Sitting of 4 July 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Peti-
  438
  tions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Bridlington Corporation Bill [Lords]; Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.: — Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [Lords]; Scarisbrick Estate (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Brymbo Water Bill; Great Central and Midland Joint Railways Bill; Humber Commercial Railway and Cock Bill; Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords]. As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  Rotherham Corporation Bill. As amended, considered. Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be 'suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill according read the third time, and passed.
  Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill [Lords] (by Order). As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Selby Urban District Council Bill (by Order). As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Melrose District Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Education Board Provisional Order (Birmingham) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Canal Rates and Charges (Regent's Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
  Mr. AGG-GARDNER reported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill [Newcastle-upon-Tyne Order] had stated that the evidence of Henry Francis Berry, Byker Street, Walker; Thomas Messer Sturgess, 5 Nicholas Buildings, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Dr. Robert Pittills Dawson, Walbeck Road West, Walker, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said H. F. Berry, T. M. Sturgess, and K. P. Dawson do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Henry Francis Berry, Thomas Messer Sturgess, and Robert Pittills Dawson do attend the Committee on Group L of Private Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
  Mr. AGG-GARDNER reported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill [Newcastle-upon-Tyne Order] had stated that the evidence of Thomas Carr, Engineer, Willow Terrace Walker; James Tait, Foreman Carpenter, 114, Welbeck Road, Walker, and Alexander M'Bay, Foreman Rivetter, 11, Welbeck Road, Walker, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Thomas Carr, James Tait, and Alexander M'Bay do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Thomas Carr, James Tait, and Alexander M'Bay do attend the Committee on Group L of Private Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Order Confirmation Bill; North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill; Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill; without Amendment.
  That they have agreed to—Leith Burgh Order Confirmation Bill; Crystal Palace District Gas Bill, with an Amendment.
  Wolverhampton Corporation Bill; Great Central Railway Bill; Plymouth Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Preston Corporation Water Bill [Lords]; Shipley Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate enactments relating to Open Spaces." [Open Spaces Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the Reserve Forces. [Reserve Forces Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Scotch Education Department, under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1878, to enable the School Board of the Burgh of Edinburgh to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Bishop Auckland, Shildon, and Spennymoor Tramways, Dewsbury Corporation Tramways, East Ham Urban District Council Tramways, Ossett Corporation Tramways, Sunderland Corporation Tramway, and West Ham Corporation Tramways." [Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Wishaw Corporation." [Wishaw Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Airdrie Corporation Gas." [Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Burgh of Govan." Govan Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Caledonian Railway." [Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow and South Western Railway." [Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enarge the powers of Investment of the
  442
  Trustees of Sir Humphrey Francis de Trafford's Settled Estates so as to enable them to purchase his Life Interest in the Settled Estates, and for vesting Life interest in such Trustees; and for other purposes." [De Trafford Estate Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Ilford, in the county of Essex, to carry out street improvements; to make further provision for the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the district; and for other purposes." [Ilford Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
  Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]
  Wishaw Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. To be considered upon Wednesday.
  Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. To be considered upon Wednesday.
  Govan Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 12th July, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]
  Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 12th July, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]
  Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 12th July, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]
  De Trafford Estate Bill [Lords]; Ilford Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Acaster Malbis; Addlestone; Alnmouth; Althorpe; Ashbourne; Ashton under Lyne; Ash-water; Aughton; Aylsham; Barnsley; Bassalleg; Bawdesvell; Belton; Bishop Auckland; Bishop Monkton; Bishop's Nympton; Blackford by; Boroughbridge; Borth; Briston; Bromley; Carlisle; Castleton (two); Chertsey; Church Gresley; Colby; Corringham; Cromer; Denbigh Head; Dogmaels; Drinkstone; East Dulwich; Ednonton; Enfield; Forest Hill; Glaisdale End; Grafton cum Marton; Gregilt; Gunthorpe; Gun-walloe; Hampsthwaite; Hartlepool (two); Hartshorne; Haverfordwest; Haxey; Hickling; Higham Ferrers; Hull (two); Killinghall; Kingston upon Hull; Leicester; Levenshulme; L'angwn; Loughton; Luddington; Lytham (two); Manor Park; Marloes; Masbro'; Merlin's Bridge; Merthyr; Milford Haven; Minskip, Staveley, and Aldborough; Mundesley; Newton Longville; North Walsham; Norwich; Norwich, North Walsham, and Cromer (five); Overstrand; Owston; Plymouth; Ponsanooth; Reep-ham; Rhondda Fawr; Ripon (two); Roch; Rochdale; Salhouse; Seven Kings; Sheffield; South Repps; South Wales; Swallow Nest; Swadlincote; Swanton; Tostoch; Tottenham; Treeton; Walton on Thanes; Whitland; Willes-den Green; Wishaw; Wolverhampton (two); Wombourne; Woodville; and Wroot; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Glendale, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Chief Inspector for 1903, Part I., Reports [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Census Returns of British South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to Affairs in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the population, valuation, the average assessment levied under The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, for the three years 1900–1901 to 1902–3 in each parish, and the total raised from each local government district, together with calculations showing the amount which would be raised from each parish if the total assessment so raised from each local government district were imposed as a district rate upon parishes on the basis of (1) valuation alone, and (2) half on valuation and half on population [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD.
  Copy presented, of Twenty - ninth Annual Report (for 1903–4), with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 238.]
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland appointing the places at which Examinations shall be held for 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland determining the number of Centre Super-intendents to be appointed for the Examinations, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3201 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Postal Facilities in County Kerry.
  MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for daily delivery of letters in the townlands of Readrinagh, Knock-doorah, Meentogues, Stagmount, Gort-naglah, and Connearagh, between Head-fort and Rathraore, county Kerry, seeing that the district is thickly populated and includes two schools.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.)Inquiry is being made on the subject. When it is completed I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Carriage of Parcels from Tynan (County Armagh) to Glasgow.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland) decline to forward parcels leaving Tynan, county Armagh, at 6.18 p.m., to Glasgow by the Ardrossan boat leaving Belfast at 9.30, unless advised by telegram of their despatch and the payment of one shilling extra; and if he can take any steps to protect the traders of the county from this charge.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Board of Trade have communicated with the Great Northern Railway of Ireland on the subject of the Question, and I have directed that a copy of the reply received from the company shall be forwarded to the hon. Member.

  Steamer "Allanton" confiscated by Russians at Vladivostock.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to take any action in the case of the steamer "Allanton," confiscated by Russian authorities at Vladivostock.
  446
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Government are in communication on the subject with His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, who has asked to be supplied with an official statement of the grounds of condemnation. They understand that the owner of the vessel has taken steps to lodge an appeal, for which a month's time is allowed, to the Supreme Prize Court, which will sit at St. Petersburg, and in these circumstances His Majesty's Government must await the decision of that tribunal before deciding what, if any, representation they can properly address to the Russian Government when the full facts of the case are before them.

  Observance of Sunday in the Royal Navy.
  SIR MARK STEWART: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether orders were given to the Mediterranean Fleet, or part of it, to proceed to sea on Sunday the 5th June, to carry out a torpedo attack that day; and, if so, whether the Lords o f the Admiralty will give directions to all Admirals in Command for the due observance of the King's Regulations, that a ship's company is not to be employed on Sundays in any work or duty other than that which the public service may I absolutely require.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Certain vessels of the Mediterranean Fleet, acting under the orders of the Rear Admiral Commanding the Mediterranean Cruisers, left Gibraltar at 6 p.m. on Sunday 5th June, with a view to carrying out certain strategical exercises during the night, and the morning of 6th June. It is not known whether any special reason existed for this date having been selected, but attention will be called to the desirability of a close adherence to the provisions of Article 667 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, whenever the conditions of the service admit of it.

  Refusal to Sanction Loan for Purchase of Land for Allotments at Gosberton.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he will state the grounds upon which the Local Government Board have refused

  447
  their sanction to the parish council of Gosberton obtaining a loan to defray the cost of buying lands for allotments.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Parish councils are not empowered to purchase land for allotments, although they can hire it. I had, therefore, no alternative but to decline to sanction the loan desired by the Gosberton Parish Council, but I suggested that the matter might be brought before the rural district council, by whom land can be purchased for allotment purposes.

  Accidents with Covered Vans—Infringement of new By-law.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how the number of accidents with covered vans for the month of May last compares with the corresponding month last year; and will he say how many summonses have been taken out by the police for infringement of the London County Council new by-law.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The number of accidents with covered vans known to the police to have occurred within the Metropolitan police district during the month of May last was 101, of which three had fatal results. In the previous May the number was 118, one being fatal. The London County Council are proposing to amend the by-law relating to covered vans, and have submitted a new draft which I have approved provisionally. In the meantime, the police, though warning owners and drivers in cases where the by-law is not being complied with, are not seeking to enforce it by means of legal proceedings.

  Value of Licensed Premises.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average annual value of the 1869 beer licensed houses; also, whether he will state the number of fully on-licensed houses other than the 1869 beerhouses whose average annual value is below £50.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have no means of distin-
  448
  guishing the "ante-'69" beerhouses from other beerhouses, and am unable, therefore, to give the average annual value of the former. The number of fully on-licensed houses of an annual value of less than £50 appears, from Papers which I have laid before Parliament in connection with the Bill, to be 34,535.

  Assessment of Income Tax on Contributions to the British Cotton Growing Association.
  MR. EMMOTT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that income-tax is charged on contributions made by firms in the cotton trade to the British Cotton Growing Association; whether, seeing that such contributions are wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of such trade, he will give instructions that such contributions shall not in future be assessed for income-tax.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I find on inquiry that the Board of Inland Revenue have no knowledge of the assessments referred to in the Question. If such assessments have been made, their legality could only be definitely decided by an appeal to the High Court from the district Commissioners of Taxes; but it may be convenient that I should point out that, in the analogous case of contributions by a colliery company to a coalowners' association, the Courts have held that the subscription is not money laid out for the purposes of trade, and is not therefore admissible as a deduction from the profits of the company for purposes of assessment to income-tax (vide Rhymney Iron Company, Limited, v. Fowler, 2 Q. B. 79 (1896). I have, in any case, no authority to give such instructions as the hon. Member suggests, arid no power to enforce them.

  Epidemic at BaHynaclosha— National School Teacher's Salary.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the special circumstances of Mr. Lavelle, Ballynaclosha National School, Armagh; and whether, seeing that his salary for the years 1898 and 1899 was, owing to

  449
  epidemic, far below what it was before, special consideration will be given to his case by substituting other years for those in which the epidemic occurred.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The average income for the three years ended 31st March, 1900, was taken as the basis in fixing the consolidated salaries of all teachers, and the substitution in the calculation of any year previous to 1898 was not permissible. Cases, however, in which the rule as to the average income for the three years ended 31st March, 1900, was found to work inequitably, received special consideration. Mr. Lavelle's case was most carefully investigated in connection with a special report from the senior inspector of the circuit, but the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the general rules applicable to all teachers.

  Sales on the King Harman (Kenagh) Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many of the sales of houses on the King Harman (Kenagh) Estate in the village of Kenagh have been sanctioned by the Estates Commisioners; whether any effort is being made to see that these bargains are not of such a character as will be of little use to the tenants for reduction purposes in the future; and will an nspection be made in these cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No advances have yet been sanctioned. Applications for advances in respect of village plots have been received. These plots have been inspected, and any advances that nay be made will be of such amounts as in the opinion of the Commissioners are adequately secured.

  Peat Factory Experiments in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what success has attended the effort to establish a peat factory at Inny Junction, county Westmeath; and will the experiment be extended to other centres.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The peat experiments at Inny Junction have
  450
  not been in progress for a sufficient length of time to enable the Department to state whether they are likely to prove a success. It would be premature to consider the question of the extension of the experiment to other parts of Ireland until adequate information is available in regard to the result of the experiment now in progress.

  Gas from Peat.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the attention of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland has been called to the success of the experiments of peat produced gas at Dumfries and also at Northampton; and whether, as there are large quantities of unproductive bog in Ireland in which this fuel could be obtained, the attention of the Department will be directed to the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) An officer of the Department visited the peat works at Dumfries last year, but did not learn that the production of gas had been a success. The Department has no knowledge of the result of the experiment at Northampton, but will make inquiries on the subject.

  Condition of Fishing Industry on the South East Coast of Ireland.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the condition of the fishing industry on the south east coast of Ireland, and what he proposes to do for the assistance of that industry.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) If the hon. Baronet will repeat the Question on Monday next I hope to be then in a position to make a statement in the matter.

  Salaries of Irish School Teachers.
  MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the principal teacher of a boys' school in county Down, Circuit 9, Section C, District 19, Roll No. 1950, is trained

  451
  and in the first division of second class; that he has been granted his training diploma; that the average for the last quarter was sixty; that he has been three years in the service of the National Board; that he got the, reports fair, fair, and good; that increments have been awarded on similar reports; that under the old system with his present average of fifty-five he would have a salary (exclusive of capitation) of £82 16s., consisting of class salary £52 16s., and results fees £30; and that his present salary is £56; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that he entered a training college before the introduction of the new system, the Commissioners will increase his present salary to what it would have been under the old system.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The principal teacher of the school in question entered the service of the Board for the first time on 23rd July, 1900, and according came under the rules then in force. He has no claim for special consideration under the rules in force prior to that date. Under Rule 194 (c) he ranks as in third grade only. He is paid salary according to the scale laid down for that grade, viz., £56 per annum. The teacher was trained during the session 1898–1900, but the privileges embodied in Rule 200 III. refer to persons who were trained during the session 1899–1900 and were recognised as teachers before entering the college. His claim to an increment of continued good service salary will be considered this year.

  Burial Ground at Leixlip.
  MR. LEAMY (Kildare, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if additional burial grounds are needed in Leixlip; and if laid can be acquired there either to increase existing burial grounds or for new ones.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No representations have been made to the Local Government Board on the subject, and it is not aware that there is need for a Iditional burial ground accommodation at Leixlip. The matter is one for the consideration of the local authority in the first instance.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Application of Mr. George Ward for Reinstatement.
  MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Mr. George Ward, Tuberkeen, Dungloe, county Donegal, for re-instatement in the farm from which he was evicted; whether the estate upon which his former holding is situated is in the Land Judge's Court, or has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners or to the Congested Districts Board; and whether, in event of a sale of the estate, the reinstatement of Ward will be favourably considered.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) An application for reinstatement has been received from G. Ward, and will be considered. The Estates Commissioners have received no application in respect of the sale of the estate. It was offered to the Congested Districts Board, but the Board decided not to purchase it. The estate does not appear to be in the Land Judge's Court.

  Valuation of Mr. O'Donnell's Lands at Annascaul.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Valuation made a mistake in increasing the valuation of the lands of Mr. M. O'Donnell, Annascaul, county Kerry, by £5, while they decreased the valuation of his neighbour by a similar amount, and that Mr. O'Donnell was thus compelled to pay in rates £1 13s. 9d. through the mistake of a Government Department; and, if so, whether steps will be immediately taken to have this sum refunded to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There is no occupier of land named M. O'Donnell entered in the valuation lists for the townland in which the village of Annascaul is situated. Possibly the holding entered in the lists as occupied by Thomas O'Donnell, in the townland of Dromavally, is referred to. It was part of a large Rundale holding which was divided in 1900 and 1903. The valuations allotted to the various holders in these years were not appealed against,

  453
  either by him or by any of the other occupiers. A further division and applotment was asked for and made in 1904, the effect of which was to reduce the valuation of O'Donnell's farm, which consists of eight separate lots, by £5. If O'Donnell objected to the former applot-ment he should have availed himself of his statutory right of appeal to the Commissioner of Valuation and the Court of quarter sessions. There is no power now to re-open the case as suggested.

  Colours of Militia Regiments that served in South Africa.
  MR. EMMOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that Militia regiments which have served abroad during wars previous to the South African War have had the name of the country in which they served added to their colours, it has yet been decided to allow Militia regiments wlr.ch served in the South African War to add South Africa to their colours.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am not at present in a position to give the hon. Member a reply to his Question, but I hope to be able to do so shortly.

  Malta Government Balance-Sheet.
  MR.BOLAND (Kerry, S.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the estimate that the Maltese Government had also to its credit on the 29th of February last the net surplus brought forward from the year 1902–3, viz.: £19,416, the item of £22,939 19s. 10¾d., which is set out in the debtor side of the Treasury Account, is referred to; whether, in the statement of expenditure for the period at £363,279, the ordinary and special advances and waterworks department stores, which together a nount to £18,852, are included; and whether he will supply a copy of the balance-sheet issued on 29th February and of the statements which accompanied it.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lytteton.) The net surplus of revenue over expenditure for the year 1902–3, viz.: £19,416, is included in the item of £22,939 to which the hon. Member refers. Consequently, if the Colonial Government had
  454
  had to sell all its investments in Imperial and Colonial Funds on the 29th February the surplus after meeting its liabilities in respect of depreciation would have been £12,780, i.e. the difference between the excess of revenue over expenditure for the period to the 29th February, viz.: £48,385, and the net deficit on the investments, i.e. £35,605, and I desire to correct my reply of the 28th June to this extent. The ordinary and special advances and waterworks department stores are not included in the expenditure account of £363,279 to which the hon. Member refers. A copy of the Gazette containing a copy of the balance-sheet as on the 29th February and of the statements which accompanied it, is enclosed.

  Census of the Transvaal.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State foT the Colonies whether he can now give a summary of the recent census in the Transvaal showing the following particulars:—number of each sex above the age of sixteen of Dutch and English race in Pretoria, Johannesburg, and the district outside respectively; the like figures of those under sixteen; and the total figures of natives of each sex above sixteen in Pretoria, Johannesburg, and the district outside respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The census figures will be published to Parliament this week. They do not distinguish persons of Dutch and English race, but only differentiate between European or white and natives and other coloured persons. This is the practice which has been followed elsewhere in South Africa in taking the census.

  The Transvaal Legislative Council.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the names of the members of the Transvaal Legislative Council, mentioning the official positions occupied by some of them and the professions or avocations of the others, distinguishing those nominated by the High Commissioner from those elected, stating by whom they are elected and also when the life of the present Council expires.

  455
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The annexed list shows the composition of the Legislative Council of the Transvaal so far as my information goes. I do not know the avocations of five members who were appointed as representing the various sections of the Boer population. Nor do I know the avocation of Mr. Raitt, who was appointed to represent

  List of Members composing the Legislative Council.

  Name.

  Official Position or Avocation.

  The Hon. Sir Arthur Lawley, K.C.M.G.

  Lieutenant Governor.

  Sir Richard Solomon, K.C.M.G.

  Attorney-General.

  Patrick Duncan.

  Colonial Secretary.

  Sir Godfrey Yeatman Lagden, K.C.M.G.

  Commissioner for Native Affairs.

  W. L. Hitchens.

  Colonial Treasurer.

  Horace Weldon

  Acting Commissioner of Mines.

  A. Jameson.

  Commissioner of Lands.

  J. F. Brown.

  Postmaster-General.

  Dr. G. Turner.

  Medical Officer of Health for Transvaal.

  J. W. Honey.

  Director of Customs.

  Lieut.-Col. H. M. Jackson, R.E.

  Surveyor-General.

  F. B. Smith.

  Director of Agriculture.

  Fabian Ware

  Director of Education.

  E. F. Bourke.

  Merchant.

  J. C. Brink

  A. P. J. Cronje

  J. Z. de Villiers

  T. Everard

  Farmer.

  Sir G. Farrar, Kt., D.S.O.

  Mining Director.

  Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick, Kt.

  Mining Director.

  W. Hosken.

  Merchant.

  H. C. Hull.

  Solicitor.

  R. K. Loveday

  Landowner.

  A. S. Rait.

  P. Roux.

  H. Solomon

  Stockbroker.

  H. P. F. Janse van Rensburg

  Resignation of Sir Charles Eliot-Suggested Committee of Inquiry.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government intend to appoint a Committee or Commission to investigate the causes of Sir Charles Eliot's resignation in East Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) There seems no reason to adopt the exceptional method proposed. The hon. Member will soon have the Papers in his hands,
  the working classes. I believe that there are now three vacancies caused by the transfer of members who held office. The seven first-named members are so by virtue of their office. The others are appointed individually by the Crown, and in nearly every case their appointments expire in May, 1905. There are no elected members.
  when I think he will come to the same conclusion.

  Native Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of coloured persons employed on the last day of March, April, and May of this year in the Transvaal gold mines, calculated on the same basis as the Return given by him on 26th May last, distinguishing between those in employ and at work.

  457
  †(Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.)

  Transvaal Gold Mines.

  Coloured persons on last day of each month.

  In employ.

  At work.

  March, 1904

  79,569

  73,667

  April 1904

  78,825

  73,246

  May 1904

  (Official Return of Mines Department with these figures not yet received).

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Flogging in the Navy
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Doregal, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will explain why, although the cat, as an instrument of flogging, has been abolished in the Army, it has only been suspended in the Navy by an order of the Admiralty; will he state why the British seaman is still subject to flogging in naval prisons; and whether, on land or sea, cats are part of the equipment of the naval prisons; and, seeing that the statutory rules and orders as to discipline in naval prisons authorises the infliction of thirty-six lashes or strokes with the cat or birch in the case of a prisoner over eighteen years of age; he will say whether any steps will be taken for the abolition of this punishment in the Royal Navy.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PKETYMAN,): Flogging with cat o' nine tails was suspended by an order of the Board of Admiralty in 1881. When the Naval Discipline Act was amended in 1884, the power of awarding this punishment was not abolished but remained merely suspended. There has been no amendment of the Naval Discipline Act since then and it is not likely that legislation would be obtained for this reason only. The rules governing the award of this punishment in the Naval Prison Regulations are practically identical with those contained in the statutory rules and orders for local prisons. The answer to the third part of the Question is "Yes." The
    †To be substituted for Answer previously printed and circulated.
    458
    fourth part is not understood. There is no intention so far as I am aware of abolishing corporal punishment in the naval prisons.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then I take it that the cat is part of the necessary equipment of ships of war and training ships.
    Ms. PRETYMAN: That was not the Question addressed to me.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it part, of the equipment of naval prisons ashore and afloat?
    MR. PRETYMAN: There are no naval prisons afloat.
    MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): Seeing that the cat has been abolished in the Army why retain it for the Navy?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Volunteers in Camp.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is a record that in a brigade of Volunteers encamped in 1900 on Salisbury Plain 90 per cent, went home in consequence of three days' rain; and, if so, will he state the name of the brigadier, and what regiments constituted the brigade, and who were their respective commanding officers and adjutants, and further by what means, being then under military law, such Volunteers were able to leave the camp.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): I can find no trace in any official record of any such incident as that referred to in the Question. If it occurred | it is not creditable to the brigade concerned. I may perhaps add that un-willingness to face hardship or to incur discomfort is certainly not characteristic of the Volunteer Force—a fact to which I can bear personal testimony, and which I believe all those who have been officially connected with the training of Volunteers will readily confirm.

    Chinese Labour in the Transvaal —Recruitment at Canton.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the

    459
    Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that Article V. of the recent Anglo-Chinese Convention requires that indentured emigrants from China shall be embarked only at a treaty port, the embarkation at Hong-kong of coolies on the steamship "Tweeddale" was a contravention of this treaty; whether the Chinese Viceroy at Canton has forbidden the recruitment of any more coolies for the Transvaal; and, if so, whether his action was taken as a protest against the infraction of the treaty.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The Anglo-Chinese Convention does not apply to Hong-kong, which is not s, treaty port, and there has been no contravention of I embarkation that they had a right to the treaty. It is true that two months ago the Viceroy of Canton issued a proclamation declaring recruiting for South Africa in that district illegal. His Majesty's Minister at Deking has made representations to the foreign board, and they have requested the Viceroy to withdraw the prohibition.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Was the prohibition due to the fact that the Chinese authorities considered there had been a contravention of the Treaty?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Number of Chinese already in South Africa.
    DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state the total number of men, the total number women, and the total number of children of Chinese extraction who have arrived in South Africa under the Transvaal Labour Ordinance; and, if not, whether he will telegraph to Lord Milner for these facts by cable.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I informed the hon. Member for the Cleveland Division on the 7th of last month f that none of the emigrants who have come from Hong-kong had taken their families with them. The number of men is just over 1,000, according to the newspaper tele-
    † See(4) Debates, exxxv., 923.
    460
    grams. I do not think it necessary to telegraph to Lord Milner on the subject.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Did any women or children accompany the second batch of coolies?
    MR. LYTTELTONasked for notice of the Question.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: May I ask whether these particular coolies Ware recruited under the early advertisement, in which no mention was made of the fact that they might take their wives and children.
    MR. LYTTELTON: My information is that they were fully informed before take their families with them.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Then can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why no women and children did accompany them?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Treatment of Chinese Coolies at Durban
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state by whose authority, and under what legal sanction, the Chinese labourers recently landed at Durban in Natal were confined in compounds, and locked in railway carriages, guarded by special police; by whose orders the police were detailed for this duty; and at whose charge they were maintained on this special duty?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am informed by the Acting-Governor of Natal that the Chinese were not placed in guarded compounds; they were conveyed straight from the ship to the train which took them to the Transvaal. I am to receive a report on the circumstances of the landing and despatch of these labourers by mail.
    MAJOE SEELY: I have already twice asked this Question and obtained no Answer. I want to know under what Act, by what sanction of law, this confinement was done, and I respectfully press for an Answer.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have already answered that there was not a confinement.
    MAJOR SEELY: There is no doubt that there was a confinement.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not in order to debate the Question.
    MAJOR SEELY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the labourers were locked in carriages, which is a deprivation of liberty?
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has already answered the Question "whether he can now state by whose authority and under what legal sanction the Chinese labourers recently landed at Durban in Natal were confined in compounds."
    SEVERAL OPPOSITION MEMBERS: And locked in railway carriages.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have already said there was no confinement in compounds. I have no information with regard to the carriages; but, as I have stated on more than one occasion, I am to receive a report on the subject.
    MAJOR SEELY: Should not the information on a matter of this importance be communicated to the House by cable?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not the slightest reason to believe that the Natal Government have done anything contrary to the law. I do not propose to satisfy myself, except in the manner I have already indicated.

    Terms of the Chinese Labour Contract.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the form of contract signed by the Chinese labourers before importation to the Transvaal contains any reference to their right to the transport of their wives and children to that country, to the obligation to work for ten hours per diem underground, and to their obligation to be confined in a compound during their term of servitude; whether a copy of the form of contract is in the possession of the Colonial Service; if so, whether he will lay it
    462
    upon the Table of the House; and, if not, whether he will at once telegraph to the Governor of Hong-kong to transmit by cable the form of contract, and lay it upon the Table of the House on its receipt.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The form of the contract signed by the Chinese labourers was, I understand, that printed at pages 28–32 of Cd. 2026.

    No Close Time for Chinese Coolies.
    MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any close time for the admission of Chinese labourers into the Transvaal; and whether any limit is to be placed upon the number to be admitted.
    MR. LYTTELTON: No close time has been fixed by the Government nor has any limit at present been placed on the number to be admitted.

    Embarkation of Coolies at Hong-kong.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Chinese laboure s, who were embarked for South Africa at the British port of Hong-kong, are exeluded from the purview of the recent Anglo-Chinese Convention, and from the protection it would afford, for the reason that the Convention applies only to labourers embarked at Chinese treaty ports.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Convention cannot of course apply to Hong-kong which is not a treaty port but a British Colony. Labourers leaving Hong-kon; are protectel not by the treaty but by the Colonial law and administration.

    Debarkation of Coolies from the "Tweeddale."
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that when the ss. "Tweeddale" arrived in Durban Harbour on Saturdav, 18th June, a floating cordon of pontoons containing police with loaded rifles surrounded her, police with loaded rifles paraded her decks and the wharves, the coolies were photographed and registered under armed supervision, and entrained for Johannesburg under armed

    463
    military escort; and whether he will ask Lord Milner for a report on these proceedings by cable.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am expecting to receive by mail a report on the circumstances of the arrival of these coolies, and I do not propose to telegraph.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the despatch when received?
    [The Answer was inaudible.]

    Natal Act (Immigration) 1903—Alleged Infraction by the "Tweeddale"
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that by the provisions of the Natal Act, Immigration (restricted), 19C3, the master and owners of any vessel, from which any person suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease nay be landed, are liable to a penalty of from £100 to £5,000; whether the master or owners of the British ship "Tweeddale," from which immigrants suffering from beri-beri were landed at Durban, have been subjected to the penalties referred to; and whether he will take steps to warn the masters and owners of British ships of the penalties to which they are liable for any infringement of the provisions of the above Act while engaging in this traffic.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have telegraphed for information to the Officer Administering the Government of Natal and have received the following answer:—"My Ministers suggest that you give following reply to Question. Begins—'It is the custom in Natal to subject persons to penalties after they have broken the law, not before. The "Tweeddale" did not infringe the Immigration Restriction Act. No British ships are liable to penalties for engaging in this traffic—namely, the conveyance of Chinese immigrants under a scheme approved by the Government of Natal. Both shipmasters and Transvaal Government have been duly informed of our law and of the requirements there under.'" It will be observed that the Natal authorities do not consider beri-beri to be a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease.
    MAJOR SEELY: The Answer, though somewhat discourteous, does not cover the Question whether in point of fact such persons were landed, and, if so, whether the penalties were inflicted.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member is aware that the Natal Government have, as a self-governing colony. Ministers who are the judges on this point— subject to the hon. Member. The Natal Ministers say that there has not been an infraction of the Natal law. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why]"] I presume the reason must be that they are satisfied that beri-beri is not a contagious disease.
    MAJOR SEELY: With great respect may I point out that it is not denied that it is a loathsome disease?
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is not satisfied he must put down a more specific Question. The Answer given to the Question on the Paper is that, according to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge and information, no breach of the law has been committed in Natal.

    Beri-beri on the "Tweeddale."
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that forty-three cases of beriberi developed on board the "Tweeddale" during the voyage from China to Durban, that she was sent back to China with the surviving cases, thirty-five in number, and that beri-beri is a malady which infects a ship or place in which cases of the disease are collected, he will take steps to have this ship discharged from the service of bringing Chinese coolies to South Africa.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have no reason to doubt that the Transvaal emigration agent at the port of embarkment will take any steps which are necessary in the matter. He has full power to obtain medical advice for his guidance in such matters.

    Telegrams to Lord Milner.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the number and dates of the telegrams he has addressed to Lord

    465
    Milner, asking for information respecting the outbreak of the disease beri-beri among the Chinese coolies; what were the dates of the reply or replies from Lord Milner; whether he is in a position to give any explanation of the delay in the receipt of Lord Milner's reply; and whether the text of these telegrams will be reproduced in the Blue-book about to be issued.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The telegrams I addressed to Lord Milner were sent on the 23rd, 25th, and 27th of June, I received an answer from Lord Milner dated 28th of June, and two subsequent telegrams dated 30th June. I eave in reply to the hon. Member for the Rye Division on Thursday last f my explanation as to the delay and have nothing to add thereto. I will include the telegrams in the Blue-book to be published this week.

    Chinese Exclusion Bill in Cape Colony.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the assent of the Crown to the Chinese Exclusion Bill, to which the Governor of Cape Colony reserved his assent for the consideration of the Crown, while that assent was given to all other measures passed by the Cape Parliament, has yet been given; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay in this formality.
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir; the authenticated copy of the Bill referred to only reached me two days ago.

    Representative Government in South Africa.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communications have been received from the Transvaal or the Orange River Colony respecting the grant of representative Government; and whether the subject has been considered by Ministers; if so, can any statement be made as to the date when such representative Government will be granted.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am not in a position at present to make any statement on the subject.
    † See page 156.

    Maltese Finance.
    MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that three months have elapsed since the close of the financial year in Malta, he will undertake that a copy of the balance-sheet for the year will be available for Members of the House before the Vote on the Colonial Estimates is taken.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am communicating the hon. Member's Question to the Governor of Malta, but pending the receipt of his reply, which I am requesting him to furnish by telegraph, I am unable to state at what date the financial statements for the year ending the 31st of March last will be ready.
    MR. BOLAND: I will put a further Question next week.

    The Tibetan Mission.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has had information as to the request of the Tibetans for an armistice; and whether competent negotiators have been appointed to settle points of difference; and, if so, has the British Commander authority to receive and treat with such negotiators.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): An armistice was granted up to 30th June and has been prolonged at the request of the Tibetans. The Ta Lama, accompanied by representatives of the three Lhasa monasteries, has been received by Colonel Younghusband and is now in negotiation with him. It is not yet known whether the Ta Lama has authority to effect an agreement with Colonel Younghusband, but in this event the British Commissioner has authority to treat with him.
    MR. FLYNN: Are representatives of the Chinese Government allowed to take part in the negotiations?
    MR. BRODRICK: Representatives of the Chinese Government have been in communication with us throughout, and of course will be associated with us in the negotiations.

    Russo-Japanese War—Seizure of the "Allanton."
    MR. WOLFF (Belfast, E.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he it' aware that the British steamer "Allanton," whilst proceeding from Marsran, in Japan, to Singapore with a cargo of coals consigned to a British subject, was seized by a Russian vessel and taken to Vladivos-tock, and has since been condemned there as a prize and confiscated; and will he state what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in order to obtain the release of the versel.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): His Majesty's Government are aware of the fact and are in communication on the subject with His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, who has asked to be supplied with an official statement of the grounds of condemnation. They understand that the owner of the vessel has taken steps to lodge an appeal, for which a month's time is allowed, to the Supreme Prize Court which will sit at St. Petersburg, and in these circumstances His Majesty's Government must await the decision of that tribunal before deciding what, if any, representation they can properly address to the Russian Government when the full facts of the case are before them.
    MR. WOLFF: Will the appeal be to St. Petersburg?
    EARL PERCY: Yes.
    MR. WOLFF: Is nothing being done meanwhile to urge the Russian Government to release the vessel?
    MR. JOSEPHDEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.): Is there an English representative at Vladivostock from whom the owner of the vessel may obtain assistance?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): Has an appeal been made?
    EARL PERCY: The minimum time for appeal is, I think, a month; perhaps a little longer.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If the captain and crew are confined, how
    468
    can an appeal be made? It is a very serous matter for the owners of this Belfast vessel.

    International Maritime Conference at Brussels.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the grounds upon which His Majesty's Government has decided to decline to be officially represented at the forthcoming International Conference to be held at Brussels to promote greater uniformity in the laws of the different maritime States with respect to collision and salvage liabilities.
    EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Government have, in accordance with a long established and carefully considered policy, decline I to be officially represented at the Conference on the grounds that their participation might be held to bind them to accept its conclusions. They will, however, take steps to secure full information of the discussions and of the decisions arrived at by the Conference.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: Does the Answer imply that a representative will be sent, but he will not have power to vote?
    EARL PERCY: We shall probably instruct our Minister there to obtain a full report of the proceedings.

    Circulation in England of Foreign Lottery Circulars.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that circular letters associated with lottery drawings conducted by H. Langenhann & Company, Bremen, were on the 22nd June last posted at the Western Central District Office, London, to persons in the United Kingdom; and, seeing that his attention has been directed to similar circulars in connection with a lottery at Budapest, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    EARL PERCY: The receipt in this country of lottery circulars from the firms

    469
    in question was recently brought to the notice of the Foreign Office. His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin, who was consulted on the subject, was of opinion that, as the Prussian Diet were considering the adoption of measures to check the issue of lottery circulars from the minor German States, no action on the part of His Majesty's Government was for the present desirable.

    Protection of British Interests at Niuchwang.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the reportel withdrawal of the Russians from Niuchwang, the active operations of brigands in the neighbourhood, and the uncertainty as to when a Japanese occupation will take place, also that Niuchwang is not now likely to be the scene of naval operations, His Majesty's Government will send a gunboat to Niuchwang for the protection of the lives and property of British subjects.
    EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that the Russians have withdrawn from Niuchwang, but the "Espiegle" has been ordered to that port.

    Licensing Bill—Value of Licensed Premises Affected.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state approximately the value of the licensed premises to which the Bill before the House applies; the maximum capitalised amount that could be raised by quarter sessions for the purpose of closing specified licensed premises; the approximate extra value that would be given to the licensed premises remaining by the decreased competition and by the absolute fixity of tenure secured for a long period.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I am afraid I am no more able now than I was a few days ago†, when the hon. Member
    See page 163.
    470
    asked me the same Question, to give him any such figures as he desires.

    Amendment of Workmen's Compensation Act.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to state to what trades the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act will be extended.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The Report of the Departmental Committee has not yet reached me, and until I get it I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information he desires.

    North Eastern Railway—Unprotected Live Rails.
    MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that another death was caused by the unprotected electric live rail on the North Eastern Railway at St. Peters, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on Wednesday last; and will he inform the House what steps are being taken by the Board of Trade to compel railway companies owning electric railways to take such steps as are necessary to avoid further loss of life.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The accident referred to, which caused death of a boy who had trespassed on the line, has been reported to the Board of Trade by the railway company. Inquiries have been ordered into the circumstances attending two similar previous accidents, and this case will also be investigated. When the reports of the inspecting officers have been received the question of precautionary measures will be fully considered.

    Solway Fishery Bill.
    MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is now in a position to state on what day this session he proposes to introduce the Solway Fishery Bill, which he has stated to be in a forward state of preparation.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I am unable for the moment to specify the day upon which the Solway Fishery Bill will be introduced, but if my hon. friend will put down his Question again in a few days time I shall hope to be in a position to give a more definite answer.
    MR. KILBEIDE (Kildare, S.): Can the hon. Gentleman say if it is intended to introduce any other legislation this session?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Rathmines-Polling District Dispute.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if his attention has been called to complaints from the Rathmines Polling District of South Dublin to the effect that the voters' requisition forms, provided for by statute and distributed by the town clerk of Rathmines (in his capacity of deputy for the clerk of the peace of Dublin County) were in many instances, and to an extent calculated to interfere with the discharge of his duty by the town clerk, taken away from the custody of those residents to whom they were issued by unauthorised persons, inaccurately filled up and returned to the said town clerk; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what action to secure that these inaccuracies shall be corrected and the persons entitled, and these only, placed on the supplemental list.
    THE ATTOENEY-GENEEAL FOR IEELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): My attention has been called to the matter mentioned, which has been referred to the police for investigation.

    Rathmines Commissioners' Appeal.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the delay of the Local Government Board in giving their decision on the appeal of the Rathmines Commissioners against the decision of the Dublin County Council; and when this decision may be expected.
    THE CHIEF SECEETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): There has been no delay. The Inquiry was
    472
    held at the end of May. The minutes of evidence, which are voluminous, were received by the Board on the 10th June. A decision will be come to as soon as possible.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Have the Local Government Board consulted the Law Officers of the Crown on this matter?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice of that.

    Irish Land Purchase—Ballydonlon Estate, County Galway.
    MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sale of the Ballydonlon Estate, county Galway the property of Mr. Mahon; whether he is aware that the tenants who held eleven months lettings on this property for a number of years past enjoyed same at an average rental of £1 1s. per acre free of taxes; and that, under the present purchase arrangements on this property, the instalment rentals per acre are increased on the tenants from £1 5s. to £1 15s. per acre, with taxes added; and, if so, whether it is proposed to pass this sale without inspection; and whether, having regard to the fact that Mr. Mahon is not selling the whole of this estate, the bonus will be granted in this case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The entire estate has been sold, but the vendor has applied for an advance to enable him to repurchase the demesne. The holdings were vested in the tenant purchasers on the 29th April. The average annuity payable per statute acre is 19s. 10d. The estate was inspected before the advances were sanctioned.

    Winter Dairying in Ireland.
    MR. MUEPHY (Kerry, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture have taken any, and what, steps to promote winter dairying in Ireland; and what has been the result of the operations.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The encouragement of winter dairying, wherever such is

    473
    practicable, is part of the duty of the itinerant instructors in agriculture, of whom there are now eighteen at work. No statistics are available to show to what extent farmers have adopted the suggestions of these experts; but the subject will form part of the discussion at the Annual Conference of Itinerant Inspectors.
    MR. MURPHY: Has not a complaint been received from the Cork School that nothing has been done in this respect?
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no mention of any complaint in the Question. As I have said, there are eighteen inspectors now on this work.
    MR. MURPHY: But they are doing nothing.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Have not the inspectors pointed out that capital is necessary to enable them to carry out the work?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice of that Question.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: And is it not the fact that the creamery system in Ireland is proving a discouragement to dairy farming in that country?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Land Purchase in County Cavan£David Finlay's Estate.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Commission has been notified by tenant purchasers on the estate of David Finlay and others, near Bawnboy, in the county of Cavan, that the receivable orders which have been sent from its offices in Dublin have not been delivered to the tenants; and, if so, will he say who is responsible for their non-delivery.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am in communication with the Land Commission in the matter, and will ask the hon. Member to postpone this and the next Question till Wednesday.
    474
    The second Question referred to was as follows—
    MR.VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of the tenants on the estate of David Finlay and others, near Bawnboy, in the county of Cavan (which is under the control of the Land Judge's Court) who have signed their purchase agreements have been notified by the Irish Land Commission that their applications to purchase their holdings have been dismissed owing to delay; if so, will he state the cause of the delay; and, if the delay does not rest with the tenants, will they still be afforded an opportunity of completing their purchase.

    Tenants' Game Rights—The Clanricarde Tenants at Woodford.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether five of the Clanricarde tenants at Derrygoolan, Woodford, have been served with notices to quit in consequence of their asserting their right to the game on their lands.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he can say if the Clanricarde tenants at Derrygoolan, Woodford, are non-judicial and in possession of their holdings as tenants from year to year for many years; and (2) whether there is any agreement in writing or otherwise made by them with their landlord in respect to game; and (3) whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, he will take steps to insure that the police shall not be allowed in future to accompany poachers on the lands, seeing that such proceedings are calculated to intimidate the tenants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Five notices to quit have been served. No cause was assigned for their issue. I understand that no judicial rents have been fixed on this property in the locality mentioned. This being so, I am unable to say whether there exist any agreements, such as referred to; nor have I at my disposal any effective means of ascertaining the fact. In the absence of any information I presume the tenants are

    475
    entitled under the Ground Game Act of 1880 to kill ground game. The fact that a notice to quit has been served upon a tenant does not prevent him from selling his holding or applying to have a fair rent fixed, and should any proceedings, founded on the notices, be taken to evict him from his holding he may apply to the Court in which the proceedings have been instituted to suspend the proceetings pending the result of the fair-rent application. Should the proceedings be suspended and the application to fix a fair rent be granted, the tenant will be in the same position as if his rent had been fixed at the date of the application, and will be protected from eviction from any cause other than one of those statutory conditions for which a judicial tenant may be evicted. Should the landlord in the case be not entitled to the right he seeks to exercise, of course the tenant has his remedy at law in any action of trespass.
    MR. KILBRIDE: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the last part of the Question—what instructions will you give to the police on the 12th August next? Are they to protect the poachers going on the lands of these tenants who, as he admits, are entitled to the game under the Act?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If these are yearly tenants does not that constitute them future tenants and, if so, what is the use of talking of fair rents when future tenants cannot get fair rents fixed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has put the Question correctly. They are not judicial tenants. They are tenants at will. They are precisely the same as tenants at will in this country. I cannot tell if they have any right by agreement with their landlord or not other than the right conferred under Lord Cairns' Act.
    MR. ROCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that under the law the game belongs to the tenants, and in face of that assumption—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Member states any particular in which the Question has not been fully answered he is at liberty to ask, but—
    MR. ROCHE: Under these circumstances, if they go on the land on the 12th August next, will he be responsible for the consequences?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have answered that. I decline, by any act upon my part, to decide a right which is not before me. If the right, as the hon. Gentleman says, is a clear one, the tenants can prosecute.

    Irish Workhouse Classification.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the principle on which Irish workhouses are classified; and whether he will grant a Return giving the workhouses at present included' in the various classes under which they are arranged.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no classification of workhouses. The Poor Law Commission now sitting was appointed to investigate the question of the amalgamation of workhouses, and the practicability of making better provision for the classification and treatment of the inmates. As a result of this investigation I hope it may be found possible to institute such a classification.

    Enniskillen Bent Appeals.
    MR. EDWARD MITCHELL (Fermanagh, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that it is a considerable time since the Land Commission sat at Enniskillen to hear appeals for fixing rents; if he will say when said Commission will next sit, in view of the number of cases awaiting their decision.
    M. WYNDHAM: The last sitting of the Appeal Court at Enniskillen was in January, 1903. The Appeal Sittings for the Michaelmas term have not yet been arranged, but when settling the circuit the Commissioners will consider whether it is practicable to arrange a further sitting at Enniskillen before the close of present year.

    Bawnboy Rent Disputes.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that

    477
    Mr. A. E. Humphrys, of Lisagoan House, county of Cavan (a justice of the peace), marked judgment against seven of his tenants on an estate near Bawnboy, in the county of Cavan, that these judgments were executed by the sheriff with an escort of constables, and that these judgments were set aside; and, if so, whether he will take steps to protect these tenants from such proceedings at the hands of Mr. Humphrys, in future; and if his action will be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor with a view of depriving him of his commission of the peace.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Certain writs of execution for recovery of rent were lodged with the sheriff by Mr. Humphrys for execution against three of his tenants. The sheriff, whose duty it was to execute these, requisitioned police protection. I am not aware whether the judgments on which these writs were issued have been set aside, but, if so, the tenants will no doubt have their legal remedy. It is not the privilege of the sheriff to hold any investigation into the legality of the judgments upon which writs of execution are based. His duty is to execute the writs lodged with him which appear correct, on their face, nor is the Executive entitled to refuse protection on any such ground.

    Sir Roger Palmer's Estate, County Mayo.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Sir Roger Palmer, in county Mayo, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners or to the Congested Districts Board.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The estate in question has not yet been offered for sale to either the Commissioners or to the Congested Districts Board.

    Enniskillen Dispensary Districts.
    MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a report by Dr. M'Carthy, on the 30th May, to the Local Government Board in reference to six dispensary districts composing the union
    478
    of Enniskillen, namely, that the medical officer's attendance and report books, and the medical relief register of cases and the midwife's register, were not sent to the guardians for examination and that no arrangement has been made for the examination of the dispensary records; is he aware that the guardians, in view of the importance of such examinations, in the interest of the poor, and for the due discharge of the Medical Charities Acts by all officials concerned, on the 12th of August, 1902, requested the Local Government Board to sanction the appointment of local committees, consisting of the guardians representing the dispensary district, the clergymen of all churches, and five ratepayers in each district; the committee to meet monthly, examine the doctor's books, and report to the board of guardians; and, if so, will he, in view of the fact that the doctor's books have not been examined since the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898, and of the difficulty of inducing guardians to remain after the business of the board has terminated, take into consideration the necessity of devising some plan by which an effective examination of the doctor's books may be performed with the least tax on guardians' time.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Section 30 of the Act of 1898 abolished dispensarv committees and transferred their business to the board of guardians. Consequently the Local Government Board was unable to sanction the arrangement proposed in August, 1902. It is open to the guardians under Article 10 of the Dispensary Rules to appoint a small committee of its members for the purposes mentioned in the Question. In the majority of the unions the guardians themselves examine the books. Elsewhere the duty has been delegated to a committee of guardians with satisfactory results.

    Congestion in South Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many landlords owning estates in the congested districts of South Kerry have offered their estates to the Congested Districts Board for resale to the tenants; can he state the terms demanded from

    479
    the Board; and has the condition of the money market militated against the successful operation of the Land Act of 1903 in the congested districts of Ireland?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Negotiations are pending with eight landlords. Until these have been concluded no statement can be made in respect to the terms. The reply to the concluding query is in the negative.
    MR. FLAVIN: What has been the price demanded by the landlords?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It would be most improper for me to express any opinion as to the terms, either on one side or the other.

    Promotion of Irish National School Teachers.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of national school teachers who have received promotion whose record was "fair" for the three years ending 31st March, 1903, together with the number promoted whose record was less than "fair" for the same period.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that no teachers received promotion whose records were merely "fair" for the three years ended 31st March, 1903, and that no teachers received promotion whose records were less than "fair" for the same period.

    Government Advances for Harbour Works in Ireland.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if the Irish Government are about to advance £100,000 for harbour works in the neighbourhood of Belmullet, county Mayo; and, if so, is this sum by loan or grant, and if by loan on what terms; how much has this county received for like purposes since 1883, including the present advance; and what sums have in the same period been advanced to the county of Antrim for similar purposes.
    MR. WYNDHAM: If all the arrangements imposed by statute with the county council, railway company, and
    480
    other interested parties are, as I trust may be the case, satisfactorily concluded, a sum of over £90,000 may probably be issued in respect of works in Mayo as a free grant under the Marine Works Act of 1902. That Act, in common with the Railways Act of 1896 and the Railways Act of 1890 (Mr. A. J. Balfour's Act) provides for free grants in connection only with counties of which portions are scheduled as congested. No sums under those Acts are applicable to other parts of Ireland, and no comparison can be usefully instituted between such exceptional expenditure in a 'congested' county and ordinary expenditure in an uncongested county, except for the purpose of criticising a policy consistently pursued since the year 1890. The Sea Fisheries Act of 1883 was of general application. Under it Antrim received a free grant of £1,342, and Mayo a free grant of £27,520, and a loan of £2,773. I am inquiring what are the sums granted or lent in respect of county Mayo by the Congested Districts Board under the Act of 1891, and in respect of Antrim from other sources since the year 1883.
    MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): As a matter of fact, has the hon. Member informed the right hon. Gentleman of the necessity for a harbour grant for this county?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Irish University Education.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of its bearing on the question of University education in Ireland, he will assent to the Return standing on to-day's Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Down.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; I cannot see my way to assent to the proposed Return. It would involve a departure from precedent inexpedient in itself, and ineffective for the object which the hon. Member contemplates, inasmuch as it would take no cognisance of the larger number of officials employed in the various other Departments of the State

    481
    in Ireland, for which I am not answerable, and the still larger number of Irishmen holding Crown appointments outside Ireland.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is the objection to granting this Return to be found in the fact that there is a boycott of Catholics in Ireland—
    [No Answer was returned.]
    Appended is the Notice of Motion referred to:
    Government Departments (Ireland) (Officials).—Return setting forth the names, salaries, and places of education of the salaried officials in the different Government Departments under the jurisdiction of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

    Lough Leagh Land Proprietors' Meeting.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a meeting convened by the Board of Works, of proprietors of lands in Lough Leagh district, which was held in the county Antrim Courthouse, Belfast, on 24th June, for the purpose of appointing trustees, not exceeding fifteen in number; whether such meeting was fully advertised beforehand; whether he is aware that when a vote was taken it was found that the proprietors were outweighed by proxies; whether these proxies were obtained and used in a legal manner; and, if not, whether he will order a new election; whether, in view of the present system of administering the Trust by men who are not ratepayers and who do not reside in the flooded district, he will consider the advisability of transferring the powers and duties of the Trust to the local authorities of the several parts of the district comprising the flooded area.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The meeting was convened by the Board of Works and advertised as prescribed by Section 120 of the Act 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 89. The secretary to the drainage trustees states that the proxies were in a majority. I have no reason to suppose that they were obtained or used in an illegal
    482
    manner. The trustees are elected by the proprietors in the district, who are liable for payment of the rate for maintaining the drainage works. The law imposes no restriction upon the choice of trustees by the electors, and there appears to be no ground for interfering with that choice.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Trust is administered by those who are not ratepayers and who do not reside in the district?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I understand the trustees are elected by the ratepayers.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Does the Chief Secretary intend to allow the administration of this Trust by men who have no authority or right to do so?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The matter rests with my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

    Complaints of Rev. R. D. Patterson of St. Barnabas Church, Dublin.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rev. R. D. Patterson, of St. Barnabas Church, Dublin, has on several occasions complained to the police authorities that divine service in his church has been disturbed by the throwing of stones upon the roof, and that the notice board in front of the church has been damaged; and whether, in view of the fact that this clergyman when walking the public street is followed by persons calling him offensive names, he will explain why no action has been taken by the police upon these complaints.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. Several complaints have been made. The reply which I gave on the 22nd June†was based on reports of communications made to the police by the Rev. Mr. Patterson on the 2nd May and by his Rector, the Rev. Mr. Griffin, on the 5th May. I now find that Mr. Patterson renewed his complaints on the 10th May,
    † See(4) Debates, cxxxvi., 812.

    483
    and again on the 28th June. I can assure my hon. friend that the police have been instructed to protect the rev. gentleman from annoyance and that they do their best to carry out the instructions they have received.

    West Coast of Ireland Fish-Curing Stations.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board make it a condition of letting their fish-curing stations on the west coast to fish buyers for the autumn season that the prices paid by buyers must be approved by the Board; if so, will he explain the necessity for it; has objection been made to this condition by any buyer on the ground that it interfered with freedom of bargaining with the fishermen; how many applications have been made for the stations at Porturlin county Mayo; did Mr. S. G. Gott occupy one of these last year; if so, under what conditions; and have any negotiations passed between him and the Board for a sub-letting during the forthcoming autumn.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Such a condition is imposed by the Board. The object is to protect the fishermen against unfair prices being fixed by a merchant who virtually enjoys a monopoly by reason of his having acquired from the Board the only available curing station in the district. No buyer has objected to the condition on the ground stated. Two applications were received this year for the station at Porturlin. Mr. Gott signed the agreement last year; he declined to do so this season.

    The McGillycuddy Estate.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the case of the McGillycuddy Estate, which is now in the Land Judge's Court and in which an order for sale has been made, a number of tenants including Mr. Jeremiah J. Doyle, of Whitefield, have been excluded from negotiations without any satisfactorv cause; and whether representations will be made to have a sale to all the tenants carried out.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have been informed that proceedings are in progress for the sale of the entire of this estate, and that it is not the intention of the owner to exclude any tenant who may desire and agree to purchase his holding.
    MR. MURPHY: May I point out I am personally aware that this tenant has been excluded?

    Insanitary Condition of Dee Street, Belfast.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the Dee Street of Belfast there are over 200 houses without any sanitary conveniences; and whether, in view of the outbreak of smallpox in that city, steps will be taken to induce the Corporation to more efficiently perform its duty under the Public Health Acts.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed by the town clerk that there are only 106 houses in Dee Street, and that all have proper sanitary accommodation. The corporation have taken, and are taking, all necessary steps to carry out their duties under the Public Health Acts, and on Friday last adopted plans at a cost of £40,000 for the more efficient sewering of the two outlying districts recently added to the city.

    Kerry Letter Deliveries.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for a daily delivery of letters in the townlands of Readrinagh, Knockdoorah, Meentogues, Stagmount, Gortnaglagh, and Connearagh, between Headfort and Rathmore, county Kerry, seeing that the district is thickly populated and includes two schools.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): Enquiry is being made on the subject. When it is completed I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

    Belfast Post Office—Money Order Counter Funds.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, if he can explain under what circumstances did the funds at the money order counter in Belfast

    485
    become exhausted on the 28th ultimo; is he aware that this has happened on several occasions; and whether, in view of the fact that the public were detained pending arrangements being made with the bank, he will give instructions for adequate arrangements for the prompt disposal of the public demands.
    LORD STANLEY: I am informed that on 28th June the cash in the hands of one of the clerks at the counter was exhausted by the presentation of a Savings Bank Warrant for a considerable sum. He at once took steps to obtain a fresh supply; and no serious inconvenience seems to have been caused to the public. There does not appear to have been any other case recently in which the funds at the money order counter were exhausted.
    MR. SLOAN: But is it not the fact that this has occurred several times, though perhaps not recently?
    LORD STANLEY: I am not told so.
    MR. SLOAN: It is the case.

    Belfast Mails—Proposed Supplementary Service.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will authorise a supplementary mail bag to be despatched from Belfast for London and other English towns, viâ Greenore and Holyhead, by the train leading Belfast at 6.45 p.m., and arriving in London at 7.30 a.m., thus giving the public of Belfast more than an hour extra in which to reply to their English correspondence.
    LORD STANLEY: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware there are already three dispatches in the evening from Belfast of London correspondence. It hardly appears that the expense involved for a fourth despatch would be justified. I am, however, in correspondense with the railway companies in regard to an acceleration of the Stranraer service which, if afforded, would, I hope, go far to meet the wishes of the public in Belfast. I may point out to the hon. Member that there is already a later service from Belfast (viâ
    486
    Fleetwood) than the service viâ Greenore which he wishes to be used, and that letters sent viâ Fleetwood arrive in London in ample time to be answered the same afternoon.

    London Delivery of Belfast Mails—Alleged Delay.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, if he is aware that letters from Belfast for London viâ Fleetwood are not delivered in the City before 2 o'clock, although they arrive at Euston before 11; and, if so, will he take steps to have an earlier delivery.
    LORD STANLEY: The mail from Belfast viâ Fleetwood is due at Euston at 10.50 a.m., too late for the City delivery, commencing at 11.20 a.m. It is accordingly included in the next delivery which begins at 12.20 p.m. and is completed about 2.0 p.m.

    Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland—Glounbawn Level Crossing.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on their line of railway from Gortatlea to Castleisland have removed the gatesman and locked the gate leading to a passage across the line hitherto used by the people of Gurrane,Glounbawn,and Ballymacpierce; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to compel the company to carry out their obligations in this matter.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade communicated with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on the subject of the Question and learn from them that the company assumes it refers to an accommodation crossing at Glounbawn where the gates have been provided with locks, of which keys are supplied to persons entitled to use the crossing. The hon. Member's Question is not very specific as to the position of the crossing, but if the assumption that it is merely what is called an accommodation crossing is correct the company would not appear to have violated their obligations in this respect.
    MR. MURPHY: I will send the right hon. Gentleman a specific statement on the subject.

    Fraudulent Balance-sheets.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the amendment of the law on the subject of fraudulent balance-sheets, promised as soon as possible during the debate on 19th February, 1903, will be introduced during the present session.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUK, Manchester, E.): I should be very unwilling to add to the present programme of the Government, except in relation to Bills which are necessary for administrative reasons, unless the Bill which was added to that programme was of a genuinely uncontentious character. I suppose I may count on my hon. friend's support for the Motion before the House, which will, no doubt, add to the opportunities for Government business.
    MR, SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he promised this Bill a year and a half ago?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot promise a Bill this session, will he give the House an opportunity of discussing this question on the Vote for the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown?

    Finance Bill.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to proceed with the Finance Bill immediately on the conclusion of the Report stage of the Licensing Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As at present advised I propose to proceed with the Finance Bill when the proceedings in Committee on the Licensing Bill are concluded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have to ask the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to business, and particularly as to the Supply for Thursday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand it will be most convenient that Irish Estimates shall be taken on Thursday.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is not yet able to say anything about the War office vote?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. It cannot be taken next Thursday, but I hope there will be no long delay.

LICENSING BILL (PROCEDURE).
Order read, for resuming adjourned' debate on Amendment to Question [1st July], "That the proceedings in Committee and on Report of the Licensing Bill shall be brought to a conclusion in the manner hereinafter mentioned in six allotted days—

(a) The proceedings in Committee on Clause 1 on the first allotted day.

(b) The proceedings in Committee on Clauses 2 and 3 on the second allotted day.

(c) The proceedings in Committee on Clause 4 on the third allotted day.

(d) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining clauses of the Bill, and on any new Government clauses, and on schedules and any new Government schedules, and any other proceedings necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion on the fourth allotted day.

(e) The proceedings on Report on any new clauses and on Amendments to Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of that Bill, he brought to a conclusion on the fifth allotted day; and

(f) The proceedings on Report be concluded on the sixth allotted day.

After this order comes into operation, any day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Licensing Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day.
At 11 p.m. on the said allotted days, or if the day is a Friday at 4.30 p.m., the Chairman or Speaker shall put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question

489
on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments) and on every Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded on the allotted day.
In the case of Government Amendments, or of Government new clauses or schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made, or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
At twelve midnight of the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first order, or, if that day is a Friday, at 5.30 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill
Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted (except at an afternoon sitting at 7.30 p.m.), under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to Sittings of the House.
After the passing of this Order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Licensing Bill stand as the first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor under Standing Order No. 10, nor Motion to postpone a clause, shall be received, unless moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. Nor shall any opposed private business be set down at the Evening Sitting for consideration on any of the allotted days, or on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order.
If Progress be reported, the Chairman shall put this Order in force in any subsequent sitting of the Committee."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Which Amendment was—
"In line 1, to leave out all the words after the word 'That' and insert the words 'this House declines to consider a proposal to deprive the House of Commons, without any justification in the previous course of the debate, of all power of reasonable and adequate discussion in respect of a measure which seeks, in the absence of any authority from the country, to make fundamental and much controverted change in laws vitally affecting the well-being of the people."—(Mr. Asquith.)
Question again proposed, "That the words 'the proceedings stand part of the Question."
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I should not have ventured to intervene in this discussion, but for the very remarkable proposition on which the Prime Minister, in making his Motion, founded his case. I confess that I listened with something like alarm to the language that then fell from the Prime Minister. I seemed to hear foreshadowed that a further Parliamentary revolution was to be added, in his opinion definitely and deliberately, by his Procedure Rules and by utterances that had fallen from him with a full responsibility, to that other revolution to which I think he has already shown us the way since last September—a revolution in the great organ of our Constitution, the solidarity and loyalty of Cabinet Government. I think this Motion, supported by the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman founded his case upon, marks as huge a stride in a revolution of Parliamentary power, Parliamentary authority, and Parliamentary fame as has ever taken place in our history. There have been five guillotine or closure Motions within recent years. The hon. Member for Altrincham said that we on this side had taken the initiative in regard to the guillotine closure. That is a complete misstatement. The first two guillotine closures were taken under the auspices of the present Prime Minister, and were taken in reference to the Parnell Commission Bill and the Crimes Act. The next two were taken in the Government of Mr. Gladstone and of Lord Rosebery. The first was the Home Rule Bill and the second the Evicted Tenants Bill. There has been a fifth guillotine closure Motion, which, or the first time, was on au English Bill. I would have the House note that the first four guillotine closures were all connected with Irish business, and that fact sheds a very considerable light on the difference in treatment that Ireland has experienced from England and Scotland in this House. The fifth guillotine closure was in 1902. I venture to assert that in all those five closures, both in the four Irish closures, and in the fifth, or English, closure two things were alleged by the Government who made the Motion corresponding to that which we are now discussing, the first urgency and the second obstruction. I was in the House during all those closures, and

491
I believe I am perfectly right in making that statement. I think I might note a third point—namely, that in all the three cases there had been very large and ample discussion, less, for reasons I will touch on, in the case of the Evicted Tenants Bill than in the case of the other four closures. What I want to call the attention of the House to is the new departure which the Ministry are making in the proposal they now advance. They do not contend that there has been obstruction. The silence of hon. Gentlemen opposite with which I am met when making that statement—
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E): I did not say so.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: Really the right hon. Gentleman, I thought, the other afternoon, if he will allow me to say so without disrespect, was rather playing with the House. Now he says he did not say so. But what did he say? He carefully abstained on Friday from even suggesting that there was obstruction. Then he does not base his case on obstruction.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I accept that statement, not the other one.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: Yes, he does not base his case on obstruction. I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite, and those who support them and the Government in the Press, will note that this Motion is not based upon obstruction.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not necessarily.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I do not care what it is necessarily based on; I say that previously this Motion always has been based on obstruction, as one of the elements—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong there. I have not referred to my own speech, but I do not believe he will find that I thought it worth while to allude to the obstruction in the case of the Education Bill, and I am by no means sure that obstruction formed a larger part of the argument of Mr. Gladstone over the Home Rule Bill and the Evicted Tenants Bill.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: That cannot apply to the Evicted Tenants Bill, because Mr. Gladstone had then retired from Parliament. As to the closure on the Education Bill I cannot contradict the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may be wrong, but I think that was so.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: However, we will not argue that further. This Motion, this strong, drastic Motion for closure, is not based, as certainly three others of the four were based, upon obstruction. But it is not worth while to press that, because my point is that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced to a much broader position, rightly or wrongly, than has ever before been taken by a Minister making such a Motion as this. It is most remarkable, and nothing can be more worthy of the attention of the House. What does he say? He invites us—these are his points—
"To consider this Motion in relation to the whole course, not merely of Parliamentary business in this session, but in any session. And it is because on the broadest principles that I believe there is no course open to us but that which I have adopted that I am now asking the House to adopt it."
Then he says—
"The Parliamentary machine cannot be expected to work smoothly, efficiently, or reasonably, if too great a tax is put upon it."
as regards the duration of the session, or the labours of the session. The labours of the session! I have been over twenty years a Member of this House, and I do not think I have ever known a session—I have known many more than twenty sessions—as to which labour could be so little credited. I understand the anxieties of the session, the artifices and manœuvres of the session, the changes in relation to the order of procedure which the Government have submitted to the House. I understand, too, the efforts that Ministers have made, in resistance to our contrary efforts, not to drop the mask behind which they have been hiding themselves on the most important of all questions ever since the session began. That is one of the circumstances that account for the little business that has been done, for the absurdity of speaking of the labours of the session. One cause of the congestion

493
of business of which the light hon. Gentleman speaks, and with which he is endeavouring to cope—one main cause of that has been the constant effort of certain of his colleagues, and I am afraid I must say especially himself, to play hide and seek with Parliament and with the country. Let any of us look back, for example, upon the week that was, not wasted, but diverted from such business as the Licensing Bill to the Scottish Education Bill. I am as much interested in the Scottish Education Bill as any other Scottish Member; it is a very important Bill; but is there a man in the House who will deny that that Bill could have been quite as adequately, if not more adequately, discussed upstairs? No English Members at all, I think, appeared upon the scenes. I charge the Government with this—they come down here and try to pretend that the Parliamentary machine has broken down, that all the old traditions of Parliament in debate are outworn, and yet we know that during that week the time of the House of Commons was withdrawn from objects with which it might well have been occupied, because—it was almost admitted by imputation in an answer to the Leader of the Opposition—because hon. Gentleman opposite, and there may be some on this side, too, for aught I know, needed to have their diversions at Ascot. What a providential thing it is for us that Good-wood and St. Leger do not happen to come in the Parliamentary session.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Goodwood does.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I fancy it does, but very late in the session. Things, I see, are less providentially arranged than I had thought. We thoroughly understand, as it is understood on the other side, what are the Prime Minister's reasons for wishing to ring the curtain down upon one of the most squalid political scenes that has ever disfigured our Parliamentary records.
As to the other point, urgency, which has been the other pillar of these guillotine closure Motions. Some reference has been made to the closure procedure upon the Evicted Tenants Bill. I certainly am not going to argue the main question of that Bill. I see the Solicitor-
494
General opposite, and he will correct me if I am wrong. I am perfectly prepared to defend the closure Motion made upon that occasion, not on the grounds that if the Evicted Tenants Bill had not passed Ireland would have got out of hand, and that we should have had widespread and sanguinary disorder; I never said so when I was arguing for the Bill. But there was, and it was admitted by many Gentlemen on that side of the House—there was admittedly an administrative expediency in getting some remedy for the particular social condition in Ireland before the autumn and winter faced us. I will only say that my right hon. friend the Member for Monmouth did not sanction the guillotine closure till 31st July, and if we had not proposed it then, and got that measure, it is my own firm opinion even now, so far as one's opinion is worthy of value upon such a question after ten years interval—if we had not done all we could, including the guillotine closure, to press forward that Motion—that there would have been serious disorder during the coming winter. It was the very fact that we pressed forward the Bill that produced the patience and confidence that kept certain very disturbed districts quiet. In the debate on the closure Motion to that Bill the right hon. Gentleman laid down in very distinct and emphatic language the canon, and I call the attention of the House to it, by which guillotine closure ought to be governed. What were his words?
"I admit,"
said the right hon. Gentleman—
"there may be practical necessities which have to be got over which might justify, or even compel, this House to suspend the right s which for centuries have guarded the liberty of debate. Is this Evicted Tenants Bill one of these cases? Is there some practical, menacing necessity overhanging ns which if not dealt with will impair our whole social system, or the external security of the Empire?"
I am quite willing to accept that as a canon to be applied to the closure we are now discussing. Will the right hon. Gentleman get up and tell us that there is anything imperilling our whole social system or the external security of the Empire? He cannot make any such contention. We know quite well where the urgency lies, and I make no apology for

495
putting that point. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said to us—
"What do you expect to get in exchange for this sacrifice of our dignity and our honour? I will tell you. You expect to get the votes of the Irish Members. The Irish Members expect to go to their constituents and say they did their best to obtain £250,000."
We shall get off very cheaply at the present time if this Bill does not cost us more than £250,000. We know quite well what it is that you expect. I will refer to the language used by an ardent supporter of the Government. The language has been heard before, but it is very apposite on the present occasion. It is rather racier, perhaps a little more "vulgar, than one likes even to repeat. This is what was said last year by the president of one of the important licensed victuallers' associations at the annual dinner—
"I do not think the Government will go against the trade, for we put them in power, and if they treat us properly we will keep them in power, but if they do not we will chuck them out."
That is the urgency; and I confess it is painful to me, who am as jealous as other people of the honour of this House and of the honour of British government, to think that such pressure should have produced such a proposal as we are now discussing. Sir Robert Peel, when he was being hunted and harried by the protectionists—just as the protectionists, I understand, are hunting and harrying now—said—
"I have no desire to be Minister of England, but if I am Minister of England, so long as I hold that post I will hold it by no servile tenure."
Can we imagine anyone holding by a tenure more servile than that indicated in the passage I have just read? I have no desire to lecture the right hon. Gentleman; I should be presumptuous if I did; but I cannot help recalling the four occasions prior to 1902 when the guillotine closure was applied. In the first two cases the Leader of the House, Mr. Smith, attended vigiliantly and assiduously, watched the proceedings of the House, and felt his way for a justification for his proposal. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR dissented.] Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do absolutely.
MR. JOHN MOELEY: I was in the House in those days, and it seemed to us on this side that Mr. Smith was constantly in the House. I certainly can speak with full authority of Mr. Gladstone's conduct on the Home Rule Bill. We could not persuade him to absent himself for more than an hour or two, and very seldom for one single hour, of those eighty-two long days.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He had introduced the Bill; it was his Bill.
MR. JOHN MOELEY: That is so; but as Prime Minister, as Leader of the House, he would not have felt himself in a position to move so drastic a proposal as we made in 1893 unless he had vigilantly and assiduously watched the whole proceedings in the House and the whole temper and spirit of the House.
What is the case for the application of the broad principle of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke? The House meets in February. In regard to the great Bill of the session, the proper course from his precedent would appear to be not to introduce it until the House has sat for two and a half months, not to move the Second Reading for nearly a month more, and then after three, and only three, effective Parliamentary days to come down with a thundering Motion for a guillotine closure. These are the sort of conditions which the right hon. Gentleman seems to assume justify him in making this drastic and unprecedented proposal. That is the precedent he is setting up with his great authority and great position and by his emphatic and definite language. The right hon. Gentleman's postulates and axioms mean, if they mean anything, when they are properly worked out, the abolition of the Committee stage of a Bill. Nobody in the House has had so large a share for good or for evil in legislation as the right hon. Gentleman. He must agree with me that there are many Bills in which the Committee stage is far more important really than the Second Reading stage. The workmanlike shape of a Bill, its working when it becomes law, depends much more upon the Committee stage than it does upon anything in the Second Reading stage. In his speech last Friday the Prime Minister held quite extraordinary language. He

497

said this Licensing Bill does not contain many novel principles. I wholly dissent. It contains novel principles about the transfer of jurisdiction, about compensation, about the conditions of new licences. These proposals may be good or they may be bad, but they are novel principles. When the right hon. Gentleman says, as he did on Friday, that these principles have been thoroughly threshed out, there again I am bound to dissent from him. I do not think they have been thoroughly threshed out at all. But, be that as it may, I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can differ from me when I say that the application of the principles of the Bill is not any less important, any less vital, than the mere formal affirmation of the principles themselves. The right hon. Gentleman says—
"No licences are to be taken away without compensation; you have affirmed that principle, and, having done that, the best thing the House can do is to leave the rest to the draftsman and the Home Secretary."
The Home Secretary is a Gentle-m in of whom I will not say one single uncharitable word, but when I am asked if I will take him to be my guide in a nice discrimination among the shades of words, then I confess I am disappointed and I cannot accept that guidance. I cannot consent willingly to the doctrine that the Home Secretary and the draftsman are to supersede the Committee of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman has an ingenious friend who says if we go on debating the Bill on the same scale as we have debated the first clause it will last a year and a quarter. Surely the right hon. Gentleman himself knows very well he has had a great deal too much experience not to know—that the discussions upon the great operative, combative clauses of a Bill are certainly no test of the time that will be taken in carrying the other portions. Just look at the first clause. Apart from the question of division of jurisdiction between quarter sessions and the magistrates, there are other questions of the most supreme importance. The right hon. Gentleman said no important issue need be left undiscussed. Has he thought how many seriously important issues are left in the clause and which do need exhaustive discussion? I use the word "exhaustive"in the fair sense. Would
498
four hours be sufficient for an exhaustive discussion on the question of liability? Yet that is all we shall have if the question comes up on a Friday. There is the question of the desirability of introducing a popular element into the local licensing authority. Many of us eel that that is a vital question, and many in the country, apart from Party politics, think that it is a vital question. Then we come to the question whether a definite reduction in proportion to population or otherwise should be made compulsory. That is another important question in which the country is profoundly interested. There is another point, not so deep as the other two, but still important — the point whether the justices are to be allowed to employ counsel, and to produce witnesses before quarter sessions, in the same way as the licensed victuallers. Surely the idea of dealing with important issues such as these raised on the first clause in six and a half hours is farcical. Look also at Clauses 2 and 3, which are to be disposed of together n six and a half hours. Listen to the opening words of Clause 2—
"Where quarter sessions refuse the renewal of a licence under this Act, a sum equal to the difference b tween the value of licensed premises, calculated as if this Act had not passed—"
The Solicitor-General will agree that in these words there is material—if he were in wig and gown—for a speech for an hour's duration or more. Then we come to Clause 3, which deals with the position of the tenant of a tied house under this scheme. The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech, very cavalierly, "Oh, we have discussed the question of the tied house." But does the right hon. Gentleman see that in this third clause are raised a number of disputable questions, which cannot be answered satisfactorily except those in this House of knowledge and experience in local business are allowed to ray what they have to say about them? Recollect that in the same six and a half hours are to be dealt with three Amendments put down by Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House, the Members for East Somerset, North-west Manchester, and the University of Cambridge — Gentlemen whom we should not suspect of putting down frivolous or

499
obstructive Amendments—which raise the vital question of gradation—that is to say, that after a certain number of years the compensation is to be less than at an early period. What fair or candid man will contend that these are Amendments which ought to be ruled out or to be discussed at the fag end of a six and a half hours discussion? It is perfectly ridiculous. Then we come to Clause 4, which is to have six and a half hours to itself. That clause sets up a completely new licensing system. I do not judge it; I am only describing it. But it undoubtedly revolutionises the whole system of licensing. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on that point also in a very free-handed way, said—
"The Bill embodies the principle that new licences shall only be granted under conditions which will prevent a monopoly from growing up, a most important principle upon which there is no division of opinion between the two sides of the House."
The right hon. Gentleman takes it for granted that, if there is no division of opinion between the two sides of the House, there is no occasion for discussion. Happily, the value of our discussions do not depend upon the controversial issues which are raised between the two sides of the House. This House exists to mould and shape the legislative proposals which are laid before it. And for the right hon. Gentleman to assume that upon a Bill of this kind the House of Commons, representative though it be of all parties, and full of local experience, cannot contribute anything in a full discussion to make the measure weather-tight, water-tight, is certainly the worst compliment that has ever been paid to the House. I heard the hon. and gallant Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire say on Friday that there was a concerted conspiracy on this side to prevent the fair consideration of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just been appointed to the Privy Council. I can only admonish him that we of the Privy Council never use random and reckless language of that kind. But no doubt he will acquire a more temperate tone of speech in that august assembly. There were able, and eloquent, and powerful speeches delivered from this side of the House on Friday, but the most pungent of all the speeches against the Motion were made on the Government side. The
500
right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cambridge University made a thoroughly well-weighted contribution to the deeper elements of the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somerset, a supporter of the Bill, declared that if this Motion be pressed he and his friends will be unable to vote for the Third Reading. Then there is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, who said he did not like the Bill, but he should vote for it for reasons that were judged to be operative in his own mind, but which were not relevant to the issue. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he should go into the lobby with the Ministers because he had a mandate to keep in a Unionist Government and to keep out a Separatist Government. The hon. Member for the Altrincham Division declared that it was not with a very happy conscience that he should give his vote for the Motion. The hon. Member further said—and I call the particular attention of the House to this, because I am sure that in the next Parliament the question will be taken up—"the necessity of closuring the Bill was one of the many condemnations they had had of the new Rules of Procedure." I think that is perfectly and absolutely true. If ever there was a Bill that needed to be moulded and shaped by the full discussion of this House it is the Licensing Bill. Half the social questions which interest and perplex social reformers of all shades are touched by our licensing system. Some of the deepest questions that have troubled the administration of local self-government are also touched by changes in the licensing system. If you think of the enormous interest;—I might almost say the unparalleled interest—which at this moment is taken in this measure by the one side and the other on the temperance question, and by all sects, Churches, and parties, you will realise the disgust, the anger, the concern in which they will see that all those points which need minute discussion, and in which they take such deep interest, are to be shut out of the purview of the House of Commons, which is their representative Chamber, and to be settled by the draftsman and the Home Secretary.

501
I will only make one observation the right hon. Gentleman, who, we all know, takes a serious and long-sighted view of the risks of democratic Government. I do not think he will differ from me when I say that no object ought to be more dear to the Legislature than that the people of the country should take an interest in the laws of the country. But if you proceed to change the spirit and the method in which the laws are made, depend upon it you will change the spirit in which the people obey the laws and revere the Parliament which makes them. It is not an accident that alongside of this Bill there is a Bill to be pressed, I understand, called the Defaulting Authorities Bill. If you persist in this line which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadows, of making laws without that full and free discussion which has given the people of this country confidence in the laws, and made the laws respected and obeyed, then you will lose that element in our national life which has made us the most law-abiding of all peoples, and given to our institutions a stability which is possessed by those of no other country. I will conclude by quoting words which the right hon. Gentleman used when we proposed the Evicted Tenants closure Motion— not that it gives me any pleasure to reproduce them, but I think they define the present situation. The right hon. Gentleman said to us sitting there—
"Indulge in this petty and sordid trafficking for votes if you like, but do not ask us to help you to make the honour and the dignity and the traditions of this House counters in the sorry game you are playing for political support. Do not ask us to take a hand."
With those words I close my observations.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that he and his hon. friends who sat with him representing Ireland in this House, intended to give a solid vote against this Resolution for closure by compartments. In taking that course they followed the unvarying record of the Irish Party. There was no section of Members in that House who had so vital an interest in maintaining the privileges of private Members as the Irish, for the reason that no matter how
502
Governments came and went, and who sat on the Treasury Bench, the Irish Members were always anchored in opposition, a small minority, and therefore it followed that they always opposed anything tending to interfere with the privileges of private Members and the rights of minorities. On this occasion they took this action irrespective altogether of the merits and demerits of this particular Bill. On that there was a difference of opinion in the ranks of the Irish Party. In their ranks were men holding extreme views on both aspects, both as affecting the liquor traffic and temperance reform. Many years ago when Mr. Parnell founded the Nationalist Party and laid down rules for its guidance, he laid down the wise rule that on questions of this kind they should never invoke the power of the Party. He was old enough to remember when that was the rule in English Parties, and he was not sure that by that means the cause of temperance had not been advanced. With regard to these measures dealing with the liquor traffic, some had opposed and some had supported them, but the larger section had taken no part in the voting. He himself had always been in favour of the principle of compensation. More than once he had voted for it. Last year he voted in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for York, and although there were portions of the present Bill: he personally intensely disliked, he voted in favour of the principle of compensation on the Second Reading.
The question of closure by compartments, however, should not be looked at from the narrow point of view of the merits or demerits of the Bill. The Motion had not been proposed as a desperate expedient to meet a desperate crisis in the conduct of the affairs of the House. On the contrary, the Prime Minister put it for-ward as a great principle and a great precedent to be followed in the conduct of the ordinary business of the House in future, and this, to his mind, differentiated the present proposal from any similar Motion ever before the House. In 1887, when closure by compartments was proposed on the Coercion Bill, the Bill had been fifteen days in Committee, and it was.

503
notorious that there was an open declaration by Members for Nationalist constituencies that they would exercise every form of the House to prevent the Bill being passed. On the other hand, the Government claimed that the passage of the Bill was necessary to protect life and property, and secure law and order in Ireland. On the Home Rule Bill of 1893 a similar state of things arose The Bill had been twenty-eight days in Committee, and was opposed by a strong and powerful Opposition, who declared openly that they would exercise every device in their power to prevent its passing. So two years ago on the Education Bill, the Bill had been twenty-eight days in Committee, and there was an Opposition which did not disguise the fact that it intended to use every possible means to defeat the measure. Could it be honestly said that there were now, as then, special circumstances justifying a desperate and special expedient? The real facts were notorious. On several occasions, when the House was ready for a division the Government Whips had put up speakers to postpone a division until their supporters had arrived, [OPPOSITION cheers.] If the Prime Minister could have come to the House, as the Leader of the House on former occasions, and have been able to say, "We have done our best; but here is a Bill which has been obstructed in such a way and so long that unless you allow us to take some extraordinary remedy the will of the majority will be absolutely set at nought by the minority," then there might have been something to say for the Resolution, though its form would still be open to great objection. But the Prime Minister made no such demand. His argument all through his speech was that under the existing system no great measure introduced by any Government, if vigorously opposed, could be passed into law without some such device as closure by compartments. That argument entirely changed the whole character of his demand. They were asked to create a new precedent which would be put into force for all time in the House, namely, to declare that where there were no exceptional circumstances or difficulties, where there was no obstruction, and no crisis, abstract powers should be put in force
504
to close discussion on a measure of the most far-reaching importance.
The Prime Minister stated that under the present system of transacting business there was a very gloomy future before the House of Commons, and that there were only two alternatives, viz., absolute impotence and closure by compartments. Surely such a prospect ought to give pause to every believer in Parliamentary institutions. If the country once came to the conclusion that the House was impotent, that it was unable to transact the legislation brought before it, or to supply an effective check by discussion and had degenerated into a mere talking shop, the House of Commons would receive and would deserve the contempt of the people. It would not occupy a much better position in the eyes of the people and the country generally if it were proved that the only way in which any Government could in the future pass a great measure was by putting a stop to deliberation and suppressing free speech. If it became a regular practice, the House would have ceased to be a deliberative Assembly, and would merely register the decrees of a small number of gentlemen called a Cabinet. The whole raison d'être of the Assembly would have disappeared, and that alternative would be just as fatal to the survival of representative and Parliamentary institutions in this country as the other alternative of impotence to which the Prime Minister had alluded. There was a possibility only hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman of some great statesman in the future being able so to arrange the rules of the House that it would be able to transact its business. But no new Rules of Procedure would cure the disease from which the House was suffering. Since the year 1832 there had been eighteen Committees of the House of Commons deliberating upon new Rules. Again and again reforms had been introduced to facilitate the business of the House, and yet year by year the difficulties had been increasing. In 1902 they had a brand new code of Rules brought in by the right hon. Gentleman himself for the purpose of facilitating business. The House should recollect the circumstances under which those Rules were introduced. They were

505
brought in by probably one of the ablest statesmen England had ever seen, who was surrounded by a galaxy of talent, backed by an unexampled majority, and possessing absolute powers to carry any proposals he chose to bring forward. After mature deliberation a series of new Rules were introduced which, in the words of the Prime Minister—
"Would leave this House…not merely as a machine for passing legislation, but a free arena in which questions interesting to the country may be discussed."
And now, after two years experience, the right hon. Gentleman told the House there were only two alternatives before them—one of absolute impotence and the other closure by compartments.
But a far more serious consideration than the effect of this Motion upon this or that measure was the future of the House of Commons as a deliberative and legislative Assembly. It was amazing to him that he had not heard any speaker go to the root of the matter. The House was attempting an impossible task—a task day by day becoming more impossible under the new conditions that had arisen owing to a variety of causes. It was physically impossible that one legislative Assembly, even if it sat every day in the year, could fulfil the duties of a great Imperial Senate and also the duties of half-a-dozen local Parliaments as well. It was perfectly true that his argument on these procedure questions was always the same, but every session's experience demonstrated the truth and increased the force of his contention. He was not now arguing for Home Rule for Ireland, that question rested upon an entirely different set of considerations; he was trying in all seriousness of spirit to look at the question from the point of view of the House, of a Member of the House of Commons, and of a man who was a believer in Parliamentary institutions, and in all seriousness he declared that the Government were subjecting Parliamentary institutions to a strain they could not stand, and under which they would completely break down if the present course were persisted in. The more coercive proceedings of this kind were proposed, the more they would have to be increased. No more humiliating
506
confession of the breakdown of the Parliamentary machine could have been male than that of the Prime Minister, viz., impotence or the "gag." The closure when first proposed was put forward as a device which would be used only in exceptional circumstances; it was a strong and drastic medicine to be applied only in cases of grave disorder; it had now become a part of the ordinary everyday diet of the House of Commons. So it would be with closure by compartments. For the first time, the House was being asked to adopt this procedure, not to ease the dangers of a special situation, but on general principles to enable the Government to carry a great measure in the face of a vigorous Opposition. In a comparatively short space of time the House would find closure by compartments a part of its ordinary everyday procedure.
Not only the possibility, but the absolute absurdity of the present system was self-evident. The House of Commons was the great Senate of the Empire, governing great Imperial interests of hundreds of millions of people in different parts of the world—an Assembly whose time ought to be devoted to the consideration of questions upon which, perhaps, the peace of the world or the interests of humanity depended; and it was at the same time the local Parliament of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, charged with the duty of legislating for and supervising the administration of the smallest local and comparatively insignificant affairs of each portion of the so-called United Kingdom. The result was lamentable, but it was also ludicrous. At one moment this great Imperial Senate was called upon to discuss questions of Imperial importance affecting the whole Empire, and sometimes the whole civilised world; and then, suddenly, those questions were automatically hung up in order that the same Imperial Senate might discuss the dismissal of a policeman in Ireland or the alleged interference with St. Winifred's Well in Wales. The other day he was visited by a distinguished official from one of the most distant parts of the Empire. This gentleman had been absent from England for many years, and returned filled

507
with the proudest thoughts of the greatness of the Empire. Never having heard a debate in the House of Commons, he asked him (the hon. and learned Member) to secure him a place under the gallery. He entered the House with feelings almost of reverential awe, and then to his amazement he heard the House discussing for an hour and a half how best to deal with bugs and fleas in tenement houses. The position was absolutely ludicrous; it was also very serious. The latest edition of the Rules of Procedure were admitted by this Resolution to have been an absolute failure, and the closure by compartments would degrade, humiliate, and finally destroy. The House of Commons was being gradually suffocated and strangled to death, its only hope was to follow the example of other great nations similarly circumstanced by making a distinction between Imperial and local concerns, and thus affording time for the efficient government of both.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not repeat the criticism which I have previously passed upon some of the interventions in our constitutional debates by the hon. Member, for he has referred to that criticism in a very good-humoured spirit; and as to the contention which he has advanced to-day, I do not at all traverse one of the main pillars upon which he has built his thesis—namely, that this House does devote too much time to the details of measures, and thereby to a certain extent loses the sense of proportion and has not enough time to consider the principles of measures. I will point out to the hon. Member that he is in absolute disagreement with an eminent statesman who agrees with him on the subject of Home Rule in advancing that proposition, for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose complains—he did not pretend, he could not pretend, that any great principle underlying this Bill was undiscussed—what he said was that in order to make it a workable measure, in order that it might really carry out the intentions of its framers and of the House, it was necessary that the details should be hammered out on the floor of the House. It is no great interest of mine to knock together the heads of two such eminent persons who evidently, although
508
they are going to vote on the same side, approach this matter from an entirely different standpoint, Home Rulers though they both be. The hon. Gentleman in his defence of the British Constitution seems to me to have forgotten facts in the historic career of himself and the Party which he leads because he told us, unless. I entirely misunderstood his meaning, that he had always opposed Motions of this kind.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: No. I said the the Irish Party had invariably cast their votes against interference with freedom of speech and the rights of private Members of this House. I believe that statement is quite accurate.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to put into the hon. Gentleman's words any meaning which he did not intend to put into them himself. But surely he meant the House to understand that closure by compartments was an interference with the freedom of speech and the rights of the House, and so neither he nor his friends could support it; nor had they been found to support it in the past. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten what has taken place. To begin with, he did not vote against the closure by compartments on the Education Bill two years ago.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I was not here; I was in America.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: None of his-friends did. In the second place, he did vote for the closure by compartments both of the Home Rule Bill and of the Evicted Tenants Bill. I quite understand. I do not complain. The hon. Gentleman, in pursuance of what, no doubt, are perfectly legitimate tactics, desires to support the Opposition in this particular controversy. But do not let him come down to the House and, with an air of Roman virtue, declare that now he is merely carrying out a policy pursued in fair weather and in rainy weather alike by himself and his friends throughout a long period of Parliamentary history. If he goes back to the records of this House he will find that no such case can be made out.
I am sorry that the course which this debate has taken will compel

509
me, in the few minutes which I shall occupy in the reply which courtesy to the House requires me to make, to deal with some accusations which are of a more or less personal character, and are rather on one side of the important proposition which we are asked to discuss to-day. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate this afternoon, in a speech of great courtesy, attacked me in a manner which I do not complain of for not having been present all through the debates in Committee on this Bill, his view being that my absence from some of these debates in Committee disqualified me for forming an opinion of the propriety or impropriety of the steps I am now asking the House to adopt. Well, Sir, it is perfectly true that this Bill is not under my personal conduct. As the right hon. Gentleman says, I believe, for good or for evil, I have personally conducted more important measures through this House than any Member of it now living, and the House will admit, I think, that I have never shrunk from the labour of detail which that responsibility throws upon me. But I do not believe that it is in accordance with precedent or in the best interests of this House that it should be understood as a matter of course that the Leader of the House for the time being is to be responsible for all its important Bills. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to my lamented friend Mr. Smith, and said he was present throughout the debates on the Crimes Act. Sir, he was rarely present; he entrusted to me the whole responsibility for the conduct of that measure, and I do not think he thought it necessary to sit through the debates. May I be permitted to make this further addition to what I have said on this subject? Some Members of the House seem to be of opinion that it is in pursuit of some personal leisure that I am absent from this Bench. I can only say that the moments of greatest repose which I have in the course of a somewhat laborious official career are the moments I spend on this Bench. It may not be agreeable to listen to a series of tirades directed either against myself or against the policy of the Government, but it is not fatiguing. If I am not present upon this Bench, I can assure the House that I am invari-
510
ably engaged in matters which, if not of more importance, at all events involve much greater personal labour and exertion. Even as regards this Bill, I may say that I made a speech on the First Reading of it, that I made a speech on the Second Beading, and that I have intervened once or twice while it has been in Committee, and those interventions have been objected to by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Nobody can say I have left this Bill severely alone in the sense, for instance, in which Mr. Smith left to me the sole conduct of the Crimes Act and other large measures of Irish legislation with which, while he was Leader, I was entrusted.
That is perhaps a small matter. But I am afraid there is one other personal point which I cannot leave wholly alone. I have not been merely accused of leaving this Bill without sufficient superintendence, I have been accused, in perfectly unmistakable language, of having had my judgment as regards this Bill entirely perverted by the society which, according to the hon. Member for Spen Valley Division, I have been accustomed to keep. He refers, I understand, to the two or three days in the year which I am sorry to say are all, while in office, that I have been able to give to my constituency. But that minute fragment of the year, according to the hon. Gentleman's judgment, has been enough to corrupt at its source any estimate which I am able to frame upon a question in which licence-holders or brewers may be concerned. Well, Sir, I do not know that the hon. Member's estimate of my judgment is a matter on which I need detain the House, but I deeply regret that he should have thought it desirable in his interests or in anybody's interests to make a personal attack upon me which involved the reputations of two other persons, one of whom has long been dead, and the other of whom is in no sense open to the insinuation or suggestion which the hon. Gentleman, taking advantage of his position in this House, has made against him. He has chosen to attack my present chairman. My present chairman has never made any observation to me directly or indirectly upon this Bill or upon any other question of Governmental policy. I But, in any case, as far as I am aware,

511
his interests are no more affected by this Bill than the interests of the chairman of the hon. Gentleman himself, and I assume that the chairman of the hon. Gentleman is neither a brewer nor a licence-holder. And I must say the case is far worse with reference to the suggestion made by the hon. Member in regard to one who was many years ago my chairman and who was a brewer.
MR. WHITTAKER: I made no reference to him.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman talked of scandals in my constituency, which can only be interpreted as having reference to a story of which I just heard—
MR. WHITTAKER: I was making no reference to that gentleman. I was referring to the scandals in Manchester—the well-known scandals in connection with the watch committee, of which Sir John Marks was chairman, and the police. That is why I referred to the chief constable. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not know of them.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I admit I do not closely follow municipal affairs, which have nothing to do with my connection with Manchester.
MR. WHITTAKER: A national scandal.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to attack the Corporation of Manchester or any member of it he is at liberty to do so, but do not let him associate me with matters of that kind. The sincerity of the hon. Gentleman is beyond doubt; of his charity I have seen but few fragments. I think it would be well, I will not say for him, but for his cause, if he could persuade the House or anybody else that what animates him in this matter is not a personal aversion to a trade or to a class, but a desire to carry out that which this Bill will undoubtedly carry out—namely, a great temperance reform. The hon. Gentleman says that we are the slaves of a trade. May I point out to him and to the House that we do conceive that this measure, in addition to
512
all that we have a right to hope from it in the direction of temperance reform, does, in our opinion, do justice to a trade? We have never disguised that, and we believe it; and, what is more, that has been part of the creed of the vast majority of the Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House. If it be true that we are doing justice to a particular trade, are we disgraced because that trade expresses its I desire to see that justice done to it? Can anything be more childish than to suppose that because the licence-holder desires to see this Bill pass—[OPPOSITION] cries of "The brewer.") We will not quarrel. The licence-holder, the brewer, the holders of brewery shares, the insurance companies who hold brewery shares, in which, I daresay, the hon. Gentleman has insured his life—they may all be protected from injustice by this Bill; and why should they not say so, and what disgrace is there if we, holding the view that we are doing them a benefit, should accept these over-statements of their gratitude? The hon. Gentleman talked of our coming to "the crack of the whip." I suppose he meant the votes which this Bill is expected to give to the present holders of office. That sporting metaphor is capable of extension. I could not help looking at the face of the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Irish Party while the hon. Member for the Spen Valley was speaking, and I thought I saw a faint smile cross his face, probably produced by a reminiscence of the Evicted Tenants Bill, to which I shall refer in a moment, and I thought that, after all, perhaps "the crack of the whip" had been heard before in other quarters. And in a moment of unaccustomed prophecy I looked forward and I thought it not impossible that from the same quarter, and adjusted to the same victims, "the crack of the whip" might be heard at no distant date. [Cheers and some OPPOSITION cries of "When?"] Well, whenever the followers of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford are in the position they were in between the years 1893 and 1895. I do not know that that position will recur, but I think it may; and then the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley will have ample experience in illustration of the constitutional position which at present gives him such acute pain.

513
I turn from the hon. Member for Spen Valley to the defenders of the Constitution—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. I think they can hardly have examined or refreshed their memory with anything connected with the previous incidents which are parallel to this occasion except in giving a most devoted study to the speeches I have made on these occasions. I accuse them of no neglect in that respect, but in every other respect they have really fallen into blunder after blunder. Some of these blunders I will venture to bring to the notice of the House. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose has told us that I am the first person and that this is the first occasion on which any such measure has been proposed without making obstruction the chief argument in favour of it. That is a complete delusion. I have not looked up my own speeches on the Education Bill, but I have looked through Mr. Gladstone's speech on the Home Rule Bill and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, who moved a corresponding Motion to this on the Evicted Tenants Bill, and neither of those statesmen made any nearer reference to obstruction than I have made myself. I pointed out that if progress was to be at this rate the Bill would never be finished. I pointed out, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth pointed out, that the number of Amendments on the Paper was such that it was incredible that in any reasonable time we should be able to dispose of them. The only difference between us was that, while the right hon. Gentleman opposite appealed to twenty-two pages of Amendments, it was my privilege to appeal to sixty-five pages of Amendments. In other words, I had an argument precisely three times as strong as he was able to produce. So much for the first point.
The next accusation made against me, also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, is that I have devised an entirely new principle to justify this violation of the liberties of the House. I have not put it, he says,
514
on obstruction, but I have put it on the general principle that the House cannot conduct its business if it is required to sit during the length of time which evidently would be required were this Bill to follow its natural course. I agree that that was my main argument, and I also admit that when I used it I was not conscious that I was guilty of plagiarism. But it has been since pointed out to me that precisely that argument, almost in my words, was used by Mr. Gladstone on a precisely similar occasion—that is to say, on the closure of the Home Rule Bill on the 29th of June, 1893. Mr. Gladstone said—
"We are compelled, by the arrangement of our finances, to regulate our Parliamentary proceedings by the revolution of the year. But, the year containing twelve months, it is obviously impossible for the Members of this House to devote the whole of those twelve months to the direct discharge of their public duties within these walls. The common practice of Parliament has been for the last sixty years, since the passing of the first Reform Act, to devote six months, or perhaps seven months, to the discharge of those duties; and, in assigning to them so large a portion of the year, I believe I may correctly say Parliament has gone beyond what has ever been attempted—beyond what has ever been done by any other deliberative Assembly in the world."
That is precisely the general argument which I have used to the House. So much for the new principle which the right hon. Gentleman, far above my merits, credits me with having discovered in defence of the present proposal. But let us go a little closer into this matter. The three defenders of the Constitution to whom I have referred were all responsible both for the closure by compartments on the Home Rule Bill and for the closure by compartments upon the Evicted Tenants Bill. The two charges made against this proceeding are, in the first place, that we are putting on the closure too quickly, and the other is that the closure we desire to put on will exclude the discussion of very important questions; the compartments are too small. I will examine both these propositions in the light of precedent in which the right hon. Gentleman took a leading part. As regards the length of time during which the discussion has gone on, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife talked about x days as

515
having been spent in Committee; but the time taken in the Committee on the Evicted Tenants Bill was only two days. What is the reply to that? The reply made by the other side is that the Evicted Tenants Bill stood by itself, that it was a great measure of public order; and that if it had not been carried through this House, if further delay had been allowed, there would have been crime in the winter and agrarian disorganisation in Ireland for many months. So flimsy a pretext has never, I think, been seriously advanced in this House by responsible statesmen. Let me remind them of some of the dates. They came into office in 1892, but the claims of social order in Ireland are not attempted to be dealt with until 1894. That is nearly three years.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Commission was appointed.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought the right hon. Gentleman would remind me of that Commission. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends appointed a Commission. It sat and it reported in the spring of 1893—let the House mark the date—while the Home Rule Bill was going on; and I presume t was on the Report of that Commission that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends thought this was a pressing question in connection with public order in Ireland. I do not blame them, even in the interests of public order in Ireland, for not interrupting the discussions on the Home Rule Bill to carry out the Report of the Commission. But what did they do when the Home Rule Bill was kicked out by the House of Lords? Did they then go on with the Evicted Tenants Bill, which was desired so urgently to preserve law and order in Ireland? Not at all. They oocupied six months more of the session—we sat, as the House remembers, to a date in the following year—with the English Parish Councils Bill and other matters, no doubt of considerable parochial importance, but matters which no one can pretend ought to stand in the way of a measure which was really required to preserve law and order in Ireland. That brings me to 1894. And then what did they do about this
516
measure required for law and order in Ireland? We have been told that we have shown an iniquitous disregard for the interests of the House because we only introduced the Licensing Bill on 20th April of this year. I admit that they have the better of us there by fully twenty-four hours, because their Bill for preserving law and order in Ireland was introduced on 19th April. But though we cannot compete with them as to the date of introduction, we really can compete with them as to the ardour and the urgency with which we pursued our policy. We have been reproached on that subject also. We have been told that the House had almost forgotten where they left off with the Licensing Bill, so great was the delay that occurred between the introduction and the later stages of it. We are only now in the very first days of July. When does the House think this urgent measure of law and order, introduced on 19th April was read a second time? Exactly three months after its introduction. Law and order in Ireland had to wait for Welsh Disestablishment, the death duties, and other matters, no doubt of great importance, but of less importance than law and order in Ireland, which had to wait for these three months. And yet we are seriously told that a Bill which was only read a second time on 20th July, some months after the Commission reported, was of such an urgent character that after two days in Committee the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth was justified in coining down and in a speech which in Hansard takes up, I think, a column, and in which law and order does not appear any more than obstruction, or if it appears, scarcely appears—we are told that closure by compartment was absolutely necessary. No, Sir, it was the crack of that whip of which we have heard so much, which produce this immediate necessity for dealing with law and order which would no longer wait, and for which the liberties of debate and the dignity of this House were so readily sacrificed by such ardent supporters of the British Constitution as the Member for Waterford and his friends. So much for the first count in the indictment, which says that we have introduced this closure too early in the proceedings.

517
Now we come to the second count, and I venture to think a much more important count, in the indictment, which says that our compartments are so contrived that nothing like adequate discussion can be found for the questions that remain. [OPPOSITION cheers.] I am surprised after the little historical disquisition I have given to the House that that should be cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am not going through, compartment by compartment, the arrangements made by Mr. Gladstone and the three defenders of the Constitution with regard to the Home Rule Bill, but I will take one co partment as a specimen. It is the week-long compartment, which comprised five Parliamentary days, and was concluded on 13th July. In those five days eighteen clauses were to be discussed; an average of three or three-and-a-quarter a day. What were those clauses? Did they consist of those details which the right hon. Member for Montrose think ought to be so carefully smoothed out, and made watertight and practicable on the floor of the House? I will tell the House what they contained. The first one dealt with the absolutely vital question as to whether the Irish Members in this House were or were not to be allowed to vote upon questions which affected only England, Scotland, or Wales, perhaps the most crucial point in the whole Bill. During the course of those five days in fact I think on the last day but one of the five—and this was the first of eighteen clauses to be embraced in the five days—on the penultimate day of that compartment, it seems almost incredible, but it is the fact, Mr. Gladstone came down and told the House, "We have entirely altered the plan of this Bill." He told the House that, whereas his original idea, the idea which we had discussed for four days, had been to have the Irish Members in this House only for purposes in which Ireland was concerned, he had come to the conclusion after four days debate that they must be included for all purposes. And when he made that declaration there was only one day remaining in the compartment, so we literally had to decide this, which was not detail but a fundamental constitutional principle, under closure in the last day of the compartment. That is not
518
nearly all, because there remained the seventeen other clauses. And what did these seventeen clauses deal with? Details comparable to Clause 3 in this Bill? They dealt with the whole complicated financial proposals of the Bill with regard to the Consolidated Fund, the hereditary revenues, the financial arrangements between Great Britain and Ireland, and with regard to the Irish Consolidated Fund, the local taxation accounts, and money Bills. I do not think I have finished the enumeration, but I think I have said enough. Where were the defenders of the Constitution when that was done? Where was the Member for Wolverhampton, the Member for Fast Fife, the Member for Montrose?
MR. BRYCE: What did you say to it?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was on that side of the House. They were cheering on their great Leader; that was their notion of closure by compartments, that was the length of time they thought ought to be given to the details of a Bill. And then they actually come down here and tell us, the very men who thought two days in Committee a sufficient allowance in the case of the Evicted Tenants Bill before closure by compartment was moved, and a compartment of five days long enough in which to discuss eighteen clauses of the character which I have described—these men come down, and, with an indignation which I will not say is mock, but which surely is founded upon a most convenient forgetfulness, they accuse us of having gone too far in this matter. I have been taunted, almost, with not accusing hon. Gentlemen of obstruction. Well, I do not mean to accuse them of obstruction now. They may take it as an accusation or not as they please, I will state a fact which I do not believe a single one of them will deny. It is this—were the House to accept this Amendment, and were the House thereupon to plunge into the sixty-five pages of Amendments already upon the Paper, which, as I said on Friday, are probably mere rude and inadequate sketches of the changes that would be proposed if we went on as we are doing now, I do state as a fact that the Parliamentary

519
machine would break down. I do not believe there is a single man on the other side of the House who doubts it. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!"] I go the length, not of saying that they desire in the abstract that the Parliamentary machine should break down, but that they do emphatically desire that it should break down while we have the management of it; they all know it; it is common talk. If it were not common talk, you have only got to look at the Order Paper, and you can see that it is true. And are we to be debarred from taking a proceeding which, compared with what they have done in the past, sinks into absolute insignificance because they are of opinion that the Parliamentary liberties, which have survived the action of Mr. Gladstone on the Home Rule Bill, and have survived the action of the Member for Monmouth on the Evicted Tenants Bill, are now imperilled by the modest proposals we are making? [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!"] Perhaps not modest absolutely, modest relatively, modest as compared with what a greater generation than we have attempted and carried successfully against resistance. I do not think the contention would stand for a moment. The truth is that if the House decided not to pass this Motion, they will do nothing for their own liberties. The precedents that those Gentlemen, when they come into office, will look back on, are not our precedents on this Bill, they are their own precedents on other Bills. What you would do would be to destroy the chances of the passage of a Bill which I believe in my heart and conscience is going, not only to do justice to a trade, but is going to do more for temperance reform in this country not merely than anything which hon. Gentlemen opposite have done, for they have done nothing in twenty years, but more than anything which their proposals, or any proposals of theirs with which I am acquainted, could have effected if carried into law. I therefore hope that, not merely in the interests of what to me appear the true interests of this great legislative Assembly, but in the interests also of the particular Bill with which we are concerned, the House will, by an overwhelming majority, support us in the action we are taking.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said that the Prime Minister, in making his interesting comparison anent the Home Rule Bill and the Evicted Tenants Bill and this Bill had forgotten the sequel to the Home Rules Bill. That Bill, too, was eighty-foure days in Committee, ten times as long as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give to the present measure, although he did not think anyone would say that the Home Rule question was ten times more important than the temperance question to the country. The sequel was that the Home Rule Bill, very largely because of the compartment closure, was thrown out by the House of Lords; an appeal was then made to the country, and the country took the same view as had the Opposition of that day. That was a story of some significance for the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the Evicted Tenants Bill, his withers were unwrung, for he agreed with the then Opposition and did not himself vote for the closure Motion, thinking it a great mistake and a dangerous precedent which trenched on the liberties of Parliament, and what happened afterwards justified his action. He agreed that each case must be taken on its merits. But in the case of the Evicted Tenants Bill, a proposal merely to spend £250,000—wisely or unwisely—upon the settlement of a vexed question in Ireland was not to be compared for one moment in matter and magnitude to the proposals in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman.
Take each case, said the right hon. Gentleman, on its merits; but had the right hon. Gentleman taken the present case on its merits? What he had done was to evolve a fantastic theory about the allocation of Parliamentary time. It was a most preposterous theory that legislation must go through without criticism. The Home Rule Bill had been discussed in the country for six years, and came before the House as the result of a mandate. What about the present proposals? The right hon. Gentleman rather scoffed at a mandate. He would not argue that the House of Commons had no right to pass any Bill unless the subject matter had been the subject of

521
consideration before the House was elected. That was not the point here. The point here was not a constitutional point, but a point of honour. If the leaders of a Party went to the country and said to the electors, "You are asked to settle one question, and you are not asked to express any opinion on other questions," deliberately, with a view to procuring the votes of men who disagreed with them, it might not be a breach of the Constitution to break that pledge, but every man of honour would respect it. If before a general election the country had been thrashing out all the objections to a question, and then came to the conclusion that despite the difficulties which existed it would try the experiment, and if the Opposition afterwards proceeded to raise the same criticisms ad infinitum, with a view to destroying the Bill, surely, in that case the decision of the country would be an element in considering the amount of time to be given to the discussion. But in this case the question was not considered; it was brushed aside. More than that. Whenever proposals of this character were advanced in previous Parliaments the protest in the country was so strong that the Government of the day were obliged to respect the feelings of the country and drop their proposals. Yet, these proposals were introduced now merely as a result of pressure from a section of the right hon. Gentleman's own Party. That was the condition of the matter.
There was another ground on which the guillotine might be introduced and that was the ground of emergency. He would not deal with that. He had voted for the guillotine before, and might vote for it again; but it was nevertheless a crude and barbarous method of dealing with a difficulty which, he agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford, could never be dealt with until they had devolved matters of detail on local assemblies. As long, however, as this Parliament decided to retain all matters great and small there must be something of the kind. But they should consider the importance and difficulty of the question to be dealt with. There was no question more important or more difficult; or no question with reference to which a blunder would more
522
seriously affect the well-being of the people than the question of temperance legislation. It affected millions of households; touched the habits of the people; and it was a question which had brought miseryandruin to hundreds and thousands of homes. What question could Parliament consider better than that? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the evils connected with the Beerhouses Act of 1869; bit that Act was passed without consideration, and in a moment of hurry. That Act had brought untold evilson the country and surely that should be a warning to them. Had the Government considered this question candidly and sincerely on its merits, or had they been animated by other considerations? Had they considered it from the point of view of Party difficulties, and with a view of prolonging their own official life? If they had, such a thing would be an act of treason to the free institutions of this country. What was the position? The Prime Minister, when he introduced the Motion, proved that he had not really considered the whole of his own Bill in relation to this Motion. He enumerated four questions which had, he said, already been adopted in Committee. They were the basis of compensation, tied houses, and time limit, and new licences. Two out of those questions had never even been reached, and yet the right hon. Gentleman did not know it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member has misquoted me.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was certain he had not. The right hon. Gentleman said those questions had already been debated.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was perfectly aware that Clause 4 is the clause which deals with future licences, and of course we have not reached that; but it has been referred to and the general principle of it. I thought it was a matter of common agreement.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the question was whether it had been debated and surely that was most important. His hon. friend the Member for the Spen Valley had stated the case very moderately when he said that Clauses 2 and 3

523
were to receive half a day each. They had three and a quarter hours for each clause. The cardinal questions inside the two clauses which must still be debated, were the question that it should be left to the discretion of the justices to decide the compensation, the bass of compensation, the question of whether retail or wholesale profits should come into the computation (a provision affecting 85 per cent. of the public-houses in the country and which would double the amount of compensation)—the question of who was to receive the compensation, the question of what proportion, the question of who was to make the valuation, and the question raised by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division. Surely they trust get a division on these questions, because it was right that the country should know how every Member voted upon those questions. That left one and three quarter hours to debate seven cardinal propositions, about fifteen minutes to each proposition, surely that was reducing the House of Commons to a perfect farce as far as discussion was concerned. But they all knew why it was done. The discussion about the division between the brewer and the publican came at the end of the clause when it could not now be raised. It was a question which the Government did not want discussed, naturally. But the Government had not considered it from that point of view, they were simply looking at the Parliamentary situation. The Prime Minister had to drop the Budget. He came back to the brewers, and there was a little bit of sugar in that so it fermented a little. There was a contrast between last week and this week. When the Budget was on the business was "flat, stale, and unprofitable," but last week they were fermenting in the brewers' mash tub. They had lost the confidence of the country. The one question the country was interested in at the present moment was when the Government was going to take its "off-licence." By-election after by-election had gone against them in spite of every effort and every manœuvre. They actually threw over the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as a sort of Jonah to pacify the storm, but still the waves were just as high. That was what the Standard said. The
524
Standard was of opinion that they had not drowned him but merely ducked him, and that he was still lurking somewhere near the steering gear, but still the storm was raging. They had the country against them and they were merely keeping things going until something cropped up and they could put their fiscal reform scheme upon the market. The market was depressed. In the language of the Stock Exchange protection had weakened in sympathy with slavery. Because the country had no confidence in the Government, the representatives of the country in this House were to lose their right to criticise this measure. That was the real position.
If the right hon. Gentleman had a Parliamentary majority in which he had confidence this was not a thing that he would propose to the House of Commons. It was because he had no confidence in them that he was going to force this Bill through without giving the House an opportunity of properly considering it. It was because the Government had made up their minds to stick to office through thick and thin. The right hon. Gentleman had been very hard on those whose weakness was drunkenness, but he ought to be a little more tender to the weaknesses of human nature. They did not all lie in the same direction. With some it was drunkenness; with others it was office. But it was the business of the House to closely watch these things. This House had to see that things of this sort were not done to create evil precedents; to rush through Bills monstrous in themselves, without the House of Commons holding a firm grasp on them and doing something in order to improve them by way of Amendments. What was the urgency for this? It could not be the Budget, because there was not very much of that left. Was it the Army? There was no hurry there at all. The right hon. Gentleman was putting it through from time to time. He had a mandate there. The country expected him to deal with it; the War Minister said it was the most urgent problem of the moment, but the right hon. Gentleman, the head of the Defence Committee—a Committee charged with the defence of the Empire—who had been heralded as the greatest strategist

525
since the Duke of Wellington, said there was no hurry, and he had laid aside the sword in order to turn the spigot. It was not the Army. Then it must be the Welsh Coercion Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said there were two contentious measures they must push forward this session, this and the Welsh Coercion Bill, or the Defaulting Authorities Bill as it was called. What was the urgency there? Again, the urgency there was not a social but a political one—a Party one. The Bishops were in arms against the Licensing Bill, and the Prime Minister gently hinted that he had a spiteful little Bill against the Welsh Nonconformists which he would give to them if they were good boys. They had all come to the conclusion that this was a pernicious Bill, greatly affecting the material and moral welfare of their flock. But the Prime Minister said, "Never mind"—that he would give them something in return; that he would hand over the Welsh county councils to them. The whole thing was tainted with corruption from the beginning to end. When the Prime Minister replied to the charge of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley that ha was coming to heel at the crack of the whip, he did not deny it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do deny it.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman denied that, but not in a very enthusiastic way, with his eyes closed. How could he deny it? When did he first say he was going to bring in a Bill of some sort? After the Rye and Woolwich elections; after the brewers had said, to quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, "You have got to do it, or we will chuck you out." It was the policy of retaliation. That was no doubt where the right hon. Gentleman got his idea of the big revolver. This was purely and simply a matter of bribery and corruption. The Bill was not brought forward in the public interest, or because it was of great social urgency. It was considered as a property—as a matter of electioneering. The Prime Minister said to himself, "I may have offended every man who would like to see the business of the country transacted in an
526
efficient way; I may have alienated all those who do not like to see the resources of the country squandered; I may have hurt the consciences of those who at any rate like a policy to be put in straights forward language; I may have alienated all the moral forces of the land by a Bill of this sort. But in time to come I shall have one friend by me, and my Government will stagger to the polls arm in arm with the assistance of the trade"—a trade which, in the opinion of the great Judges of the land, had filled our gaols with criminals and our asylums with lunatics, and which, in the opinion of every expert in social reform, had increased and deepened the degradation and distress of hundreds and thousands of the people.
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid the Prime Minister's proposal had placed some of the moderate temperance men who occupied seats behind the right hon. Gentleman in a position of considerable difficulty, and they were in doubt whether upon this question they could support the Government. They thought the Motion for closure was premature; and that there were matters in the Bill which required, but would be excluded from, discussion; and, finally, in view of the treatment which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire and some of his supporters—of whom he was one—received last Wednesday, he thought they had a right to enter a protest. As to the treatment of which he had spoken, he recalled that on Wednesday the Solicitor-General explained certain words in the first clause of the Bill, and if his exposition was correct, the right hon. Gentleman carried with him the sentiment of almost everyone on the Government side of the House, and of a very large number of Members of the Opposition. But there arose a difference of opinion upon the point among many high legal authorities, and it was alleged that the Courts of Law would put a different construction to that which the Solicitor-General placed upon the clause unless its wording were amended.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is hardly in order in discussing a particular Amendment.
MR. MIDDLEMORE: I was anxious to explain my position, Mr. Speaker, and if you will allow me to say one word more, and only one, I think it could be done. After the Solicitor-General had consented to amend the phraseology, the Prime Minister declined to accept any Amendment, and many hon. Members felt that they wee unreasonably dealt with by such action.
MR. SPEAKERagain intervened.
MR. MIDDLEMOREexpressed regret that he had erred so much, and said he would not refer again to the topic which had been ruled out of order. There was a question of confiscation—confiscation of the rights of private Members. He thought it was quite clear that there would be no confiscation if there were no obstruction. Between obstruction and the means of overcoming obstruction, it seemed to him that the rights of private Members were likely to pass away. If those rights were snatched away they must certainly pass to the Cabinet. Unless there was some process of dealing with the legislation of the country and doing something to relieve the Government of responsibility for it, he could not see how the House could, for a generation longer, remain an independent body. The time might come when it would be a breach of faith for a Member to vote against the Government representing the Party to which he belonged, just as it was now for a member of the American Federal College to vote against his Party. He would not wish to be a Member of the House on such despicable terms. While freedom was left to him, he would venture, at any rate on this occasion, to vote against a Government which he was most anxious to support on Unionist, Imperialist, and fiscal questions.
MR. JOHN ELLISthought the prime Minister was hardly justified in claiming to have given more notice of this Resolution than had been given on former occasions. On Wednesday night he mentioned, in a nonchalant manner, that he intended to bring forward a Motion to accelerate the Licensing Bill. In consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's new-
528
fangled rules of procedure, Thursday and Friday were practically dies non, as Thursdays were devoted to Supply, and Fridays were, to a large extent, given to private Members' Bills, and Members had, in consequence, become, to a much larger extent than was formerly the case, "week-enders." A notice therefore only appearing in Thursday's Paper for such important business on Friday was therefore rather sharp. He would probably not be doing the right hon. Gentleman any injustice if he stated that the Prime Minister's expectation was to get the Resolution through on Friday without much discussion, but by this time he had probably discovered that the Motion was regarded by the House in a very serious light. Personally, he agreed that one or two of the precedents set by Liberal Governments in this matter were not very good ones, and certainly some of the measures which had eventuated from such drastic proceedings did not go to justify the procedure. Many of the provisions of the Crimes Act of 1887 were dropped before the election of 1892, while the Education Act of 1902 was producing altogether unfo eseen consequences, and would have to be altered from top to bottom. But every one of these cases must be considered on its merits. The Prime Minister had not based his case on the usual grounds at all; in fact his speech dealt with so many matters that it alone in the olden days would have afforded matter for six Or seven days discussion. He had referred to the Budget, for instance, as uncontroversial. There never was a year in which the Budget required to be more closely scrutinised; and it was not at all certain that it had escaped the taint of recent fiscal controversies.
The right hon. Gentleman had admitted in specific terms that his Motion did contract the liberties of the House and had argued that if it were not passed the House of Commons would become a wholly impotent Assembly. A bad workman always complained of his tools. Never had any Leader of the House less reason to complain of the forms of procedure or of the conduct of the Opposition than the present Prime Minister. There had been so many alterations in the Standing Orders that Members sometimes hardly

529
knew where they were. The whole aim of those alterations had been to fetter Members and fritter away the control of the House of Commons over the executive Government. He wondered sometimes what was the idea of the supporters of the Government of the House of Commons? Did they really regard it as a deliberative Assembly? One would fancy that their only idea of their duties was to come down and register the decrees of the Government without debate, without question, without consideration. One hon. Member actually asked the other day whether it was in order to attack a Cabinet Minister. Good heavens! What were Ministers there for but to be criticised and attacked? The enormous change that had taken place in the relation of the House of Commons to the Government, of the day even in his own time could hardly be imagined. Up to quite recently, for instance the Government had by Standing Orders, only control of two out of every five hours during which the House sat. It was now, so far as the other side of the House was concerned, simply a machine to register the decrees and wishes of the Government. It was a striking fact that in the days when the greatest legislation was passed through Parliament the Government had the least control of the time of the House. Now, although he had remodelled the Rules and had a large majority at his back, impatient of debate and quite ready to vote for anything, the right hon. Gentleman came forward and confessed himself impotent. The House would never perform its proper function until it adopted some well-matured system of devolution and delegation of its powers. Where the Prime Minister had erred was that in the general conduct of the business of the House, and more especially during the present session, he had failed to recognise that the House of Commons, after all, had in it a great deal of human nature He relied too much upon rules and the particular hour of the clock. That was contrary to the old spirit of the proceedings in the House of Commons. Anyone who took up the Standing Orders of the House would at once see the nature of the Prime Minister's management of the business. Standing
530
Order No. 18 was still unfinished, and in its present form it was unmitigated nonsense and a positive discredit to the Government. But it marked in a most striking way the slatternly way in which the business was conducted by the right hon. Gentleman. During two or three days before Easter the House hardly knew what it was going to do. The House sat for forty-seven days before the Licensing Bill was introduced; sixty-four days of the session elapsed before the Second Reading was taken, and seventy-four days passed before the Committee stage was reached. No instance could be given of so much time being allowed to run by before a first-class Government measure was introduced and dealt with. Constant alterations and postponements and substitutions had taken place, and in regard to the whole conduct of the business of the House there had been a chopping and changing annoying to the last degree to hon. Members who desired to discharge their Parliamentary duties conscientiously. They all knew that the reason for all this was that the Government could not make up their minds until the last moment.
As to the conduct of the Licensing Bill, he did not think the Prime Minister had been quite fair to the Home Secretary, who had been given three hours hard labour upstairs for three days a week upon another measure which he would never carry—the Aliens Bill. With regard to the part taken by the Solicitor-General in the discussions upon this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman was not an Englishman, and they ought to have had representing the Government somebody who had been au courant with the current of temperance reform in this country. In his opinion the First Lord of the Treasury committed a solecism and an offence against the House by coming in late during the disccusion on Wednesday last and putting his foot down upon a common agreement which had almost been arrived at on both sides of the House. When this interference took place, the debate had been conducted with terse argumentative speeches which manifested a real desire to get at the root of the matter, and that was the state of things last Wednesday when

531
the Prime Minister hurried in and put his foot down upon the whole thing. The flourishing of these sixty-five pages of, Amendments by the Prime Minister was a little unworthy of him, because hon. Members knew that these Amendments vanished like snow when the governing principles had been disposed of and many of the Amendments were duplicates. But they had had something else this session besides the general mismanagement and nonchalance of the Prime Minister, for there had been a certain slackness in attendance on this and other Bills of hon. Gentleman opposite. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] Upon what, however, did the authority of the House rest? Surely the representative principle. From that point of view the authority of the Government was slipping away. The Standard of that morning said, referring to the Sowerby election—
"The figures are disappointing. The lesson is unmistakable. It testifies beyond all reasonable doubt to the unwelcome truth that the Government have lost and continue to lose ground throughout the country."
He put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether the time had not almost arrived when self-respecting men ought no longer to refrain from taking the judgment o the country. Knowing as he did that individually those sitting on the Treasury Bench were honourable English gentlemen he was astonished that collectively they could remain Ministers for a single mo rent after the evidence of by-elections—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is going a little too far in discussing the general position of the attitude of the Government with regard to all these measures.
MR. JOHN ELLISsaid the petitions presented to the House testified to the overwhelming opinion of the country against the Bill. Meetings of opponents of the measure had been held all over the country; but it had been found impossible to get a meeting in its favour. There was this volume of opinion against the Bill because it was perceived by those great social and religious elements which existed in our midst, and ware the salva-
532
tion and life of this country, that this Bill struck against moral and social reform. The great army of workers in those causes were to a man opposed to the Bill. He listened with pain to the callous words which the Prime Minister let fall about those who suffered from this great evil, "those people are ruined by their gross and criminal indulgence." The Prime Minister had no pity for the drunkard, or word of sympathy for the widow and orphan. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] From the Treasury Bench the word justice was applied solely to a particular trade, and not in any way to its fruits or its victims. What was to his mind the most shocking and astounding element of the whole situation was that that Bill marked the high-water mark of that era of materialism upon which we had entered. It was because the people were a God-fearing people [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh" and "Order!"], that with a sure instinct they had perceived the real tendency of this Bill. It was because—giving credit to every hon. Member opposite for holding the opposite opinion with sincerity—he was satisfied the Resolution was brought in and pressed on with a view of passing an evil measure, that it would meet with his unmitigated opposition. Hon. Members opposite might rest assured that the Opposition repudiated this Bill from top to bottom, and if it was carried, especially in the way proposed, they washed their hands of it, and on the first opportunity that came to them, and come it would, sooner or later—and he earnestly hoped sooner—this Bill would be effaced from the Statute-book.
MR. TRITTONsaid he would not attempt to follow the last speaker beyond thanking him for the lesson he had read to hon. Members on that side, which no doubt would be most thankfully received by all the Members of the Party, as to the slackness of their attendance in the debates. He ventured to hope that those remarks would lead to what no doubt the hon. Member intended, namely, better attendance in future. He wished to make a personal statement, instead of giving a silent vote on this question, which he regarded as one of very great magnitude. It was a question in which he was most deeply

533
interested. He was one of those who had not voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. He was one of those who voted against the Government and in favour of a fourteen years time limit, because he believed with all his heart that a time limit was most necessary in this Bill. He objected to the turning of a licence into a vested interest. He had voted on several other occasions against the Government, and he supposed that before the end of the chapter he would find occasion to do so again. Holding these views, it had been his determination to vote against the Resolution now before the House. Things had occurred which had completely altered that determination, and the thing that weighed with him more than anything else was the speech which was delivered earlier in this discussion by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division. The hon. Member was regarded, and rightly regarded, as one of the leaders of the temperance party; he had long been a standard bearer; anl he had done most excellent work in the temperance cause throughout the country. The hon. Member was invaluable on the Royal Commission, and having enjoyed his personal friendship for many years he would understand that if he said anything adverse about him he said it with great reluctance. He hoped he would say nothing that would cause the hon. Member any pain. He confessed that when he heard the speech of the hon. Member he was filled with more indignation than he had ever felt on any subject during the twelve years he had been a Member of this House. He ventured to say that that speech was unworthy of the hon. Member. It was unlike his own self. He thought the hon. Member had been carried away by those about him and led to say rather more than he was inclined to say. He thought that speech had done harm to the temperance cause. He did not think the temperance cause was advanced by intemperate language, and the attack on the Prime Minister was one which would be resented by many temperance people throughout the country. He wished the hon. Member to understand what the effect of that speech had been on him. It would lead him not to vote with the hon. Member in the lobby into which he
534
would go, but in the Government lobby. There was no states man living or dead who had ever sat on the front bench who had done so much for the temperance cause as the Prim Minister. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but would they tell him who was the statesman? He called for an answer. Would they tell him who the statesman was There was an Act now on the Statute-book of this country which had done, was doing, and in future would do, an enormous amount of good to save the rising generation from the evils of strong drink. How did that Bill get through. He thought he had as good a right to speak on this subject as any one else. It never would have got through but for the Prime Minister who gave facilities for its being passed. It was to the credit of the Prime Minister that that Bill was passed—a Bill which was doing so much good for the children of the land. Who brought in the Licensing Bill of 1902? Who brought in the Scotch Licensing Bill of 1903? Hon. Members opposite had not told him who had done more than the present occupants of the Treasury Bench for the cause of temperance. He challenged hon. Members to say who had done more in that cause than the right hon. Gentleman. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place at the present moment because he was going to make an earnest appeal to him. He himself thought it was premature to bring forward the Resolution now before the House. He thought the Prime Minister had not given sufficient time for the discussion of this most important measure. Great issues were dependent upon it. He was going to ask the Prime Minister, if not too late now, to be a little more generous and to give a few more days for the Committee stage and the report stage. There were many hon. Members on the Government side of the House who would agree with him when he said that they had been treated in a niggardly way. The Prime Minister might have given them more time for the discussion of the measure. He had thought it right to state the reasons which had led him to support he Resolution and to dissociate himself entirely from the attack on the Prime Minister. In making this protest as a temperance man

535
and a moderate speaker he thought he had not in any way departed from the courtesies of debate.
MR. MOULTONsaid he hoped the House would not suppose he was the less hearty in his support of the Amendment if he began his remarks by saying that he thought in this matter every Member of the House was now not in a Party but in a judicial position. They were not discussing what legislation was to be. They were discussing what the privileges of the House for discussing legislation were to be. He had before pointed out that the Rules of the House which govern procedure were rules to protect the weak. They were like the Rules of a game. It should be a matter of honour with each individual Member not to interfere with the sanctity of those rules which were to protect him when he was in a minority. In this case there were only two questions to be considered. The first was raised by the tons of the Prime Minister in bringing this Resolution before the House. The right hon. Gentleman brought it forward in a way which intimated that he looked upon this form of closure as an ordinary feature of Parliamentary procedure, and having said that there was but a short time left of the session, he sat down with the air of one who had said enough to justify his proposal without giving any grounds based upon the nature of the Bill, or the seriousness of the occasion, for using this particular remedy. This raised the first question on which they had to decide, viz.—"Are we going to admit closure by compartments as an ordinary Parliamentary procedure, to be used by the Leader of the majority of the House as and when he pleased? If they were prepared to do this let it be done, but do not let the present majority do it in respect of particular measures before it was made the Rule of the House. If they abused their power in this respect they were in this dilemma: either the other side would retaliate, and Parliamentary procedure would be thereby lowered, or the other side would not retaliate because they had a keener sense of Parliamentary honour than those who now formed the majority. He thought that hon. Members on the other side would feel that each of these alterna-
536
tives was one that they did not willingly associate themselves with.
He would consider for a whether it would be desirable closure by compartments a ordinary Parliamentary procedure. It was a necessary part of our procedure in Committee that Amendments should be taken in strict verbal order and that during the discussion upon each Amendment speakers should be confined to that which was thus before the House, and should be forbidden to refer to subsequent Amendments even though they were far more important. It followed that if the total length of the discussion were fixed, the necessary discussion on the earlier Amendments left the later ones without the possibility of any debate or criticism. A Minister could thus by the use of closure by compartments shield any portion of the machinery of a Bill from open criticism on the floor of the House. They were not allowed to discuss the details of a Bill when they were discussing the Second Reading. This was natural because a roving discussion of the details of a Bill would lessen the value of the debate on its principle. Yet they were going to allow a Minister so to mould the time for point by point criticism of the Bill that much of it would pass without being examined at all. It made it a matter of haphazard what was to be discussed at all, and a Minister would be enabled to shield what might be most important in the machinery entirely from Parliamentary criticism. Let him give an example from the Bill. So far as the broad principle of the Bill was concerned to establish compensation by equalising the loss of a licence over the trade, he thought that principle had supporters on both sides of the House. But it was the way in which it was done, and still more the indirect consequences of the machinery by which it was done that made it a cloak for largely increasing the value of the licensed houses, and handing over this huge property to the brewers and the licence-holders. It was that which they, on that side of the House, most strongly opposed; because they felt that it would cripple the cause of temperance in the future. This great evil lurked in what might be called the detailed arrangement of the Bill—the objects of the Bill—and

537
not in the principle of giving compensation from the trade. They believed that these so called details were the main object of the Bill, and that so far as the aims of its authors were concerned the Bill would become more valuable for the object in view if everything connected with the machinery broke down.
The second question was whether, if the procedure was to remain an exceptional one the present Bill was an occasion when it should be resorted to. He had listened to nine-tenths of the debate, had he had not heard a shadow of a case made oat for applying this procedure in the case of this particular Bill. The only argument of the Prime Minister was that six and a half months was the full Parliamentary time at the disposal of the House; but did the Prime Minister say that it was a hard and fast necessity that the House should rise on the 9th or 12th August, and that they could not sit for a week later to discuss the machinery of a Bill on which the whole licensing system of England depended? Was that consideration to override all public welfare? This was not a case like that of the Home Rule Bill, when over eighty days were taken up with discussion; but only a question of a week or a fortnight more—which short period would not have been required if there had been a proper economy of Parliamentary time at the beginning of the session. Could it be suggested that the House must necessarily rise in the beginning of August? If so, that was a short and easy method for getting important Bills through without discussion. The Government might introduce at the beginning of the session Dog Bills and other petty measures, and put off their more important Bills till a late period of the Parliamentary year, and then say that there was to be no detailed criticism of them. This surrender of the rights of criticism and discussion by the whole House was not in the interest even of the Bills brought forward by the Government themselves. It deprived them of all moral claim to respect by subsequent Parliaments. And it was in truth the individual members of the Party who were the cause of such steps being taken. Their disapproval would prevent the Government having resource to such measures. He knew the humorous exaggeration of the hon. Member for North
538
Armagh, who said that he was sent there to keep the Unionist Government in power, whether they were right or wrong—that that was all his duty. They knew perfectly well that the hon. and gallant Member did not really mean that he felt himself free to act otherwise than honourably, but the profession of such sentiments weakened the moral hold which the members of the Party had on the Government, and which might have prevented this Motion ever being brought forward. What he claimed was, that the Government should know that a Motion like this, unless justified in the eyes of an impartial tribunal, would not receive favour from even the right hon. Gentleman's own side. He was sure there never was a Bill more stamped with all that should make hon. Members shrink from shielding it from public criticism. It was professedly a Bill to alter the existing state of things in favour of a private body of people. Beyond question these licences had been granted under safeguards which were now proposed to be removed. Speaker after speaker had admitted that the existence of the present powers of the licensing magistrates had greatly diminished the value of the licences.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is now discussing the merits of the Bill.
MR. MOULTONsaid he only meant to demonstrate that this was a type of Bill which ought not to be dealt with in the manner proposed by the Resolution of the Prime Minister. He would begin at the other end. What circumstances would warrant such a procedure? If a Bill was of an urgent character, if it was one on which public order depended, and the time at the disposal of the House would not suffice for its minute criticism, it might be necessary that Parliament should say "We should rather have it in the rough than not at all." But no such circumstances existed here. Deliberate misconduct or obstruction on the part of the Opposition Party, paralysing by means of the forms of the House the realities which underlay those forms, might give a moral justification for applying the drastic Motion proposed by the Prime Minister. But he thought

539
it was conceded by everybody that there had been no obstruction. The Prime Minister would not suggest that there had been obstruction, If he had suggested it the evidence of those who had been present throughout the debates would have pointed to a very different verdict. Nobody pretended that there had been obstruction. So that there was no justification for the closure on that ground. There might be other imaginable causes for such a Motion. A strong mandate might have been given from the country; the House might have been elected ad hoc to pass a particular Bill, and if there was delay in passing the measure it might have been said that the House was culpable because they were over-riding the wishes of the people. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister if he could say, in his heart, that he was voicing the opinion of the country? If the right hon. Gentleman were to look at the question impartially, he would be obliged to admit that the country had repeatedly, by the results of recent elections, and by every method by which it could express its opinion, shown that it was against this change. Again, the character of this Bill was such that the Government ought itself to shrink from applying this Motion. It was unquestionably a Bill in favour of a great organisation—probably the most powerful—of the supporters of the Government. He did not for a moment say that devotion to temperance was confined to that side of the House. He believed that some of the most ardent workers in the temperance cause were to be found on the Ministerial Benches. But there were two facts to which they could not shut their eyes. One was, that the curse of England was drink; and the other was, that the main support of the Unionist Party was the drink trade. This Bill was a Bill in favour of that great and powerful body. He asked every hon. Member opposite who was in favour of temperance reform to examine themselves closely, and see whether by the proposal of the Prime Minister the desire was not only to support Party ends, but to deprive them, as well as the Opposition, of the rights and privileges of Parliament. He was sure that if this House were going to maintain its
540
liberties, dignity, and authority on questions of procedure, hon. Gentlemen opposite must tell their leaders that they ought not to allow the use of their majority to prevent the full examination of measures brought before the House and thus to override the rights of the minority.
SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he had some sympathy with the hon. Member for the Spen Valley and other hon. Gentlemen opposite who desired to make drunken people sober by keeping sober people thirsty. He, however, regretted that the Prime Minister had had to closure this interesting Bill by compartments. Hon. Members on both sides, however, had brought that state of things on themselves. They could not have it both ways. If they spoke in an unlimited fashion on every subject under the sun from February to June, they could hardly expect to luxuriate in long speeches from June to August. It all arose from long speeches. To use an ordinary simile, it was impossible to put a quart into a pint pot. It was because speeches were so inordinately long that the present state of affairs had arisen. He had been in constant attendance at the House during the discussion on the Licensing Bill. He did not trouble the House with any trivial views of his own, but he might say now that he did not think that the long speeches which had been delivered were entirely the fault of hon. Members. He noticed in connection with this particular Bill that when an hon. Gentleman spoke for ten minutes, he found next morning that the newspapers said, "After a few remarks from Mr. A—" or perhaps his name was omitted altogether. On the other hand, an hon. Gentleman who spoke for fifty or sixty minutes and said everything that everyone else had already said, found himself credited with three-quarters of a column. Mr. A's constitutents might say they would have to get rid of him, and the result was that he spoke longer, whereas Mr. B's speeches never came to an end. With reference to the matter under discussion he would venture to say that the only reason why the Prime Minister was obliged to apply a leaf out

541
of Mr. Gladstone's book to this interesting Bill was on account of long speeches.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that there was one aspect of the question which had not yet received attention. He wished to refer to the way in which the Principality of Wales was to be treated. The question whether Wales was to be included or excluded would in the ordinary way be discussed on Clause 9; but it would be impossible that the clause could be discussed if the Motion were carried. Before Clause 9 could be considered a number of varied and important questions would have to be discussed. Where, therefore, could the Welsh Members have an opportunity of urging that Wales should be excluded from the operation of the Act. A great deal had been said during the discussions on the Bill as to a mandate for it not being given in the case of England. No such question could possibly arise in the case of Wales. For thirty-six years Wales hid given over whelming majorities in favour of temperance legislation. The present Bill was a death blow to temperance in Wales. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give the Welsh Members some opportunity of discussing this question. When any great contentious measure was brought forward the application of the Bill to Wales was always put in the last clause, and it was impossible for the Welsh Members to properly discuss the propriety of excluding Wales from the scope of the Bill when closure by compartments was applied. Wales had a special and exceptional position in this matter. It had been dealt with exceptionally by Parliament as regards temperance reform. When the Welsh Local Veto Bill was before the House of Commons it was remarkable that twenty-five Welsh Members voted for it and only one against it. That was an indication of the position of Wales in regard to this great question. Therefore, it would be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to give an opportunity to the Welsh Members to discuss whether Wales should or should not be excluded. The right hon. Gentleman refused that in the case of the Education Bill, and the result was that he now had to bring in a coercion Bill
542
This trampling on a small nationality really did not pay the Government in the end. Wales was a small country, but it had a right to be heard on this question, which vitally affected its well-being.
SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite made it very difficult to agree with their conclusions, yet, although he was a friend of the Government and of the Bill, he did agree with them to a large extent. He ventured to think that his right hon. friend the Prime Minister had not made out a case for the application of the closure procedure at this particular stage of the discussion. He understood the argument for the Motion was that the Bill dealt with a very limited issue, that its main subject had been amply discussed on First and Second Reading, and that the enormous mass of Amendments before the House either attacked again the main principle of the Bill or else attempted to introduce changes of the general law which it was not advisable or convenient to make at present. He thought that would be a good case for applying the closure, even at such an early stage of the debate, but he did not think an impartial examinations of those dreadful sixty-five pages of Amendments would lead to the conclusion that such an argument applied. The application of a scheme of compensation to our existing licensing law was a very difficult matter, and he did not wonder that a great many suggestions had been made in matters of detail, some of which had already been adopted or met by the Solicitor-General, who had conducted the debate with such marked skill and good humour. He thought the greater part of the Amendments dealt with important matters, and were directed against the introduction into the general law of a very important constitutional change. It seemed more than doubtful whether the authors of the Bill had really intended it to effect such a change. To many of them who were interested in the question of temperance reform it appeared that the change which limited the discretion of the magistrates as to a renewal of licence would really give away what he might call the key of the position

543
of temperance reform. They thought it almost a matter of conscience that this important question should be debated fairly, and he appealed to his right hon. friend to extend the limit of time allowed to the Bill so that such important questions as this might receive adequate discussion.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that he did not think that the suggestion made by the right hon. Baronet would meet the views of the House. What he proposed to ask the House was this, if this Resolution were carried, could the Bill be properly discussed? He cared very little for precedents in this matter, and less for opinions of the occupants of the Treasury Bench in past years and past Governments. The only question which, in his opinion, the House ought to have in view, in considering the proposals of the Prime Minister, was whether or not, having regard to the particular Bill before the House, it could, if this Resolution were carried, be adequately and properly discussed. He had great sympathy with Governments who had but little time to carry through their business, but on this occasion his sympathy was not so great, because they were now near the end of a session in which the time had been muddled away from the commencement. He quite admitted that the Parliamentary machine was not at present efficient. No business could be carried on satisfactorily by the 670 Members of Parliament under the present procedure, and it was a very great pity, in his opinion, that the rules could not be amended in such a way as to enable Bills which had reached a certain stage to be carried over from one session of Parliament to the next, if within the ordinary limits of the session the Bill could not be adequately and properly discussed. He had listened with sorrow to the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood, who had the cause of temperance so much at heart. Everyone who had listened to temperance matters in this House would agree that the contributions of the hon. Member for Norwood had been of the most excellent kind. His speeches, always short, were among the most eloquent heard in the House, and it was with pain and regret that he heard the hon. Member get up and say that he
544
was going to vote for this proposal because it was resisted by the Opposition. So far as the speech of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley was concerned, he would say nothing whatever about it, except that he agreed with every word that the hon. Member had said.
So far as the conduct of the Bill was concerned, he would say nothing about the Home Secretary, except that the right hon. Gentleman had not had much experience in conducting Bills through the House, that he did not trouble the House very much, and only occasionally read something which had been written down for him, or which he had written down himself. But no Bill had ever been conducted better than this, when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General was left in charge of it. He disagreed with one of his hon. friends who had stated that an Irishman ought not to be in charge of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was Solicitor-General for England, and even if, at the beginning of the discussion, he was not acquainted with the details of the English licensing system, he had shown that he could conduct the Bill moderately, sensibly, and with good humour. If the Solicitor-General had been given carte blanche to listen to the speeches and consider the Amendments, he could have got the Bill through Committee, and it would have emerged from the ordeal in such a shape as to have commanded, at any rate, some respect in the eye of the country. The Bill really required to be more fully discussed than an ordinary measure. Its source of origin was the brewers. Almost every reforming agency in the country disagreed with its proposals. The Prime Minister had declared the Bill to be in the interests of "eternal justice." The Bishops, clergy, and ministers of all denominations were supposed to know something about justice—they certainly dealt in matters affecting eternity—and when the two elements were combined in eternal justice, surely the opinion of the Bishops and clergy, which was against the Bill, ought to carry some weight. But the right hon. Gentleman practically told the Bishops to stick to their lasts, to wear their own aprons, or whatever the proper phrase might be. Moreover, the

545
medical profession, who were concerned mainly with the physique of the country, had through some of their most eminent representatives declared against the Bill. The working of the measure depended absolutely upon the details of the scheme, and it was essential that those details should be perfected as far as possible by the combined wisdom and intelligence of the House. It was impossible for even a single Amendment to be considered satisfactorily in the time allotted to the Bill, and consequently the measure would not be properly discussed at all. If the procedure of the House was to be altered in any way it should be done by a Resolution applying to the whole of the business. The Committee stage was the most essential stage in connection with such a measure as the Licensing Bill. It was a pity that on the Committee stage of such Bills there was not fuller freedom from Party ties. Many Members on the other side would be glad to vote on the questions affected without being driven by the crack of the Party whip.
MR. SPEAKERintimated that the remarks of the hon. Member hardly applied to the Motion before the House.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSadmitted that he had wandered somewhat from his general argument. The question was of the greatest importance from the Parliamentary point of view, and he would be only too delighted if something could be done to carry the business through. It was the business of Parliament to do work. Hon. Members who had considered the matter must have been astounded at the waste of time in the House. The present proposal, however, would not save time. Apparently they could not get anything done until they began to waste time, but it was not by spasmodic changes of this kind that the dignity of the House of Commons would be upheld. He objected to the Licensing Bill, and therefore objected to the proposals to hurry the Bill through. The Motion would form a very bad precedent to future Governments, who would take advantage of it to transact the business of the country improperly.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire,)freely admitted it was a Party
546
measure most keenly contested, and as such must be dealt with and carried through. It had been said that the Bishops and clergy were totally opposed to the Bill, but the fact was that the Bishops had passed a resolution strongly in favour of a time limit. His idea of a time limit was that there should be some time at which the Bill should be reconsidered aid Parliament have an opportunity of again pronouncing an opinion upon it. It was not fair, therefore, to say that the Bishops and clergy were opposed to the Bill as a whole. But there were many chairmen of quarter sessions who had spoken strongly in favour of the Bill, because they believed the principle on which it was based was a right one. He admitted fully that it ought to be discussed, because there were many points on which it deserved consideration and he would strongly join in the appeal to the Government to enlarge the time for discussion. He should like to have an assurance from the Government that they would fairly consider Amendments to be submitted from either side. It was not to their interests to have a Bill forced through the House, and if it were it would be opposed to the moral sense of the country. The House, however, should be master of its own business, and ought not to allow itself to become a laughing-stock in the country. The country expected the House of Commons to do business, and he thought with the Prime Minister, they ought to bring their business within moderate limits. If the Government would grant a little more time, he did not despair of the Bill being fairly well discussed. There were still three stages of the Bill to go through and they had no right to assume that the discussion would be of a perfunctory character. A good deal of time had been wasted this session, and if three or four weeks discussion were allowed on the Committee stage of this Bill, the only effect would be that other important measures would have to be rushed through next month. He should vote for the Resolution, but hoped the Government would be ready to listen to a fair consideration of the Amendments.
MR. BARLOW (Somersetshire,)said that he should not have intervened

547
in this debate but for the fact that he considered the course which the Government had adopted in regard to the Licensing Bill was a very serious one, not merely in connection with that measure, but also for the future well-being, and indeed the authority of, Parliament. He did not see how the Government could expect the country to give that assent and support which was supposed to be given to the measures passed by the House of Commons to a measure which was passed under the operation of the closure after such a very short and wholly inpdequate time had been allowed for the discussion of the measure; and action of this kind prevented the House of commons from being the master of its own business, and utterly took away from it the power of shaping its measures. It was the duty of the Government, not only to get measures through, but to afford the House of Commons adequate time and opportunities to discuss, at any rate, the leading features and provisions of this and other Bills. If the Resolution before the House were adopted, he did not think anyone could say that the House had been afforded an adequate opportunity of looking into the most important parts of the Bill. It was all the more important that the House should have an adequate opportunity to examine this measure closely, because the subject was a thorny and difficult one, which had been considered by a Royal Commission. When the Government brought in a Bill which was not in accordance with the recommendations made, either by the minority or the majority Reports of Lord Peel's Commission, they ought to be specially careful to give the House of Commons time to examine the provisions of the measure, and to see the reasons why they had not carried out the suggestions made. He had listened with very great interest to-day and on Friday to the speeches which had been made on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Altrincham had said that he would vote for the proposal of the Government, though he admitted that he would do so with great uneasiness, because he thought the closure was a detestable action. That was very strong language for a supporter of the Government to use about their action.
548
Other Members had suggested that if the Government could not see their way to give up this proposal they would, at any rate, give the House rather more time to examine the Bill than they proposed to do at present. Many such suggestions had come from the Government side of the House, and he hoped that those suggestions would lead to a modification of the proposals of the Government. The Bill was one which required careful examination. It dealt with very important matters affecting the social life of the people of this country, and he was certain it could be—and he spoke in this way in no Party sense—very materially improved by adequate and reasonable discussion across the floor of the House. Some improvements had already been made, but most important parts of the Bill were as yet unreached. It had been said that the measure was not submitted to the country, and from that point of view, he thought the Government ought to give full and ample time in the Committee stage to see if the Bill could not be made a more workable and reasonable measure than it was now. The discussion on the Opposition side of the House had not been obstructive. If there had been any obstructive discussion it had been on the Government side of the House directly after the interval allowed for dinner. That was the only time when any acute observer could detect obstruction. On the Opposition side of the House they had endeavoured to discuss the Bill fairly and reasonably, with the idea of making it a more workable and better measure. He thought that if measures of this kind were to be subjected to closure by compartments in the way proposed by the Government, when they had been so briefly discussed as this Bill had been, it would be a bad day for the country, for the House of Commons, and for constitutional government in this country.
MR. MARSHALL HALLsaid an appeal had been made by the hon. and learned Member for the Launceston Division to the Ministerialists to consider this matter in a judical spirit, and it was because he was anxious to do so that he had determined to support the Government, as he did not

549
think any private feeling of his own ought to interfere with his judicial duty. He was personally against this proposal, and so far as he could, would resist any interference with the rights and liberties of the House of Commons. It was a great pity that a Bill of the magnitude of the Licensing Bill should be rushed through the House, but he was in this far more serious difficulty. He believed that the Bill as framed and when carried would be in aid of temperance, and he yielded to no man in his anxiety to see the cause of temperance advanced. He also believed that this Bill would do another thing. It would remove the possibility of a grave injustice being done to a trade which had not deserved that injustice should be done to it. If he was right in that, the difficulty which presented itself to his mind was this, Was this Bill to be passed or not? If he could take seriously the protestations of his hon. friends opposite that they really wished the Bill to be fairly discussed and passed if a proper measure, he might take another view in regard to the Resolution; but he regretted to say that he was afraid that the anxiety of his hon. friends opposite was that the Bill should not be passed in any form or state whatever. He had only to listen to the passionate invective of the hon. Member for Spen Valley to find what was the Opposition feeling in regard to this particular Bill. When he listened to the impertinent buffoonery of the hon. Member for Northampton [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!" and "With-dray"]—he felt it was a deliberate—[Renewed cries of "Withdraw."]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not use discourteous language of another Member.
MR. MARSHALL HALL: I withdraw it, but if the hon. Member were here I do not think he would wish it withdrawn, for this reason—I think the hon. Member for Northampton takes pleasure in turning to ridicule matters before the House. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member had withdrawn the words.
MR. MARSHALL HALLsaid he withdrew unreservedly and at once any expres-
550
sion he ought not to use, as he thought any hon. Member would do. He looked upon the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton as a waste of time. In saying that he hoped he might be within the limits of Parliamentary etiquette. The hon. Member was apt, and took great delight in turning into ridicule matters which did not always seem to be subjects for ridicule; and these speeches shoved him that there was a wish on the other side of the House that this Bill should not become law. Therefore they came face to face with two alternatives…either this Bill must pass or fail. If it was to be passed it seemed to him that after the speech of the Prime Minister the only way it could be passed was by the application of closure by compartments. If this was to be applied he joined with his hon friends who had just spoken, the two hon. Baronets below the gangway, who had asked that more time should be given to the discussion of the two great principles involved. He would like more time given to the consideration of the ultimate destination of the compensation and the allocation of it; and he would like to see the rights of the actual licence-holders protected beyond any possibility of their being taken from them. To say that this was a brewers' measure entirely was not a just criticism of the Bill. It was not right to say that this Bill was dictated by the brewers. It was a Bill required by the public and by the whole of the licensed trade in the interests of temperance. He asked that the interests of the servants of the brewers and of the public in this matter should be safeguarded, and that ample opportunity would be given to discuss the rights that they had under this Bill. He said again that this was a measure in favour of temperance, and he spoke with some knowledge. He had had as much experience, if not more, than a great many hon. Members in regard to the working of the Licensing Acts of this country, and he said without fear of contradiction that many benches of magistrates had refrained from taking away licences which otherwise they would have taken away, and thereby reduced the number of licences, because they felt that they could not do so without the risk of doing an injustice,

551
and they thought that the lesser two evils was the better to choose on those particular occasions.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is discussing the merits of the Bill and not the Motion.
MR. MARSHALL HALLsaid he had not meant to say more than that it was a temperance measure, and he regretted that he had been tempted to go beyond that and to give the reasons for thinking that it was a temperance measure. The Bill was one which the majority of the House wanted to see carried. It was a Bill of the greatest importance, and if hon. Gentlemen were to go to the country upon the Bill, he had very little doubt that the voice of the country would be in favour of it. The question was whether they were to subordinate the wishes of the majority to the prejudices of the minority.
There was only one other topic he wished to discuss, and that was that the opportunity seemed to have been taken by the somewhat intemperate advocates of temperance outside the House of Commons to make the passing of this Resolution a vehicle for threats against individual Members of the House. He himself had been the recipient of letter after letter from persons threatening to do all in their power to make others vote against him night and day if he supported this Resolution. He knew whence that class of letters came, and he knew how to treat them. But if one thing would induce him to do his best to support the Government in this matter it would be the threat that any private injury could occur to himself for doing what he believed it to be his honourable duty to do on this occasion. He had no wish to trespass on the time of the House any longer, and he regretted that in almost his first speech in the House he should have been betrayed into using an expression with regard to the hon. Member for Northampton, which was unparliamentary and which he had withdrawn. He felt very strongly on this subject, and he regretted the action which was generally taken by a section of the temperance party on this question. He maintained that hon. Members on the Ministerial side
552
of the House were just as keenly interested in temperance as his hon. friends opposite; and it was became he was an advocate of temperance, and because he honestly believed that the Bill would do good, and because he believed that the Resolution under discussion was the only way in which this Bill could be passed into law, that he would give his vote for the Prime Minister's Motion, and take the consequences, whatever they might be to himself.
MR. HELMEsaid that it was because of the strength of the feeling that the necessity of the case demanded a more careful consideration of this Bill than could be given to it if the House assented to the proposal of the Prime Minister, that he entered his most emphatic protest against it. So far as could be judged from the expressions of opinion that had come from their constituencies hon. Members on each side of the House were face to face with evidence, that could not be disputed, that the country agreed that the House could not give proper consideration to this Bill under the time limit proposed by the Prime Minister. The public regarded this proposal as a question whether the trade should control the State or the State control the trade, and, further, they were justified in opposing the Motion to the best of their ability on the ground that it would degrade the proceedings of Parliament. As the Bill now stood it was entirely subversive of the best interests of the country in connection with a most important question, and why should the Government say that the Committee stage should be curtailed? Luring the discussions in Committee it had been discovered that the powers of the magistrates had been so greatly impaired as to upset the conceptions of the people in regard to the Bill when it was first introduced. If ever more deliberation was required for any Bill it was justified in this case, because most important concessions had been made by the Government. One was that a licence to be given in future should not come within the scope of the compensation clause of this measure, and just when they

553
were dealing with the question of magisterial control the Prime Minister stopped discussion suddenly by this drastic-proposal. The Government should be prepared to consider the equities of the case. The Government claimed that they represented the opinion of the country, but all the evidence was against that assertion, and even among their own supporters it was admitted that there was an increasing volume of popular opinion against the proposals in the Bill. That being the case the Prime Minister had no right to hurry the Bill through the House in the way he was doing. It was not true that any national interest was at stake if this Bill did not pass. It touched one of the greatest interests in another direction—the sobriety of the people. The national supremacy of this nation depended upon the skill of its workmen, and that, again, depended on the sobriety of the hands engaged in industry; effort in handicraft was paralysed if the brain was not clear from the influence of drink, but there were higher interests than commercial ones. Therefore, in opposing the forcing of this Bill through the House by closure, they were serving the highest and noblest interests of the country as well as endeavouring to preserve the constitutional liberties and privileges of this House. The mere fact that 171 Amendments had been put down by Members on the Government Benches showed that there was much room to improve the measure.
And, it being half-past Seven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LICENSING BILL (PROCEDURE).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [1st July], "That the proceedings in Committee and on Report of the Licensing Bill shall be brought to a conclusion in the
  554
  manner hereinafter mentioned on six allotted days:

  (a) The proceedings in Committee on Clause 1 on the first allotted day.

  (b) The proceedings in Committee on Clauses 2 and 3 on the second allotted day.

  (c) The proceedings in Committee on Clause 4 on the third allotted day.

  (d) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining clauses of the Bill, and on any new Government clauses, and on schedules and any new Government schedules, and any other proceedings necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion o I the fourth allotted day.

  (e) The proceedings on Report on any new clauses and on Amendments to Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of that Bill, be brought to a conclusion on the fifth allotted day, and

  (f) The proceedings on Report be concluded on the sixth allotted day.

  After this Order comes into operation, any day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Licensing Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day.
  At 11 p.m. on the said allotted days, or if the day is a Friday at 4.30 p.m., the Chairman or Speaker shall put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments) and on every Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded on the allotted day.
  In the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made, or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
  At 12 midnight on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order, or, if that day is a Friday, at 5.30 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
  Proceeding to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted (except at an Afternoon Sitting at 7.30 p.m.) under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to Sittings of the House.
  After the passing; of this Order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Licensing Bill stand as the first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor under Standing Order No. 10, nor Motion to postpone a clause, shall be received unless moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. Nor shall any opposed Private Business be set down at the Evening Sitting for consideration on any of the allotted days or on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order.
  If progress be reported, the Chairman shall put this Order in force in any subsequent sitting of the Committee."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Which Amendment was—
  "In line 1, to leave out all the words after the word 'That,' and insert the words 'this House declines to consider a proposal to deprive the House of Commons, without any justification in the previous course of the debate, of all power of reasonable and adequate discussion in respect of a measure which seeks, in the absence of any authority from the country, to make fundamental and much controverted changes in laws vitally affecting the well-being of the people."—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'the proceedings' stand part of the Question."
  MR. HELME,continuing his speech, said when the Prime Minister asked the House to consent to his proposal the right hon. Gentleman stated that every such appeal should be considered on its merits; if so, this Bill must not be rushed through. Had such a consideration governed business at the present time, no such attempt would have been made to limit the discussion on the Licensing Bill. The reason for the lack of time at this date was the want of skill and lack of courage on the part of the Government in not bringing in the Bill earlier. Having failed in that important particular, the right hon. Gentleman now sought to restrict the liberty of the House in respect to the most important subject that had been brought forward for
  556
  discussion at the present time. The 12th of August and the attractions of the moors should not be allowed to weigh against the public interest, and the House, therefore, had a right to endeavour to prevent these proposals being carried into effect. Every Government had a right to rely on the loyalty of the Party supporting it; but if the right hon. Gentleman pressed his followers to give a Party vote on this question, the vote would be given against the better judgment of many hon. Members on the Unionist side of the House. That, of course, was no concern of the Opposition, whose clear duty was to oppose the proposal and the Bill to the utmost in their power, and if defeated, support the statement of their leader in the clearest manner and refuse to accept the Bill as a settlement of the licensing question. They must carry the question to the hustings and allow the constituencies to give their verdict in the ballot boxes—at any rate he for one would support the interests of the nation against that of the trade.
  MR. SPEAR (Devonshire,)said that, having regard to the fact that the Government had passed the Childrens Bill, the Habitual Drunkards Bill, and the Scottish Licensing Bill, he had looked forward with the greatest hope to the measure now under consideration; and he was not even now without hope that there might be found in it the foundation of an enactment which would promote temperance by methods which would at the same time be just and equitable to the holders of licences. Nevertheless, he felt that there were grave difficulties in the measure, and he ventured to think that the time allotted by the right hon. Gentleman for its discussion was altogether insufficient for the purpose. It would not be in the interests either of temperance or of the trade that the measure should be passed through the House immaturely and imperfectly, with the result that it would be reconsidered with all the bitterness which was unhappily aroused by the question. He hoped that the Government would give more time, so that a final settlement might be secured. The Opposition had recognised the justice of compensation, and he had been hopeful that the Government would endeavour to

  557
  meet the Opposition, and to seek to promote a lasting settlement. While not prepared by his vote to take any steps to destroy the Bill, he hoped that even yet time might be given to remove defects in it and to secure a permanent settlement of the licensing question.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the speech to which the House had just listened might be taken correctly to reflect the private opinion of perhaps the majority of hon. Members sitting opposite. No reasonable man could doubt but that the time offered by the Government was wholly inadequate for the fair deliberation that Parliament was entitled to in such a matter as this. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the precedent of Mr. Gladstone's Motion in 1893, when the Home Rule Bill was before the House, but there was no analogy between Mr. Gladstone's action then and that of the present Government now. When Mr. Gladstone proposed his closure Resolution in 1893 the House had been in Committee for twenty-eight days, but the Home Rule Bill had been under discussion in the House of Commons for no less than eighty-two days, whilst in this case the Bill had only been debated on Second Reading for two and a half days and before the Committee two days. He did not propose to compare in their intricacies and their far-reaching results the constitutional changes sought to be made by the Home Rule Bill of 1893 with the Licensing Bill of 1904, but, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Member for the Cambridge University, this matter affected the welfare of the people in their social, moral, and economic conditions to an extent which it was impossible to conceive any other measure would affect. This Bill would become law and the Leader of the House when bringing in a measure which he intended to pass into law was bound to take every care that deliberation and debate in this House on every clause were safeguarded. It was far different with regard to the Home Rule Bill of 1893. Mr. Gladstone knew it was doomed, and he would never have attempted to pass his closure Resolutions but for two reasons, one of which was that the Bill would not pass into law without a further appeal to the country and the other
  558
  that there was a mass of domestic legislation which he desired to promote at the time. Speaking from a House of Commons point of view he asserted that any hon. Member who really considered this question fairly and squarely must undoubtedly come to the conclusion that justice had not been done to the honour and dignity of that Assembly nor had anything been done to secure its efficiency in the future. There were in this Bill a number of most complicated questions which required discussion; the discretion of the magistrate, a question not of principle but of modus, and the question of compensation and its incidence. There were scores of controversial topics of vast magnitude in this Bill. It would not be possible, even if the House agreed among themselves that certain Amendments should be adopted, for a Committee of twenty experts in local reform to come to a decision on the matter in the six days to be allotted, let alone a Chamber of 670 Members. He quite agreed that the tactics of the Opposition with regard to this Bill were obstructive, using that word in its legitimate and proper sense, because they regarded this as vicious legislation which should be opposed by all their power. But while that was the case the responsibility for affording full opportunities for discussion must still lie with the Government. Therefore it was that he joined in the appeal made by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to extend the absolutely inadequate amount of time in order that the Bill might be properly discussed.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: said he found no difficulty in voting for the Resolution before the House because he had a very strong desire to see this legislation properly carried through. Many Members, like himself, disliked any attempts to infringe on the ordinary Rules of Procedure and to restrict the time for the discussion of business, but there were occasions like the present when it became necessary. It was an unpleasant duty, which had been occasionally forced on the Leaders on both sides, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had adopted a similar position in precisely the same way. The Motion was a necessity. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken

  559
  gave the case away. He said he detested and hated the Bill, and thought it right to obstruct it in every way. He did not mention the word "obstruction"; but there were more ways than one of choking a dog. It was a very easy matter to smother a Bill with Amendments; but the business of the Government was to legislate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow that without this Motion it would be impossible to get the Licensing Bill through in Parliamentary time. He had heard allusions to moors and shooting; but, as far as he knew, his hon. friends would be content to remain in attendance until the Bill were passed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were determined that, if they could prevent it, the Bill should not be passed. What was the alternative? If they were unable to pass the Bill, they would have to resign; but with a majority of ninety they did not intend to resign. Why should they resign to please hon. Gentlemen opposite? Their intention was to pass such legislation as they thought fit. This Bill was a simple measure of justice; it would be productive of good results; and they were determined to pass it into law. He believed, with his hon. and gallant, friend that if speeches on both sides were curtailed, there would be more time available for the consideration of details; but he would not join in the appeal to his Leader to extend the period mentioned in the Motion. The Opposition, in that case, would, like Oliver Twist, ask for more. Any man who had the love of Parliament at heart must regret when an occasion like the present arose; but, nevertheless, they should not be prevented from passing a measure which they believed to be just.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that although it was quite true that every additional day which might be given by the Government would pro tanto diminish the evil, still, that would not remove his objection to the Bill. The pitiable bleatings of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House for an extension of the time to be allotted were indications of uneasy consciences. It might be necessary in tertain circumstances to resort to such an expedient as closure by compartments, but the necessity had not arisen with the Licensing Bill. Much
  560
  of the difficulty the Government had met with arose from mismanagement of business early in the session. On three conditions alone could such a Motion be justified. In the first place, there must be obstruction, and it had been admitted there had been none in the present case. The Prime Minister did not found his case on obstruction.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had not mentioned obstruction, and in that he had followed the precedents of his predecessors.
  MR. BRYCEsaid Mr. Gladstone might not have used the word obstruction, but everybody would remember what took place in 1893, and his whole argument was directed to showing that, under the methods of opposition adopted, it would be impossible to get the Bill through.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is what I said.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman did not say a single word against the method of discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had pointed out how the course followed made the passing of the Bill within a reasonable period practically impossible.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not say there had been anything inconsistent with Parliamentary usage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Nor did Mr. Gladstone.
  MR. BRYCEsaid it would be a large order to attempt to quote what Mr. Gladstone said. Those who remembered the debates of the period would know that on every occasion every question, however remote, was used as far as possible by the skill and diligence of the Opposition. Nothing of the kind had happened on the present occasion, and 171 Amendments had been given notice of by Members on the other side, certainly not with any desire to defeat the Bill. It would have been quite possible to get the Bill through in spite of the many Amendments in a reasonable time, considering how many Amendments were

  561
  repetition and how they crumpled up under the Chairman's ruling. He could say with some confidence that the discussion on this Bill had been eminently a businesslike discussion. During the thirty-four hours consumed on the Second Heading and in Committee 115 speeches had been made on his side of the House and 135 on the other side. Where there was no obstruction and no abuse of the Rules of the House, it became unfair and tyrannical to impose upon the House a Resolution of this kind. If they set up this precedent, whenever a Government had neglected to pass their legislation and to use their time in the earlier part of the session, they would have nothing to do but to come to the House and propose a drastic Resolution of this kind on the plea that they must carry their Bills before 15th August. The second condition "was that there should have been adequate discussion. On that point he would only say that they had not got to the bottom of the principle on which compensation should be given, especially in the case of new licences; and if they stifled discussion on the principle on which taxation was to be imposed upon those licence-holders who would gain no benefit from the Government scheme they would leave behind a keen sense of injustice. The third condition was that the Bill should be one which the country did not disapprove of. The Government ought not to resort to an exceptionally severe process for putting a Bill through unless there was a reasonable moral certainty that the country was with them. They could not have more conclusive evidence than that afforded by a series of by-elections that the country was against this Bill and those who introduced it. The whole sentiment of the country, expressed in Petitions and public meetings, had been unequivocally against the Bill, and a large volume of the opinion of the clergy of the Church of England was also opposed to the Bill. The clergy of the Church of England did not regard this Bill as a great temperance measure. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Bill as a measure of eternal justice. Did eternal justice require double the value of the licensed premises? The right hon. Gentleman called the Bill a measure of great temperance reform. He could not forget that two years ago he told the
  562
  House that the Education Bill was a great measure of educational reform. That was not now the opinion of the great majority in this country. If it were, the sooner the right hon. Gentleman gave them an opportunity of appealing to Caesar the better. He would not speak of Party results, although he was bound to say that if they wanted something to use in a Party sense they could desire nothing better than that the Bill should be passed by closure by compartments.
  Two results must follow from the methods which the Government had followed. In the first place it would destroy the moral authority which this Bill would have had when it became an Act. If the Government ignored public opinion, public opinion would ignore their work. Public opinion would not have any respect for Bills passed by tyrannical methods. In the second place, the Motion struck a blow at the House of Commons itself. The House of Commons was the mainspring of the Constitution in this country. It enjoyed immense power. It was not like Parliaments in other countries bound by a written Constitution. It had no check except that imposed by its own traditions and the feeling of protection it owed to the country; and, therefore, it ought to be especially careful of its power. If the British Parliament was more trusted than the Parliaments of other countries, if it was free from restrictions to which other Parliaments were subjected it was because the traditions of the House of Commons had won the confidence of the country and had made the people believe that that Assembly would not misuse the powers entrusted to it. The greatest of all reasons for that confidence was that the House had been allowed freedom of debate, and if the security for that freedom were once destroyed the confidence and authority which the House of Commons had hitherto enjoyed would inevitably be weakened. The solidity and strength of the Constitution of the country depended largely upon the existence of perfect confidence between the House of Commons and the people. The people ought to trust the House of Commons, and the House of Commons ought to feel that it would never go beyond what it believed to be the will of J the people"; but if a temporary majority

  563
  were allowed to disregard the indications of public opinion, to silence the minority and to pass its measures without proper discussion, the relations which had so happily existed in the past would be destroyed. Within the last twenty-five years the House had suffered a great deal. It had declined from the freedom of debate, the openness of spirit, and the happy flexibility which its rules of procedure gave to it. No doubt a part of the alteration had been rendered necessary by the changes of time; but much more had been done than was needed, and no one had done more by his changes in the rules of procedure to injure the efficiency of the House of Commons than the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The present proposal would strike a further blow at the freedom and authority of the House of Common—a blow which seemed to him to be the dernier ressort of Ministers who had got into a difficult position from which they were determined at all hazards to escape. It was an interference with the freedom of the House more violent and unjustifiable than had ever been made before, because it was the tyrannical exercise o f power by a temporary and accidental majority.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am anxious to say a few words on this Resolution, because my Parliamentary experience is so long that I recollect perfectly every successful attempt which has been made during the last 30 years to abridge the liberties of free speech in this House. The only complaint I make of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, to a portion of which I listened, is that it is a mere repetition of speeches which have been made alternately from both sides of the House. Upon every occasion when this subject has been brought before us, those who were opposed to the Bill which was the subject of the Resolution have got up and said it was destroying the efficiency of the mother of parliaments, that it was striking a fatal blow at the liberties of the United Kingdom, and so forth. The most remarkable of these attempts in my opinion, was the closure upon the Home Rule Bill. I opposed that measure, with certain qualifications,
  564
  on the ground that the particular Bill under discussion had not been sufficiently discussed. We have heard that in the course of the present argument. I also opposed it on the ground that the Bill was an exceptional Bill in this sense—that whereas all other Bills before the House of Commons can, after they have been passed, if they prove to be failures, be repealed and the mischief undone, that was a Bill which, for good or for evil, was irrevocable if once it was accepted. You cannot pass a great constitutional change of that kind with any expectation of being able to retrace your steps. But we have been reminded by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that it will be in the power of that Party, when they, as they not unnaturally hope shortly to do, occupy the Benches on this side of the House, to repeal this Bill if they then believe it is open to all the objections they now take to it. That constitutes, I think, a very important distinction between the Home Rule Bill and any other Bill that we have had subsequently to deal with. But, after all, I am perfectly prepared to-admit that our action, on both sides of the House, in regard to this matter is actuated very largely by our Party sympathy and by our feeling in regard to the particular measure before the House. If we think the measure a good one we wish to-see it carried and we wish to remove all the obstacles to its progress. If we think the measure a bad one we wish to kill it and we do not care by what means. I invite the House to consider the matter from that extremely practical and common sense point of view.
  The right hon. Gentleman delivered a very confident opinion with regard to the merits of this measure and the opinion of the country upon it-I differ from him in both respects. I think I have taken a more active part than the right hon. Gentleman in temperance reform. My first considerable speech in this House, now some twenty-eight years ago, was made upon this subject, and I have not changed in the slightest degree the opinions I then expressed in regard to it. I have an intense sense of the importance of temperance reform, and it has always been a matter of the deepest regret to me that during all

  565
  period, and even for a longer period if we go back[to the origin of temperance reform, practically nothing of substantial importance has been done by legislation. I believe that most of that is due to the extreme views of men whose honesty and whose conscientious convictions I recognise as much as I wish that others should my own, but who have absolutely refused to adopt that great principle in politics that half a loaf is better than no bread. They refused in the time before I was in the House of Commons to accept the great reform proposed by Mr. Bruce, who afterwards become Lord Aberdare, and they refused to accept the reform, which I always thought was of the greatest importance, proposed by Mr. Goschen, and they are now opposing with perfectly fanatical opposition this Bill, which in many very important particulars, although it may not go as far as they desire, is an enormous advance in the direction of temperance reform. Following the right hon. Gentleman, let me ask him to carry his memory back. What have we been urging during all this period? I accept him as a colleague in temperance reform. One of the things we have been urging is that it would be desirable to reduce the the number of licensed houses.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman, although he says he is following the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, is doing something more. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen did express an opinion that this Motion ought to be opposed on the ground that the Bill was not popular in the country, but the right hon. Gentleman is now going into the history of temperance legislation which, I think, is beyond the Motion.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, I bow, as I always do, to your ruling, and your ruling prevents me from expressing, however, briefly, the reasons for my conviction that this Bill would be a great advance in temperance reform. At any rate, I may say this, that that is the honest conviction of many of us, who may perhaps agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not go as far as it might go, but who would be glad to accept it for what it does actually give us, for the advance which we think it makes.
  566
  Then I come to the next point of the-right hon. Gentleman, which is that this Bill is not popular in the country. He challenges us to test that by going to the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to assert when we go to the country that that is to be the issue? If it is we shall win. But if, on the contrary, it is "Chin, Chin, Chinaman," if it is "you wear a pig-tail?" then I really cannot say what result an appeal to the country upon that noble issue may produce. It is all very well to make these appeals to the country beforehand, these challenges, but I would remind the Committee of an occasion to which I have referred, when the closure was applied to the Home Rule Bill. I really do not recollect at this interval of time how the by-elections went on at that period, but I know we challenged the Government to dissolve on that particular issue. As a matter of fact, that was the issue at the election following, and we know the result, we know that the country gave a most distinct reply, and justified our opposition to the Home Rule Bill. That is in reply to these, I am perfectly prepared to admit, rather irrelevant matters I comeback to the question of the closure as applied to a great Bill upon which there is difference of opinion. I say it is perfectly natural for hon. Gentlemen opposite to attempt to destroy the Bill, taking the view they do, and we on our side, who take a different view of the value of the Bill, are bound to do everything we can to carry it. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider what his great Leader said upon this subject in the course of those debates to which I have referred. Mr. Gladstone did not put the question of the closure upon the merits of the Home Rule Bill, but, curiously enough, not having the fears of the right hon. Gentleman as to the degradation of Parliament, he put it on the ground of the dignity and the efficiency of Parliament, and it is on that ground that I put the whole question-to the House. I am looking, perhaps as one is accustomed to do as one grows older, a little more into the future than younger men need do, and I am not thinking so much of this Bill as I am thinking of the general principle—how is the efficiency of Parliament to be preserved? What Mr. Gladstone said was that he regretted, and everyone believed him, to abridge the existing liberties of

  567
  Parliament, but that he did so because without it the great foundations of its existence would be destroyed and the will of the majority would no longer prevail. Now there is a majority of Parliament, and—I take for granted the cheer which will follow this observation—there is a majority in the country, and the two may differ. But for the time, and whilst Parliament is sitting, our object as Members of Parliament should be to preserve Parliament as the representative, for the period, of the country, an to give to the majority of Parliament for the time being the weight that a majority ought always to have. That is a doctrine which I have always held, a doctrine which I have preached from time to time. The particular way of securing that the majority should prevail is, of course, a matter on which there may be difference of opinion.
  Let me ask this: Which Party in the State has the greatest interest in this matter? I admit that there was time when I thought the there was a time when I thought the Liberal Party had the greatest interest in this principle, because I was brought up to think, and I thought, and I am not certain that it was not true, at any rate at that time, that it was to the Liberal Party that we were to look for social and legislative progress. Well, I very much doubt whether any impartial man can say that that is any longer the case. The Liberal Party has been engaged for a. long time [OPPOSITION interruption]—I do not want to weary the House ["Go on"]—but I was rather anxious to clear the way for nething I have to say in reference to what I believe is the real issue at stake. What I was going to say was that the Liberal Party, as every Conservative would recognise, has had a great work to perform, and has performed it; but that in regard to another port of our legislat ve work—namely, the work of social reform—I do not say why, I am not speaking in a controversial sense, but it has happened that most of our social legislation his been brought forward and carried by the Conservative and Unionist Party. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I am not putting this forward as a Party argument, I am putting it forward to show that neither Party has any longer a special interest in preserving all the methods of
  568
  obstruction. If there were a Party in this House, if the Conservative Party were a Party of pure reaction, of pure inactivity, of pure opposition to every reform, then it is they, not you, who would have a supreme interest in opposing every measure of closure, in opposing every restriction upon liberty of speech in this House. I say that is no longer the case, and, speaking to my friends around me, I say you have the same interest which those who call themselves the Party of progress have—I will not dispute it for the moment—in restoring and in increasing the efficiency of this House.
  The efficiency of this House at this moment is nil. It is all very well to bring up these old arguments we have just heard from the Member for Aberdeen, which we of this Party produced at the time of the closure on the Home Rule Bill, and of every other closure. That is all leather and prunella. The real thing is that as long as we treat each of these questions separately of course we shall be divided into Parties. Those who oppose any particular Bill will be on one side and those who are in favour of it will be on the other. Cannot we take a wider view of the whole situation Can we not consider the necessities of the time? Can we not see, without attributing any special dose of original sin either to one Party or the other, that circumstances have so far changed that, whereas in the time of Pitt and Fox there were at the very most but fifty Members of the House who ever addressed it, there are now 670 Gentleman every one of whom thinks, and no doubt with good reason, that he is as well entitled and as well able to address the House as anybody else? Can you not see that in these circumstances if every man claims his right each Party in turn will be paralysed, that each Party in turn will be unable to give effect to its principles and secure for them a fair trial? My desire is that when Gentlemen opposite come in they shall have the fullest opportunity of carrying out every promise they have made. I would like nothing better. In existing circumstances do they think that would be the case? We shall be rising—perhaps I myself shall be rising from the opposite side repeating the arguments of the Member for Aberdeen, and imploring the House to consider

  569
  the dignity of Parliament, and I know not what, because I am opposed to a Bill to repeal the Bill which is now under the consideration of the House. Are we to go on for ever playing this purely partisan game on one side equally with the other? Are we to go on doing this without considering the situation to which we are reduce 11 I agree with Mr. Gladstone [OPPOSITION laughter.] I do not understand hon. Gentleman who cheer ironically. I have quoted Mr. Gladstone. I agree entirely, and I always have agreed entirely, with what Mr. Gladstone said—namely, that the whole of this great constitutional system of ours, the existence of Parliament and everything else, is all machinery for securing peaceably that the will of the majority should prevail—the majority for the time. The business of the minority is to make itself into a majority and then in turn its will should prevail. Finally, we come to a state of things when what has been decided is accepted by both sides. But my real desire is that some measure should be devised which would give to each Party in turn—it is not, therefore, a partisan point—an opportunity of securing that the principles upon which it has gone to the country and secured the mandate of the country should prevail.
  In my opinion our present system is unsatisfactory. At present, as I have said, each Party in turn resorts to this arbitrary method. When Gentlemen opposite are in power, it may be in a short time, they will have to resort to precisely the same measure and we shall oppose it. We shall say you are destroying the efficiency of Parliament. We shall say that it is tyranny of the worst kind; we shall challenge you to go to the country. We shall tell you that the people are against you. We shall say everything. We shall resort to every platitude and very commonplace which you have resorted to in the present debate. I know my observations will not have the slightest effect on the division to-night. It is not with that object that I am addressing them to the House. But I do think it desirable from time to time to recall the House to the fact that each Party in turn is paralysed under our present system, and that the time has come when both sides of the House if they Were wise
  570
  —not in a time of excitement like this, but in some more peaceable hours—would attempt to devise some system by which the time of Parliament, necessarily limited, should be distributed so that, although there should be a fair amount of discussion, no Bill proposed by the majority and supported by a sufficient majority should be killed merely by time. It is not necessary to make any charge of obstruction. To my mind it is absurd that any one should try to conceal the fact that he has obstructed. I have obstructed, you have obstructed, we have obstructed, and, if I may put it in the future tense, I will say we shall obstruct. Therefore, that is not a charge that is to be brought in by either side against the other. On the present case all I have to say is, believing as I do that this Bill is a measure of temperance reform, believing firmly as I do that, if we could tike an issue upon this Bill alone, we should find that the majority of the people were entirely with us, and knowing as I do that, unler the existing circumstances of the House, it cannot be carried without the closure, I shall vote most heartily for the Resolution.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had told them that his first speech in the House was in favour of temperance reform. He had no doubt that it was a first-class speech, because that was in the right hon. Gentleman's Radical days. He fancied he remembered a notice in the Birmingham Daily Post of that time that Mr. Councillor Joseph Chamberlain, was to preside at a meeting to be addressed by Mr. George Trevelyan on the subject of the Local Veto Bill
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. friend will allow me to say that that is not a correct statement from my biography. I do not remember the Local Veto Bill. Mr. George Trevelyan did come down to address a meeting. But I was not councillor at the time; I was mayor.
  Dr. MACNAMARAsaid his recollection was that the object of the meeting was in support of the Local Veto Bill, but he

  571
  might be wrong. At any rate he knew that the right hon. Gentleman had first said that if the Government of that day went to the country upon the Licensing Bill "We shall win." He distinctly remembered the right hon. Gentleman using that phrase. Now in detailing his policy at Greenock last Autumn the right hon. Gentleman said "On this we shall win." He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was quite so sure about that to-day, but the sooner the Government took the verdict of the country upon it the better. There was one important feature which ought not to be lost sight of by the Prime Minister. On Friday last there were about twenty speeches delivered upon this Motion from both sides of the House and only three of them were in favour of it. There had also been twenty speeches, that day, and again only three had been in favour of the Motion made by the Prime Minister. Upon this Motion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham took up rather a detached position, and therefore he put him into a class by himself. He was glad to be able to say that he found himself in happy agreement with one thing which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said. The right hon. Gentleman had asked them to remember what their great Leader Mr. Gladstone said upon the introduction of the closure on the 29th of June, 1893, on the Home Rule Bill. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember what his Leader the present Prime Minister—he believed he was the right hon. Gentleman's Leader at the present time—had said. He said in 1893—
  "Whatever be the grounds for adopting this Resolution it is not one of necessity, but it is adopted upon the ground of expediency, and if I may say so, not of Parliamentary expediency but of Party expediency."
  The Motion before the House had been introduced for the very same reason. On the same occasion the Prime Minister complained very bitterly of the manner in which Mr. Gladstone had frittered away the early part of the session of 1893, and the right hon. Gentleman protested against the Government coming down at the beginning of July and asking the House to leave undiscussed the most vital provisions of the Home
  572
  Rule Bill. He endorsed those views to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that circumstances altered cases, and the Prime Minuter had told them that they must take each of these cases upon its; merits. They could not do that upon the present occasion because this case had no merits. With regard to the Resolution of the Prime Minister, two painful considerations filled his mind. The first was that the Prime Minister, who should be the guardian of the liberties, privileges, and functions of Parliament, had ostentatiously raised indifference—indeed, he might go the length of saying contempt—for the deliberations of Parliament to a fine art. The second deplorable circumstance was that the Prime Minister had signally failed to utilise the enormous gifts and opportunities which had been placed at his disposal. Here was a man of unique intellectual distinction, who had behind him an unrivalled Parliamentary majority, docile and willing to do what he pleased, and that man, who with the gifts which God had bestowed upon him might hate written his name of the scroll of honour for some great work in the uplifting of the people and in the improvement of their social and moral well-being, had elected deliberately to be remembered by this Motion on behalf of this Bill. There was no censure which he could pass upon that action more bitter than the private censure which the right hon. Gentleman must ultimately pass himself, unspoken, on his own conduct.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that this Bill was one which hon. Gentlemen opposite had declared they would resist by every means in their power, and they were using the Committee stage for the purpose of defeating and destroying this measure. He was one of those who desired to see the Bill amended in important particulars, but he was not going to play the game of hon. Members opposite and use the Committee stage for the purpose of defeating the Bill. It would not be consistent with the honour and dignity of this House to allow the Committee stage of a Bill to be used for that purpose, because it would render their proceedings entirely nugatory. It seemed to

  573
  him that one thing they had to consider was how much time they could allot to the consideration of this measure. The Amendment which had been proposed raised a question of principle, and therefore the Government were right in allotting the proper proportion of the time at their disposal to this measure. From the point of view of the business men in this House, to whom it was absolutely necessary that the length of the session should be confined within reasonable limits, the only business-like course for the House to adopt was to mark out the amount of time which the House could spend upon this particular measure.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he was sure that everybody, without distinction of Party, would be glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in his place again. He was particularly glad to see him, because the right hon. Gentleman and himself were to a certain extent in the same boat. He wanted to see that Government turned out and go to the country; so did the right hon. Gentleman. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] The only difference between them was that he was able to express his opinion, and the right hon. Gentleman was for the present dissembling his. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] He thought the right hon. Gentleman had given a very odd reason why those who were opposed to this measure and other measures which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would like to introduce should support the proposal which had been made by the Prime Minister. He had pointed out that the Conservative Party in the past had always been opposed to these violent methods of procedure, and that the Liberal Party had always been in favour of them. Now he said there had been a change, and he declared that on both sides they had definite positive ambitions to carry out which he suggested could only be carried out at the expense of their ordinary Parliamentary procedure. When he thought of some of the ambitious schemes which the right hon. Gentleman desired to carry he was not inclined to vote for making procedure much more drastic by the hope and belief that the present proposal might
  574
  some day be imitated by the right hon. Gentleman in order to carry the tariff proposals which he had submitted it the country. [MINISTERIAL cries of: "Oh, oh" and "Divide."] He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's foresight in this matter, because nobody could imagine how he could carry his tariff proposals without mutilating the procedure of the House of Commons.
  This debate had provided them with a very excellent specimen of the Prime Minister's dialectical methods, for he was making a very important Motion, and asking the House to make a most momentous departure. This Motion had been the subject of a large amount of criticism from this side of the House and also from the Ministerial side, and in reply to that criticism the Prime Minister had made a fascinating speech which did not contain any justification of his proposal, but which was full of all sorts of animadversions upon precedents from other Governments established under totally different circumstances at other times. He would not delay the House by endeavouring to trace the resemblances between the procedure the Prime Minister had now adopted and the procedure which the last Liberal Administration adopted. It was true that there were points of resemblance between the procedure on the Evicted Tenants Bill and that which they were now asked to adopt. The principal point of resemblance was that both procedures were proposed as rather desperate measures by Governments in extremely difficult circumstances, on the eve of a dissolution which was to be followed by an election extremely disastrous to them. He could quite understand that some right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench had been a little embarrassed by the resemblance which might be traced between those two occasions, but that did not help the case of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman could not quote the precedents which had been referred to with any satisfaction, because no man had denounced with more vigour and sincerity the procedure which was adopted on those occasions. The House had to consider, in the first place, the situation and

  575
  the causes leading to the present proposal, and, in the second place, whether it was, in fact, a reasonable thing to compress the proceedings in Committee on the Licensing Bill into six days. The hon. Member for Spen Valley, in his speech on Friday, went so far as to say that it would be ludicrous to attempt to discuss this Bill upon the time table which the Prime Minister proposed under this Motion, and the right hon Gentleman the Member for Montrose went further and said it would be a farce to discuss all the complicated provisions of this Bill within the six days provided by this time table. No one surely would deny that such a discussion, under such circumstances, so mutilated, so restricted, so arbitrarily curtailed, would be valueless and a useless waste of time. If that were so, he was astonished at the Prime Minister's moderation, because if he intended to pass this Bill without going through the formality of a Committee stage he wondered that the Prime Minister had allowed even six days. He would say to the Prime Minister, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had no doubt often said to him in private, "Why not go the whole hog?"
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman exactly. Do I understand that he is quoting to the House something which he says I said to him in private?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he was venturing to address an argument to the Prime Minister, who was not there, but would perhaps see it in the usual way, and asking him why he should take six days over this mutilated discussion upon this Bill in Committee, why not go the whole hog? He suggested that as advice which the right hon. Gentleman might have addressed to the Prime Minister at some time or other. He might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb; why not one day, one division, or, if it be thought right, why not take it without a division? What was to be gained by this "purposeless discussion"? Every argument he had used to justify this proposal would justify the much more convenient course he had just suggested. Nothing was gained, but something was
  576
  lost. Candour was lost. Five days of Parliamentary time were lost which might be occupied in discussing some of those interesting questions which the House was prevented from discussing by blocking Motions. They might discuss Army reform, or take up the Prime Minister's vote of confidence in himself as an Amendment to what he was entitled to call the Black Resolution. He could only see one conceivable advantage the Prime Minister had to gain by the elaborate procedure he had adopted. He wanted to keep up appearances, to make the country treat the Bill as if discussed, to invest arbitrary and unconstitutional procedure with a sort of sham decorum. This desire to keep up appearances at all costs was very curious. He would venture to repeat a story he heard the other day. The editor of a newspaper in the Western States of America received a letter one morning from a n an whose acquaintance he had the privilege of enjoying, which began as follows—
  "Dear Sir,—I regret to inform you that last night I had an altercation with Mr. Dawkins of this city, in the course of which I shot and killed him."
  [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh" and "Divide."] He claimed the same courtesy that had been extended to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. [Renewed MINISTERIAL interruptions.]
  MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N): You have got to listen to it whether you like it or not. The hon. Member for Oldham is not on your side now."
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he did not wish to weary hon. Members opposite and he had no desire to continue his story if they did not wish to hear it. [OPPOSITION cries of "Go on "and "Why not?" and MINISTERIALIST cries of "Divide."] It was quite obvious that the amenities of debate could not be indulged in by anyone who had differed from colleagues on the Ministerial Benches, since all courtesy, chivalry, and even ordinary fair play were thus refused—thus ill-naturedly refused. He would confine himself strictly to the argument. He could understand the desire of the Prime Minister to invest his proceedings with a certain air of formality, but he

  577
  asked why should the Opposition join in what the right hon. Member for Montrose described, and what could only be called, a dismal farce, the whole object of which was to delude the country into the belief that the Bill had been adequately discussed, to invoke the authority of the House of Commons for a piece of legislation which was nothing less than an act of Executive usurpation. It took a great Party to govern Great Britain by Parliamentary methods. One man might do it by unparliamentary methods. It was only when something had occurred to weaken the central principle, the inner life, of a Party that some particular interest in that Party laid hold of the machinery and mechanism of Government and used it to further its own special interests without regard to the welfare of the country as a whole. He thought those who had listened to the debates during the past few days must have noticed a more bitter element in them than had marked the ordinary discussions in this House They had been grappling with a great-trust. They were face to face with a great commercial organisation mobilised for the effective purposes of political warfare. They had seen it thrust its greedy fingers down the back of the Treasury Bench and pull the coat tails of Ministers, and when they reflected that the Prime Minister was dependent for his return to the House upon the votes of a certain class of liquor-sellers in his constituency [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, I no" and "Withdraw," and cheers.]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not committed any breach of order.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid they had realised what it meant to fight against a great commercial combination which took a prominent part in political action, and the reflection occurred to hon. Members when they saw this great trust in working order, "Thank God, there is only one of them at present that we have to face. We have only one now, but when the Birmingham golden age is ushered in—"
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now travelling beyond the Motion.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL,continuing, said the Prime Minister had been largely responsible for the present situation. It was undoubtedly the case that the right hon. Gentleman had led the House by different methods to those of some of his predecessors. If there was some matter the House was anxious to discuss, on which the conduct of the Government was impeached, the Prime Minister did not prepare an elaborate answer to the charges. No, he put down a blocking Motion. [OPPOSITION cheers and MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]
  MR. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's action with regard to that, even if the hon. Member is correct, is one of those past actions of the Government which cannot have contributed to produce this Motion, and cannot now be commented upon.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid it was very difficult to bring any point within the Rules of debate in the face of such interruptions. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Divide."]
  MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. For the last ten minutes I have been endeavouring to listen to the speech of the hon. Member, and I have been unable to follow him. I think it is one of the privileges every hon. Member is entitled to that he should be heard. [Cries of "Order."] I do ask you, as Speaker of this House, to try to keep order for us. [Cries of "Oh, oh" and "Order."]
  MR. SPEAKER: It is impossible for the Speaker to compel every Member to keep silence, but I trust every hon. Member will observe the Rules of the House.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL,speaking amid continued interruptions, said it would not have been strange if, when the House of Commons was unable to discuss the great question of the day, there should have been a resort to the rough-and-ready method of obstruction. But the Prime Minister had not alleged that there had been obstruction. The rights of the minority, he ventured to suggest

  579
  to hon. Members opposite, were rights which they would perhaps have need to consider in days that were not far distant. He saw the Prime Minister in his place. Was it to be supposed that he was a consenting party to this uproar? [Cries of "Order."]
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot, of course, compel the silence of every hon. Member of this House, but I would remind them that the Orders of this House as they existed more than 250 years ago make it the duty of every Member to maintain silence whilst a Member is addressing the House. No Speaker can enforce that regulation, but I appeal to the House whether it is not more conducive to the dimity of the House when a Member is speaking, whether his opinions be popular or not, that he should be allowed to proceed.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I wish to ask, as a point of order, whether we have not the right to show our dissent from strong personal attacks made on the Leader of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: Personal attacks, so far as they are orderly, ought to be borne without disorderly interruption.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he was quite at a loss to deal with these interruptions, differing as they did from those which took place at public meetings, the authors of them not being amenable to argument or appeals for fair play. But he did not desire to detain the House long. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the legislative programme of the session was not extensive Surely it was very remarkable that he had not been able to carry out the ordinary legislative programme by ordinary Parliamentary methods. The cause which had brought about the Parliamentary breakdown did not lie on the Benches of the Opposition, but on the Benches of the other side; and what they had witnessed that night was only another element in the demoralisation which had taken place in the great Conservative Party, a demoralisation which made Members perfectly willing to come down to shout down an unpopular speaker, perfectly willing to be in their places when the liberties of the House of Commons were to be voted
  580
  away, but not willing, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley had said, to forsake their dinner, not willing to forego the pleasures of Ascot, or to sit in the House later than 15th August. He had finished the observations which he desired to make, and he was bound to say that he appealed to the good sense of the House of Commons to say whether he had received fair treatment—[Cheers and cries of "Divide"]—whether the carefully-organised attack upon the liberties of debate in which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was an accomplice and a consent ing party—[Loud cries of "Order," "Withdraw," and cheers]—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of ordsr. [Cries of "No" and interruption.] I merely wish to know, Sir, whether it is in order [interuption and cries of "Order"] for the junior Member for Oldham to say that there is a conspiracy against him in which I am an accomplice—a statement which is absolutely untrue. [Cries of "Oh" and "Order" and cheers and counter-cheers.]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should not make charges of that kind. [Cheers and cries of "Withdraw."]
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL,who was again received with cries of "Withdraw," said: Mr. Speaker, if I have said anything which passes in any degree the limitations of the order of debate [cries of! "Order" and "Withdraw"] I completely withdraw it. I have made my protest which I venture to commit to the good sense and calmer consideration of the House.
  MR. CATHCART WASON, who spoke amid noise and interruption, said he was only going to say a few sentences. He was endeavouring to make his voice heard hundreds of miles beyond this House. The question now before the House was, in his opinion, one of the most important that had ever been submitted to any Parliament. They had long been accustomed in this country to point the finger of scorn at the ways of Tammany. They had been educated to jeer at the struggles of candidates for the Presidency of South American republics to secure place and power and

  581
  profit for themselves. But surely the degradation of the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, had reached full measure when hon. Members were brought here to vote closure by compartments on a Bill of such importance as this. In connection with Home Rule there was no question of this or that company's shares going up or down. During the discussion of this Bill the House had presented a deplorable spectacle. More than once a representative of the great brewing interest had been seen hanging over and directing the Premier of this country as to how he was to act, and they had had the same hon. Gentleman in the lobbies telling hon. Members how they were to vote. That was a humiliating position for Members of the House of Commons to be placed in. The people of the country were entitled to have some knowledge of the character of the legislation proposed, but this had been denied to them in respect of this measure at any rate. The Government did not seem to understand their own minds. In the course of the discussion which had taken place on the Bill it had been shown that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary did not understand the real character of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the House.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he only wanted to show that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary did not understand the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not the point now before the House.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: May I allude to this point. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells moved an Amendment, and the Solicitor-General promised to give consideration to the point raised—
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not in order for the hon. Member to refer to discussions that took place on Amendments.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he only wished to allude to the matters to show the imbecility of the Government in regard to their own Bill. If this Bill
  582
  were submitted to the constituencies in its nakedness and baldness it would be scouted from John O'Groats to Land's End. He would venture to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite with regard to the effect this measure would have on the social welfare of the people of the country. There was not a single day when millions of the King's subjects did not pray to the Almighty Father not to lead them into temptation. It was the duty of an Assembly like this to help the people, and to prevent them so far as possible from being led into temptation. That end would not be promoted by the passing of this Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: In the few words it will be my duty to address to the House I shall endeavour to; follow the good example propounded and exhibited by the Leader of the House on Friday when he introduced his Motion. He said that he would avoid saving anything which might add to the excitement which very naturally prevailed on such an occasion, I think that is the duty of all Members of the House at this time, perhaps in a larger degree than in the case of some others on the part of those who have some authority over individual sections of the House. It I is not that I do not feel strongly the nature of the Vote that is going to be taken and the effect of it, as I believe, upon the general estimate by the world of this House and its deliberations; but above all things let us do what we have to do with dignity and in order. If I try? to avoid saying anything of an irritating character, though one cannot altogether avoid controversial topics, I trust that my efforts will be responded to by hon. Members opposite. My intention is perhaps rather ambitious; it is to say something new, or at all events to bring the House back to the argument the Leader of the House used when he proposed this Motion. We have had a pretty full discussion on the general question of these Motions, their nature, their use, and their abuse. We have had instances drawn from previous occasions fully analysed and discussed, and we have had all the influence that can be brought to bear on the mind of anyone going to vote in relation to the Bill itself and its position

  583
  in Committee at this moment; but I am going to take up the plea on which the right hon. Gentleman founded this Motion. He, based his case for guillotining the Bill on the first clause on the time and the business of the session; he challenged examination of the course of business during the session and a comparison with other sessions; in fact, his case was practically a vote of censure on the Opposition; and from that point of view I will make a few observations. He said—
  "If the House insists on spending night after night in criticism the time given to legislation must be curtailed."
  Before Easter, he said, one afternoon only was given to legislation. Again, he says—
  I say, and say emphatically, if you are going to allow the Government"—
  but who does he mean by "you"? I thought the Government were in charge of business—
  "If you are going to allow the Government to have one afternoon before Easter and seven between Easter and Whitsuntide, you are making an apportionment of time which is not enough for legislation and too much for criticism."
  But my answer is, it is not we who made the apportionment of time, it is he. He then went on to challenge a comparison between this session and other sessions, and this challenge I reply to. It involves not the merits of this particular Bill, not the question what may be the demand for the Bill or the effects that may result from it not passing; we hear very little of that part of the case, for, indeed, there is no demand. As has been pointed out, petitions—which after all are an old-fashioned way of testing public opinion somewhat fallen into discredit and disuse of late years—petitions have been all on one side, there being but a solitary one on the other. For myself I have, since the Bill was introduced, received copies of 4,000 resolutions passed at public meetings and by public bodies in opposition to the Bill, and as these Resolutions were accompanied by an intimation that copies had been sent to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman must be equally well aware of the state of public opinion. There is nothing connected with the Bill, or the feeling of the country towards it, its urgency or its necessity, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman; but that the
  584
  business of the session, including the proceedings on this Bill, would have been in an advanced and favourable position if the disposition of the Government had not been thwarted and brought to confusion by the Opposition—that is the case upon which I am challenged. I am very glad to look into it and I will tell the House what I find. I find so far has it been from the fact that an exaggerated amount of time has been occupied with criticism during the session, the time so occupied has been relatively and absolutely insufficient. To begin with, let us consider this—was there reason for criticism, was there more or less ground for it this session? The occasion for it was unprecedented, just as the measures adopted for closing the mouth of the House of Commons were also beyond precedent. The Government were unable to settle their own policy in regard to two of the most important questions before us—namely, the fiscal question and the Army question. With regard to the public service, they were spending money like water without producing any justification. They are still groping about for the true function of the Army. No one has found it except the Secretary of State for War, who tells us that he feels, and knows, and sees exactly what ought to be done. Then why does he not tell us what ought to be done? That would save a great deal of the time of the Government, and would have saved a still larger amount of time if it had been done two or three months ago. Then, with regard to the Navy, a great deal of time has been spent in reconciling a two-Power standard of strength with three and a half-Power standard of expenditure. Then there are, blunders like the Somaliland campaign, and such incidents as the adventure of the peaceful Mission to Tibet and the importation of Chinese labour. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] I am analysing the causes, and I am within my right. The real matter for criticism, however, is the presence of the right hon. Gentleman on that Bench, notwithstanding that they have lost, as we say and as they can hardly deny, the confidence of the country and also their due authority in this House. Look at their position. They are a band of fiscal reformers reduced to positive incoherence the moment any one gets up and tries

  585
  explain his views. That furnishes ground for criticism for nearly a whole session.
  I have been speaking of the necessity, or excuse, or reason for criticism. Now let us come to the dimensions of it. One day has been allowed to a vote of censure on Chinese labour. Three Motions for the Adjournment of the House have been made from the Opposition Benches and two from the Government Benches. And these are the only inroads that have been made upon Government time. There have been private Motions possibly, but they have been in private Members' time. Let me dissect the session. Eighty-two days up to and including last Friday—the very number of days spent on the Home Rule Bill in Committee when strong measures were taken in 1892–93—eighty-two days have been at the disposal of the Government in whole or in part for their business. Of these two whole days and three evenings were devoted to criticism outside the usual routine in the way I have spoken of. Is it claimed that the vote of censure was wantonly or unnecessarily moved? No, Sir. The amendment of the Finance Bill took two days. Is this complained of? The two days spent on the consideration of the Finance Bill were just as much a part of the legislative work of the session as the days spent on the Licensing Bill itself. There was the usual debate on the Address, of which no complaint was made by right hon. Gentlemen. Two days of it were spent in discussing "the grave negligence and mismanagement of the Ministry, whereby the duration, magnitude, and cost of the war were greatly increased." That was the Motion of my hon. and learned friend the Member for South Shields. Was two days too long for a Motion of that importance, founded upon the Report of the Commission on the War, which had attracted universal attention and excited strong feeling in the country? At any rate, the Government and the late Colonial Secretary made two interesting contributions to that debate. They did not appear to resent it, but were rather glad of the opportunity of defending themselves. Two days were given to Chinese labour on the understanding laid down by the Government that this would be the only opportunity before
  586
  the Ordinance took effect. Six days were spent in the forlorn hope of endeavouring to piece together into an intelligible and authoritative shape the conflicting and irreconcilable views of the distracted colleagues of the Prime Minister on the fiscal reform question. Was that time wasted? In one sense I admit it was wasted, because we did not succeed, after all, in arriving at a know ledge of what their policy was. That was not our fault. The reason of it was that a great question was suddenly and rashly raised and that the Government were found, after all, to have not only unsettled convictions, but conflicting and irreconcilable opinions. The natural consequence of that state of things was the occupation of a great part of Parliamentary time. But let me follow the time-table. There were fourteen days on the Address, three days on votes of censure, and three evenings on adjournments. That is twenty days, which leaves the Prime Minister sixty-two days, in whole or part, for Supply or legislation. Of these, four days, the same which he allows for the consideration in Committee of this most complicated and far-reaching Bill, were spent on the Supplementary Estimates, which the Government themselves introduced, which were on a scale absolutely without parallel and which really constituted, for the Army and Navy, a sort of new Army and Navy Budget. There were no obstructive tactics here. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the conduct of this Army business has been such as to disarm criticism? The time so spent was given to the country. If time was wasted it was owing to the manner in which information was either communicated in some part to, or withheld in the greatest part from, the House. The Licensing Bill could have been introduced before Easter, if it was ready, but it was evidently not ready. Six Bills came before the House—the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, Police Superannuation, Scotch Education, Penal Servitude, Aliens, and Dogs, those twin measures which seem to be complementary to each other, treating the dog as an alien and treating the alien as a dog. There was also a Bishopric Bill, and there was an innocent and uncontroversial Bill, which has yet to come on, called the

  587
  Local Authorities (Default) Bill. But how absurd to charge the Opposition with bringing about a waste of time, or at any rate such an expenditure of time as leads to a deadlock and makes closure by compartments on a Bill of first-class importance necessary, when dogs and aliens, bishops and Irish labourers, convicts, Scotch schools, and policemen were given priority ! And when the Bill had got into Committee on 6th June, as we all remember, progress was suspended in order that stalwarts of the Government should be able to go to Ascot, and then, a little further on, it was again suspended in order that the tobacco trade should be able to recover from the confusion into which the Government had plunged it.
  The Prime Minister has invited this scrutiny which I have given of the mode in which he has managed and distributed the time of the House. Is he proud of this leisurely, dilettante, haphazard conduct of business, with here a little and there a little, a nibble at this and then a bite at that? I do not think the record has been satisfactory, for that is not the way to force along business. The Government started with several episodes in their external policy which seemed to be incredible—at least, we cannot obtain from them a clear explanation or intelligible excuse—and with a great domestic revolution, for it is nothing less, put forward without rhyme or reason, on which they do not know their own mind. And then they complain, having begun in this way and having gone floundering and blundering along in the way I have described, forsooth, to the House and say that it is we who have driven them to the strong measures now to be employed. The whole responsibility is laid on the Opposition, and we are told that the credit of Parliament will be destroyed unless this measure, profoundly distasteful to at least very large sections of the people of this country, unheard of when the Government were put in power, un-thought of even two years ago when they were dealing with this question of licensing, and on which we have just raised enough of the curtain in the few days that the Bill was in Committee to see how complex and serious are the questions it involves—that Parliament is to be discredited unless it is forced through this House without Amendment.
  588
  The Government even this very day have put a number of new Amendments on the Paper in explanation of their views. I repudiate the responsibility the Government seek to put on us. It is not we who have allowed this or allowed that. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has managed the business of the House in a way which has led to this necessity. If this Bill had been a measure which we thought would be a good one, one likely to accomplish its object, and one which the people of this country desired, even then it would have been a strong order to invite us to treat a measure of that kind in this way. When, however, it is a Bill which we think will be disastrous to the country in its present shape, a Bill that will require immediate Amendment by Parliament, if it is passed, when opportunity offers—when that is the kind of Bill then, of course, we oppose this proceeding with the utmost willingness and with all the strength we possess. I have endeavoured to meet the right hon. Gentleman's plea, not, I can well imagine, to his satisfaction, but, at any rate, to the information of a good many people who heard the plea urged—and when that plea which he has put forward is so wrapt up in his own conduct of the business of the House we are entitled to explain to the country that we have no art nor part in this proceeding, and shall discharge our duty in voting against the Motion he has brought forward. This proceeding, while it will do no credit either to the Government which proposes it, or the Parliament which adopts it, will also tend to strengthen the public opinion as to the reputation of the Government in whose favour it is made.
  MR. BELLsaid he did not think any one in this House could charge him with having obstructed the Government in any debate. During the discussion he had got up on several occasions but was unsuccessful in catching the eye of either the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. He had not complained of that, because in most instances some one else had spoken what was in his mind. But he could not allow this Motion to go by without expressing, during the few minutes at his disposal, his opinion, humble as it might be, but which he knew had the support

  589
  of his constituents. He had always held in great esteem the Prime Minister, and believed the right hon. Gentleman to be a man of great sincerity, although he had not always agreed with him in all the right hon. Gentleman had said and done. But that conviction had been dispelled out of his mind, because he really believed that the right hon. Gentleman was not sincere in thrusting this Bill down the throats of the hon. Members and the country. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might dissent, but he had a right to enjoy his opinion as they had theirs. He felt strongly on this question. While this was a Bill to compensate brewers for putting arsenic in their beer, it made no provision to give compensation to those who were poisoned by drinking their beer. The number of days and hours set apart for the Bill was certainly, in his opinion, insufficient to adequately discuss a measure of this magnitude and importance. He agreed with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham for once, that when he was on that side of the House in opposition, and the Liberals were in power, if the Liberal Party adopted such a monstrous proposal as this, he would join with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in opposing it. At any rate, in the experience he had had, he had never known any Party, either Tory or Liberal, to have done anything of this kind in thrusting a Bill of this character down the throats of hon. Members with insufficient discussion. He wanted to make it distinctly clear that he would only be a passive resister that night, and should vote against the closure; but he would

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Bull, William James

  Allhusen, August us Henry Eden

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

  Butcher, John George

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Arrol, Sir William

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Austin, Sir John

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bigwood, James

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bill, Charles

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bond, Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A (Worc.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F (Middlesex

  Charrington, Spencer

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Brassey, Albert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  become a very active resister after that night and should take no part in closure by compartments. [MINISTERIAL interruptions and cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not say that with a view of convincing hon. Members opposite, because many of them were convinced of the advantages of a Bill which would put money into their own pockets. [MINISTERIAL ironical laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he had his convictions, and he hoped he understood a little bit, as well as some people who were interested, what the position really was. He had listened to a great many debates in this House, and he recognised that it was sometimes necessary to have the closure, but only after some reasonable time had been given to the discuss on of the point at issue. But insufficient time had been given for the discussion of this Bill, and whatever might be the consequences he would not allow the closure by compartments to be enforced without some active resistance, and he hoped they would let the country know that there were some persons in this House who had some regard to the dignity of Parliament. The Prime Minister had reduced the House to a very undignified position.
  And, it being midnight, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business.
  Whereupon Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided; Aves, 303; Noes, 223. (Division List No. 187.)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Coddington, Sir William'

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

  Heaton, John Henniker

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

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cook, 8ir Frederick Lucas

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Myers, William Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hoult, Joseph

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham)

  Percy, Earl

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Hosier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Purvis, Robert

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pym, C. Guy

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Doughty, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kerr, John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Keswick, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Kimber, Henry

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Renwick, George

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robinson, Brooke

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lockwood, Licut.-Col. A. R.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ropnor, Colonel Sir Robert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Flower, Sir Ernest

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Forster, Henry William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

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

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Malcolm, Jan

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Smith, H C (North'm b. Tyneside

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H.E (Wigt'n

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

  Gretton, John

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Spear, John Ward

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Hain, Edward

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Stock, James Henry

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Stroyan, John

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  592

  593

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

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wentworth. Bruce C. Vernon-

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Tuff, Charles

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Ly'ne

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W.H.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Valentia, Viscount

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheffield

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Allen, Charles P.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ambrose, Robert

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Asquith Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Kean, John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Benn, John Williams

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Black, Alexander William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Blake, Edward

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Boland, John

  Grant, Corrie

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brigg, John

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

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Moss, Samuel

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Burns, John

  Harcourt, Rt Hn. Sir W (Monm'th

  Murphy, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Harwood, George

  Newnes, Sir George

  Caldwell, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Norman, Henry

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Hr

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Causton, Richard Knight

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

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

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Doherty, William

  Crean, Eugene

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Dowd, John

  Crombie, John William

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Cullman, J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Parrott, William

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Partington, Oswald

  Devlin, Chas, Ramsay (Galway

  Kitson, Sir James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N

  Labouchere, Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.)

  Lambert, George

  Perks, Robert William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Langley, Batty

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Price, Robert John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Layland-Barratt,. Francis

  Priestley, Arthur

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rea, Russell

  Dunn, Sir William

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Edwards, Frank

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Reddy, M.

  Elibank, Master of

  Long, Sir John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ellice, Capt E.C (S Amdrw's Bghs

  Levy, Maurice

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rigg, Richard

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone)

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lyell, Charles Henr

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  594

  595

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Roche, John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Runciman, Walter

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Russell, T. W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Wilson, Fred, W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

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

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

  Tillet, Louis John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Ure, Alexander

  Young, Samuel

  Sheehy, David

  Wallace, Robert

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Bell and Mr. Henderson.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'the proceedings' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided; Ayes, 301; Noes, 228. (Division List No. 188.)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Howard, John (Kent, Favers'm

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Mount, William Arthur

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Spear, John Ward

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Murray, Rt HnA. Graham (Bute

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stock, James Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Kerr, John

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Stroyan, John

  Keswick, William

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Kimber, Henry

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Perey, Earl

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Tuff, Charles

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Valentia, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Lowe, Francis William

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Renwick, George

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Robinson, Brooke

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Max well, Rt Hn Sir H.E. (Wigt'n

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Montagu, C. (Huntingdon)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  TELLERS FOE THE AYES—

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Blake, Edward

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Boland, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Brigg, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ambrose, Robert

  Broadhurst, Henry

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Burns, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Bell, Richard

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Crean, Eugene

  Benn, John Williams

  Caldwell, James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Black, Alexander William

  Cameron, Robert

  Crombie, John William

  598

  599

  Cullinan, J,

  Labouchere, Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lambert, George

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Langley, Batty

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Davies, M.Vaughan (Cardigan

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal W.)

  Rigg, Richard

  Delany, William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roche, John

  Donolan, Captain A.

  Long, Sir John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Doogan, P. C.

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, T. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lloyd-George, David

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lundon, W.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw's Bghs

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sheehy, David

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Eve, Harry Trelawnoy

  M, Kean, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Slack, John Bamford

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Fitzmauriee, Lord Edmond

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Mooney, John J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Tennant, Harold John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Moss, Samuel

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Grant, Corrie

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

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

  Murphy, John

  Tillet, Louis John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Tomkinson, James

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Toulmin, George

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Norman, Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hain, Edward

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ure, Alexander

  Haldano, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wallace, Robert

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

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

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monm'th

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Doherty, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Mara, James

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Parrott, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd

  Joicey, Sir James

  Perks, Robert William

  Young, Samuel

  Jonos, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reddy, M.

  Main Question again proposed.
  And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  Adjourned at twenty-three miuntes before One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill shave been complied with:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order.(No.3); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order.
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1); Education Board Provisional Order (Cardiff); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders(No.2).
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committer, with Amendments.
Matlock and District Gas Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ilford Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons
London County Council (Money) Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Dean Forest Bill; Rotherham Corporation Bill Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be referred to the Examiners.
Ticehurst and District Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
London and North-Western Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; London and India Docks Company Bill; Swindon Corporation Bill; Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill; Carlisle Corporation Bill; Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Braye be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committer on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Mayo; read, and agreed to.
Buxton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]—(Walton-on-Thames Order). Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]—(Kingswood Order opposed). Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition to the said Order; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 17th and 21st of June discharged, and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committer (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; further Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; a further Amendment made; Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions to be heard by Counsel against; of Corporation of Tynemouth; Corporation of Islington; and Metropolitan Electric Supply Company. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (OBSERVATORY).
  Report of His Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope to the Secretary of the Admiralty, for the year 1903.
  TRADE REPORT (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3201. France (Nice).
  Correspondence relating to affairs in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
  Census returns of British South Africa.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Annual Report of the Chief Inspector o Factories and Workshops for the year 1903. Part I. Reports.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Return showing the population, valuation, the average assessment levied under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, for the three years 1900–1901 to 1902–1903 in each parish, and the total raised from each local government district, together with calculations showing the amount which would be raised from each parish if the total assessment so raised from each local government district were imposed as a district rate upon parishes on the basis of (1) Valuation alone; and (2) Half on valuation and half on population.

  LABOUR STATISTICS (ST. LOUIS EXHIBITION).
  Charts (reduced in size) illustrating the statistics of trade, employment, and conditions of labour in the United Kingdom, prepared for St. Louis Exhibition by
  392
  the Commercial, Labour, and Statistical Department of the Board of Trade.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Rules made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland (1) determining the number of centre superintendents to be appointed for the examinations for 1904; (2) appointing the places at which the examinations for 1904 shall be held.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD.
  Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board, 1903–1904; with appendices.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee, That they have added the Viscount Sidmouth to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LEITH CORPORATION TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the said Bill do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room B. on Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.
THE LOVAT SCOUTS.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I wish to give notice that I am obliged to put off the Notice standing in my name, "To call attention to the armament and position of the Yeomanry in relation to the Regular cavalry, and to ask who is responsible for the Lovat Scouts having been kept together as a fighting unit in South Africa." I do so as Lord Lovat is in Scotland with his regiment and cannot be in London till the end of the week. As the first free day is this day fortnight, I will put the Notice down for that day.

EDUCATION (TRANSFERRED SCHOOLS) BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I venture once again to emphasise the two main principles of the measure. In natural sequence to the principle of the Act of 1902, this Bill proposes to give to the local education authorities created by that Act that fuller and freer power of negotiation which local experience has already shown to be necessary. The solution of the religious difficulty, the main difficulty really in this controversy, is found in claiming for the parent the right to decide the character of the religious instruction imparted to his child. The critics of this Bill have not, I believe, ventured to question the soundness of either of those two principles. But it is when we come to the application of these principles that difficulties arise. Before discussing these, a brief survey of the situation created by the Act of 1902 is necessary for my purpose.
The Act of 1902 has beyond all question weakened the denominational character of the voluntary schools. The managers of those schools are beginning to realise that their powers of management are severely circumscribed, and that those powers, where the local authority is unfriendly, can be legally reduced to almost humiliating dimensions. But while the powers of management have well nigh gone, the financial responsibilities of the foundation managers have been, at any rate in one respect, very seriously increased. How, for example, are the voluntary schools, in districts which now for the first time know the feeling of a school rate, going by voluntary effort to raise the money necessary for large and reasonable requirements in the way of structural improvements? No doubt in the past the dread of a school board rate has occasionally added some names to subscription lists, but that will occur no longer. In large towns the position of the voluntary schools is in peril of being lowered by the establishment of higher standard schools which the local education
394
authorities, invested by the Act with the power of grading schools, will probably consider necessary for educational efficiency.
In Wales there is an added trouble. The Act of 1902 euphemistically describes the voluntary schools as non-provided; and in the Principality that description has; been interpreted to mean that the voluntary schools are to be non-provided with the means of maintenance. It is true tint the Act of 1902 has left to the voluntary schools a remnant of their old privileges. Unfortunately this remnant now supplies our opponents with their one grievance; I say their one grievance because when complete popular control is once given the rest that is asked for follows. In approaching this delicate question of popular control I do not think that any fair-minded man will question the greatness of the services rendered to popular education in this country by the Church of England in the past. The Church of England did not wait to educate the working man until he was enfranchised. The Church long years ago entered upon this work inspired by the parental duty "educate your children." The State has recently been moved to undertake this task by the political motive, "educate your masters." But, my Lords, great as are the claims of the voluntary schools, I frankly admit that when I find that before 1870 public funds contributed only 37 per cent, of the total cost of maintenance, and that now they will contribute more than 90 per cent., justice demands that control should go to the paymaster.
In the present controversy the representatives of the voluntary schools are, of course, the champions of the cause of religious education, and their opponents the champions of popular control. These claims do not seem to me to be irreconcilable. Even in Wales the local education authorities are not as a body opposed to the giving of religious instruction. This Bill offers an arrangement by which the representatives of the voluntary schools may barter the small remnant of privilege still left them for a plan which will secure religious instruction in all the elementary schools of the country. This Bill would make such an arrangement locally easy and legally binding. It seems to me—if this may be said here

395
without disrespect—that such an arrangement is more easily carried out in detail by negotiations with the local authorities than by an appeal to Parliament, where other considerations would come in to harness and mutilate the progress of any such measure. In any arrangement contemplated there are two points that must, of course be fully and fairly faced—the question of inside facilities and the abolition of tests. I think it will be generally admitted that the vast majority of the people of this country have made it clear that they consider that religious instruction is an essential part of education, and that they are resolved that the education given in their elementary schools shall not be bereft of this essential. The difficulty is the character of the religious instruction to be imparted. The Board schools met the difficulty in a somewhat negative fashion: "You must take the syllabus we offer or nothing." In passing may 1 observe that there must be some flaw in the logic of those who desire to free religion from all State patronage and control and at the same time now ask the State to endow and control this school board religion in all the elementary schools of the country. This attempt to formulate a religious instruction so vague and varied that it must be nameless, is not satisfactory.
May we not get clean away from the wrangle about denominational and undenominational, if we substitute for these gaunt and irritating epithets the word "parental"? Will anyone venture to maintain that any body of school managers—Board or voluntary—ought to have the right or the power to decide the faith which is taught to the child? This Bill thus claims what common sense and common justice demand—the right of the parent to have his child taught his own faith in no delusive or proselytising spirit. The recognition of this parental right places us on sound ground. If religious instruction is to form an essential part of education in elementary schools it must be given in their school hours. Your Lordships may have heard of an experiment on a large scale made last year at Eastbourne by the Free Church Council to organise what are called outside facilities. The complete failure of that experiment remains for our
396
instruction. On the other hand the plan of inside facilities existing in the Drury Lane Day Industrial School, which is practically an ordinary Board school, affords evidence that such a system may be successfully worked while people are reasonable and just. No doubt there is, as the noble Earl opposite said, opposition in some quarters to inside facilities; but it is my conviction that the opposition grows weaker as the justice of the demand and the principle upon which it rests are more clearly understood.
Our opponents are not unwilling that the school board religion should be taught at the public expense. We, however, only ask that we may be allowed to teach our own children at our own cost their own faith. I desire before leaving this point to quote a solution of the religious difficulty which was put forth some time ago in the form of an Education Bill. That Bill made these proposals: "All children will be bound to attend the religious instruction. Every denomination will be able to obtain the religious instruction they desire for their children. Such instruction will be imparted by the ministers themselves or by such other persons as may be appointed by them. The Government shall not be called upon to pay for the religious instruction so given." These provisions are taken from an Education Bill drafted by the late Mr. Thomas Gee, a minister and leader of Welsh Nonconformity, a man of unique influence among Nonconformists. Mr. Gee as a politician did not belong to the less advanced section of his Party, and I cannot bring myself to believe that an arrangement which commended itself to Mr. Gee will be repudiated by the political representatives of Nonconformity to-day. It would be premature at this stage to discuss in further detail more than the main principle of this proposal.
I now come to the question of tests. Once more justice seems to me, I frankly admit it, to deprecate the imposition of a religious test for the great majority of those who are now public servants. But I go even further. I am not at all sure that a legal religious test is the best means of securing what we want. The character of the teacher is the important point. I grant that the Bible teacher, to do any good, must be a Bible believer.

397
How is this to be secured? You must have, it is said, a test. There is a legal test aid a real test, and often they are not identical. There may be a legal test laxly applied, and laxly submitted to, and therefore, for the purposes for which it was devised, in no sense a real test. I imagine that the most strenuous defender of legal tests to-day would have to admit abundant illustrations of this statement in the past. On the other hand, you may have a very real test without any legal sanction at all for the same. In Wales, we have had for ten years undenominational intermediate schools, without any religious test whatever for the teachers of the star.
At the beginning of things, in some of the schools with which I was well acquainted, the governing bodies were overwhelmingly Nonconformist, and, although no test was supposed to be applied and the suggestion of a test would have been indignantly repudiated, I know, on the best authority, that no Churchman, and most certainly no Roman Catholic, would have had the slightest chance of being appointed to the mastership, although his qualifications were unquestionably the highest, it went eve a further than this. Where the Calvinistic Methodists are predominant other Nonconformists grievously complained that the silent test which all clearly understood, but none acknowledged, was Calvinistic. But I now gladly recognise that this initial tendency to unfairness is disappearing. But this experience shows that you may have very real tests which are not legal, and legal tests which are not real. The fact is that, in the ultimate resort, these matters are ruled by the predominant feeling and conviction of those interested in the school, and that, while theoretically it seems unanswerable that for Christian teaching there should be a legal test that the teacher is a Christian, it will be found in practice that the main safeguard lies in the religious convictions of the community immediately concerned. Even in Wales I could accept that security provided that the power of the local authorities is not restricted by such Parliamentary fetters as the Cowper-Temple Clause.
Experience has made clear that the Nonconformists as a body are in favour
398
of religious instruction. When I see the forces that are gathering for those who value education only on its secular an material side, I feel profoundly anxious that the friends of religious instruction, whether Churchmen or Nonconformists, should not weaken their influence by unnecessary strife and division. Remove the grievances that cause contention, and the united forces of those in favour of religious education may be trusted to secure qualified teachers, because absence of legal tests by no means implies absence of inquiry as to a teacher's faith and fitness to instruct. Looking at this matter as a Churchman, I ask myself whether the cause of religious education, for which the Church has made such splendid sacrifices in the past, will not best be promoted by such an arrangement as would be permitted under the provisions of this Bill.
It seems to me that the best use which can be made of the hold over schools which the Act has left to the Church, may be, before it is lost piecemeal, to exchange it, on adequate security, for an arrangement which would give religious instruction in all our elementary schools. Your Lordships may have read Mr. Augustine Birrell's words on this point—
"How," he asks, "can a compromise be affected? Do ut des calls our Birmingham Bismarek. It is a wise maxim. What has Nonconformity got to offer the Church of England? But one thing—the Cowper-Temple Clause. What, ought or might the Church party be willing to give in exchange for a right of entry into the provided schools?"
Mr. Birrell's answer to his own question indicates his approval of such a mutual concession.
I would venture to say one word to my Nonconformist friends. I am anxious to understand and to sympathise with their grievances; such sympathy is not rendered easier by the grotesque misrepresentations which have prevailed of the Act of 1902. I think it may be said I that the Church of England has borne all this misrepresentation with dignity and self-control. There are extremists who hope that a swinging pendulum may give the n all they ask for, but I believe they will find that they have miscalculated their own power. Be this as it may, I trust that the cause of education is not to be made once more a subject of political

399
strife and agitation. It is my conviction that the measure now submitted to your Lordships would do something to arrest such a catastrophe. The details of the measure are doubtless open to amendment, but the principles upon which it is based are, I believe, accepted as sound. The local education authorities will have a freer hand given to them in carrying out those educational responsibilities with which they are already charged. It is, I believe, the verdict of the people of this country that there is to be religious education in our elementary schools, and this Bill claims that the faith taught to the child shall be decided by the parent of the child.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of St. Asaph.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I did not rise at once to address your Lordships when the right rev. Prelate resumed his seat, as I anticipated that I should have heard other right rev. Prelates discuss the question, and I certainly had hoped to have heard from noble Lords opposite their views either in approval or condemnation of the Bill. I confess that my position at the present moment is a somewhat difficult one. It might be said that there was no reason whatever why His Majesty's Government should interfere in regard to a measure, which, if my memory serves me rightly, the right rev. Prelate who introduced it declared on the First Reading was one for which he and he alone was responsible; that it would have been possible for your Lordships to decide this question without any intervention whatever from the Government Bench; but there are various reasons which force me, if I may use that expression, to interpose in this discussion.
On the occasion of the First Reading of the Bill I responded for His Majesty's Government, and I then expressed the sympathy that I personally felt with the right rev. Prelate in the course he had taken; but I also said that if a definite answer was to be given by His Majesty's Government as to their attitude upon this measure, we must have sufficient time for
400
the consideration of it, seeing that it is undoubtedly a measure which makes considerable alterations in the Act of 1902, for which the noble Duke the late Lord President of the Council (the Duke of Devonshire) and myself were responsible. As I then explained, we could not at a moment's notice allow alterations to take place in that measure, no matter how satisfactory they might be, and even if they were accepted by the whole community, without giving careful consideration to them ourselves. Naturally the right rev. Prelate, after the remarks I made on that occasion, has a perfect right to expect from me a full reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government today. I trust that he will not consider me guilty of any discourtesy, or of breaking any pledge that I made on the occasion of the First Reading, when I say that, for reasons which I shall enumerate, it is impossible for me, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to give any definite answer to-day as to whether His Majesty's Government approve or disapprove of this measure.
As your Lordships may remember, I welcomed the speech of the right rev. Prelate when he moved the First Reading of the Bill, for the right rev. Prelate had accepted the suggestion I had myself made at Carnarvon. I expressed a hope, when speaking at Carnarvon, that it might be possible for all classes of the community in Wales to meet together and arrive at some solution of the difficult problem in that part of the country, and I added that if an amicable solution was arrived at, His Majesty's Government would regard it as very satisfactory and would, if possible, do all in their power to further it. After the discussion which took place in your Lordships' House on the First Reading of this Bill, I had hoped that this question would be discussed and ventilated, not only in your Lordships' House, but throughout the country, so that before the time came for me to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill, I should have been able to gather what was the feeling in that part of the country at which the Bill is aimed, and to give your Lordships some definite answer as to the position of the Government. But I am obliged to admit that the hopes I expressed at that time were of too sanguine a character.

401
I do not know that I can call to mind a single speech in or out of Parliament, either giving a general acceptance to the scheme of the right rev. Prelate, or even a welcome, no matter how cold. There may be reasons why this should be the case. On the occasion of the First Reading of this Bill, the noble Earl the Leader of I the Opposition in this House (whose absence I am sure we all regret, and the reason for it still more) in the very brief speech which he then delivered, offered opposition of the most hostile character to one of the main provisions of the Bill. It may have been due to that cause; but as to that I offer no opinion. But I do certainly recognise this fact, that the Bill does not at the present moment fulfil the condition which I considered so absolutely essential for its recognition as a measure of conciliation, namely, that it should be accepted by all parties in the nature of what I might call an eirenicon. As the Bill has not been accepted in the spirit in which I had ventured to hope it would have been before it reached its present stage, it is, of course, impossible for His Majesty's Government to give support to the measure. That being the case, I cannot but think that any discussion which may take place in your Lordships' House to-day must be more or less of an academic character. Unless noble Lords opposite have changed their minds, as I sincerely hope they have, since we last discussed this matter, they will, in all probability, offer opposition to the Second Reading, and, as I have said, the only chance of its becoming law would lie in its being accepted in the country, and receiving the universal consent of your Lordships' House.
The main and essential provision of the right rev. Prelate's Bill is to permit what I will call an arrangement, and what in vulgar terms might be called a system of bargaining, between voluntary school managers and the local education authority. But your Lordships know full well that if a proper bargain is to be made between two parties, both must start on fairly, if not absolutely, equal terms. The experience of the last few months has shown that, in certain parts of the country, the voluntary schools would not start on equal terms with the local authorities, inasmuch as they have
402
been, I venture to think, extremely unfairly treated, and undue pressure has been put upon them. That being the case, until Parliament passes what is known as the Defaulting Authorities Bill, which I anticipate will shortly come up from the House of Commons, and which I venture to hope will become law before this session is brought to an end, the voluntary school managers will not be on a par with the local authorities, and will not be able to argue or bargain on equal terms. In these circumstances, if the right rev. Prelate will allow me to say so, I do think that the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill must be even more academic, inasmuch as we cannot offer any suggestion as to what could or should be done until the Bill to which I have referred becomes the law of the land. Therefore, any remarks which I may make now must have reference to conditions which will arise after the passage of that measure.
In the Bill now before your Lordships there are many points of great difficulty; but to my mind the essential element in this Bill in regard to the question of bargaining between the managers and the local education authorities is that of reciprocity. I want to make very clear what to my mind is the definition of reciprocity. It is obvious that no solution of the difficulty can be considered a fair one which denies to parents the right to have their children given such religious instruction as they desire, merely because the school near which they live has been provided out of the rates. Very few of your Lordships will have failed to observe the remarks made in the other House by Mr. Lloyd-George and Dr. Macnamara, who have given vent to volumes of praise of the Scottish system of education, and who have also gone further, and declared their desire that the Scottish system should be extended to England and Wales. If that desire were carried into effect, the restrictions which at the present moment prevent denominational education in provided schools would entirely disappear. I regret that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition is not in his place to-day, because I should have liked to ask him how he reconciles the statements of his followers in the other

403
House with his own remarks on the First Reading of this Bill, when he denounced any question of denominational education in voluntary schools. Compare the proposals of Dr. Macnamara and Mr. Lloyd-George with the proposal contained in the Bill of the right rev. Prelate. The right, rev. Prelate's Bill only requires that denominational instruction should be given in voluntary or provided schools at the expense of the denomination, whereas under the Scottish system denominational instruction is given in schools where it is demanded, not at the expense of the denomination, but at the expense of the rates as a whole.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I should be glad if he could quote the speech of Mr. Lloyd-George in which he said that he was ready to accept the Scottish system in all its details in Wales.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think I can quote that from the speech of Dr. Macnamara.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Can the noble Marquess quote it from the speech of Mr. Lloyd-George?
THE MARQUESS OP LONDONDERRY: I have not Mr. Lloyd-George's speech with me, but I have it in my mind. I may say that I quoted his speech in his own constituency, and was not contradicted there; but as I have not the extract I will leave Mr. Lloyd-George out of consideration. I do not think the noble Lord will repudiate the fact that that statement has been made by Dr. Macnamara. What I do say is that if this Bill is denounced by noble Lords opposite, or not considered worthy of consideration in this House because it does offer these proposals, then I say there is altogether taken out of the Bill that spirit of reciprocity which in any bargain must be an essential feature. I now come to a very difficult part of the question. I refer to what are known as the facilities given for denominational instruction in provided schools. I am one of those who consider religious instruction in schools as of such importance that I view with the greatest possible apprehension any proposal to give it up. It is said that a syllabus
404
could be issued which would be agreeable to all parties, but I doubt very much whether that is the case. I go further. It is my conviction that a teacher who has to impart religious instruction should be a person absolutely devoted to it in spirit, and who honestly and earnestly believes in the instruction which he or she imparts. Consequently, I think that that is one of the parts of the Bill which, even if it were accepted by your Lordships, we should have to very carefully consider before allowing it to become law.
I hope the right rev. Prelate will not think that in the remarks I am making I am guilty of undue criticism. I can assure him I fully recognise his good intentions in introducing this measure. I should very much regret that he should for one moment think that I did not appreciate the great efforts he has made to solve this very difficult question, which some people regard as impossible of solution. But it has been my duty to-day to endeavour to balance the difficulties and the advantages that may arise, should the Bill become law. I say at once that this measure cannot be considered a Government measure. It is a measure of which His Majesty's Government as a whole can neither approve nor disapprove. The question is one on which I cannot pledge any individual Member on the Front Bench. I venture, however, on my own behalf, to say that the right rev. Prelate has my sincere sympathy. I recognise in his Bill his good intentions and, knowing Wales as I do, I appreciate the difficulties that are experienced there in the promotion of the efficiency of education. Therefore, if the right rev. Prelate presses the Bill to a division, I shall go into the Lobby with him. But I would ask him not to press your Lordships to a division on this occasion. I do not think any benefit could result from such a step, inasmuch as there are so many important matters of detail, even one of which any division would fail to settle. While I shall follow the right rev. Prelate into the Division Lobby in favour of the Bill if he takes it to a Second Reading, I cannot admit for one moment that any universal or general departure from the Act of 1902 can be accepted by His Majesty's Government without very careful consideration. If it were found possible, while maintaining

405
religious instruction in the voluntary schools as secured by the Act of 1902, to arrive at some agreement agreeable to all sections of the community for promoting the cause of education and restoring good feeling, the Government would not only consider, but they would be anxious to further such a scheme. But until that time arrives it is impossible for the Government to depart from the position laid down in the Act of 1902. I trust that the answer I have given has not disappointed the right rev. Prelate, whose endeavours to promote the efficiency of education in Wales I fully appreciate.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I desire in the first instance to say that I find that the noble Marquess was right with regard to what Mr. Lloyd-George said. He did state in the House of Commons that so far as Wales was concerned he would be prepared to accept the Scottish system; but, my Lords, I do not think it is much good talking about the Scottish system being accepted for Wales only, for we know perfectly well that we should not find in England that acceptance which, if Mr. Lloyd-George is right, would be found in Wales. I was not surprised at the reluctance of the noble Marquess to rise after the speech of the right rev. Prelate. Apparently he was waiting for noble Lords from other parts of the House to inform his mind as to what should be said with regard to this Bill. The noble Marquess, in the most frank and open way, announced that the Government once more had no settled convictions on a great subject. I think this makes the fourth subject which we have had recently on which the Government have no settled convictions—there is the question of fiscal reform, there is the question of reform of the War Office, there is the Irish Catholic University question, and now there is the basis of a concordat to settle this much disputed question of religious teaching in voluntary schools. The noble Marquess said that he was forced to the position he had taken up by the Opposition. For a member of a powerful Ministry, such as there is in office now, to say that the Opposition had forced him to a particular course seems to me to be the most curious con-
406
fession of weakness that was ever made by a Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. What I pointed out was that if this Bill was to become the law of the land it must be by common consent, that it could not be carried into law unless your Lordships' House was more or less unanimous on the subject.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I do not see that this Bill is in a different position from any other Bill. The people who are responsible for legislation are the Ministry in office, and when the Ministry in office has a huge majority in the Lower House of Parliament and a still greater majority in this House, surely it is not fair to try to shuffle off the responsibility on to a "miserable remnant of an Opposition," for we are constantly being informed that we are only a miserable remnant. Therefore, I think we have a right to disclaim responsibility put on our shoulders which we certainly have done nothing to deserve. Like the noble Marquess, I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Spencer, a predecessor of his in the distinguished office he holds, is not here to-night, because he could deal with this subject with far greater knowledge than I can pretend to possess; but I think the position of my noble friend on the last occasion when this Bill was before the House has been somewhat misrepresented. All that my noble friend said was that there were particular points in the Bill which would be met by hostility. That was all he said, and I think we can say the same thing now.
There are points in this Bill which will be met with hostility, but the principle is one to which we take no exception whatever. It is a Bill which may perfectly fairly form the basis of some arrangement in the future. For my own part, and speaking for those who sit beside me, I can tell the noble Marquess that he is mistaken in regard to the position we take up on this Bill. We shall certainly not oppose the Second Reading. It is quite true we do find fault with the details of the measure. In the first place, we think that the Bill is too small, that it is not sufficiently comprehensive; it only professes to

407

deal with one of three important points. The Bill deals only, and then only to a small extent, with the question of denominational religious teaching in the schools throughout the country, but there are other questions which will have to be considered before a final settlement can be arrived at. There are the questions of the teachers' tests and of management in the non-provided schools. I do not wish to raise these questions to-day. All I say is that in our judgment there cannot be a final settlement of the question till those matters are also taken into consideration and are dealt with in no aggressive spirit. I think on all these questions there is plenty of room for argument, plenty of room for compromise, plenty of room for agreement; but there cannot be a final settlement until these questions are dealt with and considered. And I am bound to say that I do not believe their fair consideration is possible so long as the present Parliament exists, and until: we have gone to the electors of this country to obtain from them a mandate as to how these weighty matters should be dealt with.
I say, then, that the first criticism I have is that the Bill is not sufficiently comprehensive. Then I think it is vague: there is no element of compulsion in it. My belief is that for an arrangement of this sort to be satisfactory and sufficient it ought to be imposed on all schools alike. It should not be left to a mere question of local option as to whether it should be adopted or not. It is quite true that in Wales, under the circumstances that exist there, it is possible that it may be acceptable to the Church authorities that a permissive arrangement of this sort should be made law, and probably it might, in Wales, be a settlement of the difficulty; but we have also got to consider England, and the question I would like to put in all moderation is, would either of the parties in England be satisfied with an arrangement on the lines in this Bill? Do you think English Nonconformists would not look upon it with some suspicion, and do you think that the majority of Church people in England would be content to accept an arrangement which certainly places them in a position a good deal less favourable
408
than the position they are in under the Act at present? I hope it may be that the majority of them will be willing to come down from the position they have taken up, and regard this question as one which, as the noble Marquess has said, should be kept out of the region of political strife and should be dealt with simply and entirely from the point of view of the children who have to be educated.
I was very glad to welcome in the former debate the speech that was made by the most rev. Primate. He, I think, laid down three conditions, or said there were three principles to which he gave adhesion, and I equally give adhesion to those principles. First, he said that simple religious teaching should prevail throughout our elementary school system. To that I personally would give my fullest adhesion. He said, secondly, that the religious teaching should be given by those who would give it genuinely as well as effectively. Certainly, in the broad sense, I would accept that; but, my Lords, I could not allow that that principle should be so interpreted that the test of being able to give genuine and effective religious teaching is, that the teacher should belong to one particular denomination. I think that the capacity to give such in an elementary school belongs to members of all denominations, and that all denominations should be treated exactly alike in considering the qualifications of individual teachers for religious teaching in our elementary schools. Then the most rev. Primate said that in our elementary educational system, as a whole, place should be found for denominational teaching of some sort. Again I agree, but I agree only on this condition, that no charge for such teaching should be thrown on the rates, but should be borne entirely by the particular denomination which is giving that teaching.
I think the best test of the way this Bill would work would be to try and see what would happen supposing it were made compulsory instead of being permissive as at is at present. If the scheme were universally adopted there would be only one class of school, which would be entirely controlled and managed by the public, it would be free from religious tests, and for its normal religious instruction would offer the present

409
undenominational teaching. At the same time, either as an alternative or a supplement to this, there would be given denominational teaching in school hours, to those children whose parents desire it, but not at the public cost. So far would the Cowper-Temple clause be modified. I do not say that it is necessary to maintain every detail of the Cowper-Temple clause for ever, but it does seem to me that in order to secure the satisfactory working of a Bill such as this, the Bill should be made universal and apply to all schools, and denominational teaching should not be given within school hours. I do think it very difficult to allow denominational teaching to be given within school hours. I myself, curiously enough, have at my very gates a school where the system I advocate has been in operation for a very long time. It is a Board school in the Highlands, in a district where there are a great many Catholics. There is the usual religious teaching at the beginning of the day's work, to which the scholars go or not as they please, and if they do not attend no remark is made, and they are not treated in any derogatory way for not attending, What happens with regard to the Catholic children is that a priest visits the school two or three times a week after school hours and gives the children instruction in the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith. That is taking place in a Presbyterian school in a Presbyterian country, and the system has worked perfectly easily and perfectly well. I believe the same thing would be found to work in other places with regard to other denominations which certainly are not nearly so far apart as Roman Catholics and Presbyterians. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I do not think that denominational education should be given during school hours, that I think the proposals in the Bill should be made general to the schools, and that denominational teaching should be charged on the denominations and not on the rates. I believe myself that, so far as this particular question is concerned, the Bill may perfectly well be made the basis of an agreement. I welcome it, to use the noble Marquess's expression, as an eirenicon—I mean by that a message of peace, and I hope
410
that later it will be possible to expand it into a concordat.
THE LORD AREHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I was one of those who when this Bill was before your Lordships eight weeks ago, spoke pretty fully as regards the general principles which underlie every endeavour of this sort, and I do not find in anything that has yet been said to-night any reason to modify what I said at that time as to my own view of the proposals of the right rev. Prelate who introduced this Bill, His wide knowledge of the whole subject and the tone which he has throughout adopted, not merely in this House, but in more trying circumstances outside its walls, would lead everybody to give favourable consideration to any suggestion emanating from him; and I for one rejoice to have heard to-night from the Opposition side of the House a more favourable reception given to the Bill, in general terms, at any rate, than that with which it was favoured on the occasion of the First Reading by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, whose absence we now so greatly regret. At the same time I think it is true to say that the discussion to-night does resolve itself into something not far from an academic character, because it is difficult for any one to imagine that a Bill which is to be criticised with the kind of raking comment which this measure has received to-night from my noble friend who has just spoken would have much chance of being carried through both Houses of Parliament in the present condition of affairs.
I should like to say how greatly I welcome the words which have fallen from the noble Lord opposite, Lord Tweed-mouth, as to the three conditions which I vainly endeavoured to make the basis of a conference with Nonconformist leaders some months ago. Had I received from those who I then approached a similar acceptance of the large principles without going into their details, the circumstances might have been somewhat different to-day. I venture to think that the noble Lord, probably through lack of intimate personal experience of such schools, experience which it is difficult for any one of your Lordships except those who sit upon these Benches to have

411
had, scareely realises the vital importance of the difference between religious teach-inginside and religious teaching outside school hours. If the noble Lord will paroon a personal reminiscence, I should like to remind him that a good many years ago I had the pleasure of visiting the particular school to which he has referred and which is situated near the gates of the noble Lord's residence in Scotland. I therefore know something of the very peculiar conditions under which it is carried on, and anything less like the condition of things which prevail in the large towns, say, in South London, or Leeds, or Birmingham, than the conditions which prevail in Inverness-shire, it is scareely possible to imagine. While I do not want to go into a question of this detail, although it is detail of the highest importance, it would so far as I can at present see, be impossible for us to give way on this particular point. We are anxious to have the religious teaching given within school hours, because thus only can it in our judgment be effectively given to those for whom the need is greatest.
I was particularly thankful to hear the noble Lord say that he does not adhere to the principle, so constantly repeated by those who seem to be leaders on I the side he represents, that it is contrary so sound Liberal principles to make any inquiry whatever as to the religious tenets of a person who is to give religious instruction. I understand the noble Lord's contention to be that to inquire as to the denomination of a teacher is one thing and to inquire as to his power to give instruction is another; but I could furnish the noble Lord with quotation after quotation from the accredited and responsible protagonists on the other side, who have used words which are quite incompatable with what the noble Lord has this evening, to my great satisfaction, slid. I shall rejoice if the noble Lord's words to-night are the signal of a new departure among those who have, in a way that has disappointed most of us, declined to allow that it was compatible with large and liberal principles in this matter to find out whether or not a teacher who is to give religious instruction is competent to give it from his heart as something which he believes.
I regret, however to hear the talk
412
about "two sides" in this controversy. It is a controversy largely carried on among those whose special task it is to set forth the doctrines of the Christian faith in England, and it is deplorable to hear "two sides" spoken of in a controversy of this kind, while at the bottom of the hearts of those who are contending there is practical agreement in the desire to see religious teaching maintained in our schools. But, my Lords, we do need to ascertain how far we are at one as to practical policy. For it would be a farce to pretend that a Bill of this kind laying down principles upon which a concordat could proceed would be worth anything unless it be accepted with considerable cordiality by both parties to the controversy. While what we have heard to-night qualifies to some degree the opposition which such proposals have hitherto met with, I shall be agreeably surprised if we learn that so great a change takes place as to enable those who have been opposing us hitherto to join us in carrying forward a measure on the lines of this Bill. However anxious we may be for a peaceful solution, we dare not shut our eyes to the modes of argument which are being everywhere employed, and I must confess that it is very difficult to carry on a controversy of this kind amid misrepresentations, taunts, and denunciations on the part of those who are trying to oppose us in this matter. The utterances do not come merely from the irresponsible Members of the other party to the controversy; they come from the responsible spokesmen of a great Party in the State which has been endeavouring to set forth the principles of what it strangely describes as religious liberty. Here are a few examples of the kind of utterances to which I refer—
"Nonconformists will never stop their warfare until they have completely disestablished the Church."
"This Bill takes the Board schools from the people and gives them over, roughly speaking, to one section of the people, the Anglican Church."
"What is at stake is not education, but the inalienable birthright of the citizen, the right to the free, unfettered use of his inmost soul."
I rejoice to hear this evening from the Opposition side a different tone, and I welcome it from the bottom of my heart.
May I say a word or two upon the larger question which is involved

413
although I doubt whether there would be a very wide difference of opinion among your Lordships upon it. It is, of course, perfectly possible for the Church of England to make over bodily to the nation as a free gift, the whole of the schools which have been with immense sacrifice and at enormous cost erected by the members of the Church of England. Their value is variously estimated, but I imagine that £20,000,000 is a very moderate estimate indeed. But if we were to do this it would have to be because we had obtained absolute assurances that the principles of the cause for which we have incurred this enormous cost of labour and self-sacrifice, mainly on the part of the clergy, to maintain these schools were absolutely assured for the time to come at the very least as firmly as they are assured now. That is the assurance we ought to be able to obtain before we are even asked to withdraw from a position which the fairness and common sense of Englishmen, apart from religious principle, would feel that we have a right to retain, and we are certain we are doing nothing unfair when we claim to have a predominant say as to the character of the religious teaching which is for the future to be given in our schools.
We are constantly asked, "Why not trust the common sense of the people at large?" I have great sympathy with that argument. I believe that if we were allowed to put it freely to the test the underlying principles of religious purpose which characterise the English people would prevail to maintain in the vast majority of cases the kind of teaching we should desire to see given in our elementary schools, but what we are asked to do is not that. We are asked to bid the English people go into the settlement of the controversy with one hand tied. It is suggested that we should say to the public, "You take the schools over, but the teaching in them must be of a particular character." And it is because the thing we are asked to do does not consist in trusting the people freely, but rather in half trusting the people, that I for one feel the most intense difficulty in giving practical effect to principles which in their abstract and general sense we cordially approve.
414
Then again we are constantly asked, "Why should you not be satisfied with the kind of teaching given in the Board schools? Surely it is good on the whole." That argument is constantly accompanied by a kind of easy reference to the school boards of London, Birmingham, Liverpool, and other places of that sort. But there is the widest possible contrast between the religious teaching given under such auspices as those and the religious teaching given in recent years in the smaller, less responsible, less splendidly-manned kind of Board schools up and down the country. Your Lordships will remember that in 1895 a Parliamentary Return was published, showing what was nominally the religious teaching given in the Board schools of England and Wales.
That Return shows that in 1895 fifty-seven school board districts in England and Wales had absolutely no religious teaching of any kind at all, that 316 others read the Bible with no word of comment (which practically means for little children no instruction at all as to what the Bible means), and there were something like 700 districts in which the religious teaching given was not inspected at all. And that lack of inspection makes the teaching given in many cases practically worthless. The last thing I desire publicly to do is to give specimens in an argument of this kind which might prove to be irritating rather than helpful; but I should be ready, if necessary, to show that religious teaching has been practically non-existent in a large number of places where the Blue-book says it does exist— non-existent because there was no inspection and nobody whose business it was to see that the instruction was properly given. There, again, comes in the question of Scotland. The Scottish people are a more religious people in the mass than the English, there is more interest taken in theological subjects by the people in Scotland than in England, and for many years the religious teaching given in the Board schools in Scotland was excellent, partly owing to the thorough training of the teachers in religious matters, and partly to the popular demand for it and interest in it. Nowadays, however for lack of inspection, it is beginning, to dwindle and go down. If your Lordships refer to the reports furnished this

415
very year to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as to the way in which religious teaching, for lack of inspection by duly appointed religious inspectors, was going down, you will find an object-lesson very full of force and meaning as to what might happen in England if we went forward on similar lines. It is because there is in England a large mass of people who care, with all their heart, for the improvement of their schools in secular matters, but who care yet more for the religious side, and are determined that they shall not only have religious teaching given, but that the value of that teaching shall be inspected, the qualification of the teachers ascertained, and year by year a report rendered to the authorities—it is for that reason that not only in Church schools, but in Board schools, the religiou, instruction has been so good as it has. There, my Lords, are matters we should bear in mind when we are contemplating a great change in this far-reaching question. The discussion which has taken place to-night is to my mind reassuring, as showing that we are drawing nearer the possibility of arriving at a conclusion which shall maintain in their fulness the fundamental principles for which we care.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I wish at the outset to say that I do not approach this Bill in any spirit of hostility. Before coming down to the House this afternoon I had made up my mind, after giving the most careful consideration to the Bill, and after reading and re-reading all the speeches delivered on the First Reading, that though I did not think this Bill a possible basis for legislation in this session, there was an opening as to certain concessions of principle which, if accepted, and possibly if debated in Committee, might pave the way to fruitful and effective legislation in the future. And I must say I was a little surprised by what struck me as the change of tone adopted by the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education.
Speaking at Carnarvon the noble Marquess said that the Government did not assert that the Act of 1902 was perfect, and that they were anxious to secure any solution of this difficult question
416
which should be accepted permanently by all sections of the community. That is a very wise summing-up of what should be the attitude of a Government responsible for the carrying of the Act of 1902, which, as it stands, does not implant in the mind of anyone any confidence either of its permanence or of its satisfactory character. I thought when the noble Marquess laid stress upon the fact that, even when a measure conciliatory in its character was introduced, there was not much hope of dealing with it unless we got substantial agreement on both sides of the House, that the noble Marquess's political instincts were singularly ill-directed. For he told us in the same breath that His Majesty's Government were determined to put forward their Coercion Bill to amend in an important particular the Act of 1902. We are told that the Government would think several times before touching that Act. I ask them to consider seriously before proceeding with the Bill which is now hung up in the House of Commons.
May I touch upon one or two of the observations which fell from the most rev. Primate? I did think that it seemed there was an attempt, both on his part and on the part of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education, to run away from responsibility in connection with this Bill, and to attempt to fix the responsibility on this side. There was a special attack made upon the noble Earl who leads the Opposition. I heard the noble Earl's speech, and I thought that it was a most cautious speech, not declaring any general hostility to the Bill, but simply putting in a caveat as to the special points with regard to facilities within school hours. The term "within school hours" is one of a very technical and special character. I heard also the speech of the most rev. Primate. Some people give an indication by their reticence which other people give by outspoken remarks, but though the most rev. Primate followed the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. Asaph he abstained from saving any word on the question of inside facilities during school hours.
We are told, and I was very glad to hear the testimony from the right rev. Prelate, that in this question the only people who are to be consulted as to the religious instruction of the children are

417
their parents. That was a proposition laid down at the outset in the debates on the Bill of 1902 by Mr. Balfour, but when an attempt was made to secure that these parents should have effective control by being represented on the management of the schools we heard an entirely different story, and the only people who were allowed to be represented were the clergy and the subscribers—the foundation managers. If you said that in every school district the parents should elect two out of the four foundation managers, that would give a very substantial voice to the parents, but the most rev. Primate told us that what succeeded in the case of the Highlands would not succeed in England, for he told us that the great masses of the working classes in our great towns are singularly indifferent to ecclesiastical denominations. But that rather indicates that all this desire is not a desire so much on behalf of the parents as a desire for the parents, to do good to them, not to give effect to their wishes.
THE LORD AREHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: What I was speaking of as the indifference of parents in large towns was not to religious education merely, but to education of all kinds.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I cannot contend with the most rev. Primate in his knowledge of schools in general, but I have some knowledge of the attitude of parents in the poorest parts of London as well as in the more well-to-do, and, while I should entirely agree with him as to the great indifference of parents to theological distinctions, I am happy to say that, largely as the result of the devoted labours of the teachers, a very keen sense of the value of the schools has been built up among the parents, and there is a gradually increasing desire on their part to send their children regularly and punctually to school. There were several controversial matters introduced in the speech of the most rev. Primate which I will not touch upon, partly because if I open all the points which might be dealt with my observations would be too long, and partly because I wish to keep strictly to such words as may help to lead to an ultimate settlement of this question.
418
May I say without flattery of the right rev. Prelate, who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill, that I think his speech goes to the root of the matter, and shows an appreciation of the difficulty and seriousuess of the problem, and how it ought to be met. I feel perfectly sure that quite apart from the wrangling and disputes of the Churches, there is a body in this country which has not yet been referred to, but which is more important, and in the long run will be more powerful than either Church or Chapel, and that is the body of the citizenship of this country, and it is because I look forward to resting our public school system, as it is in all the great communities of the English-speaking race, upon the broad basis of citizenship, that I welcome the recognition by the mover of this Bill that the ultimate settlement must be the public management of all the schools which are available and intended for the community as a whole.
I quite recognise at the same time that the right rev. Prelate and those who act with him have a right to say that this is not a newly colonised country where the whole thing is being started afresh. This is a country where great vested interests have been built up, partly no doubt by the self-sacrifice of those who believed in distinctive forms of religious teaching, and you cannot expect to step into their inheritance and take possession of these schools in the same way that you would if you were starting fresh schools. Therefore, I maintain that in the case of those schools the present managers have a partial ownership over them, that there is a collateral ownership belonging to the denominations who erected them. The right rev. Prelate in charge of this Bill, and I think I may say the most rev. Primate, though in a more guarded way, recognise that you must have a universal system of publicly managed schools, and they claim at the same time that you must have a recognition of facilities for giving definite religious instruction to those who desire it in accordance with the wishes of the founders of those schools. But they both go a step further than that. They both desire to imprint upon all the schools in the country in the first

419
instance, and at the public expense, a system of undenominational religious teaching. I take it from the speech of the right rev. Prelate that a syllabus such as that of the School Board for London faithfully and efficiently carried out would satisfy him very largely. For many years I have been a party to administering that syllabus, and it is not for me to fall out with right rev. Prelates when they propose to establish that—
THE LORD AREHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: If the noble Lord thinks he is quoting me he is going beyond anything I have endeavoured to say.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I should be very sorry to misrepresent anyone, but part of the scheme of the right rev. Prelate is that in consideration of making over the aided schools they should make a bargain that in the provided schools generally they may stipulate for a scheme of general religious instruction which would satisfy them apart from the question of facilities for definite religious instruction. The first principle laid down by the most rev. Primate was simple religious teaching to prevail throughout our elementary school system, that is, the establishment of a general undenominational syllabus. The Arehbishop of Canterbury shakes his head, but if he will write to The Times and give a sketch of his simple religious syllabus which is to be in force in every school, he will render valuable assistance. I expect it would hardly contain that which when Bishop of Winchester he was a party to introducing into the school board at Farnham, namely, the Apostles' Creed.
That is the interpretation I put upon his words "simple religious instruction to prevail in all the schools." Where I pause is here. There is a strong section of those who are most devoted to Church principles to whom this solution is absolutely abhorrent. It is particularly abhorrent to the National Society, whose official organ it has been my painful duty to read for many years. If that section of the community are modifying their views, and if they are going now to say that the one form of religion which is to have State paronage, and to be picked out as being maintained at the public expense is this general undenominational teaching, I should not oppose them
420
though, I think, the Anglican has as much right to claim that the minimum of Christianity shall not be taught at his expense as the unsectarian has to claim that the maximum of Christianity shall not be taught at his expense. I believe that the majority of the bench of Bishops would prefer general Bible teaching to none. I believe that most of the clergy, when they are not engaged in abusing school board religion, in order to keep out a school board, would prefer it, and I believe the majority of the people of England prefer it. But there is a great difference between letting responsibility rest with the local education authority as to the amount of religious teaching to be given and in putting it in an Act of Parliament. That would be with a vengeance an affirmation of State religion in our elementary schools.
May I now touch upon the Arehbishop's three conditions? He says I have not done justice to his first condition. I shall await a fuller exposition of what it is, although I think I have put the fairest and most natural interpretation upon it. The second condition was that religious teaching must be given by those who can give it genuinely and effectively. I dissent from the Arehbishop's analogy of the teaching of drawing. I contend that the teaching of religion does not rest on the same footing as drawing. When you come to teach the foundations of moral conduct, there is no doubt that the convictions and the feelings of the teacher are as vital as his knowledge; but I ask your Lordships does anyone imagine that with the education authority you have you are going in any way to introduce, even if it were desirable, an inquisition into the piety and holiness of the people employed to teach in your elementary schools. We went into all this in the School Board for London, and we saw it was ridiculous. You cannot allow an inquiry into people's religious convictions. We do not allow people to ask, "Are you of any denomination," and that is the usual feeling of the people of this country.
You would not get laymen elected by the community to consent for one minute to an inquisition into the religious belief of the people they employ in the elementary schools, but the more you insist on the fact that the people

421
who teach things which are to appeal to the conscience and the heart should be people in earnest in what they teach the more you are thrown back on severing that part of the teaching from secular teaching and giving it to people who believe in it, and are chosen by the Churches and not by the community. I do not know that even a small religious community are always successful. I see before me the noble Viscount under whom I had the pleasure of serving for a long time on the Education Commission, and he will remember we sent the most searehing questions to the managers of schools throughout the country, and we found that the returns showed that a far larger percentage of the managers of schools of the Church of England admitted that they habitually suspended religious instruction when the Government examination was drawing near, than was the case in the Board schools. I do not believe myself that in choosing teachers for the ordinary work you will be able to get people whom the various denominations would entrust with the duty of speaking upon religious matters to the children, and you had better abandon that idea; but if, of course, you are willing to take the responsibility yourself, if the clergyman of the parish is willing—and I am afraid a large percentage of the clergymen are not—to go into the schools, say, at nine o'clock in the morning and take part themselves in the teaching, then you will get a person who is presumably fit to talk seriously and thoughtfully to the children.
The third point was that in our educational system as a whole place should be found for denominational teaching of some sort. I put it to the right rev. Bench. Is not the idea "in school hours" technically a weak staff to lean upon? You may have the instruction given out of official school hours and yet at a most convenient time. The right rev. Prelate who moved the Second Reading of this Bill used the illustration of the Drury Lane School, but he forgot that this school is under a different Act, and that the registration of children according to denominations is compulsory. But if he wants an illustration of what can be done in the way of voluntary religious instruction when people are in earnest,
422
I would recommend him to turn his attention to the schools frequented by the Jews in the East End of London. There is no doubt the Jews are very tenacious of their religious convictions, and anxious that the children should be fully brought up in them. The Jews have organised at their own expense in the East End a voluntary organisation, and the School Board, and now the County Council, have put at their disposal the use of the buildings, with no charge for warming or lighting, but outside school hours. I believe that when there is a keen desire you will have that; but the fact is, there is no use disguising it, that there is not that keen desire; and this desire, whether it is for denominational or undenominational teaching is put forward on behalf of the people, and not by the people.
The noble Marquess said the Bill had his sympathy. I think in these things we want a little more than sympathy. We want support, and I am prepared to support the right rev. Prelate. I do not think he has thought out his Bill sufficiently. It would not be suitable to go into the details of the Bill now. That is a matter for Committee, but I shall be prepared to show that this Bill in no way gives effect to the wishes the right rev. Prelate has expressed in his speech. So far from giving greater facilities to the public authority for the transfer of schools, it rather puts difficulties in the way. It proposes arrangements which, while I have no doubt they will be used in good faith by the right rev. Prelate, might be used in very serious bad faith to throw a burden on the community and afterwards to regain use of the schools. I would not have made that charge unless I had an instance to give which I think illustrates the mischief that might come from these permissive transfers with the power of breaking down the obligations of the Act of Parliament as to rent, purchase, and cost of repairs.
The newspapers of late have been very full of letters of indignation on behalf of the Church of England against what was supposed to be a very mischievous concession made in the Isle of Wight, where certain Church schools were to be given over; but when your Lordships know what were the facts about that school in

423
Cowes, you would think the indignation ought to come rather from the Nonconformists and ratepayers than from the Established Church. I have in my hand the agreement, and it goes on to recite that the freehold of this school is vested in the Bishop, and that whereas the foundation managers of the said school are quite unable to provide or to raise the large sum of money which, according to independent reports of the surveyor for the local education authority and of the Voluntary Schools Association will have to be spent to bring the school premises into proper condition for the purposes of education, and whereas the said managers have made every effort to raise such money but have failed, then it is proposed that the school shall be transferred, that the public authority shall put the schools in repair, that after a certain time the agreement may contemplate the schools being taken back by the voluntary managers, but the public authority are to have no lien on the buildings so put in repair when they are restored to the voluntary managers.
The most rev. Primate spoke of the unfair statements made outside your Lordships' House. Would he think it hard if I were to say outside the House, as I say inside the House, that we must be very careful not to allow the public to be plundered in order that insanitary voluntary schools may be put into repair and then handed back to the owners, because that is what was proposed at Cowes. I wish to remind the right rev. Prelate, before sitting down, of a fact which I am sure the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education will endorse, that he must not imagine that by putting in his Bill the provision that these schools shall not be affected by the Transfer Clause of the Act of 1902, which makes such a school a new school, he is going to get his school back. I am quite sure many of the right rev. Prelates here know perfectly well that the school and the schoolhouse are two different things. The school is like the church, a congregation of faithful men; the schoolhouse is the building in which that congregation are assembled, and the transfer of the school is the transfer of the organisation with the children and their teaching staff. The mere fact that they are taught for some
424
time in temporary premises does not oust the public authority from the responsible duty and right of continuing the education of these children as an existing school and not as a new school if, from any circumstances, they should be deprived of their premises.
We have constantly in London taken over voluntary schools for a time until a proper school could be provided, but we never recognised that, merely because the building went back to the voluntary owners, the children went back too. The children were ours and we continued to educate them. I would ask right rev. Prelates, Do they not believe that in the rural districts of Wales, where the single school system prevails, there will be always be two-thirds or three-fourths, perhaps nine-tenths, of the parents who are not members of the Established Church? Is it not natural that these people should wish, not for a short time but permanently, that they should have a voice in the management of the schools, and that the positions of headmaster and headmistress should be open to their co-religionists. You must come to that, and I do not hesitate to say that the longer this controversy goes on the more the people of this country will be determined that the public school system shall rest upon a civic and not an ecclesiastical basis.
LORD NORTON: My Lords, this is a subject in which I have all my life taken the keenest interest. Half a century ago I was Vice-President of the Education Committee's Council, and even before that I spent many years in promoting the voluntary system. I have seen how the subject of national education has been necessarily taken up by the State, and the danger to this country in the State undertaking the most intimate matters of individual and domestic concern, the most important of which is that of religious education. I believe that if the State steps in in loc parentis the character of the country will become changed. When Mr. Forster introduced by the Act of 1870 rate-support of education, he was afraid it would produce the religious difficulty, and only hoped it would not become an anti-religious difficulty. Anything that offers an opening for getting rid of this

425
difficulty is of the greatest importance. The Bill now before us shews how the difficulty may be voluntarily got over in one locality, and so indicates a principle which might be followed.
There is a unanimous feeling, strongly expressed by the noble Marquess, the President of the Board of Education, and by two noble Lords who have spoken on the other side of the House, in favour of the principle of this Bill, the object of which is to get religious teaching into all our schools, and not separately taught in denominational schools. As long as there are two separate sets of schools it becomes a matter of contest, and it is a very unequal contest. The process of division which has gone on since the State interfered has tended to eliminate from national education the principal part of it—the religious instruction; and it is now by many avowed that the object of national education is simply to fit the rising generation to compete with foreigners in commercial markets. It is clear, from what fell from the noble Lord who has just sat down, that lie would propose purely secular instruction in all the schools in the country, and leave religious instruction to the various denominations. Lord Tweedmouth said he objected to the Bill because it was not universal. The merit of this Bill is that it does not attempt to be at once universal. This is a statement which must be first deat with locally, in the hope that the concordat adopted locally may gradually spread. To propose a universal concordat at once is to propose postponing indefinitely the question. This difficulty will, of course, settle itself, as all questions in this practical country do settle themselves. But how? By the entire sacrifice of the non-provided schools. They are sinking now as a result of the pressure upon them. It will be found absolutely impossible to carry on a system in which one body are called upon to support, out of their own resources, an unequal contest with public funds to which they also have to contribute. The voluntary schools are already beginning to suffer through the loss of support. The consequent partnership in undertaking between the public purse and the private purse is one that cannot long be sustained, and therefore the principle of united action
426
in the right rev. Prelate's Bill is necessary to permancy. I hope the voting on this Bill will be perfectly free. I understood the noble Marquess to say that he would support the Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: On personal grounds.
LORD NORTON: Then, so far as the Government is concerned, it may be considered an open question. I shall certainly support the Second Reading, and urge your Lordships to consider whether the Bill will not offer a scheme for removing the religious difficulty, without losing the main object of national education. All the objections which have been made during this debate are objections which could be very well dealt with by a Select Committee.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I do not know that this debate can be said to have been a very lively one. At the same time I cannot help thinking that a disinterested spectator would be able to derive from it some measure of entertainment; for I think it has taken, in some degree, the character of what I might call "a fishing debate." I have observed a certain tendency in all the speakers to see what they could get out of the other side, and to register on the tablets of the memory something for future use. The debate has assumed that character, because the object with which the Bill is moved is to express a sentiment, rather than to clothe that sentiment with any particular form of substance. Of course, you must have a Bill, and when you have a Bill, you must have clauses, and the clauses must have a meaning; but I do think it is true to say that the value of the right rev. Prelate's Bill is to give expression to some kind of readiness on the part of different interests to look fairly at any suggestions of re-arrangement or compromise. The noble Lord opposite, in a genial way, threw in, if I understood him rightly, a little taunt at us for being so soon ready for this after the Act of 1902. I own that I did not feel very much moved by that taunt. I think the Act of 1902 may at least be said to have done this. It has left what I may perhaps call, for

427
short, the denominational factor in religious education in a very different position from that in which it found it. I, for my part, am prepared to face the noble Lord's taunt and to say that we should be ready to look very carefully at any serious proposal to give effect to the various forms of religious conviction which exist in the nation.
I do not think that those who care for the sacred interests of religion can be the least indifferent to a condition of things in which religious men find themselves in vehement opposition. I hope I am not saying too much if I say that we should feel this even more, had the controversy on the other side been conducted in the country with more respect for the religious convictions which we hold, if the weapons used against us had been less the weapons of virulence and abuse, and if the movement had not taken so strongly political a character. I feel sure there are multitudes of those whom the Bishop represents, who are in that attitude towards compromise, and therefore I suppose our way of expressing that sentiment is to join the right rev. Primate in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. But I think we must be a little careful as to what we do not do as well as to what we do. I think that we must not attribute too much to incidental expressions on either side, and still less to the use made by the opposite side in either case of those expressions. It would, for example, be rather startling if the people of this country, on reading the newspapers to-morrow morning, should imagine the most rev. Primate at this time of day committed, as it would learn from the noble Lord opposite, to a universal system of undenominational education. It would, perhaps, be a little surprising, on the other hand, to the noble Lord himself, if it were found that a very kindly, and, in my opinion, very thoughtful expression, which he used about the logic of the religious situation, bound him for all time to the support of denominational instruction by the State on exactly the same terms as the support of undenominational instruction. That is, by the way, what this Bill does not do.
It is unfortunate that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, did on the
428
occasion of the First Reading plump down his foot, if I may say so, upon an objection to the Bill without looking more generally to see what elements of a possible solution it contained; but it is very satisfactory that the discussion to-night has gone the other way. The real reason why the debate takes this form is, if I am not mistaken, that when you have a great question like this in the position for the sacred interests of religion can in which this question now stands, you can only attempt compromise when the pressure of circumstances drives you that way. It is notorious that in the present state of business the Bill cannot be made law this session, neither do circumstances at this moment suggest the possibility of any general compromise throughout the country. The most rev. Primate has reminded your Lordships that in the course of last year he did, rather boldly, come forward to suggest that it was not hopeless for us to consider, charitably and unitedly, with those to whom we were in a great measure opposed, the terms of some concordat. I think that in trying to get down to the root principles of the matter and below the current controversies he took the risk of the very criticism which the noble Lord has made. He made what was a very honourable offer, but was the result such as to lead us to think that the moment was ripe for a compromise? I have every possible respect for the services which have been rendered by the noble Lord opposite to London education, but I have always thought he appeared to insist on the unbending system of universal unde-nominationalism which is the greatest bar to a solution of this question. I hope the time will come when the noble Lord and those he represents will be willing to go into the discussion on more hopeful lines. The Second Reading of this Bill in the meantime can do no more than affirm the general desire that the ultimate solution, whether it be next year or a few years later, shall be a solution arising not from the victory of one party or the; other but from something which will do justice to the feeling of the different contending parties.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I only intervene in this debate for a few moments. I am afraid the concluding words of the right rev. Prelate whom

429
We always hear with such interest recommend us to a council of perfection which we are very unlikely to see acted upon in this country. But as I understand, he construes the attitude of your Lordships' House to-night as one in cordial agreement with the sentiment which is incarnated in this Bill, but speaking generally he thinks that a Resolution of the House would have been as effective as this Bill. Enough has been said, and very well said, on the merits and demerits of this Bill. The only thing I wish to say is that it seems to me, after the approval given to the Bill by the noble Marquess the Minister for Education, that the Bill should have been introduced by His Majesty's Government and not have been left to a private Member. I daresay it is due to some deficiency in my own intelligence, but I find myself in some confusion of mind about the exact position of His Majesty's Government on this Bill, and, as I daresay some other noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will wind up this debate, I hope he will make that position clear. It is the noble Marquess who produces this confusion of mind. He began by telling us that nothing was to be done in this direction without the unanimous consent of your Lordships' House. I may say that a good many things have been done in this House, with, no doubt, unanimous and cordial acceptance on the part of noble Lords opposite, but which have met with very little support on this side.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I anticipated that we should have heard from the Front Bench opposite views in accord with those which the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, expressed on the First Reading, and consequently, after that statement in which the noble Earl declared his hostility to the measure, it was with great surprise that I heard noble Lords opposite state that they accepted it.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I am afraid I cannot enter into the noble Marques' difficulties, but he cannot have been quite unprepared, for I understand that a whip was sent out to bring noble Lords down to this debate. But, be that as it may, I pass to the confusion
430
of mind in which I find myself as to the opinion of the Government. The noble Marquess first told us that your Lordships' House should not be urged to divide on this Bill. Then he told us that His Majesty's Government could give no definite answer as to what was their view of the Bill, and he next stated that he himself Would follow the right rev. Prelate into the Lobby in support of the Second Reading should the Bill go to a division. This exhibits an agreeable detachment of mind on grave questions to which His Majesty's Government have of late made us tolerably accustomed. But what I want to know is, in what capacity did the noble Marquess address us, and in what capacity will he vote? He told us just now that he was going to vote as a private Member, and an admirer of the right rev. Prelate and of his work in Wales. But the noble Marquess is Minister of Education, and as such we know he has the interests aid the morals of education deeply at heart. Is his vote tempered at all by his views as Minister of Education? Does he divorce himself from his position as Minister of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think I clearly pointed out that this Bill is a private Bill introduce I entirely on the responsibility of the right rev. Prelate, on which I was not speaking as a member of His Majesty's Government and on which no member of the Government need have spoken. I have explained why on personal grounds the right rev. Prelate having introduced this Bill rather in accordance with a suggestion I made at Carnarvon, I shall in support of the go into the lobby Second Reading.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: That is what I complain of. It is a private Bill and we think it ought to have been a public Bill, as the noble Marquess made such a strong point of its being a desirable Bill. However, I understand that the noble Marquess is speaking as a private Member and not as a member of a Ministry of many talents, but with no settled convictions. But we on this side really mean business. We think this is a desirable locus standi for arriving at a solution. It seems to me there is, then,

431
the unanimous acceptance all round the noble Marquess insists upon. Everybody agrees that the Bill offers a sort of jumping-off place for the closing of longstanding wrangles and disputes, which, to use the words of the right rev. Prelate who introduced the Bill, are "gaunt and irritating" to a great many people, and which, in my opinion, would justify some later day Tert llian to say with all Tertullian's irony, "See how these Christians love one another." If we go to a division I shall cordially support the Second Reading.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I feel somewhat shy of prolonging this interesting discussion, partly because it is so purely academic. At the same time I desire to add one or two words to what has been said. While I desire to express my sympathy with the right rev. Prelate who has introduced this Bill, I see no chance of its establishing educational peace. Any one who reads the Bill carefully must feel that there is no sort of finality about it; it is purely a piece of patchwork, which could produce no lasting results. As it stands it would be simply attempting a new patch to an old garment. There is another reason why I feel we are somewhat wasting our time in these discussions, and it is this. To my mind it is clear that this is no longer a question for a moribund Parliament to deal with. If it is to be dealt with in any binding and lasting way it must be dealt with by the people at a general election and by a new Parliament. Moreover, as an optional Bill this measure would in n any places create more confusion than it would settle. I can understand those who are closely identified with Wales feeling that they would be glad to see a settlement of some kind. The mass of the Welsh people would work it according to Welsh ideas, but over the border they may have entirely different ideas. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that the Bill would produce endless confusion throughout the length and breadth of the land; and for this reason, that it is optional. As my right rev. brother of Rochester has said, we have listened to a number of fishing speeches. They rather presented themselves to my mind as poaching speeches—speeches in which
432
the speaker was aiming at catching as much as he could on the opposite side of the House. I think this Bill would be worthy of serious and practical consideration subject to the condition precedent that there should be a school under public control and management within a reasonable distance of every parent. Given that condition I believe I could make a reasonable concordat on the basis of this Bill.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I cannot help thinking that notwithstanding the Party chaff of my noble friend opposite what has passed to-night will be looked back upon as notable in the history of this controversy. Without any offence or intention of offence to my noble friends opposite I will say that this is the first time they seem to me to have officially spoken with any kindly or unprejudiced appreciation of the point of view of those with whom they do not agree on this question. The attitude of my noble friend opposite really does differ fundamentally from the attitude of the speakers belonging to his Party who have spoken on this question in the country, and also from the tone of the official literature issued by his Party; and it is more remarkable because the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, although taking a distinctly different view in so me respects from that of my noble friend, frankly accepted this Bill as a basis from which he was willing to work. My noble friend who spoke last on the other side of the House spoke even more strongly in that direction. But I think all these speakers have been unfair in their interpretation of the attitude of my noble friend the President of the Board of Education.
The noble Marquess has reminded your Lordships that this is a private Bill, for which neither the Party opposite nor His Majesty's Government are responsible; and he has a right to feel very considerable satisfaction that the Bill has been the subject of debate here to-night, because, however far it may depart from his own particular ideas in this matter or however near it may approach them, it is the first public attempt in either House of Parliament to take up the lead which he gave at Carnarvon, and, much as it may surprise my noble friend

433
opposite who spoke last, the noble Marquess speaks for all his colleagues. But it does not follow that because a private Bill has received the measure of welcome which my noble friend has accorded to this Bill, the Government should forthwith take it up and pass it through Parliament in this session.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl, but what surprises me is that if the noble Marquess speaks on behalf of his colleagues, why should he not say so?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think I have answered my noble friend's Question. This being a private Bill my noble friend behind n e took up an attitude which is common in dealing with such matters in both Houses of Parliament. In the present state of public business no Bill, however perfect, has any chance of passing into law in the other House this session. I would like briefly to allude to some points of criticism taken by my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth. I think he admitted that it was a correct quotation from Mr. Lloyd-George that he had accepted the principle of the Scottish system so far as Wales was concerned, but my noble friend added that the case of England is not the same. Later on in his speech he gave us a very interesting illustration of a Scottish school at his park gates, and the most rev. Primate pointed out how utterly different the conditions of that school were from many schools in London. Does not my noble friend opposite see the application of his own criticism and the most rev. Primate's illustration to his complaint that there was no element of compulsion in this Bill? If the case of England is different from that of Wales, if the case of London is different from that of Inverness-shire ought not the main point of policy in any settlement to be not the rigidity demanded him but flexibility and elasticity.
Is it quite certain that what we want is the smallest measure of devolution to local bodies and the greatest measure of compulsion? May it not be more probable that a solution will be found in the greatest amount of discretion to the local authorities combined with the least possible amount of compulsion?
434
When the Education Act of 1902 was introduce by the Government in the House of Commons, that Bill itself was made compulsory. It was made compulsory in Committee, and I think the whole of the Opposition, the friends of my noble friend opposite, voted against making it compulsory. That shows that the opinions on that side are still in an unsettled condition. My noble friend said the Bill was not sufficiently comprehensive. He quoted especially the fact that there was no provision for popular management of non-provided schools—I will allude to that question later on—and said that the question of tests for teachers was not sufficiently clearly dealt with. There is no time to-night to attempt to deal atany length with that most difficult question; but I think if I interpreted my noble friend's attitude correctly it was this, that he and his friends could not agree to, or countenance, any attempt to press a religious test on a candidate for teachership.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Denominational test.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Any denominational test on a candidate for teachership. But, with that proviso, he quite felt the force of the argument that a teacher should not be required to teach what he or she could not teach conscientiously, and that the teachers themselves should be invited freely to co-operate in doing what they could to make a settlement easier; that is to say, that where they were willing to assist, the distribution of the teachers should be such as to utilise their assistance to the greatest possible extent. I think I might illustrate what I understand to be my noble friend's meaning by saying that he would not think it reasonable that a Presbyterian should be deliberately chosen to teach Roman Catholic children.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I specially excluded any denominational test.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am not saying anything about tests. Suppose a Presbyterian and a Roman Catholic teacher were equally ready to take part in religious instruction, common sense would say that the Roman Catholic teacher should be set to teach Roman

435
Catholic children. I would ask your Lordships to observe how this principle was carried out by Lord Stanley of Alderley when he was Vice-Chairman of the School Board for London. He successfully solved the problem, for in the Jewish schools to which he alluded to-night I understand the whole of the teachers appointed by the School Board for London were Jews.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: You are misinformed. Not a great many years ago a Jewish head teacher was appointed to overcome the prejudices of the Jews. After that Jews were appointed as far as they could be got, because of the language, but of late years it has been a matter of perfect indifference.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then my noble friend dealt briefly with the principle laid down by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his speech in the last debate. I understood him to say that he did not differ from the right rev. Prelate in the hope that a simple system of religious teaching should universally prevail in any national settlement. He also agreed that the religious teaching should be given genuinely as well as effectively. He also agreed that a place for denominational teaching should be found, provided that the denominational teaching was not at the expense of the denomination and not in school hours; and he wound up by saying he was not prepared to contend that there never could be any alteration of any fort in the Cooper-Temple clause. I do think that that is a very notable speech coming from my noble friend, although I admit that in the proviso he has made in respect to the school hours he is at once touching on a difficulty that goes deep down into this controversy.
The noble Lord and his friends say that this denominational religious teaching, given at the expense of the Church or denomination, should not be given in school hours. I think the onus of proof rests on those who say that a vast body of people in this country, whose children go to the schools and who pay the taxes or rates by which the schools are supported, should not be allowed to arrange with the
436
local authority that their children should have this teaching in school hours if they wish it. The onus of proof will certainly rest on those who desire to fetter, in what seems to me this strange way, the right of the parent, the ratepayer, the taxpayer, and the local education authority. This question, I agree, is not likely to be settled in this Parliament, but as to-day we are exchanging mutual confidences, and as my noble friend who spoke last urged that on this side we should show that we reciprocated the spirit shown on that side, let me put, not in any spirit of contention, some of our points of view, which I think noble Lords opposite would do well to think over.
We have heard a great deal about the Nonconformist conscience. Noble Lords on that side of the House and their supporters in the country say that the Government have not sufficiently considered the conscience of Nonconformists and those who object to a system of denominational teaching. That has not been our intention, but noble Lords opposite do not seem to be aware that Church people have as deep and conscientious convictions in favour of denominational teaching as some Nonconformists have in favour of undenominational teaching, and it will be impossible to produce that national educational concordat which is desired, unless Church people and Roman Catholics and others who are denominationalists are given the sane credit for religious strength of conviction as is properly claimed for Nonconformists. You cannot have a national settlement if you leave out half the nation. I will not attempt to dispute on statistics, but I will divide roughly the whole population into two halves— the half to whom the undenominational school is the ideal and the half to whom the denominational school is the ideal. It is quite impossible for us to attempt a settlement, and leave out of count that half who are undenominationalists, and it is at least as impossible for noble Lords opposite to attempt a settlement if they leave out of count that half of the nation which fervently believes in denominational religious instruction.
However imperfect the present system, the endeavour of the Government in their legislation has been to find room for

437
both systems. Noble Lords may contend that the Government failed, that we did not sufficiently take into account the views of our Nonconformist fellow-subjects; but will they right that wrong, if wrong it be, by taking away from the other half of the population the right to denominational teaching? No, my Lords, the only national system, the only peace, the only concordat would be one which was accepted by Churchmen, by Roman Catholics, and by all lovers of definite religious teaching, as well as by that great Nonconformist body who prefer in the public elementary schools to have only undenominational teaching. Hitherto these bodies, although having a different interpretation of their religious ideal, have been united in wishing the system of public education in this country to be associated with religion. Pity it is that they shold, by their divisions, misunderstandings, and mutual attacks, give so much hope and encouragement to those who do not wish religion to be included in the public Educational system of this country. The real danger that confronts us is indifierentism to all religious teaching. It is because I hope, from what has taken place to-day, that the two sides are beginning to understand each other better, and will so be enabled to present a more united front to those who desire a system of secular instruction—it is because I believe we have advanced a little in that direction that I join in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.