Sitting of 24 February 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Great Northern and City Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Surrey Commercial Dock Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Lewisham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCE HOLDERS.
  Petition from Scarborough, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Llwynhendy; Wrexham; Stockport; Lincoln (two); Tovil; Keynsham; East Kent; Stanningley; Brynsiencyn; Cilfren; Maesteg; Esgairnant; Betchworth; South Norwood; Law; Croydon; Guildford; Newbridge; Leicester; Lampeter; Gartmore; Llanhilleth; Gaediffaith; Engedi and Rhiw; Foubridge; Newcastle; Leeds; Newcastle Emlyn; Monkwearmouth; Southall; and Accrington; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT ACT, 1899.
  Petition from Islington, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Penryn, and Tunbridge Wells; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
  Petition from Abergavenny, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Copy presented, of Army Estimates of Effective and Non-Effective Services for the year ending 31st March, 1905 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 73.]
  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES, 1904–5).
  Copy presented, of the sum required for the year ending 31st March, 1905, to defray the expense of the Ordnance Factories [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 74.]
  ARMY (MEMORANDUM ON ESTIMATES)
  Copy presented, of Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army Estimates of 1904–5 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Order, and the objects thereof [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3122 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICAN MINES (MORTALITY).
  Address for "Return of the numbers and rate of mortality from (a) accident, (b) other causes, among (1) the white miners, artisans, and labourers employed in the Rand Mines; (2) all classes of I natives in the Rand Mines; (3) the British Central African natives in the Rand Mines; (4) the natives in the Rhodesian Mines; and (5) the natives in the De Beers' Mines, Kimberley, during the last twelve months for which statistics are obtainable."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  POOR LAW SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for Superannuation Allowances to certain local officers and servants in Ireland, for contributions towards such allowances by such officers and servants, and to make other relative provisions," presented by Mr. O'Malley; supported by Sir James Haslett, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Joseph Devlin, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Condon, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Clancy, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Lundon; to be read a second time upon Friday, 4th March, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Upkeep of London and Dublin Stationery Offices.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average annual amounts expended during the last ten years on the principal items in connection with the upkeep (as distinct from the amounts expended on books, stationery, and other requisites for the various departments) of the London Stationery Office and the Dublin Stationery Office respectively during those years.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The average annual amounts expended from the Vote for Stationery and Printing during the ten years last completed in connection with the upkeep of the London Stationery Office and the Dublin Stationery Office have been respectively £34,220 and £3,058, making a total of £37,278. These figures include the amounts paid for salaries and wages for horses, carts, and incidental expenses, for police, and for printing, paper, etc. I am not in a position to state exactly the amounts spent from other Votes in connection with the upkeep of the two offices; but the following are the estimated amounts taken from Returns printed with the Stationery Office Estimate. The estimated average annual expenses during the ten years for rent, furniture, fuel, and light have been in London £2,957, in Dublin £504. The figures for other items, e.g., rates, telegrams, postage, etc., cannot be stated separately.

    Income and Expenditure of Patent Office
    Mr. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average annual amount for the past ten years of the Patent Office Vote and Patent Office extra receipts respectively received in Great Britain and amount expended therein, and also state average annual amount of Patent Office extra receipts received from Ireland, and state average annual expenditure in Ireland during the same period.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Carendish.) The average annual amount of the Vote for the Patent Office for the past ten years was £63,110, and the average annual amount of the receipt from Patent Stamps was £205,242, of which £969 was from Ireland. The separate figures of expenditure for Ireland cannot be stated.

    Average Amount of Admiralty Vote Average Expenditure of same in Ireland.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average annual amount of the Admiralty Vote for the past ten years, and give the annual average expenditure in connection with Haulbowline Dockyard and the coastguard service in Ireland during those years.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The accounts of the Admiralty are not kept in such a form as to enable the information asked for in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question to be given. Any statement on the subject is necessarily incomplete and is nothing more then an approximation. The details as to naval expenditure during the past ten years will be found in a statement attached to the Navy Estimates which will be circulated to-night.

    Civil Service Pensions—Temporary Service.
    MR. THORNTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that temporary clerks who were certificated by the Civil Service Commissioners and entered the service between the end of the year 1870 and August, 1871, and were afterwards promoted to permanent posts in the service, are allowed to reckon only half of their continuous temporary service for

    837
    pension, and that temporary registered writers who first came into the service between the same dates and were afterwards promoted to permanent posts are allowed to reckon all their continuous temporary service for pension, although the regulations with regard to pension under which each of the above classes entered the service were identical, he will, under these circumstances, take steps under Clause 3 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 to allow those who were formerly temporary clerks to reckon in like manner all their continuous service for pension.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The rule which has been in force for the last fifteen years is that copyists or writers placed on the permanent establishment are allowed to count one-half of their previous service for pension. It is true that, under a special concession made twenty years ago, writers employed before 19th August, 1871, and after wards without interruption of service, transferred to the establishment, are allowed to reckon their whole service for pension; but I see no sufficient ground for extending this concession to other cases than those which it was intended to meet.

    Increase of Salary for Chief Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
    MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the increase in the work of chief clerks to surveyors of taxes, it is proposed to increase the present annual increment.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The wages of clerks in all grades in the offices of surveyors of taxes were thoroughly revised in 1900, when substantial improvements were made in their rates of pay, and no addition to their increments seems called for.

    Amount of Corn Duty Repaid Last Year.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what was the total amount of the 1s. per quarter duty on corn repaid by the Treasury last year to those who held stocks of foreign corn in the United Kingdom; and what amount of the
    838
    remitted tax, if any, was paid to the producer of the imported corn.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The total amount of duty repaid under Section 1, Sub-section 4, of the Finance Act, 1903, to those who held stocks of grain, &c, on which duty had been paid, is £362,342 12s. 7d. The repayments were confined by the terms of the Act to persons proving to the satisfaction of the Customs that they had in their stock or possession on the appointed date grain or articles on which the duty had been paid. This provision obviously could not include any stocks remaining in the possession of the foreign producer at the time.

    English Whisky sold as Irish or Scotch.
    MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that many brewers and blenders who own tied houses supply them with English spirit which they compel their tenants to sell as old Irish and Scotch whisky, he will in the interests of both commercial morality and the public health, cause instructions to be issued with a view to putting an end to these practices.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) There is no evidence before me to support the allegation made in the Question.

    Absence of County Court Judges—Payment of Deputies.
    MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that County Court Judges during temporary absence from illness or other cause are compelled to find, and pay out of their own pockets, the deputies who sit for them, whether he will introduce a Bill to relieve them from this burden.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Any legislation by the Government in relation to the County Courts will be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, to whom I will communicate the hon. and learned Member's suggestions.

    Effects of Maritime War on Shipping and Commercial Transactions.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the President of the

    839
    Board of Trade whether he has any official information showing that the conditions of maritime war have produced any material alterations in commercial and shipping transactions between the United Kingdom, British Colonies or Possessions abroad, with either Japan or Russia; and, if so, can he state generally their main features.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any branch of his Department is charged with the duty of observing and recording any important current changes in commercial and shipping operations of Russia and Japan under the varying conditions of maritime war; and, if so, whether current information so obtained, if of importance to British merchants and shippers, is communicated promptly to the trade and shipping centres of the Empire.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The time that has elapsed since the beginning of the war is too short to enable me to make any general statement as to its effect on British commercial and shipping transactions. In reply, however, to this and the following Question of the hon. Member I may assure him that the position is being carefully watched by the Commercial and Marine Departments

    Years.

    Value of Exports of British and Irish Produce from the United Kingdom.

    Dominion of Canada.

    Newfoundland.

    Total to North American Colonies.

    £

    £

    £

    1897

    5,171,850

    304,341

    5,476,191

    1898

    5,838,000

    316,773

    6,154,773

    1899

    6,969,535

    377,607

    7,347,142

    1900

    7,605,257

    521,453

    8,126,710

    1901

    7,785,472

    358,223

    8,143,695

    1902

    10,345,256

    375,069

    10,720,325

    1903

    11,105,011

    392,119

    11,497,130

    of the Board of Trade, in consultation with other Government Offices, and that all information received which is of importance to British traders and which can properly be made public will be promptly communicated to those interested by publication or otherwise.

    Value of British and Irish Exports to North American Colonies.
    SIR FREDERICK MILNER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that since the denunciation by Lord Salisbury, in 1897, of the Treaties of 1862 and 1865 with the German Zollverein and Belgium, British goods have been admitted into Canada with a rebate of 25 per cent., which was increased in 1901 to 33⅓ per cent., he will state the total value of exports of British and Irish produce to North American Colonies in 1897, 1898, 1900, and in 1902 after the rebate had been raised to 33⅓ per cent., and in 1903.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The 25 per cent. rebate given by the Dominion of Canada began on 1st August, 1898, and the 33⅓ per cent. rebate on 1st July, 1900. I give below the particulars required for each year since 1897, inclusive.

    Education (Scotland) Bill—Date of Introduction.
    SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Education (Scotland) Bill will be introduced before Easter.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) In the absence of my right hon. friend the Leader of the House I am unable to give any undertaking as to the course of business. The Bill, however, will be introduced on the first available opportunity.

    Mayor of Londonderry—Residential Qualification.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the present occupant of the Londonderry Mayoralty has no residential habitation within the city of Londonderry as required by the Charter of Charles II.; and whether, in view of the fact that penalties attach to the holding of the office under such circumstances, he will say what steps, if any, the Government purpose taking in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) I am not aware of the provision of the Charter to which the Question refers. The present mayor is a local government elector of the city of Londonderry, and even if the Charter mentioned contains a clause such as is suggested, there is strong ground for contending that it is impliedly repealed by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1840 and the Local Government Act of 1898, and the Orders adapted thereunder. In these circumstances it is not a case for Government interference. Any person aggrieved can take proceedings in the King's Bench Division to determine the question.

    Purchase of O'Grady Estate.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any negotiations for the purchase of the O'Grady Estate, consisting of the town lands of Cam and Garry cam, have yet been entered into with the Estate Commissioners; and, if so, will he direct
    842
    that no time be lost in giving effect to the sale.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No application has been made to the Commissioners in respect of the sale of this property.

    Flooding of the River Riffey, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in consequence of insufficient sinking, the River Riffey, which flows through the townlands of Clonwhelan and Cam, in county Longford, constantly floods these town lands in time of rain; whether he is aware that, on 11th September in last year, two men were drowned in consequence of the floods caused by this river; and will he direct the attention of the Board of Works to the immediate necessity of providing funds for the proper sinking and embanking of this river.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that two men were drowned on the date mentioned in the flood on the public road near Clonwhelan. The town lands referred to are not comprised in a drainage district, and in the absence of a properly constituted drainage board the Board of Works have no power to advance money for the purposes of arterial drainage. I am making further inquiry, however, with a view to ascertain to what causes the floods complained of are due.

    Marine Works at Cape Clear.
    MR. GILHOOLY (Cork County, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the proposed works (under the Marine Act) at Cape Clear will be commenced; and whether, in view of the present, condition of the harbour, he will have them expedited.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Tenders are about to be invited for these works. If a satisfactory tender be received and the weather be favourable they will be undertaken forthwith.

    Sale of Irish Society's Estates.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the evidence submitted to the Select Committee of this House on Land Acts (Ireland) in Session 1894, and of the pending sale to the agricultural tenants, the Government will consider the advisability of reappointing the Committee in order to provide that the capital realised by the sale of the estates will be held in trust for the people of Londonderry and district, and not taken away to London us happened in the case of the sale by the Grocers and other London companies to their Irish tenantry.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The hon. Member has sent me a newspaper report, from which it appears that the Irish Society proposes to sell its estates under the Act of last year. The purchase money must be applied in the first place in repaying the large loans which have been made to the Society by the Board of Works and raised on debentures issued under Parliamentary authority for public improvements in Derry and Coleraine, and in discharging other charges on the Society's estates. Any surplus that may remain will be expended by the Society, as in the past, for the benefit of Londonderry and Coleraine, and adjoining districts.

    Cost of Extra Police in Castlebar and Wexford.
    DR. AMBROSE (Mayo, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a sum of £920 has been levied on the districts of Castlebar and Wexford for extra police; and whether, considering the condition of those districts and the difficulty experienced by the inhabitants in meeting their liabilities, he will see that this sum is refunded.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There is no power to refund any portion of the charge levied pursuant to statutory authority in respect of the cost of employment of extra forces of police.

    Increased Barrack Accommodation at Bermuda.
    SIR FREDERICK MILNER: To ask the Secretary of State for War, having
    844
    regard to the fact that in Bermuda the permanent barracks are not sufficient to accommodate the troops there, and that both officers and men have to live in bell tents, whether he would provide them with more convenient and suitable tents; and whether, seeing that three-fifths of the married men on the strength at Bermuda have to leave their families behind, contrary to the terms of engagement, he will consider the advisability of removing this cause of dissatisfaction.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The point raised concerning the nature of the tents provided for the officers and men will be referred to the General Officer Commanding for his consideration. Practically the whole of the accommodation at the station is under reconstruction at the present time, and additional married quarters are being provided as fast as possible under the Military Works Loan. In the meantime the families who are separated from the troops are drawing separation allowance. It must be pointed out that the provision of quarters for families on the married strength does not form part of the terms of engagement.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South African Military Railways.
    MR. J. S. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state on what terms the Imperial Military Railways of South Africa have been transferred to the civil Governments of the Transvaal and Orange River States; what claim these Governments have as against the expenditure of £900,000 by the British Government on those railways, and what the claim of £1,250,000 by the British Government against the civil Governments of these States represents; and why the Imperial Military Railways were transferred to the civil Governments before these claims were investigated and settled.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): As the railways in the Orange Free State and Transvaal were conquered they were taken over and worked by the Army.

    845
    At the termination of the war they were handed over to the civil Governments of those Colonies without payment. The claim of £1,250,000 (which includes the sum of £900,000 referred to) represents approximately the amount expended out of Army funds on the construction of new lines, and the provision of additional rolling stock which was admitted to be beneficial to the new Colonies on taking over the railways, and so recoverable from them. The Colonies have admitted the correctness of the above claim, but preferred a counter-claim for the deterioration to the lines and rolling stock, while in military use, on the ground that very large expenditure would have to be incurred from colonial revenues to make this good. This counter-claim would, though not expressed in figures, in the opinion of the civil Government, extinguish the War Office claim. His Majesty's Government have declined to admit this counter-claim on the ground that these railways, which were held and maintained by the Army, did not become an asset of the Colonies until handed over by the military authorities on the termination of hostilities. It was obviously necessary to hand over the lines at the termination of the war to the civil Administration, subject so the reservation of the claim in question.
    MR. J. S. AINSWORTH: Are we to understand that in addition to the£900,000 and £1,250,000 a further claim has been made by the local Governments against the Imperial Government?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is a counter-claim by the civil Government.
    MR. J. S. AINSWORTH: For how much?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Practically the same amount as our claim against them. It is in respect of the deterioration of the line.
    MR. J. S. AINSWORTHasked how soon these claims would be settled.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could not tell. The matter was out of the hands of the War Office.

    South African Mines—Mortality Statistics.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will grant the Return relating to the rate of mortality in the South African mines standing on to-day's Paper.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I will endeavour to obtain such a Return as soon as possible.

    Transvaal Labour Ordinance— Hours of Work.
    MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any provision has been made in the regulations attached to the Chinese Labour Ordinance of the Transvaal for limiting the number of hours in each day, and the number of days in each week, during which indentured labourers may be required to work underground; and, if so, whether he will state that limit; also whether he has arranged that one day in seven shall be given them as a day of rest corresponding to our Sunday.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am not in a position to make a definite statement at present as to the number. This is one of the matters which is being provided for in the regulations which are under consideration. I may, however, inform the hon. Member that in the mines ten hours shifts are the general rule. Practically no work is done in the mines from 5 a.m. on Sundays till 7 a.m. on Monday as the result of the Sunday Labour Law.
    MR. BAYLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman put the existing law into force with regard to the Chinese who are imported.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The existing law will apply.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the regulations are under consideration. Are the House to understand that they
    †See page 834

    847
    have not yet been settled: and if that is the case, when will they be settled?
    MR. LYTTELTON: They will not he settled completely for five or six years; but the substantial pledges which I have given to the House with regard to the regulations are now actually under consideration and will, I think, be settled in a very short time.

    Transit Regulations for the Chinese Labourers.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the conveyance of labourers from China to Africa, under the Transvaal Labourers' Ordinance, is to be conducted in all cases subject to the provisions of the China Passenger Ships Act of 1855.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Chinese Passengers Act of 1855 and the Ordinance of Hong-Kong No. 1 of 1889 apply to every ship carrying from any port in Hong-Kong and every British ship carrying from any port in China. If in any case embarkation should take place from any ports of ships not within the ambit of those Acts (which is not contemplated) regulations not less protective to the emigrant will be framed.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman gives a promise that the provisions of this Act will apply to labourers imported from China?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have answered the Question accurately. I think the hon. Member's Question did not quite recapitulate the effect of my answer. The Act applies to Hong-Kong as regards all ships, and it applies to every British ship carrying from any port in China. It would be practically impossible to get outside the ambit of that Act, but if by any chance that was done regulations would be framed to meet the case.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The other night the right hon. Gentleman quoted this Act and laid stress upon his promise.

    "Protector" of the Chinese.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say on what fund the salary of the Protector of Chinese will be charged.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The salary of the Protector of Chinese, who in the Ordinance is designated Superintendent of Labourers, will be paid from Transvaal Funds.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: What opportunity will the House have of criticising the conduct of these officials?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! That does not arise on this Question.

    Macedonian Gendarmerie.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have yet received the proposals of the officers entrusted with the task of drawing up a scheme for the reorganisation of the gendarmerie in Macedonia; and, if so, will he state to the House the substance of their proposals.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The proposals for the reorganisation of the Macedonian gendarmerie are still under discussion at Constantinople and have not yet been finally settled. I hope shortly to be in a position to give the House further information on the subject.

    The "Mandjur."
    MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether there is any foundation for the report that His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai associated himself with the demand that the Russian cruiser, "Mandjur," should leave that port.
    EARL PERCY: No, Sir. His Majesty's Consul-General took no part whatever in the demand for the withdrawal of the "Mandjur."

    Metropolitan Police Magistracy.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that inconvenience is experienced in the Metropolitan Police Courts owing to there being an insufficient number of stipendiary magistrates to cope with the work, and will he consider the expediency of adding to their number.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): The matter is one which has been constantly under consideration; but I do not see my way at the present time to ask the Treasury to increase the charge on Imperial Funds for the Police Court service of the Metropolis. I think any inconvenience there may be arises from the difficulty of arranging the sittings of the magistrates rather than from the insufficiency of numbers.

    Tuberculosis Milk Vending Regulations.
    MR. CHAPMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, pending the. Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, he will take steps to prevent the insertion in Private Bills, promoted by local authorities, of clauses affecting the sale of milk applicable only to particular districts.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The clauses referred to have been included in a number of Local Acts since the Royal Commission was appointed. Whether they be inserted in any particular Bill is a matter for the consideration of the Committee on that Bill, but I could not undertake to interfere in the manner desired by my hon. friend.

    Gipsy Encampments—Model Bye-Laws.
    LIEUT-COLONEL TUFNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a communication from the Rochford Rural District Council pointing out that, notwithstanding the adoption by local
    850
    authorities of the model bye-laws of the Local Government Board with respect to tents, vans, sheds, and similar structures, and the fact that prosecutions and fines have followed their adoption, the nuisance caused by gipsies tends to increase; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will revise the model bye-laws with a view to their being made more stringent in the interests of public health.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have seen the communication referred to. The model series of bye-laws issued by my Department are intended as a general guide to local authorities in preparing bye-laws for their districts, and I am not aware that local authorities have usually found the particular series in question to be insufficient. It is, however, competent for the Rochford Rural District Council, subject to the provisions of the enactment relating to the matter, to make bye-laws in addition to those included in the model series. If they submit any such bye-laws to me I shall be happy to give consideration to them.

    Irish Coastguards and Illegal Trawling.
    MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state if coastguards in Ireland are required to take any, and, if so, what steps to prevent fishing boats from illegally trawling in their districts: and whether any change has been made in the coastguard regulations in this respect.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,): It is not the duty of the coastguard to take any active steps to prevent fishing boats from illegally trawling in their districts, but they are ordered to telegraph direct to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Dublin, intelligence of any cases of illegal trawling which ma)' come under their observation. No change has been made in the coastguard regulations in this respect.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is it not the fact that the trawling plant when seized is resold at a nominal figure? Will the

    851
    hon. Gentleman take steps to secure its destruction in future cases?
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I have no information as to that.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I can assure the hon. Gentleman it is the case.

    Irish Military Canteens Sale to Civilians.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the managers of military canteens supply civilians, particularly in county towns in Ireland, with goods; and, if so, will he state whether this is in accordance with military rules; and whether, with a view of preventing interference with the interests of local traders, he will take steps to secure the discontinuance of this practice.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The King's Regulations in paragraph 1015, which deals with purchases at canteens, lays down that "No Civilians are to be allowed to purchase articles in any of the establishments at any time." There is no reason to believe that this regulation is infringed and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will furnish me with any particulars giving grounds for the statement contained in the Question.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to stop this practice?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: If the hon. Member can give me any evidence of irregularity I will do my best to stop it.

    Pettigo Petty Sessional Bench.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that of the seven magis-

    Names of various officers.

    Salary.

    Date of appointment.

    Previous Position.

    Examination passed.

    Other qualifications.

    Age

    Nationality: English, Scotch, or Irish.

    trates who constitute the petty sessions bench of Pettigo one only is a Roman Catholic; and whether, having regard to the fact that a majority of the population of the district consists of members of the Roman Catholic Faith, will any, and, if so, what steps be taken to secure to that majority greater representation on the magisterial bench.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The fact is, I believe, as stated in the first part of the Question. Recommendations for the appointment of gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace are made to the Lord Chancellor or the Lieutenant of the county. Any such recommendations, if made, will be duly considered.
    MR. FLAVIN: What are the necessary qualifications for a magistrate?
    [No answer was returned.].

    Irish Department of Agriculture.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return standing on to-day's Paper dealing with the Department of Agriculture, Dublin.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member for West Cavan has already been granted a Return containing all the information indicated, with the exception of that suggested in the last column of the further Return proposed. There is no record of the nationality of officials.
    The following is the Return referred to:—
    Department of Agriculture (Dublin). Return dealing with officers in the Department of Agriculture, Dublin, in the following form:—
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say it is impossible to state the nationality of these officials? Is that not absurd?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It would not be impossible to obtain the information. But all the rest of the information asked for is already embodied in Returns which have been given, and I did not think it of sufficient importance to get another Return for that one purpose.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Rut will you get it now?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I will consider the point.

    Irish Evicted Tenants.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the difficulty of landlords and evicted tenants agreeing upon the future rent of the holdings from which the tenants were evicted, and the consequent delay in the reinstatement of such tenants, and further, having regard to the fact that in many cases the evicted tenants cannot be provided for until a sale of the estate on which the evicted lands are situate takes place, he will introduce a clause in the amending Land Bill providing for their more speedy reinstatement and settlement.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Such difficulties, in so far as they exist, have been surmounted on the Coolgreany Estate, and I have no reason to believe that they will prove intractable elsewhere. I am not prepared to depart from the provisions embodied in the Act of last year by consent, after full debate.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an effort to bring about the reinstatement In county Kerry of evicted tenants on estates which are not at present for sale, and where the holdings are still vacant?
    [No answer was returned].

    Irish Butter.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can
    854
    state on what date the Department of Agriculture for Ireland expect to be able to publish the statistics of the shipments of butter from Ireland to this country, and will he explain why the Department have failed to do this.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Some of the local bodies concerned are not yet in a position to furnish complete returns. When these have been received the Department will lose no time in publishing the statistics referred to.
    MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.): In view of the probable early introduction of the Butter Bill can we have the Return at once? It is important.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I will represent that to the Department.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman get statistics as to the importation into Ireland of foreign butter. We believe there is some mixing locally.
    [No answer was returned].

    Irish Police and Freemasonry.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the late Sergeant Straghan, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Belfast, passed through all the offices of the Donegore True Blue Masonic Lodge, No. 92, including that of worshipful master, was in high rank as a Companion of Royal Arch Chapter, 97, and was one of the founders and first secretary of Symon's Masonic Lodge, No. 278; whether he can state if any of his superior officers who recommended the late sergeant for promotion were members of any of these Lodges, or whether any constables who served under him were members; and whether, in view of the fact that membership of this society may be subversive of discipline in the Force and is repugnant to the majority of the Irish people, he will issue instructions to the Royal Irish Constabulary on the subject.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has forwarded to me a newspaper report

    855
    of the death of this member of the Force. The report eulogises the late sergeant, who is stated to have enjoyed the highest reputation as a peace officer for the honourable and independent discharge of his duties. The suggestion that he secured special privileges because he was a Mason is without foundation. Members of the Constabulary are allowed to attend Masonic meetings provided their absence does not interfere with the performance of their public duties. It is not proposed to issue instructions such as are suggested in the Question.

    Head Constable Moore, R.I.C.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state where Head Constable Moore, whom he stated last session to have been transferred to Greencastle, county Antrim, on temporary duty, is now stationed, and whether he is in receipt of extra remuneration for temporary duty.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This head constable is still at Greencastle. He is not in receipt of extra remuneration.
    MR. MACVEAGH: When will he be removed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I do not interfere in such minor matters.

    Police Constable Walsh of Rostrevor.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Police Constable Walsh, of Rostrevor, county Down, has been censured for attending in uniform an open air sectarian meeting in that town; whether he is aware that, on a previous occasion, this constable distributed copies of a sectarian newspaper to workmen employed in the town; that he made a collection of money in Rostrevor in 1900 at the instance of the Church Mission Society; that complaints have been made as to his molesting a lady visitor to the town: and, if so, will he say whether this lady has been afforded an opportunity of identifying Walsh; and whether, in view of complaints against him for provoking religions controversies, it is proposed to
    856
    retain this policeman in a Roman Catholic district.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The constable attended, in uniform, an out-door religious meeting; he was not censured for having done so. He gave away a few copies of the British Workman newspaper about three years ago. He made a collection in 1900 for the Indian Famine Fund and holds a receipt for the sum collected. He made no other collection. Complaint was made that a policeman spoke on religious matters to a lady visitor; it was not alleged that Walsh was the constable. He holds a high record for good police service, and his superior officers have no reason to believe that he will not continue to perform his duties without offence to any section of the inhabitants. It is not intended to transfer him to another district.
    MR. MACVEACH: Is it not the fact that this man has been twice censured by the Inspector-General for interference in religious questions. Will he be continued in a Catholic district?
    MR. WYNDHAM: My information does not bear that out.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I have a letter to that effect from the Inspector-General.

    Irish Local Taxation—Weekly Tenements.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he received from the Macroom Urban Council a resolution, passed on the 11th December, 1903, to the effect that the members considered the clause or section in the Local Government Act of 1898 defective, which makes the occupants of weekly tenements liable for rates and which relieves the owners who were hitherto liable; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of such an amendment of the existing Act as would secure that, as formerly, the owners of property of a valuation of £4 and under should be made liable for the rates.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Act of 1898 was based on the principle that the occupier should be rated, and the Agricultural Grant was fixed upon this understanding. The fundamental change

    857
    suggested is neither practicable nor desirable.
    MR. SHEEHAN: Is it not the fact that in consequence of this provision in the Irish Local Government Act, tenants of these tenements have to pay more rates than formerly?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice.
    MR. SHEEHAN: Have you not received many representations from public bodies in Ireland on this point?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have answered the Question on the Paper. I do not propose to suggest any amendment of the law.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS I.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces."
    MR. WHITLEY MR. WHITLEY (Halifax) moved the reduction of the Vote by £100, on the ground that the amount asked for ought to be included in the Army and Navy Votes, and that a promise had been given on the previous occasion that no further money under this head should be placed on the Civil Service Estimates. He said he ought perhaps to have moved the Adjournment so that the Vote might be put in its proper place, but under the circumstances it was perhaps sufficient—in order to maintain the right of the House in this matter—to propose a small reduction.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,200, be
    858
    granted for the said Service."(Mr. Whitley.)
    LORD BALCARRESthought the explanation he had to give would satisfy the hon. Member. Last year several Members complained of the manner in which this item was treated in the Estimates, Osborne House being used as a convalescent home for naval and military officers. It had accordingly been arranged that in the forthcoming Estimates Osborne House should appear still in Class I, but as a separate Vote. It was, however, necessary that the Supplementary Estimate of this year should be framed in correspondence with the original Estimate.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESdid not think that the explanation of the noble Lord met the case, as it was still proposed to keep in the Civil Service Estimates a Vote which was essentially an Army and Navy Vote. That was not giving effect to the undertaking entered into last year. He should therefore give his support to the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.
    MR. MALCOLMthought the hon. Member for King's Lynn was a little bit unreasonable. The explanation of the noble Lord was perfectly satisfactory, and had any other course been adopted the hon. Member would have been one of the first to complain had the Supplementary Vote been put under a distinct heading which had no correlative in the year's Estimates.
    LORD BALCARRESreminded the Committee that the expenditure of this Vote was controlled by the Office of Works under a statute passed by the House two or three years ago. It was therefore impossible to include it in the Army and Navy Estimates.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will my noble friend submit that point to the Public Accounts Committee and abide by its decision?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)said he could

    859
    not answer that question off-hand. The matter of Osborne House was governed by statute.
    MR. COHEN (Islington, E.), as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, could not recollect ever having had a question of that kind to consider. Their duty was to see that money was applied to the purposes for which it was voted by the House of Commons.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYalso did not think it came within the province of the Committee to decide under what head a Vote should appear.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It has been done before.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he could not remember any instance of that having been done. Could the hon. Member cite one?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, but is this in order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member started it himself?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I can assure the hon. Member that before his time and mine the question as to what Estimate a Vote should appear under was referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid his hon. friend evidently could not cite a concrete case. He seemed rather to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Osborne House was given by the King to the nation. It was a Royal palace, and to all intents and purposes continued as such. What object would be gained by shifting the Vote from its present place to the Army and Navy Estimates? It would only tend to deprive it of its historic character—it would be removing a small landmark for the mere sake of altering the accounts. The real duty of the Public Accounts Committee was to see that the nation got value for the money which was expended, and nothing in the shape of efficiency could possibly be
    860
    gained by merely transferring the Vote from one Estimate to another.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsupported the view of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Part of the functions of the Public Accounts Committee was to give recommendations to the House as to the way in which the Estimates should be brought forward.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the argument that this was a Royal palace, which in fact it never was, overlooked the statute which fixed the status of Osborne House. It was obviously desirable that a Vote applicable to the Army and Navy should appear in its proper class, so that the total Vote for the Services might be known and correct, and although it was perhaps necessary that this Vote should appear, for this session only, where it now did, because it had its correlative in the original Estimate, he hoped the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee would be taken as to the position it should occupy in the future. But he rose in order to enter his protest against the great difference between the original and the revised Estimate. In this case the revised Estimate was practically double the original Estimate.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)said that as far as he could judge there was no necessity to discuss this matter further because the Government majority had arrived.
    MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he would try to show that the spirit of vigilant criticism was not wanting on his side of the House. It had been very pertinently pointed out that this item was double the original Estimate. He thought the Leader of the Opposition might have condescended to take notice of this great difference between the original and the revised Estimate. Surely they might have some explanation as to this very extraordinary discrepancy. They would like to know more about this scheme for turning Osborne House into a convalescent home. He remembered that on one occasion the hon. Member for Mid Lanark kept the House for a whole hour before the holidays discussing this

    861
    item, and it was surprising that a gentleman of his keen critical faculty should be absent. He should be glad to have some information as to the progress of the work there.
    MR. WHITLEYasked if it was in order to discuss these matters on the Supplementary Estimate.
    THE CHAIEMAN: I think the hon. Member is going rather wide of the question, although he is entitled to ask why that sum is asked for and how it is to be expended.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: You have a majority of fifteen now.
    MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he wished to have some details given as to what steps had been taken to secure proper sanitary arrangements. He should like some medical Member of the House to give his opinion upon this point. This was very necessary in the case of Osborne House, because the Isle of Wight had an extremely relaxing climate. He had some doubts as to whether his noble friend could fully satisfy him on these points, but perhaps he would say as much as he knew, and he would perhaps answer them more fully when the arrangements had been more advanced. They could not scrutinise these items too much, for if they got into the habit of allowing £7,300 to pass without adequate attention they might get into the habit of passing £730,000 or £7,300,000 in the same way.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the Government majority now stood at twenty.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the Government ought to give them a sufficient explanation when these points arose. This item ought to be treated as an Army Vote. Osborne House had ceased to be a Royal Palace, for it was a gift by the Sovereign for the purposes of the Army, and it was entirely misleading to treat it as a Royal palace. It was a very unsatisfactory arrangement for the Treasury to put upon the Royal Palaces Vote an expense of this sort, which ought to be put in its proper place
    862
    on the Army Votes. He wanted to have some explanation as to why the amount had been doubled. That was not a satisfactory way of dealing with the House of Commons. When voting money they wanted to know what they were about. No one could say that the House of Commons would grudge money for a matter of this sort, but how could there be adequate accounting and a proper check on expenditure if they were going to have a Vote doubled in this way. Generous as the House of Commons was they did not like to be asked in the first instance to vote a sum of money for a particular purpose and afterwards to vote twice the original sum when the bill came in.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for South Islington had complained of this Vote being included in the Civil Service Estimates instead of being included in the Army Votes. It might be that, as presented now, the Vote was misleading, but it would be still more misleading if it were put under the Army Votes. It was impossible to allocate this Vote to any single Department which would cover the whole service. Not only did it deal with Army and Navy matters, but it must be remembered that the Vote dealt with certain charges in connection with Osborne House, which, according to His Gracious Majesty's desire, was now thrown open to the public irrespective of Army or Navy purposes. It dealt with the grounds of the estate to which the public would have access; and finally it dealt with certain Royal residences which clearly must come under the Office of Works, and which could not possibly be allocated to the War Office. The hon. Member had asked him as to the progress of the work, and also in regard to the expenditure. He thought he could explain that. Two years ago His Majesty handed over Osborne House with the object of its being devoted to the purpose of a convalescent home, and it was found necessary so to redistribute the rooms as to make them more suitable for receiving patients. That was done at considerable expense, which the House voted last year. After that a very strong committee was appointed to supervise the convalescent home. It included the chief medical

    863
    officers of the Army and Navy and a number of eminent civilian doctors. These distinguished men visited the building, and came to the conclusion that certain hygienic measures should be adopted in order to make the home of a first-class character. They were displeased with the quality of the water supply. They considered that the system of treating the sewage required certain changes, and finally, the most important recommendation they made was that the whole of the furniture in the patients' rooms should be of the type which was to be found in all the great London hospitals and convalescent homes. That involved a serious outlay. He could assure the hon Member for Partick that it was not owing to any negligence on the part of the Office of Works that this expenditure had to be incurred. No doubt the cost could have been anticipated and placed in a lump sum a year ago, but the distinguished scientific men forming the committee desired to see the house as structurally altered before making their final recommendations. Certain alterations had been carried out in order to make escape in case of fire more easy. The Office of Works had been solely actuated by a desire to see that the place should be a real convalescent home. The staff was about to be appointed, and the Office of Works hoped that in about six weeks from now the house would be ready to receive convalescents.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he rose to offer his sincere sympathy to the Secretary of the Treasury. He was sure it was the desire of all sections in the House that he should long continue to occupy the position he held. What did they find to-day? He had almost said that a malignant attack had been made upon the hon. Gentleman. He had been subjected to criticism of the most drastic description. Of course, the attack was somewhat mitigated in the minds of Members when they knew the peculiar circumstances under which the hon. Gentleman was attacked. When the Rules were altered so as to cause the House to meet at two, instead of three o'clock, it was felt that it would be difficult to get a good and constant attendance of Members so soon
    864
    after lunch. That had always been apparent, and he thought the result of their experience ought to make them go back to the old system. There was no need to go on with the discussion for the Government had now a good working majority. He had been in the House a long time, and he was a good judge of the course of events from the faces of the Whips. When he was in the Lobby he looked at all the Whips he could see. They were greatly agitated some time ago, but they were now in good humour. The hon. Gentleman could now allow the Vote to be taken, with the certainty that the result of the division would not materially affect the elections. He knew the times in which we lived were harassing, uncertain, and critical. One never knew what was going to occur, but it would be an objectionable thing if anything happened on the initiative of the hon. Gentleman opposite from Scotland, or if the blow should come from Peckham. That would be the irony of fate. Although he was opposed to the Government he sometimes pitied them. In order to give a helping hand to people who looked so dreadfully forlorn, he now announced that there was a Government majority and that there was no need for further anxiety.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that it would have been just as possible to have included this sum in the Naval Vote as the £40,000 for the naval cadets at Osborne. He had a definite pledge last year that it would not appear in the Royal Palaces Vote. On 21st April, 1903, he complained that this was a naval and military work and not a work on a Royal palace, and Mr. Powell Williams, whose loss they all deplored, said in reply—
    "The Motion of his hon. friend placed him in a position of considerable difficulty as a member of the Public Accounts Committee."
    And then he went on to say—
    "It seemed to him that unless it could be shown that the amount in question applied solely to that portion of Osborne House which was still a Royal palace it had no right to be on the Estimates before the Committee. It was obvious that a service for the Army and Navy should appear on the Army and Navy Estimates."
    Had that pledge been carried out? As he understood the position, that undertaking was not really being carried out.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was not going to waste the time of the Committee, but only in a word to show the absolute ineptitude of the Government and their Departments. Osborne House was not a Royal palace at all; it was private property. If it had been a Royal palace it could not have been disposed of as it had been.
    COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that it was rather indecent wasting the time of the Committee while waiting for a Government majority. It was difficult to see why the Secretary to the Treasury should not be able to throw any light on this question. This convalescent home was not likely to be occupied by naval officers, who were not likely to be injured in any war soon, so that it must be occupied by Army officers. He would like to have some more information as to how this sum was to be spent. They knew that some scientific men had gone down there and had made certain recommendations as to the electric light and all that sort of thing, but it would be far
    better to get more light on the whole subject as to how this money was to be laid out. The quicker this beneficent institution was completed the better. What amount was to be spent on recreation grounds? He always understood that recreation grounds were for men of active life, and not for convalescents. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had come in; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could throw some light on this Vote? A great deal of money had been thrown away without proper consideration.
    Sir JOSEPH LEESErose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put.
    Question put accordingly.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 161. (Division List No. 14.)

    AYES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Allen, Charles P.

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Bell, Richard

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mooney, John J.

    Blake, Edward

    Foster, Sir Mich. (Lond. Univ.)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Poland, John

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Murphy, John

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

    Gilhooly, James

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Brigg, John

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Grant, Corrie

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hammond, John

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Burns, John

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

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

    Caldwell, James

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Dowd, John

    Cameron, Robert

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Mara, James

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

    Crean, Eugene

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Crombie, John William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Joyce, Michael

    Priestley, Arthur

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reddy, M.

    Delany, William

    Labouchere, Henry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Leng, Sir John

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Levy, Maurice

    Roche, John

    Doogan, P. C.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw'sBghs

    Logan, John William

    Runciman, Walter

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Lough, Thomas

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Lundon, W.

    Shackleton, David James

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Sheehy, David

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr).

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Tomkinson, James

    Young, Samuel

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley oares, Ernest J.

    Toulmin, George

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Spencer, Rt.Hn.C.R(Northants

    Wallace, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Layland-Barratt.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifie)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardncr, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Garfit, William

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

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

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

    Arrol, Sir William

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Percy, Earl

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry)

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Bognold, Arthur

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Bond, Edward

    Hobhouse, Rt Hn. H. (Somers't E.)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Brassey, Albert

    Horner, Frederick William

    Smith, H.C. (North'mb Tyneside)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hoult, Joseph

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Spear, John Ward

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

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

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Stock, James Henry

    Chapman, Edward

    Kerr, John

    Stroyan, John

    Charrington, Spencer

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Olive, Captain Percy A.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Tuff, Charles

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Loveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Davenport, William Bromley

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

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Denny, Colonel

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

    Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne)

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Donglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Dyke, Rt. Hn.Sir William Hart

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

    Wylie, Alexander

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Morgan, D. J. (Waltamstow)

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Question, "That the Question be now put," put and agreed to.

    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHclaimed that the original Question be now put.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked what was the Motion before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has claimed that the original Question be now put.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that the hon. Gentleman did not move the closure.
    THE CHAIRMANThe Committee has decided that the Question be now put.
    MR. WHITLEYasked if the Chairman accepted the Motion for closure.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE (Leeds, W.)asked if the Chairman put the Question for the closure.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; and it was unanimously accepted by the Committee. The hon. Member for Accrington moved the closure. I put the Question and the Committee accepted it; and then I put the Question under discussion at the time, which the Committee has just disposed of. The Secretary to the Treasury now claims that the original Question be put and that is the question to be decided by the Committee.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid as the matter was one affecting the practice of
    the House he wished to ask a question regarding it. After the closure had been put and carried they all knew that the original Question might be put; but it should be part and parcel of the same transaction, that was that the hon. Gentleman who moved the closure should also claim that the main Question be put. The Motion for the closure was moved by the hon. Member for Accrington, and the Secretary to the Treasury moved that the main Question be now put. That was not part and parcel of the same transaction, and he never recollected a case in which the closure having been moved by a Member of the Opposition, the main Question was claimed from the Treasury Bench. He protested against it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It does not signify in the least who moves the closure. The question for the Committee to decide was whether the closure should be applied or not. It does not signify whether the Motion comes from an hon. Gentleman on my right hand or on my left. When the Committee has once decided to closure the Motion, the ordinary procedure follows.
    Original Question put accordingly.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 15.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Arrol, Sir William

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chapman, Edward

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Give, Captain Percy A.

    Garfit, William

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Coates, Rdward Feethan

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

    Balcarres, Lord

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

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

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Greene, Sir E. W.(B'ry St Edm'ds)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Bignold, Arthur

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Denny, Colonel

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Bond, Edward

    Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets)

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

    Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

    Brassey, Albert

    Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Brodriok, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs)

    Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Stock, James Henry

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

    Stroyan, John

    Horner, Frederick William

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    Taylor, Austin-(East Toxteth)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Tuff, Charles

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Percy, Earl

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Kerr, John

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kimber, Henry

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Lauric, Lieut.-General

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

    Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N.R.)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

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

    Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Ridley, Forde (Bethnal Green)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Wylie, Alexander

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Malcolm, Ian

    Smith, H.C (North'mb Tyneside)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.)

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

    Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

    Spear, John Ward

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

    Stanley. Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Allen, Charles P.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Mooney, John J.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Murphy, John

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Bell, Richard

    Gilhooly, James

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Blake, Edward

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Boland, John

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Grant, Corrie

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brigg, John

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Harwood, George

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

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

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Dowd, John

    Burns, John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Caldwell, James

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Mara, James

    Cameron, Robert

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Joyce, Michael

    Priestley, Arthur

    Crombie, John William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reddy, M.

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Labouchere, Henry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Delany, William

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Leng, Sir John

    Roche, John

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Levy, Maurice

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Runciman, Walter

    Doogan, P. C.

    Logan, John William

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Ellice, Capt E.C. (S. Andrw'sBghs)

    Lundon, W.

    Shackleton, David James

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Emmott, Alfred

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    M' Hugh, Patrick A.

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    872

    873

    Soares, Ernest J.

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

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Toulmin, George

    Young, Samuel

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wallace, Robert'

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Trevelyan.

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)said he did not now intend to move a reduction, he merely wished to inquire whether these improvements had been sanctioned by the former Estimate, or whether the Government had exceeded the original Estimate and had now come to the House to ask them to sanction this extra amount. He also wished to ask for some information as to what these improvements were; whether they were going to be improvements or not, or what was going to be done to facilitate the traffic and the convenience of those who lived in London. He would also like to see a plan of the improvements which were to be made.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he thought it would have been better if the Department under whose care St. James's Park came had submitted to the House last session the old plans of the park, so that hon. Members could have carried in their minds the suggested alterations and alleged improvements which had been carried out there. Had those plans been submitted, suggestions might have been made which would have led to considerable improvements in the plan as now revealed by the work as finished. He suggested, if it were possible, that we should depart from the German and French method of Haussmannising our parks in this country, the only result was to make London a second-rate Berlin, a fourth-rate Paris, or a fifth-rate Vienna. He preferred the old Mall as it was, and he certainly regretted that the improvement necessitated, if it did necessitate it, which he doubted,
    874
    the getting rid of so many old trees. Dealing with the improvement as it was, he said immediately in front of the Palace there was scope for making improvement, and he trusted that some attempt would be made to raise the lawns so as to hide the stone palisade, which, in his opinion, was rather too high. There was a still more important point, assuming that the new street from the Palace to Spring Gardens was carried out, and the Mall was carried straight from the Palace to Charing Cross, care should be taken that private enterprise and vested interests did not vulgarise what public money was trying to improve. Battersea had a particular claim on the Government in this matter, as £15,000 was to be diverted from the Battersea Park Fund in connection with the improvement of the eastern side of the Mall. Battersea was nothing if not generous and magnanimous, but they did like to be aesthetic and artistic. They did not object to being despoiled of this money provided it was spent in accordance with the true canons of art as understood in Battersea, but he doubted whether that condition would be fulfilled in this case. When the road was completed and the Nelson Column or the King Charles statue was made the visual objective, looking from Bucking ham Palace, it would doubtless be a desirable improvement for vehicular traffic, but one would then be confronted by the circular sweep at the northern part of Northumberland Avenue. The Grand Hotel was not a particularly handsome building, but it had not been vulgarised by sky-signs or advertisements of meat extract or pills, as was the case with the building on the western side of Northumberland Avenue. The only result of the expenditure of Battersea's £15,000 would be to see on the top of a high building in vulgar letters a bold blinking beacon advertising Bovril. Battersea protested against spending £15,000 to give this extract bold advertisement, and he suggested there was a way in which the noble Lord could deal with the advertiser.

    875
    This extract of meat claimed Royal Letters patent; the company had a royal crown on top of Bovril, on each side of it the royal monogram E.R., and underneath a vulgar illuminated sign. It seemed to him that advertisers holding the Royal Letters patent ought to withdraw such a sign in deference to the King, or out of regard for the amenities of the district. It they would not do so, he suggested that the noble Lord should advise the King to withdraw the Royal Letters patent from all their other advertisements until this sign was withdrawn. That is what he would do if he were King. If the noble Lord hesitated to adopt so drastic a measure, he might remember that in the House of Lords there were certain directors of this company, and he might appeal to them to withdraw the objectionable sign. If that were not successful, then other steps should be taken to prevent a public improvement being so vulgarised. Amongst other works which had been carried out he had noticed what appeared to be the beginning of a vehicular road across the small suspension bridge. He hoped there was no intention of making such a road; it was not required, and it would spoil one of the very finest views that he knew. He trusted that the noble Lord would display the artistic traditions of his house, and make the parks and open spaces even more beautiful than they now were.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER, who thought the alterations would be a real improvement, understood that the plans were all prepared long ago. If that was so, why was this additional Vote brought in now instead of having been included in the original Estimates for the year? Long before the Estimates were introduced it was known that this improvement was to be undertaken, and the matters mentioned in this item were such that anybody would have known were certain to be included in such an undertaking.
    MR. COGHILLentirely sympathised with the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea. The Board of Works had acted in a most autocratic manner. Without having given notice to anyone they had proceeded
    876
    to cut down trees, and they now asked the Committee to sanction the expenditure which had been incurred. The Estimate had been grossly exceeded. St. James's Park was one of the things in London of which they had every reason to be proud, and when he remembered the artistic demerits of Buckingham Palace he was not so sure that our ancestors were not wise to exclude it from view as much as possible. He suggested that if the arrangements with regard to St. James's Park were to be altered, the paths crossing the park should be kept open until eight o'clock in the evening all the year round. This would be a great convenience to Members on leaving the House at half-past seven,
    MR. EUGENE WASONasked whether in this sum of £18,800 was included the amount necessary for carrying through the Mall and pulling down the houses in Spring Gardens; when that work was likely to be undertaken, what class of trees were to be planted in the Mall—whether lime or elm—and when the new thoroughfare was likely to be carried through to Trafalgar Square.
    MR. O'MARAsaid that, while he sympathised with the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea, he sympathised still more with the people of Ireland who, although they had not been consulted in the matter at all, and would never receive any benefit from the improvement, yet had to contribute very substantially towards the cost. He understood that the improvement had been brought about by the erection of a memorial to Queen Victoria, and that the country had subscribed £250,000 for the purpose. He had nothing to say about that, but to ask Ireland to subscribe this amount at a time when the Estimates were growing yearly was very unjust, more especially when they had no assurance that this Estimate was going to be the last one on this particular improvement. He protested against the spending of this money, and he moved a reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,800, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. O'Mara.)
    MR. MALCOLMthought this was a proper occasion on behalf of a great many Members of the House and a large section of the public to congratulate the Board of Works upon the undoubted improvement now being effected in the Mall. One great advantage of it was that Buckingham Palace was in the middle of a beautiful view and made an attractive end to the new boulevard. With regard to the trees he had not shed a single tear over those cut down in the Mall, and he thought the trees that had just been planted would redound to the beauty of the Mall in time. The improvement made by the cutting down of the trees in Piccadilly was also a matter for congratulation, and he was glad that the Home Secretary had not departed from the original plan. He associated himself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea with regard to sky signs, which he hoped the Board of Works would take under their special protection and insist upon being removed where possible. They were positively ugly and an eyesore wherever they were placed, and it was very necessary and advisable that either the Office of Works, His Majesty, or the House of Lords should take a high line and have those sky signs taken down. He congratulated the Office of Works upon the improvements which had been made, which were being admired by foreigners as well as by people in this country.
    MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENwished the noble Lord to take into consideration the planting of another class of trees in St. James's Park. They had in the past devoted themselves too much to planting planes, and to have them all over London would be very monotonous. He did not ask for elms, because they did not grow well in London. He should like to see more limes planted, for they stood the London atmosphere quite as well as planes. He hoped the noble Lord would also consider the removal of the beautiful Burlington House colonnade into St. James's Park.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESvery much regretted the cutting down of some 400 trees in the Mall to carry out these improvements. The whole charm of Kensington Park, Hyde Park, St. James's
    878
    Park, and Regent's Park was that they imparted to this grimy brick city an element of beauty and freshness as though they formed an emerald chain hung round smoky London. To him their beauty arose from the fact that there were so many green things growing, and this had been very much affected by the cutting down of those trees. He was not going to criticise the general architecture of the scheme, but he thought the suggestion that the beautiful Burlington House colonnade might be employed in the ornamental portion of the Mall was a good one. There was one other point. He noticed that in these new works on the Mall a forty-foot road had been begun, and it had been made in the direction of the Green Park to within about twenty feet of the rails, where it stopped short. Was it intended to continue that road across the Green Park? There was a refuge in the middle which suggested that it was intended to make a footpath alone. He did not think such a road would have been started unless the intention was to carry it across the Park, for it was at present a cul de sac leading to nowhere. Was there any intention to carry that road across the Green Park? If so it would spoil the Green Park and would add nothing to the traffic facilities. He hoped he would have a satisfactory assurance about this matter. The opening of the Mall would undoubtedly be of the greatest possible advantage to London, because it would afford a means of going from west to east and east to west which would be of great value, because it would relieve the traffic of Piccadilly, the Strand, and Fleet Street; and the Mall would form such a thoroughfare as no other city in the world possessed. He would like to know where the Mall road was going to come out. If it was to open out at Charing Cross it would largely add to the congestion of the traffic there, because already four or five roads met there. They had at Charing Cross a sort of wheel of which that centre was the hub, and the amount of traffic there at the present time caused great inconvenience. He suggested that instead of the road of the Mall coming out at Charing Cross it should be taken to the south of the new Admiralty buildings to Whitehall Place. That would give a side entrance to the Embankment, and would very much relieve Charing Cross. He was very anxious that this

    879
    new thorough fare should relieve the traffic and not add to the congestion which already existed at Charing Cross. He made this suggestion for what it was worth. He noticed that this Supplementary Estimate was twice as much as the original Estimate, and how it could be called supplementary he could not understand. This alteration had been accompanied by a regrettable destruction of the green of London, but he believed that when it was finished, especially if carried out in the way he suggested through Whitehall Place, it would be a great advantage to the metropolis.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was sorry he could not agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the new avenue should be diverted to the south of the Admiralty. The adoption of that suggestion would involve a diversion of many yards, and it would bring out the road near the old Admiralty pay office, and the congestion the hon. Member wished to avoid at Charing Cross would take place there. He believed the eastern end of the Mall would come out at the best place. The confusion and congestion of traffic which the hon. Member anticipated would not be to the extent he imagined. He was sorry to say that the old colonnade of the old Burlington Arcade had during the fifty years it had been in Battersea Park lost its beautiful chiselling. For that reason the colonnade would not be suitable for the new avenue, though it would otherwise have lent itself to this particular improvement. He regretted the extravagance of the Office of Works in connection with this particular improvement.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid he thought what had been said by the hon. Member for Battersea was a sufficient reply to his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn in regard to the colonnade in Battersea Park. As to the footpaths in St. James's Park he could not give any undertaking now that they would be kept open to a later hour than at present. This question, however, scarcely arose on the Supplementary Estimate, and perhaps the hon. Member would raise it at another time when it could be considered. He thought it was quite out of the question to suggest at this stage of the proceedings that the
    880
    route should be altered and that another on the west side of the Admiralty should be substituted. The hon. Member for Lichfield had suggested that these plans had been prepared long ago, and that the Office of Works had withheld them.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid his complaint was that the plans having been prepared in time, the sum was not in the original Estimate.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid that was not the case. The plans were not prepared as early as the Estimates for 1903–4, and on that account they did not appear in the original Estimates. The hon. Member opposite had suggested that the work had been unduly hurried on. In a sense the work had been hurried on, because the memorial of Her late Majesty had made so much progress that it was impossible to leave St. James's Park in the condition in which it was. They had to undertake the work at the earliest possible moment. It was most desirable that the work should be carried out by the memorial authorities, and the Office of Works concurrently. The Queen Victoria memorial fund was managed wholly independently of the Office of Works. A very large sum of money was received for the memorial, and those who had charge of it went into the matter carefully. It was suggested that part of the main scheme should be a great group of statuary at the east front of Buckingham Palace. That was a very large affair, and when the memorial authorities began their work, the arrangements required for the parterres, drainage, and lighting, rendered it necessary for the Office of Works to co-operate with them. Someone had suggested that they ought to have taken the House into their confidence in this matter. The last thing they should have thought of doing was to steal a march on the House of Commons, but he would point out that the plans of the memorial and their effect on the thoroughfare in St. James's Park were made public a long time ago, and they indicated the line which the avenue would inevitably have to take. As lately as last session these plans were again exhibited so as to make it quite clear that the general line would be down the centre of the Mall. But until measurements were taken and

    881
    estimates received, it was wholly impossible for the Office of Works to present an Estimate to Parliament. His hon. friend had asked whether it was proposed to make a thoroughfare northwards across the Green Park. There was no intention of the kind. The idea was that from the monument northwards groups of trees should be planted so as to make a great vista towards the north. He wished to remind the hon. Member for Battersea that the money arising from the park there was given to that neighbourhood by the Government, and not taken by the Government from Battersea. The money was to be provided for by a Bill now before the House. That had nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate presented to-day. The Supplementary Estimate dealt with improvements in the Mall westward from the Steps. They proposed that the work from the Duke of York's Steps to Charing Cross should be dealt with by funds provided by Bill. The Office of Works had in Consols a sum of money which was the balance from the formation of Battersea Park fifty years ago. That Act stated that the money might be applied at the discretion of Parliament in or near the Metropolis. He could not discuss that matter now.
    An hon. Member had referred to the class of trees which were to be planted. He should like very much that the hon. Member would confer with the officials of the Office of Works on that matter. The trees which had been planted in the Mall were exclusively plane trees, being considered most desirable from the fact that they had a deciduous bark. When they were trying to make a great and homogeneous avenue, it was probably wisest and best to plant only one variety of trees. He would point out that the trees already in The Mall really had no chance. Some of them had been ekeing out a precarious existence in three feet of solid gravel. The young trees recently planted had been planted at great expense and with exceptional care in the finest soil available, and there was every reason to hope, humanly speaking, that within twenty years these trees would have obtained greater size than many of the trees which had been there a hundred years. His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn had protested against the destruction of the green of
    882
    London. He would like to inform the Committee that at this moment there were more trees and a larger grass area in St. James's Park than twelve months ago. He was glad the hon. Member for Battersea had referred to the advertising nuisances which everybody who travelled down the Mall must have noticed. One firm displaying the Royal monogram and an Imperial crown flashed its message down to the very windows of the Sovereign's palace. The Office of Works had no jurisdiction in the matter, but he could say that the fact of public attention having been drawn to this matter must unfailingly give a great stimulus to the movement now on foot to give public authorities the right to regulate the advertising nuisance. When the Mall improvement was completed it would be a great convenience to the whole of London. He lather deprecated the attack which had been made upon some of the trees. There were trees which were small and "consumptive," no doubt, but so at one time were many of the trees which now form the magnificent avenues such as those in Kensington Gardens; and when completed this avenue, besides being of immense service to the metropolis, would be a dignified approach to the memorial to Her late Majesty.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he believed that this improvement would be a great success. The explanations of the noble Lord had been most lucid, and considering only the information which the Committtee had been able to obtain from him, the noble Lord had proved a great acquisition to the Treasury Bench. It might be quite true, as the noble Lord had said, that the measurements of the last plans of his Department were not ready in time for the Estimates of last year. But why were they not? The plans of the memorial and the road had been prepared years ago and exhibited in the Tea Room and also to the public, and, therefore, it would have been very simple for the Department to take out the measurements in time to prepare for the original Estimates, instead of withholding them for a Supplementary Estimate. It was the fault of the Department that they were so slow in preparing their measurements.
    SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he was one of those who thought that this change was an enormous improvement, and would make a magnificent thoroughfare through the Park. It would make a very short cut between Charing Cross and Victoria, and there would be an enormous traffic between the two points which would rather damage it as an ornamental road. He did not believe that omnibuses and trams would ever be allowed there, but as a short cut there would be an enormous pressure of traffic. He thought the Department should consider whether a subway should not be put down beneath the road for tramways and heavy traffic. Such a subway in London would be a very large and important means of getting rid of heavy traffic; and no damage would be done to anybody or anything if, on this great road, the enormous traffic from Charing Cross to Victoria could be carried on by means of a subway. He fancied that it was rather revolutionary to talk of a subway under St. James's Park, but the matter might be considered by the Department.
    MR. SOARESsaid that he noticed that one of the items was for wood paving on the Mall. He did not see at all why that should be done out of public funds and not out of the rates. Why should his constituents pay for roads for the people of London? All that district was very wealthy indeed, and the people there were quite able to bear their own burden.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid he was glad to think that the expense of road-making and road- maintenance in these parks was not so heavy as some hon. Members imagined. From time immemorial the roads in these public parks had been paid for by Parliament and not out of local rates.
    MR. SOARESsaid that his constituents were paying for these London roads as well as for their own.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid that if the hon. Member's constituents were one of these days to go for a drive down the Mall they would be thoroughly well repaid for their contribution. As to a subway, he
    884
    confessed that the question had not occurred to him, and he did not know whether it had been considered by the Board of Works. He would, however, make further inquiry.
    MR. WHITLEYasked if this was a final Estimate for this improvement, or did the noble Lord anticipate any further call on Parliament for it?
    LORD BALCARRESsaid he did not like to claim finality for that Vote, but he thought it was, subject to the assent of Parliament being given to the Battersea Park Bill, when the surplus from the fund dealt with by that measure would be devoted to the eastern end of this extension.
    Question put, and negatived.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £31,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Stationery, Printing, and Binding for the Public Service to pay the Expenses of the Stationery Office, and the Cost of Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
    MR. WHITLEYsaid he had put down an Amendment to reduce this Vote by £1,000, in order to call attention to the very serious and increasing extravagance of this Department. It was not the first time he had called attention to the extravagance of this Vote. Four years ago the Vote amounted to £507,000; now it came to £732,000. If it were not for the sale of old materials in South Africa which would not recur they would have had to add £17,000, which would have made the total Vote £750,000 or three-quarters of a million spent on the Stationery Office. Two years ago they were told the increase in the Vote was due to the war, and that when the war was over the sum would go down again. Last year there was a reduction in the Estimates of £60,000, but when the Supplementary Estimates came forward they

    885
    were asked to go back on more than half that reduction, for the total sum now required was £48,000 and not £31,000 as put from the Chair. He wished to make one suggestion by which a saving on this Vote might be accomplished. Since the new Rules were adopted replies were circulated to unstarred Questions. He was not aware that any hon. Member asked for that. When he put a Question to the predecessor to the Secretary to the Treasury he was informed that Members wished the unstarred Questions to be circulated in that form in order that they might send them to their constituents to show what important persons they were. He had never heard of any such request. He found the mass of Papers which was circulated every morning a nuisance. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty was very fond of asking Questions, both starred and unstarred, and what the hon. Member cost the Exchequer in this way he could not imagine. Sometimes a sheet was taken up in a Question and Answer occupying five lines, and there was nothing on the back of the page. It was an outrageous piece of extravagance that printing should be done in that fashion. Why should not the Questions and Answers be printed continuously and on both sides of the paper. He wished the Secretary to the Treasury would state what the cost of printing and circulating the Answers to unstarred Questions was during last session, and also how much would be saved if the Answers were printed continuously and on both sides of the paper. It was a nuisance that hon. Members should be flooded with Answers to other hon. Members' unstarred Questions. If an hon. Member wished his Question and the Answer to it circulated, he could send them up to the Press Gallery, and arrange for their circulation himself. At present half to three-quarters of the Papers circulated consisted of Answers to unstarred Questions. That was one way in which expenditure could be reduced. Another way would be to estimate more carefully the requirements of the House as regarded Blue-books and other publications. He would like to have a statement of what the wastage was annually in connection with publications which were not circulated. The officials might not be able to estimate exactly what would be required, but it would be better that Members
    886
    should run short of publications occasionally than that an immense number of copies should be wasted. He moved the reduction of the Vote as an emphatic protest against what he considered the scandalous extravagance of the Department.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    MR. MALCOLMsaid he heartily associated himself with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken with reference to the unstarred Questions. Their bulk was a great nuisance, and people did not want them. As regarded wastage, he thought it was on the whole better that there should be a certain amount of wastage rather than Members should be unable to obtain the Blue-books they might require. It would be extremely convenient if a registered telegraph address and also one of the telephone numbers of the House were printed on the note paper. There were frequent complaints in reference to the present long address for telegraphic purposes. As regarded The Parliamentary Debates, the contract was constantly changing, and he did not know precisely what it now was. At present the reports were an extraordinary jumble. Sometimes hon. Members got other hon. Members' speeches for reference and the speeches were often extraordinary nonsense. If the gentlemen who were called the official reporters received £9,500 a year, he thought it was a large sum to get for doing work so badly. He thought The Times resume was infinitely better than the official report. If the official reporters had to supply a verbatim report, they fell lamentably short of their duty. He agreed with the hon. Member for Halifax that the bulk of the unstarred Questions circulated should be reduced.
    MR. BULLsaid he wished to draw attention to the way in which the Historical Manuscripts Reports were printed, and the poorness of the paper used for so valuable and permanent a work.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that would not be in order.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, E. Toxteth)said he wished to know what was the exact amount of the credit balance from South Africa? With regard to the Parliamentary reports his experience was that the reporting was excellent.
    MR. DALZIELsaid he agreed with the criticisms with regard to the enormous increase of the Vote. He thought it was due to a want of proper supervision. He wished to know who was directly responsible for checking the accounts of the Department. In his opinion no one man could possibly discharge the duty properly, and he suggested that a Committee of three Members should be appointed to supervise the Department. That would not necessarily mean superseding the official in charge, but it would be a check on extravagance. He had been a member of a Committee which had inquired into the matter a few years ago, and it was then found that there was no full open competition for the contracts. There appeared to be an opinion that when a firm once obtained a contract and discharged the work properly there was no necessity for a new contract. In his opinion enormous fortunes were being gained from the way in which Parliamentary printing was conducted. He would suggest that the contracts should be perfectly open. Last session a debate on an important subject had to be adjourned because the Parliamentary printers had undertaken so much work that they were not able to have the Papers ready for the day allotted for the debate. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member that answers to un-starred Questions should not be circulated, if that were adopted the only way of arriving at an Answer to a Question in which one was interested asked by another hon. Member would be to run round the House and try and find the Member who asked the Question.
    MR. MALCOLMsaid his suggestion was that instead of having fifty or sixty sheets of paper sent to them hon. Members should have all the Answers to un-starred Questions sent on one Paper.
    MR. DALZIEL: If the hon. Member did not suggest that the Answers should not be circulated—
    MR. WHITLEY (interrupting)said what he complained of was the bulk of the Papers, which might be reduced by 80 per cent.
    MR. DALZIELregretted that he did not quite follow the point raised. If the hon. Gentleman suggested that on the ground of economy the Answers to unstarred Questions should not be circulated, he hoped that his suggestion would not be followed. An hon. Member opposite wanted to make it easier for people to telegraph to Members. If he had his way he would charge double, as it seemed to him they ought not to do anything to facilitate the addition to the many communications they now received. With regard to the question of the reporting, there had been several Committees to consider that question, and it was not fair to blame the reporters for not giving accurate accounts of the speeches made in this House unless they were asked to supply a verbatim report. This House had left to their discretion the question whether the speeches should be reported fully or not, and it was left to the commonsense of the reporter to make an intelligible report of the speeches made. If in the exercise of that discretion he did not make it read as well as it might, it was not the fault of the reporter but the system. Nothing less than a verbatim report was of any use as a record, and nothing else was worth the money. They all knew that when a Minister looked at the report of his speech he had the right to take out what he did not like, and put in something he did, and when hon. Members came down a year after to pin a Minister to the statements he had made they found in the Debates quite a different version. It seemed to him they must make up their minds either to carry out the recommendations of the various Committees, and have a verbatim report, or else leave the matter to the discretion of the gentlemen who reported the speeches as at present.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Member opposite proposed to add to the horrors of this House. He proposed to add verbatim reports of the

    889
    speeches made in the House. The imagination recoiled from such a suggestion.
    MR. DALZIEL: I said it was the only thing to do.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid if hon. Members were really reported verbatim many of them would be very much amazed when they read their speeches, for only about one in ten was capable of finishing a sentence. With regard to these reports he noticed that sometimes a Member would be reported in the first person and sometimes in the third. One would suppose that that would depend on the eminence of the Member, such as members of the Treasury Bench, for instance; that there would be some rule. But he had noticed that the same Member was re ported sometimes in the first person, some times in the third, and sometimes in the first and third in the same speech. Some understanding surely might be arrived t between the Treasury and the contractors in this matter, as to some definite rule being adopted which should be adhered to. There was one very great defect in these Parliamentary Debates, which was that far too much time was taken in the printing of the reports, and not enough time was left to the Members for correction. He would suggest that the Treasury should insist that the printing should take one day less, and that Members should be given one day more for corrections. With regard to the unstarred Questions, he agreed with the suggestion of his hon. friend. The unstarred Questions and their Answers did account for the bulk of the Papers circulated. That more dignified document the Votes and Proceedings was printed on both sides of the paper and a considerable amount of matter was got into a single sheet. He thought the practice might be adopted in the case of the unstarred Questions, in which case the objections of his hon. friend would be got rid of. There was a very large in crease in the printing and publishing department owing to the increased demand of the Inland Revenue under a new system adopted by that Department. But he understood that that new system was of such doubtful merit that it would have to be abandoned.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had very little sympathy with what was now going on. There was great complaint on both sides of the House as to the amount spent on the Papers circulated to hon. Members, and suggestions were made with a view to economy. If the suggestion of hon. Members was carried out, the difference in the price of the Paper now and the price then would be at the most 2s. a day. He had still less sympathy with the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who was extremely anxious that his speech and others should be reported more approximately verbatim than at present.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On the contrary I objected to it.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid then he did not know what the hon. Gentleman was talking about. A great many hon. Members, at all events, objected to their speeches not being reported verbatim. There were gentlemen in the Gallery perfectly ready to report speeches for those hon. Gentlemen which they could send down to their constituents, but whether their constituents would peruse them he did not know. The fact that hon. Gentlemen had to realise when they made a speech in this House, was that that speech was not going to boom through futurity. Every hon. Member who spoke looked upon his speech as an epoch-making speech, but how many speeches were remembered three days after they were delivered. The hon. Member for King's Lynn wished for further time to correct his speeches. Why should he correct them at all? There could be no particular object, for he surely was not under the impression that they were all going to read them Let not hon. Members exaggerate the importance of the question of reporting, Every few years they had a long debate, and the general feeling was that speeches should be reported verbatim, and some years ago in one of those discussions a proposal was made that there should be a trap in front of the Table, and that every ten minutes a reporter should come up through the trap to catch the words that might be missed in the Gallery. It seemed to him that there should be, as in France, a précis of the debate for general purposes, and that only those things

    891
    which were worth remembering should be put into the official report. If hon. Members studied, as diligently as he had, other hon. Members when making a speech, they would find the hon. Gentleman repeating the same thing over and over again, and it could not be said to be desirable that the unfortunate reporter should be compelled to take down all those repetitions. How many numbers of Hansard were bought in a year by Members of this House? [An HON. MEMBER: None, we get them free.] That was true, but they would not buy them if they did not get them free. Putting aside public institutions, he doubted whether a couple of hundred were sold. Of course, the speeches of Ministers were important, but not on account of the ability of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who made them, but because they did not speak for themselves, but for the country, or a policy, or a Party, and, therefore, it was necessary that there should be some record of what they stated. The debates would frequently be compressed if there were no reporters in the Gallery at all. He appealed to the Committee not to exaggerate these trifles, or to imagine that the country cared one sixpence whether they had the speeches of Members or whether they had them not.
    MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.)suggested that Answers to Questions should follow each other consecutively, but only on one side of the paper. The system of printing Questions and Answers on double pages was most inconvenient, and he hoped that whatever course might be taken with regard to printing more than one on a page the pages would be kept separate.
    SIR A. HAYTERwas sure the Committee would desire to place the blame, if any, for the increase upon the right shoulders. The Public Accounts Committee had had before them Mr. Pigott, the head of the Stationery Office, who distinctly explained that the increase was not within the control of that Department. The public Departments them selves, and not Mr. Pigott, were responsible. The Departments estimated what they would require, and the increased Estimate was due to the fact that the Departments had made increased demands upon the Stationery Office. He thought
    892
    he ought to make that statement in justice to a public servant. With regard to the Blue-books all public libraries in large towns had power to ask for copies. In this way some of the spare copies went, and it was very difficult to estimate what the exact demand would be.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYasked whether the contractors for The Official, Debates were permitted to act also for any newspaper. His reason for asking was that the dissatisfaction with the reports might proceed from the suspicion that in allotting space to Members too much consideration was given to journalistic, rather than strictly historical ideas. With regard to the suggestion that there should no longer be any circulation of Answers to unstarred Questions, he was confident that that would lead to a large increase of starred Questions. These Questions and Answers were really debates in epitome. They were a safety valve which probably aved the House the times and trouble of debating many subjects.
    MR. CORRIE GRANTthought that there was another aspect to the question of the reporting of the debates, and that was from the point of view of the public interest. The House had long ago decided that it ought to have a record of its debates. The question was whether the present report answered the purpose. Could it be made better at its present cost? He thought it could. The House had derived no advantage from the improvements effected in printing of late years; its reports were supplied no more expeditiously than they were, say, ten years ago. Would the newly appointed Secretary to the Treasury state his views on the question of reporting, and was he prepared carefully to consider the question? Two or three Committees had presented Reports on the subject, but their recommendations had been ignored. Speeches of journalistic interest were always reported, but there were other speeches, not so attractive perhaps in form, but which, coming from Members specially informed, contained matter particularly suited for a record. Those speeches did not at present get thoroughly reported in Hansard, and consequently a great deal of material was lost to the

    893
    House which might otherwise have been of much assistance to Members who wished for information. The Secretary to the Treasury might receive much help if he would put himself in communication with the Chairman of the Press Gallery Committee, to see whether from the gentlemen concerned in reporting the debates of the House he could get some suggestions. The hon. Member for the Stowmarket Division was entirely mistaken in supposing that too much was paid for the reporting. Reporting daily became more difficult in the House. When there were only the two great divisions in the House it was comparatively easy to estimate what a speaker would say, and there was no difficulty in reporting him. Nowadays, however, when a Member rose it was impossible to say which of four or five policies he was going to support, and much attention was frequently required to discover the real point of his remarks. The House in dealing with its Hansard ought not to be niggardly. The salaries paid to the reporters ought to be higher than those paid to the representative of any newspaper, because the work was longer and the responsibility greater. He thought the House had never recognised how good a report they might get if they would only pay a fair price. He hoped the new representative of the Treasury would give careful attention to this matter and see whether he could not put the reporting on a really satisfactory basis.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether it would not be possible at the end of the session to have the debates relating to Ireland published in separate volumes. He believed that the debates were supplied in such a form to members of the Irish Government, and it would be a great convenience to Irish Members at large if such an edition was rendered generally available. The expense would not, he thought, be very large.
    MR. GODDARDpointed out that, although most of the speeches in the debate had been directed to the question of reporting, only £500 of the Supplementary Estimate was concerned in that branch of the Vote, whereas the total, excluding Appropriations-in-aid, amounted to £48,000. He was rather surprised that
    894
    there should be this very excessive Supplementary Estimate this year. Apparently a good deal of this expenditure had been brought about by the war, and therefore they had very good reason for supposing that when the war was ended there would not be any further necessity for Supplementary Estimates on the Stationery Vote. He was afraid that this Department had been really the butt of nearly every other Department, and they were never likely to effect any economy in the Stationery Vote unless they put a little restraint upon the other Departments; they seemed to be able to call to any extent upon the Stationery Department, which did not seem to have any check whatever upon other Departments. They would not effect any economy until they devised some means of bringing pressure to bear upon the other Departments so as to prevent them making these extra demands. That was the direction in which they would have to look for economy.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I will reply to hon. Members as shortly as I can. At the outset I should like to make this one remark. I am sorry to have to make the confession that, since I have been at the Treasury, I have not been able to give much attention to this matter of the contract for the reporting of the debates. I assure the House that I shall, as soon as I have the opportunity, devote my attention to it, and endeavour to see if I can do something to carry out the wishes of the House. In regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stowmarket, as far as this contract is concerned, it was presented to the House of Commons as a Parliamentary Paper in the usual course. In regard to Questions, a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Halifax, I have ascertained that the cost last year of the system of circulating unstarred Questions and Answers has led to a very considerable expenditure. The matter is one which is very largely in the hands of the authorities of the House, and I cannot promise to take any immediate steps. I think, however, that I pretty well know what the opinion of the House is on these points, and I shall be very glad to consult with the authorities of the House and see if something cannot be done to meet the clearly expressed

    895
    wishes of the Committee. I understand that a large number of Members would prefer that the Questions should be printed in the usual way, instead of beginning a new leaf for each Question, and that, I believe, would effect a saving. There might also be a considerable saving in the number of Papers sent out. The hon. Member for Stowmarket asked a Question about stamping the telegraphic address and telephone number upon the notepaper. I hardly like to take the responsibility of doing that without further support from the House, but it is clear that a certain number of hon. Members would find this a convenience, and there would be no difficulty in doing it. I propose, therefore, to see if a stamp can be prepared, and, if so, I will arrange for a certain amount of the new writing-paper to be placed about as an experiment. In reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, I may say that the amount of money he has mentioned is for stationery supplied in connection with the War Office. As has already been pointed out, it is almost impossible for the Stationery Department to resist any demand made upon it by other Departments, and it has often to supply those demands in an extravagant manner, because they are wanted very quickly, and consequently they are more costly. The House should remember, when complaints are made about the heavy cost of printing and stationery, that it is largely due to the very great demand for information which comes from the House of Commons itself, upon fiscal, War Office and other questions. No doubt this demand for information is perfectly legitimate, and I can only say that the Government will do the best they can to provide that information, and it will be printed in the best possible manner by the Stationery Office. But when the House of Commons complains of this expenditure hon. Members must at the same time remember that they are very largely responsible for that expenditure. So far as I am concerned, I shall do my best to carry out the recommendation which has been presented to us, but I must say that I do not at the present moment look forward to any very substantial reduction in this Vote, although I will make every effort to keep
    896
    the amount within as moderate limits as possible.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he understood from the statement made by the hon. Gentleman opposite that a large part of this expenditure had been incurred in respect of printing for the Board of Trade in connection with the inquiries upon trade. Surely that was a thing which was likely to cease after a time, and then they would get some respite from this increased expenditure. With regard to the reports of their proceedings, they were ample, although they were not very efficient. They did not want more money spent on those reports, but they wanted them shorter, and perhaps rather more sensible and clear. He noticed that sometimes the reports were in the first person, and sometimes in the third. He thought at any rate they might always be alike, and that would simplifiy matters a good deal. There should be as much economy as possible in these contracts, especially at this time, when the country was so short of money.
    MR. DALZIELsaid some hon. Members thought that the expense incurred in connection with the so-called fiscal inquiry was money which had not been very well spent. How much of the Supplementary Estimate represented money which had been devoted to the cost of printing and stationery in connection with that inquiry?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHreplied that he had not the information at present but he would endeavour to ascertain the exact amount. In regard to the Question asked by the hon. Member for the Hallam Division, he understood that there was nothing in the contract to prevent the printing firm or the reporters from undertaking newspaper work.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Will the hon. Gentleman rectify that in future, so that the reporting shall be perfectly independent of newspapers.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I cannot undertake to rectify the contract. I

    897
    think that is very much a matter for the House to deal with itself.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that with reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Clare as to the desirability of publishing all the Irish debates together, he would like to inform the hon. Gentleman that the volumes were supplied to the Irish Members of Parliament. He did not think it would entail very much additional expense if some more copies were published. He asked the hon. Gentleman to inquire whether that could be done.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid the hon. Gentleman had very frankly met the chief points raised, and that being so it might seem a little ungracious on his part if he were to press the Amendment. He moved in the interests of economy, and he had elicited the general opinion that the House would support the hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to bring about economies in various directions in connection with the Printing and Stationery Department. The hon. Gentleman was responsible to the Treasury, and he ought to back up the chief of the Printing and Stationery Department in resisting unreasonable demands from the different Departments. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he understood this Vote included the cost of the fiscal inquiry. What amount was devoted to that purpose?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he was unable to state exactly how much should be apportioned for the cost of the inquiry. He would make inquiry in regard to that.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the Committee ought to know now, because they might object to it. The House never agreed to the fiscal inquiry. A mass of statistics had been published which might, or might not, be useful, but surely they ought to know approximately what the cost of the inquiry had been. The Minister in charge of the Vote should
    898
    have everything at his fingers ends so as to be able to explain every single item.

    CLASS III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed!, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses."
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT Islington, S.)said the foot-note explanatory of this item was in the following terms—
    "The excess arises in respect of expenses incurred in connection with the arrest and extradition of Whitaker Wright, and the case of the convict Lynchehaun.
    He should like a little more information as to the details of this expenditure which he quite approved. He wished to know the exact amount incurred in respect of Whitaker Wright's extradition, because £2,000, merely in respect of his arrest and extradition, was in itself somewhat a large sum. He hoped, however, it was not the whole amount that the Government was going to contribute towards the costs in this matter. The state of affairs in relation to the winding up of companies and the frauds in connection with many of them had been such that it was absolutely deterrent to any private prosecutor to enter upon proceedings and so to add to losses already incurred. This remark applied to the liquidation of too many companies, and the result was, on the one hand, impunity for the offender and absolute waste, as the report of the liquidator of companies showed, of many millions of money, in a manner most detrimental to the true trade interests of the country. It was in the end advantageous to trade that occurrences of this kind should not take place without prosecution. In the debate on the Address the Attorney-General had made a statement not only of the facts from his point of view and also of the law for which everyone must have the greatest respect even when, like himself, they ventured to differ from it, but he answered what he supposed to have been some reflections upon his own honour and

    899
    impartiality in the treatment of this matter.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This Vote is not for the prosecution of Whitaker Wright. It is limited strictly to the expenses of extradition and the hon. Member must confine himself to that.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he accepted that ruling at once. He only wished to say that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to his own conduct was almost unnecessary, and everyone assented to it without a single reservation. He hoped, however, the right hon. Gentleman would feel that, justice having been vindicated, there was some reason for the course that was taken, and that there was a moral and a legal obligation on the State to do more towards payment of the costs of the prosecution than was implied in this Estimate. This was justified by the result of the trial, which he and others had anticipated, and their action had thus been justified.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)thanked his hon. friend for his frank and friendly words. The total cost of the proceedings for the extradition of Lynchehaun was £1,014, and there was a further claim which was estimated at £300. In the case of Whitaker Wright the total cost was £1,150. Extradition proceedings in America, as his hon. friend was aware, were for various reasons expensive. The amount in this Estimate rid not represent what the Government had undertaken to pay in connection with the Whitaker Wright prosecution. These costs would be put on the law charges, which would be brought before the House in the ordinary way.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he ought to move to reduce the Vote by £1,147, the whole of the costs incurred in the Whitaker Wright extradition. The ground of his objection was that Whitaker Wright ought not to have been allowed to escape from this country after the decision of three Judges. He himself thought that Whitaker Wright was likely to escape, and on 11th March he asked a Question—of course, contrary
    900
    to propriety, because nearly all pertinent Questions in this House were said to be contrary to propriety. His Question was—
    "I beg to ask the Home Secretary what steps, if any, are being taken by the authorities to prevent any attempt to escape from criminal justice by Mr. Whitaker Wright."
    And the Home Secretary replied—
    "The hon. Member has given me no notice of that Question; he had better put it on the Paper."
    Before he had time to put it on the Paper Whitaker Wright escaped, and was intended to escape. He believed that if Whitaker Wright had been a poor man it would not have been necessary to spend £1,100 to secure his extradition; he would have been instantly arrested. He maintained that the circumstances under which Whitaker Wright was allowed to escape looked as if there was one law for the poor and another for the rich. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that Whitaker Wright having escaped, it was desirable that the extradition should take place, and that he should be brought back here for trial. What he complained of was that the man was allowed to escape from the country at all. The Law Courts had undoubtedly held that Whitaker Wright had committed a very grave offence for which he ought to be punished, and he ought, therefore, to have been kept under some sort of police surveillance until the Attorney-General issued his warrant for the arrest. Under the circumstances he would vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend.
    MR. SOARESthought that the Attorney - General ought to reply. It seemed to him that one of two courses ought to be taken—either that the Attorney-General should acknowledge that he had committed a mistake in this matter, or that there should be an Appropriation-in-aid for this amount out of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's salary.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he would not be in order in going into the matter beyond the statement he had made the other day in the debate on the Address. The Government took every step in their power, and the extradition proceedings were successful. He had heard no suggestion that there was any remissness on the part of the Home Office, or of anyone connected with the administration of justice in connection with the escape of Whitaker Wright; and he felt sure that the hon. and learned Member was not serious in suggesting that the Home Office had connived at his escape. He
    submitted that the expenses were properly incurred.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would not go so far as to say that the Home Office connived at Whitaker Wright's escape, but they neglected their duty. He still held to the opinion that if Whitaker Wright had not been a highly placed gentleman he would not have bean allowed to escape.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 214. (Division List No. 16).

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gilhooly, James

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Allen, Charles P.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Price, Robert John

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Grant, Corrie

    Reddy, M.

    Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Beaumont, Went worth C. B.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Bell, Richard

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Blake, Edward

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Roche, John

    Boland, John

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Runciman, Walter

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Brigg, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Joyce, Michael

    Shackleton, David James

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Kilbride, Denis

    Sheehy, David

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Lambert, George

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Caldwell, James

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Slack, John Bamford

    Cameron, Robert

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Leng, Sir John

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Levy, Maurice

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Logan, John William

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lundon, W.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    Crombie, John William

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Tomkinson, James

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    M'Kean, John

    Toulmin, George

    Delany, William

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

    Wallace, Robert

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Murphy, John

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw's Bghs

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

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Emmott, Alfred

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Young, Samuel

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Swift MacNeill and Mr. Labouchere

    Fenwick, Charles

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

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Mara, James

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Anson, Sir Wlliam Reynell

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    O' Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leed

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Pemberton. John S. G.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry)

    Percy, Earl

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Platt-Higgins. Frederick

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Bigwood, James

    Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bond, Edward

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Renwick, George

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Henderson Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

    Brassey, Albert

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Bull, William James

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Butcher, John George

    Hoult, Joseph

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Chapman, Edward

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Charrington, Spencer

    Kerr, John

    Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Kimber, Henry

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Spear, John Ward

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

    Lauric, Lieut.-General

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Law. Andrew Bonar, (Glasgow)

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

    Stock, James Henry

    CON. Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Lawson. Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

    Stroyan, John

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Denny, Colonel

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Tuff, Charles

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Malcolm, Ian

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

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

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

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

    Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wylie, Alexander

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Wyndham, Rt Hon. George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Garfit, William

    Mount, William Arthur

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

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

    Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Resolutions to be reported.

    CLASS IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £29,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid that as regarded the inspection of national schools in Ireland, he was glad to find that the evening school system which was recently introduced was progressing favourably. The inspectors of the Board were almost unanimous in speaking in praise of the work that was being done. There was, however, one point which he wished to mention; which was of importance not only to every Irishman but also to every educationalist. That was the introduction of the Irish language, which was one of the greatest educational influences in the work of the evening schools. Inspector after inspector referred to the great local interest in education which was aroused by the introduction of the teaching of the Irish language; whereas in districts where it was not taught there was a lack of interest. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to encourage such an awakening of educational development among the people in Ireland. He was, however, sorry and surprised to find that the National Board had recently issued a circular in reference to the teaching of the Irish language in national schools. It pointed out that schools which had not reached a certain standard of efficiency would not be allowed to teach the Irish language as an extra. The Irish language was not mentioned specially, but it was the only language that could be referred to. He did not contend that extras should be taught in all subjects where the school was not up to a certain standard of efficiency; but the teaching of the Irish language had the greatest effect in raising the standard of a school and increasing its efficiency. If the circular were allowed to continue, 50 per cent. of the national schools would be excluded from teaching the Irish language. The circular also stated that no fees for languages could be given for any pupils in
    906
    a lower standard than the fourth. Scarcely any language was taught in the national schools except the Irish language; and, therefore, it would have been more direct if the Commissioners of National Education had referred to the Irish language alone. There were in Ireland 400,000 pupils enrolled in the first three standards; and if the circular were insisted on they would all be excluded from learning the Irish language. What was the use of teaching a native language unless it were taught from the beginning? He hoped that the Chief Secretary would see that the teaching of the Irish language, which had done so much for educational life in Ireland, would not be hampered by the National Board. With reference to the salaries of teachers, he asked the Chief Secretary a few days ago how many assistant teachers had been promoted from the third grade to the second grade, and the answer was three. He was aware that the Commissioners had certain authority to promote men who were doing good work and pay them accordingly; but in two years only three teachers had been so promoted. The Commissioners had not availed of their power in this direction, and there was no indication that they proposed to avail of it. At present national teachers in Ireland had very little prospect of promotion. He would ask the Chief Secretary to look carefully into the matter, believing, as he did, that the greatest injury was done to the cause of education in Ireland by the wretchedly inadequate system of payment there in force. In any other country in the world men who had the important work of training the youth were paid well, and it was only in Ireland that such a mean and niggardly system of payment was adopted. He would also ask the Chief Secretary to obtain the withdrawal of the circular issued by the National Board, who appeared to be striving with all their might to prevent the Irish language being taught in the schools.
    MR. BOLANDadvocated the development of the musical capacities of the Irish children, as was being done in the English schools. It was unfortunate that no proper attempt had been made to issue, for school purposes, a collection of Irish folk songs, together with the music for them. If that were done he was sure that the musical culture of the

    907
    children would be greatly assisted. He hoped the National Board of Education would issue at the earliest moment a proper collection of Irish national songs, not. only to the evening continuation schools but also to the day schools. In the preface of a folk-song book for English schools issued a few years ago. Sir C. Villiers Stanford said—
    "In our wide experience preference appears to be given in the schools to songs of an ephemeral character, or to new songs specially written, from which it is impossible to expect any lasting results; for a sound basis of musical feeling can alone be obtained from genuine folk songs, which have grown up along with the development of the country itself, and is is mainly through their influence that we may hope to develop that responsive sympathy which produces national art, artists, and art-lovers."
    and he had read that very day a review o Sir Horace Plunkett's, "Ireland in the New Century." which contained this extract—
    "A passionate conviction is gaining ground that if Irish traditions, literature, language, art, music, and culture, are allowed to disappear, it will mean the disappearance of the race; and that the education of the country must be nationalised if our social, intellectual, or even our economic position is to be improved."
    It was only by proper collections of these songs that the musical capacity of the people could be developed, and it was the only basis upon which useful results could be obtained. He further hoped that the Chief Secretary would see his way to carry out a reduction of the pupils from sixty to fifty as the average number entitling them to a teacher. An average of sixty very often meant a total attendance of ninety or ninety-five, and one teacher could not be expected to efficiently look after a. school with that number of pupils. Finally he hoped the National Board of Education would withdraw the circular relating to the teaching of Irish, in the schools. The Irish language was making rapid strides in the country, and it was because they wanted it encouraged in every manner, and every department, that they urged the Chief Secretary to do all in his power to get the circular withdrawn.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said there was nothing in this Vote pertaining to the circular to which reference had teen
    908
    made. The Committee were dealing with evening continuation classes, and the circular did not refer to evening continuation classes. His views on the Irish language were known, and he need not repeat them. The great increase in the evening continuation schools must be a subject of general congratulation. As a rule, objection was taken to Supplementary Estimates, but he thought this Supplementary Estimate in respect of evening schools ought to be welcomed in all quarters of the House. In 1901 there were only twenty continuation schools whereas the number was now over 1,000. The development had been so rapid as to exceed the Estimate originally draw up. With regard to the complaint as to slowness of promotion and the in adequacy of the salaries of Irish teachers, he admitted that the promotion was slow, but the remedy was not immediately obvious. The present system had the defect that it had caused a great multiplication of schools. It might be said on that ground that promotion should be more rapid, but that had not been the result. There was no local incentive on the part of managers, as the control was exercised by a central body. Consequently all the teachers in excess of the requirements—not of the number of schools, but of the number of pupils—did not get the promotion which they might expect in this country. At the outset teachers were worse paid in this country than in Ireland, but they had better prospects. This Supplementary Estimate gave some support to the argument which he had frequently used, that the new rules as to salary would be found to work out better than had been supposed would be the case. No less than £14,000 of this Supplementary Estimate was due to salaries and to increments accruing under the new rules. It was a complicated system, under which it was impossible to tell beforehand exactly how much any particular teacher would earn, and consequently at the end of the year there were certain balances of salary to be paid. Until some plan was devised for lessening the number of schools where they were excessive, the teaching profession could not hold out such good prospects in Ireland as in England. He would certainly give his attention to the subject,

    909
    but it was a matter which would require a good deal of consideration, not only for him, but for Members of the House, before a satisfactory solution could be arrived at.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid everybody recognised that it was impossible on this Supplementary Estimate to go as far into the subject as Irish Members wished, but there would be an opportunity to do so later. He wanted to ask the Chief Secretary if he could give a promise that if it was found that this circular on extra subjects issued by the National Board of Education, and in which it was said that no fees could be allowed for languages taught to pupils lower than the fourth class—if that circular seriously interfered with the teaching of Irish to large numbers of small children, he would take steps to change the circular in that respect. They knew the right hon. Gentleman had no power over the Board, but no doubt an expression of his opinion would carry considerable weight. He was very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the Irish language being taught. The result of excluding all classes below the fourth class from participating in the fees for teaching languages would be to exclude an immense number of Irish children from the teaching of their own language.
    MR. LENDON (Limerick, E.)said it was very hard that the Irish language should not be universally taught in the schools. He had been a professor of languages for over forty years and could testify to the value of the Irish language. The proper time to commence to teach it was when the pupils were quite young, and, if they deprived the youngest pupils of that privilege, it was possible that they would never learn the language at all. He also advocated the teaching of the Irish national songs. The Irish were a musical race, and it would be the greatest pity to deprive them of the pleasure and advantage to be gained from a study of music.
    And it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow: Committee also rep art Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) (EQUIVALENT GRANT).
  MR. SHEEHY (Meath, S.)said that any hon. Member who followed the story of the way in which Ireland had been treated in regard to the equivalent grant with respect to Irish technical education would see that all through the piece a system of chicanery had been pursued by the authorities with the collusion of the Treasury. As everybody knew, although the Technical Education Act was passed in 1830, no money passed under that Act to Irish education. By Clause 3 of that Act. however, the local authorities of England and Wales wee permitted to levy a rate on the locality, which was limited to one penny in the pound and the equivalent of the amount collected in the locality was granted by the Treasury. In the following year, 1890 by some extraordinary means, a sum of £1.304,000 derived under the Customs and Excise Act was placed at the disposal of Parliament and appropriated in the proportions of 80. 11.and 9. England received £1,043,200. Scotland£143,440, and Ireland £117,620. Whilst a certain proportion of the English and Scotch grants were devoted to technical education, the corresponding proportion allotted to Ireland did not go in that direction. A part of it was devoted to increasing the salaries of the teachers in the national schools, and some was used by the Treasury to pay off an old debt of the Treasury to the national school teachers in regard to their claims for superannuation. Owing to the special regulations made in respect to Ireland with regard to this grant, the operation of the Act of 1889 in Ireland became impossible, and the local bodies had to resort to all kinds of expedients to secure the grant at all. It was not till ten years after the Local Government Act was passed for England and Wales that a similar Act was passed for Ireland and under that Act the country for the first time was able to secure large grants and give a really

  911
  good start to technical education. In the previous year the functions of the Science and Art Department had been transferred to the Board of Agriculture and Technical Education, and within a year it was discovered that, although the functions of the Science and Art Department with regard to technical education were so transferred, no funds had been transferred to carry them out. For ten years after the passing of the Technical Education Act, England and Scotland had full advantage of the fund for technical education, with the result that England had received some £10,000,000 and Scotland £800,000, but Ireland during that period only received some £80,000. It might be said that Ireland had received all she was entitled to under the Act, but what they complained of was that ever since the passing of the Act of 1889 the Treasury, with the collusion of the Science and Art Department, had through a policy of chicanery kept the grants to which Ireland was entitled from benefiting her. Year after year the sums which under the Act should have been devoted to technical education had been devoted to other purposes entirely. From 1890 to 1897 the Treasury obtained from this House £58,629 for technical education in Ireland, not a penny of which was spent for that purpose. He desired to know what had become of that money and why had Ireland by this special regulation been deprived of it.
  So far as England and Scotland were concerned that money was given annually, but when it came to Ireland a new system was adopted and they were told that the grant was to terminate in 1904. Credit had to be given for the fact that the Chief Secretary shared the views of the Irish representativeson this matter, but unfortunately he was powerless to alter it. It had been said that the local councils did not use the power they had to strike a penny rate and demand the equivalent grant from the Treasury. That was true, because at the time, before the Irish Local Government Act, the local bodies of Ireland were the old grand juries who were only representative of property and they were not likely to strike a rate which would affect their property. It did not lie with hon. Members opposite to claim that the loss to Ireland during all these years
  912
  was due to the action of the local boards; it was due rather to the manner in which the Minute was drawn and the way in which the boards had been constituted. The Treasury, he asserted, had used some part of the Irish fund to pay off old debts due to the teachers of Ireland, and Treasury jealousy and jugglery had contributed to the impoverishment of Ireland in the matter of technical education. Every step taken by the local bodies to assist this education had been thwarted by the Treasury. Deputations had waited on the Chief Secretary, and although the right hon. Gentleman had consented to make an annual grant there was nothing to secure the payment of the money which they claimed. The Treasury had in fact disobeyed Parliament in this matter by retaining the money which should have been applied to technical education, or by spending it illegally. England and Scotland had had their share of this money—and an immense share it was—but it had been witheld from Ireland. There was no class of his countrymen at the present time which did not feel that Ireland had been most unjustly treated in this question, and only that day he had received a telegram from a Conservative gentleman—a member of a county board, congratulating the Irish Party on the action it was taking. His case was that the Treasury had persistently and by every device within its power secured that as little of this money as was possible should go to Ireland, and he now claimed that they should receive, not an empty promise or guarantee, but a distinct pledge that the wrong done should be repaired, and that the money which belonged to Ireland—£58,629—should be at once placed at the disposal of the Irish Board to be dealt with for technical education purposes without interference from the English Department. They wanted some form of finality in this matter; they desired to put an end to this diabolical treatment of Ireland, and they would continue the struggle until they got their rights. He begged to move the Resolution standing in his name.
  MR. JOYCEseconded the Motion. Time and time again the question of Irish education had been brought

  913
  forward in that House, and he often asked himself the reason why. This was only one phase of the educational problem in Ireland, and whenever they tried to solve these problems they were always met with the plea that there was no money available for Irish education. Whether it was a question of technical, primary, or higher education in Ireland it was all the same, there was no money to spare. In England money could be found for any purpose that was desired, even for the purchase of battleships which were not required, but when it came to providing technical schools in Ireland, red tape and Government officialdom blocked the way. Now the Irish Members had set themselves to try and find a remedy. They had public opinion in Ireland solidly at their back and technical education committees all over the land had passed resolutions denouncing the action of the Treasury and of the Government in trying to withhold a certain portion of the grant to which they were entitled. The technical education committee of his own city—of which he had been a member for years—had, on the motion of the Catholic priest, seconded by the Protestant minister, passed one of those resolutions. That showed conclusively that this was not a Party or sectional question, but that it was one in which all were deeply interested. Naturally, they in Ireland looked abroad to see how other places were situated in this matter. What was done in the matter of technical education in England, for instance? How much money was spent on it in London alone? Had he not been an Irishman he might have been tempted to wish himself a Londoner, in order to enjoy the educational benefits there to be obtained. In England the technical schools were catered for generously, and even lavishly, but in Ireland they were cribbed, cabined, and confined. What had they done in Ireland with the limited means at their disposal? Some years ago technical education was almost unknown in Ireland. There were a few small schools struggling along in a haphazard fashion, but when the people got local self-government they soon took advantage of the Act, and put in force their rate-levying powers, in order to secure technical instruction for the people. Quickly the schools which were established became successful and the attendance of the pupils rapidly increased.
  914
  He was present when Mr. Plunkett presented the prizes to the pupils in the Limerick Technical Schools, and when he paid a very high tribute to the pupils for their proficiency in the various classes they had attended. That fact alone should make the Treasury recognise that their claim was a just one, and accede to their wishes.
  Now he had a few words to say as to the equivalent grant. Before 1898 Ireland was undoubtedly entitled equally with the rest of the United Kingdom to the share in this grant, but as a matter of fact it had been withheld from them, with the result that the Irish committees had been crippled and had had to work under unfair conditions. He thought they had a very strong case. It might be said that the £55,000 a year was given in lieu of those rights, but that was not understood by anyone, and the Department formally announced to the committees that it was still open to them to earn the other grants in addition to the £55,000. He instanced the Limerick committee as one which, acting on the suggestion and with the approval of the Department, formulated and put into operation a portion of the scheme, on which they were spending £2,000 a year with admittedly excellent results. Of that sum £288 came from a penny rate, and £288 from the equivalent grant, the balance being from the Department, fees from certain science and art payments, and the income from a public hall, which they owned themselves, and which they gave free for technical education purposes. The income of the committee and the expenditure on the scheme were now equal, and the withdrawal of the equivalent grant would necessitate the dropping of nearly £300 a year. Besides, the city would be saddled with the penny rate, which was agreed to on the express understanding that an equivalent sum would be forthcoming from South Kensington. Now the Treasury stepped in to filch away £300 of the miserable income at the disposal of the city. It was no answer to say that the money could be got out of the development grant. That money was due to Ireland independently altogether of the equivalent grant. He asked the Secretary of the Treasury to say whether Ireland's right to the equivalent grant

  915
  had been revoked by the Local Government Act or the Technical Instruction Act, and, if so, what was the clause or section in either of those Acts revoking it. Hon. Members from Ireland claimed that this money was justly due to Ireland, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would not indulge in sympathetic speeches as the Chief Secretary did so often, but that he would give them some practical sympathy, and show that the claim now put forward would be fairly met.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the action of the Treasury in withholding the Irish Equivalent Grant for Technical Education is a violation of the intention or Parliament and a gross injustice to Ireland."—(Mr. Sheehy.)
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he desired in the first instance to express his intense surprise at the absence of the Chief Secretary, The Attorney-General for Ireland was there, but he was not concerned in the discussion of this matter, and could scarcely be said to adequately represent the Irish Government in this matter, which was one of vital importance to Ireland. It had been brought before the Chief Secretary by deputations representing every class, creed, and shade of politics in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman had repeatedly expressed the greatest possible sympathy. He would gather from the expressions of the Chief Secretary that he had been engaged in some sort of controversy with the Treasury on the matter, and that might be the reason for his absence, but it was not a reason which justified his absence. It was nothing short of a scandal that a discussion should take place on this subject in the absence of the principal representative of the Irish Government. They were dealing in this matter primarily with the Treasury, and he was sure those representing that Department would bring to the subject an unprejudiced mind and an anxiety to do what was fair. He had no doubt that the Secretary to the Treasury had tried to make himself acquainted with the merits, but he had not been concerned in this matter; it was quite new to him, and the responsible officer
  916
  of the Government who had been discussing the matter for two or three years with the representatives of Irish public opinion, was absent from the House. He therefore, on behalf of the representatives of Ireland, entered a protest against the way in which this debate had been treated by the Chief Secretary. He was embarrassed in saying the few words he had to say in the absence of the Chief Secretary. What he desired to do was to quote the right hon. Gentleman's own words. The strongest case that could be made out in favour of the Irish claim was to be found in the speeches of the Chief Secretary. On 1st April last year in this House the right hon. Gentleman spoke on the Irish development grant, and in showing the necessity of the treatment he proposed for that grant, he, as a proof of the way Ireland had been, so to speak, swindled by the Treasury in past times, instanced this very question of the equivalent grant for technical education. He said—
  "What is the result" In the nine years in the case of England between 1892 to 1900, sums amounting to £6,270,404 were devoted to technical education in England and Wales. Ireland lost two years altogether in that period; but in the remaining seven years she was only able to spend £71,900 on technical education, and out of that comparatively insignificant sum no less than £55,000 was expended in the last year"
  Then he went on to say that Ireland, because she was not in a position to spend the money that rightly came to her, was immediately robbed of the sum altogether. When last autumn a deputation waited on the Chief Secretary in Dublin Castle—a deputation representing all the county councils in Ireland and men of all Parties and classes in the country—the right hon. Gentleman made a most sympathetic reply and said that he would for the moment put forward what he presumed would be the argument of the Treasury, on which, by inference, at all events, he poured contempt. The right hon. Gentleman went on to point out the history of this thing.
  Although his hon. friends who moved and seconded the Motion had put the case clearly and emphatically he thought if would be well to summarise

  917
  it. The grant with which they were dealing was made under Section 3 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889. That Act provided that this grant was to be administered from the Science and Art Department in London, and in accordance with regulation' made by them. The regulations that were laid down were to the effect that for every penny raised by the local authority from a local rate, a penny would be contributed out of this grant. After an interval of many years, during which, owing to Ireland's un preparedness, the money did not come to Ireland at all, the Act of 1899 was passed. That Act transferred from the Science and Art Department in London to the new Agriculture and Technical Instruction Department in Dublin all the powers and rights which the Science and Art Department had previously exercised in this matter. That was to say, the new Department in Ireland was to carry out the regulations which had previously been made by the Science and Art Department in London. It was true that with the establishment of she new Department in Ireland a sum of £55,000 was placed at their disposal for the promotion of technical education, and the Treasury might contend that that was in substitution for the grant that previously existed, but he would quote the action of the new Department to refute that. What did the new Department do? The moment these powers of the Science and Art Department were transferred to them they issued a circular to the local bodies in Ireland saying that they had now taken over these powers and explaining to them that for every penny in the £ put on the local rates the new Department were prepared to supply a penny more. He WHS happy to say that during years past the interest in technical education had increased enormously in Ireland and people were more prepared to undertake the work. Consequently the circulars issued by the new Department had the effect of putting into action all those local bodies up and down the country, and they proceeded at once to tax the localities and put this penny per £ rate on, and so it remained until suddenly the Treasury informed the new Department that they had made a great
  918
  mistake and that they had no authority to issue the circular, and that the penny in the £ could not be given. The new Department then issued another circular stating that they had made a mistake, and that according to orders received from the Treasury this grant had been withdrawn and that they could not provide the money. Th3 people up and down the country had taxed themselves and had incurred expense and liability in inaugurating a system of technical education on the strength of the undertaking given by the new Department that the arrangements which had previously existed would continue. It was a monstrous thing for any Minister who had any interest whatever in the promotion of technical education in Ireland to attempt for a moment to justify what had happened. As a matter of fact, if the people in the various localities took full advantage of this provision of a penny in the £ it would give a sum of over £60,000 a year. But the proceedings had been gradual, and at the time the grant was withdrawn, the penny in the £ contributed by the Government only amounted to, he thought, £3.500. He was not sure whether it was £3.500 or £7,000 a year. The claim now put. forward was a dual claim, first that the original arrangement should stand, and that the penny in the £ should be available all over Ireland wherever the people taxed themselves to that amount. The claim had been whittled down, but at any rate £7,000 should be permanently available. He, for his part, would not be satisfied with this arrangement. The Irish people were in this matter the victims of bad faith; they had been induced to tax themselves for technical education under false pretences; and in the circumstances it was the plain duty of the Treasury to stand by the original arrangement with regard to the equivalent grant. Otherwise the spread of technical education in Ireland would be interrupted and the industrial development of the country arrested. This was not a matter of politics, and he leaped the Unionist Members from Ireland would assist in endeavouring to obtain some justice from the Treasury on this occasion. In the matter of technical education Ireland was behind every

  919
  civilised nation in Europe, and now that the interest of the people had at last been really awakened, and when they were anxious to tax themselves in order to promote this kind of instruction, surely it was not too much to ask that the engagement solemnly given by the Treasury should be kept and that the Irish people should not be filched of this miserably small sum which was necessary to go on with the work.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,)said this question was full of intricacy, but he could say that he approached it with a mind entirely free from prejudice and anxious only to arrive at a conclusion that was fair and just. In the Estimates for 1891–92 grants were for the first time inserted for the purposes of the Technical Education Act of 1889 in the United Kingdom. In 1890 the Local Taxation Act was passed, by which what was known as "the whiskey money" was placed at the disposal of the local authorities who were authorised to utilise it in Great Britain for technical education. The special grant under the Technical Education Act was then withdrawn from Great Britain but continued to hold good with regard to Ireland. Under the Local Taxation Act Ireland received her full share of the "whisky money," out of which a sum of £78,000 a year was allocated to the Commissioners of National Education and the balance to the Intermediate Education Board. Under the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Act of 1899 that £78,000 a year was transferred from the Commissioners of National Education to the new Department of Agriculture, and £55,000 a year of that sum was specially earmarked for technical education. He found that in the year 1892 there was on the Estimates a special grant for Ireland of £500; but with the increase of money raised by rates for technical education the grant, corresponding to the rates increased to £3,500, at which amount the grant was continued up to the present moment. This specific sum of £55,000, earmarked for technical instruction, was naturally regarded by the Treasury as superseding
  920
  the necessity for the smaller separate grant previously provided, apart from which Ireland was on terms of absolute equality with England and Scotland. The special grant in aid which had been given to Ireland for a considerable period, the Treasury decided should come to an end.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if that meant that the £3,500 known as the equivalent grant was merged thereafter in the £55,000?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: said he had pointed out that the sum of £3,500 had been paid up to that time out of the grant voted annually by the House. They now came to the point when in 1901 the Chancellor of the Exchequer concluded that to put the two countries in a position of entire equality, the special aid grant should cease. Representations were made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in consequence of these representations the Treasury undertook that the old grant of £3,500 should be continued for three years more, on the ground that there had been some misunderstanding; that the new Department should not be placed in any disadvantageous position, and that in the interval of three years they should have time to make arrangements to provide out of their endowment for the future of technical instruction in Ireland. He must say that he could not see that the Treasury were liable to the accusation of having acted unjustly to Ireland. They had granted everything to Ireland which had been granted to England. Ho did not wish to labour the point, but having considered the matter deliberately and dispassionately, he did not think that Ireland had fared badly; in fact, it had done rather well. The special grant would be continued to the 31st March, 1905, on the distinct understanding that, after that date, it would be withdrawn from Ireland as it had already been withdrawn from England and Scotland. Speaking on behalf of the Government, they fully recognised the importance of technical education to Ireland, and he thought that their past history

  921
  showed that they had treated Ireland exceptionally well, and that they had got nothing to look back upon as discreditable in these transactions. He was strongly of opinion that they had acted in the right, and had in no degree whatever merited the Resolution that had been proposed.
  MR. SHEEHYsaid he wished the Financial Secretary would explain what the Treasury proposed to do with the £58,629 which was voted by this House for Irish technical education, and never spent in Ireland.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he believed that that sum was at the disposal of the Department of Education in Ireland, which was responsible for it. If it could be shown that the regulations under which those sums of money were administered, prevented the money from going to the objects for which it was required, the matter would receive the careful consideration of the Treasury.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.)said that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could hardly think that the Irish Members would be satisfied with the answer he had given. The hon. Gentleman had discharged his duty with great ability, and his speech showed that he had devoted considerable attention to the question. He gathered from that speech, however, and the materials supplied to the hon. Gentleman by the Treasury officials, that the Treasury imagined nobody understood this question in Ireland. Those of them who had made a study of this question for years past must have been surprised at the figures which the hon. Member had put before the House. The Financial Secretary had told them that all that Ireland was allowed by the Act of 1899 was a sum of £3,500. That was a most astounding statement. Ever since the year 1889 a large sum had been put down on the Estimates and voted by the House for the purposes of technical education in Ireland. It was a most extraordinary thing that in 1890 the amount voted for technical education was nearly £14,000, but only £8,000 had been spent; and yet
  922
  they were told that all the money ever asked for, or spent in Ireland on technical education was £3,500! He thought the speech of the Financial Secretary showed what the policy of the Treasury was as to the Acts of 1889 and 1899. That policy, he contended, was an endeavour to get out of the obligations placed upon the Treasury, by Parliament, in return for payments made by Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer. The history of technical education in Ireland was rather complicated. It began with the Act of 1889, under which a certain amount was allotted to Ireland for technical education, which sum was to correspond with a rate of one penny in the £, which would be levied by the Irish local authorities. That was in return for the whiskey duty which was paid by Ireland. If that rate had been struck the amount available for technical education in Ireland would have been £63,000 a year. As a matter of fact that amount had not been spent, for the simple reason that the regulations would not work except to a very limited extent. Each year a certain sum was put on to the Estimates to be devoted to technical education in Ireland under the Science and Art Department, but in no year was the sum voted, which varied in amount, spent in Ireland. What happened then? This Irish money which had been voted by the House for technical education purposes in Ireland was not spent in Ireland, but on technical education in England, the total amount so appropriated from 1889 to 1899 being probably not far short of £100,000. When attention was drawn to this matter, separate accounts were no longer kept and they were not able to discover how much money was voted for technical education in Ireland. Then came the Act of 1899, under which £55,00) was granted to Ireland for technical education. That was not English money, but Irish money from Irish sources; it was part of the revenue of the Irish Departments derived from the Irish Surplus Fund, from Ireland's share of the probate duties, from the extinction of Irish judgeships, and from economies in Irish administration. There was nothing in the Act of 1899 which implied that the original equivalent grant was to be waived or done away with. Unless the

  923
  Treasury could prove that an Act of Parliament had taken away that grant, they had a right to insist upon the payment of the £100,000 of the Irish money spent in England, of £63,000 a year which was the equivalent of the penny rate, and this further sum of £55,000 provided under the Act of 1899. When the English Education Act of 1892 was in Committee objection was taken that that Act would prevent Ireland from getting an equivalent grant for technical education, but this was specially met in that Act.
  When the Act of 1899 was passed the Irish people set to work in earnest to start technical education. They struck a rate and did everything in their power to earn the money voted by Parliament. They were encouraged by the Irish Agricultural Department, and told that they would get a penny in the £ from them and a penny under the Act of 1889—that the two together would be equivalent to something like £118,000 a year. Now, the Treasury wished to put Ireland off with £3,500 a year! They were told that they would get £7,000 instead of this £355,000. He wanted to know whether that sum had been paid, for he had a suspicion that it had not been paid, and he hoped the representative of the Government would give them some information on this point. They insisted that this £55,000 should be given to them in addition to the £63,000 which was Irish money. They would not under any circumstances consent to charge the Irish development grant with any future acts of generosity which the Treasury might contemplate with regard to Ireland. That money had been granted for a specific purpose and they insisted upon that purpose being fulfilled.
  He wished to say a word on the question of technical instruction buildings in Ireland, and this was a question to which he invited the special attention of the Treasury Bench. The local technical instruction committees had done their best to provide accommodation for the technical schools. It was all very well when they understood they were to get twopence for every penny they raised under this Act, but now they were only to get £3,500, and a very great difficulty had arisen upon this question of providing accommodation. It was the same all over the country, for
  924
  the technical committees had not money enough to provide proper school accommodation, and they were at their wits end to know how to carry on their work. If they built the necessary schools all their money would go and they would have no funds left to teach their pupils. This question was a very serious one and, he hoped it would be carefully considered. At the present time they were not. allowed to use any part of their technical rate to pay interest on any money borrowed for technical school buildings. He wished to remind the Government that all over Ireland there were model schools, and generally they were not of much public utility, and he thought the Treasury could very easily utilise those schools for the purposes of technical education. He thought that would put those schools to a much more useful purpose without any hardship to anybody, and there would be an easing of the situation. The equivalent of the Irish money spent in England for technical education ought to form a nucleus for providing a building fund for Irish technical schools. Technical education was what the masses of The people in Ireland needed in order to fit them for obtaining their livelihood, and in view of the importance of this question he hoped the Treasury would reconsider their position, and give them a more satisfactory answer to the points which had been raised.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTthought the Government was wise in endeavouring to foster the technical instruction which was necessary to equip the youth of Ireland for the keen competition which was now going on. There was at present a difficulty as to means. They were allowed to strike a rate of a penny in the pound, or £4,500 a year, but this would be more than absorbed in interest on the buildings. This caused a very serious difficulty. The only fund they had at their disposal was their share of the £55,000, and that amounted to £9,000 or £10,000 a year. This money, however, was absorbed in equipping the schools with first-class teachers and appliances, without which they could never hope to grapple with the question, and become up-to-date in regard to their

  925
  education. The hon. Member who had just sat down spoke of a sum of £63,000, but he did not think that amount came into the question at all until every constituency in Ireland had adopted the Act.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: They have all done it now.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid that not a tithe of them had adopted it, and not a tithe of them had provided a penny in the pound. There was only a small proportion of the governing bodies in Ireland that had made this rate in order to grapple with education. Therefore they had no right to speak of this £63,000. The penny in the pound ought to have its equivalent. Education was not of so much value when it was given for nothing, and the community that taxed itself for education was more likely to be careful in the distribution of the money, and in seeing that they got proper value for it. His hon. friend had said that he proposed putting down next year the sum of £3,500, but he had limited it to one year, and by so doing he had taken the grace out of the act. He urged the hon. Member to realise that if Ireland was to be brought up-to-date in educational matters there was a little debt owing to her. He did not blame the Treasury entirely, for the people of Ireland were only just waking up to the importance of this question and realising its value. If in the past they had taxed themselves they would have received a larger amount. In Belfast they received small doles from South Kensington, but, now they had come to face the question, he did not think £55,000 a year would be sufficient to bring them up-to-date. He implored the Treasury to deal generously with a people who were quick in learning, and who, if they received this instruction, were thoroughly capable of competing with any people in the world. He implored the representatives of the Treasury to consider this question, and not return an unsympathetic answer. He hoped the sympathy of the Government would take a concrete form, and come down to them decently in pounds, shillings, and pence.
  MR. CREAN (Cork, S.E.)said the Government had tried to prove by
  926
  fictitious figures that these grants had been more of a gain to Ireland than a loss. The instant the people of Ireland woke up and put their House in order in Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Dublin, and other centres, which were striking a full grant, they were not granted the equivalent from South Kensington, and the Treasury set themselves to work to cut down the grant. In one year in Scotland they received £78,000, whereas Ireland only got £4,000, although the people of Ireland had contributed sufficient money to entitle them to five times that amount. At the present time the administration of the education funds made it impossible for them to earn the money. Some time ago they sent to Ireland some Scotchmen as instructors, and they pointed out to the educational authorities in Ireland how in Scotland they were earning so much money. Ireland adopted the same methods, but the Government stopped their grants. He believed that if Ireland had gone on in the old groove the equivalent grant would never have been taken from them. Ireland had been robbed altogether of nearly £1,000,000 in this way, and he believed that this money, which had been deliberately taken from them, had been devoted to English purposes, and they would not tell them where the money had gone to. The hon. Member opposite had stated that they were not allowed to use this money for building purposes, but that was erroneous, for they were allowed to use it for buildings, but if they did use it in that way they would lose what they would otherwise receive from the equivalent grant. They were obliged to use this money for the equipment of their schools, and after this had been done they had no means to supply the wants of the students properly in regard to housing them. In Cork City they had equipped the schools as efficiently as the needs of the community required, and they had contributed all the money they could under the Act. But if this equivalent grant was taken away the masters and teachers employed there would have to be dismissed, and one of the most important schools there—the School of Music—would have to be closed. He believed that the amount of money they

  927
  would lose by this Treasury trick would be about £700 a year. They had been deprived of many advantages whilst the English community had been receiving this money. Just when the benefits of this education were coming to them, that was the moment chosen by the Treasury to refuse these grants. He believed many of the schools in Ireland would have to be closed if the Treasury persisted in taking this course. He wished to inform the Government that they had not heard the last of this question. Money had been squandered lavishly on English technical instruction, and the Treasury were now attempting to embarrass their advance in this direction in Ireland. In Germany they spent four times the amount of money that England spent upon technical education. If the Government were going to spend all this money equipping England alone, and if they left Ireland without an equivalent, he assured them that they had not heard the last of this question. If they embarrassed Ireland in regard to technical instruction, Irish representatives would embarrass the Government in other ways.
  MR. WOLFFsaid that before they were prepared to adopt technical education a certain amount of money was voted by Parliament, and he should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell them what had become of that money. Was it still available I Independently of whether they were entitled to that money or not, he did not think it was a wise policy for the Government to stint technical education in Ireland. Recently there had been an awakening in Ireland upon this question. Meetings had been held in Dublin on the subject, and if encouragement was given to the Irish people to enter more into industrial pursuits, they would do so, and the first encouragement was to give them that technical education which would enable them to undertake occupations of any sort. The manufacturing portion of Ireland seemed to be centred in the eastern portion of Ulster, but he wished to remind them that they could purchase coal as cheaply in Cork as in Ulster. If the people there had never
  928
  been accustomed to mechanical work there was no better way of supplying this deficiency than by giving them technical instruction. Whatever the grants were they were entitled to have them. He could not say whether they were getting their fair share or not, but in any case it would be a wise thing for the Government to stretch a point and give them sufficient to enable Ireland to keep on those schools which had been started, and which otherwise they would be obliged to shut down.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not think I can add very much to what has been said as to the history of this subject by my hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I should like to say that I share with my hon. friends from Ireland who have spoken on this subject, the desire to see technical instruction promoted and successfully carried on in Ireland. I quite agree with what my hon. friend has said, that there is no greater need at the present moment than that for technical instruction, and that it will be something in the nature of a disaster if that technical instruction cannot be given, or if its progress is checked and thwarted by any action of ours. But the Motion which has been put upon the Paper is a Motion of censure on the Treasury in connection with what the mover calls—
  "The action of the Treasury in withholding the Irish equivalent grant for technical education is a violation of the intention of Parliament and a gross injustice to Ireland."
  We have heard to-night some very interesting, and, I admit, very temperately put, speeches from both sides of the House, but I think that, at the root of those speeches, there has been the idea that the Treasury are dealing unfairly with Ireland, and withholding from Ireland the equivalent of something which is available in England, Scotland, and in Wales. But that is not the case, and I propose to show the House that it is not so. In so doing I shall be obliged to recapitulate what has already been said to the House by my hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury,

  929
  and I may say I do not think his arguments have received sufficient attention.
  These technical instruction grants had their origin in the Technical Instruction Act of 1889, and for the first time, in the year 1891–1892, a sum was put upon the Votes for the promotion of technical instruction under those Acts. In Ireland the full equivalent was given, but the amount was divided, part of it going to the Board of National Education in order to place the teachers' fund in a sound financial position, and the remainder was given to the Board of Intermediate Education. From that time when this money, commonly known as the "whiskey money," was made available, the English, Welsh, and other grants made in the United Kingdom outside Ireland, stopped, but the grant to Ireland continued. It started at £500 a year and gradually rose until in 1897–98 it reached £3,500 a year, and it has continued at that figure, with a slight decrease of about £100, ever since. This grant had no equivalent either in England, Scotland, or Wales. It was continued, because, in the first instance, the Irish equivalent to the English grant was appropriated to these other purposes. In the year 1899, the new Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction was established in Ireland, and to that Department was given, besides an endowment from other Irish funds, the sum of £78,000 out of the whiskey money. The teachers' pension fund having been put into a solvent condition, the money was no longer required for that purpose, and it was made available in Ireland, as it was in this country, for the purposes of technical instruction, the sum being £55,000. My object is to show to the House that Ireland has had its equivalent for every grant made to technical education in this country; that it not only has had its equivalent, but that ever since 1891–92 it has had a sum allotted to it which will continue, under a decision of my hon. friend the Member for Croydon when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, up to the close of the next financial year. Therefore, in addition to the full equivalent for anything given for England or Wales,
  930
  it has had this additional sum which was peculiar to Ireland.
  Then we come to the English Education Act. Naturally a very considerably increased grant was made from the Exchequer to the local authorities in aid of the new additional expenses of education in this country. But Ireland had its full equivalent. Ireland had £185,000 as an equivalent grant, and it is that grant which forms the development fund to which allusion had been made. In appropriating this Irish grant by Act of Parliament for Irish purposes, the first purpose provided for was education, and it was intended that out of this fund made available for Ireland as the equivalent of what was allotted to England, Irish educational needs should be met in the form in which those needs arose. In the speech made by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford alluded, my right hon. friend was arguing against the spending of this money at that moment because he contended that Ireland was not ready for it, and ought not to be forced to spend the money on exactly the same purposes as it was devoted to in England, when the needs of Ireland were not the same. The principle that Ireland should have its equivalent was accepted by the Treasury and by my predecessor, and its equivalent was given in the form of the development grant, which is at the disposal of the Irish Government for Irish purposes, subject to appropriation in this House in the annual Estimates. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford quoted a sentence from the speech of my right hon. friend in which he spoke of the much larger sum which had been obtained in England and which had been expended in this country on technical education from 1892 to 1900 than had been spent in Ireland. I have shown the House that Ireland had its equivalent, and if it was not spent on technical education that was because, in the needs of Ireland at that time, the House chose otherwise to direct. It was not fair to quote what my right hon. friend said and to suggest that he had intimated to the House that Ireland had had no equivalent,

  931
  because the Chief Secretary pointed out in the very next sentence that they had had their equivalent, though he did not think it had all been spent to the best advantage. I am not entitled to dispute the judgment of my right hon. friend, but I know the Chief Secretary is anxious to communicate with Irish Members on both sides of the House in order to secure that the funds available for Irish purposes shall be spent to the best advantage for Ireland, and he desires to obtain, if he can, some consensus of opinion amongst Irishmen of all shades of political opinion as to how the educational development of Ireland can best be carried out.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Why is the Chief Secretary not hero to speak for himself?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is a needless interruption. This is a question which directly affects the Treasury, and those who represent the Treasury are here to answer. When hon. Members desire it they can move a vote of censure on the Chief Secretary, an expedient which is not altogether unknown, and then my right hon. friend will be here to answer it. It is not the practice of the House to demand the presence of all Ministers referred to in the course of a debate, and it is impossible for a Minister to always be present when questions arise touching his Department.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The Minister responsible for the Government of Ireland ought to be here on every important Irish debate.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the practice of the House, nor is it possible for Ministers to be present in the House so frequently as hon. Members opposite appear to think. I was speaking of the equivalent grant which Ireland had obtained for the grant given to England under the recently passed Education Act. My right hon. friend, in the same speech to which allusion has already been made, said a little further on—
  "This money would be wasted if Ireland were bound to spend forthwith what she could on education, and leave the balance; accordingly he put it into the development grant. So that whilst this grant of £185,000 is to be an
  932
  indemnity to the Treasury against future demands on the score of education, and a promise to Ireland that such demands should be met, the whole of it now cannot be profitably spent, and in my opinion some part of it should be devoted to the development of evening continuation schools and to the promotion of technical instruction, and Ireland ought not to have to choose between the alternative of wasting or losing the money."
  Ireland was not invited to choose between those alternatives, but the money was secured to her and is available now for the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, who can promote technical instruction in Ireland if they wish: if that is the purpose for which Irish opinion generally desires those funds to be devoted. Two suggestions were made by the hon. Member for Wexford, as to which, I am afraid, I am not able to speak positively at this moment. He said that funds are available from the rates for technical instruction, but they are not available for paying interest on loans to provide suitable buildings for technical instruction, and that it would be a relief to the situation and facilitate the progress of technical instruction if those funds could be made available for that purpose.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To some extent.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will communicate with my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary on that point and see what can be done. The hon. Member opposite has made a further suggestion about model schools, and he has asked whether they can be made available for the carrying on of technical instruction. That point also I will look into, without further information I cannot make any definite promise, but I hope that it may be possible.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid that the interpretation placed upon the Act limited the spending of the money entirely to educational purposes. They had in Ireland made an effort to use a portion of the grant for the purpose of paying interest in the way suggested, but it had been declared to be a contravention of the Act.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the point into which I said I would

  933
  look. If the Act prevents it, mere consent on my part would not make that legal which is now illegal, and it would be a question of coming to Parliament for further powers, assuming that the Irish Government agree that the suggestion is a good one in itself. From the point of view of the Irish Government I shall have an opportunity of examining those proposals, and I do not think that my hon. friend and the hon. Baronet opposite will desire to press me further on these matters at this moment. With regard to the statement that England has received something for which Ireland has not received an equivalent I can only meet that assertion with a direct negative. Ireland has received its equivalent for every grant given to England, and it has not only done so, but in the course of the thirteen or fourteen years which have elapsed since the special grant was withdrawn from England, Scotland, and Wales, and during which it has been continued in Ireland, that country will have received a sum of between £25,000 and £30,000 for which Great Britain has received no equivalent. Hon. Members opposite have tried to lay down that it is a system of sound finance that whenever a grant is made to England for any purpose, an equivalent should be made to Ireland. They desire that this principle should be applied to every new grant made for an English purpose, whether that purpose exists in Ireland or not, or whether, there is any equivalent in Ireland to which it can be applied. If that principle be accepted then we must carry it out consistently, and when there is no equivalent in England they must not expect anything in Ireland.
  For my part I think that the principle adopted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the House in the allocation of money to Ireland—namely, that it should be applied to the purposes chiefly required there, and not necessarily to the same purposes as in England, is a sound principle. I should be glad to see the funds at the disposal of the Irish Government for these purposes increased by the savings which my right hon. friend hopes to effect in the cost of Irish administration. It is not proposed, for example, to fill up the vacant judgeship, and the money thus saved will go to the funds available for general purposes, including technical education. If my right hon. friend is able to effect any further savings in the judiciary I have already agreed with him that as far as the Treasury is concerned, we will raise no objection to throwing such savings into the development grant, and making them available for the same purpose. I hope I have said enough to show to my hon. friends that I am not insensible to the claims they raise for technical instruction in Ireland, for I recognise its great importance, and I think it would be a great misfortune if its development were checked. I think by what I have said, that I have indicated not only that Ireland has had her full equivalent for everything given to England and Scotland but that there are funds available for this purpose which have been employed in Ireland only.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 17.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Cromer, William Randal

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Delany, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Joyce, Michael

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Blake, Edward

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Boland, John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Brigg, John

  Ellice, Capt E. C. (SAndrw's Bghs

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Caldwell, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gilhooly, James

  MacNeill, John Cordon Swift

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Crean, Eugene

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  M' Kean, John

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  O'Mara, James

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Murphy, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roddy, M.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

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

  Roche, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Young, Samuel

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehy, David

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pym, C. Guy

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Renwick, George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Hope, J. F. (Shemeld, Brightside

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Hunt, Rowland

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Jebb, Sir Richard (Claverhouse

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bigwood, James

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Kerr, John

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Brassey, Albert

  Keswick, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Butcher, John George

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbyshire)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stock, James Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stroyan, John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Malcolm, Ian

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Denny, Colonel

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Duinfriessh.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Mount, William Arthur

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Percy, Earl

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Adjourned at fourteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.