Sitting of 4 May 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Victoria University of Manchester Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Chesterfield Corporation (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [Lords]; Preston and Blackburn Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company [Stamp Duties]. Resolution reported—"That in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or assurances which, in case the Bill had not been passed into an Act, would have been required to pass to and vest in the Company certain property, there be charged a stamp duty of five pounds, and such duty shall be impressed upon the certificate to be given by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies under the third section hereof."
Resolution agreed to.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [Lords] that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban Districts of Blackrock, Clonmel, Dalkey, Killiney and Ballybrack, Kingstown, Nenagh, Pembroke, Rathmines and Rathgar, Templemore, and Thurles, and the Counties of Dublin, Tipperary (North Riding), and Tipperary (South Riding); ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. "To confirm
370
certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban Districts of Blackrock, Clonmel, Dalkey, Killiney and Ballybrack. Kingstown, Nenagh, Pembroke, Rathmines and Rathgar, Templemore, and Thurles, and the Counties of Dublin, Tipperary (North Riding), and Tipperary (South Riding)" presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Bangor and Newtownards and the County of Cork United Districts and the Ports of New Ross and Waterford; ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Bangor and Newtownards and the County of Cork United Districts and the Ports of New Ross and Waterford," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]
Education Board Provisional Orders, (Cardiff and Newport (Monmouthshire) (by Order). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education, under Sections 17 (7) and 21 of The Education Act, 1902, relating to the county boroughs of Cardiff and Newport (Monmouthshire); ordered to be brought in by Sir William Anson and Mr. Victor Cavendish.
Education Board Provisional Orders, (Cardiff and Newport (Monmouthshire) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education, under Sections 17 (7) and 21 of The Education Act, 1902, relating to the county boroughs of Cardiff and Newport (Monmouthshire);" presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 179.]

PETITIONS.
  DATYE, VAMAN VISHNU.
  Petition of Vaman Vishnu Datye, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Sutherland"; and Comrie; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL.)
  Petitions against alteration of law; from Hetton le Hole (two); Kilgerran; Leicester; North Lancashire; Murton; Sunbury; Port Isaac; Saltney Ferry (two); North Pembroke and South Cardigan; Henry's Moat; Saundersfoot; Nottingham; Stockton on Tees; Grange-town; Ilkeston; Stalybridge; Brymberian and Velindre; Houghton le Spring; Calver; Sheffield; Burslem; Lewes; Lynton; Walton; Leeds; Boncath; Silvertown; Woolwich; Preston; Rawtenstall; Chorley; Haslingden; Belper; Barrowford (two); Nelson; Ilfracombe; and Bideford; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Mile End; Aberdeen, Eccles; East Ham (two); Grimsby; Forest Hill; Llanhilhth; Cramlington; Seaton Delaval (two); Dundee; Carlisle; Mickley; Greenhead; Jesmond; North Seaton; Prudhoe; Halt-whistle; Farnworth; New York; Wylam; Widdrington; Harley; Newmarket; Leicester; and Chiswick; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ANKYLOSTOMIASIS.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  372
  ment, by A. E. Boycott, esquire, M.B. B.Sc. on the diagnosis of Ankylostoma infection, with special reference to the examination of the Blood [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NATIONAL DEBT.
  Copy presented, of Return showing (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Liability in respect of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer Balances, at the close of each financial year from 1835–6 to 1903–4, both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure, charged annually during that period, against the Public-Revenue, on account of the National Debt, and other payments connected with Capital Liabilities (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [C. 1581] of Session 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 26th April, 1904, authorising the sale of a portion of foreshore near the old Harbour of Dunleary, not required for the purposes of Kingstown Harbour [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 29th April, 1904, declaring that George Hadfield, Fitter Marker-out, Royal Carriage Department, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to He upon the Table.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st December, 1903, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade, upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Post Office Night Messengers in Scotland.
    MR. LEVESON-GOWER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the position of the night messengers employed in the principal telegraph offices in Scotland with regard to salary and pension; and, if so, what decision he has come to.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have considered the question of the pay of the night telegraph messengers employed at the principal offices in Scotland, and I see no reason for increasing it. As these posts are unestablished, their occupants are not eligible for pension.

    Postal Cash-on Delivery System.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has yet arrived at a determination with regard to the proposed cash-on-delivery post; and, if so, whether he will inform the House of his decision.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave yesterday to the Question on this subject.

    Opening of Road from Duke of York's Steps to Charing Cross.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when does he expect the road from the Duke of York's Steps to Charing Cross will be completed; and whether he would give directions for a temporary footpath from The Mall into Charing Cross to be available for pedestrians in the meantime.
    (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) It is not possible to fix a date for the completion of the road until the plans of the Admiralty extension, now under consideration, have been determined. Should it be possible to open a footpath without danger to pedestrians during building operations the First Commissioner will be glad to consider it.

    Precautions against Fire in Institutions under Government Control.
    MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for the
    † See page 241.
    374
    Home Department if, in view of the recent fire at the Highbury Truant School and the loss of life at Eton College and Colney Hatch Asylum, he has taken, or will take, any steps to urge upon the authorities of institutions having grants from the Treasury and under Home Office inspection to provide for the unlocking of all barred windows in these institutions in the event of fire, and the provision of fire escapes therefrom, at the earliest opportunity.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The question of means of escape in case of fire has recently received special attention as regards both institutions which come within my jurisdiction, and also, as I understand, those which fall under other Government Departments, and my hon. friend may be assured that all possible precautions are urged upon managers and other authorities and are widely adopted, whether by the removal of window bars, the provision of special means of exit, or otherwise.

    Legal Expenses of Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
    MR. HUMPHREYS - OWEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the total legal expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have, in the ten financial years last past, amounted approximately to £107,500; and whether he will cause a Departmental inquiry to be instituted into the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have no power to order an inquiry in this matter, but I have consulted the Commissioners, who have been good enough to furnish me with the following information:—During the last ten years the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have sold land and other hereditaments belonging to themselves to the value of upwards of £1,880,000, and have purchased other hereditaments at a cost of more than £1,160,000. The consideration moneys for sales of glebe lands effected under the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts administered by the Commissioners during the same period have amounted to upwards of £1,360,000 in respect of about 1,220 transactions. The income of the Commissioners' Common Fund received

    375
    and dispensed by them is over £1,500,000 per annum, of which £1,250,000 is derived from real estates. In addition, as trustees under certain general and special Acts of Parliament and otherwise, the Commissioners receive and dispense a further income of about £227,000, of which £49,000 or thereabouts is derived from real estates. The Commissioners also manage episcopal estates, the revenue from which, mainly from real property, amounts to about £50,000 per annum. The protection of these large interests necessarily involves the Commissioners from time to time in legal proceedings and in opposition to schemes injurious thereto for which Parliamentary sanction is sought. The Commissioners have also administrative duties, under the Church Building Acts, New Parishes Acts, Union of Benefices Act, and other statutes, which have no relation to income or capital funds arising therefrom, but necessarily involve the employment of legal assistance. Taking these facts into consideration, the sum of £107,500 incurred during the last ten years for legal expenses, in which are included stamp duties on the above-mentioned purchases of £1,160,000 and other transactions, does not appear to be excessive.

    Publication of Vivisection Returns.
    DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when the Returns of Experiments on Living Animals in 1903 will be published; and what was the number of dogs vivisected in 1903 in University College, London.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The Return in question is now in course of being printed, and will be published as soon as possible. It will contain the usual full particulars; but I have no material from which I can answer the second paragraph of the Question.

    Registration Marks on Motor-Cars.
    MR. BRIGG: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state the letters and marks used for the registration of motorcars in different counties and areas.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) So far as England and Wales are concerned the information desired will be found in
    376
    the First Schedule to the Order which I issued under The Motor-Car Act, 1903, with respect to the registration of motor I cars. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the Order.

    Naval Speed Trials on the Cornish Coast-Damage to Fisheries.
    SIR LEWIS MOLESWORTH: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will be prepared to send an official from the Department of Fisheries to make a Report on the possible damage to the fishing interests on the south coast of Cornwall from the proposal to hold naval speed trials on the drift-net fishing grounds near the shore; and whether he will be prepared to lay a Report upon the Table.
    (Answered, by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) My noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has been in communication with the First Lord of the Admiralty on this subject. He is prepared to give the First Lord such advice as to any possible injury to the fishing interest as the Department is able to give, but in all probability experience alone will show whether there is any ground for the fears which have been expressed. Any question of damage to boats or gear would be dealt with by the Board of Trade, and not by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    Local Loans under the Public Loans Act.
    MR. BRIGG: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will furnish the total of the amounts of the loans which have been made by Government under the Public Loans Act to different local authorities and individuals, and the amounts which it is proposed to remit this year.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The local loans advanced up to the 31st March, 1903, amounted to £167,989,216. The principal sums still outstanding in respect of those loans amounted on that date to £64,044,485. Until the Public Works Loans Bill is introduced, no information can be given as to any loans which it may be proposed to remit or write off under the provisions of that Bill.

    Extension of Education (Local Authority Default) Bill to Secondary Schools.
    MR. BRIGG: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if it is intended to extend the action of the Education (Local Authority Default) Bill to the authorities who are penalising secondary schools whose trust deeds stipulate that distinctive religious instruction shall be given in the schools, and that the headmaster shall avow belief in certain religious beliefs.
    (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Education (Local Authority Default) Bill applies only to elementary schools, and there is no intention of extending its operation to secondary schools.

    Issue of Remainder of Transvaal Guaranteed Loan.
    SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was proposed to issue the remaining £5,000,000 of the Transvaal Guaranteed Loan.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The actual date of this issue must depend both upon the financial condition of the Transvaal and the state of the money market here; but there is no intention of making any issue at present.

    Annual Return of National Debt.
    MR. BUCHANAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that the Annual Return relating to the National Debt is in the hands of Members before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Return is now in the printer's hands.

    Army Candidates—Leaving and Qualifying Certificates.
    SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the effect to Army candidates if the distinction between leaving and qualifying certificates is maintained; and whether all candidates can be subjected to the same examination (preliminary), and receive certificates of the same value.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The rules referred to were drawn up on the recommendation of the
    378
    Advisory Board on Education after very full consideration. I am not prepared to make any alteration in the rules until they have been given a fair trial. They will be carefully watched, and if any amendments are found necessary they will be carried out.

    Output of Gold in the Transvaal—Kaffirs Employed.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the monthly output of gold in the Transvaal (in ounces and in pounds sterling) on the following dates; each month of 1897 separately and of each month of 1898 separately; what was the number of Kaffirs employed in the Transvaal mines in January and in July respectively of 1897, and in January and in July of 1898; and what was the number of Kaffirs similarly employed in each of the months from July, 1903, to December, 1903, inclusive.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.)

    Witwatersrand Gold Mines.

    Value.

    ozs.

    dwts.

    £

    1897—

    January

    209,832

    1

    728,138

    February

    211,000

    13

    728,498

    March

    232,066

    19

    805,032

    April

    235,698

    19

    821,912

    May

    248,305

    8

    867,844

    June

    251,529

    6

    877,834

    July

    242,478

    16

    845,458

    August

    259,603

    1

    904,681

    September

    262,151

    0

    917,082

    October

    274,175

    9

    960,010

    November

    297,124

    10

    1,041,903

    December

    310,712

    9

    1,085,224

    Total

    3,034,678

    11

    10,583,616

    Other Districts

    255,041

    11

    4,892,644

    Total Transvaal

    3,289,720

    2

    11,476,260

    Witwatersrand Gold Mines.

    Value.

    ozs.

    dwts.

    £

    1898—

    January

    313,826

    13

    1,096,859

    February

    297,975

    17

    1,042,572

    March

    325,907

    19

    1,140,611

    April

    335,125

    3

    1,177,293

    May

    344,160

    10

    1,211,765

    June.

    344,670

    13

    1,211,673

    July

    359,343

    17

    1,264,833

    August

    376,911

    19

    1,330,666

    September

    384,080

    0

    1,358,609

    October

    400,791

    0

    1,417,780

    November

    393,310

    18

    1,395,976

    December

    419,504

    6

    1,492,739

    Total

    4,295,608

    15

    15,141,376

    Other Districts.

    259,413

    4

    902,759

    Total Transvaal

    4,555,021

    19

    16,044,135

    1897. Average number of Natives employed during the year, 69,098.
    1898. Average numbers employed during the year, 82,062.
    (Figures for January and July do not appear to be available.)

    Transvaal Gold Mines.

    Coloured persons in employ.

    On last day of each month at work.

    1903—

    July

    68,217

    61,780

    August

    69,688

    62,705

    September

    70,255

    62,815

    October

    71,659

    64,968

    November

    72,748

    65,311

    December

    73,622

    67,396

    Immigration Regulations in British Colonies.
    MR. BRIGG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the regulations, if any, which are now in force in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa respecting the admission of immigrants.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I will lay a Paper containing the legislation now in force in the self-governing Colonies for which the hon. Member asks.

    Flogging in the Navy.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the weight of the birch supplied at the dockyards to His Majesty's ships for the flogging of boys and youths under eighteen, the strokes to be inflicted in such floggings not to exceed twenty- four; whether these birches are as a preparation for use in these floggings steeped in brine and for how long are they so steeped; whether boys and youths condemned to be flogged are confined during the night before the infliction of the flogging in cells below the water mark on bread and water, and when flogged consigned again to these cells; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken for the alteration or modification of the King's Regulations for the Navy under which it is permitted.
    (Answered by Mr. Prelyman.) The weight of the birch is 9 ozs. The answer to the remaining part of the Question is in the negative.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

    Naval Paymasters-in-Chief.
    MR. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the Lords of the Admiralty have declined the payment of a commuted allowance to Paymasters-in-Chief of the Royal Navy similar to that granted to certain secretaries to Commanders-in-Chief and other officers employed at the Admiralty of inferior

    381
    rank; and, if so, will he state the grounds upon which such refusal is based, and whether the subject can be reconsidered.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): If the hon. Member is referring to the commuted allowance for servants, the reply is that applications for this allowance have been refused as the officers were in receipt of lodging money, the payment of which, except in unusual circumstances, covers the cost of attendance. I see no grounds for reconsidering the subject.

    Duke of Norfolk's Commission on the Militia and Volunteers.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to inform the House of the probable date of the publication of the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission on the Militia and Volunteers.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I am not yet in a position to give a positive date for the publication of the Report of this Commission, but I have reason to believe that it will be ready towards the end of this month.

    Reported Disturbances in British New Guinea.
    THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any information has reached him regarding the recent disturbances in the Western Division of British New Guinea, involving a conflict between the natives and the Government vessel "Merrie England," and alleged loss of life amongst the former; and, if so, whether he can say if the Home or Commonwealth Governments propose to institute any inquiry in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,: I have no
    382
    information on the subject, but have asked for a report from the Governor-General of Australia.

    The Tibetan Mission.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Chinese Amban and representative of the Tibetan Government have power, on reaching Gyangtse, to treat and settle the differences between India and Tibet.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Chinese Amban, as representing the Suzerain Power, has authority to treat with the British Mission; as to the powers of the Tibetan representative who may accompany the Amban, I have at present no information. As regards the settling of differences, no doubt references to the Governments respectively represented will be necessary.

    Macedonian Gendarmerie.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the European officers of gendarmerie in Macedonia will have the power to march their men for the suppression or punishment of outrages, or will their power be limited to reporting such outrages.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): We understand that in the event of disturbances of the character indicated, the European officers would receive instructions from General Giorgis and the staff, and would transmit them to the Turkish officers who will have the immediate command of the force.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: Then they must await instructions from General Giorgis before they act?
    EARL PERCY: They will not have the right to act on their own responsibility without the orders of General Giorgis.

    Somaliland—The Mijertain Tribe.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the estimated strength of the Mijertain tribe now fighting with the Mullah; also the strength of the Mullah's forces; and when it is proposed to withdraw the expedition from Somaliland.
    EARL PERCY: We do not know the precise number of the Mijertain tribe who are now fighting with the Mullah. In 1902 it was estimated that he might count on the active support of from 40,000 to 70,000 spears from this tribe. The last reports from General Egerton show that on 31st March he had only 600 riflemen with him. Information received by the Italian Government early in April put the number at 500. As I informed the hon. Member for East Clare on Monday last, the question of the numerical strength of the force which it will be necessary to maintain in the Protectorate after the withdrawal of the expedition is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and until a final decision has been arrived at, the exact date of the withdrawal cannot be announced.
    MR. LAMBERT: Can the noble Lord say whether all the rifles and ammunition have been captured from the Mullah?
    EARL PERCY: I cannot say exactly how much has been captured.

    Death Duties on Licensed Property.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average number of years purchase of licence value charged for death duty on the passing of licensed houses.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The records of the Inland Revenue are not kept in such a way as to enable me to answer this Question. They do not specifically separate the value of the possession of the licence from the rest of the estate.
    † See page 10.

    Publicans' Licences.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the proportion of publicans' licences to the population in England and Wales in the year 1880.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The proportion appears to have been about in 328 according to the figures of the census of 1871, or, taking the nearer census of 1881, 1 in 375. The figures given in my introductory statement included "on" beerhouses.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the proportion is to-day? I think he mentioned it the other day.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS:I cannot recall it just now.

    Paddington Butchers and the Sanitary Inspector.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the sanitary inspector of the borough of Paddington is requesting butchers to submit to him a list of the pig carcases they have bought, and stating also when they expected delivery of the same, and further notifying them that the said carcases were not to be cut until he had seen them; whether such action has the sanction of the Local Government Board; and, if so, since what date has the practice been introduced.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have made inquiry with regard to this matter, and am informed that the sanitary inspector at Paddington has not made any such requests or notification as are referred to in the Question. I understand that butchers have been informed by the inspector that he has been authorised to call at their premises to examine any carcases purchased by them from the

    385
    market before they are exposed for sale, and that for this purpose they keep the inspector informed of the hours at which they expect delivery.

    Aliens in Receipt of Poor Law Relief.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the number of 1,753 aliens who were in receipt of Poor Law relief on 1st July, 1903, included persons in receipt of medical relief; and, if so, if he will state what was the number of aliens then receiving relief other than medical, the proportion which they bore to the total alien population, and the proportion of non-aliens receiving such relief to the total non-alien population.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The 1,753 pauper aliens receiving Poor Law relief on 1st July, 1903, included persons in receipt of medical relief only. The number receiving relief other than medical relief only was 1,568. The proportion which the number of aliens receiving relief other than medical relief only bore to the total alien population according to the census of 1901 was rather over 6 per cent. The proportion which the number of paupers (excluding aliens) who on the 1st July, 1903, received relief other than medical relief only, bore to the total non-alien population according to the census of 1901 'was rather over 2·4 per cent.

    Canadian Cattle.
    CAPTAIN ELLICE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in the interest of the health of our herds, the Board of Agriculture can advice His Majesty's Government to remove the existing restrictions upon the importation of cattle from Canada.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The restrictions to which the hon. and gallant Member refers are prescribed by statute and apply to all animals imported from abroad irrespective of the
    386
    country of origin. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries have, therefore, no power to take action in the matter in the manner suggested.

    Sale of Tubercular Cattle for Breeding Purposes.
    CAPTAIN ELLICE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that in the city of Glasgow slaughterhouses, out of 46,784 home-bred cattle slaughtered, 6.332 were found to be tubercular, whereas out of 49,881 Canadian and United States cattle slaughtered only sixty-six were found to be so affected, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to secure that cattle which are rejected by foreign buyers for failing to pass the tuberculin test shall not be permitted to be sold to British farmers for breeding purposes.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: We are aware of the facts to which the hon. and gallant Member directs attention, and he may be interested to refer to the statement made on the subject by the late Mr. Hanbury in reply to a Question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Dundee in November, 1902.† So far as the Board are concerned they have no power to prohibit the sale of cattle which fail to pass the tuberculin test. It is for the purchasers of breeding stock to consider for themselves whether they will adopt the same course as that taken by many foreign buyers.

    Religious Instruction in Secondary Schools.
    MR. HUMPHREYS OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether any education authority in England or Wales has required, as a condition of making a grant to any secondary school, that any particular form of religious instruction or any religious catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall not be taught, used, or practised in the school.
    † See (4) Debates cxv., 19.
    THE PAELIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The Board are only aware of one case which could be considered in any way to correspond to the circumstances described in the Question; and, from the information before the Board, it is by no means clear that the provisions of the Act have been infringed in this case.

    Abusive Soldier at Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on Wednesday last, the very rev. Joseph Skelly, of New-townforbes, was followed by a drunken soldier, who abused and threatened him on the public road and quite close to Longford (No. 2) Police Barracks; and, if so, what action he intends taking in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): A soldier named Herbert, when under the influence of drink, accosted the rev. Mr. Skelly on the occasion mentioned and used heated and offensive language towards him, being under the impression that the rev. gentleman had spoken very disparagingly of the Military at a recent meeting of the Governors of the Longford County Infirmary. The police did not witness the occurrence, but on complaint being made by Mr. Skelly they procured the name of the soldier for him and advised him to complain to the latter's commanding officer who could best deal with misconduct of this kind. I am not aware whether the rev. gentleman has done so, or whether he desires to proceed further in the matter.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how he arrived at the "impressions" of a drunken soldier?
    MR. ATKINSON: That was the excuse the drunken soldier gave.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it usual to quote excuses given by drunken soldiers in a case of this kind?
    MR. ATKINSON: It is not usual, but it is the fact here.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: If the rev. gentleman does not wish to prosecute will the right hon. Gentleman, who knows so much of the fact, direct that action be taken against the soldier?
    MR. ATKINSON: I must decline to answer a hypothetical Question.
    MR. FLAVIN: We may take it for granted that the soldier is not a Nationalist and therefore will not be prosecuted.

    Cusack Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the present position of the sale proceedings of the Cusack Estate, county Longford; whether he is now able to give a Return showing the names of intending purchasers of this estate, and how many of same are evicted tenants or the sons of former evicted tenants on this property.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The information desired in this Question was given in answer to the hon. Member's previous Question of 27th April.†
    MR. J. P. FARRELLWill the right hon. Gentleman impress on the Estates Commissioners the importance of dealing with this matter immediately.
    MR. WYNDHAM: They are fully alive to that.

    Irish Exhibits at the St. Louis Exhibition.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the general arrangements which have bean made by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland for the Irish exhibit at the St. Louis Exhibition.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department, with the concurrence of the Royal Commission, have co-operated with the Irish Exhibit Company of St. Louis in organising an industrial exhibit illustrative of
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxiii., 1304.

    389
    Ireland's resources and of her general progress. The exhibit so organised includes the following sections:—I., General Industries; II., Home, Cottage and Art Industries; III., Education; IV., Minerals; V., Agriculture; VI., Fisheries; VII., Statistics and Intelligence; VIII., Historic Art Industries and Relics; IX., Historic Engravings, Portraits, etc. The exhibit will be displayed in a special Irish section, for which the site and buildings have been provided by the Company referred to. The response of manufacturers and others engaged in industry in the country has been very satisfactory, and, as the exhibit now stands, it will probably prove to be the most comprehensive illustration of the actual industrial conditions of Ireland that has yet been got together for an International Exhibition.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Will the Vice-President's new book be exhibited there?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Tuam Nurse's Salary.
    MR.REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Tuam Board of Guardians protesting against the refusal of the Local Government Board to agree to an increase of £10 a year in the salary of Nurse O'Connor; whether he is aware that Mrs. O'Connor's district comprises 34,526 acres with a sparse population, which renders the attendance at cases all the more difficult; and, whether, seeing that a similar increase was sanctioned for a lady with 12,000 less acres to cover than Mrs. O'Connor, will he advise the Local Government Board to grant this increase.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. and gallant Member for North Galway had already directed my attention to this case, and I am making some inquiries on the subject, which are not yet completed. I will communicate the result of these inquiries to the hon. Member in due course.

    Trinity College Lands.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
    390
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the difficulty which occupiers of Trinity College lands are experiencing in purchasing their holdings, he will now state the terms of reference to the proposed Commission of Inquiry, and name the Members of the Commission.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not yet in a position to give the terms of reference or names of members of the Commission, but expect to do so shortly.

    Irish Fishing Piers.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps he proposes to take with a view to the improvement of fishing piers on the south-east coast of Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am in communication with the hon. Baronet on the subject of this Question.

    Irish Technical Schools
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution from the Blackrock Technical Instruction Committee with respect to the provision of funds necessary for the erection of suitable technical schools in Ireland to be repaid on easy terms, as suggested by the deputation which waited on him in Dublin Castle; and, if so, whether he intends to take any action in this matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received. I discussed this matter very fully with the deputation that waited on me in Dublin, and have no further statement to make on the matter at present.

    Galloway Bulls for Ireland.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the secretary of the Irish Cattle Traders' and Stock Owners' Association condemning the introduction of Galloway bulls into Ireland; and, if so, whether he will represent to the Department of Agriculture the views of those who represent the opinion of the live stock trade, and see that they are carried into effect.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The selection of the breed of bulls under the Department's live stock schemes is left to local people who, unless in special circumstances, have not so far asked to be allowed to purchase bulls of the Galloway breed.

    Rowe Estate, Wexford.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rowe Estate has been in the Land Judge's Court over thirty years, that the rental was settled twenty-five years ago, and that the solicitors having carriage did nothing about having a sale until the tenants applied a week ago; and whether he can give any explanation regarding the delay.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No application was made to the Land Judge on behalf of the tenants in respect of the sale of this estate. But application was made on the 19th April by the solicitors having carriage of the proceedings, and the Land Judge gave the agent permission to negotiate with the tenants for the sale of their holdings.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But is it the fact that this case was settled twenty-five years ago, and that the solicitor in charge has not made the slightest move?
    MR. WYNDHAM: He made application on the 19th April.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: After twenty-five years!

    Avondale Estate, Wicklow.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) have purchased the estate of Avondale, county Wicklow; and, if so, whether the town-lands of Carrignameil and Carrignamuck, which formed part of the estate, are included in the purchase.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department of Agriculture has purchased a portion of the Avondale Estate. I am inquiring whether the townlands mentioned are included.

    Labourers' Cottage Schemes.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state whether the same expense will be incurred in the preparation of a scheme for the building of labourers' cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Bill as under existing Acts; and. if not, in what particulars are the expenses cheapened.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is clear that considerable expense will be saved in the case of schemes for allotments where land is not to be taken compulsorily. It is hoped that under the provisions of the Bill expense will be saved in other cases. I am prepared to favourably consider any suggestion which may be made for the furtherance of this object during the stages of the Bill.

    The Labourers (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Government intend to make any further provision in the Labourers (Ireland) Bill for the building of cottages when the Is. in the £ rate limit has been reached by the local authorities, except the Exchequer contribution; and whether, in such cases, he will take steps to have the unexpended balance of about £50:000 devoted in said Bill for the housing of the working classes with a view to checking emigration.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is not proposed to increase the present maximum rating limit. The question of the application of the unexpended balance of the Exchequer contribution is engaging consideration.

    Costs attendant on Labourers' Cottage Schemes.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the costs attendant on the statement and abstract of title to the plots of land acquired under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, and paid for by the local authorities out of the rates, amount in many cases to more than the value of the plots; and whether he has any

    393
    objection to the insertion of a clause in the Labourers (Ireland) Bill by which any person in possession as owner or apparent owner of the lands, and receiving the rents and profits of same for six years or upwards, shall be entitled to the compensation without further inquiry into the title.
    MR. WYNDHAM: In individual cases the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. But a reference to the Return which I laid on the Table on the 28th April shows that the total costs of every description in connection with the last completed schemes throughout Ireland (and not merely the cost of proving title) averaged only about £8 per cottage, or about one-eighteenth of the entire cost of land, buildings, legal, engineering, and other expenses. The suggestion in the second part of the Question is already receiving consideration.

    Agrarian Offences in Ireland.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the Return of agrarian offences throughout Ireland, reported to the Constabulary for the year 1903, of the entire number of 195 not less than 83 are returned under the head of intimidation notices; and whether, in view of recent information, he will order the discontinuance of Returns under this head.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The figures are correctly stated in the Question. The publication of quarterly Returns has been discontinued, but it is not proposed to discontinue the Annual Returns.

    Galbraith Estate, County Tyrone.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the April Quarter Sessions of Longford sixty-one processes for rent were heard at the suit of the representatives of the late John S. Galbraith, of Clonebogan, county Tyrone; whether any application was made on behalf of the tenants of this estate to the Estate Commissioners to purchase the estate; and, if not, whether, as this is a congested estate within the meaning of the
    394
    Act of 1903, the Commissioners will make a proposal for its purchase forthwith.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No application has been made to the Commissioners to purchase this estate, either on behalf of the owner or the tenants.
    MR. FARRELL: If an application is made by a solicitor on behalf of the tenants, will the Commissioners take any action?
    MR. WYNDHAM: They will consider the application.

    Longford Police Cells.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any further steps have been, or are being, taken to provide sanitary places of detention for temporary prisoners in Longford (No. 1) Police Barracks; and, if so, can he state the nature of the proposed improvements.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Improvements have been effected in the lock-up accommodation and in the drainage. I am making further inquiries.

    Munster Dairy School.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recently held annual meeting of the Munster Dairy School and Agricultural Institute; and whether he can state what steps the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction propose to take in regard to the allocation of the sum of £10,000 set aside for the Munster Institute under Section 16 of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department has already applied more than half the sum referred to to the extension of the buildings at the Munster Institute and the provision of additional equipment. The new buildings, some of which have already been in use, are now on the point of completion, and arrangements for the allocation of further monies to the development of the Institute are at present under consideration.

    Dublin College of Science and Art-Architect's nationality.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists respecting the appointment of an English architect to act jointly with an Irish architect in the erection of the College of Science and Art in Dublin; and whether he can explain why it was necessary to import an architect, in view of the fact that competent professional men were available for the work in Ireland.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I am not aware of any dissatisfaction on this subject. There is no Irish architect who has any experience in building a College of Science, or has especial knowledge of the intricate technical details which have to be borne in mind in constructing such a building according to modern requirements. Mr. Aston Webb has the greatest knowledge and experience of this class of work.
    MR. MOONEY: Has not the hon. Gentleman received a copy of the resolution passed by the Institute of Irish Architects? Is it the deliberate opinion of the Treasury that there is no architect in Ireland competent to undertake this work?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I have not seen the resolution.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman says he is not aware of any dissatisfaction on the subject. Is he not aware of the fact that protests have been made by the representatives of Ireland in this House?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I was not aware that any resolution had been passed. I must point out that an Irish architect has also been engaged.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: But I want to know what the hon. Gentleman means by saying that he is not aware of any dissatisfaction on the matter when dissatisfaction has been emphatically expressed by the representatives of Ireland in this matter.
    MR. LONSDALE: May I ask whether, I in view of the dissatisfaction in Dublin, the college will be removed to Belfast.

    Sale of Butter Bill.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill to amend the law with regard to the sale of butter; and, if so, when will the Second Reading of it be taken.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. Balfour,): I cannot fix a day for the Second Reading of the Bill, but I hope it will be passed in the course of the session.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that through lack of time the Bill has failed to pass two years in succession?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I hope the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do all they can to help me get as much time as possible.

    The Port of London Bill.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES, calling attention to the following notice of Motion in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, "That proceedings upon the Port of London Bill may be resumed," said this was an entirely unprecedented Motion, and asked the Prime Minister whether it was intended that it should be decided without Amendment or debate. The right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet that the Motion should not be drawn into a precedent; nevertheless the Motion made the power to take this action a Standing Order of the House, and, in case the Bill should not be proceeded with this session, he wished to know whether that Standing Order would keep this power alive for next session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall not ask the House to come to a decision on this Motion to-day, but I shall ask the House to come to a decision upon it at some early day, and, parenthetically, I may remark it can be taken after midnight.

    397
    As to the larger aspects of the question, I hope my hon. friend will give me notice. I do not remember the pledge to which my hon. friend refers, but I think it must have referred to a view which I certainly hold that we ought not to draw this into a precedent for ordinary public Bills without a definite decision of the House. The Port of London Bill, however, is rather in the nature of a private Bill.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow a debate?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that the matter rests with me, but if it does I shall allow as little as I can.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the Prime Minister any statement to make as to the business of the House next week, and can he fix a day for the Second Reading of the Budget Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The first of the Scottish Votes to be taken to-morrow will be that for the Secretary for Scotland, the second the Local Government Board, and after that Votes 28, 29, and 30, in the same class, and Vote 49, the Scottish National Gallery. On Monday I propose to take the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill, and I hope on Monday week to take the Second Reading of the Budget.
MR LONSDALEasked if Irish Estimates would be taken on Thursday week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand there are difficulties in the way; but I will state definitely next Monday.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Fifth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I shall not
398
detain the House more than a few-minutes in recommending this Bill for its consideration. It is one of those Bills which from time to time are required in order to make the local organisation of the Church of England correspond to the changes in population and in the powers and facilities of locomotion which are incident to a progressive country like our own. I hope rather than believe that the House will consider such a Bill upon its merits, and will not attempt to make it an occasion for discussing questions altogether outside its scope, and which are in no sense cither directly or indirectly related to any subject which can properly be raised on the Second Reading. The Bill is one of a considerable series of measures which have been found necessary in order to make it possible for the Bishops of the Church of England to carry out their duties—increasing in onerousness, as they are, day by day— by dividing and diminishing the area of their dioceses. I will not enumerate, nor is it necessary that I should, the predecessors of this Bill; but what we have to consider to-day is whether the cases of the diocese of Worcester and of the diocese of Rochester afford a sufficient ground for making a further subdivision of the diocesan system of England, and enabling the Bishops who now preside over those sees to carry out with a less overwhelming burden of labour the duties which are imposed upon them.
The diocese of Worcester comprises, as the House knows, not only Worcester, but what is known as the Black Country and the great urban centre of Birmingham. It is not expedient and it does not facilitate episcopal work to conjoin in one diocese a city like Birmingham and the other districts which are attached to it. The House has already consented to establish a bishopric of Manchester, a bishopric of Bristol, a bishopric of Newcastle, and a bishopric of Liverpool; and the precedent which, with infinite advantage, has been followed with regard to these great cities should, in our opinion, be extended also to Birmingham. The new see of Birmingham, which I hope in consequence of this Bill we shall soon see created, will include a portion of the present Lichfield diocese; but in the main it will be taken out of the present

399
Worcester diocese; and I am confident that the work of the Church in the diocese of Worcester will be enormously facilitated by a division of the labours now falling on one man's shoulders and laying upon those shoulders a burden almost greater than can be borne. All that can be said about Worcester can, I think, be said with increased emphasis, if that is possible, with regard to the diocese of Rochester. The diocese of Rochester as at present existing was constituted in 1875, and in that year the whole population of the present diocese amounted to about 1,600,000 persons. The division of that diocese, which by this Bill will be created, under the new bishopric of Southwark already contains a population far in excess of that which the old diocese, created in 1875, placed under the ecclesiastical supervision of the Bishop. The diocese of Southwark is a part of London which has been growing rapidly. By the last census I believe that, it contained 2,000,000 persons, as against 1,600,000 which the whole diocese of Rochester contained thirty years ago. And I am confident that every man who has looked into the Church of England needs in South London will admit that this vast population does require the uninterrupted labours of a Bishop who should not be compelled to share those labours with the more ancient portion of the diocese from which at present it takes its name. It is physically impossible adequately to work from the Bishop's house at Kennington the whole Rochester diocese, which is not even a continuous area with that part of the diocese of Rochester which is in South London. At present the diocese of Rochester consists of two islands, separated by a portion of the diocese of Canterbury, and even such excuse as territorial continuity might give for continuing it under one bishopric is absent in this particular case.
But I need not labour the point that this division is necessary in both cases. There have been innumerable meetings of various kinds, diocesan and other, on the subject of the division of these bishoprics, and they have been unanimous that the religious interests of the Church would be greatly promoted by the change which this Bill proposes. We all know that
400
people are induced easily to pass resolutions which cost them nothing; but the sincerity of these resolutions has been demonstrated by the enormous sums collected in order to endow the new bishoprics. I need not remind hon. Gentlemen that not a single shilling that is to go to the future incomes of these new Bishops is drawn from public funds. The funds are entirely of ecclesiastical origin and almost entirely of private origin. They have been subscribed, and subscribed ad hoc. And if this House were to reject, as I am confident when they know the facts they would never think of rejecting, the Second Reading of the Bill, I then ask what it would mean. It would mean that we had used our power to sterilise the great efforts and the unstinted benevolence which in the dioceses of Worcester and Rochester have come forward to endow the new bishoprics which the members of the Church of England in these two districts believe to be absolutely necessary for carrying on the work of the Church. May I say that the creation of these two new dioceses represents a movement which has nothing whatever to do with those unhappy ecclesiastical differences of which we have heard so much? It is not a High Church, a Broad Church, or a Low Church movement. High, Broad, and Low Church are all at one in those dioceses in desiring the creation of the new Bishops and in doing their best to see that this great reform of organisation should take place. Are we, therefore, who are not asked to spend a single sixpence of public money in this matter to come forward and take up the ungracious—to use a very mild word— position of saying that all this liberality and unstinted effort in a spiritual cause is to have no effect because for one reason or another we choose to put this grain of sand in the ecclesiastical machinery of the Church of England? That any churchman should do this I cannot believe.
I am quite aware that there is a section of zealous Churchmen who criticise quite honestly, though very severely, the action or inaction of the Bishops. Granted for the sake of argument that their charge against the Bishops, or against certain Bishops, is well founded; is the work of the episcopacy likely to be better done be-

401
cause you overwork them? If the Bishops have not supervised as they might have supervised the clergy over whom they preside, are they likely to be aided in the duty which lion. Members desire to throw upon them by having to deal with this overwhelming burden of daily labour which has broken down the health, I regret to say, of more than one Bishop in the past, and which, if unremedied, will break down the health of many Bishops in the future? This is visiting with something in the nature of physical torture men of whose conduct you may or may not have reason to complain, but which does nothing towards aiding the cause which the section if Churchmen of whom I speak have at heart. I should like to say another word to some of my hon. friends. They ardently desire the prosperity of the National Church as by law established, and they are ardent opponents of disestablishment. Can anything more further the cause of what I may call irrational disestablishment than to make it clear to everyone interested in the work of the Church that this House, for no reason whatever founded on the merits of the Bill brought before it, refuses to allow the Church the ordinary facilities which no one would dream of refusing in the case of any other organisation, whether connected with the State or not? I think those who oppose the Bill on grounds wholly outside the Bill, and claim to be, and genuinely are, ardent members of the Church of England, should think twice before they employ the Parliamentary machinery as I have heard rumours that they intend to employ it— to obtain some indirect and remote effect by refusing to accede to the most reasonable, most moderate, requests, local in their character, involving no principle, which certain numbers of Churchmen of ail shades of ecclesiastical opinion unanimously demanded in these dioceses.
I do not know whether that appeal will have any effect on my hon. friends. I hope it may; but I will appeal with at least equal confidence to hon. Gentlemen, whether on this side of the House or not, who are not members of the Church of England, who do not profess to like the system of Establishment, who do not approve either of episcopal organisations
402
or of the doctrines of the English Church-They may differ from that Church; they may even be involved in vehement controversies which touch on political questions; and I do not feel that I have any title to complain of them if in open and fair contest they try to make out their case on a great public question where they feel that they differ from the Bishops, the clergy, and the great body of members of a communion to which they do not belong. That is fair and open warfare. I do not agree with their objects; I have no reason to complain, however, of their methods. But to use the power which their position as Members of this House may give them, not to touch any part of the work of the Church of England which by any extravagance of interpretation can be regarded as having a political reference, but merely to impair its utility as a great spiritual organisation—that I believe they will not condescend to do. I hope and think better of them. With many of them I have been in active, sometimes vehement, though. I hope, never bitter, conflict over controversies in recent years; but at all events they advocated a cause with which I did not agree, and they fought it in this House by fair and open methods. I would appeal to them whether they, who in large measure represent religious organisations, who bear their great part in the religious life of the country, are pursuing their duty and acting in conformity with their conscience when they use their power in this Legislature to prevent the Church of England from carrying out by means of its own funds what they know, and what every one else who has taken the smallest trouble to understand the case knows, must add greatly to her efficiency in those purely spiritual functions which even those who differ from her must desire to succeed. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid that in moving the Amendment which stood in his name he must first express his regret at finding himself in the uncongenial position of opposing the Government of the day. It

403
was a position which certainly afforded him no satisfaction, on the contrary, it caused him much pain. But the situation was not a novel one, because during the six or seven years he had been a Member of the House while it had been his duty and privilege to give a general support to the policy of the Government, he had found himself unable to support them in their policy in respect of the Church. There were other Members on that side of the House who were in the same position, and they could not help feeling that the Government failed to appreciate the gravity of the position in which the Church now stood, and the necessity—to use the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury—for stern and drastic action in order that the law might be obeyed and the Protestantism of the country preserved. He would remind the House that as far back as 1877 the late Archbishop Tait referred to the Ritualistic movement as a conspiracy in their own body against the doctrine, discipline, and practices of the Established Church. What at that time was a conspiracy had now become an insurrection falling not far short of a revolution. He candidly admitted that in ordinary circumstances he would not have opposed this Bill, to the provisions of which, as far as he could see, no objection could be taken. On the contrary, it was desirable that each of these large dioceses should be subdivided in order that the clergy and laity might have the benefit of episcopal supervision. But what was safe and admissible in time of peace was unsafe and undesirable in time of strife. It part of the Army were disloyal to the Throne and Constitution, and desired to bring back into their country another dynasty, he presumed Parliament would hesitate to sanction the raising of new regiments or the appointment of new officers without receiving guarantees of fidelity. That was the position of the Church to-day. A large section of the Church to-day was disloyal to the law and to the Constitution, and. having regard to the condition of the dioceses out of which it was proposed to form the new dioceses of Southwark and Birmingham, he submitted that a new diocese meant a new centre of disaffection, and a new Bishop meant a new instrument to perpetuate or aggravate the existing
404
state of affairs. He thought some guarantees ought to be required that the new dioceses would be administered in accordance with the law.
It was not entirely a question of money. He had been told that the promoters of the Bill had collected a certain sum of money and had a right to spend it as they liked, but in this case something more was asked for. This Bill asked for certain ecclesiastical and legal powers to be created, and before any such request was granted, he thought the interests of the Church as a whole must be considered. The evidence showed that widespread disorders prevailed in the Church at large, and especially in those dioceses to which this Bill related, and that the Archbishops and Bishops had failed to restrain those disorders. A great and fundamental change had come over the Church of England, and the spirit which pervaded the whole had shifted from Protestantism to something very like Roman Catholicism. He was sorry that the Return for which he asked the other day showing the extent to which irregularities prevailed in the parishes throughout the country had been refused He was told that the Royal Commission which had been appointed to inquire into this subject would get the evidence that it required, hut if the Commission were to call witnesses from every parish in which irregularities of this kind existed they would have an arduous task. Taking the last Returns available, there were in England and Wales 2,000 clergy who wore mass vestments, which had been distinctly declared to be illegal; 265 churches in which incense was used, which also had been declared illegal by the Courts and condemned by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York sitting at Lambeth. These and other irregular practices, such as a celebration of Holy Communion without communicants, the elevation of the wafer, masses for the faithful departed, and services styled "the children's Eucharist" had been on the increase year by year during the last twenty years. The evil was often minimised. The Bishop of London the other day said the Royal Commission would break the greatest bubble of modern times, and that there were only a few churches in his diocese which required careful watching. Yet that Bishop's diocese was

405
one of the worst in England in respect of these practices. In the diocese of Rochester there were 130 clerical members of the English Church Union, sixty-seven clerical members of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, nine clerical members of the Holy Cross Society, fourteen days using incense, and sixty-one who used mass vestments; so that the diocese was permeated by ritualistic practices.
One of the most unhappy features of the case was the effort which had been made to pervert the minds of the young through the medium of church services, and, he regretted to say also, through some of the day schools. One means used to that end was what was called "the children's Eucharist." In that case the children were compelled to take part in a distinctly illegal service. That service included vestments, lighted candles, genuflexions, and ceremonial incense, and was distinctly illegal. In the matter of his appointments the Bishop of Rochester was no exception to the other Bishops. He had appointed a great many clergymen who were known to be connected with ritualistic societies. The church of St. Saviour's, Southwark, which was to be the Cathedral of the new diocese, had a Chapter and four canons. Of these two were, he ventured to say, ritualists. One, the canon missioner of the diocese, was a member of the Church Union and of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, and was for ten years a, member of the Holy Cross Society. The other, who had held the position of chaplain to the Bishop and had been made Archdeacon of Southwark in the last few weeks, had recently published a manual intended for the use of children at a children's Eucharist. In this he gave directions for a form of service which was essentially different in spirit from a Church of England service. It was distinctly intended to inculcate in the minds of children sacerdotal views.
He ventured to say that the law was not obeyed in the Cathedral itself, for he was informed that the Communion was celebrated with only one communicant, which was distinctly contrary to the law of the Chinch. He was surprised at the apathy which prevailed on this subject. He could not see why lay people should be punished when they broke the
406
law, while the clergy broke the law with impunity. They appeared to be getting so hardened to these illegalities that they were beginning to look upon them as right and proper. Before sanctioning this Bill the House ought to be satisfied that the law was going to be obeyed in the diocese of Southwark. With regard to the diocese of Worcester, he thought the Protestant section of the Church was scandalised when a member of the English Church Union was appointed Bishop. A good many of the services in that diocese were distinctly illegal. Illegalities, too, were committed in the diocese of Canterbury. They all had a great respect for the Archbishop of Canterbury, but at the same time they knew that he had done nothing so far to fulfil the promise he made, that he would take action to enforce obedience to the law. The Archbishops and Bishops by the exercise of their veto failed altogether to restrain illegality.
SIR LEES KNOWLES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is this point relevant to the question?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is saying is that the ecclesiastical veto of the Bishops is not properly used by them, and, in those circumstances, I understand that he argues that the fewer Bishops there are the better.
SIR LEES KNOWLES: I understand that the hon. Member was about to argue that the Bishops and Archbishops do not use their power to suppress ritualistic practices.
MR. SPEAKER: That point, I confess, seems to me to be rather more relevant than some of the matters the hon. Member has already referred to.
MR. CHARLES McARTHUR, continuing, pointed out that the Bishops had used their veto against prosecutions, and played off one act against another. A Parliamentary Return showed that from 1874 to 1898 there were twenty-three complaints made to the Bishops, of which seventeen were vetoed. A further Return showed that from 1898 to 1902 there were no complaints. That was, of course, because people found it was useless to make

407
complaints as they were invariably vetoed. Having regard to the state of the Church at the present time, and also to the state of these particular dioceses, he submitted that it was undesirable to proceed with the Bill. It would only aggravate the existing evils, by which a grievous wrong was inflicted upon the nation. Moreover, to pass the Bill would be an indication that the House were indifferent on the subject; whereas the Protestant laity were deeply concerned about the present position, At the present time he could not help feeling that there were two great currents moving the nation, one tending to sacerdotalism, and the other to infidelity. The masses of the Protestant laity were alarmed about the present position and looked to the Bishops for redress. The Bishops having failed to give them redress they now came to the House of Commons to find a remedy for their wrongs. Five years ago that subject was before the House, and the Government, in refusing to pass the Church Discipline Bill, promised that if the efforts of the Archbishops and Bishops were not speedily effective further legislation would be passed. The evil had gone on increasing, and now instead of giving them legislation the Government gave an inquiry which might last for an indefinite number of years. The disloyal clergy were continuing to indoctrinate the masses of the people with doctrines which were not those of the Church of England, and until the Royal Commission had reported as to the condition of the Church he contended that no further progress should be made with that Bill. That would show that at all events there was a determination that the Bishops should do their duty, that the law should be obeyed, and the Protestant character of the country upheld. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he rose to second the Motion. The hon. Member who moved this Resolution had covered so much of the ground that he would be able to say all he desired to say in a very short space of time. What was the argument which the Prime Minister had urged? He said: "Here is a great spiritual organisation; which under its constitution is bound, if it wants to alter the machinery for
408
carrying on its work in the best way, to come to this House. "It came to this House, and then the right hon. Gentleman said they would be opposing a spiritual organisation and hampering the work of the Church if they did not give all those facilities which the Church demanded from time to time. The Church of England, however, was not simply a spiritual organisation, but it was a political organisation, and when the right hon. Gentleman said to him, "You are going to hamper the work of a spiritual organisation," the first answer he would make to him was that that organisation might terminate its connection with the House of Commons if it liked and put itself in the same position as other religious denominations. He failed to see that there was any substantial force in the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman had made. He was not concerned to deny that it might be a very proper thing to divide those dioceses, and if he could help forward the division honestly and conscientiously he would do it. But what was his duty in the matter? He objected to the doctrines and to the ritual of the Church of England as developed during the last 100 years. The Bishops did not keep the clergy in order; dogmas were openly preached, false doctrines were taught and books were being circulated containing all sorts of old mediaeval notions, and a ritual plainly against the directions of the Prayer-book was being used. Under such circumstances what was his duty as a politician and a Member of Parliament? It was their duty to see that the law was obeyed, and they ought not to give any facilities to a movement in the direction of Romanising the Church as established by law. He agreed that the House could not now decide whether a particular religious service was lawful or unlawful, but it was their duty to observe the great movement of opinion in the country. He asserted that the evidence showed not only that the principal offenders against the law persisted in their malpractices, but that the disorder was, under their defiant activity, one that was ever growing and threatened to spread more and more throughout the country, and he would show the House enough to justify the inference that they had to deal, not only with isolated and sporadic instances, but that there was a

409
concerted movement to alter the fundamental principles of the Establishment.
He would not say anything about the history of what was known as the Oxford Movement. That was well known to most Members of the House; but he might say that whatever the original intention of the group of clergymen who began it, it had in its later development become an obvious attempt to assimilate the doctrine and usage of the English Church to that of the Roman Church. As far back as 1877, Archbishop Tait said in Convocation, in calling attention to a little confessional book for children issued, as it turned out, by the Society of the Holy Cross—

"I have now given your Lordships all the information that I have on this subject. I do it with the greatest pain. I do it with a full appreciation of the goodness of the men with whom we have to deal; but no admiration of any points in their character ought, I think, to make us hesitate as to whatever may appear to be our duty in the endeavour to counteract what I feel obliged to call a conspiracy within our own body against the doctrine, the discipline, and the practice of the Reformed Church."
That was said by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1877. Over twenty-five years had passed, and instead of those disorders having abated they had increased. The Bishop of Hereford, writing recently, said—
"The section of the clergy which has come under the influence of this stream of tendency has been very earnest in propaganda and socially prominent, and it has for a considerable period been left to work steadily, and in many points of vantage, to wipe out the Protestant character of the Church of England, and to revive under the vague, and consequently misleading, name of Catholic, the Church of the darker ages, with its rule of sacerdotal authority over the individual conscience, its encouragement of the confessional, its doctrine of the Mass, its baseless dogmas about the state of the dead, and its imposing symbolic and spectacular worship. All this is fascinating to weak and emotional natures, and to a luxurious and sensation-loving society; but to any thoughtful person who understands what English life owes to the Reformation, it is clear that hardly any greater misfortune could befall our Church and nation than the success of such an endeavour."
It was to prevent the success of that endeavour that he seconded this Motion. He had intended to go a little into the way in which what he called false doctrines were being permitted under the auspices of the Established Church, but he hardly thought it was necessary
410
now to do that. He had read a good deal of the literature connected with the Oxford Movement, and he admired the scholarly and graceful style of many of the books, but in substance he found them very stale, flat, and unprofitable reading. The inference he drew from that literature was that for the most part it was given up to trying to prove propositions which were inconsistent, with the Protestant faith. He noticed that in recent controversies many people had been questioning the use of the word "Protestant" and the assumption of the word "Catholic" by the Church of England. He had been considering what authority he could appeal to in order to secure something like a reasonable definition or analysis of the word "Protestant," and he had consulted Sir George Cornewall Lewis's book on "The Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion." in which he examines the claims of the Church of Rome and the claims and theories of the Protestant Churches. After describing the attitude of the Church of Rome, Sir George Cornewall Lewis says—
"On the other hand, the Protestant Churches hold that the Scriptures of the Old and Kew Testament contain everything which goes to make up Christianity, and that they are the exclusive and ultimate rule of faith. They deny the existence of any uninterrupted and exclusive transmission of true doctrine in any Church since the times of the Apostles."
If that was the test of Protestantism, then nearly all the manuals circulated and many of the sermons being preached were against the fundamental principles of the Protestant religion. The hon. Gentleman opposite said he would leave him to deal with some of the facts about the bishopric of Worcester. He had only one case to cite in connection with that bishopric, but there were undoubtedly many of a similar character. The case to which he should like to call the Prime Minister's attention was that of St. Jude's, Birmingham. It was the case of Mr. Pinechard, whom the Prime Minister appointed on the understanding that he was not a ritualist.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. Well, I cannot remember exactly what I did in Mr. Pinchard's case; but certainly in every case subsequent to that—the dates are not exactly in my mind—I had to be

411
very careful in advising the Crown in such a fashion as always to see that there should lie a promise of obedience to the Bishop. Mr. Pinchard not only differs from the hon. Gentleman, and most of us, in his views of what ritual should be, but he has also the misfortune to differ from His Majesty's Government on every known question of politics; that might soften the hon. Gentleman's opposition.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: The right hon. Gentleman said last year, when Mr. Pinchard was appointed, that he was sure he was not a ritualist.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not sure whether I got a promise from him.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was in the report of The Parliamentary Debates. With regard to the controversy that was going on, he put it to the House whether the kind of proceedings he was going to cite were fair. The statement he would read described a service which took place on the 24th January this year, at St. Jude's, Birmingham.
It was called a children's Eucharist—
"A large number of children were present and some adults, the majority of whom were evidently teachers. There were twelve candles alight on or above the altar. The children were supplied with a service-book called 'The Children's Eucharist, St. Jude's.' A copy was lent to me (the reporter); it contained neither printer's nor publisher's name, and it was marked 'Not to be taken away.' It consisted of an outline of the Prayer-book service of Holy Communion interspersed with other prayers and hymns. Before the Prayer of Consecration are printed in italic capitals the words 'Now Jesus comes, be very still.' After the Prayer of Consecration are printed in italics: 'Our Lord Jesus Christ is now verily and indeed present, keep very still and say this prayer very solemnly.' The following prayer occurs in the book, and is, I believe, the one indicated: 'O Jesus! because thou hast said it, we believe that the bread is now Thy body —we believe that the wine is now Thy blood. O Jesus Christ, our God, we adore Thee.'"
That was the service from the children's point of view. The celebrant on the day mentioned wore mass vestments, and performed a ceremony which, while it appeared to comply with the directions of the Book of Common Prayer introduced practices already condemned by the Courts of law in this country and many of which appeared to him to be of very doubtful legality. He was glad the right
412
hon. Gentleman had appointed a Commission; that was an admission that there were a great many irregularities, and until the Commission had reported he hoped that the present Bill would be delayed.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in view of the continuance in the Established Church of England and Wales of grave and widespread disorders which the Archbishops and Bishops have failed to restrain, this House declines to assent to any revival of the provisions of The Bishoprics Act, 1878, until satisfactory assurances are obtained that the Archbishops and Bishops will enforce a reasonable conformity by the clergy to the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion, and the law as determined by the Courts which have statutory jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical,' —(Mr. Charles McArthur.)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I venture to ask the House to allow me to speak in a few words as the senior representative of one of the districts affected by this Bill. I speak solely as such a representative. The House is aware that I am myself a Nonconformist, and as such I should not have thought it desirable, or even proper, that I should intervene in questions concerning the Chinch of England. I am not only a Nonconformist, but I am myself, and always have been, in favour of the policy of disestablishment. I have thought and said that the adoption of that policy would really be a relief to the Church of England, that it would increase its spiritual influence, and that it would save it from attacks which are now made upon it on the grounds of its holding an exceptional and privileged position. I am not going to follow the hon. Members who have spoken in a theological discussion; I hardly think this House is the place for such details as those to which we have litened. But, speaking generally, I may say that I am strongly opposed to the illegal practices to which they have referred. Putting aside any question of theological doctrine, I am opposed to them because they are illegal. To my mind it matters not in the least whether a man is a layman or a priest, he is

413
bound to obey the law; and if, as hon. Members have asserted, and as I suppose is the case, at all events exceptionally— if, as they assert, the law is broken, by all means do everything you can to see that the law is observed. But proceed against the law-breakers; do not attempt to proceed in this extremely indirect way by punishing the wrong people. Why are a number of worthy Church people in Birmingham, the majority of whom happen to belong not to the section of the Church which is guilty of these illegal practices, but to the other section of the Church, why are they to be prevented from completing their spiritual organisation because in some other place and some other district, or even in exceptional instances in their own district, the law is being broken? Let those who contend that the law is broken proceed against the law breakers. But it is said that there are great difficulties in the way, that it is very expensive, that is the first thing. Very well, if that be the case, ' try to alter the law so as to make the prosecution of this illegality more easy. That is clearly the duty of those who, like my hon. friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite, desire to see the speedy redress of this grievance. I agree most heartily with them. If the law is broken that ought to be stopped; and if the present means of stopping it are in-sufficient I should be glad to support Them when they bring forward a measure, I which commended itself to me on other grounds, which would secure the due observance of the law.
It is said that another reason why the law cannot at present be made operative is because of the Bishops' veto. Well, again, that is the law, and as long as that is the law you have to accept it. If you do not like the law, and think this veto should be taken from the Bishops, then I say you are justified in bringing in a Bill to alter it. But the law must be altered first. For all these reasons I think that my hon. friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite are proceeding on wrong lines; and while I sympathise to a large extent with their object, I object altogether to the methods —pardon me if I use the word, I do so in no offensive sense—the unworthy methods by which they seek to attain those ends. I cannot quite
414
follow my hon. friend the Member for Liverpool in what he has said as to Birmingham. Although we have got a good number of Welshmen and a few Liverpool men in Birmingham I cannot help thinking that the city will prefer to be represented by its own men, and not by a Member for a division of Wales or a Member for Liverpool. What does my hon. friend say about Birmingham? He said, I understood, that it was one of the dioceses that was particularly affected by this illegality. Well, that is entirely contrary to the fact.
MR. CHARLES McARTHURwas understood to say that Birmingham was not so largely affected.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Quite so; my hon. friend began by saying that both dioceses were affected by this pernicious evil, and Rochester more than Birmingham. Birmingham, so far as the Church organisation is concerned, is essentially and substantially Evangelical. That is owing to the fact that there are a great number of Evangelical trusts, such as the Simeon Trusts, by whom the larger portion of the clerical appointments are made; and consequently, although ritualism is represented in Birmingham, that side of Church opinion is, I should say, represented only to a very slight extent. Then my hon. friend made a remark which I very much regretted and to which I must give a respectful contradiction. He said the Church in Birmingham were scandalised by the appointment of the present Bishop of Worcester. I am thankful to say, having the reputation of Birmingham at heart, that there was no such opinion expressed or felt by the vast majority of the people. The Bishop of Worcester, of course, came amongst us practically as a stranger; few, I suppose, had ever seen him or met him: but there was every desire to receive him as became his position and his character, and to give him every assistance in the duties he had to perform. Now that we do know the Bishop of Worcester, who has been amongst us a considerable time, we know that he has won golden opinions from everybody, from Nonconformists quite as much as from Churchmen, and his moderate, generous, broad, and religious influence is exercising the best

415
effect upon the people of the city. I do not think the city of Birmingham need be picked out as specially affected by these practices, or need be specially penalised because these practices exist in other parts of the kingdom.
My hon. friend the Member for Liverpool endeavoured to draw a comparison between the state of things in the Church and a supposititious existence of disloyalty in the Army. It seems to me the illustration is entirely irrelevant, but I will give him an illustration which seems to me to exemplify what he proposed. Supposing the people of Liverpool were asking for the appointment of a second County Court Judge, and that the appointment had to be made from this House, if I were to come down from Birmingham and say there was a County Court Judge in Birmingham who had given decisions of which I disapproved, and that therefore we objected to any increase of judicial assistance in Liverpool, that would be an illustration. It appears to me the cases are exactly on all fours; and I do beg the House, on behalf of Birmingham, to consider what I assure them is the almost universal opinion, without respect to religious differences, of the people of Birmingham, that it would be most desirable in the interests, not merely of religious organisations, but of all the charitable organisations which are so largely dealt with by the Church—that it is in the interests of these great influences that the organisation of the Church in Birmingham should be completed. I hope the House will not stand in the way of the philanthropic efforts of the Church people of Birmingham who, out of their own pocket, have found all that is requisite in order to endow the new bishopric and will not make their sacrifices vain, for what? Not because any objection whatever has been taken or can be taken, on the merits, against this proposal, but because there is somewhere or other in the Church subjects of complaint which can be dealt with by totally different means.
MR. NEWDIGATEsaid that as one living in the diocese of Worcester he wished to thank the Prime Minister very mach for having introduced this Bill. He should also like to thank the right hon. Gentleman
416
the Member for West Birmingham for having supported the Bill in the way he had done. As one living in the diocese he knew what the feeling of the people in that part of Warwickshire was, and he could say that one and all were in favour of this Bill. He thought it was extremely hard that because a few ultra-anti-High Church people were against the Bill, they should try to postpone its passage. They, in the diocese, had put their hands in their pockets and subscribed the sum of £103,000, in about a year, of the £105,000 which was the sum that was wanted. In reference to this, he might say that the Bishop of Worcester—who he was sorry to hear spoken of in a way that no person in the Church or diocese of Worcester would approve of— had given the greater part of his fortune in order to help this bishopric forward. He ventured to say that when the man at the head of the diocese acted in that way, they would be very churlish indeed not to support him in the best way they could. He had in his hand a list of the subscriptions towards the bishopric fund, ranging from very large sums given by wealthy people to the humble £1 given by poor artisans. One Sunday was set apart in the diocese for collecting money for the bishopric fund, and in the mining and manufacturing districts almost every church did very well indeed on that particular Sunday. One church in his own neighbourhood, the congregation of which was composed almost entirely of miners, subscribed something like £11. He knew, from his own experiences, that at the present time it was almost impossible for one man to work the bishopric of Worcester. It contained the enormous population of 1,400,000 people; there were 781 benefices in it, and it embraced the towns of Coventry, Kidderminster, Leamington, and Warwick, besides Birmingham, which alone had a population of something like 538,000. He wanted to ask his hon. friend who sat below him, and who talked as if he alone and those who sympathised with him had the right to call themselves the representatives of the Evangelical party in the Church of England—whether he and his friends had ever visited the diocese of Worcester and whether they had ever consulted the opinion of the Evangelical supporters of the Church

417
there with reference to this Bill? If they came down into the diocese he would take them to visit the various churches, and, with the exception of Mr. Pinchard's church in Birmingham, his hon. friend would see nothing whatever that he could possibly complain of. He asked the House to support the Prime Minister on this occasion and to vote against the Amendment.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR.said the Amendment had this advantage as against the alternative course alluded to by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, that it did not seek in any way to alter the ritual or the discipline of the Church of England, and therefore it could not be urged against the Amendment that the State was seeking to impose its authority upon the Church. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was familiar with the course of events in that House as regards Church matters during recent years. The right hon. Gentleman had had much to occupy him in other directions, and the persistent efforts which had been made to bring the grave state of affairs in the Church before that House and to obtain legislation in pursuance of the explicit pledges of the Government might have escaped his notice. In dealing with this Bill they must recognise that they were dealing with an Established Church, not with a purely voluntary society but with a spiritual organisation— not a political organisation, as his hon. friend seemed to think, but a spiritual organisation which, through its connection with the State, had undertaken certain statutory obligations: and it was because there had been breaches of those obligations on the part of the clergy, not sporadically here or there, but breaches so serious that the Government after five years of reflection had decided to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into those alleged illegalities, that his hon. friend was justified in raising this question by his Amendment. The Church of England in relation to the State was an interesting subject of investigation; but it would be altogether too wide, in speaking to the Amendment, were he to enter into the relations between Church and State in this country. He must say, however
418
that occasionally when he considered the thorny, controversial, and almost hopeless character of the problems with which they were confronted; when he thought of the clergy and their practices in the National Church, there were moments when he thought with his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, that the situation would be more easily dealt with if the Church were a purely voluntary society. These, however, were rare moments, and when he came back as a Member of this House, and as a citizen, to the facts of the case, he felt that it was essential to maintain the connection between Church and State for the good of religion, and for the benefit of the Constitution of the country.
What was the position before the House? The Bill requested from this House facilities for ecclesiastical machinery. He did not think it went further than that; that in asking for these bishoprics they were asking for nothing which would materially assist the lot of the clergy, either in Birmingham or Southward If the Bill asked for anything which would materially improve the lot of the parochial clergy, if it were intended to relieve some of the struggling and poorly-paid clergy, he would hesitate to oppose it. The proposal, however, was merely one for providing additional ecclesiastical machinery, audit was fair to ask that be fore this was given they should have guarantees from those who represented the Church in this country that the original obligation as settled by the Act of Uniformity should be carried out. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that illustrations given in the course of debate were generally misleading. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of an almost inconceivable instance of misbehaviour in Birmingham on the part of a County Court Judge, and implied that it would be unreasonable to refer to such misbehaviour as a reason for not appointing a Judge in Liverpool. Had a Royal Commission been appointed to inquire into supposed judicial irregularities throughout the country he submitted that Members would be entitled to raise the question in that House. The question raised last year-concerning the patronage of Keble College. Oxford, had, he supposed, nothing to do

419
with the dioceses of Southwark and Birmingham, but he desired to refer to it because the question he wished to raise was whether the Church as a whole was carrying out her obligations, and whether those exercising the functions of the hierarchy were doing so in accordance with the law. That might not have anything to do with the dioceses of Birmingham and Southwark; but what he was entitled to raise, as between the Church and the State, and what he desired to raise, was whether the Church as a whole was carrying out her obligations and whether those who were exercising the functions of the hierarchy in the Church were doing so in accordance with the laws of this realm. In view of the way in which the patronage of Keble College, Oxford, had been exercised——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I fail to see what the methods by which Keble College exercises its patronage have to do with this Bill.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he was going to point out that two Bishops, the Bishops of Lincoln and of Rochester, were members of the council of the College.
MR. SPEAKER: That is very remote.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he would not pursue the point further and would submit to the ruling of the Chair. He, however, felt very strongly on the matter. Of course, opinions would differ in this House, and out of it, as to the extent of the evils of which they complained; but this must be admitted, that those evils had gone so far that His Majesty's Government five years ago admitted a contingent need for legislation, and had now appointed a Royal Commission to inquire whether legislation was really necessary. He thought it was a most reasonable contention of his hon. friend and colleague that any additional ecclesiastical machinery might very well wait until that Royal Commission had reported. He quite admitted that in taking up a position of this kind he might be charged with unduly severe treatment of the Church as a whole; but they had to deal with circumstances as they found them, and seeing that the
420
inquiry would shortly proceed—he did not know to what length, but he hoped it would not be too long drawn-out—he thought those facilities might very well wait until the Royal Commission had reported, and possibly the fact that those facilities were waiting might lead to an earlier Report of the Commission than they might otherwise hope for. He felt that as opportunities in this House of raising a question of this kind as between the Church and the State were so rare, and that as the House of Commons was, after all, the only representative Assembly they had got, imperfect instrument though it was for the laity of the Church of England, those interested in the Church and in its Protestant aspect were justified in raising these questions as opportunity offered.
It might be, as his right hon. friend the Prime Minister said, that in raising those questions they were adopting an unduly harsh attitude towards a portion, or, if hon. Members liked, the whole of a great spiritual organisation to which they were deeply attached. He quite admitted the force of the contention of his right hon. friend. It was not an agreeable position for those who desired to maintain the Protestant character of the Church of England to find themselves obliged to come forward on an occasion like the present and assume an attitude which possibly ordinary Members of the House who did not feel so keenly, although they were quite as much attached to the Evangelical side of the Church, might not approve. It was a disagreeable matter to have to do it. But on whom did the responsibility rest? Surely, the responsibility rested primarily on those in the Church, who having authority did not exercise it to put down those practices. Perhaps even beyond them, the responsibility rested on those clergy, against whose private character and conscientious convictions he had nothing to say, but who determinedly persisted in a course of action which could only land the Church in irretrievable disaster. Surely, also, the responsibility in the last degree rested with the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said he was in favour of disciplinary legislation; that if the law was not what it ought to be, let them make it what it ought to be;

421
and that if a measure of that kind were brought forward he would support it, although he was careful to add that in his private opinion, which he had always held, disestablishment would be a preferable or at any rate a more equitable solution of the difficulty. Surely in view of the fact of those admitted difficulties, and that five years had passed since this House solemnly pledged itself to deal with this matter and also with the question of the distribution of the patronage of the Crown, the responsibility rested on the Government, who, although they were indebted to private Members, including himself, for continually bringing this matter to their recollection, had yet shown considerable hesitation and delay in grappling with a subject which ultimately they or their successors would be bound to grapple with. He had presumed too long on the time of the House, out this was a matter on which he felt keenly. He recognised that the House had a certain responsibility; but he felt that if, as time went on, nothing were done that responsibility would grow greater and not less. It was because he did not wish events to take a direction less favourable to the Church, which they might if those evils were not grappled with, that he was prepared to take the extreme course of raising the issue on the Bill before the House.
MR. LOWEsaid that, as representing a very large body of Churchpeople in Birmingham, he wished to give all the support in his power to the Second Reading of this Bill, and he desired to make a strong appeal to Members on both sides of the House not to place any obstacle in the way of its being passed into law. It was simply a measure, designed and intended to ratify and give legal sanction to an arrangement which had already been provisionally entered into by all the Church people resident in the localities with which it dealt, an arrangement which was unanimously approved of and supported by all who were interested in the matter: and the money for carrying out of which had been already subscribed by the people concerned. It bad the warm approval of the present Bishop of the diocese, who could not have given a better proof of his approval
422
and of his earnestness in the matter than he had given by giving £800 a year of his present income and nearly the whole of his private fortune in support of this scheme It was admitted by everyone who was acquainted with the diocese of Worcester, as at present constituted, that it was far too large and unwieldy and too diverse in the nature of its population and interests to be properly supervised and administered by a single Bishop. He believed it consisted of about 500 parishes with an average population of something like 3,000 souls in each parish, and the difficulty was exaggerated and rendered greater by the fact that those parishes formed part of three archdeaconries which were quite different in their sympathies and interests-He did not quite know when the diocese of Worcester was first established, but it was quite certain that when it was established Birmingham was scarcely as large as Worcester now was. But now Birmingham had grown to such an extent that it contained a population larger than all the rest of the diocese put, together; and—as everyone knew— it had become one of the chief cities and one of the first commercial centres in the whole of the United Kingdom. It had been described as the best governed city in the world; it had a Lord Mayor, a University, and all the other attributes and adjuncts of a great city, except a Bishop and a Cathedral; and why it should he considered less worthy than Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, or Bristol to have a Bishop of its own, he was entirely at a loss to understand.
Those best acquainted with the spiritual needs of the locality, and those who wore best competent to judge of this matter, were strongly of opinion that Birmingham stood very much in need of an independent diocesan organisation, centred in a Bishop, whose seat should be, not in Worcester, but in Birmingham itself; and they believed that the moral, spiritual and social welfare of all those who lived in the great industrial district of which Birmingham was the centre would be greatly promoted if this see were established. He could not at all understand how anyone who wished to see the work of the Church of England prosper and progress, how anyone who wished to see the spiritual life of the people fostered and encouraged,

423
could object to this Bill. Much less could he understand why those who believed in the virtue of local self-government should object to the Church people of Birmingham and its district being allowed, at all events, in an administrative matter of this kind, to manage their own affairs in the manner which seemed to them best. It appeared to him that his hon. friends representing Divisions of Liverpool and the hon. Gentlemen opposite who so strongly condemned illegal and irregular practices in the Church of England should be among the first and the most prominent in support of this Bill, for it stood to reason that the smaller and more compact a diocese was the better would the Bishop in charge of it be able to regulate and control its proceedings and to put down any evil practices which were found to exist. And just the same thing applied to hon. Gentlemen who objected to anything in the administrative action of the present holder of the see, for that was clearly a reason why they should support this Bill, because it was quite obvious that the Bishop would have a much smaller diocese to look after when the Bill was passed than he had at present and therefore would be able to look after it better. On all those grounds he heartily supported the Bill.
MR. EMMOTTsaid he wished to do every justice in his power to those who opposed the Bill, but he could not see that they had made out any case at all. He had listened very carefully to what they had said, because he had a great deal of fundamental sympathy with the views they held. He would suggest to them whether it was not possible that the establishment of these new bishoprics might not tend to benefit the cause they had at heart. Bishops, if they did not prosecute, did advise and admonish, and if they had more Bishops they might get more advice and admonishment, whereas if they had overworked Bishops they might get less advice and admonishment. The present Bishop of Manchester had been transferred from Birmingham to Manchester. A clergyman remarked to him that the new Bishop of Manchester was a very Low Churchman. He did not know if this were the case or not; but he
424
wished to point out that if he had remained at Birmingham and Birmingham had been made a bishopric, the precise effect which Members who opposed the Bill desired would have occurred, and that instead of the Bishop of Worcester, to whom they objected, they would have had a Bishop whose views were mainly in accordance with their own. As to the Bishop of Worcester, he should like to say that he did not think there was in the Church of England or in any religious body in the country a more noble and more saintly figure. He (Mr. Emmott) did not deny there were serious irregularities in the Church of England, but what he deplored more than these irregularities was the spirit of ecclesiasticism which was spreading in the Church, the magnifying of Church authority as against the authority of the individual conscience and the tendency to materialism both among the religious and the irreligious. The excess of ritual, of which so much was said, was not half so important as the spirit which underlay it. He would ask this practical question—were they going to stop that movement by prosecuting people for ritualistic practices or by opposing a change of machinery in the Church itself? He ventured to think that the opposition which was raised to this Bill did give some colour to the feeling that opponents of ritualism in the Church of England did take a narrow and somewhat bitter view, and put forward, in a manner which was by no means wise, views which they strongly held and which to a large extent he completely sympathised with. He was certain that by opposing a Bill like this, not on its merits, they were doing damage to the cause they professed. As to the wider question of the connection between the Church and the State, although a Churchman, he was in favour of disestablishment. The more he saw of that House the more he saw how utterly unfitted it was to deal with questions connected with the Church. The question of disestablishment however was not a practical question now, and until that question came before them in a practical form they had no right to oppose a Bill like this, which was merely one for a necessary change of machinery. There fore he must support the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR KIMBERsaid that, as the representative of the largest constituency in the Metropolis and one of the 2,000,000 people in South London hoped that this Bill would bring to them a great amelioration of the present ecclesiastical conditions of South London, the Mouse would no doubt bear with him while he expressed the views which he believed to be those of the large majority of the people he represented. The Bill asked the House for nothing in the way of money or power, but merely to give them facilities to improve their own internal administration. It dealt in no way with doctrine, ritual, or with discipline in the Church. It left those matters untouched, and he would have thought, subject to the greater knowledge of Mr. Speaker, that the Amendment would have been almost out of order, for this Bill did not touch any of the grounds upon which the mover and seconder sought to deprive him and those for whom he spoke of the benefits of this Bill. The seconder of the Amendment had based his opposition to the Bill on the ground that he objected to the doctrine and ritual of the Church of England as developed in the last seventy-five years. There was not a word in the Bill from first to last about making changes in the doctrine of the Church. The hon. Gentleman also objected to the false doctrines which were taught under the Established Church. The House would want to know, first of all, whether the hon. Member referred to the doctrines within the law of the Church or to those outside. This Bill did not deal with them, whether they were within the law of the Church or not. He claimed that this was a people's Bill and not an ecclesiastical Bill. Afundof£50,000 had already been raised among the people of South London, and as soon as this Bill passed, as it must pass, the fund would be raised to over £100,000 to endow the bishopric. He, therefore, appealed to hon. Members representing Swansea and Liverpool constituencies to leave the South Londoners to manage their own affairs. There should be liberty for all, within bounds, in the Church of England, both for High and Low Churchmen. He himself had no objection to High Churchmen simply because they were High Churchmen, nor was he aware that they had any objec-
426
tion to him because he was what was called a Low Charchman. The Bishop of Rochester was a High Churchman, but he came among the people of South London and they were able to judge what his principles and practices were, and he could say without fear of contradiction that a large majority of the 2,000,000 people for whom he spoke would testify to the worthiness and the legality, from the Church point of view, of those practices. What the Amendment said was that admitting the Bill to be a good Bill seeking to improve the administration of their own affairs, unless they did something against somebody else in some other part of London they should not be allowed to improve their position. He entreated hon. Members to withhold any opposition, whatever their predilections might be with regard to other parts of the country, and allow this relief to be given.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENappealed to the mover and seconder of the Amendment to be content with having raised the question, and no to press their Motion to a division. He did not complain of their raising the question, as persons who felt strongly on any matter were entitled to take every opportunity of ventilating their grievances. For his own part, he joined with his hon. friends to the extent of regretting the existence of certain abuses, and believing that means would certainly have to betaken to compel obedience to the law of the Church of England. But was the course they were now taking likely to lead to the accomplishment of their desire? Granted that certain abuses existed and that sufficient measures had not been taken to remove them, would that condition of affairs be altered by stopping this Bill, which merely effected an administrative reform, and preventing large masses of the people from obtaining proper ecclesiastical supervision? The Bill had been objected to on the ground that it would add to the number of Bishops, and that the Bishops had not done their duly in the ritualistic controversy. He did not think hon. Members were sufficiently aware of what the Bishops had done. They had had to deal with an exceedingly difficult situation, to curb practices, the illegality of which was often doubtful, and to interfere in the

427
case of men who were doing splendid work in the cause of religion. It was their duty not to damp down religious ardour, or to press things too far merely to obtain legal compliance; and in many cases where no public action had been taken, the Bishops had done much quietly and privately to put a stop to certain practices. The best way to secure greater conformity to the law was to strengthen the administrative control of the Bishops, and that could be done only by ensuring that the areas over which they had control were such that they could promptly and effectively exercise their powers.
The people of Birmingham, including non-members of the Church of England, unanimously desired that that city should Le made an ecclesiastical centre, having its own Bishop, and, when they had themselves supplied the funds and made all necessary provision, he could not conceive on what grounds Parliament could refuse its assent. In regard to Rochester, he could speak from personal experience. South London was probably the greatest unbroken area of poverty in the world; and in no place was there greater need for genuine spiritual work. That work was being splendidly done by the Church of England, but it was seriously hampered from the administrative point of view by the non-existence or a separate see. The diocese of Rochester, which included South London, parts of Surrey, and a portion of Kent, was all placed under the ecclesiastical care of a Bishop whose first interest must be in South London That was a most anomalous position, and was not at all for the benefit of the Church or of the people. South London, in the diocese of Rochester, had a population of 1,750,000, and it increased at the rate of 30,000 per annum. Surely that was an area complete in itself and entitled to its own diocese. The rejection of this Bill would do nothing towards correcting the abuses of which complaint was made, but it would tend to render less efficient the Church of England. All would acknowledge the splendid work of that body, especially among the poorer classes in the great cities. Was the administrative efficiency of that work to be hindered
428
because particular views were held with regard to certain services in certain churches? That was an unreasonable attitude to take up, and he hoped hon. Members would not press the Amendment to a division.
COLONEL SANDYS, in supporting the Amendment said that, while it might be very desirable that Bishops should be appointed for Birmingham and Southwark, the main objection to the Bill was that it treated the matter as a local question rather than as a broad question affecting the Church of England as a whole. The point upon which the House ought to concentrate its attention was whether or not the Bishops as a whole had adhered to their ordination vows. The view which he took of the position of a Bishop in the Church of England was the same as he would take of that of the chief of any other great Department, whether in Church or in State. It was firmly believed by many devoted members of the Church of England, who longed for nothing so much as her well-being in all respects, that her greatest enemy was the introduction of doctrines of the Church of Rome into her teaching and ritual. There were many churches in which members of the Church of England as established at the Reformation could not worship, as they were unable to distinguish the services from those of the Church of Rome. It was the business of the Bishops to curb those practices, but instead of taking measures to that end, they seemed to be unable or unwilling to deal with the matter. On an occasion like the present when the House and the country were asked to add to the number of Bishops, the members of the Protestant section of the Church of England considered it to be their duty to protest against the appointment of additional Bishops until those who were already appointed were in a position to control or master the position and exercise their duty in a proper way. What would be said of a person who held communion with the enemy and allowed practices to go on between his army and the army of the enemy and did not take steps to check-it at all hazards? That was the position the Government had taken up,

429
and on that account he thought it was his duty to appeal to the House of Commons to refuse consent to this Bill until such time as His Majesty's Government took the decided step which they promised to take five years ago, and until they saw that the Bishops themselves showed that they had some desire to grapple with and control this growing evil in the Church of England.
One particular thing for which he thought the Bishops were greatly to blame was that they had failed to grapple with the men who had set, the law at defiance, who regarded not the decisions of the House of Commons, and who having undertaken to obey the Thirty-nine Articles were content to eat the bread of the Church and do the work of the Church's enemies. How did those men get into their present positions? They were admitted into the Church by the Bishops. Why did the Bishops not make it impossible for a man to pass into holy orders unless he gave some assurance that he would, under no circumstances, take part in what he must describe as traitorous actions. The Bishop's examining chaplain admitted these men to the Church, and the Bishop himself appointed his own examining chaplain, and if the Bishop admitted them he was to blame. The House of Commons was now being asked to increase the number of Bishops without any assurance being given that these practices would be discontinued, and consequently they appealed to the House of Commons on no account to consent to this Bill until some definite and satisfactory assurance had been given by the Bishops to the country that these ritualistic practices in the Church of England should be put an end to. He knew that the opponents of this Bill were in a minority, but if he went into the lobby alone he should vote against this measure, because he considered it ought not to be passed. He apologised for having spoken with some warmth, but this was a question upon which he felt very deeply.
MR. SEELYsaid he agreed very thoroughly with many of the opinions of those who had moved the Amendment, but as a Member who had some knowledge of a portion of the proposed Southwark bishopric he joined with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
430
West Birmingham in urging the supporters of this Amendment to withdraw their opposition to this Bill. No one who at all realised the work which had been done by the Bishops and who had any knowledge of the circumstances of the two dioceses, could doubt the desirability of the measure submitted to the House to-day. In both cases the populations were very large. The case of Birmingham had been spoken of by many hon. Members, bat he desired to say a few words about the Southwark district. Everyone who had any knowledge of London knew not only how large the population in the Southwark diocese was now, but also how constantly it was increasing, and what prospect it showed of continuous increase. The actual routine work of Bishops was always very heavy, and that was very much added to if the diocese was increasing. They had to arrange for new parishes, new churches, and every new parish and new church added to the Bishop's work when established, and during the process of establishment. A Bishop was able to do much for the benefit of the people in a district and for the benefit of religion by his influence and assistance in new districts. He did not suppose there was anyone in the House, whatever his political or religious opinions might lie, who was not anxious to promote religious work in South London, and he therefore asked those who had moved the Amendment to be satisfied with the debate which had taken place on the question, and not to press the Amendment to a division of the House simply to prevent the making of proper arrangements for carrying on the work of the Church of England in South London.
He fully appreciated the reasons which had induced his hon. friends to bring this question forward, and he yielded to no one in his dislike of illegal practices, and he objected to them not merely because they were illegal, but because they were contrary to the Protestant spirit of the Church of England, which was the cause of the Establishment, and which he hoped would always be one of its glories as long as it existed, which he trusted might be a very long time. Although hon. Members who supported this Amendment might be fully justified in insisting, when new bishoprics were being

431
created, that they should have an opportunity of drawing attention to the faults of existing bishoprics, and the deficiencies in the arrangements for enforcing discipline in the Church of England, he did not think it was wise or logical to attempt to prevent new bishoprics being established. If they were not satisfied with the work of the existing Bishops, there was no advantage in preventing them making arrangements for doing their work properly. The very words used in this Amendment—
"That, in view of the continuance in the Established Church of England and Wales of grave and widespread disorders which the Archbishops and Bishops have tailed to restrain,"
were an argument in favour of this Bill. If anything could be done to insist upon a thorough and proper carrying out of the law, if anything could be done to emphasise and maintain the Protestant character of the Church — if it needed emphasis and maintenance, which he very much doubted—it would have his cordial support. But he appealed to lion. Members not to allow themselves, in consequence of any sympathy with extreme, notions on the one side, or any dislike of extreme opinions on the other, now that an opportunity had been given for debate—he appealed to the House not to prevent the passing of a measure which was undoubtedly and urgently required for the proper administration of the ecclesiastical organisation in Birmingham and South London. He appealed to the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the introduction of this Bill had reminded them of the connection which existed between Church and State, and also of the necessity that if the Church of England wanted a new Bishop it must come to Parliament for it. The Church could not manage its own affairs, and it must come to Parliament to get its consent. The last speaker had argued that when the sphere of influence of a Bishop was made smaller the power of mischief would be smaller, and if they had less work to do it would be better for the Church. He knew that the Bishop of Rochester had done a good deal of work in the House of Lords, and if they
432
wanted him to have less to do, the best way to accomplish this would be to deprive him of his power in the House of Lords. If the Bishops did suffer from overwork in this way the right way to deal with that overwork was not to lessen their dioceses but rather to deprive them of their functions in the House of Lords, and thereby enable them to devote all their time to their dioceses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had stated that he was a Nonconformist, and that he was still a "Disestablisher." That being so, he thought they must congratulate him on having remained true to al least two of his earlier opinions. It was, however, hardly consistent with the right hon. Gentleman's position as a "Disestablisher" that he should support a Bill to increase the power and the vested interest of a Church which he proposed some day to disestablish. Surely that would make the task of the right hon. Gentleman still harder to disestablish the Church when he had the opportunity. It seemed to him that was not the right way to go about disestablishment if he was in earnest in the matter.
MR. MARTINdesired to support the creation of the new bishopric of Birmingham on behalf of the inhabitants of the county of Worcester. They felt they had in their present Bishop a guiding spirit, and they did not desire him to be so taken up with clerical work as to be unable to devote his time to spiritual work. It was no uncommon thing for the present Bishop to be occupied six or seven hours a day with clerical work. A great deal had been said by way of comparing the work of the Church to that of an army. What would they think if in time of war the generals were compelled to do the staff clerical work instead of devoting their energies to fighting? It was only consistent with common sense to afford the Bishops greater power to regulate the forces of the Church, and to deny them that power would prevent them from carrying on useful work in their dioceses. So far as Worcester was concerned, they did not wish for curtailment in the work of the Church: they rather desired that Church matters should be stimulated. Very few illegal practices were practised

433
there, but there was ample room for the extension of Church work. He, therefore, supported the Bill.
MR. O'MARAsaid an hon. Member opposite had stated that by increasing the number of Bishops they would increase the opposition to the Church of Rome, which he called "the enemy." If that were to be one of the effects of the measure, he would be disposed to vote against it. On the other hand, he found that one of the new Bishops to be created was for Birmingham, and most Members admitted that Birmingham ought to have a Bishop to attend to its spiritual needs. It struck him there was no large town in the country that more required its spiritual needs attended to than Birmingham. If only for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham he thought the bishopric ought to be created. He agreed that Southwark, which had a large population, ought to have a Bishop. The arguments used by hon. Members opposite made it difficult for him to say how he should vote on this Bill, and he was almost inclined to fall back on the old practice when a doubt of this kind arose, namely, to vote against the Government. He wished to know from the Lord Advocate, the only representative of the Government at present on the Treasury Bench, on whom the costs for the two new bishoprics would fall. Would they fall on public or private funds [An HON. MEMBER: Private.] He was satisfied on that point, and would keep an open mind and decide by the further arguments adduced in the debate as to the Lobby he should go into.
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid that his support of all such Bills as that now before the House was necessarily hesitating and nervous. This Bill, like most others, was a compromise between what they approved and what they disapproved. He thought he would be able to show in the course of five minutes why he should vote for the Bill. An hon. Member opposite had brought up the question of disestablishment. He thought that question had a more intimate relation with the right and the wrong of this question than the question that was brought before the House by the
434
hon. Member for Liverpool, although he admitted that that question was of considerable moment. He thought it might be said that Parliament was incompetent to deal effectively with such a question as this. It was incompetent to deal effectively with the spiritual affairs of anybody. Parliament was not a convocation, or a Sanhedrim, or a conference; it was an assembly of Party politicians, who by means best known to themselves had persuaded the electors to send them there till the next election, unless they applied for the Chiltern Hundreds. Ho would ask with great respect what had Roman Catholics to do with the creation of new Bishops of the Anglican Church any more than they had to do with the creation of Jewish Rabbis They regarded Anglicans as heretics, although it was true that their heresies were becoming somewhat difficult to perceive. Surely the non-religious had nothing to do with the creation of bishoprics. A large number of the Members of this House were non-religious. Was it not a grave scandal, and almost a blasphemy, that an Atheist should concern himself in these religious matters, even if it was only the establishment of the machinery of religion? If the Athiest uttered the reality within him he certainly would say that no two religions were more radically opposed than his and that of the Church of England. That Church existed to oppose the Atheist, and it might also be said that he existed to oppose this and other Churches, and yet he was asked to vote in favour of this Bill. The same might be said of the Jew. Christians believed that the New Testament gave them a divine guide in religious matters, but the Jew derided their view. But the Jew came here, perhaps, to vote for this Bill.
He admitted that the questions raised by the Amendment were of some moment. If the Church of England progressed to-wards the Church of Rome with the same rapidity during the next generation as she had during the past generation she would arrive there. She would out-Romanise Rome and would have her extravagancies kept in check from Rome. The Roman Church could do it very much better than the English House of Commons, for she would be kept in check by a spiritual body. He thought

435
some Nonconformists must feel very strongly that as the Church receded more and more from its legal Protestant basis the salaries of the clergy would be drawn more and more from a Church to which they were legally aliens. There was the further question of how far the State ought to interfere in such matters. The creation of these bishoprics was so serious that each of them should be treated in one Bill; and they knew what that would mean. It had really come to this, that Parliament, which was inherently in Competent to deal with those questions, was pressed so much by such matters as they were now discussing that they could not devote themselves adequately to the business of the nation. He was bound to support this Bill. He had given strong reasons for a change in the law. [OPPOSITION cries of "When?"] He had given strong reasons for disestablishment; but when were they to get it? Were they to wait till hon. Gentlemen opposite were to give it? If so, how long would that be? He would appear on any platform with hon. Gentlemen opposite or with hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, to support the disestablishment of the Church of England; but as to the Amendment, he thought it was an unchristian act to oppose the development of the Church of England. The diocese of Worcester was overgrown, and the present Bishop could not do justice to it. It really required two Bishops; and, as a Birmingham man, he asked that this Bill should be allowed to pass. He did not think that they ought to wait until some indefinite period when the Opposition were strong enough, or thought they were strong enough, to give the people of England ecclesiastical freedom; and therefore he supported the Bill, which he believed was one of the most pressing needs of the country.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he intended to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill on a ground which, he thought, over-rode a great many of the arguments used on both sides of the House in the course of the discussion. Southwark was a part of the United Kingdom which contained, he supposed, a much greater proportion of poor and wretched people than any other similar area in the country. Bir-
436
mingham was not, he thought, exceptionally poor and wretched beyond all the other great manufacturing centres, but it contained many people whose lives were not a credit to our civilisation. Now, in these populations in Southwark and Birmingham there were all sorts of organisations at work endeavouring to improve the condition of the people, which was almost the despair of those who were conscious of that condition, and who desired to see the inhabitants of those cities as well-to-do and as happy as they ought to be. Religion was, perhaps, the most powerful motive which induced the Church and other organisations to make the sacrifices necessary for doing good amongst and improving the condition of these poor people. Those who knew the conditions in which their fellow-citizens lived, should be anxious to give fair play to every kind of organisation and institution in their endeavour to do anything to raise the character of the people.
The Church of England was not the only religious body in the world. There was the Church of Rome, which had active organisations for ameliorating the conditions of the poor; and the Nonconformists and the Salvation Army also exercised a very powerful influence in that direction. But all these other bodies could organise themselves as they thought proper; and if this was a question of those other religious bodies rather than of the Church of England it would not be necessary for them to come to Parliament to ask Parliament to sanction the improvement of those organisations. He would not enter into the question of why it was necessary that the Church of England should have to come to Parliament. For his part, he thought it was I very much better that the Church of England should be an Established Church; and he was not, like many of those who had addressed the House, one who believed that the Church of England would be better disestablished. The Church of England was an organised body which must corns to Parliament to ask leave to improve its organisation for purposes with which every Member of the House, I on both sides, and of every religious persuasion, must have sympathy. He, therefore, asked those hon. Members to help every organisation which desired to

437
work for their benefit amongst the poor and unfortunate classes of the community. Was it not reasonable that Liberals and Conservatives alike, and even hon. Members from Ireland, should agree to enable the Church of England to organise itself in order to grapple with this serious problem? He had heard many speeches about discipline in the Church, and about the legal powers of the Bishops, and the extent to which these powers could be used. But in a case of this kind, where it was merely a question of enabling the Church of England to do that which every other organised community could do without
coming to Parliament, it appeared to him only common justice and generosity to give those powers to the Church of England to enable her to make the organisations thought necessary for her welfare and for that of the poorest people in the country. He wished God-speed to the struggle which the Church of England was making with the misery and wretchedness which existed in Southwark and Birmingham.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 279; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 110.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, Tames Tynte

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Gilhooly, James

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crean, Eugene

Golson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Aird, Sir John

Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

Crombie, John William

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Ambrose, Robert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cullinan, J.

Graham, Henry Robert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Grenfell, William Henry

Arrol, Sir William

Davenport, William Bromley-

Gretton, John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbt. Henry

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Groves, James Grimble

Aubrey-Fleteher. Rt. Hon. Sir H

Delany, William

Gunter, Sir Robert

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Denny, Colonel

Hain, Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dewar,Sir T.R(Tower Hamlets

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Baird, John George Alexander

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Balcarres, Lord

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

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

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Hammond, John

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Dixon-Hartland,SirFred Dixon

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Donelan, Captain A.

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Doogan, P. C.

Harwood, George

Bathurst,Hon.Allen Benjamin

Dorington,Rt. Hon.Sir John E.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bigwood, James

Douhgty, George

Hayden, John Patrick

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

Boland, John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Helder, Augustus

Bond, Edward

Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford,W.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Bowies,TGibson (King's Lynn

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Brassey, Albert

Emmott, Alfred

Hogg, Lindsay

Bull, William James

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Butcher, John George

Evans,SirFrancisH.(Maidstone

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

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

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Hozier, Hon.James HenryCecil

Carlile, William Walter

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Carson,Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Hunt, Rowland

Causton, Richard Knight

Farrell, James Patrick

Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Ffrench, Peter

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Joyce, Michael

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Kennaway, Rt.Hon. Sir John H.

Chapman, Edward

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Clive, Captain Pery A.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Coates, Edward Feetham

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Kerr, John

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

Forster, Henry William

Keswick, William

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Foster, Sir. Michael (Lond. Vniv.

Kimber, Henry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

Knowles, Sir Lees

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

Fyler, John Arthur

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Garfit, William

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Newdegate, Francis A. X.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Leamy, Edmund

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

Smith, HC.(North'mb.Tyneside

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

O'Dowd, John

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M' Taggart

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

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

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lowe, Francis William

O'Malley, William

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

O'Mara, James

Thornton, Percy M.

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Lundon, W.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Partington, Oswald

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Macdona, John Gumming

Percy Earl

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Maconochie, A. W.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Valentia, Viscount

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Plummer, Walter R.

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

M'Fadden, Edward

Pretyman, Ernest George

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Walrond, Rt.Hn. Sir William H.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Randles, John S.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Rankin, Sir James

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

M'Killop, W, (Sligo, North)

Reddy, M.

Welby, SirCharles G.E.(Notts.;)

Majendie, James A. H.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. JohnLloyd

Malcolm, Ian

Reid, James (Greenock)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und-Lyne

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green)

Willoughby de, Eresby, Lord

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Wilson, J. W. Worcestersh. N.)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Milner, Rt. Hn.Sir Frederick G.

Robinson, Brooke

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Milvain, Thomas

Roche, John

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

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Rollitt, Sir Albert K.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Wylie, Alexander

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Rose, Charles Day

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morpeth, Viscount

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Sackville, Col. S. G.

Young, Samuel

Mount, William Arthur

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Younger, William

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Murphy, John

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Alexander Acland-Hood

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

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

NOES.

Asher, Alexander

Dunn, Sir William

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Austin. Sir John

Edwards, Frank

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acerington.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Ellice, Capt EC (S.Andrw'sBghs

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Fenwick, Charles

Leng, Sir John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lloyd-George, David

Black, Alexander William

Flynn, James Christopher

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Furness, Sir Christopher

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Brigg, John

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Crae, George

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

M'Kenna, Reginald

Burt, Thomas

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Caldwell, James

Helme, Norval Watson

Moore, William

Cameron, Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Cawley, Frederick

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) '

Moulton, John Fletcher

Charming, Francis Allston

Horniman, Frederick John

Norman, Henry

Charrington, Spencer

Houston, Robert Paterson

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Perks, Robert William

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Hutchinson, Dr.Charles Fredk.

Price, Robert John

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Priestley, Arthur

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rea, Russell

Dalziel, James Henry

Joicey, Sir James

Roberts, John H. (Dcnbighs.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee

Dewar, John A. Inverness-sh.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Roe, Sir Thomas

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Kilbride, Denis,

Russell, T. W.

440

441

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Sullivan, Donal

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Shackleton, David James

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Wilson John (Durham, Mid.)

Sheehy, David

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Tomkinson, James

Yoxall, James Henry

Slack. John Bamford

Wallace, Robert

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Charles M'Arthur and Mr. Brynmor Jones.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Weir, James Galloway

Soares, Ernest J.

White Luke (York. E. R.)

Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R.(Northants

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Main Question put accordingly.
The House divided;—Ayes, 282; Noes, 85.(Division List No.111)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Grenfell, William Henry

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Gretton, John

Aird, Sir John

Cullinan, J.

Groves, James Grimble

Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gunter, Sir Robert

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hain, Edward

Ambrose, Robert

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Denny, Colonel

Hammond, John

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Hardy, L (Kent, Ashford)

Arrol, Sir William

Dewar, Sir T.R(Tower Hamlets

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn. Sir H.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Harwood, George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Baird, John George Alexander

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Balcarres, Lord

Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Heath, Arthur Howard) Hanley

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey).

Doogan, P. C.

Helder, Augustus

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

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Doughty, George

Hormon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hogg, Lindsay

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Boland, John

Emmott, Alfred

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bond, Edward

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hunt, Rowland

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

Brassey, Albert

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fardell, Sir T. George

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Bull, William James

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Butcher, John George

Farrell, James Patrick

Joyce, Michael

Camphell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow

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

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Carlile, William Walter

Ffrench, Peter

Kenyon-Slaney Col. W. (Salop)

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Finch, Rt. Hon George H.

Kerr, John

Causton, Richard Knight

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Keswick, William

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Fisher, William Hayes

Kimber, Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-

Knowles, Sir Lees

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

Forster, Henry William

Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Chapman, Edward

Fyler, John Arthur

Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

Charrington, Spencer

Galloway, William Johnson

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

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Leamy, Edmund

Coates, Edward Feetham

Gilhooly, James

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

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lowe, Francis William

Crean, Eugene

Graham, Henry Robert

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Crombie, John William

Green, Walford D(Wednes bury)

Lundon, W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Spencer, Sir E.(W. Bromwich)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Macdona, John Cumming

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Maconochie, A. W.

Partington, Oswald

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

Stroyan, John

M'Fadden, Edward

Percy, Earl

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

Plummer, Walter R

Thornton, Percy M.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Majendie, James A. H.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Malcolm, Ian

Randles, John S.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Rankin, Sir James

Valentia, Viscount

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Reddy, M.

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

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

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Maxwell, W. J H.(Dumfriesshire

Reid, James (Greenook)

Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

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

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

Milvain, Thomas

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton and. Lyne

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Robinson, Brooke

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

Roche, John

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Morpeth, Viscount

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Rose, Charles Day

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

Moulton, John Fletcher

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Mount, William Arthur

Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Wylie, Alexander

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute

Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Young, Samuel

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Younger, William

O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

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

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Alexander Acland - Hood

O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Smith, H. C(North'mb. Tyneside

O'Dowd, John

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Malley, William

Asher, Alexander

Harcourt, Lewis Y.(Rossendale

O'Mara, James

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Holme, Norval Watson

Perks, Robert William

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Price, Robert John

Black, Alexander William

Horniman, Frederick John

Priestley, Arthur

Brigg, John

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rea, Russell

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Caldwell, James

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Cameron, Robert

Jacoby, James Alfred

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cawley, Frederick

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Russell, T. W.

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jordan, Jeremiah

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kilbride, Denis

Sheehy, David

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Dalziel, James Henry

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Soares, Ernest J.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leng, Sir John

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

Lloyd-George, David

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen. E.)

Dunn, Sir William

M'Crae, George

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Edwards, Frank

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Wallace, Robert

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

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Murphy, John

Weir, James Galloway

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Norman, Henry

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

444

445

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr. Slack.

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Bill read a second time.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc." — (Mr. A.J. Balfour.)
MR. DALZIELopposed the Motion on the ground that the Bill was a contentious measure in regard to which much difference of opinion had been expressed, and the Prime Minister himself had laid down the proposition that no Bill of a contentious character ought to be sent to a Committee upstairs. There was no great rush of Government business, and he submitted that the Bill ought to be considered in Committee of the Whole House so that all Members would have an opportunity of expressing their views. Moreover, supporters of the Bill had brought forward questions of principle, and, inasmuch as principles could not be discussed upstairs, that was an additional reason for keeping the measure in the House. But if it was to go to a Standing Committee, he submitted that the Committee on Trade was more suitable than that on Law.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLhad grave doubts as to whether the Bill ought to go upstairs. He remembered the scenes which took place when the Church Discipline Bill was referred to a Standing Committee, and how that measure was practically forced through by Mr. Gladstone's influence. The Bill would probably take longer to pass through the Standing Committee than through a Committee of the House, and the Government would regret having sent it upstairs.
MR. WHITLEYthought there ought to be some understanding as to the Bills to be referred to Standing Committees. An unexpected notice had appeared on the Paper with reference to the Aliens Bill, and personally he would be prepared to agree to the present measure going upstairs if the Prime
446
Minister would agree to allow the Aliens Bill to be discussed in a Committee of the Whole House.
MR.SAMUEL EVANShoped the Prime Minister would not press his Motion. Experience had shown that it was a mistake to send legislation of this description, which aroused strong feeling, to a Standing Committee. A prolonged fight was certain to ensue. Amendments would be manufactured, obstruction, legitimate or otherwise, resorted to, and then when the Bill came back to the House the whole fight would be gone over again, with the result that much more time would be occupied than if the measure had been considered by the House in the ordinary way. Moreover, this was not the class of Bill that ought to be sent upstairs. Only measures to which there was practically no objection on principle should be so referred. Business men and lawyers were heavily penalised by having to attend the House at two o'clock under the new Rules, but it would be practically impossible for practising legal Gentlemen to get down in time to take part in the deliberations of the Standing Committee on this Bill.
SIR J.FERGUSSONreminded the House that the Benefices Bill, which was certainly as contentious as the measure under consideration, was satisfactorily and thoroughly discussed before the Standing Committee on Law.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, according to his recollection of the measure referred to by the right hon. Baronet, the discussion in the Standing Committee did not at all assist the Bill. So considerable was the discussion when the Bill came again before the House that it was not passed in either its first or its second session, and it succeeded in getting through in its third session only in a truncated form. The discussion on the present Bill had turned on questions of disestablishment, the qualifications of Bishops, ritual, and doctrine; the debate upstairs would doubtless proceed on similar lines, and it was absurd to suggest that a Committee of lawyers was the best tribunal for

447
settling questions of that character. The Bill was exceedingly controversial, and when Standing Committees were first set up the Prime Minister was one of their strongest critics, because he feared that Bills of a controversial character would lie referred to them. In the present case the greatest importance attached to the details of the measure, to the powers to De conferred on the Bishops, and yet in those questions the House was to have no voice whatever. There appeared to be a disposition to rush through a Bill of this character. He had often seen pressure exercised by majorities upon that Committee to vote down every Amendment, however reasonable and fair. He could understand a Bill of this sort being sent to the Standing Committee in order to save time, but did the Prime Minister really think that under the new Rule any time would be saved by adopting this course? Hon. Members who were really interested in this question were not members of the Standing Committee on Law. They would not, for instance, on that Committee have the benefit of the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. In the interests of saving time he thought the Prime Minister would be well advised in withdrawing his Motion to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee. If the Prime Minister was intent upon sending highly controversial matters of this kind to the Standing Committee on Law he would remind him that he was setting up a precedent for the future of a rather dangerous character.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am rather puzzled to understand the change of opinion on the part of the hon. Member opposite with regard to the effect of sending up Bills to the Standing Committee, for I remember great struggles taking place in which the hon. Member himself took part in order to get private Bills sent up to that Committee.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not controversial Bills.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Employers' Liability Bill and the Deceased Wife's sister Bill.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was a very fatal precedent. The Bill was killed.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But they did not take that course in order to kill the Bill. I presume, therefore, that as far as hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned when their own measures are being dealt with they take a somewhat different view of the effect of a Standing Committee than they do when other people's Bills are under consideration. They do not then regard the Standing Committee as a mere manufactory of Amendments, or as a place where great delay might occur. Of course the more important question is whether this is or is not an appropriate Bill to send to the Standing Committee. I can hardly imagine a Bill more clearly in the category of those which ought to be dealt with by a Standing Committee than this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has remarked that disestablishment and various important theological topics have been discussed in the debate; but that is because there has been an Amendment to the Second Reading in no sense touching the principle of the Bill. What the Bill really does is to deal with certain localities, and there is no general principle contained in the measure at all, unless you call it a general principle that this House is not to impede the work of the Established Church. I do not think it would be in order on the Committee stage to discuss the larger questions which have been raised to-day, though I do not pass judgment on the propriety of discussing whether the new Bishops should sit in the House of Lords. What powers of obstruction there may be if those questions are discussed I cannot say, but I hope that hon. Gentlemen, however much they dislike anything which conduces to the spiritual efficiency of the Church of I England—[Cries of "Oh."]—If I have said anything which hurts hon. Members' feelings I withdraw it, though I cannot understand their conduct unless there is some object of that kind behind it. If, however, they say they have no such object, I accept the disclaimer. This is a local measure, and ought, on its merits, really to be dealt with by Provisional Order. That form, however, has not been adopted, and we have to take the machinery of this House as we find it. But surely we are putting that machinery

449
to its most legitimate use when we ask that one stage of this local ecclesiastical Bill shall not occupy the whole time of all the Members of this House. I do not think a case has been made out for any opposition to this Motion. I deeply regret the tone, which has been adopted by the hon. Gentleman opposite. As to the statement, amounting almost to a threat, made by the hon. Member opposite, the responsibility for the course referred to will rest with the hon. Member and not with me.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the Prime Minister had spoken of those who opposed this Motion as being animated by hostility to the Bill. That statement might be true of some of those who had spoken but it was not true in regard to himself. For reasons which the House would readily understand he had not ventured to intervene in the debate upon the previous stages of the Bill. He felt somewhat embarrassed in the matter. But this was one of the embarrassments they suffered from in being forced to come to this House. He now found himself forced to vote one way or the other upon a question affecting the discipline of the Established Church. He might say he had already exercised his vote not in hostility to this measure but in favour of it. It was, therefore, not from any hostility to this Bill that he opposed this Motion, but because he regarded the practice of sending, year after year, controversial measures to standing Committees as a growing danger which deprived private Members of full control over questions which were not matters of agreement. The Prime Minister had stated that he could not conceive a Bill which was more suited to go to a Standing Committee, but in his opinion he could not conceive a measure of a more controversial character than this one, and upon that broad principle he should vote against this Motion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that like his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford he had already voted for this Bill, but it seemed to him that there was no Standing Committee to which it could be appropriately referred.
450
He had the strongest possible objection to referring anything to a Standing Committee, because it was taking away from the House of Commons the business that most properly belonged to it, and business which it could most profitably do. He had never known a Bill discussed in Committee of the House without suggestions of the most valuable kind being made, and very often adopted by the Minister in charge of the measure. He had never known a Bill pass through the Committee stage of the House of Commons without; being enormously improved. It was for want of adequate discussion in the House of Commons that measures became failures, and everything that tended to withdraw a measure having any element of controversy in it from the Committee of the House was not in the interests of good legislation. A debate on the Report stage was not the same thing as a debate in Committee, and it had not the same effect, for it did not produce the same suggestions, and they could only speak once. The result was that the debate on the Report stage was not productive of the same benefit as a debate in Committee of the Whole House. This was a very dangerous practice and ho hoped his right hon. friend would not press his Motion to a division.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid it had been stated that this was not a contentious measure, but when he saw the right hon. Gentleman strike the box before him he thought it was strange that he should show so much heat in discussing a non-contentious measure. If a Bill proposing two additional Bishops was not contentious, he wondered how a Bill would be described if it proposed to take away two Bishops. He should very much like to hear the view of hon. Members opposite if such a Bill were introduced on that side. In reference to what the Prime Minister said as to the way in which private Members Bills were dealt with, ho pointed out that the Government had command of the time of the House in a way which was not open to private Members. Why that argument had been introduced was beyond his comprehension. He was not going to consider the question whether the Committee on Trade or the Committee on Law was best fitted to deal with the Bill. His

451
hon. friend had referred to the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper as one that ought not to be discussed.
MR. SPEAKER: I understand that you are speaking of the Instruction which he has on the Paper. That Instruction is out of order on the ground that it is mandatory.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid that though his proposal was not in order as an Instruction, it could be put in the form of an Amendment here or upstairs as the case might be. An Amendment proposing to prevent two new Bishops from sitting in the House of Lords was clearly one of those important matters that ought to be discussed before a Committee of this House. He thought the Prime Minister would best consult the interests of the Government from the point of view of time by acceding to the proposal they were making and not insisting or taking a course which would in the end militate against the progress of the Bill.
MR. FLYNNsaid he associated himself with the protest against the growing practice of withdrawing from the consideration of this House a large amount of contentious matter.
The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had been most unhappy in the precedents he had quoted. The Government were masters of the time of the House, and private Members were not. The hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs made a dangerous suggestion when he said the Bill should be referred to the Committee on Trade. He would remind the hon. Member that the Committee on Trade had most important Bills to deal with—the Butter Bill for example—and it would be unfair to send to that hard-worked Committee the Bill now before the House. He also objected to the Bill being sent to the Committee on Law on the ground that this was a measure which should be considered by Committee of the Whole House.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsuggested that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move that the Question be now put.
Question put "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 242; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 112.)

AYES.

Aird, Sir John

Bull, William James

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Butcher, John George

Dalkeith, Earl of

Allsopp, Hon. George

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Campbell, J. H. M. Dublin Univ.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Carlile, William Walter

Davies. Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

Arrol, Sir William

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dickson, Charles Scott

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

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

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Baird, John George Alexander

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Balcarres, Lord

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

Doughty, George

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

Chapman, Edward

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balfour, Capt. C. B.(Hornsey)

Charrington, Spencer

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Duke, Henry Edward

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

Bigwood, James

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Fison, Frederick William

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Brassey, Albert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Forster, Henry William

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

Fyler, John Arthur

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Galloway, William Johnson

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Lowe, Francis William

Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macdona, John Cumming

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Graham, Henry Robert

Maconochie, A. W.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Skewes-Cox., Thomas

Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W.

Smith, HC.(North'mb. Tyneside

Gretton, John

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Groves, James Grimble

Majendie, James A. H.

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

Gunter, Sir Robert

Malcolm, Ian

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Hain, Edward

Manners, Lord Cecil

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Hambro, Charles Eric

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

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hardy, Laurence(Kent' Ashford

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Harris, Dr. Fred K. R. (Dulwich)

Milvain, Thomas

Thornton, Percy M.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Morpeth, Viscount

Valentia, Viscount

Helder, Augustus

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Mount, William Arthur

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Hogg, Lindsay

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

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

Hoult, Joseph

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Houston, Robert Paterson

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hunt, Rowland

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Percy, Earl

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

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Plummer, Walter R.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wrigbtson, Sir Thomas

Kerr, John

Randles, John S.

Wylie, Alexander

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rankin, Sir James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Knowles, Sir Lees

Reid, James (Greenock)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Laurie, Lieut-General

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Young, Samuel

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Younger, William

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th.)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Lawson, Jhn. Grant (Yorks. N.R.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

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

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Robinson, Brooke

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cawley Frederick

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

Asher, Alexander

Channing, Francis Allston

Emmott, Alfred

Atherley-Jones, L.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Crean, Eugene

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Crombie, John William

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Black, Alexander William

Cullinan, J.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Boland, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Farrel, James Patrick

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Brigg, John

Delany, William

Ffrench, Peter

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Caldwell, James

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Cameron, Robert

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Flynn, James Christopher

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Doogan, P. C.

Furness, Sir Christopher

454

455

Gilhooly, James

Lundon, W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roche, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roe, Sir Thomas

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Crae, George

Rose, Charles Day

Hammond, John

M'Fadden, Edward

Russell, T. W.

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

M'Kean, John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Harwood, George

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hayden, John Patrick

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Slack, John Bamford

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

Moulton, John Fletcher

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Soares, Ernest J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. B (Northants

Horniman, Frederick John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Sullivan, Donal

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Joicey, Sir James

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

Tomkinson, James

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Dowd, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Joyce, Michael

O'Malley, William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Kilbride, Denis

Partington, Oswald

Yoxall, James Henry

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Price, Robert John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Roberts and Mr. Humphreys-Owen.

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Russell

Lloyd-George, David

Reddy, M.

Question put accordingly.
The House divided:— Ayes, 236, Noes, 120. (Division List No. 113.)

AYES.

Aird, Sir John

Chapman, Edward

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

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Charrington, Spencer

Fyler, John Arthur

Allsopp, Hon. George

Give, Captain Percy A.

Galloway, William Johnson

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

Arrol, Sir William

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

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

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H Athole

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bain, Colonel James Robert

CrippS, Charles Alfred

Graham, Henry Robert

Baird, John George Alexander

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Balcarres, Lord

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

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

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Gretton, John

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Groves, James Grimble

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gunter, Sir Robert

Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

Davenport, William Bromley

Hain, Edward

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Hambro, Charles Eric

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets

Hamilton. Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'd'nderry

Bigwood, James

Digby, John K D. Wingfield-

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Brassey, Albert

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Harwood, George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Doughty, George

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Bull, William James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Butcher, John George

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Helder, Augustus

Campbell, J. H. M.(Dublin Univ.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Carlile, William Walter

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Hogg, Lindsay

Causton, Richard Knight

Fardell, Sir T. George

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Cautley, Henry Strother

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

Hoult, Joseph

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fison, Frederick William

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Hunt, Rowland

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

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

Forster, Henry William

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Morpeth, Viscount

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Joicey, Sir James

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Mount, William Arthur

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Kerr, John

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Knowles, Sir Lees

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Thornton, Percy M.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Percy, Earl

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Pierpoint, Robert

Valentia, Viscount

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H.(Sheff'ld

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

Plummer, Walter R.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Lowe, Francis William

Pretyman, Ernest George

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Randles, John S.

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

Lyttelton, Ht. Hon. Alfred

Rankin, Sir James

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne

Maconochie, A. W.

Richards, Henry Charles

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Majendie, James A. H.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Malcolm, Ian

Robinson, Brooke

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

Manners, Lord Cecil

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

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

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Wylie, Alexander

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Younger, William

Milvain, Thomas

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Smith, H C (North'mb.Tyneside

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Asher, Alexander

Emmott, Alfred

Jordan, Jeremiah

Atherley-Jones, L.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Kilbride, Denis

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Leamy, Edmund

Black, Alexander William

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Boland, John

Farrell, James Patrick

Lewis, John Herbert

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lloyd-George, David

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Ffrench, Peter

Lundon, W.

Brigg, John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Crae, George

Caldwell, James

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Fadden, Edward

Cameron, Robert

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Cawley, Frederick

Gilhooly, James

M'Kean, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Hammond, John

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Crean, Eugene

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Moulton, John Fletcher

Crombie, John William

Harmsworth, K. Leicester

Murphy, John

Cullman, J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Delany, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Doogan, P. C.

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

458

459

O'Dowd, John

Russell, T. W.

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

O'Malley, William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Tomkinson, James

O'Mara, James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ure, Alexander

Partington, Oswald

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rea, Russell

Slack, John Bamford

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Reddy, M.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Young, Samuel

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Roche, John

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Roe, Sir Thomas

Sullivan, Donal

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr. Dalziel.

Rose, Charles Day

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

FOREIGN SHIPS (APPLICATION OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS).
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3rd May], "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire to what extent the Statutory Requirements applying to British ships trading to and from ports in the United Kingdom should be made applicable to foreign vessels trading to and from such ports."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Question again proposed.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not intend to oppose the Motion, but he thought an explanation regarding it should be given. Further, he thought the Motion was unnecessary, because the Board of Trade was in possession of all the facts for the purpose of determining what regulations should be made regarding foreign ships; and he was surprised that the Department did not introduce a Bill on its own responsibility. Not only was the Motion unnecessary, but it was inexpedient; because there was nothing from which British commerce suffered so much as investigations by the House of Commons, which were designed to hit the foreigner, and which had the effect of stimulating the foreigner against this country.
MR. O'MARAsaid that the Resolution appeared in an unusual form, because it did not contain the names of the members of the Committee. He had no objection to the inquiry, which he thought would be productive of nothing but good, especially if the members of the Committee were practical men like the hon. Member for Mid Lanark-
460
shire, who was a hard-headed Scotsman He bad heard complaints about foreign ships which were not subject to the Board of Trade regulations entering British ports. For instance, ships laden with timber from Scandinavia frequently entered British ports with immense deck loads which would not be allowed on British ships.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire to what extent the Statutory Requirements applying to British ships trading to and from ports in the United Kingdom should be made applicable to Foreign vessels trading to and from such ports.

EVENING SITTING.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  MR. BOLANDsaid that for the second time this session, by making use of the few remaining privileges of private Members, he had an opportunity of opening a discussion on a matter of great importance to Irishmen. He Laboured under a disadvantage in bringing forward the Motion which stood in his name by reason that he had not suffered under the English coercion Government. But whether they had suffered or not there remained to the Irish people a smarting sense of injustice because as a nation they were open to the operation of this law. For that reason he welcomed the opportunity of exposing once more the falsity of the contention so frequently set up by English people that Ireland was governed by the same system of law that obtained in England. The whole history of Ireland since the Union refuted that

  461
  statement. Only a few weeks previously he had been able to expose the hollowness of that contention in dealing with the system under which the law was administered with regard to what were called malicious injuries. He had been able to show that in the administration of the system a totally different procedure was followed to that of England. The only justification for the law was to be found in the contention which the Government were not able to uphold, namely, that in Ireland the people lived in a state of continuous riot. In no other way could they justify levying compensation for damage on innocent persons. Yet that was the system of law which obtained in Ireland. This was, however, a small matter compared to that to which he wished to draw attention.
  The coercion laws, of which about eighty had been passed in the last century, culminated in the monstrous Act which was still a disgrace to the Statute-book, the law of 1887. Whatever reason could be put forward for temporary legislation of exceptional character, the English people could have no justification for placing on the Statute-book a permanent Coercion Act. So long as that Act disgraced the Statute-book of England, Englishmen ought to give up their attitude of unctuous rectitude and admit that the contention that Ireland was governed by similar laws to those which obtained in England was nothing but a travesty of the truth. If the contention that this Act was necessary for Ireland was based upon the prevalence of criminality in Ireland, then he would say that over and over again that had been refuted, because Ireland had an infinitely better record in this respect than either Scotland or England. The real object the Government had in carrying through that Act was to buttress up the rotten system of landlordism in Ireland. That system had now been condemned by the Prime Minister and the House had avowed its desire that land in Ireland should revert to its rightful owners. Presumably, therefore, they rested their contention on the prevalence of agrarian offences. The total number of agrarian offences reported in Ireland in 1903 was 195, out of which
  462
  there were nineteen convictions, six cases which were made amenable to the Act, and 169 cases with regard to which there were no convictions and no one was made amenable. Of that 195 cases, eighty-three were for the offence of sending threatening letters, with regard to which there were no convictions, and forty-two for incendiary fires, with regard to which only two were made amenable, and there were no convictions. During the same year there were nine offences reported of maiming cattle, and in spite of the diligence of the police—and those living in Ireland knew on what a policeman depended for his promotion—there were no convictions. On the Third Reading of this Coercion Act, in 1887, Mr. Gladstone, whose name and whose speeches were, he thought, not sufficiently heard in this House, said—
  "The new coercion… aims at association. Association is the only weapon whereby the many and the poor can redress the inequality of their struggle with wealth, influence, power, and administrative authority."
  The chief objections that they in Ireland had to the existence of this Act were, first of all, that it abrogated the right possessed by every citizen of the British Empire of a trial by jury, and thus struck at the foundation of the freedom of the people. Secondly, they objected to the constitution of the tribunal by which the Coercion Act was administered—two magistrates chosen by the Government, paid by them, and removable by them. Thirdly, that the venue rested with the Attorney-General—of course, it might be said that there was a right of appeal, but those who were acquainted with Ireland knew that if an appeal were demanded there was very little chance of success. A new and very dangerous element had made its appearance in the last few years, which was that the police had become, not the judge of what a man who exercised the right of free speech did say, out of what that man might say. Hon. Members would remember the Kilmaine case, in which the hon. Member for East Clare was allowed by the policeman to address the meeting, but in which the Member in whose constituency the meeting was held was brutally restrained from addressing his constituents on a matter of public importance, and exercising the right of free speech. Another objection to this Act was that the Lord-Lieutenant,

  463
  probably an Englishman, or in his absence two landlords acting with others, had authority to assume the functions of Parliament by putting into operation a law in the interest of their class which should not be put into operation until this House had had an opportunity of deciding that it should be put into operation. Finally, they objected to it because it was monstrous that, by a majority of English votes in this House, people in responsible positions in Ireland should be deprived of the right of free speech. Coercion was the last result of a discredited Government. It was invariably put into operation for the reason that the Government of the day had lost the sympathy of their landlord supporters, and desired to court popularity with them. How long was this attitude to be maintained? Was it to be maintained until, the last parcel of land having reverted to its rightful owner, the reason for this Act would be gone? He urged the House to adopt a nobler policy; to free Ireland from an unmerited charge of criminality, and to rescue itself from the disgrace that attached to its toleration of an injustice.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKEseconded the Motion. The strongest argument against Home Rule on Unionist platforms was on the declaration that they would grant to Ireland every right that England enjoyed, and Lord Randolph Churchill, when he declared the policy of "similarity and simultaneity," used words that had the assent of the Cabinet. He charged hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite with having violated the professions of honour on the faith of which they secured their return to Parliament. They obtained power on those professions, and they were now displaying a perfidy which was almost unexampled in Irish politics by maintaining the Coercion Act. It was said that there was a right of appeal against sentences under the Coercion Act, but to whom did it lie? He did not for a moment dispute the fact that there had been a considerable number of cases in which sentences had been reduced and mitigated. But the fact remained that the appeal was to the County Court Judges, a number of whom
  464
  had very little legal experience, and had been appointed for partisan services they had rendered. In his opinion the House had been rather too strict with regard to criticisms on Judges. It was too soon to forget that the first thing it did after the deposition of James II. was to set itself to control the dangerous and growing power of the Judges of the realm. What was the original tribunal? A resident magistrate could be appointed, promoted, retired, or dismissed by the Lord-Lieutenant. He need have no legal qualification, and he was the only official in the three kingdoms who had it in his power to prohibit a public meeting, to command, perhaps, hundreds of armed policemen to suppress a meeting, to order them to fire upon, bayonet, or baton men, to order what arrests he might think necessary, and to sit in judgment upon those arrested. He knew absolutely nothing to compare with that in any part of the British Empire.
  It was the proud boast of English law that there was on its administration a strict separation between the judiciary and the executive—a divorce had been studiously maintained between the police who detected crime and the magistrate before whom the offender was charged, as well as between the magistrate who committed for trial and the Judge who tried the case. But it was very different in Ireland, where the resident magistrate was in the habit of dining with the local police inspector and local landlord and discussing the chances of a successful prosecution, and then entering into communication with the law officers of the Crown in Dublin as to how best the meshes of the law could be put around the accused. The right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Government, had been in repeated and continuous communication with local resident magistrates and local district inspectors with a view of entrapping his fellow Members in that House and getting them into prison. When the Coercion Act was introduced the present Leader of the House, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, had the idea that by establishing a system of awarding the degradation of hard labour he was doing a brilliant stroke of business; that men who might cheerfully submit to simple imprisonment would shrink from the

  465
  odium involved in a sentence of hard labour. But that idea had been blown into thin air, and at the present moment no man was a penny the worse, even among Unionists, for having been sentenced to hard labour. He could mention one case in which while a man was undergoing a sentence of hard labour the wife of a distinguished legal Unionist at Trinity College, at her husband's request, visited him. This proved that no social degradation attached' to Irish politicians from that cause. The Irish Executive, apart from the Crimes Act, was armed with enormous powers. There was no other part of the United Kingdom where steps could be taken with greater promptitude or with greater severity against anybody suspected of a desire to incite to crime or outrage. Formalities which were absolutely indispensable in this country were not required in Ireland. In Ireland, for instance, there was no Riot Act. Any superior policeman in charge had the right to order the men under him to fire at the people at a moment's notice. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members cried "No, no," but he knew what he was saying. He did not want their instruction.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: It looks as if you do.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKEsaid he wished hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would conduct the argument with good manners and temper. One might expect from them at least common courtesy. The fact was that in England no shot could be fired on the people even in most extreme cases until the Riot Act had been read. In Ireland there was no Riot Act or any notice or warning required. Any solicitor's clerk ought to know that. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!" and counter cries of "Mitchelstown."] He repeated that the reading of the Riot Act in Ireland was not a necessary preliminary to firing on the people. In conclusion he would advise those who thought that the Irish were an abnormally criminal people to read the horrible weekly record of immorality and ruffianism presented by the London Sunday papers. In face of those records could it be honourably contended that the Irish were an abnormally criminal people?
  466
  He would furthermore ask them to note that it was a common complaint of magistrates and police inspectors in all the large English towns that they were unable to cope with crime owing to the reluctance of the people to prosecute because of the terrorism brought to bear on them by the habitual criminals who organised those crimes. Only last Sunday there was repotted a case in which three constables arresting a couple of well-known habitual and dangerous criminals were opposed by a mob of sympathisers and almost cut to ribbons, having to fight for their lives until reinforcements came up. Why was there not a special Coercion Act to meet that state of things? He did not for a moment delude himself with the idea that he could successfully appeal against the revengeful and bitter political spirit which devoted its energies, not to providing remedies for existing evils or in improving the condition of the country, but to concerting absurd schemes to disfranchise fellow Irishmen. That was a disagreeable phenomenon of the situation which it was difficult to explain away, but he would appeal for action in the direction of increasing and enlarging the liberties of Ireland.
  It might be said that recourse was very seldom had to the Crimes Act, but surely that could not be accepted as an argument in favour of an intrinsically vicious measure. The fact remained that while they were talking about equal rights for all men they had in operation in Ireland an Act of Parliament under which, by a scratch of the pen, an official in Dublin Castle could do away with the right of trial by jury. While this country waged a great war on the ground of equal rights for all white men, here in the very heart of the British Empire they were depriving the Irish nation of the rights enjoyed by the people of England, Scotland, and Wales. The Irish Party had been treated with consistent and insistent injustice. On their own side of the water the Nationalist Members were not infrequently denounced with great bitterness because they did not, go far enough, because they were not sufficiently extreme, because they consented even to go to St. Stephen's, and because they did not relinquish the representation of Ireland to Orangemen and landlords. On the other hand they were

  467
  accused of being desperadoes secretly encouraging crime and screening the criminals. Let hon. Members opposite instead of tampering with the question of numerical Parliamentary representation, try to do something to remove the grievances which justly gave rise to these feelings of bitterness; let them seek to fulfil the pledges of their leaders and to make peace while there was yet time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the presence of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act on the Statute-book is a gross violation of the Constitution, without parallel in any other portion of His Majesty's dominions, and that the Act should be immediately repealed."—(Mr. Boland.)
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid he would be very happy to submit to any penalty the hon. Member opposite might suggest if he could point to a single section of the Crimes Act or any other Act which altered the provisions of the Riot Act as applied to Ireland. Again and again in Belfast there had been riots, generally provoked by the friends of hon. Members opposite, and in every case a Belfast magistrate had accompanied the police when the Riot Act had been read. Why the hon. Member should take it upon himself to say so authoritatively that it was within the knowledge of any solicitor's clerk in Ireland that the law there was different from the law in England in that respect he could not understand. It was scarcely necessary to say that Members from Ulster were going to oppose this Motion. He had listened in vain for any statement of glaring injustice or grievance arising out of this Act.
  MR. DELAINY: You were never on a plank bed.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I have never earned that, thank God.
  A NATIONALST MEMBER: No, you would rather go on the Front Bench.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid he was about to remark that if the hon. Members had a grievance, he did not think
  468
  they would say that Members from Ulster would be slow to back them. They had often joined hands together before on Irish grievances, and he believed they were willing to do so again; but the cardinal fact for the public to remember was that they had 1,250,000 people at home who found no grievance in this Act, who had prospered under it, who had carried on their trade under it, and who had no complaint as to prejudice to their life, liberty, or property. Surely that knocked a hole in the arguments that had been put forward about injury, injustice, and oppression to Ireland. This Act which they were now considering was one which at present, so far as he knew, was, except for one section, net in force in any part of Ireland. There might be proclaimed districts; but, if so, he did not know them. What hon. Members opposite complained of was that there were exceptional dormant powers which might be put into force by the Lord-Lieutenant in Council when exceptional circumstances arose, but not till then, and he put it to the common sense of any subject in the United Kingdom, that if exceptional circumstances in any district were unfortunately again to occur, why should they not have exceptional legislation to deal with them? He really thought hon. Members opposite were rather unreasonable. They had got the substance, and yet they would persist in straining after the shadow. This was a mere matter of administration in Ireland. He would explain what he meant by saying that hon. Members opposite had got the substance. An ex-colleague of theirs was now the highest permanent official in the Board of Agriculture. They had also an active and keen sympathiser in Sir A. MacDonnell, who was quite prepared to go their length in compensating evicted tenants who had broken the law, on the University question, and on various other topics which hon. Members had at heart. They had the whole local government representation of the country in their hands. Then in Ballinasloe a resident medical superintendent had been passed over for practically the only appointment open to him in favour of a junior who happened to belong to the predominant religion. Therefore, they

  469
  had also the substance in the Lunatic Asylums Department. A Unionist Government had given them that as part of the policy of conciliation. Then, too, hon. Members had the substance in Limerick, where Jews were not allowed—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now addressing himself to matters which are not affected by the Motion before the House.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid he had no desire to go beyond the Motion, but he understood that hon. Members opposite had been permitted to discuss the administration of the law in Plymouth and other places.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not referring to the administration of the law at all, but to various appointments.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREhoped he would be allowed to refer to the administration of the law in Limerick. The Jew in Limerick was not allowed to trade.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think this matter is relevant to the Motion.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid he had other topics, but in deference to Mr. Speaker's ruling he should not refer to the £50,000 that Waterford had got for its bridge, or to the——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite capable of understanding what I referred to. I hope he will observe my ruling.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid he would undertake not to trespass again, but, in view of the topics he desired to refer to, he could quite understand how the ruling was received with appreciation by hon. Members opposite.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a proper observation.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREdisclaimed any intention of saying anything disrespectful to the Chair. He would apologise at once; he was exceedingly sorry he should have said anything of the kind and would at once withdraw the remark. Passing from
  470
  the forbidden topics, he expressed the hope that the Government would not accede to the Motion. These were days in which it was impossible for an Ulster Unionist to foretell what the Government would do in response to a demand from the other side of the House, but he hoped that at any rate this demand would be resisted. It was true that agrarian crime, certainly of the most serious kind, had almost disappeared in Ireland. That improvement was largely due to the fixity of tenure clause in the Land Act of 1881. Moreover, intimidation and boycotting were stopped in twenty-four hours all over Ireland, not by the Crimes Act, but by the verdict of the jury in the Tallow-case, which showed that it was possible for a trader who was injured by a combination of village tyrants to make them amenable in damages. It was quite possible that there might be a recrudescence of crime in Ireland, and the Government should not throw away the power they now possessed of dealing with special circumstances. The Liberal Party when in power were afraid to repeal the Act, and they would be afraid to do so tomorrow; he hoped the present Government also would hesitate to lay down a weapon which was forged [Cries of "By Piggott"] by Parliament before the policy of concilating enemies and estranging friends was adopted in Ireland.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid the anger of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was excusable. There was no anger like the anger of a discredited place-hunter. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."] The Nationalist Members protested against an iniquitous measure of coercion being permanently inflicted upon the people of Ireland, and they appealed to the House to accept this Motion because it would create a true spirit of equality in the administration of the law. The hon. Member opposite had given them a beautiful lecture on boycotting, but he himself had impeached the hen. Member for South Belfast and was bringing him before an illegal tribunal. What was the cardinal crime committed by the hon. Member for South Belfast? His crime was that he had been caught discussing temperance with his hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone. In

  471
  the course of his lecture on boycotting the hon. Member opposite had attacked the hon. Member for South Tyrone because he was found talking to an hon. Member on the Irish Benches. Those were the tolerant Gentlemen who came to the House of Commons and lectured Nationalist Members as to their duty and gave them lessons in etiquette and respectability, and yet the hon. Member opposite could not stand up in the House without giving an exhibition of that spirit of intolerance which animated all the acts of Irish Members belonging to the Party opposite in Ireland, and which had made life in Ulster impossible for the minority there, and had caused a good deal of criminality in the Province of Ulster. In all the stormy times which had come and gone in Ireland, who ever heard of an Irish crowd breaking the windows at the house of a Protestant minister, and yet hundreds of the followers of the hon. Member for Antrin marched into the towns breaking the windows at the residences of Catholic priests and making life unbearable for Catholic citizens, thus creating an intolerable condition of things, and all this because a number of young fellows engaged in a game of hurling on Sunday, just as the Prime Minister would engage in a game of golf. And for this inoffensive citizens had their lives made intolerable, but the Chief Secretary never proposed to put the Coercion Act into force in such places. He protested against the insolence of a little knot of irreconcilable bigots controlling the Government of Ireland. Those Gentlemen had enjoyed all the power and substance, and he protested against them having the ruling power and riveting chains on the rest of Ireland. Unionists in the North of Ireland could run riot as they pleased; there was no coercion for them. And yet they talked about equality in the administration of the law in Ireland. The representatives of the Irish people called upon the Chief Secretary, who had come fresh from Ireland and from attendance upon the King, to give some proof of that better spirit towards Ireland of which so much had been heard lately, and to repeal an Act which put the stamp of criminality on Irishmen.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid a speech was made in the House of Commons the other day by the hon. Member for East Clare in which he made a remark with a great deal of sense in it. He said that when the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh got up to speak upon the Crimes Act, he knew very well what he was going to say from long experience. He pleaded guilty to that, but what he did say was that it was not his fault, but the fault of hon. Gentlemen opposite who would not leave the Crimes Act alone, but continued raising the question by Motions of the kind before the House. What was the history of the Crimes Act? Why was it introduced and why had it become the law of the land? It was not passed under a Conservative or a Unionist Government, but at a time when a Liberal Government was in power, and when the Nationalist Members stated publicly, and carried out to the full their statement, that their plan of campaign in Ireland was to make government impossible under the common law, and to make the proceedings in the House of Commons under its ordinary rules ineffective. Of course when that became clear to the Government presided over by Mr. Gladstone it was decided that the resources of civilisation had not been quite exhausted and the Crimes Act was introduced. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion said that Mr. Gladstone's speeches ought to be remembered, and he quite agreed with that remark. Mr. Gladstone said that "crime dogged the footsteps of the Land League," and that was why he brought in the Crimes Act in 1882. In 1881 there had been 4,439 agrarian crimes in Ireland, but the very next year after the passing of the Crimes Act such crimes dropped to 870, and the year after to 762. It was a descending curve. That temporary Act lapsed in 1885—[NATIONALIST cheers]—he did not know why hon. Gentlemen cheered; did they cheer crime rising or falling? In 1886 agrarian crime at once rose to 1,056. Then came the Unionist Government, who in 1887 brought in the Crimes Act which was still in force, and down went these crimes to 660, and gradually declined until, in 1903, they had fallen to 195. Hon. Gentlemen had cited a case of riot in Ulster, but he held that any breaking of the law, whether by

  473
  Protestant or Roman Catholic, should be punished. Who complained of the law? Certainly not the minority of some 1,500,000, a part of which he represented. He did not feel aggrieved because the law prevented him from intimidating his neighbour, from assaulting a sheriff or policeman, or from inciting people to acts of boycotting. The position in Ireland was not such as to warrant the Government in doing away with the Peace Preservation Act. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had given indications that the resources of their policy were by no means exhausted. The hon. Member for Waterford recently stated that Home Rule was once more becoming the deciding factor in English elections, declared that the United Irish League was as united and powerful an organisation as Ireland had had in its service, and appealed to the League to make ready for the approaching general election.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Absolutely appalling words.
  COLONEL SAUNDKRSONasked what was the Crimes Act passed for? It was originally passed because hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends and predecessors stated that unless they got Home Rule they would make law impossible in Ireland and government impossible in the House of Commons under ordinary rules. It was then a question of Home Rule, and so the Crimes Act was introduced by Mr. Gladstone under those circumstances. The Nationalist Party had since shown no sign of mollifying the asperity of their policy. They had over and over again openly declared themselves to be enemies of the Empire. Now they had an organisation which the hon. Member for Waterford said was in the most perfect condition of discipline and ready at any moment, whenever they got the opportunity, to carry out his will and the will of the Party he led. Would it be safe then to remove this obstacle which had been fatal to the progress of his policy? Changes had taken place undoubtedly in this matter. The hon. Member for South Tyrone held views quite recently very similar to his own. He did not know whether the hon. Member had changed his opinion, and whether he, was going to
  474
  support the Motion now before the House. Speaking in this House in 1895 the hon. Member said that if an outbreak of crime occurred again in Ireland and this Act were repealed outrageous criminals must escape, or the House must spend many months in passing another Act. The, hon. Member also taunted the Government for neglecting to secure fair trial by using their powers for change of venue. What the hon. Member did in 1895 was not very ancient history. In the course of his speech on that occasion he said he had more sympathy with the victims of outrages than with the scoundrels who perpetrated them. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Sheridan."] The only argument in favour of the Motion was that Ireland was in a state of profound peace. That was a solid argument, but the question which troubled his mind was what was likely to happen in the future. There was going to be a change of Government if hon. Members opposite and the Irish Party should realise their aspirations. The House of Commons spent three months in getting the Crimes Act through, believing that it was not a coercive but a protective measure. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had said that all the proclamations under the Act had been revoked, that at the present moment the Act was absolutely innocuous, but that it was wise to keep the sword in the sheath, to be brought out if required. Those words he heartily re-echoed. The Crimes Act existed at the present moment but it interfered with no one who did not, commit crime. There was peace in Ireland, but the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had adumbrated the possibility in the future of a recrudescence of those scenes which had taken place in Ireland, and when the desire to throw off the yoke of this country would bring organisations such as the Land League again into existence. It would not be sensible to repeal an Act which had only interfered with those who had claimed the right to persecute and injure their fellow-countrymen, and which had brought to Ireland immunity from crimes that had disgraced her past history. He did not believe the House of Commons would do anything of the kind. He and his friends absolutely denied the bigotry which was ascribed to

  475
  them by hon. Members opposite. They believed that the Nationalists desired the welfare of the country just as they did, but they pursued it by different roads and different methods. He and his friends believed that if the policy pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite ever attained its end it would lead to the disruption of the Empire and the ruin of Ireland.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANfelt he ought to apologise for intervening in a debate which had been so warmly Irish, but perhaps it might be expected that he should say something in behalf of those who usually acted with him on that Bench. Not that the something was really required, because they had again and again voted for Motions similar to that before the House, and they would continue to support any similar Motion until the repeal was accomplished of the Act at which the Motion was aimed. They were in a camp totally opposed to those who desired legislation of a coercive character. The hon. Member for Antrim said the Liberal Government from 1892 to 1895 did not venture to repeal the Crimes Act. It did better from its own point of view, for its hands were pretty full, and to repeal an Act of that sort against the strenuous opposition of the hon. Gentleman's friends would have occupied considerable time. That Government governed Ireland without using the Crimes Act, and thus showed that Ireland could be kept quiet by the application of the ordinary law if the people knew that the administration of the law was in reasonable and friendly hands. They had for some time come to see that coercive measures of this sort, that the whole policy of coercion, stood on a radically unsound basis. What you had got to do in a country which was liable to disturbance, such as Ireland in her history had undoubtedly shown herself to be, was to gain the confidence of the masses of the people in the administration of justice. It was not by making the law more drastic, by the adoption of exceptional measures and eccentric methods of administration, that confidence could be gained, but by making the provisions of the law and its administration as even, as regular, as open, as fair, as generous as possible.
  476
  It was by these means the sympathy and support of the masses of the population in administration of the law would be secured. That should be the object in view.
  On Friday last, in the course of a discussion upon a very reasonable proposal to do away with a flagrant injustice, as it was thought to be, in the administration of the law in Ireland, the Attorney-General for Ireland quoted a nineteen-year-old speech of his delivered in Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have vary little to do, or a very singular taste, if he spent his leisure in reading those old speeches, his own or, with few exceptions, anybody else's. But he dug up this old speech in which he had spoken of the difficulty of obtaining verdicts in Irish trials and suggested that if a reasonable alteration, of the law were made permanent the greater part of the difficulties would disappear. He was not then recommending anything exceptional or eccentric; he was recommending an extension to Ireland, as he would to England, of a simple principle of law in Scotland, that juries should return verdicts by a majority. He would not argue that question or refer to it except for the purpose of showing that he was not recommending anything he was not willing himself to undergo, for his country had lived and flourished under that law for many generations. The application of a coercive law was another matter altogether. What was it that they had in Ireland that was really the root of the whole mischief? It was that for generations there had been two political Parties contending with each other. There had been the Government and its Ministers and the officials of the law trying by any means they could to obtain verdicts, and naturally, in opposition to them, there had been a quick-witted, sensitive, and determined people trying any cunning device that they could adopt to thwart the officials of the law in then method. Which of those two contending parties was to blame? It was the administrators and the officials of the law, who had created, through many generations, this atmosphere of suspicion, and who had alienated the sympathy of a great mass of the people from the side

  477
  of the law. That he believed to be the key to the question, the root of the whole mischief, and what they ought to do was to assist in removing it. Therefore it was that he said it would be wise to take the step of throwing themselves on the ordinary law, dismissing the idea that they could ultimately do anything but mischief and bring anything but disaster by the adoption and enforcement of a drastic exceptional law. And then they would, by showing the people that they could trust the administration of justice as being impartial and fairly controlled, gradually gain that which ought to be their object, the sympathy of the people all round.
  The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had referred to a matter which was rather beyond their scope that night—namely, the question of the self-government of Ireland. That, of course, was the remedy which they would apply. [MINISTERIAL cries of "When?" "Asquith," and "Rosebery."] The path to it had been greatly facilitated by the action, not of His Majesty's Government, but of the different forms of it of which the present Government was the residuum; at all events, by the Party opposite. They had given to the mass of the Irish people the control of their local government. He did not forget what Lord Salisbury said, and said with great truth—that it would be much more dangerous to give to the mass of the people the control of their local government than the control of their larger national concerns, because they were then dealing with ordinary, small matters indeed, but which intimately affected their daily life and were the subject of jealousy and prejudice, and which would be conducted without the strong and bright light of general public opinion. That was an opinion with which lie agreed. The Party opposite having done that went further, and, whereas the most of these difficulties arose in the agrarian question, from the antagonism of landlord and tenant, they had now practically proceeded to obliterate the landlord from the face of the country. He made no complaint. So tar from that, he congratulated the Party opposite on both those steps. He admired them for having courage to take them, although his admiration was
  478
  coupled with a chuckle. He would say to them that, having gone three-fourths of the way, they had better go the other part of the way, or, at all events, prepare themselves for it. Let them advance in the direction of increasing confidence in the people and thereby obtain the confidence of the people. To do so he believed one of the first steps would be to dispense with this exceptional legislation. Let them have the courage to put away this musty, obsolete weapon—a weapon which was useless and dangerous for him who wielded it, cruel and exasperating to those upon whom it was employed, and the cause of infinite delay and disappointment to the hope of a contented and friendly Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition began by stating that he felt he owed some apology for intervening in what had been an exclusively Irish debate. Although it was obviously his duty to say what was the attitude the Government should take up, he felt that he owed almost an apology if he was to make a long speech to-night. The duel had been spirited but good-humoured, and no one who was not an Irishman and conversant with the amount of spirit which could be put into such a subject would believe that it could be carried on without the infliction of a deadly wound. It generally fell to the lot of the Chief Secretary to receive blows from both sides. The Leader of the Opposition had gone on to say that those with whom he usually acted had voted again and again for the repeal of the Crimes Act. It was quite true that the Leader of the Opposition voted for the repeal of the Crimes Act. His Party was then in power, but he took no more effective steps. And now to-night he was prepared to vote not for a Bill but for a Motion. He invited the attention of the House to the Motion which the Leader of the Opposition had suggested for their attention. Although he should speak without warrant, be should argue that they did not consider this a very important question; he ventured to say that they did not consider it very urgent. It was quite

  479
  true that in 1894–5, when the Irish Party introduced a Bill to repeal the Crimes Act, the Leader of the Opposition supported the Bill in all its stages. His Party was then in power, and he took no more effective steps, and now to-night he was prepared to vote, not for a Bill, but for a Motion. He invited the attention of the House to the contrast to which the Leader of the Opposition had invited their notice. He thought that this was the first occasion on which it was suggested that the Act should be withdrawn from the Statute-book. [Cries of "Oh" from the IRISH Benches.]
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not seriously mean to say that?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, I do.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: We have had debates for hours initiated session after session against the maintenance of the Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have been Chief Secretary for three-and-a-half years, and never during that period has a Motion been brought forward for the repeal of the Act. This year the hon. Members had been exceptionally fortunate in the ballot, and this was the eighth occasion on which it had been their privilege to invite the attention of the House to Irish questions. Not until that night had they brought the subject forward.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Surely the right hon. Gentlemen has an unpleasant reason for remembering that not only the reduction of his salary was moved on the question, but that for an hour I denounced the right hon. Gentleman as the head of a coercionist Government, and asked him to repeal the Act.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had been criticised for having put the Crimes Act into force, and there had been debates on the administration of the Act, on Irish railways, on technical instruction, on the land question, and many other Irish subjects, but this was the first time in five years they were asked to repeal the statute passed in 1887. The Leader of the Opposition went on to point out that he was in a camp totally opposed to those who
  480
  admired coercive legislation; and begged the question by inviting him to give an epitome of all the speeches made night after night in which the then Government declared that the Bill was not coercive; that it differed little, if at all, from the legal procedure in Scotland. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the action taken by the Party which he now led. He did not want to go back on the past. He was glad that the present position offered many points of difference from the past. If the right hon. Gentleman at one time desired only that juries in Ireland should return their verdicts by a majority, he did not go as far as some of those with whom he was associated in those days. This was a matter of some notoriety. The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member in the year 1886, at a time of excitement, contemplated an Act which, according to the description of Sir George Trevelyan, would have differed little, if at all, from the Act of 1887. Sir George Trevelyan, speaking at Galashiels in May, 1886, as to the intention of his Government had it remained in office to have introduced a measure similar to the Crimes Act of 1887, said—
  "In June last, Mr. Gladstone and his Cabinet determined to maintain the law in Ireland. They resolved to have a preliminary investigation on oath into undetected crime, which you have in Scotland. They resolved to have power of changing the scene of a trial from a locality where public feeling was too strong for that trial to be a fair one—a power which you have in Scotland. They resolved to call a special jury in cases of crime as a substitute for the far more potent and effective system of committing or acquitting by a majority of jurors—which you have in Scotland. They resolved to allow a summary sentence of a few months to be inflicted for crimes of violence and intimidation by two stipendiary magistrates, who answered in essential respects to your Scotch sheriffs."
  If he were speaking at any length he could make it evident to any one that, so far as Sections 3 and 4 of the Crimes Act were concerned, which provided for the change of venue and for special juries those sections did not go further than the existing law in Scotland. In Scotland, as with the Chief Secretary in Ireland, the institution of prosecutions rested with the Lord Advocate, or, in other words, with the Government. He agreed that the procedure under the Crimes Act was different from the procedure in England, but it was not

  481
  different from the procedure in Scotland, and he had yet to learn that it was one of the aims of a Chief Secretary to effect absolute similarity between the laws in England and Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had expounded the doctrine that a quick-witted and sensitive people might be expected to return a verdict not in accordance with the evidence, because they differed upon constitutional questions from the Government who instituted the prosecution.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What I said, or intended to say, was that when they find themselves treated by devices of cunning and tricks, such as the wholesale exclusion of jurors, and in many cases the change of venue, and other devices resorted to for the purpose of obtaining convictions—it is only in accordance with human nature that they should retort by devices of their own to which I alluded.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not mended his case. They were discussing the advisability of the repeal of the Crimes Act. Under that Act, by a perfectly legitimate operation copied from the procedure in Scotland, they attempted to anticipate that local feeling which put too great a strain on the conscience of the jurors by changing the venue and obtaining a special jury. That was a much more straightforward practice than asking a great number of jurors to stand aside. He joined with Lord Spencer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, and all his predecessors, on whatever side of the House they sat and whatever view they held upon the constitutional relations of the two countries, in repudiating any suggeston that the Government of Ireland pressed for verdicts unduly, or unless they believed that it was necessary to do so. In spite of the view which the right hon. Gentleman held, during the three years in which he held office he did not think it expedient to devote the time of the House to the repeal of this statute, because it would waste time, rouse angry passions, and do no good to Ireland. That was his view. He believed that the legislation they had initiated for Ireland was likely to do good to Ireland,
  482
  and that the repeal of this Act would do harm—at any rate, would arouse angry passions which, thank goodness, had been laid to rest.
  He was told that he was a member of a residual Government, but the residual Government might remain in office longer than a potential conglomerate Opposition imagined. They had a consistent policy in this matter. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, he hoped he had, very hastily, sketched his reason for holding still that this Act was no violation of the Constitution. It was different in some particulars from the procedure which prevailed in this country it was not widely dissimilar from the procedure which prevailed in Scotland. The hon. Member who introduced the Motion, in an able and eloquent speech, could not recall whether there were any proclamations in force under the Crimes Act. There were some, under Sections 3 and 4. There had been four cases only of a somewhat serious character. Trials had been held, and in three cases convictions were obtained. One of those cases took place in July last year, and he was told then that the Constitution was being violated because these persons were made amenable to the law in a place where a trial could be held without placing an undue stress upon the conscience of those in whose midst they lived. But that was a case of following in Ireland the procedure which obtained in Scotland. He agreed with his hon. and gallant friend the Member for North Armagh in this—that he had not sought the occasion for this debate; he agreed, too, that, the occasion being offered, it was very hard to speak without making the kind of speech which was made in old days. He differed, however, from his hon. and gallant friend in feeling, as he did, that there was quite a different ring in the speeches made during the present debate. There were in Ireland some two, three, or four places where some embers of past disturbance still glowed. It would be a heavy responsibility for any Government to say that all chance of those embers being fanned into flames had passed away. He would not name those places; he did not wish to advertise them; he knew that those who kept the embers of discord still glowing were acting without any support from any organisation in

  483
  Ireland, and that all those who wished the Land Act to continue its pacifying influence regretted that such discord should still prevail, insensate as it was and opposed to the hopes they all shared. On the horizon of social life in Ireland he saw no single fact which could justify him in declaring that he anticipated a recrudescence of social disorder in that country; but there was always something beyond the horizon; and he must be rash indeed if, with the bitter experience and sad disappointment of decades behind him he said that never at any time would a storm cloud sweep up again over that horizon and overshadow for a time the fair prospects they were now privileged to view. For those reasons the Government did not intend to repeal the Crimes Act in Ireland.
  MR. DELAXY: Why did you not say that the other day in Dublin?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not follow the interruption of the hon. Member. Although much had happened upon which they might congratulate themselves, he must say that the position of the Government now was exactly the position stated by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition in 1895. His right hon. friend then s lid—
  "The Crimes Act is not now in operation; long may that happy state of things continue; may Government after Government succeed each other in this country, and the tranquil course of Irish society go on as now. May the existence of the Crimes Act on the Statute-book he forgotten; but with the bitter experience of the past we should be criminally foolish if we refused to keep in repair the only instrument by which a state of disturbance can be dealt with."
  If that were not, as it was, the definite view of the Government, and if it were right because of certain conditions to accede to this Motion, would they be fostering the state of peace which existed in Ireland? He thought not. There were people living in Ireland who remembered days in which their liberty was interfered with, and who, in some cases, suffered personal loss. There were many other persons who sympathised with them and considered themselves bound to espouse their cause; and if the Government were to announce that they intended to repeal the Crimes
  484
  Act, that would not be accepted as testimony from them that times were better in Ireland. It would be taken as a declaration of a great change of policy, and that the Government held themselves absolved from a responsibility of which they could not divest themselves. Acting with a due sense of that responsibility he said that, not only would they be wrong in repealing the Crimes Act, but that if they did so the general sense of confidence which now existed in Ireland would be replaced by a general sense of timidity, and the realisation of the fair prospect now in view, which could only be attained for the good of Ireland by a steady progress, as laid down by the Land Conference, would be adjourned to another day. That was why, on the part of the Government, he refused to accept this spasmodic Motion.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that he observed a change in the character of this debate as contrasted with previous debates. The change was, he thought, largely to be found in the fact that the Nationalist Members were able to regard with more equanimity than in the past the exhibitions from parts of the House opposite such as they had had that night. He did not observe any change in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman. It was perfectly evident to him before the hon. Member for Antrim had been speaking five minutes that his object was, going as near to insult as the forms of the House permitted, to goad the Nationalist Members into some action which would precipitate a scene. He thought his colleagues and himself might congratulate themselves that they had foiled that plan by showing that even under provocation of that kind they could preserve an equanimity and calmness which must have conveyed to the House the utter indifference and contempt with which that attempt had been met. The right hon. Gentleman was ludicrously wrong if he saw in that any indication that they did not regard this question as a vitally urgent one. He was rather surprised that the Chief Secretary made the petty point that a Motion of this kind had not been moved for two years, and that no Bill had been introduced on the subject. He himself was very doubtful whether it

  485
  was wise to give notice of this Motion. The question at issue was so far-reaching, grave, and urgent that he had serious doubts whether it could be adequately discussed in a three hours sitting, and whether they would not be minimising the importance and urgency of the question by bringing in a futile Bill on a Friday. But the Nationalist, Members had shown their view of the urgency of this question in the past by impeaching the conduct of the Government by attacking the salary of the Minister in charge, and on a Motion for the reduction of that salary founding an impeachment of his conduct in his office.
  Let him say, and in this respect he spoke the views of his colleagues, that he had listened with great gratification to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. So far as that right hon. Gentleman was concerned, he never had any doubt of his view on this matter. He was glad, however, the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his view to-night frankly, and perhaps he might go further and say with what gratification he heard his further reference to self-government in Ireland. What a petty reproach it was for the Chief Secretary to make against the Leader of the Opposition that when in office he did not introduce a Bill to repeal the Coercion Act. Of course he did not. He introduced a Home Rule Bill, which would, of course, have swept away the whole of this rotten edifice and misgovernment in Ireland. The terms the right hon. Gentleman had used with reference to self-government in Ireland, would give satisfaction to all those who recognised in him a friend of the national aspirations of the Irish people. What was the defence of the Chief Secretary? It was that the Coercion Act was proposed because of an alleged state of crime and disorder in Ireland. Crime and disorder admittedly did not now exist in Ireland and had not existed for a long time. It was said that the Coercion Act was necessary in 1887 because of crime and disorder, and that it was necessary to retain it because crime and disorder might return in the future. According to that theory this was in truth and reality to be a perpetual Coercion Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary seemed to desire to mislead the House—
  486
  he did not use the phrase in any offensive sense—as to what this Coercion Act really was. An intelligent foreigner listening to the right hon. Gentleman would say what an unreasonable people the Irish were to make all this trouble about a Coercion Act which was merely a change of procedure in the law in Ireland approximating to the procedure in the law in Scotland. What a dishonest, he almost said what a ludicrous, perversion of the true facts of the case.
  What was the essential point in this Coercion Act? It was that it abrogated all over Ireland at the will of a single man the most cherished possession of the people of this country—the right of trial by jury. By the Union England deprived Ireland of her own Constitution, and she never gave Ireland the English Constitution in return. Bitter opponent as he was of English rule in Ireland, he did not hesitate to say that the British Constitution was one of the freest Constitutions in the world; and if that Constitution were in force in Ireland things in Ireland would be different; but never for one hour since the Union had Ireland had the advantage of being under the British Constitution. Every year since the Union a Coercion Act of one kind or another had been in existence which deprived Ireland of one or other of the bulwarks of the British Constitution. He regarded the Coercion Act as a permanent disability and stigma on the Irish people. He took the gravest possible view of the present Coercion Act, which had been placed as a permanent disability on the necks of the Irish people. He had no hesitation in declaring, with brutal frankness, that a law which deprived the Irish people of the right of trial by jury was a law which justified armed rebellion; and he said further that if the Irish people had the means of rebellion against the existence of that law it would be their duty to rebel. That was the view which was universally held by the Irish people. It was said the Irish people were disloyal. Give them something to be loyal for; give them the British Constitution. If he were an Englishman living under the free Constitution of England, he would be ready to die for that Constitution. But so long as Ireland was denied the rights and privileges of the British Constitution the

  487
  Government of Ireland would not deserve and would not receive the loyalty of the people of Ireland.
  He knew not what the future might have in store for them. He would welcome most eagerly the day when all serious enmity between Ireland and England disappeared. He believed honestly they were on the road towards that consummation, because with the exception of the speech of the Chief Secretary all the speeches in favour of the Coercion Act had come from that little ring of anti-Irish Irishmen who, in the words of John Bright, stood in the way of the franchise and every other right conceded to the Irish people, and had always sacrificed the rights of their country in order to maintain their own ascendancy. It was a sign of the times that the English Members had remained silent, although of course they would vote down the Motion. He thought they were advancing rapidly to the time when enmity would disappear between the countries. Local government had been given to Ireland, and the Irish people were governing themselves as wisely and well in local affairs as were the English people. The House had also passed a great Land Act: the ultimate result would be, in spite of delay and drawbacks, to abolish landlordism, which had been the cause of almost all—a great portion at any rate—of the social trouble in Ireland, and which was the greatest barrier which stood between the masses of the people and the so-called gentry of the country. The effect of such legislation undoubtedly would be that before long Englishmen would see that the wisest and safest course for them to adopt would be to trust the Irish people in large things just as they had trusted them successfully in small, and that what had changed Canada from being a country in open rebellion into a contented portion of the Empire probably would have the same effect in Ireland. But so long as this Coercion Act remained in existence, so long as every free-born Irishman felt that his dearest liberties might be taken away to-morrow at the scratch of a pen by an individual sent over to Ireland, so long England could not expect and would not receive the loyalty of the Irish people. He wished he had words at his command
  488
  to express more adequately than he had been able his sense of the importance of this question from the Irish point of view. It was not too much to say that they regarded the existence of this Coercion Act as a deprivation of their liberties and a gross insult to the whole character of their people; and as long as it was there, good-bye to the hope of better relations between England and Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that some of the Ulster Members wished to know what he was going to do, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh read an extract from a speech of his delivered ten years ago. He did not disavow that speech, but to hear his Ulster colleagues speak one would imagine that nothing had taken place since the year 1887. He saw them coming down to that House and forming a solid row when anything for the coercion of Ireland was being proposed, but he looked for them in vain when measures of appeasement and reform for Ireland were being discussed. That was a most hateful condition of affairs. Did anyone imagine that the Local Government Act could be passed without producing the present inevitable result? It had brought men together to discuss public affairs who never met in any capacity except to quarrel with each other. Agrarian crime—the only class of crime in the country, had absolutely disappeared. And of what had happened during the past week, surely he who ran might read. The King had had a triumphant progress in the South of Ireland in the most Nationalist centres. His Majesty had been received with perfect respect and perfect good feeling. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] He remembered the time when it was not so. Surely he must be a dull student who did not know what happened years ago in this respect. All this showed that the persistent action of that House in well doing had begun to tell upon the Irish people, and he believed that if they went on extending these things, turning neither to the right nor to the left from the path of strict duty, it would bring its reward, and that they would yet see a contented Irish people. It was true that there were some dark spots in Ire-

  489
  land, and the cause of them was known. But for those spots the difficulty would be entirely over. He laid on the Irish landlords the blame of keeping alive this agitation and bad feeling in the midst of an attempted solution. The only real defence offered by the Chief Secretary was that there were those spots in which a recrudescence of crime might recur if the landlords did not accept the good offer of money made them for the land. He himself was down on the system of keeping Irishmen apart, and setting them at one another's throat. He would be no party to it. There was a feeling growing up in Ireland that the interests of the country were greater than the interests of the landlords, and men were beginning to see things as they were. Two years ago, when the Coercion Act was discussed, he went out of the House without voting. He wished
  to be perfectly frank with the House. He desired to co-operate with the Irish Members in everything that was for the well-being of Ireland, and if he could get rid of those spots he should have no difficulty about the course he would take. He believed that the Land Act would be successful, but as Ions as those spots existed in Ireland where crime might be produced by the action of the landlords he was not prepared to take the remedy out of the hands of the Government. He hoped, however, that the day was not far distant when all coercive legislation would be removed from the Statute-book because it was unnecessary.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 114.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Harwood, George

  O'Malley, William

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  Bell, Richard

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Blake, Edward

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, John

  Brigg, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Leamy, Edmund

  Shackleton, David James

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crean, Eugene

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Delany, William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Crae, George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Toulmin, George

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Ure, Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Mooney, John J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Young, Samuel

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Gilhooly, James

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

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Grant, Corrie

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

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Mount, William Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

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

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Aubrey Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Percy, Earl

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Randles, John S.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Rankin, Sir James

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Renwick, George

  Bigwood, James

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Helder, Augustus

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bond, Edward

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bull, William James

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Butcher, John George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Chapman, Edward

  Kerr, John

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Keswick, William

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

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

  Kimber, Henry

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset,

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

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

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tuff, Charles

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H.(Sheff'ld

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Denny, Colonel

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

  Doughty, George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milvain, Thomas

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Moore, William

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Adjourned at thirteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.