quite admitted it would be extremely difficult to have cruisers all round the coast, but at least there might be one or two additional fishery cruisers. What was the speed of these cruisers? There was the "Vigilant" with a speed of eleven knots. The trawlers went at a speed of from thirteen to fifteen knots. What chance

299
had the "Vigilant" to effect captures? The Fishery Board for Scotland should have made some efforts to get more boats. Years ago, when he brought this question before the House, the then Lord Advocate told him the Fishery Board were going to save money for a new cruiser. The proper course would have been to have gone to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and got the money. It was the duty of the Fishery Board to secure more cruisers, having regard to the increased number of trawlers, and if they were unable to get the money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer they should have gone to the Admiralty, who had boats lying idle in every naval port. The Board had one Admiralty cruiser the "Jackal," lent to them for the purpose of looking after these illegal trawlers. What had become of her? For months past she had been sent over to Norway and Sweden to assist in the North Sea scientific investigations. It might be said that the "Jackal" had done good work. She had been successful in making one capture during twelve months. Altogether there had been twenty-seven prosecutions during the year, and twenty-five convictions. The maximum fine of £100 had only been imposed in five cases. The Fishery Board should take some measures to render the penalties of a more deterrent nature. Half-a-dozen skippers of those convicted rather than pay the fine elected to go to prison for forty or sixty days. He had visited some of these skippers in prison, where they were perfectly happy, their families being looked after by the owner of the trawlers. Most of the trawlers were British but had practically sold themselves to a Norwegian company, and were sailing under a foreign flag. More cruisers were wanted, not only on the Moray Firth, but all round the Northern coasts. The line fishing industry was being destroyed by these pirates coming within the three mile limit. Could not the right hon. Gentleman make some arrangement for the signatories to the North Sea Fisheries Convention to close the Moray Firth against foreign trawlers. Some years ago he (Mr. Weir) succeeded in getting the Scotch Office to realise the importance of appointing Coastguards and lighthouse keepers in certain places to keep a lookout for these trawlers, and in one
300
place alone they had succeeded in securing three convictions. Last year the crews of fishing boats obtained five convictions, but until more cruisers
were granted matters would go from bad to worse. It was of the utmost importance that the line fishing industry should be encouraged, so as to prevent these hardy men, brought up to sea life, being driven into the slums of our great cities. These Northern fishermen were the right stamp of men for the Navy. He wondered the Government did not realise the importance of encouraging such a sturdy race of men as those employed in the line fishing industry.
More money should be spent upon improving the harbours of Scotland. At the harbour of Avoch, Ross-shire, not long ago twelve fishing boats during a storm were smashed to pieces because the harbour was in such a bad condition. The whole of the £3,000 annually voted to the Fishery Board for Scotland for piers and harbours should be reserved for works in the Highlands of Scotland. Year after year nothing was done for Avoch harbour. The reply he got was always that the matter was being considered by the Department. He thought it was quite time that the Board brought their considerations to a close. With regard to the Congested Districts Board he agreed that they had done some very good work in Inverness-shire, but as to the acquisition of land in the great county which he represented, where there was more congestion than in any other part of Scotland, no land had been secured except one small farm and twenty-nine sites of a quarter acre each for fishermen's dwellings. He was informed that in some of the plans for these dwellings the stairs were 4 ft. 6 in. wide with insufficient allowance for head room. Such were the cottages which were being provided for the fishermen. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would make some effort to secure more land, especially in Lewis. He was bound to allude to Lewis because that was one of the most congested parts of the kingdom. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"]
Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 48.(Division List No. 340.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyno

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fisher, William Hayes

Nicholson, William Graham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Arrol, Sir William

Flower, Sir Ernest

Percy, Earl

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Forster, Henry William

Pierpoint, Robert

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Gardner, Ernest

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Gretton, John

Purvis Robert

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Randles, John S.

Bigwood, James

Haslett, Sir James

Horner Ratcliff, R. F.

Bingham, Lord

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Reid, James (Greenock)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Helder, Augustus

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bond, Edward

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford,W.)

Ridley, Hon.M. W.(Staly bridge

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Howard,J.(Midd., Tottenham)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Butcher, John George

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

Hunt, Rowland

Scott, Sir S. (Mary lebone, W.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J(Birm.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Worc

Keswick, William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Knowles, Sir Lees

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

Chapman, Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Spear, John Ward

Charrington, Spencer

Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.Fareham

Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord(Lanes.)

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

Leveson-Gower,Frederick N.S.

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Long,Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Thornton, Percy M.

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R

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

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tuff, Charles

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Valentia, Viscount

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Walker, Col. William Hall

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Macdona, John Cumming

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Davenport, William Bromley-

Maconochie, A. W.

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

Davies,Sir Horatio D(Chatham

Majendie, James A. H.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Dickson, Charles Scott

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wylie, Alexander

Dimsdale,Rt.Hn.Sir Joseph C.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Doxford, Sir WilliamTheodore

Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Duke, Henry Edward

Morrell, George Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes

Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir WilliamHart

Mount, William Arthur

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

Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham(Bute

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

Doogan, P. C.

Jones,David Brynmor (Swansea

Blake, Edward

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Bright, Allan Heywood

Ffrench, Peter

Kilbride, Denis

Broadhurst, Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

Kitson, Sir James

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Leamy, Edmund

Burns, John

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Causton, Richard Knight

Grant, Corrie

M'Kenna, Reginald

Crooks, William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Moss, Samuel

Delany, William

Higham, John Sharpe

Norman, Henry

Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Toulmin, George

Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid

Shackleton, David James

Tully, Jasper

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R.(Northants

White, George (Norfolk)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Sullivan, Donal

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Mr. Weir and Mr. Caldwell

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

EVENING SITTING.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Standing Order 9, relating to Private Business, was read, and amended, in paragraph (2), line 2, by inserting, after the word "taking," the words "or compulsory user."
  In line 3, by inserting, after the word "taking," the words "or compulsory user."
  In paragraph (3), line 2, by inserting, after the word "taking," the words "or compulsorily user."
  In paragraph (3), line 3, by inserting, after the word "taking," the words "or compulsory user."
  In paragraph (3), line 13, by inserting, after the word "taken," the words "or compulsorily used."
  In paragraph (3), line 15, by inserting, after the word "taking," the words "or compulsory user."
  Standing Order 24 was read, and amended, by adding, at the end, after the word "Agriculture," the words "and Fisheries."
  Standing Order 26 was read, and amended, in line 4, by leaving out the words "Fisheries and."
  Standing Order 26a was read, and amended, in line 5, by inserting, after the words "of the," the words "Board of Agriculture and."
  In line 6, by leaving out the words "and Harbour Department of the Board of Trade."
  Standing Order 30 was read, and amended, at the end, by adding, after the word "Agriculture," the words "and Fisheries."
  Standing Order 33 was read, and amended, in paragraph (4), line 2, by leaving out the words "Fisheries and."
  In paragraph (5), line 3, by inserting, after the words "of the," the words "Board of Agriculture and."
  In paragraph (5), lines 3 and 4, by leaving out the words "and Harbour Department of the Board of Trade."
  In paragraph (7), line 7, by leaving out the word "labouring," and inserting the word "working."
  In paragraph (14), line 6, by inserting, after the word "Agriculture," the words "and Fisheries."
  In paragraph (14), at the end, by adding, after the word "Agriculture," the words "and Fisheries."
  38. Ordered, That where any Bill contains or revives or extends power to take compulsorily or by agreement any land in any local area as defined for the purposes of this Order, and such taking involves, or may involve, the taking in that area of any house or houses occupied either wholly or partially by thirty or more persons of the working class, whether as tenants or lodgers, the promoters shall deposit in the Private Bill Office, and at the office of the central authority, on or before the 21st day of December, a statement giving the description and postal address of each of such houses, its number on the deposited plans, the parish in which it is situate, and the number (so far as can be ascertained) of persons of the working class residing in it, and also a copy of so much of the deposited plans (if any) as relates thereto.
  This Order shall not apply where a statement in pursuance of this Order was deposited in respect of the Act, the powers of which are proposed to be revived or extended.
  For the purposes of this Order the expression "local area" means—

  (1) As respects London the Administrative County of London.

  (2) As respects England and Wales (outside London) any borough, or other urban district, and elsewhere than in a borough or other urban district, any parish.

  (3) As respects Scotland, any district within the meaning of The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; and

  (4) As respects Ireland, any urban district.

  The expression "house" means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling.
  The expression "working class" means mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family, and persons, other than domestic servants, whose income in any case does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week and the families of any of such persons who may be residing with them.
  The expression "central authority" means, as regards London, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and, as regards England and Wales, outside London, the Local Government Board, as regards Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland, and, as regards Ireland, the Local Government Board for Ireland.
  The expression "Bill" includes a Bill confirming a Provisional Order.
  Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House.
  Standing Order 38 read, and repealed.
  Standing Order 76 was read, and amended, in line 3, by inserting, after the word "England," the words "or in Ireland."
  In line 4, by inserting, after the word "oaths," the word "and."
  In line 5, by leaving out from the word "and," to the end of the Standing Order.
  Standing Order, 84 was read; and amended, in line 11, by inserting, after
  306
  the word "Agriculture" the words "and Fisheries."
  Standing Order 128 was read, and amended, in line 7, by inserting, after the word "Bills," the words "originating in this House."
  133a. Ordered, That where any society or association sufficiently representing a trade, business, or interest in any district to which any Bill relates, petition against the Bill alleging that such trade, business, or interest will be injuriously affected by the provisions contained therein, it shall be competent to the referees on Private Bills, if they think fit, to admit the petitioners to be heard on such allegations against the Bill or any part thereof.
  Ordered, That this Order lie a Standing Order of this House.
  Standing Order 133a read, and repealed.
  Standing Order 141 was read, and amended, in line 4, by inserting. after the word "England," the words "or in Ireland."
  In line 5, by inserting, after the word "Oaths," the word "and."
  In line 6, by leaving out from the word "and," to the end of the Standing Order.
  Standing Order 181 was read, and amended, in line 2, by inserting, after the word "land," the words "in Scotland or Ireland."
  In paragraph (1), by leaving out from the second word "in," in line 2, to the second word "more," in line 3, and inserting the words "any house or."
  In paragraph (1), line 4, by inserting, after the word "by," the words "thirty or more."
  In paragraph (1), line 4, by leaving out the word "labouring," and inserting the word "working."
  In line 15, by leaving out from the words "the Committee," to the word "Bill," in line 20."
  Standing Order 207 was read, and amended, by adding, at the end, the words—
  Provided that where any such Opposed Private Business is set down to be taken at the beginning of an Evening Sitting and is disposed of, any Motion contingent directly or otherwise thereon may with

  307
  the assent of the Chair be considered and disposed of at the same sitting.
  254a. Ordered, That where, under the provisions of Section 9 of the Procedure Act, a Confirmation Bill has been referred to a Joint Committee, the Committee of this House shall consist of Three Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed. [No. 353.]

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County intends to apply a time limit to the first sub-section of Clause 1 only, he is right in moving it in the place in which he has put it now, but if he wishes to apply a time limit to the whole Bill this Amendment ought to come up as a new clause at the end of the Bill. I do not know which course the hon. Member desires to take.
  MR. DELANYsaid he had put down two Amendments, one of which was on the lines the right hon. Gentleman suggested, and the other to amend Clause 1. This Bill was introduced to remedy a decision of the Law Courts of Ireland which affected the payment of the bonus in respect of the sale of land to a tenant for life, and which also affected the payment of the bonus to the owners of untenanted land. In its present form he did not think the Bill carried out that object and therefore he desired to move the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is a Standing Order which says the period of duration of any temporary Act must be
  308
  expressed in the Act at the end of the Act. I understand the object of the hon. Member is to make this a temporary Act, and therefore the proper place to put this would be at the end.
  MR. TULLYpointed out that this sub-section of Clause 1 dealt with an entirely different subject to those raised in the other section of the Act. He contended that this Act was not a temporary Act at all and not passed for temporary purposes, and he submitted that if this Bill was to be passed and this bonus was to be given on the sale of untenanted land the limit of five years was quite long enough for that purpose.
  MR. DELANYasked whether there was any difficulty in putting this Amendment as it was, and then to meet the question of making the whole Bill temporary by bringing in a similar Amendment as a new clause at the end.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The difficulty here arises from the fact that Clause 1 deals with two questions by one of which the rest of the Bill is not affected. Therefore, if the hon. Member is successful in introducing a time limit in Clause 1, it does not follow that he would be successful in putting a time limit on the rest of the Bill. If hon. Members were not prepared to discuss it as a separate clause, but desired to limit their discussion to the time limit on Clause 1, they can approach the subject now.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said this Bill did nothing more than was expressly agreed to both in this House and another place last year, and it must be clear to) hon. Members opposite that to deny a bonus to those who sold untenanted land, after a certain time, would be to put a premium on the holding of untenanted land.
  MR. DELANYsaid he did not want to deny the inducement to sell untenanted land, but merely to limit it so that the Act might be carried out.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to press his Amendment, he is entitled to do so. But in doing so, he

  309
  must confine himself to the untenanted land. The other question must come up afterwards.
  MR. DELANYsaid he had no desire to take up time unnecessarily. What he had said showed what he desired to do. He had no desire to limit the inducements to sell, but that the period during which those inducements should exist should be limited. The other night he heard the hon. Baronet the Member for Camborne ask for a time limit in what he, the hon. Baronet, called the Brewers Endowment Bill. He wanted a time limit on what he should call the Landlords Endowment Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, at beginning to insert the words 'For a period of five years after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Delany.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMquite understood the object of the hon. Member. He wished untenanted land to be brought rapidly into the market, and to deal with questions which could not at present be dealt with under the Evicted Tenants Act. He objected to the Amendment, however, because it would have precisely the contrary effect. It was more necessary to have a bonus for untenanted land than for tenanted land. Untenanted land was land where both interests were owned by the landlord, and, therefore, it was worth more than tenanted land. But if they bought either to sell it to a tenant farmer or to an evicted tenant, he was going to farm on the same conditions as all the other farmers in Ireland, and therefore he could not afford to pay more, indeed in some cases he could afford to pay less, so that a bonus was more necessary in the case of untenanted than in the case of tenanted land. On the other hand the chance of untenanted land being sold was more remote. Take the case of a man who owned a tract of untenanted land. Why should he sell? There were no tenants to approach him. He would only sell because he wanted to carry out the policy of the Act, and because under this Act the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board were able to
  310
  offer him the fair value of that land. To put a five-year limit in was not to induce him to come to terms, but to put a bar to the prospect of those operations being carried out. It was almost a contradiction in terms to say that if the land was not sold in five years the inducement to sell should be withdrawn.
  MR. TULLYsaid that the fact that they were now discussing this Bill showed that they should scrutinise very closely the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. The intentions of the right hon. Gentleman were, no doubt, good, but when these matters went before the very subtle Judges in Dublin an entirely different complexion was put upon them. This Bill could not be passed in its present shape without it was carefully explained. If this clause were passed in its present form the result might be that land would be sold to the Land Commission, not for the purpose of being distributed amongst the people, though the sellers would get the bonus. That would mean the stereotyping of the poverty in the West of Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the whole of this trouble had arisen because in Clause 8 of the original Bill it was declared that the Land Commission might purchase any untenanted land which they considered necessary. Lawyers had held that that must be different from the general purposes of the Act, and the fact that there was a separate clause raised a doubt as to whether the bonus provision applied to the land so bought. This first subsection removed that doubt.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked the Chief Secretary whether he would be willing to accept a time limit of, say, ten years. There ought to be a time limit put in the Bill in order that the question of untenanted land might be properly dealt with. In the West of Ireland ninety-nine out of 100 of the landlords who held such land were not in a flourishing financial position, and they let their land on the eleven months system. Of course, the objection of the hon. Member did not hold good in the case of the eleven-months men, for they were not tenants within the meaning of the Land Act of 1881. He could not understand

  311
  why the right hon. Gentleman believed that it would facilitate the acquirement of untenanted land to have no time limit at all.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was deeply in earnest in desiring that this Bill should pass. He had to speak on it at a later period of the session than he would have desired, and the time now available did not enable him to enter so fully into the question now before the Committee as, under other circumstances, he might have done. He did not think that a time limit would be salutary in regard to any part of land purchase, but it would be fatal in the case of untenanted land. He thought hon. Members from Ireland would admit that he had shown considerable zeal in trying to acquire untenanted land. He did his best to effect that object last year. He had taken the best legal advice available, and he believed that if this Bill were passed as it stood that could be done without any further delay.
  MR. FLYNNsaid if the bonus were given the owner would have a temptation to sell either to the Congested Districts Board or the Land Commission, but if they withdrew the bonus there would be no temptation to sell.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words 'untenanted land' and insert the words 'land wholly or partly untenanted.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. TULLYmoved an Amendment for the purpose of ensuring that herds should get the benefit of the recent land legislation. As the Land Act stood at present the bonus was given in respect of certain estates. The definition of tenant was contained in Section 2, and he was not sure that herds were included in any of the categories mentioned. In his own county they were an important class, and he thought they should be the first men entitled to get a bit of grazing land. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, after the word 'Board' to insert the words 'for the purposes
  312
  of being divided amongst the purposes mentioned in Section 2, Sub-section 1,(a),(b),(c),(d), including herds.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said Section 2 had no reference to the question raised by the hon. Member. He could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. TULLYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TULLYmoved an Amendment providing that the bonus should not be paid unless the vendor had withdrawn the estate from the Land Judge's Court before 1901. He said the estate of the late General Redmond afforded a typical instance of what had been done with regard to the bonus and of the way in which the price of land had been raised to tenants in Ireland. He had asked the Chief Secretary that day whether the agreements for purchase on the Redmond Estate, county Wexford, had yet been lodged with the Land Commission; whether they showed the rent, valuation, and price in every case; if so, whether he could give the figures to the House; and, if not, when would they be published in the official Returns to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said in a supercilious way that he would not give the information, and denied that such information was usually furnished to the House. He found from the Blue-books previous to the 1903 Act that such information was furnished to the House. In a letter to The Times, London, Messrs. O'Keeffe & Lynch, solicitors, who had charge of the sale of the Redmond Estate, stated that the number of tenants was ninety-four; rental £1,579 0s. 11d.; amount of purchase money £33,779; average number of years purchase on rents, 21·3; percentage of reduction of rent in the future annuities 30·7. These included a large number of second- term rents; forty-six tenants bought at 18·3 years purchase. When the case came before Mr. Justice Meredith in the Land Commission Court, Mr. O'Connor, K.C., who appeared for the

  313
  vendor of the estate said that the total of mortgages was £23,241, the rental, in round numbers, was about £1,600 a year, and that the total out-goings in priority to Mrs. Redmond's jointure amounted to about £1,414. For all practical purposes this was a bankrupt estate in the Land Judge's Court. It Yielded no surplus.
  THE CHAIRMAN: How is this relevant?
  MR. TULLYsaid he would explain.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Act which the Committee was amending provided by Sub-section 4 of Section 48 that no bonus should be payable in respect of an insolvent estate. Whethor a particular estate was insolvent was a matter for judicial determination, and it was waste of time for the Committee to try to decide such a point.
  MR. TULLYsaid his point was that he wanted the law in regard to an estate that was insolvent carried out. A year ago last July the Member for Waterford had not an interest of 6d. in this estate. When he saw that this Act would pass he withdrew the case from the Land Judge's Court. and through the operation of the bonus and of British credit made a profit of £7,000 or £8,000. He contended that the intention of Parliament ought to be carried out He thought he had made himself perfectly clear. His object was to show that on this insolvent estate the price of the land had been raised to the tenants.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not see how the hon. Member was entitled to go into these details. Were the hon. Member's remarks relevant to the question before the Committee?
  MR. TULLYsaid he wanted to show how they were relevant.
  MR. WYNDHAM, on a point of order, said that Sub-section 4 of Section 48 of the Act of last year provided that no bonus should be paid in respect of insolvent estates. The hon. Member was seeking to go into detail in regard
  314
  to insolvent estates for which provision was made.
  MR. TULLYsaid that was an entirely different question. The object of his Amendment was to see that the law was carried out. He did not object to the bonus being paid on solvent estates. He was dealing with the case of the hon. Member for Waterford, who was able by a financial operation, and the bonus and British credit, to take £7,000 or £8,000 out of which he had not sixpennyworth of interest. This was an insolvent estate.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that, as far as he understood it, the estate could not have been insolvent or no bonus would have been paid. The hon. Member was seeking to go behind the decision of the Courts.
  MR. TULLYsaid that he wished to have the intention of Parliament carried out. This estate would have been sold for nineteen Years purchase before the Wyndham Act, but immediately after the price jumped up.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the Court must have found otherwise. He did not see the object of the hon. Member going over this ground.
  MR. TULLYsaid that he was being hampered in bringing the case forward. This estate, which before the Act would not have realised £23,000, the amount of the mortgages, fetched £40,000.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was not entitled to go into these elaborate details with regard to this one case, upon which the Court had given a decision.
  MR. TULLYsaid he was anxious that this should not fall on the tenants. He would not take up any more time, but moved his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, at beginning, to insert the words 'In the case of a vendor whose estate has not been withdrawn from the Land Judge's Court since the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and one.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the effect of the Amendment would deny the bonus to solvent estates. There were many estates in Court owing to accidental circumstances—a Chancery action or a thousand other matters. This Amendment would make nonsense of a great part of the Act of Parliament. He really did not think the time of the Committee should be taken up with it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'said percentage,' and insert the words 'percentage mentioned in the said section forty-eight.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'provisions of' and insert the words 'enactments contained in the proviso to Subsection 1, and in."—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'of the said section,' and insert the word 'thereof.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. TULLYsaid that the whole policy of this clause was to give an advantage to the tenant for life although he might not have a sixpence worth of interest in the estate, which might be mortgaged up the lips.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND Mr. ATKINSON,)said that this clause had nothing to do with that question.
  MR. TULLYsaid he was quite sure that it had something to do with it. The tenant for life was getting far too much money under this clause. He preferred the good old Ashbourne Agreement. He begged to moved the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 13, after the word "entitled," to insert the words "provided the purchase annuity created under this Act payable in respect of the advance will not be more than forty-two and one-half per centum below the existing rent."—(Mr. Tully.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 14, to leave out the words, "same trusts as those," and insert the words "trusts (if any)."—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. TULLYsaid he wished to move the next Amendment standing in his name because he believed that this was a landlords' Bill and should not be allowed to go through without protest.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 18, after the words '1890,' to insert the words 'provided the purchase price does not exceed the average paid under The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, and the Land Purchase Acts, as certified by the Land Commission.'"—(Mr.Tully.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 18, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'subject to the provisions of the last-preceding section.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 22, to leave out sub-section (4) and insert the words 'provided that where the vendor is a person exercising any power or sale on behalf of a lunatic, person of unsound mind, or infant, or where the vendor is a lunatic or person of unsound mind selling pursuant to any order made by the Lord Chancellor, the percentage shall be held for the use and benefit of the same persons, or upon the same trusts as the case may be, as if the lunatic, person of unsound mind, or infant, as the case may be, were not under any disability.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 3, before the word 'where, to insert the words 'Provided also that.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SLOANsaid that in referece to the Amendment standing in his name, his object was to place the land clerks in the same position as the land agents with reference to the payment to them by the Land Commission.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 7, at end to insert the words '(6) With the consent of the vendor or vendors a portion of the said percentage or bonus, namely, a sum calculated at the rate of one-half per cent. on the gross amount of the purchase money and bonus, may be paid by the Land Commission to the land clerk or land clerks of the estate office, on the sale of an estate under The Irish Land Act, 1903; and if there be more than one land clerk in the estate office, the said sum shall be distributed by the Land Commission to the land clerks in joint proportion to their salaries and years service as land clerks in Ireland: Provided that, in case it is arranged by the Estates Commissioners and the vendor that the said sum shall be paid to the land clerk or land clerks of the estate office as part of the costs connected with the sale, payable out of the purchase money of the estate by Section 23, Sub-section 12, of The Irish Land Act, 1903, the amount shall not be payable out of the percentage or bonus.'"—(Mr. Sloan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if the Amendment were accepted the land clerks in Ireland would obtain more than had been given to the land agents. He, therefore, was unable to accept the Amendment. His hon. friend, however, might take consolation from the fact that the word "agent" in Clause 23 of the Act meant any person who was employed by the landlord; and, there-fore, if a land clerk were so employed, he would be included in the provisions of the Act.
  MR. DELANYasked why the landlords should not compensate their clerks, instead of asking the public to compensate them.
  MR. SLOANasked if the word "agent" in Section 23 of the Act included land clerks.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the technical definition of an "agent" was a person who acted for another.
  MR. SLOANsaid that in the circum-stances he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 12, to leave out from the word construed,' to end of clause, and insert the words' and shall take effect from the date of its passing as if this Act had then formed part thereof.'"—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. BLAKEsaid that, as the House knew, he and his colleagues took the gravest objections to the Bill, and had emphasised in the strongest possible manner their objections to it, which prevented them from moving Amendments which they believed to be essential to the success of the Land Act. They had not attempted to interfere at that time of the session with the Amendments, however important Amendments might be. They preferred to take up the attitude they adopted at the beginning, when they demanded that an opportunity should be given to discuss larger Amendments.
  MR. TULLYsaid he wished, in reply to the hon. and learned Member, to draw attention to the fact that opportunity of moving Amendments had been neglected. The Bill was a landlords' Bill and would enable them to put up prices to be paid by the poor tenants. He protested against it.
  Question put, and negatived
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3, 4, and 5, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 302.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Schedule—
  MR. DELANYsaid he wished to move to omit lines 16 and 17, which referred to the Peace Preservation Act in Ireland. That was an Act carrying pains and penalties to the people of Ireland; and it was also an indignity and an insult. They were told that the same laws existed in the three Kingdoms; but here was an exceptional law of the gravest character which denied to Irishmen constitutional rights. Under it, the Executive in Ireland had very excessive powers. A man could be arrested for bearing arms, and could be subjected to imprisonment. It was an Act against which the Irish Members were called upon to make a very strong and earnest protest. Its provisions were penal and pernicious in their character. He was acquainted with the administration of the Act in Ireland, and he knew that its administration was characterised by partisan and sectarian methods. It extended to every county in Ireland except eight counties in Ulster, where Orangemen were allowed to have plenty of arms. The Nationalist population was, however, disarmed, which was a great grievance, especially to farmers, whose crops suffered from the ravages of wild animals. In many cases farmers were absolutely denied the use of a gun for the protection of their crops even within the limits of their own farms. Farmers had frequently asked him for a recommendation to a removable magistrate; but he had to tell them chat any recommendation from a Nationalist Member of Parliament would have no weight with the removable magistrate, although if the recommendation were obtained from an Orange Lodge it would be effective. When the Act came into operation, arms had to be given up and, in many instances, they were retained, and no compensation was given to their owners. The Act was an indignity and a wrong to the people of Ireland. Why should they not be allowed to use arms for the protection of their
  320
  property? Ireland, at the present moment, was the most peaceful part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, he doubted if it was not the most peaceful country in the world. At present the ordinary Irishman had to ask the local police sergeant for a character if he wanted a gun licence; and very often the local sergeant refused to give it; but more often men of independent spirit declined to ask the sergeant for a character. He would ask the Chief Secretary what was the justification for the re-enactment of this Act? It was an indignity to every county, town, and parish in Ireland. He was talking to a North of Ireland Protestant the other day who told him that he was asked to join the Orange Society but that he declined, because part of the oath to be taken pledged the member to wade knee-deep in Papist blood. These were the men who were allowed to carry arms; and he would, therefore, ask an assurance from the Chief Secretary that this Act should not be re-enacted. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, to leave out the words of 'lines 16 and 17.'"—(Mr. Delany)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid he desired to support the Amendment of his hon. friend. By the very name of it the Act was rendered as insulting as possible. Under existing circumstances he thought it would be admitted that the Act was not required. It was an Act to preserve the peace in Ireland; but he would ask who was breaking the peace? If the records of crime in various countries of Europe were examined, it would be found that no country was more peaceful than Ireland. They were often told that Irishmen were treated just as Englishmen and Scotsmen. Was there any corresponding Act in this country? If there were crime in Ireland he could understand it; but everyone knew there was no crime. He protested against the passing of the Act because it was unfair and insulting to Ireland, and because it occasioned great ill-feeling.

  321
  The circumstances under which a gun licence had to be obtained in Ireland were very humiliating. No such conditions were in force in England. Before the Act was re-enacted it should be proved that crime existed in Ireland. They knew that there was no crime in the country, and therefore he strongly protested against the Act being included in the Bill.
  MR. MACVEAGHsaid he should like to remind the Committee and the Chief Secretary that this Act, when it was first passed, was not intended to be of a permanent character. It was first passed for a period of five years, and had since been renewed from year to year. The Irish Members protested against the perpetuation of the Act, and would continue to protest. Ireland, at the present moment, was the least criminal country on the face of the earth. There was more crime committed in London in one week than in all Ireland in the course of a year; yet there was no similar Act passed for London. Even if the Act were administered impartially, their complaint would not be so great. In the North of Ireland one section of the population was allowed to carry arms, and no effort was made to check it. After a recent Orange mob had been dispersed by the police, a sackful of revolvers was collected. Nobody had ever heard of police raids in search of arms in Orange districts, although it was well known that arms were concealed. Orangemen were allowed to maintain a reign of terror on every Twelfth of July and other occasions. Applications for licences by Nationalists, even when endorsed by a justice of the peace and the leading clergymen of the neighbourhood, were refused. Much had been heard about the new era that was being established in Ireland. The Irish people would be glad to see a new era for the benefit not of the landlords only, but of the community generally, and they would be more convinced of its introduction if the Chief Secretary would frankly accept the fact that there was no crime in Ireland, and acknowledge that there was no possible excuse for the continuance of this Act.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said that
  322
  for the Peace Preservation Act the Party to which he belonged was not responsible; it had been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmonthshire in the year 1881. Exception had been taken to its inclusion in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but that, again, could riot be laid to the charge of the Unionist Party, it having been first so included by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose.
  MR. DELANYasked why, if he was following the example of those right hon. Gentlemen in this matter, the Chief Secretary did not also adopt their Home Rule policy.
  MR. WYNDHAM, continuing, said that no exception was taken either to the Act or to its inclusion in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in the years 1893 or 1894. In subsequent years exception was taken, but no exception was taken last year.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I myself moved its omission last year.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he always looked back at speeches which he had delivered on similar occasions, and he thought the hon. Member must be mistaken.
  MR. MACVEAGHsaid he was not a Member of the House two years ago, and both on the Second Reading and in Committee last year he opposed the inclusion of this Act.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had looked up previous discussions, and for last year he drew a blank. He agreed with the justification advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs, viz., that it was not a measure of coercion, that it drew no invidious distinction between Ireland and England, and that it was simply a measure for peace preservation, and it was from that point of view he desired to see the Act continued. In fact, if it were not all but impossible to enact legislation of a novel character, he would say that this Act would be a very good one to extend to England. The indiscriminate sale of arms to people of all ages and pursuits

  323
  was not one of the greatest blessings of civilisation. If hon. Members were able to show that the provisions of the Act were harshly enforced, that a number of people in Ireland were imprisoned for long periods for possessing arms, they might have a case for its repeal.
  MR. MACVEAGH (interrupting)said that he had now looked up Hansard for last year, and if the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the debates on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill he would find that he was mistaken in saying that no objection was taken to this Act on that occasion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The right hon. Member will not find a speech of mine.
  MR. MACVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman said that I did not move.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Did I make a speech last year on this Amendment?
  MR. MACVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman said we did not bring the matter forward.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I said that I did not make a speech of any length on this Amendment. If it could be shown that the Act was harshly administered if, for instance, everybody who applied for a licence was refused, a case might be made out against the Government. But what were the facts? Last year licences were given to 5,863 persons, only 7 per cent. of the applications being refused. It did not appear from that that the Act was administered in an unduly drastic manner. The tribunal of two resident magistrates was put in at the instance of two Members for Ireland—the hon. Member for Louth and the hon. Member for East Mayo—who suggested that it would be a more proper tribunal than one composed of local justices, who might be influenced by local feeling. Whether as regarded the provisions of the Act, the tribunal, or the administration, he did not think anything could be alleged to justify the suggestion that the Act was an invidious one, or in any way insulting to Ireland. Last year only four persons were prosecuted under the Act; all four were convicted, but none were im
  324
  prisoned, a fine being imposed in each case.
  MR. LEAMYreferred to Hansard to show that the Chief Secretary took part in the debate of last year on the question of the omission of the Peace Preservation Act from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The contention of Nationalists was that if they were free men they were entitled to carry arms, and they denied the right of an English Parliament to prevent them. It was a humiliation to have to go through all this procedure to obtain a licence, especially as the right to carry arms was indiscriminately granted in certain Ulster counties, but denied to Nationalists. Fair play all round should be given, and every respectable decent farmer who required a gun for the protection of his fields ought to be able to have it without undergoing any humiliation whatever. If difficulty was to be placed in the way of obtaining arms, let a beginning be made in England. One good thing about this kind of legislation was that it kept up the Irish national spirit. Ireland was not subdued yet; over and over again she had been beaten down, but the people loved their country as much as ever they did, and would continue to do so. They were not prepared to rise in arms, but they had in their hearts a sentiment which British rule could never kill.
  MR. DOOGANas an Ulster Member protested against the continuance of this Act, which from his own bitter experience he knew to be very harshly administered. The Chief Secretary had based his remarks upon a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, but at any rate that right hon. Gentleman did keep the police under proper control, insist upon impartiality being shown, and so administer the Government of Ireland that there was no encouragement to violence or crime. If the Act were administered impartially there would not be so much objection, but it was not. In his own constituency there was practically no police protection for Nationalists or Roman Catholics. Twice recently had priests been insulted and stoned. The police would neither protect the people, nor allow them to

  325
  carry arms to protect themselves. It was time the Chief Secretary saw that he was being misled by local bigots furnishing him with inaccurate information. Every free citizen had a right to carry arms, and this Act was retained simply out of love of ascendancy, in order to keep one portion of the kingdom under the heel of another. There was no other country in the world where they had any such law as this. There was very little in all this talk about the necessity of this law in order to
  preserve peace in Ireland. Respectable people did not break the law, and those who desired to shoot anybody, or break the law, or commit any crime, could easily find an opportunity of doing so even under this law. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to leave this Bill out of the schedule.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 141; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 341.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh0.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Arrol, Sir Wiliam

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Percy, Earl

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Balcarres, Lord

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

  Gretton, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bigwood, James

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bill, Charles

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, John S.

  Bingham, Lord

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Helder, Augustus.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

  Ridley,Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bull, William James

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Butcher, John George

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cavendish, V.G.W. (Derbyshire

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Worc

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chapman, Edward

  Keswick, William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Spear, John Ward

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John G. R.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Talbot Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Long, Col Charles W.(Evesham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tuff, Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowe, Francis William

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

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

  Moon. Edward Robert Pacy

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes and Viscount Valentia.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  NOES.

  Abraham William (Cork, N.E.

  Blake, Edward

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Benn, John Williams

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Caldwell, James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kilbride, Denis

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Leamy, Edmund

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tomkinson, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Tully, Jasper

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Murphy, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Grant, Corrie

  Norman, Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. MacVeagh and Mr. Vincent Kennedy.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shackleton, David James

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R.(Northants

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  MR. BROADHURSTdrew attention to the constant insults to which persons were subjected by the magistrates in petty sessions and Police Courts when they went up to claim exemption under the Vaccination Acts. He wished something could be done, in regard to those magistrates who were so ignorant of the law and disobeyed it, to stop those insults and protect poor people from being treated to this insolent treatment. These poor people when they appeared in Court were so much frightened by lawyers and the police that trey could hardly pronounce their words and then they were spoken to sharply and insolently by the magistrates. He wished to know if the Home Secretary would draw the attention of the magistrates of the country to the speech delivered upon this question by the Lord Chief Justice at Binning-ham. He thought if it were done it would have a tendency to mitigate the harsh-ness of the treatment meted out to the people who applied for protection under these Acts. He suggested that the Home Secretary next year should bring in an Act enabling applicants for certificates of exemption under the Vaccination Acts to go before a commissioner of oaths and make a statutory declaration, and this would not only save these poor people the loss of wages which they now incurred through having to attend the Court but it would also protect them from the gross ill-treatment and insolence which they were subject to at present. There was no reason why something of this kind could not be done. It would relieve the work of the Police Courts and it would be just as effective as going to the Courts. Not only this, but it would be a great blessing to the poor
  328
  people of this country. If the Home Secretary would go into this question he thought he would see at once that the appeal he had made to him was based both upon reason and upon justice. He did not propose to move any Amendment upon this point.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsupported the appeal which had been made by his hon. friend the Member for Leicester. In his constituency he knew of cases where poor agricultural labourers had had to travel two or three miles and in some cases lose one, two, or three days work in order to make these applications, only to have them refused in the end. When a man stated that he had a conscientious objection to vaccination, and showed it by being willing to lose wages and travel long distances and give evidence in regard to what he believed had been injurious to members of his family he thought that ought to be sufficient, and the magistrates ought not to put themselves in the position of consulting their own consciences instead of the consciences of the applicants. If the Home Secretary would do what had been suggested he would remove what was a crying disgrace in regard to the present administration of the law. It was a great hardship upon the agricultural labourers who very often met with these rebuffs.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)reminded the House that this matter had recently been dealt with by the Lord Chief Justice in some remarks addressed by him to the Grand Jury at Birmingham. The observations made by

  329
  the Lord Chief Justice were well worth careful study by magistrates, and he had already given instructions that they should be circulated among magistrates' clerks all over the country.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Lords Amendment.
  "In page 2, line 32, after the word ('purpose') to insert the words (4) 'Any costs incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on an appeal from their decision to the High Court under this section shall, unless the High Court order those costs to be paid by some party to the appeal other than the Commissioners, be paid out of the amount to be paid as compensation.'"
  The next Amendment read a second time.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he did not see why an entirely new principle in regard to costs should be put into the Bill in this way. Perhaps one of the Law Officers of the Crown would inform the House why the Government proposed to agree with this Amendment.
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AFTERS-DOUGLAS.)said that under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1894, an appeal was given from the Inland Revenue Commissioners to the High Court, and under Sub-section (3) of that section the costs of the appeal were in the discretion of the High Court, and therefore could be awarded against the Inland Revenue Commissioners. This of course was right as regarded estate duty, inasmuch as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were interested parties but it was not right in this case, where the Commissioners were mere valuers, and when they were brought in merely to
  330
  save expense to the parties. In this case the Government thought they should not be liable for costs; but that the costs if not ordered to be paid by other parties should come out of the compensation money.
  Lords Amendment.
  "In page 4, line 27, to leave out from the word ('be') to the end of the subsection and insert the words ('allocated to such purposes of public benefit not chargeable to the rates as the confirming authority determine'.)"
  The next Amendment read a second time.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is my duty to point out to the House that this Amendment constitutes a substantial breach of the privileges of this House, as it appropriates to purposes different from those prescribed by this House the proceeds of the charges authorised under Section 4 of the Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr A. J. BALFOUR,): After your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which is to the effect that this Amendment constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House, I move that we disagree with this Lords Amendment. Personally I have some sympathy with the modification of the clause as it left the House of Commons; but it is quite clear after what you have said from the Chair, that it would be most improper that the matter should be pressed further. I therefore move on behalf of the Government that this Amendment be disagreed with.
  Lords Amendment.
  "In page 4, line 38, after the words ('1874') to insert the words ('(6) On the confirmation of a new on-licence, the confirming authority may, with the consent of the justices authorised to grant the licence, vary any conditions attached to the licence under the provisions of this section.')"
  The next Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment.
  "In page 5, line 3, to leave out from the word ('them') to the word ('shall') in line 6, and insert the words ('under this section and in a county.')"
  The next Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 5, line 35, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment.
  "In page 5, line 35, after the word ('time') to insert the words ('not exceeding fifteen years.')"
  The next Amendment read a second time.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHthought the Amendment introduced a rather important precedent. It was a sort of intimation to quarter sessions that they might borrow for a period of fifteen years. He had two objections to offer. In the first place, the Amendment stereotyped this legislation for a very long period; and secondly, if quarter sessions accepted this intimation and borrowed for fifteen years it was certain that the fund at their disposal would soon be exhausted and all licences would become freehold property during the rest of the period.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid it rested with the Home Secretary under the rules to say the number of years for which money might be borrowed. He was not prepared to make a statement now as to the action the Home Office might take when they came to consider these rules. He proposed to consult with certain chairmen of quarter sessions in the framing of the rules, and he would consult with them as to the time for which the money was to be borrowed within the limits introduced by this Amendment
  Lords Amendments.
  "In page 5, line 38, after the word ('fund') to insert the words ('and of any sums paid in 'respect of new licences'); in page 5, in line
  332
  39, after the word ('session') to insert the words ('and so far as respects sums paid for new licences of the confirming authority.')"
  The next Amendments disagreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up reasons to he assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of—Mr. Asquith, Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Whittaker.
  Three to be the quorum.
  To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of a certain Debt due to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland from the Guardians of the Union of Belmullet, in the county of Mayo, in pursuance of any Act of the present session relating to Local Loans.
  Resolution to be reported this day.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for this day.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th August], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he objected to the difference which was made in the tobacco duties in the Isle of Man and in this country. Why should

  333
  not the Isle of Man get the benefit of stripped tobacco? If stripped tobacco were a benefit to the manufacturers in this country, obviously it would also be a benefit to the manufacturers in the Isle of Man. He wished to know the reason for the discrepancy.
  MB. LOUGHasked if the hon. Gentleman would explain why the tea duty was not extended to the Isle of Man. He himself did not wish it extended; but merely wished to know the reason.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,)said there had always been differences in the duties in this country and in the Isle of Man; and, as the House was aware, there were differences at present. It was, however, obvious that it would be for the mutual convenience of this country and the Isle of Man if the duties were equalised as far as possible. That was the object of the Bill; and he would, therefore, ask the House to approve the Resolution.
  Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time and passed.

  INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he wished to put two or three
  consideration before the Committee in connection with the Bill. First of all, he wished the Committee to consider the
  334
  excessive weight of the military element on the Indian Council. There was also the difficulty of introducing an expert on any particular subject. He would ask the Secretary of State to give the Committee some assurance that in future he would only appoint men to the Council who had not only a knowledge of general business matters, but who had experience of India. He also desired to obtain from the Secretary of State an undertaking that he would at all events consider the desirability of appointing at least one Indian representative on the Viceroy's Council. There need be difficulty in the way. He further hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to promise the appointment of one representative Indian on the Council of the Secretary of State in this country. There could be no possible difficulty in that, as the representative Indian could not possibly have any deciding voice in the decisions to be arrived at; but it would be a concession to Indian opinion which would be much appreciated.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,)said the Council of the Governor-General was so small that there would be great difficulty in providing that one Indian should always be upon it. Moreover, the probabilities were that an Englishman would be more likely to possess the confidence of the natives as a whole than any one Indian who could be found.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment. Read the third time, and passed.

  ANGLO-FRENCH CONVENTION [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys

  335
  provided by Parliament, of any sums payable by way of indemnity pursuant to any Act of the present session for approving and carrying into effect a Convention between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic, and any Expenses to be incurred in carrying the said Convention into effect.
  Resolution to be reported this day.

  ARMY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he understood the noble Lord had no objection to the first sub-section ending at the word "Postmaster-General." It was much better that licences should be obtainable from the Postmaster-General, without reference to the other three Departments, and he moved according.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,did not think there was any great objection to the alteration. He would make inquiries, and, if possible, omit the words on Report.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved to add the following proviso—"Provided that nothing it this Act shall prevent any person from making or using electrical apparatus for actuating machinery or for any purpose other than the transmission of messages." He pointed out that unless such words were added, the Bill might interfere with enterprise and scientific exploration.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, at end, to add the words 'Provided that nothing in this Act shall
  336
  prevent any person from making or using electrical apparatus for actuating machinery or for any purpose other than the transmission of messages.'"—(Mr William Rutherford.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  LORD STANLEY: I agree.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he desired to make it as easy as possible for people to conduct experiments and he therefore moved to add in line 33 the words "but shall not be subject to any rent or royalty."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 33, at end, to add the words. 'Where an applicant for a licence satisfies the Postmaster-General that a wireless telegraph station is to be used solely for the transmission of telegrams which are within the first or second exception from the exclusive privilege of transmitting telegrams conferred upon the Postmaster General by the Telegraph Act, 1869, a licence for that purpose, if granted, shall not be subject to any rent or royalty.'"—(Lord Stanley.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After the last inserted words to add the words, It shall be lawful for the Postmaster-General, due regard being had to the maintenance and exercise of effective control over wireless telegraphy, to grant special licences at reduced terms for the establishment and working of wireless telegraph stations to be used exclusively for the transmission within the United Kingdom of news to public registered newspapers. A schedule of all reduced rents or royalties imposed by any special licences shall he laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days of the commencement of the session next succeeding the grant of any such licences.'"—(Sir Walter Plummer.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 36, at end, to add the words, '(3.) His Majesty in Council may order that this

  337
  Act shall, subject to any conditions, exceptions, and qualifications contained in the order, apply during the continuance of the order to British ships whilst on the high seas. (4) A person shall not work any apparatus for wireless telegraphy installed on a foreign ship whilst that ship is in territorial waters otherwise than in accordance with regulations made in that behalf by the Postmaster-General, and the Postmaster-General may by any such regulations impose penalties recoverable summarily for the breach of any such regulations not exceeding ten pounds for each offence and may provide for the forfeiture on any such breach of any apparatus for wireless telegraphy installed or worked on such ship. Save as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall apply to the working of apparatus for wireless telegraphy installed on any foreign ship.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 38, to leave out the words, 'whilst on the high seas or.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, after the last inserted words to add, 'In the application of this Act to Scotland the expression of misdeameanour means crime or offence." (Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  New clause [Application of Acts to Channel Islands and Isle of Man.]
  "In page 2, after Clause 3, to insert the following clause 'In the application of this Act to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—(1) The lieutenant-governor of the Island of Jersey or the Island of Guernsey, and the governor, lieutenant-governor or deputy-governor of the Isle of Man, as the case may require, shall (except with respect to the grant of licences), be substituted for the Board of Trade; (2) Offences may be prosecuted, fines recovered, proceedings taken, and search warrants issued in such Courts and in such manner as may for the time being be provided in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by law, or, if no express provision is made, then in and before the Courts and in the manner in which the like offences, fines, proceedings, and warrants may be prosecuted, recovered, taken or issued therein by law, or as near thereto as circumstances admit, and the bailiff or his lieutenant, or any jurat of the Royal Court in the Island of Jersey or the Island of Guernsey, and the Judge or any jurat of the Court of Alderney, and the high bailiff or two justices of the peace in the Isle of Man, shall respectively be substituted for a justice of the peace.'"—(Lord Stanley.)
  Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  New clause [Duration of Act].
  "After the clause last inserted, to insert the following clause. 'This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of September, nineteen hundred and six, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines.'"—(Lord Stanley.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WILLIAM McARTHURmoved to substitute July for September, in order that when the Act came up for reconsideration it should be brought forward at a period of the session when its principle could be properly discussed.
  Amendment proposed, to the proposed clause—
  "In line 1, to leave out the word 'September,' and insert the word 'July.'"—(Mr. William McArthur.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered to morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 303.]

  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In Clause 13, page 5, line 35, at end of clause to add the words, 'except when such verification and stamping take place on the premises of a glass or earthenware manufacturer, in which case such adequate and reasonable allowance as may be agreed upon by the local authority, with the consent of the Board of Trade, may be made in respect of such use or assistance as aforesaid.'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)
  Amendment agreed to.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHIL DREN (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendment proposed—
  Clause 1—
  "In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'has been.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 4, line 18, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or in The Employment of Children Act, 1903, or any bye-law made thereunder.' In page 4, line 36, to leave out from beginning of line to the word 'whether,' in line 39, and insert the words 'It shall be the duty of inspectors and other officers charged with the execution of The Employment of Children Act, 1903, to see.' In page 4, line 40, after the word 'inspector,' to insert the words 'or officer.' "In page 5, line 2, after the word 'inspector,' to insert the words 'appointed under The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.' In page 5, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words 'sixty-eight of the same Act,' and insert the words 'one hundred and nineteen of that Act, and that section shall apply accordingly.' In page 5, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'not less than ten days after the granting of the licence,' and insert the word 'forthwith.' In page 5, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'inspector of factories and workshops acting,' and insert the words 'local authority.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 21, at end, to insert the words 'as amended by any later enactment.'"—(Mr. H. D. Greene.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 5, line 27, after the first word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.' In page 5, line 32, after the second word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 6, line 11, after the word 'the, to insert the word 'First.' In page 6, line 24, after the word the 'the' to insert the word 'First.' In page 6, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'committal for trial or.' In page 6, line 35, after the word 'person,' to insert the words "and in case of conviction for such further time not exceeding twenty-one days as the court may direct.' In page 6, line 38, to leave out the words 'parochial boards,' and insert the words 'parish councils.' In page 6, line 41, after the word 'constable,' to insert the words 'or any person authorised by a justice of the peace.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to,
  Clause 6.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 7, line 9, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.' In page 7, line 20, to leave out the second word 'or,' and to insert the word 'including.' In page 7, line 23, to leave out the words 'society or body."'—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 9, line 9, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'in any case where there is any pension or income payable to such parent and capable of being attached, after giving the person by whom the pension or income is payable an opportunity of being heard.'" "In page 9, line 10, to leave out the word 'any' and to insert the word 'the'; "I" In page 9, line 10, to leave out the words 'payable to such parent.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 10, line 7, to leave out the words 'under this Act.' In page 10, line 9, at end,

  341
  to insert the words 'and the provisions of Section 6 of this Act, shall, as far as applicable, apply as if the order were an order under that section.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, line 28, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, line 30, after the second word 'the,' to insert the word' First.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 31, after the third word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 13, after the first word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14, as amended agreed to.
  Clause 15.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 32, after the second word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendment agreed to,
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16.
  AmendmentProposed—
  "In page 14, line 24, after the first word 'the' to insert the word 'First.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 14, line 32, after the second word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.' In page 14, line 32, after the second word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or any offence under the Employment of Children Act, 1903.' In page 14, line 35, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and The Employment of Children Act, 1903.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 14, line 38, after the second word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.' In page 15, line 12, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.' In page 15, line 18, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'First.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 15, line 37, to leave out the words 'parochial board,' and insert the words 'parish council.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 16, line 5, to leave out from the word 'be,' to the end of clause, and

  343
  insert the words 'made by the same authority and confirmed in the same way as bye-laws under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, or in Scotland as bye-laws under Section 2. of the said Act.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 23.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 16, line 27, to leave out from the word 'child,' to the word 'and' in line 29.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 17, line 32, to leave out from the word 'authority,' to end of line 38, and insert the words 'has the same meaning as in The Employment of Children Act, 1903.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 18, line 23, to leave out from the word 'means,' to end of line 30, and insert the words 'the local authority for the purposes of section two of The Employment of Children Act, 1903, as defined in sub-section four of section fourteen of that Act, and the provisions of the said sub-section shall apply accordingly.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 31.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 19, line 10, to leave out from the word 'means,' to end of clause, and insert the words 'any local authority as defined by The Employment of Children Act, 1903.'"—(Mr. H. D. Greene.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 19, line 27, to leave out the words 'Prevention of Cruelty to Children
  344
  Act, 1894,' and insert the words 'enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act.'" In page 19, line 28, at end, to insert the words 'to the extent specified in the third column. to that schedule.' In page 19, line 30, to leave out the word 'August,' and insert the word 'October.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
  A Clause [Expenses of Local Authority]
  "Expenses incurred by a local authority under this Act shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses incurred under The Employment of Children Act, 1903."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Brought up, and read the first and second times, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered this day.

  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of certain. Expenses incurred by the Fishery Board for Scotland under any Act of the present session to regulate Whale Fisheries in Scotland.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
  Committee deferred till this day.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 2nd day of August, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at eight minutes after One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3 a To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." (Lord Kenyon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD ARMSTRONG: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This is a Bill for confirming, among others, an Order of the Local Government Board for extending the boundaries of the city of Newcastle so as to include certain urban and rural districts. This Order will come into operation on 9th November, and, as the Order now stands, from 19th July last up to the time of the Order coming into operation, the present councils of the added areas can commit the Corporation of Newcastle to an unlimited expenditure. The object of my Amendment is to protect the Corporation of Newcastle from the liability of being committed during this short time that the councils of the added areas may be in existence to an unlimited expenditure which they may have had, perhaps, no opportunity of considering, or which may appear to them to be wholly unnecessary, or at any rate excessive in amount. To prove to your Lordships the justice of, and necessity for, this Amendment, I may mention that the council of one of the areas taken over resolved on 20th July, the day after the Corporation
150
by the Order takes over the responsibility for contracts made by the councils, to purchase land for the extension of a public park at a cost of between £9,000 and £10,000, and, in addition, they resolved to at once invite tenders for a sixty ton refuse destructor. I trust your Lordships will look upon this Amendment as a reasonable one for the protection of the Corporation of Newcastle, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 26, after line 40, to insert the words 'Provided that no such contract, deed, bond, agreement, or other instrument entered into or made by either of the urban councils or the rural council after the 19th day of July, 1914, which involves or may involve the payment by the corporation of any sum or sums exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds shall be binding upon the corporation unless the same shall have been approved by them in writing or in case of difference by the Local Government Board or by some person appointed by them whose decision shall be final and binding on all parties.'"—(Lord Armstrong.)
Lord KENYON: On behalf of the Local Government Board I beg to say that there is no objection to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, "That the Bill do now pass."—(Lord Kenyon.)
On Question, Bill passed accordingly and returned to the Commons

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PREFERENTIAL AND RETALIATORY DUTIES.
  Order of the 12th August, 1903, for a Return respecting, discharged, and proceedings of the 14th August, 1903, relating to the presentation of the same, ordered to he vacated. Then it was ordered that the following Return be laid before the House in substitution thereof, viz.—

  DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES.
  Return of differential duties imposed, raised, reduced, or repealed in the years 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1853, and 1860, stating (1)

  151
  the rate of duty levied; and (2) the revenue derived from, and the quantities imported of, the articles concerned in the three years preceding, and in the three years following, such change.
  The said Return laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this Day), and to be printed. (No. 190.)

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Second Report of the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 191.)
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1881.
  Returns for the year 1902–1903.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  I. (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3251. China (Wenchow).
  No. 3252. Norway.
  No. 3253. Russia (Foreign commerce of Russia and trade of St. Petersburg).
  No. 3254. France (Madagascar).
  No. 3255. Austria-Hungary (Bohemia).
  II. (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  No. 618. Germany (Special technical schools for the wood-working industries).

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (INTELLIGENCE DIVISION).
  Annual Report of proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875–1899; the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887–1894; the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893; and the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (Section 2, Sub-section 3); for the year 1903.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Annual Report of the Commissioners for 1903.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April, 1903, to 31st March, 1904.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended
  152
  31st March, 1904, in pursuance of the Regulations of Railways Act (1871); together with reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade, upon certain accidents which were inquired into.

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS, SESSION 1904.
  Report by the Board of Trade on their proceedings under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, during the session of 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table,

  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Regulation, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of the Act, respecting the photographing of inmates of certified inebriate reformatories.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1891).
  Return of advances under the Act during the year ended the 31st March, 1904.
  Report by the Board of Trade on their proceedings and business under the Weights and Measures Acts.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC, ACT, 1888.
  Eighth Report by the Board of Trade of proceedings under Section 31 of the Act, including proceedings upon complaints made under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Report by the Board of Trade respecting their proceedings under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July, 1904.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing

  153
  Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Post Office Sites.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  SHOP HOURS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Belper). (No. 192.)
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Kenyon). (No. 193.)
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  To be read 2a To-morrow, and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.

  RUSSIA AND CONTRABAND OF WAR.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, seeing the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, I beg to ask him certain Questions, of which I have given him private notice. They are as follows: What exactly is the position of the case of the sinking of the "Knight Commander"; whether there are any negotiations going on between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government with regard to contraband of war, and whether His Majesty's Government adhere to the former practice of the Foreign Office on this question, and specially to the course which was pursued by Lord Granville during the Franco-German War; whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that an agreement has been come to between the Turkish Government and the Russian Government with respect to the passage of the Russian Volunteer Fleet through the Dardanelles, and what exactly is the
  154
  meaning of the words in that agreement that the ships are to fly the commercial flag "throughout the voyage?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I have to thank the noble Marquess for the extremely considerate manner in which he has addressed these Questions to me. I feel sure there could be no one who would be more unwilling to add to the difficulties of His Majesty's Government in dealing with this important subject than the noble Marquess himself. His Questions have reference to three separate points. He has referred, in the first place, to the passage of the Dardanelles by Russian ships belonging to what is known as the Volunteer Fleet. In the second place he referred to the manner in which the Russian Government has lately dealt with the question of contraband of war. In the third place, he has touched upon the manner in which certain neutral prizes, and particularly the "Knight Commander," have been dealt with by the Russian Government. In regard to the Volunteer Fleet and the passage of the Dardanelles, your Lordships are aware of the manner in which this question is regarded by His Majesty's Government. We have explained that in our opinion these vessels were not entitled to pass through the Straits as ships of war, and that having assed through the Straits as peaceful vessels they were not entitled to reappear immediately, or almost immediately afterwards in the guise of warlike vessels, and to interfere with neutral commerce. That is our general view. So far as the incidents which have arisen out of the passage of the "Petersburg" and "Smolensk" through the Dardanelles are concerned, I think we may say that the matter has passed out of the acute stage. As the noble Marquess is aware, those two ships have been withdrawn from the Red Sea, and as we now know that the instructions which have been sent to them to desist from similar seizures have reached their destination, we may assume that no further seizures will be made by them.
  Then we come to the case of the passage of the Dardanelles by other ships of the Volunteer Fleet to which reference was made yesterday in the newspapers. I

  155
  believe that the report in the newspapers is substantially correct, and that the account given of the conditions insisted upon by the Turkish Government is in accordance with the facts of the case. The Turkish Government appears to have obtained from the Russian Government an official statement that these vessels will fly during their whole voyage, as hitherto, the commercial flag, that they will not contain either munitions of war or armament, and that they will not be "changed into cruisers." The noble Marquess laid stress upon the passage which says that these vessels were to continue to fly the commercial flag during their whole voyage. The words he used were "throughout the voyage." The words in the official version are "during the whole voyage," which suggests something more than the shorter expression quoted by the noble Marquess. I may say at once that in our opinion the larger interpretation is obviously the correct one, for it would be almost grotesque if the voyage of these vessels were to be regarded as beginning and ending with their passage through the Straits.
  Then I pass to the second and more serious question raised by the noble Marquess, I mean the question of the manner in which the Russian Government has treated the question of contraband of war. At the beginning of the war the Russian Government issued regulations dealing with this question; and it is certainly the case that these regulations had the effect of very greatly amplifying the definition of contraband of war which has hitherto been accepted by this and, I believe, by most other countries. The Russian definition included a number of articles which we have always regarded as prima facie innocent, unless it could be shown that they were destined for the enemy's use. This enlarged definition was coupled with an official intimation that the whole of the articles enumerated in Rule 6 of the Russian regulations were to be regarded not merely as contraband of war, but as unconditionally contraband of war. The list of articles enumerated in the sixth rule is a large one; but the particular articles in which we are more especially concerned are those enumerated in Subsections 8 and 10, which are as follows—
  156
  "Sub-section 8.—Every kind of fuel, such as coal, naphtha, alcohol, and other similar materials."
  "Sub-section 10.—Generally everything intended for warfare by sea or land, as well as rice, provisions, horses, beasts of burden, and others which may be used for warlike purposes, if they are transported on account of or are destined for the enemy."
  Of course that rule by itself and without the distinct intimation that all these articles were to be treated as unconditionally contraband of war would not have been such a grave matter; but taking the rule as we found it, plus the official explanation, it seemed to us a matter of such importance that we deemed it our duty to call the attention of the Russian Government to the gravity of the question.
  We took up in particular the inclusion amongst articles unconditionally contraband of war of provisions, in which I need not say this country is very largely interested. We pointed out that the inclusion of all provisions in this category was a very serious innovation; and we stated that we felt bound to reserve our rights by protesting at once against the doctrine that it is for the belligerent to decide that certain articles or classes of articles are, as a matter of course, and without reference to other considerations, to be dealt with as contraband of war, regardless of the well-established rights of neutrals. We went on to say that we could not consider ourselves bound to recognise as valid the decision of any Prize Court which violated those rights, or was otherwise not in conformity with the recognised principles of international law. I think it was with regard to that point that the noble Marquess asked me whether we adhered to the views expressed in 1870 by Lord Granville. I take it that what the noble Marquess refers to is the correspondence which passed in that year between Lord Granville and Count Bernsdorff, when the German Government demanded that the export of arms and ammunition and coal should be prevented by His Majesty's Government. To those demands we refused to accede, and our policy in that respect remains what it was at that time.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Rice?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, I think rice was included, but I am

  157
  not quite certain. I pass from that question to the question of the measures taken by the Russian Government for the purpose of preventing the arrival of contraband of war at the ports of the other belligerent. That, of course, raises the question of the "Knight Commander," to which the noble Marquess drew special attention. I need not point out to the House that the effect of severe rules dealing with this question of contraband is greatly intensified if the measures taken to enforce those rules are also of exceptional severity. We are now given to understand that in the view of the Russian Government it is within the right of a belligerent to destroy a neutral vessel captured by him if that neutral vessel has contraband of war on board her. My Lords, that is a view which the Government of this country have never accepted; it is a view which I believe has been repudiated, although perhaps not so distinctly, by other Powers; it has certainly not been accepted by the Government of the United States. Holding these opinions, His Majesty's Government thought it their duty, some time ago, to call the attention of the Russian Government to Article XXI. of the Russian regulations relating to the destruction the prizes, pointing out that their terms might be held to apply to the case of vessels belonging not only to the enemy, but also to neutral vessels carrying contraband of war. Sir Charles Hardinge was desired to say we assumed that the provisions of the Article were not meant to refer to neutral vessels, and to inform the Russian Government that we so interpreted their rules. In these circumstances, my Lords, we are altogether unable to admit that the sinking of the "Knight Commander" was justifiable according to any principles of international law by which this country has ever regarded itself as bound.
  That brings me to the natural reply to the question of the noble Marquess, who asked me what is the position of the "Knight Commander" after her condemnation by the Prize Court at Vladivostok? The case of the "Knight Commander" awaits trial by the appellate Prize Court at St. Petersburg. I
  need not say that if the St. Petersburg Court should reverse the de-
  158
  cision of the Vladivostok Court that would be a matter for congratulation. But, whether that be the case or not, we are in any case unable to admit that! the destruction of the vessel was justifiable or that the proceedings of these Prize Courts have any validity so far as this particular case is concerned.
  I am tempted to say one word as to the cumulative effect of the different measures to which the Russian Government has thought it its duty to resort, for it is the cumulative effect of those measures which we have to consider. It is, in our opinion. extremely serious. You have in the first place an extension of the doctrine of contraband of war altogether novel and unprecedented; you have in the next place the claim to pursue such alleged contraband of war no matter where it may be found, no matter at what distance from the theatre of war, and particularly in those narrow waters through which all neutral commerce is virtually obliged to pass on its way to the Far East; and, finally, you have the additional claim to dispose, as we think arbitrarily, and without the previous authority of a Prize Court, of vessels taken with so-called contraband of war on board them by sinking or destruction. The operation of these measures cannon fail to have a most injurious effect on the commerce of this country.
  Let your Lordships imagine, for example. what would be the result were some cruiser operating at a distance from her base to seize and sink on the spot a number of neutral vessels simply on the ground that those neutral vessels had not on board of them a sufficient amount of coal to carry them to the port from which the belligerent cruiser had started; or, again, we might find ourselves confronted with this result, that a cruiser, starting with a crew sufficient only for the purpose of navigating her, and consequently not having on board any men whom she could spare for the purpose of providing a prize crew, might sink every prize which she took, merely on the ground that there were no means of conveying that prize before a Prize Court. I am speaking, of course, of neutral prizes, because the case of enemy prizes is wholly different. I have mentioned these possible results because I desire that your Lordships should realise how serious is the

  159
  problem with which we have to deal; but I do not for a moment suggest that the whole of these consequences are likely to follow. My impression is that, in spite of these untoward incidents, both Governments would really be glad to discover a reasonable means of settling these difficulties. We on our side certainly recognise that a belligerent has a right to prevent the supply of contraband of war to the other belligerent, and to take reasonable precautions for that purpose. But we have thought it our duty to point out very earnestly to the Russian Government that their conduct in this matter has gone far beyond what, in our view, is justifiable for this purpose.
  Although this correspondence is still proceeding, and I am not able to announce anything which can be regarded as a definite settlement of the question, I am glad to be able to add that the language of the Russian Government justifies us in expecting that these acts of destruction of neutral prizes are not likely to be repeated, although they may maintain that in principle such a right belongs to them, and I am not without hopes that when we have more thoroughly discussed these questions in all their bearings we may find that upon the question of contraband also there may be room for a reasonable and amicable understanding. I can assure your Lordships that we deeply realise the gravity of the subject to. which the noble Marquess has called attention, and we shall deem it our duty to insist strongly upon the rights which this country possesses as a neutral Power, rights which owing to her predominant interest in the commerce of the Far East she is, more than any other Power, called upon to vindicate.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session.(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I should like to ask the noble Marquess to what extent he intends that Motion to apply to the Education (Local Authority Default) Bill, which stands for Second Reading this evening.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We do not think it necessary to suspend the Standing Order in reference to that Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I waited, before rising, to hear if any noble Lord had anything to say upon this principle of suspending the Standing Order. What it means is simply this, that your Lordships' House as a practical, deliberative, legislative Assembly should give up the powers which you have under the Standing Orders of revising and checking Bills that come up from the other House. It practically makes the Government omnipotent as regards any Bill which at this late period of the session they may think it right to bring forward. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs talked last year about having a retaliatory fiscal revolver. The suspension of this Standing Order is nothing but a revolver which you put in the hands of the Government of the day, and which gives them the power of doing away with the general supervision on the part of your Lordships' House, and I venture to think it is a power which should not be given unless you know in what way this fully charged revolver is to be used. I think, before your Lordships grant this extreme power, we ought to know from my noble friend in what way it is going to be used. He ought to give us a list of the Bills with regard to which he intends to exercise this power. Standing Order No. XXXIX., which your Lordships are asked to suspend, reads as follows—
  "No Bill shall be read twice the same day; no Committee of the Whole House shall proceed on any Bill the same day the Bill is committed for the first time; no Report shall be received from any Committee of the Whole House the same day such Committee goes through the Bill when any Amendments are made to such Bill; no Report shall be received from any Standing Committee with regard to any Bill the same day on which such Bill is reported from such Committee when any Amendments have been made to such Bill either in Committee of the Whole House or by the Standing Committee; and no Bill shall be read the third time the same day that the Bill is reported from the Committee."
  It is believed that there are only two more days left of the session. Very important Bills containing great principles may be brought up to this House from another I place, and if this Order is suspended they can be passed through all their stages in one day. I contend that that is neither

  161
  constitutional nor right. There is another Standing Order, dated 1668, which refers to a Bill of an exceptional nature passing without the ordinary form of procedure, and goes on to state that this was a wholly exceptional proceeding, and that it was not to be departed from in the future. The words are—
  "Upon report made by the Lord Chamberlain from the Committee of the Whole House, concerning the Bill.… in regard to the said Bill being very long, and consisting of many paragraphs, came from the House of Commons so near the time of adjournment, he was commanded to report it as the opinion of the Committee that it might be entered into the Journal Book of this House, that there may be no such argument hereafter used in this House, as was upon this Bill (of shortness of time for the passing of the Bill), to precipitate the passing thereof; but that due consideration may be had hereafter, according to the course of Parliaments…"
  I submit that if Standing Order XXXIX. is suspended this Standing Order ought to be repealed as well. Before the House is asked to give up its power and allow the Government of the day to tyrannically pass measures in a single sitting, some information ought to be given of the Bills for which such powers are asked.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am not at all surprised that my noble friend should come forward as the guardian of the privileges of this House, and I can assure him that I regret as much as he does the necessity of expediting our business by these methods; but I am under the impression that at the end of every session, in order to wind up our business, we find it necessary to resort to some such steps as these, and unless it can be shown that the House is really deprived of an opportunity of debating measures which it could usefully debate or amend, I do not think that the grievance is really a very serious one. I have already, in response to an appeal from the noble Marquess opposite, said we do not desire to suspend the Standing Order in reference to the Second Reading of the Education (Local Authority Default) Bill. I can rely only upon the indulgence of the House. The matter is in your Lordships' hands, and if you prefer to prolong the session for a few days we are powerless to prevent your doing so.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Will the noble Marquess name the Bills to which the closure is to be applied? It all turns upon that. If they are Bills containing vital principles they should be capable of being discussed at every stage. I say it would be a tyrannical act to pass those Bills without any discussion, and if your Lordships agree to this Motion without knowing the Bills to which it will apply, you will be sacrificing your position as a deliberative assembly. I shall certainly say "Not Content" to the Motion.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, the Earl of Wemyss challenging a division but being unable to find a teller.

  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I beg to move the deletion of the proviso at the end of Clause 4, which runs as follows—
  "Provided always that any local authority having power to purchase any part of an undertaking being wholly or partly within the administrative county of London may subject to the provisions of this section and to the like consents transfer such rights to the London County Council."
  In asking your Lordships to omit this proviso, I do so with the consent of all my colleagues on the Committee over which I had the honour to preside and which inserted this proviso, with the deletion of which the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board agree. I will explain shortly what would be the effect of retaining the proviso in the clause. Let me take the case of Westminster. Supposing Westminster under this Bill did not choose to become its own electric lighting authority it would be able to hand over its powers to the London County Council. But supposing the London County Council did not make a success of the enterprise in Westminster, not only would the rates of Westminster be liable, but also the rates of the whole of London. On these grounds I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 3, line 33, to leave out from the word 'transfer,' to the end of the clause."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY):My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I can assure my noble friend Lord Wemyss that we have not the slightest intention of rushing this measure through your Lordships' House. We propose to deal with it, I trust, in a manner which he will consider is conducive to the dignity of the House. I would first of all express my sincere regret that there has been any necessity for His Majesty's Government introducing this measure. During the last two sessions your Lordships have had before you two most important measures connected with education, and, therefore, your Lordships might justly ask why you are for a third session in succession required to deal with the question. Before I resume my seat I trust I may be able to persuade your Lordships that this third measure is one of necessity, and that if His Majesty's Government did not ask Parliament to sanction it they would be unworthy to occupy their position.
  The great duty of a responsible Government is to maintain law. It is their equally important duty to prevent injustice, and I maintain that it is my duty as President of the Board of Education to promote the efficiency of education and not to allow schools to deteriorate owing to unjust treatment. Your
  164
  Lordships will remember the details of the two Acts which have already become law. When the Bill of 1902 was passed I trusted and believed it would receive a chance of working fairly, because I imagined there was an earnest desire on the part of all those to whom the administration of the Act was entrusted to promote the efficiency of education. I think I may say, without being unduly sanguine, that in the majority of areas our hopes have been to a very great extent realised. At the present moment there are only five areas in which the Act is not working, and we have reason to believe that these will be reduced in a short time; and I would add that in many areas we have reason to congratulate ourselves on the very satisfactory way in which that Act is now working. I venture to think that where the Act has been taken up by the local education authority with the desire to promote the efficiency of education it has realised our expectations. But there are parts of the country in which those expectations have not been realised.
  I regret to say that in the Principality of Wales the Act has been flouted. The action of certain local education authorities has been conducive to gross injustice to certain schools of whose principles these local education authorities do not approve, and the result of that injustice, if allowed to continue, would be a want of efficiency in those schools.
  Let me say one word about the Act of 1902. Your Lordships will remember that in another place and in this House it occupied a considerable time in its passage through its various stages. I am not going to deny for a moment that it was a Bill of a controversial character. I should be extremely surprised to see any measure connected with education that would not be of a controversial character, and, therefore, I allow at once that it was open to criticism. I will allow also that the Bill was not a perfect one, but I have yet to find any Act of Parliament which is universally considered perfect. And when we consider that the Act of 1902 had to be built on the foundations of the Act of 1870, which I do not think any noble Lord will hold was admitted universally to be perfect, I do not think I am wrong in
  allowing that it was possible to declare

  165
  that the Act of 1902 was not altogether satisfactory. But whether controversial or not, whether perfect or not, the Bill received the assent of both Houses of Parliament and is now the law of the land, and as such I maintain that it is the bounden duty of His Majesty's Government to insist on its being carried into force.
  I regret sincerely the absence of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, because if there is one Member of your Lordships' House to whom I could appeal to insist on the maintenance of law and order it is the noble Earl, Lord Spencer. I remember well the three years, from 1882 to 1885, when he so ably discharged the duties of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. He had powers given him to carry out the law of the land, and he exercised those powers to the admiration of every law-abiding subject in Ireland. Therefore, 1 should have liked to have appealed to the noble Earl and to have asked him what his opinion would be after that experience, if His Majesty's Government in the present condition of affairs had allowed the law in certain parts of the country to be flouted or administered with injustice to one section of the community. I should also have liked to have asked the noble Earl, had he been in his place, whether he supported the statements which have been made by Mr. Lloyd-George, one of his supporters.
  I have made three distinct statements. I have stated that the Act has been flouted in Wales, that injustice has been done to certain schools which are not popular with the authorities, and that the efficiency of the schools, if this injustice is allowed to continue, will be jeopardised. I hope to prove that each of those statements is accurate. Now, with regard to the Act being flouted, I will quote to your Lordships Mr. Lloyd-George's statement, and I believe I am justified in considering him the spokesman of the Welsh county councils on this subject. Speaking at Bradford, Mr. Lloyd-George described the action of the Welsh county councils as follows—
  "They were getting majorities not to facilitate the carrying out of every provision, but to throw obstacles in the way of carrying out those provisions in the Act which were not suitable to the requirements of their localities. That was their first principle."
  166
  Mr. Lloyd-George also stated in March—
  "Did they propose to defy the Act? Not at all. He simply suggested that they should walk round it."
  That is a quotation which I should have liked to have asked the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition whether he endorsed or not. I would refer to what was done in Carmarthenshire, where the county council bound themselves by resolution to have absolutely nothing to do with the voluntary schools. It was proved beyond all doubt, by the public inquiry held in March last, that that county council was in default in almost every possible way in which they could fail to do their duty in this matter.
  Having, I think, proved my statement that the Welsh county councils have flouted the Act, I now come to the injustice which is being done by certain local education authorities to the voluntary schools. I find in the Swansea Daily News of 25th May last year a report of one of the conferences that were held at which the following resolution was passed—
  "That until the Act is so amended as to give them full control over schools not provided by them, the councils of Wales and Monmouthshire be recommended to refrain from applying the rates to such schools."
  I maintain that it is a gross injustice to these schools, and one which cannot be tolerated by those responsible for the education of the country.
  The complaint of the Welsh county councils is this—first of all, that the voluntary schools have been placed upon the rates, and secondly, that the majority of the managers of these schools are not elected by popular control but are appointed under certain trust deeds. Let me deal with the question of the voluntary schools being placed on the rates. I think that action was one of very tardy justice to these voluntary schools at the hands of the Government. I think the people of this country are absolutely ignorant of the debt of gratitude they owe to voluntary schools. They seem to ignore the fact that had it not been for the voluntary schools there would have been practically no education up to 1870. When we consider the expense to which voluntary schools have been put and the work they have done, it does seem a somewhat

  167
  ungrateful act on the part of the people to declare that they should not receive support out of the rates.
  I now turn to the argument that the majority of the managers of voluntary schools are not popularly elected. It is our duty to respect the wishes of those who have endowed denominational schools on the distinct understanding that denominational education shall be given in those schools, and unless we had maintained a majority of those managers on the board of management we should have been guilty of a breach of trust, and should have betrayed the principles of those to whom these voluntary schools owed their existence. I think those who take this line entirely forget one fact, namely, that with regard to secular education, even in denominational schools, under the Act of 1902 the local authority is absolutely paramount. It is frequently argued that if the voluntary schools of Wales are not supported out of the rates they are in no worse position than they were before; but that is no answer. The voluntary schools pay rates in the counties which they did not pay before. Those rates are paid into the general fund of the county, but the county councils in some cases refuse to return to the voluntary schools their share, and distribute it among schools which are more popular with the local education authority. It must be remembered that to the local education authorities has been given omnipotent power in regard to the condition of the buildings and their maintenance, and they have in many cases exercised their power in effecting improvements. Is it just that a local authority should insist on improvements, and yet refuse just pecuniary aid to maintain the efficiency of education in those buildings? I venture to say that an act of greater injustice could not possibly be done, and it is an act of injustice which the Board of Education could not possibly tolerate.
  I will now prove my statement that owing to the injustice done to certain voluntary schools the efficiency of those schools is retarded and jeopardised. The local education authorities in certain parts of Wales have declared that it is perfectly possible to maintain the efficiency of schools out of the grants, and that they
  168
  need have no recourse to the rates. My experience has shown me that that opinion is absolutely incorrect. We have investigated that question and proved it so. There are some schools that cannot even pay the salaries of the teachers out of the grants, let alone purchase books, apparatus, and the hundred and one things connected with education. In regard to Merionethshire, the report instances two schools where the salaries were £240 and £84 respectively, and where the grants only amounted to £213 and £67 respectively, and yet, besides these salaries, which the grant did not meet, there was the expense of books, apparatus, etc., to be met. Therefore, it is absurd to say that these schools could be maintained out of the grants and had no need for rate support. There are certain schools in Merionethshire which have only been kept efficient for months past owing to the generosity of the managers. Is that the way to administer an Act which had for one of its objects the relief of voluntary schools? I maintain that we should not be doing justice if we allowed those managers to continue to bear that burden. How are those schools to fare if those managers—and they are not rich men—find themselves unable to continue to meet the expenses out of their own pockets? Your Lordships know that these schools must fall to the ground, to the detriment of the education of the rising generation in that part of the country.
  I see on the other side of the House my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. In neither House of Parliament is there a greater expert in educational matters than he is. No man has devoted himself more to the efficiency of education, and he knows full well that if the efficiency of education is to be maintained there must be in existence the highest class of teachers. My noble friend is always persistent on the question of the efficiency of the teachers. I entirely agree with him, and, therefore, knowing my noble friend's predilection in this direction, I confess it was with some surprise that I read a letter of his in the Westminster Gazette on the 3rd instant, in the course of which the noble Lord said—
  "At this moment, in spite of the extreme tension and resentment aroused by the Education Act of 1902, the local authorities even in

  169
  Wales are administering it, and if they were left alone, time, which softens difficulties, might lead to a reasonable modus vivendi between the opposing parties."
  I confess I was at a loss to understand what the noble Lord meant by suggesting that time should be given in order to allow things to settle down. The matter is absolutely urgent. If we do not deal with this question at this moment we might find ourselves in certain of these schools without any teachers at all. I would ask my noble friend what is to be done in the interval while the modus vivendi is being arrived at. Would he allow schools to be without teachers? Would he insist on those who have been carrying on these schools at their own expense being made to continue to do so compulsorily? Well, if they do not, what does the noble Lord propose should be done in the interval before the modus vivendi is arrived at? We consider it is our duty to maintain the efficiency of each and every school, and not to differentiate between one school and another.
  We annually appeal to the country for a very large sum of money for elementary education, and the country invariably grants us that without a murmur. But what do they expect in return? They expect the efficiency of every single school; they expect us to be able to assure them, through our responsible representatives in Parliament, that we are satisfied that every teacher is up to the mark, and if we are going to allow certain schools to be without teachers or to have cheap teachers who are not up to the mark, I say we should be betraying the confidence of the country. We are asked sometimes why in this Bill the Board of Education propose to decide the case without asking for a public inquiry. The answer to that is a very simple one. Inquiry, as your Lordships know, is a very long business. It is a long business in any circumstances, and to initiate an inquiry into such petty questions as might be involved would be utterly unworthy of this cause. It might be a question merely of the salary of a teacher, or whether coals had been provided one week and not another. Would any noble Lord propose, under any such circumstances, that an inquiry should be held? If we held an inquiry, we should have to communicate with the local authority, and we find that the local
  170
  authorities have a knack of ignoring letters that are sent from the Board of Education, and absolutely declining to answer the questions put to them. Mr. Lloyd-George, speaking on this subject, said—
  "The Carnarvonshire County Council meet only once a (platter. At the last meeting there might be before the council a communication from the Board of Education. The chairman would say, 'I am very sorry, but we cannot possibly attend to that to-day,' and somebody would move the adjournment to the next meeting, which would be held in June."
  Therefore, your Lordships will see that if we had to hold an inquiry at the instigation, or with the consent, of the county council, we might have to wait. in the case of Carnarvonshire, more than three months before we got an answer to our letter. We are not likely to act in any case unless we have absolutely good grounds for doing so, but it would be better for the Board of Education to deal with the matter at once rather than leave it hung up till the next meeting of the county council.
  There is another point. It has been said that this is a coercion Bill. I took the liberty the other night of interrupting my noble friend Lord Burghclere when he called it a coercion Bill, because I think if there is one Bill associated with education which is not a coercion Bill, it is this one. if your Lordships had chosen to say that there was a certain amount of coercion about the Act of 1902, I do not think I should have been able to have given a flat contradiction, because under that Act it is possible to obtain a mandamus to compel the local authority to carry out their duty if they neglected it. But under this Bill there is no such compulsory power. It may be asked, Why have we not put in a provision for a manda nus here? My reply is that we do not wish to create in every part of Wales village heroes with dauntless breasts. This is not a measure of a coercive character. It does no harm to the conscientious scruples of any conscientious council. When an authority refuses to administer the Act this Bill simply places the Board of Education in the place of that authority in regard to the school or schools affected. I have heard it said, "Oh, but you are interfering with the spirit of the Act of 1902,

  171
  which was to hand over to the local education authority the whole control of these schools."
  Their authority is absolutely untouched if they only choose to maintain it. Take any individual school. If the county council provide for it in every detail except one, they are paramount over every one of those details except that one. Therefore, when we are told that we are interfering by this Bill with the spirit of the Act of 1902, I am compelled to say that this is not the case. We are upholding it in every way. I say, on behalf of the Board of Education, that it will be with the utmost reluctance that we shall find ourselves called upon to intervene in such cases; and on the first occasion that a defaulting authority removes a grievance, automatically the power of this measure ceases. His Majesty's Government are determined to insist on the policy of justice to all classes of the community, and I venture to hope that we may never be called upon to administer this Act; but if we are so called upon we shall administer it only because the action has been forced upon us and because the claims of justice make it necessary for us to intervene.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, it is with great regret that I rise to move, as an Amendment, that this Bill be read this day three months. I listened with great interest and attention to all that my noble friend the Lord President of the Council said upon this Bill. He gave us at length his views as to the necessity for the Bill and the mischiefs it was intended to correct, but he did not give us as full an explanation as I could have wished of the operation of the Bill itself. But I have no doubt that he or some other noble Lord may find an opportunity, in replying, to illustrate or explain one or two points which the noble Marquess passed over. At this late period of the session, and with the empty Benches I see around me, I feel it is rather an idle thing to attempt to use this House as a deliberative Assembly, seeing that we are simply recording decisions which have been come to by methods of which we are aware in another
  172
  place. I regret we should be legislating at a time when it is impossible for us to properly examine the details of Bills that come before us.
  I pass now to the reasons why I think we ought not to accept this Bill. I will at the outset make this admission, or concession, or admit this point of agreement with the noble Marquess, that I think, in the first place, any Party that has passed a law through Parliament is entitled to say that it will carry out that law effectively, and I will go a step further and admit that it is the duty of any Ministry, whether they carried that particular law or not, to give effect to the law as it stands. I think these are two ample admissions. But it does not follow that this Bill is a wise or effective way of carrying out the legislation of 1902, nor does it follow that it is a just way. The noble Marquess spoke largely of justice. I agree entirely that justice should guide our deliberations and our actions. I thought on one or two points of his speech he slid a little into an ambiguous use of the word justice, because what he described as justice would, in my opinion, be injustice. I think it would be unjust for a Government Department to use its arbitrary powers in going beyond the limits of the law.
  I will explain very briefly what I mean. The noble Marquess gave an illustration of cases in which he would put this Bill in force, namely, where there was a discrimination between the board and the voluntary schools, where a teacher in a voluntary school was getting a smaller salary than was paid in the board schools. but I would point out that, although, no doubt, in the popular sense that would be what we should call doing justice to the voluntary schools, that is not what the Act of 1902 entitles them to. That Act puts it as an obligation on the local authority to maintain all schools efficiently, and it is the duty, I agree, of the noble Marquess and his Department to see that the law is carried out. But when they have brought schools to the standard of efficiency, it does not at all follow that the local education authority may not go beyond the obligations of the law in the case of some schools. There is no clause in the Act of 1902 obliging the local authority to give a large and liberal

  173
  measure beyond what the Board of Education is entitled to demand in every school, but it was quite clear from the noble Marquess's speech that what he understood as justice to voluntary schools was the forcing of the local education authority to do more than the law compelled them to if they were not treating voluntary schools as well as board schools.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: What I pointed out was that voluntary schools in some cases are even denied the salaries of the teachers.
  Loup STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The noble Marquess spoke of salaries which were not as liberal as they should be. That is quite a different thing. I was very much obliged to the noble Marquess for the very kind way in which he spoke of me, and I think I may claim this for myself, that I do care very much for this matter of education. I am anxious to see the education of the country efficient, and I believe that far more powerful than coercive measures for developing the efficiency of education in the country is the active sympathy, co-operation, and good will of the people, and anything which tends to divide the nation into two camps, to create a feeling of hostility and resentment, bordering, I might almost say, on civil war, is likely in the long run to be injurious to education.
  I do not in the least dispute the right of the Government to bring in a Bill to remedy the defects in their legislation of 1902, but I do think this legislation of their's is wanting in statesmanship. It will not heal the breach; it will not facilitate that compromise, that modus vivendi which I think we saw in the debate on the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill was desired by those who are interested in this question. Some people think that when going into negotiations it is better to do so armed with loaded revolvers. My belief is that if the clergy, the Nonconformists, and the civil party, the party of democracy and citizenship, all go into a conference with loaded revolvers, there is more likelihood of the revolvers going off than of any agreement being promoted and of their killing persons other than the combatants. I am perfectly sure of this and everyone
  174
  I have spoken to on the subject admits it, that there will have to be very material changes in the direction of more popular government by those counties which have to find the money. They feel also that this religious question has somehow or other got to be met in some method of compromise. I think I may say that, generally speaking, those gentlemen one speaks to are rather impatient at the extreme eagerness of people whose theological sympathies are much more keen and much more subtle than those of the man in the street to force upon the man in the street the necessity of pressing those theological subtleties on young children. I am sure the noble Marquess, with his connection with Wales and with the populous and democratic county of Durham, must see that we have got to make a great step forward in the direction of working with the people and not against the people if we are to get a national system which will be good for the country.
  Now let me make one or two observations upon the Bill, and why I think it a bad Bill. First of all I think that if the Government had waited a little longer they would have brought things nearer to a meeting. I am sure this Bill in parts of the country where the situation is strained will make it ten times as strained as it is now. I was a little surprised at the statement of the noble Marquess that there would not be time to hold inquiries in these cases. I think it does not lie in the mouths of those who take upon themselves the responsibility of governing a country to say that they have not time to meet the claims of justice. The noble Marquess, in almost the last words of his speech, asked for justice for all classes and all persons. Well, are not the county councils in the nature of classes and persons, and are they not entitled to justice as well as anyone else? The noble Marquess claimed to put these remedies in the absolute, free, administrative discretion of the Board of Education, quite uncontrolled.
  We had a great deal of discussion last week as to what was the range of administration and what was the range of law, and, therefore, of justice, in local affairs with reference to the Licensing Bill. We saw that when the licensee

  175
  was on his trial for misconduct, every precaution was taken by proper trial at quarter sessions that justice should be administered. Even in the region of administration every care was taken that that administration should be carried out in what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack called a judicial spirit, by securing the fullest opportunity to the party interested. and enabling evidence to be heard. But in this Bill you are substituting a new remedy for the remedies which you had under the Act of 1870, the Act of 1876, and your last Act of 1902. In the Act of 1870 there were drastic provisions for superseding school boards in default, but that enactment provided that no such school board should be superseded until there had been a public inquiry by the Education Department as it then was. The same was done in 1876, when you were dealing with school attendance committees, and in both those cases you had the further check of publicity and responsibility, for it became the duty of the Board of Education to report fully each case where they so acted to Parliament. One of my Amendments reproduces the words of those sections. By the Act of 1902, before you could proceed for a mandamus you had the obligation put upon you to hold a public inquiry. It was not only necessary in the Act of 1902 to go to Parliament. You there had greater safeguard than in the Acts of 1870 or 1876, because if the Board of Education applied for a mandamus they would have to set forth the facts they alleged, and if those facts did not disclose a legal obligation on the part of the school board the mandamus would not issue.
  My contention is that under this Bill the Board of Education have turned into administration that which ought to have been judicial. You are passing from the temperate atmosphere of British justice to the administrative despotism of Russia. The proceedings clearly are judicial in their character. To say to a public authority—to say, for instance, to the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire—you have failed to comply with your statutory obligations and you are in default, and, therefore, we will divert money which by the Act of Parliament should go to you and devote it to paying sums which you ought to
  176
  have paid under the Act—to make such a statement is charging them with an offence, and they ought pro-eminently to be heard. I should like to say—I do not know whether the noble Earl on the Woolsack will contradict me—that it is a fundamental axiom of law, it is what the old metaphysical lawyers would call part of the law of nature antecedent to all positive and municipal laws, that a person charged with an offence should be heard in his own defence.
  I looked up a case which happened in 1858–1859 in which the defendant was no less a person than the Archbishop of Canterbury. A high church clergyman named Poole had been hearing confessions of an indelicate character from young women. This has now become so common that nobody notices it; but in those days the Bishop of London inquired into the matter and revoked Mr. Poole's licence. The curate appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the Archbishop, with a kindly confidence in the discretion and wisdom of his suffragan, confirmed his decision without giving Mr. Poole an opportunity of being heard in his own defence. But Mr. Poole, as is often done in these cases by clergy with high notions of ecclesiastical independence, appealed to the secular arm to protect him against his ecclesiastical superiors. In those days Lord Campbell was Lord Chief Justice, and in making the rule absolute and in ordering the Archbishop to hear Poole before he condemned him, his Lordship said—
  "One of the first principles of natural justice is that no man should be convicted without being first heard."
  And the Lord Chief Justice went on in his judgment to quote these words—
  "Qui aliguid statuerit parte inaudita altera aequum licet statuerit non aequus fuerit."
  and continuing, he said—
  "A very aged judge said, not irreverently, that the Almighty and Omniscient Being would not condemn our first parents without their being heard. That precedent had always been acted upon."
  I will grant to my noble friend the President of the Council that the provisions of the Act of 1902 as to the public inquiry may be lengthy. He will notice that in my Amendment I have not asked for so much as that. I have asked that

  177
  before condemnation the charge should be communicated in writing to the incriminated persons, and that any evidence a local authority might desire to submit relative to the charge should be heard. I cannot think that the noble Marquess can seriously be of opinion that his argument as to the time an inquiry would take is material, because if, for instance, a defendant would not plead, if he remained mute of malice, then the Board of Education would be perfectly entitled—and I do not think anyone would complain of them if they did so—to adopt prompt means to deal with the case. I am quite sure that if the Board of Education had wished to give fair play to the defendants they would have given them an opportunity of being heard.
  Then, again, why should it not be reported to Parliament? The draftsman who prepared this Bill might very fairly have secured that the searchlight of publicity and full record of their action should be turned on the Board of Education. The noble Marquess represented that it was not reasonable to wait indefinitely while some paltry question was being decided, but does not the noble Marquess see that that is amply covered in his own Bill? He has made a provision in Sub-section (a)of his first clause, that any act, thing, payment, or grant which in the opinion of the Board of Education might otherwise be invalid by reason of the default of the authority shall have effect. He cannot pretend that, if there was a charge, the inquiry and finding could not be got through in a month, and that the managers could not in the meantime finance the school in the paltry things mentioned, knowing that if the Board of Education decided that the school had been improperly deprived of these things they would be reimbursed. The object, no doubt, has been to leave this in the indefinite region of administration.
  Mr. Lloyd-George seems to be the bogey man of the noble Marquess. I think we can afford to discuss this Bill without referring to any reported speech of Mr. Lloyd-George. Many politicians often crow loud on the platform, but when they come to be brought to the test of action we find that the crowing is not so effective. But does the noble Marquess think
  178
  that nobody is ever guilty of walking round an Act except Mr. Lloyd-George and those whom he instigates? One of the reasons why I object to this Bill is that even if it directed the Board of Education to proceed with all regard to the forms of justice by giving a hearing before they condemned, our experience of the Board of Education is that that Board itself is not at all unwilling to walk round the Education Acts. If the noble Marquess would introduce a short Bill enabling anybody who thought the Board of Education were walking round or violating the Act to obtain a mandamus I should be quite content with that long circuitous method and should be glad of the opportunity of bringing the Board of Education to a Court of law to answer for their conduct.
  Ever since the responsibility of the maintenance of schools has been put on public authorities and their support has come upon the rates, the Board of Education have very promptly taken the widest and most general powers, far beyond the definite obligations of the Code, when that Code was applied to voluntary schools with limited means I do not find that the Board of Education have taken any steps to apply to existing schools the sanitary and structural requirements which they now declare to be needed in regard to all new schools. The Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee and other official documents contain plenty of statements with regard to the defective structural state of many schools. We now have it stated by a former Vice-President of the Council that at the headquarters of the Board of Education reports of inspectors have not only been suppressed, but have been doctored. The father of the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, in his earlier days in the House of Commons, distinguished himself as a Private Member by making an attack on Mr. Lowe, who had at that time to resign because it was declared that some accounts of inspectors had been modified or suppressed. I have known for some time that the Board of Education in its public documents forbade inspectors from commenting on the shortcomings of any teacher. In the published instructions of the Board of Education they were ordered to make their remarks general

  179
  and not to make any definite criticism on the teachers.
  I will give an illustration or two of the neglect of the Board of Education to enforce the most elementary rules of health and decency in schools when they were voluntary schools. I have had before me, as chairman of the Anglesey Education Committee, various reports, and there are cases where year after year notes have been made, but nothing has been done to remedy the defects. There is one case which is quite comic. With regard to a certain school the Government inspector says, after talking of flagrant defects—
  "I ought to have reported this long ago, but the great age of the incumbent and the respect in which he is held in the neighbourhood made me hold my tongue; but now that a new clergyman is appointed, I feel that I must speak out."
  It is notorious that for years the grossest indulgence has been shown in cases of the gravest sanitary defects in voluntary schools. Therefore, I say that the Board of Education have frequently walked round an Act of Parliament. It is this persistent policy of favouritism by the Board of Education, spread over a long series of years, which makes us rather distrust that Board being put, not in a judicial position, but in an administrative position to perform judicial acts. I know that in the Board of Education a great deal of what my Lords are supposed to be answerable for is merely the signature of some clerk not very high up in that office. I believe there may be quite ten officials who are authorised to sign letters on behalf of the Department.
  I am sure the attention of the noble Marquess must have been called to the way in which the Board of Education have been working the schemes for foundation managers in schools which have come under this Act. To a large extent an additional denominational element has been thrown into the management of schools which was not there before. I will give one instance. It is the case of a school in Pembrokeshire, the St. Ishmael School. That school was vested in the rector and churchwardens. The rector and churchwardens were a kind of quasi corporation, but they had absolutely no rights in the school whatever. The managers were to be five persons elected by the freest suffrage of the subscribers
  180
  and with no denominational obligations whatever. The Board of Education thrust upon these people a scheme altering it in a material way, limiting the popular character, and insisting that the rector and churchwardens should have a right to one of the seats held by the five elected managers. The desire of the Board of Education broke down here because in this parish, so strong is the prevalent anti-Board of Education sentiment, that although the rector and churchwardens had the power to elect one they did not elect the rector, and, therefore, in spite of that attempt of the Board of Education, the school still remains fully under popular control. But, as I say, no thanks to the Board of Education. I could give many similar instances.
  I wish to say, in conclusion, a word or two as to the unwisdom of legislation which will set people at arms length. I hope the noble Marquess, when he comes to reflect, will see that he must not put his sympathies in the place of his legal rights, and no matter how much he would have liked to see the denominational schools treated as liberally as provided schools, the Act of 1902 has not said so. That Act provides that the schools shall be maintained in an efficient condition, and so long as they are staffed with sufficient and competent teachers, the requirements of the Act are satisfied. You may beat down illegal opposition, and, of course, illegal opposition is a thing which we do not stand up for, but what we must recognise is this, that there is a point in human endurance when, if you push people too far, a certain number will break out into illegal opposition. In Wales we have had many examples of that, from the Rebecca riots downwards.
  Within the limits of the law there are ample means for unfriendly local authorities to make a great difference in the way they treat the voluntary schools. Recollect that in the whole region of what the Act calls education other than elementary, but which I prefer to call secondary education, they have an absolutely free hand, and need not give a penny unless they choose. By the Cockerton judgment you have made the whole training of pupil teachers a part of the secondary branch of education.

  181
  I am anxious that we should come to a state of live and let live, and, getting a large public control, that we should find some way to a common ground on the religious difficulties, and that we should all of us unite to do the best we can for the schools. But I feel certain that this is not the way to get at that. Strife does not lead to friendship and to co-operation. The steps taken in this Bill, I have no hesitation in saying, are lawless steps. I call it lawless to give to a Department, with no check upon it except the ultimate check of public opinion, discretionary power where their power ought to be judicial. Such confusion of administrative and judicial power has been much more common in other countries than in ours, and was a characteristic of the ancien régime in France. It was a very prominent characteristic of the form of government of the old monarchy in France before the Revolution, and you have only to read the wisest historians to see how that habit of using lawlessness in defence of privilege set the example to the people in the French Revolution to use the same method in their own defence.
  This Bill will, I doubt not, become law; but I cannot pass from it without entering my most serious protest, because I think the Bill in itself mischievous to the cause of education, and dangerous as setting a bad example of lawless methods which may some day be turned upon those who now use them. The noble Marquess said that he had gone into the figures, and it was idle to say that the voluntary schools could be maintained by the Government grant without further aid. I quite agree that to attempt at the present day to maintain a school as it should be maintained, especially a small rural school, upon the public money without some local material effort is quite impossible; but there, again, I would like to ask the noble Marquess why, for so many years,the Board of Education acquiesced in a standard of efficiency in these schools which led to voluntary schools by the thousand being managed entirely without a shilling subscription, and that too when the public aid was less liberal than it is now? Of course, the truth is that they were not adequately maintained, and the Board of Education ought to have done their duty before. The
  182
  Board of Education have not held the balance equally or fairly. While it was a question of private means and denominational schools, the balance leaned to inefficiency rather than pinch them, but now that it is a question of public means the balance is to be pressed heavily down on the side of efficiency at the expense of the community, while leaving the management not under public control. I am truly anxious, if I can, to pause on the brink of what I cannot but describe as as a sort of hidden civil war. I do not believe the Government will subdue these hot-headed Welshmen by coercion. I believe Taffy is sharp enough to do you in some way, but perhaps not in the way that has been adumbrated in The Times as the method likely to be adopted by Mr. Lloyd-George. If the Government start on this career of coercion I am afraid they will reap such a crop as they will live to regret.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day three months.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, this Bill has been much associated outside the walls of Parliament, and perhaps even in another place, with questions of denominational controversy and religious differences; but, as a matter of fact, it has nothing, of necessity, to do with those questions. What has happened is that certain schools have not received from public sources the financial aid to which they are entitled under the Act of 1902. This Bill proposes to remedy this not by coercion, for it deliberately avoids that, but by providing some mode by which, from public sources, the funds which have not been hitherto forthcoming should be supplied.
  The grievance is said to be felt mainly, or solely, at this moment in Church schools. I literally do not know whether that statement is accurate or not, and it does not seem to me to affect the question at all. Whether the managers are Churchmen or Nonconformists, whatever is the nature of the schools which have found themselves, contrary to the law, placed in a position in which they are unable to be maintained in efficiency, my sympathy

  183
  goes out to the managers who are placed in a position of such extraordinary difficulty. Many of those who have been placed in that position during the last few months have shown in the face of almost crushing difficulties a patience, a public spirit, and a quiet perseverance which are beyond all praise. I say this not because they are Churchmen. I should say exactly the same thing if they were those who were the extremest opponents of Churchmen, provided they were placed in a like position.
  What we have to consider is simply that men who are entitled by law to have certain moneys provided to enable them to discharge duties which have been laid upon them have been left without those moneys. They are therefore entitled to our sympathy and to the help which the provisions of this Bill will afford them. Were the position reversed; if it had happened that Church party spirit or Church high handedness or bigotry of any kind had led to the violation of a law clearly enacted and laid down, and that that violation was supposed to be for the advantage of Churchmen and to the disadvantage of their opponents, I should feel exactly as I do now, that the Legislature ought to provide some remedy and to see that justice was done. It is not a denominational question. It is simply a question the ordinary administration of the law of for the benefit of the citizens as a whole.
  I was greatly interested in two propositions to which, as I understood him, the noble Lord opposite committed himself. One was that it was the duty of any Ministry to give effect to the law as it stood, whether that law was passed by themselves or by their opponents, and hat illegal opposition was a thing which he certainly would not stand up for. The other was that the whole effort of educational authorities in Wales during the last few months had really been to make every school of every kind as efficient as the law allowed.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I did not say that.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am sorry I misunderstood the noble Lord, but in that case I need not go on to say what I
  184
  should have been prepared to say if the noble Lord had committed himself to such a proposition, that the facts would have been against him. If it is the case that Wales is at this moment desirous of applying in all practicable ways the law as it stands for the promotion of education, then this Act will become a dead letter. It is only where the cause of education is not being promoted, where the children are suffering, and where things are going backward, that we desire, not on any ground of partisan politics or of denominational spirit, but simply in order to promote administrative efficiency in carrying out the trust, to pass such measure as the Government think is necessary for that purpose. This seems to be the true position of the matter, and I, for one, feel that the Government have only done their duty in bringing in a measure to facilitate the quiet and effective administration of the law of the land.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Marquess who introduced this measure expressed a feeling of deep regret that the Government were, as he considered, obliged to bring it in. That regret is fully shared by us who sit on this side of the House. The only difference between us is that we place the responsibility for the measure on different shoulders from those on which it is placed by the noble Marquess. It is, of course, a matter of general agreement among all Members of your Lordships' House, as was stated by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley in what I think every one will admit was an exceedingly well reasoned and moderate speech, that any Government is prima facie compelled to enforce its own laws, and a very heavy burden of proof rests upon those who for any reason may decline to comply with those laws. That is a matter which is of such general agreement that it really is not worth arguing in your Lordships' House.
  But if, in spite of that, we take exception to this Bill I think it is reasonable to state that there is no ground for calling upon us on this side of the House to suggest a remedy for the position in which His Majesty's Government find themselves placed. We should not have passed the noble Marquess's Act at all in the form in which it was passed, and therefore we

  185
  cannot, as I think, be called upon to suggest any remedy for the position in which the noble Marquess finds himself placed. The noble Marquess, in his opening remarks, quoted with some freedom the name of my friend Mr. Lloyd-George, and he implied, I think, that the state of things which had given rise to the introduction of tins measure was in no small degree due to Mr. Lloyd-George's action. Now, Mr. Lloyd-George, as we all know, is a man not only of very great ability, but also of very great energy and activity, and it stands to reason that in any national movement of this kind he would take a prominent place. But, on this subject, Mr. Lloyd-George has throughout shown a very strong disposition towards conciliation. I need not remind the House of the negotiations which took place between him and the Bishop of St. Asaph and others, in which I think it was generally agreed that on both sides a spirit of great conciliation and moderation was shown.
  I cannot help thinking that this is one of those cases in which the Conservative Party is wont to ascribe to agitators what is the result of a national movement. A belief in the power of agitators is as strongly impressed on the minds of the Conservative Party as was the belief in the power of witches in the 16th century; and I do not know any better test you can take of the division between Conservative and Liberal than the fact that the one believes in the almost omnipotent nature of agitators, whilst the other believes very little in the power of agitators at all. What we believe is that unless any movement has a strong national following at the back of it, all the efforts of two or three people, however eloquent and however capable, will be in vain. In a recent debate, Lord Balfour of Burleigh was bantered by the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal upon his general belief in the excellence of Scottish judgment when applied to legislation, and I should like to ask your Lordships whether you can conceive a measure of this kind being applied to Scotland. Of course, it is open to anybody, particularly to a Scotsman, to say that Scotsmen never ask for anything but what is absolutely reasonable, and that, therefore, the case could not arise; but I would ask your Lordships
  186
  whether, in any measure on which Scottish feeling in the opinion of the Government was wrongly roused, you would endeavour to take any such steps as those which His Majesty's Government are attempting to take on the present occation?
  The noble Marquess opposite alluded to Ireland, and expressed regret—a regret which we all share—at the absence of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. He said Lord Spencer had shown, during his occupancy of the Viceroyalty of Ireland, the absolute necessity of ensuring obedience to the law. I would venture to point out that when my noble friend was in Ireland and devoting himself, as we know, at great personal risk to ensuring obedience to the law, that law was directed against crime and outrage, and not against opinion; and 1 would further remind the noble Marquess that, after two periods as Viceroy, the conclusion at which my noble friend arrived was this, that it was impossible to continue to govern that country in direct opposition to popular opinion.
  The most rev. Primate who has just sat down said, and I think we are all disposed to agree with him, that it is impossible not to feel both regret and pity at the position in which some managers of schools may be placed by the action of the Welsh county councils, and also a still deeper regret if the education of any children suffers in consequence of their action. I am sure we fully share that regret. But the most rev. Primate himself admitted the keenness for education felt by the Welsh county councils, and I would ask him and the House to consider that there must be a very great depth of sincere conviction behind these county councils before they could take action, which I am certain must in many cases be painful to them, in so far as it interferes with the education of the children or inflicts hardships on those who have made sacrifices to support education.
  The speech of my noble friend, Lord Stanley of Alderley was, I think, a conciliatory speech, and I am certain he struck the right note when he said it was only by conciliation and a compromise of some kind that this matter can

  187
  be happily settled. I cannot think that in introducing this Bill, as they have, the Government have shown a sense of the possibility of conciliation. The form of the Bill does not concern us materially in this House, because it will be passed rapidly through its different stages, but I feel bound to remind your Lordships that the form is an unusual one. It is distinctly unusual to include in one clause, as is done in this Bill, a number of very distinct provisions which I have no doubt noble Lords who are used to the drafting of Bills will agree it would have been infinitely more usual to place under the heading of separate clauses. That form, so far as I know, was taken with the view of facilitating the passage of the Bill in another place; but if it had that effect it was only, as we know, after unfortunate incidents to which I need not further allude. There is no doubt that the adoption of that particular form added very considerably to the exasperation of those who were opposed to the Bill on its merits. I fear it is a case, as my noble friend said, that His Majesty's Government in this measure have declared war on public opinion in Wales. I most deeply regret it, and I can only say that, whatever unhappy consequences may ensue, and in particular whatever unfortunate consequences may ensue to the cause of education in that country, which, after all, is the main matter, in our opinion the principal responsibility will rest on the head of His Majesty's Government.
  EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I do not think we have had placed before us what is really the issue we have to consider. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill made a very interesting speech, but, with great deference to him, I venture to say it did not touch the fringe of the question. The question we have to discuss is whether or not the Bill is necessary in consequence of the position taken up by certain local education authorities, notably in Wales. The noble Lord did not attempt to show that local authorities were endeavouring to do their duty. Does he maintain that the Act of 1902 is being administered in Wales?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: In several counties.
  EARL CAWDOR: But what about the others?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I know nothing about the others.
  EARL CAWDOR: As a matter of fact, every one knows that it is not so administered. An inquiry was held some time ago by Mr. Lawrence, and it is shown distinctly that, point after point, the county in which that inquiry was held was in default. They declined to appoint managers, to properly maintain the schools, or to take any steps whatever to bring the Act into force. I am aware that subsequently many of these matters were ostensibly set right, but that took place the moment that this Bill had been introduced into Parliament and not before. Another action taken in the same county was the withdrawal of all provision as to attendance of children in non-provided schools, which produced such an enormous loss in revenue in regard to grants, owing to non-attendance, that the county council had to meet again and reverse their policy in that respect. I would like to know from the noble Lord what step he and his friends think ought to be taken. Is the noble Lord, with his. love of education, content that the Act of 1902 should be a dead letter, even in one county? I am sure the noble Lord would not undertake the responsibility of saying "Yes" to that question. If that is the case, what is the position? Are we to wait, and if so, how long? 1 How long are the children in these schools to be starved? How long are we to tolerate. the position of schoolmasters not having their salaries fixed and vacancies not filled up? I do not believe the noble. Lord would tolerate for one moment the idea that we should wait until the county councils came to their senses and administered the Act. The noble Lord said that the duties of the Board of Education should be solely judicial and not administrative.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I did not say that.
  EARL CAWDOR: I understood the noble Lord to say that the Board of Education in a matter of this kind should not undertake administrative duties.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I said that when they took upon themselves a judicial duty they should not turn it into an administrative one.
  EARL CAWDOR: You have to deal with the position as it stands. There is a non-administration of the law. A judicial decision has already been given, particularly in the case of Mr. Lawrence's inquiry, but that could not put the matter right. He merely discovered that certain local authorities were in default, but that did not, and could not, mend the matter. Therefore you are driven to the alternative of having some administrative power behind, which can say, "If the local authority does not do its duty we will step in and see that it is done for them." We are told that this Bill is going to give rise to great disturbance and great trouble. Who is it going to hurt? It cannot by any possibility hurt any authority which administers the Act properly. It can only come into operation when the local authority sets itself deliberately to defy Parliament. Any Government that did not, in these circumstances, bring in a Bill of this kind would not be fit to administer the affairs of State. The noble Earl who spoke last taunted the Party on this side with thinking a great deal too much of agitation. Possibly I have had more experience of agitation than the noble Earl.
  Let me tell your Lordships, in a few words, what agitation has done in this matter. In Carnarvonshire the education committee appointed by the county council set to work to enforce the Act, whereupon they brought down upon themselves a whirlwind of political agitation. It was declared that this was wrong and that the education committee must go back on what they had done, must pass what was called a "no-rate" resolution. That agitation was conducted in every polling district for county council election purposes, and the members of the education committee were held up to execration and told that if they did not turn round they would be turned out. What was the result? There was a meeting of the county council and of the education committee. The education committee turned clean round and reversed the decision to which
  190
  they had arrived, consequent, of course, on this political agitation, and they passed a resolution practically declaring that they would not administer the Act. Does the noble Lord call that agitation which has nothing in it? We are told that in face of this agitation we are to wait, that a little time will heal everything and put things right. I wonder whether the noble Lord has noticed in the newspapers during the last day or two statements of a proposed autumn campaign. I will not say whether or not there is anything in it, but the people who fanned the present agitation into being have threatened to get the county councils to set themselves up against this Bill. This is a Bill which cannot hurt anyone; it is only intended to work against, local authorities which will not administer the law; and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, it is very gratifying, not only, I am sure, to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, but also to those who sit on these Benches, to observe the very courteous manner in which members of His Majesty's Government recognise the noble Lord's claim to speak with especial authority upon this subject. We on this side of the House, on the other hand, fully recognise the zealous and conscientious manner in which the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education discharges the duties of his office, though unfortunately we find ourselves in disagreement with him on this occasion. There is one feature in this measure which has not been alluded to except incidentally. Perhaps your Lordships will say it ought not to be alluded to. What I have in mind is the history of the Bill before it left the other House of Parliament. I know it is regarded as out of order to refer to what occurred in the other House, but I could quote a very good precedent for the sort of allusion I am about to make in a debate on the Compensation for Disturbances (Ireland) Bill. On that occasion I remember Lord Beaconsfield alluding to certain matters connected with the course of that Bill through the House of Commons, and therefore I think it is not altogether out of place for me to remind

  191
  your Lordships that some very remarkable occurrences took place in connection with this Bill. I allude to that matter by way of illustrating the fact that there is good ground for the apprehension of Lord Stanley and others that the passing of this Bill will not necessarily have the effect which the noble Earl who has just spoken seems so confidently to assume that it will have, namely, the effect of settling this question.
  One of my noble friend Lord Stanley's chief objections to the Bill is that it confers discretionary power on the Board of Education. That may have an irritating effect and accentuate the feeling of injustice which, as we know, has been at the bottom of the opposition to the Act of 1902. Though it may not be easy to suggest a remedy, I think a further attempt at conciliation, and the giving of a little more time for that purpose, would have been more likely to succeed than this drastic measure. It is very easy to say that the local authorities are defying the law; but it must be remembered that they are animated by conscientious objection, and not by a mere spirit of lawlessness. We have had plenty of evidence as to the nature of the movement, which shows that the agitation is conducted by men of unimpeachable character, and is marked by deep earnestness and conviction. That being so, any attempt to deal with it in a hard and fast manner by Act of Parliament will lead, not to the peaceful settlement which we all desire, but to fresh complications.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S: My Lords, I do not think, as a Welsh Bishop, I should be doing my duty if I were to let this debate pass without saying a few words. First of all, let me say that I most heartily concur with the noble Earl opposite that there are earnest and deep-seated convictions against the Act of 1902; but I am quite sure the noble Earl will agree with me when I venture to claim that earnestness and deep-seated convictions are by no means all on one side of this unhappy controversy. The managers of Church schools in Wales fully deserve the cordial recognition which the most rev. Primate gave of their patience and public spirit. I also would like to recognise the moderation and the candour of the able speech of the noble Lord the
  192
  mover of the Amendment, whom we are very glad now to find is a chairman of a Welsh education committee; and I, for my part, who take, if I may venture to say so, sincere interest in education apart from its controversial aspect, have great hopes that the tone of the noble Lord's speech to-day will animate all his share in educational matters in Wales, and will do great good.
  Regret has been expressed on both sides of the House at the necessity for the introduction of this Bill. No one in this House can regret that necessity more than myself. For, as a Welshman, I am very proud of anything which redounds to the credit of my countrymen, and I always read with great satisfaction the testimony of His Majesty's Judges year after year as to the law-abiding character of the Welsh people. I am quite sure that the noble Lord opposite, when his residence in Wales has extended over a longer period, will give to my countrymen a praise somewhat warmer than he has extended to them to-night. I have risen particularly to say that, in my opinion, the reason why this Bill is unfortunately necessary is that those who are responsible for leading Welsh opinion have committed two serious mistakes. The first is a mistake of fact—namely, that there is no necessity to charge any part of the cost of the maintenance of the non-provided schools on the rates, as the increased grant from the Exchequer would cover the loss of voluntary contributions; and the second is, that the Welsh county councils will have done their business if they keep the non-provided schools up to the level of efficiency of 1902. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education has shown in another place that the first calculation is £12,000 a year wide of the mark; and that it is impossible to maintain the standard of 1902 in the non-provided schools without the assistance of the rates.
  It has been asked whether in several districts in Wales the Act has been fairly administered. I hold in my hand a list of nineteen schools in Montgomeryshire where at the present moment the teachers are not paid, and the Bishop of St. Asaph, in The Times a few days ago, gave a very pathetic incident of the ha dship involved. There are fifteen schools

  193
  in Merionethshire in the same condition. We are told that our voluntary schools are in an unsatisfactory condition structurally, but in Carmarthenshire there was no imposition of any kind made upon the managers in regard to buildings, and in Montgomeryshire I understand the sole reason alleged why the teachers are not paid is that the Parliamentary grants for those schools have been exhausted. It is strange, too, that those who have said that we ought to be content with the standard of efficiency of maintenance in 1902 should now turn round and say that we must have a very much higher standard with regard to buildings. The critics of the Act of 1902 cannot be allowed to have it both ways.
  I sincerely hope that this Bill, which, I have no doubt, will pass into law, may not be put in operation. I particularly hope that because I believe that the agitation which has brought us to the present position in Wales rested on a mistake, but neither Welshmen nor any other nation can very well be blamed for not being infallible. Those who are persuading the county councils of Wales to take up this unhappy line of action may, however, now that the facts have been brought out, reconsider their position without any loss of honour, and I am quite sure that if they do they will find that the managers of Church schools in Wales, and the clergy and laity of the Church in Wales, will be delighted to meet them at least half-way.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I probably approach this question from a somewhat different point of view from that of my noble friend who moved the Amendment, but I concur in the conclusion to which he has arrived. No one who has listened to this debate can doubt that we are placed in a very difficult position in regard to the Education Act of 1902, and it is necessary that we should carefully consider the results to which that Act has already led. When that Act was passing through Parliament there were many—and I was one—who had great doubt about it, and who believed that it would not lead to a satisfactory result in many respects; but I do not profess to have had sufficient foresight to have discovered all the evils which I think have arisen out of it. In
  194
  one part of the country public bodies are taking a course which is inconsistent with the Act of Parliament, and in other parts of the country there are large numbers of persons who sympathise with the action which is being taken in Wales.
  This is, very properly, a general Act, and it concerns the whole of the country, but, of course, when it is passed it will have operation mainly in Wales. I was very glad to hear the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken say that he hoped it would not come into operation. That feeling I share; but I am bound to say I do not in the least expect that it will not come into operation. I am convinced that one of its main effects will be to increase the difficulties and irritation which now exist on this subject. The present state of things may be dealt with in two ways. It may either be dealt with by conciliatory or by unconciliatory measures—I will not, in deference to the noble Marquess, use the word coercion. But where those engaged in controversy are on both sides earnest and conscientious men, as in this case, nothing is more necessary than that you should proceed by a method of conciliation. By rejecting such methods, and relying alone upon methods of an opposite character, such as the present Bill, you will not bring this controversy to an end; you will not approach the day when some statesmanlike solution of the difficulty may be found; you will only increase and aggravate it and render more and more difficult any really satisfactory solution.
  Earlier in this session there seemed for a moment to be an opportunity of turning to the ways of conciliation. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. Asaph, who, unhappily, is not in the House on this occasion, made a speech and introduced a Bill instinct with the spirit of conciliation. I do not say that a settlement could have been made on the exact basis of that Bill—I do not think that it could—but I do say that if His Majesty's Government had been inclined to proceed by way of conciliation, they might have done a great deal in that direction if they had discussed and endeavoured to amend the Bill of the right rev. Prelate. Everybody spoke kindly on that Bill, but nothing was done. I

  195
  looked the other day to see in exactly what position the Bill was at the present moment. My Lords, it is waiting for Committee, and it will wait for Committee till Parliament is prorogued. The opportunity which it offered was rejected, and we have instead proposals dealing with the matter in a very different spirit.
  Do not let the noble Marquess believe that this measure will not aggravate the difficulties that exist. I will make no allusion, because it is, perhaps, not right that we should do so, to anything which passed in another place upon a recent occasion; but does the noble Marquess really believe that the Welsh people are likely to give up their opinions, and to abandon the advice of those who lead them, in consequence of this measure? I could hold no notion of the kind. I believe that that which ought to be our foremost object in this matter, namely, the bringing together of the parties who differ so as to come to some settlement upon it, will be rendered infinitely more difficult by the passage of this Bill. I do not at all say that in a case where the persons on both sides of the controversy entertain honest and sincere convictions of a conscientious nature it is easy to come to a settlement. It is not. But, my Lords, I cannot believe that it exceeds the statesmanship of this country to arrive at a settlement of this matter, if there is the real desire to do so, upon fair and equal terms.
  It is often thought that the views put forward by Nonconformists are not really conscientious views. I differ entirely from that opinion. I have known the Nonconformists of this country for some fifty years; I have known particularly their views on this subject of education, and I have no doubt that the views which they hold—views which I do not myself share—are quite as conscientious as my own views in respect to the necessity of definite religious instruction. Therefore, my Lords, this Bill will not do what we want. It will aggravate and prolong the controversy and render it more difficult to bring it to an end. I was reading this morning a speech by Lord Hugh Cecil in another place, and I find that he there said, or is reported to have said, that he was certian that no educational settlement would be permanent until all religious
  196
  bodies acquiesced in it. I agree entirely with Lord Hugh Cecil in that; but I do not believe—I cannot believe—that that is a state of things which cannot by skill and conciliation be brought about. Lord Hugh Cecil went on to say that Nonconformists must try to understand the Church position—that is to say, the position of those who are in favour of the existence of denominational schools. I quite agree with that statement, but I must add to it by saying that I think that the friends of denominational schools must also on their side try to understand the feelings of Nonconformists. That is the proper method of conciliation. There will be, of course, up to the end of time, extreme men on both sides who are incapable of understanding the meaning of conciliation, and who look only to the methods of force. But force will not settle the question. In the meantime the education of this country is to grievously suffer; in the meantime the difficulties that have arisen are not at all being allayed, but rather increased; and it is my firm conviction that if something is not done to settle this question and to bring about a general agreement—so far as such a thing is possible in regard to this matter—we shall be heading straight for a system of secular schools. That is not a system I desire to promote or to see established, but, honestly, I believe it is the continuation of this controversy which will tend to bring it in. This Bill, then, will make no settlement. It will be met, as I believe, with stern opposition and resistance. It will not benefit the education of this country; it will not improve our schools, and I believe still more that the class of schools which will suffer most from the erroneous policy which is now pursued will be the denominational schools.
  On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  THE TRANSVAAL LABOUR ORDINANCE AND NATIVE TAXATION IN FIJI.
  LORD STANMORE: I desire to call attention to the Twenty-second Article

  197
  of the Royal Instructions issued to the Governor of the Transvaal on the 23rd September, 1902; and to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is still in force. Also to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has any objection to lay upon the Table any correspondence which has lately taken place with regard to the recent alterations in the native taxation system of Fiji.
  My Lords, at this late period of the session, and in this thin House, which I am sorry to see I am making thinner, I have no temptation to dwell at any length upon the Questions I wish to put. I ought, perhaps, to make some apology for putting them at all, were it not that I think there is a point of some gravity to which it is desirable to call the attention of this House and of the public before the close of the session. Two years ago Royal Instructions were committed to the Governor of the Transvaal on his appointment. The Twenty-second Article of these Instructions contains a prohibition to the Governor to assent to certain classes of Ordinances, some half-dozen of which are enumerated. One of these prohibitions, couched in the strongest possible terms, is a prohibition to assent in the name of the Sovereign to any Ordinance by which disabilities or restrictions are imposed on persons not of European birth or descent which are not equally imposed on persons of European birth or descent. I need not point out the glaring inconsistency between this prohibition and the ordinance lately passed in the Transvaal with regard to Chinese labour. That inconsistency is clear and manifest and needs no comment, nor will it receive any from me.
  I think I know what will be the answer of my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State with regard to it. He will point out a proviso at the end of that clause of the Instructions, which allows the Secretary of State to dispense in any particular case with any of these prohibitions, and he will probably add as a further answer that similar provisions have been already enacted in other places without objections being raised to them. As regards the second objection I simply deny it. I am not at present, in this House and under the present circumstances, going into the details of the sub-
  198
  ject or to argue it. It is quite unnecessary for me to go into any detailed examination of the various points in which the Ordinances on similar subjects in other colonies differ from that which has been passed in the Transvaal. In my opinion the provisions are absolutely different, and in themselves are sufficient to show how different they are. But without going into them at this time there is one distinction, and one alone, which makes them absolutely different, i.e., the object of each is different, however much separate provisions may be similar. The object of the Mauritius, West Indies, and Fijian Ordinances with regard to immigration is to ensure the performance of a contract and that only. The disabilities to which persons are subjected in those places are only those strictly requisite to ensure the performance of the contract. But the object of the Transvaal Ordinance is different. It is to prevent or hinder all association or contact between the European population and those non-European elements introduced under it. This is effected by provisions which are directed to that object, and which are not necessary merely to ensure the performance of a contract for labour. Therefore the second answer that is likely to be made to me I pay no attention to. To the first and more important answer that the Secretary of State has a dispensing power I at once admit that that forms a perfect technical answer to my objection, but not, I think, an equally satisfactory moral answer. That power of dispensation is given to the Secretary of State manifestly in order to meet practical difficulties. I do not suppose that those who framed that proviso had in their minds any intention whatever that it should set aside principles that were laid down as being of general and universal application. Occasions may arise on which on many of the subjects set out practical difficulties may occur which the interference of the Secretary of State can remove, but the great principle laid down, viz., that European and non - European residents in a country are to be treated alike, is not one which it was intended by the framers of the Instructions to be dealt with in this way.
  I do not know that that alone would have induced me to ask these

  199
  Questions; it is to a much wider question that I desire to call your Lordships' attention. This action is only one of many things which lead me to fear that the whole action, tone, and spirit of the Colonial Department of the present day show a grave and growing departure from the maxims which prevailed there some thirty or forty years ago. In the Transvaal Colony I see it is proposed—setting aside Chinese labour—to limit and restrict the liberties which belong to His Majesty's Indian subjects resident in that Colony. It is said that the proposal is looked on with no disfavour that all Indians resident in that colony should be restricted in their rights of shop-keeping and selling. These debates have led me to go very carefully and minutely into the subject, and I find that in the West Indies regulations which were some years ago deemed not only by me but by those of higher rank than myself, under whom I was employed at the Colonial Office, and by those who worked under me in the colony, to be essentially necessary to the protection of the imported labourer—that these regulations have one by one gradually been dropped and abandoned, and that they now no longer regulate the state of things in those islands. I see every symptom of the same thing recurring. I am not attacking His Majesty's Government or the present or the late Secretary of State for that; it is not a matter that concerns one Government or one period. All I am saying is that I believe a change, and a great change, has come over the Department which is looked upon as a permanent institution. There are many causes which may naturally account for this and I will not weary your Lordships by going into them now, at a future time I may propose to do so. I wish before the close of the session to say that taking all these things together it is my intention, if I am still on the roll of living Peers next year, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the present state of the immigration laws prevailing in the West Indian Colonies and the abandonment of protective measures for the non-European races.
  That leads me to the second question. I ask my noble friend whether he will lay before the House the correspondence
  200
  which has passed with regard to the alterations lately made in the native taxation system of Fiji. I do not say that those alterations may not be necessary; possibly they are; but I do know that some amendment of these regulations has long been thought to be necessary for the preservation of the native races there, and therefore I trust that any modifications which have been made are alterations decided on with great care, judgment, and moderation. We cannot form a judgment unless we see the correspondence which has passed. My noble friend will not be suprised at my taking a strong personal interest in what passes in those islands and any legislation with regard to them. I hope he will see his way to give us that information, without which we cannot accurately judge of the measures which may be called for, but which on the other hand may be measures destructive to the preservation of the native races in that region.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE COLONIES (the Duke of MARLBOROUGH): I am sure my noble friend's connection with the various matters relating to Colonial administraiton entitle him to be listened to with respect. He has told us that next session he hopes to bring the matter before your Lordships, and it will then be my duty to reply or give such information as I can. I am sorry that my noble friend is under the impression that His Majesty's Government have only technically kept within the bounds of the Royal Instructions. I cannot agree with him, for, as he is perfectly well aware, this clause to which he refers is still in force. The clause in question Clause 22, runs as follows—
  "No ordinance shall take effect until assented to in Our name by the Governor, and the Governor shall not assent in Our name to any Ordinance of any of the following classes."
  The following classes, which are enumerated, include the one to which my noble friend alluded, namely, any Ordinance whereby persons not of European birth or descent may be subjected or made liable to any disabilities or restrictions which are not imposed on persons of European birth or descent. Although the Governor cannot assent to any

  201
  Ordinance of this kind, yet, as my noble friend has pointed out, there is a proviso in the case of emergency for the immediate operation of an Ordinance. The proviso runs as follows—
  "Unless in the case or any such Ordinance as aforesaid he shall have previously obtained Our Instructions upon such Ordinance through one of our principal Secretaries of State."
  My noble friend is perfectly well aware that these Asiatic Importation Ordinances have been the subject of prolonged discussions and correspondence between the Secretary of State and Lord Milner, and as that is the case it is clear that we have already complied with the proviso. But there is yet another proviso which reads—
  "Unless such Ordinance shall contain a clause suspending the operation of such Ordinance until the signification of Our pleasure thereupon."
  That is to say, the Ordinance must have in it a clause, the effect of which is perfectly clearly stated in the Transvaal Labour Importation Ordinance itself. That Ordinance contains a clause providing—
  "This Ordinance may be cited for all purposes as the Labour Importation Ordinance and shall not take effect unless and until the Governor shall proclaim in the Gazette that it is His Majesty's pleasure not to disallow the same, and thereupon it shall come into operation upon such a date as the Governor shall notify by proclamation."
  My noble friend will see that this proviso to which I have alluded is contained in the Transvaal Labour Ordinance, therefore he will admit that Lord Milner has complied in every way with Article 22 of the Royal Instructions. Whether we have only complied technically or not is a matter I am afraid I cannot discuss with my noble friend. He thinks we have only complied technically and that morally we are open to censure and criticism. I confess I am not able to follow my noble friend on that point, which is somewhat abstruse, but I think he will see that so far as the technical aspect or the legal aspect of the case is concerned both Lord Milner and His Majesty's Government have complied absolutely with the Royal Instructions which were laid down some two years ago.
  LORD STANMORE: I perfectly admit that my noble friend is technically
  202
  justified. My point was only this; that when you lay down a great and general principle, if you proceed at once to act contrary to that principle, you had better abolish it at once.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): Order, order! The noble Lord has no right of reply.

  THE CROWN AGENTS AND THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONIES.
  EARL GREY:I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether arrangements have been made for transferring from the Crown Agents to the Administrations of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony the responsibility for the placing of freight contracts and the purchasing of stores.
  The approaching conference which has been convened by Lord Milner to consider the question of shipping freight to South Africa makes it important for us to know whether the Crown Agents, acting under the control of His Majesty's Government, or the Administrations of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, are to be responsible in future for the placing of freight contracts.
  If If the Crown Agents are to remain in the future, as they have been in the past, responsible for the purchase of all the Government stores and railway material required by the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, they will approach the conference with all the weight and importance of the predominant partner, and unless they can recommend a definite policy of their own they will occupy a position which will not add to the dignity of, or reflect credit upon, the Imperial Government.
  Although I have repeatedly called your Lordships' attention to the fact that under the present system, supported, as I think, most unwisely by His Majesty's Government, British shipping companies are charging English shippers more than twice the rates charged to American shippers on manufactured goods consigned to South Africa, the Government have shown, up to now, no sign whatever of ability to cope with this question.

  203
  The noble Duke stated on the 12th July, when the matter was last under discussion, that until the Government were informed of the wishes and views of the people of South Africa upon the shipping question it would be premature for His Majesty's Government to offer an opinion upon such a difficult and complicated matter.
  My Lords, I certainly hope that this declaration on the part of His Majesty's Government means that they intend to hand over the responsibility of placing their freight to the Administrations of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies. They cannot contemplate attending this shipping conference as the largest shipper, with no mind of their own and nothing but a drifting policy.
  I wish to state, with all the emphasis I can command—and I have good reasons for my statement—that if the various Governments of South Africa agree to a common policy of refusing to place their freight contracts with any shipping company which employs the 10 per cent. rebate system, or which refuses to carry for the ordinary public at the same rates as for the Governments, or which carries goods from United States ports which are more than 600 miles further from South Africa than the ports of the United Kingdom at lower rates than from British ports, the present system, which is driving trade to America, which under the free play of natural conditions belongs to England, will at once disappear.
  If the Government have no mind of their own on this matter, is it not better that they should transfer the responsibility to those who recognise that they have both an opportunity and a duty of safeguarding the interests of the South African consumer and of the British producer?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope I shall not be out of order if I allude for one moment to a Question put to me by Lord Stan-more to the effect whether His Majesty's Government would lay upon the Table any correspondence in connection with Fiji. I can assure him that between now and next session the Papers to which he refers will be laid, and that will give him
  204
  an opportunity of discussing the affairs of Fiji when Parliament re-assembles.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Duke will be somewhat out of order in alluding to that question.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, with reference to the Question of the noble Lord, Earl Grey, as to whether His Majesty's Government have come to any arrangement for transferring from the Crown Agents to the Administrations of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony the responsibility for the placing of freight contracts and the purchasing of stores, I have to say the reply to the Question is in the negative. Our intention is not as the noble Earl surmises, but Lord Milner has asked us, and the Secretary of State has agreed, that the local Government of the Transvaal may, in those cases where economy can clearly be shown, and where it is likely to be promoted, issue tenders for stores locally as well as through the Crown Agents to the merchants at home. Those tenders will be issued simultaneously, and it is hoped by this departure from the previous system that the local merchants may be given every facility for seeing whether they can complete on as favourable terms as the merchants at home have done hitherto through the Crown Agents. The noble Earl, in the course of his remarks, said His Majesty's Government did not know their own mind in this matter, but I think that is rather a severe criticism of their action. We are as aware as the noble Earl that this matter of contracts, and especially of freights, is one that is exercising the minds not only of people in this country, but also in South Africa, and it is our desire to co-operate, so far as lies in our power, in discovering whether any machinery can be employed for rectifying any of those evils which, in the opinion of the noble Earl, exist. Perhaps he will allow me to tell him exactly the position of the South African Conference which is to take place on 22nd August. The Governments of the South African Colonies have decided to hold this conference with regard to shipping freights. The terms of reference and the methods of procedure have not been finally settled, but Lord Milner has informed the Secretary of State that the

  205
  object of the conference will be to inquire into the charges now obtaining for ocean freight to South Africa and the disposal of shipping orders by the various Governments, and to endeavour to arrive at some means of securing advantages for the general public equal to those enjoyed by the Governments. The delegates will be invited to present a report and recommendations. The Colonies asked through the High Commissioner that an expert should be sent out to assist in the labours of the conference—an expert who was unconnected with any Government or any ring. In response to that request Mr. Douglas Owen, a barrister-at-law, has been selected and sent out. Mr. Owen is a recognised authority in all branches of shipping law and practice; he is well known for his work in connection with the Port of London, and is not connected with any Government or any shipping firm. In view of the fact that this conference is going to be held, and of the important matters which will be discussed at that conference, I do not think that the observations I made to the noble Earl the other day were altogether misplaced. I then said that it would be premature, in view of these facts, for the Government to offer any opinion until we were able to ascertain the views and ideas of the various Governments of South Africa upon this very difficult and complicated question, a question which is exercising the attention, not only of the noble Earl and people in this country, but also of our fellow countrymen throughout South Africa.

  RHODESIA.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I desire to move for a Return of the cost of the several Colonies of the British Empire at the expense of the British Exchequer for each of the years from 1853 to 1903 in the same form, as nearly as may be, as the information supplied in the House of Commons Paper, No. 417, of Session 1881; and also their population, and the annual value of their trade with the United Kingdom, so far as it can be given, for the latest year for which the figures are available. I regret that I have to trespass again on the indulgence of your Lordships, but I think your Lordships will agree that it is a very important question that I am raising.
  206
  My objects in moving for this Return are both general and special. I think it is desirable that we should have authoritative data supplied which will enable us to form some approximate idea as to the pecuniary sacrifice which has been made by the people of the United Kingdom during the last fifty years, for the purpose of strengthening the British position in the Greater Britain across the seas. I am aware that the data asked for will not supply us with all the material required to enable us to make a complete statement on this subject, but the impartial historian will be able to make his own independent research and supplement the information which it is in the power of the Treasury officials to supply. They can add to the cost shown by this Return what additional charges have been thrown upon the people of the United Kingdom by the wars in the early part of last century, and what proportion of that cost can be fairly debited to Canada, India, and other possessions of the Crown.
  But I have a special reason in asking for this Return. I wish to be able to compare the present value of Rhodesia as an Imperial asset with that of the other African Protectorates under our control, and their respective costs to the British taxpayer. I claim that it is only fair to the British South Africa Company and to the memory of Cecil Rhodes that it should be placed on record that Rhodesia is honourably distinguished in this as well as in other respects, that it is the only part of the British Empire which has not cost the British taxpayer a sixpence beyond the salary of the Deputy-Commissioner, for whose office the people in Rhodesia think there is no necessity.
  I desire a Return which will show that while Uganda, British Central Africa, Nigeria, and other protectorates and dependencies, with their comparatively small trade and population, are all costing the British taxpayer large annual grants-in-aid, which I do not for one moment grudge, Rhodesia alone is an asset which has been won for the Empire not by the enterprise of the British taxpayer, but simply through the action of Mr. Rhodes and the Chartered Company. It should further be remembered that it was only because the late Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, refused

  207
  to ask the House of Commons for the money that was required to enable the healthy plateau north of the Limpopo to be brought under the Union Jack, that the Chartered Company was formed at the request of the Imperial Government to do the work which the Imperial Government refused to do.
  It is not too much to say that if it had not been for the action of Mr. Rhodes and the Chartered Company, the British position in South Africa would have been lost. That country, which is now admittedly the richest agricultural section in South Africa, and highly mineralised throughout, with a great future before it, would now be under the German or Dutch flag. The march of the Australians across Rhodesia to the relief of Mafeking could never have been undertaken, and the war against the Boers, with the high plateau behind the Transvaal under the German and Dutch flag, might still have been exhausting the resources of the Empire.
  I desire this Return in order that I may have, and the people of England may have, the material which will enable us, at a time when the services of the Chartered Company are called in question, sometimes by interested and sometimes by ignorant people, to show what has been the cost to the British taxpayer of a country which has been able, owing to the foresight of Mr. Rhodes, the generosity of the Chartered Company, and the courage of its settlers, to contribute no mean service to the Empire. I desire, if I may do so, to add the words "protectorates and dependencies" after the word "colonies," in line 2, in order to make it quite clear that the Return will include the protectorates as well as the self-governing Colonies of the Crown. beg to move.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for a Return of the cost of the several Colonies, Protectorates, and Dependencies of the British Empire at the expense of the British Exchequer for each of the years from 1853 to 1903, in the same form, as nearly as may be, as the information supplied in the House of Commons Paper, No. 417, of Session 1881; and also their population, and the annual value of their trade with the United Kingdom, so far
  208
  as it can be given, for the latest year for which the figures are available."—(Earl Grey.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl's Question, I am informed that the Return which he is anxious to have will be granted. I think he will realise that the Return will be made up by officials of a Department other than that which I have the honour to represent, so I cannot pledge myself that the words he wants inserted, "protectorates and dependencies," will be agreed to.
  EARL GREY:I only want to make it clear that it covers Uganda and Rhodesia.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I should say there would be no objection to that, but I will certainly promise the noble Earl the Return which is on the Paper, and I will take note of the word s he wishes to add. I should think that in all probability the noble Earl's request will be willingly acceded to.
  On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.