Sitting of 7 August 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Earl of Stamford's Cheshire Estate Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; a clause added; an Amendment made.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSI- NESS).
Standing Order 33 read, and amended, in paragraph 11, by leaving out from the word "of," in line 2, to the end of the paragraph, and inserting the words "Woods, and, if the property is in England or Scotland, at the Office of the Commissioners of Works, or, if the property is in Ireland, at the Office of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."
Standing Order 43 read, and amended, by adding, at the end, the words "and, if it be intended to divert any public footpath, the course of such diversion shall be marked upon the plan."
Standing Order 84 read, and amended, in line 5, by inserting, after the word "Treasury," the words "at the Local Government Board."
Standing Order 98 read, and amended, in line 3, by leaving out the words "who shall be ex-officio Chairman thereof."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Standing Order 157a read.
Amendment proposed—
"In lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'generation of electricity for supply,' and in-
336
sert the words 'supply of electricity.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

STANDING ORDERS.
Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed. [No. 305.]
Wemyss Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
South Barracas (Buenos Ayres) Gas and Coke Company Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions) Bill; London Government Scheme (London and

337
Middlesex) Bill; Thames Conservancy Bill, without Amendment.
Trade Marks Bill; Heckmondwike Improvement Bill; Bristol Corporation Bill; Wigan Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Amendments to—Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [Lords]; Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
  Petition from South Shields, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
  Petition from South Shields, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from St. Kilda Island, for improved communication with the mainland; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LIABILITIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address February 21st; Mr. Gibson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 306.]
  CONTRACTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES (WAGES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address February 22nd; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 307.]

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY BOROUGH OF BRIGHTON).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County Borough of Brighton, altering certain Polling Dis-
  338
  tricts in the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Copy presented, of furthur Regulations relating to the Militia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of further Regulations relating to the Army Reserve [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-seventh Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1904–5, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAWNBROKERS' RETURNS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin for the year ended December 31st, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CENSUS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE, 1901.
  Copy presented, of Summary Tables and Detailed Tables for the several Colonies, etc.; Area, Houses, and Population; also Population classified by Ages, condition as to Marriage, Occupations, Birthplaces, Religions, Degrees of Education, and Infirmities [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1904–5 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (RECONSTITUTION OF THE PROVINCES OF BENGAL AND ASSAM).
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to the Reconstitution of the Provinces of Bengal and Assam [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Proceedings at the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, June 22nd, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1891).
  Copy presented, of Return of Advances under the Act during the year ended March 31st, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 308.]
  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Copy presented, of Return of the Amount payable on January 5th, 1905, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Charitable Endowments (London). Further Return relative thereto [ordered August 2nd, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 309.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster). Further Return relative thereto [ordered August 8th, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 310.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster). Further Return relative thereto [ordered August 8th, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 311.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster) and Inquiry into Charities (County Borough of Preston). Further Return and Return relative thereto [ordered August 8th, 1898, and July 26th, 1905; Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 312.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County Borough of St. Helens). Return relative thereto [ordered July 26th; Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 313.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Purchase of Farm for N. Dunlop at Mullaghslin, County Tyrone.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is
  340
  aware that the Estates Commissioners purchased for a Donegal evicted tenant, named N. Dunlop, a holding at Mullaghslin, Six-mile-cross, county Tyrone; that Dunlop, on signing the agreement, informed the Commissioners that he had not yet seen the farm, and asked that the money should not be paid till he satisfied himself the farm was as described; and that Dunlop, on getting possession, complained that the arable acreage was less than stated by the vendor, and asked the Commissioners to send an inspector to report on the matter; and will he say if the inspector's report bore out Dunlop's contention that the arable acreage, instead of being fifty-seven, was only twenty-seven, the other thirty acres incapable of cultivation; and, if Dunlop did not get the opportunity asked for, and if the farm is incapable of earning the annual instalments, will the Commissioners take the matter into consideration with the view of reducing the instalments to a reasonable figure.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I stated the facts of this case, which was one of direct sale by the landlord to the tenant, in reply to the hon. Member's. Question of 15th May. † Mr. Dunlop did not inform the Commissioners, before the holding was vested in him, that he had not seen the lands before signing the purchase agreement, nor did he ask them, prior to the advance of the purchase money, that the advance should not be made until he had satisfied himself of the vendor's description to him of the lands. Before sanctioning; the advance, the Commissioners satisfied themselves as to the security. They have no power either to reduce the advance which has been made, or to vary the purchase annuity which Dunlop contracted to pay.

  Instructional Pay for Engine - Room Artificers while teaching Boys in the Navy.
  MR. BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that since the opening of the engine room to boys the Navy engine-room artificers have been called upon to give instruction to such boys without
  † See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 270.

  341
  receiving, as is the custom in other branches of the service, instructional pay for such teaching; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to remedy this alleged grievance.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The question of granting extra pay to men employed on instructional duty in the service generally is under consideration, and in the meanwhile it has been decided to suspend the grant of fresh instructional allowances.

  Naval Lieutenants on the Supplementary List.
  MR. BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether lieutenants on the supplementary list are to be pensioned in the near future; and, if so, when; whether officers on the supplementary list are eligible for coastguard employment; and, if not, whether the Admiralty intend to offer those who are now thirty-five years of age, or thereabouts, any employment, such as in dockyards, surveying branch, or harbour service vessels.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No decision has been arrived at as regards the pensioning of these officers in the near future. Supplementary lieutenants are eligible for employment in the coastguard, for which they can be selected in the same manner as other lieutenants of the Royal Navy. Certain of these officers are employed in some of the posts mentioned.

  Wearing of Trade Union Badges by Postal Officials at Manchester
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the superintending engineer at Manchester Post Office is prohibiting his staff from wearing their union badge as a chain pendant, or displaying it on non-official clothing; and whether this action has been authorised or sanctioned.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) A rule prohibiting the wearing of private badges on uniform has for long been in force, and I am of opinion that it is desirable to apply the same rule in the case of officers who do not wear uniform, so far as regards
  342
  the wearing of badges when they are on duty. I have, of course, no objection to any Post Office employee wearing his badge off duty provided he is not in uniform.

  Enforcing of the Mürzsteg Programme
  MR. NOEL BUXTON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to enforce the Article of the Mürzsteg programme providing for the discontinuance of the formation of bands of Bashi-bazouks.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) A proclamation has been issued and communicated to the headmen of the Moslem villages stating that any Bashi-bazouks found with arms in their hands during disturbances will be tried by Court-martial, and, if found guilty, shot. In the Reports received from His Majesty's Consuls of recent encounters between the troops and the Bulgarian bands there is no mention of Bashi-bazouks, and in several cases attention is drawn to the fact that none were present.

  Condition of Returned Refugees at Adrianople.
  MR. NOEL BUXTON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information has been received from the newly-established Consulate at Adrianople, with regard to the condition of the refugees returned to that province since 1903.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) Captain Townshend's Reports give a fairly favourable account of the condition of the returned refugees. They will be included, with the other Papers which are being prepared for Parliament.

  Police as Gamekeepers, etc., at Portarlington.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police at Portarlington have been acting as caretakers and gamekeepers for the local gentry, and that Constable Guinlivan has stock grazing on the lands of a local magistrate and also engages in poaching practices; and whether he will say, as

  343
  there are two police barracks and twelve constables in Portarlington, having a population of a little over 2,000, he proposes to reduce the force in that town.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There is no foundation whatever for the statements in the first part of the Question. The police district of Portarlington comprises a large extent of country, and it is not intended at present to reduce the force there.

  Restoration of Evicted Tenants—Case of Patrick McCarthy.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the farm at Carrigfaddeen, Castle Freke, on the Carbery Estate, formerly held by Patrick McCarthy, and at present in the occupation of Arthur Deane, J.P., has been excluded from the general sale of the estate with a view of restoring the evicted tenant, who is at present a burthen on the local rates as an inmate of the Clonakilty Workhouse; whether the landlord at the time of sale offered to Deane compensation which was in excess of the value of the land; and whether the Estates Commissioners will co-operate with the landlord in endeavouring to restore the evicted tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The farm occupied by Mr. Deane is not included in the proceedings for sale. The Commissioners have no information whether the remaining facts are as stated, but they will inquire into the matter when the estate comes to be dealt with.

  Mayberry Estate, County Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any application has yet been made to the Estates Commissioners for the sale of the Mayberry Estate, county Kerry; and, if so, or in any case, have the Commissioners taken any steps to deal with the case of Mrs. John Sullivan, whose application as an evicted tenant has now been before them for some time.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No, Sir. The evicted tenants' applications
  344
  will be considered if the estate should come before the Commissioners or if they should acquire untenanted land in the neighbourhood.

  Application of Thomas Oates, of Toberory for Portion of the French Estate.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of a man named Thomas Oates, of Toberory, Castlerea, who has applied for and been refused a portion of the French Estate recently acquired by the Congested Districts Board; whether, though Thomas Oates, as the son of a tenant on the estate referred to, is a person to whom an advance for the purchase of a parcel of land may be made, he has nevertheless been told by the Estates Commissioners that his application could not be entertained unless he already held land; and what is the explanation of the action of the Estates Commissioners in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The French Estate was purchased with the object of relieving congestion in congested districts. Thomas Oates is neither a landholder nor a resident in a congested district, and the Board are therefore unable to entertain his application.

  The Irish Land Act.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, in order to facilitate the rapid sale of land in Ireland under the Land Act of 1903, he will authorise an arrangement by which the Estates Commissioners, on the completion of such sale, will convey to the landlord or his representatives a stamped certificate bearing a face value of the amount which the Government owes the owner, which could be used by him or his representatives as security to raise at a low rate of interest from banks or other financial establishments the cash required to pay off mortgages and other encumbrances.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Arrangements can, I should hope, be made whereby a certificate stating the amount of the purchase money may be

  345
  issued; but it must be remembered that under the 24th Section the claims upon the purchase money and the net residue coming to the vendor cannot be definitely and conclusively ascertained till after the purchase money is available for distribution and the land vested in the purchaser. In some cases it might be possible, during the process of investigating the title of the vendor, to ascertain many of those claims and to estimate the residue approximately, but under the most favourable circumstances it could only be an approximation. If certificates in this form can be of any use for the purpose suggested, I shall endeavour to arrange to have them issued. It must, however, be clearly understood that the Government can give no guarantee that the approximate estimate of the vendor's residue is accurate.

  Police Protection to Military while Mowing Hay on Mullingar Rifle Range.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been necessary to employ police for protection purposes while the military were engaged in mowing hay on the rifle range at Mullingar; and, if so, can he explain the reason for this proceeding.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Yes, Sir; on the application of the military authorities police patrols were sent to preserve the peace, as there was reason to apprehend that some interference with the cutting of the meadows might take place.

  Division of Grazing Farm of Gortumloe.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many complaints have been made during the last six months of offences in connection with the division of the grazing farm of Gortumloe, near Mullingar, by the Estates Commissioners; and have any prosecutions been instituted, and with what result, and for what offences.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In one case only, namely, that of firing into a house on the 20th April last. As I informed the hon. Member on Monday†
  † See (4) Debates, cl., 946.
  346
  last, the offenders in that case have not been discovered.

  Alleged Shooting Affray at Drumdoe, Boyle.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state at what hour was the first complaint made to the police as to the alleged shooting incident on the premises of Mr. Edward Cole Magenis, Drumdoe, Boyle; at what hour did the police first visit the place after the alleged occurrence; was it from the newspapers or from Mr. Magenis and his servants that the police first heard of the occurrence; did Mr. Magenis forward any written report to Sir Neville Chamberlain; and, if so, will he state its nature.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The case was reported to the police by one of Mr. Magenis's servants at four o'clock on the morning of July 12th. The police at once proceeded to the house, arriving there at 4.30. On July 20th Mr. Magenis forwarded a written report to the Inspector-General to the same effect as his subsequent letter to the Press.

  Settlement of Land Disputes in the New Hebrides.
  MR. MACONOCHIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government are aware of the dissatisfaction in Australia at the delay in the appointment of the Joint Commission for the settlement of land disputes in the New Hebrides; whether His Majesty's Government will represent the matter to the French Government with a view to an early agreement on the basis of the convention entered into between the two Governments in April, 1904; and whether, in view of the interests held by Australia in the New Hebrides, His Majesty's Government will give the Commonwealth Government a voice in the constitution of such Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) His Majesty's Government are aware that the Commonwealth Government are anxious for the early appointment of a Commission for the settlement of land claims in the New Hebrides. They have for some time past been in communication

  347
  with the French Government on the subject, and are doing their utmost to expedite the negotiations. The Commonwealth Government have already been informed that their wishes in regard to the constitution of the Commission will be borne in mind.

  Publication of MSS. of Irish Franciscans.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the nature of the MSS. in the collection of the Irish Franciscans which does not appear to come within the scope of the operations of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, and by whom was it examined; how many Celtic documents are being printed in the Report now being printed; and whether, in view of the circumstance that the calendaring of these MSS. has not been completed, the calendaring will be proceeded with.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Amongst the MSS. there exist Latin verses, legal decisions (printed), printed tracts, etc., winch do not come within the scope of the operations of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. There are also nineteen volumes of correspondence of the nineteenth century which will not be included in the volume now in the Press. The documents noticed in the present volume are in general either Latin, Italian, Spanish, or English. A few Irish documents are also included, but the exact number cannot be stated as yet.

  Finances of Paymaster-General in Dublin.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amount of the turnover of the account of the Paymaster-General in Dublin for the year ending March 31st, 1905; also the amounts invested on the same date by the Irish Land Commission, the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and the Congested Districts Board, respectively, and the annual amount of interest resulting from the investments of these three Departments respectively; and the nature of the investments, whether in trustee securities or otherwise, made by these Departments; also the rate of deposit interest and the amount of it obtained for the previous twelve months up to March 31st, 1905,
  348
  by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction on its current balances; and whether these investments are subject to audit; and, if so, by whom; and what statement of those accounts is made, and by whom.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The payments out of the accounts of the Paymaster-General in Dublin in the year ended March 31st, 1905, amounted to £5,243,004 3s. 8d. The investments held by the three Departments named on March 31st, 1905, were: Irish Land Commission (Church Temporalities Fund)—£1,284 4s. 9d. Guaranteed Land Stock; £35,000 Deposit Receipt in Bank of Ireland; total, £36,284 4s. 9d. The annual interest on these investments would amount to about £560; but the sum placed on deposit is constantly varying. The foregoing figures do not include the purchase moneys of estates awaiting distribution under the Land Purchase Acts, which are invested in trustee securities pending distribution. Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction:—£20,000 Consols; £70,837 15s. 11d. Guaranteed Land Stock; £250,000 Local Loans Stock; £70,000 Exchequer Bonds; total, £410,837 15s. 11d. These investments bear interest at the rate of £12,048 0s. 8d. a year. Congested Districts Board:—£14,225 Guaranteed Land Stock. This amount includes £5,000 permanently invested and yielding £137 10s. a year interest. The balance was temporarily invested. The dividends received on such temporary investments in 1904–5 amounted to £205 19s. 3d., besides which the Board received £40 as interest on moneys temporarily placed on deposit in the Bank of Ireland. All the investments mentioned above are in trustee securities. The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, obtains interest on the amounts lodged on deposit in the Bank of Ireland at the bank deposit rate for the time being. The amount so received by the Department in the year ended March 31st, 1905, was £2,040 10s. 4d. The accounts and investments are all subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Statements are furnished in the annual Reports of the respective Departments,

  349
  and also in the accounts annually presented to Parliament with the Comptroller and Auditor - General's Reports thereon.

  Economies Effected by Removing Law Printing to London.
  MR. LAWRENCE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what economies, if any, are expected by removing the law printing now executed in the provinces to London; whether the Treasury has obtained the opinion of local law authorities and public bodies before taking action in the matter, or otherwise consulted local convenience.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I would refer my hon. friend to my reply on the 3rd instant † to a Question upon this subject by the hon. Member for Mansfield.

  Discussion of Customs Vote—Grievances of Customs Officers.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that during the last three sessions no opportunity has arisen for discussing the Customs Vote, he would consent to the appointment of a Committee, Departmental or otherwise, to consider the complaints which are put forward by a number of Customs officers, complaints which would have been submitted to the House had opportunity offered.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Treasury has been engaged in investigating the representations of various classes of Customs officers, and in these circumstances I see no reason for adopting the suggestion of my hon. friend.

  Promotion and Salaries of Assistant Clerks (New Class).
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there are assistant clerks (new class) with an average of nine years established service, and in some cases fourteen years service, who have less than £85 per annum, while there are tradesmen after seven years in
  † See page 63.
  350
  the service of the Government and outside of it with salaries ranging from £91 to £100 per annum; and whether he is prepared to remove this cause of grievance.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The subject of the pay and position of assistant clerks has lately been most carefully considered, and I am unable to reopen the question.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the heads of Departments have been instructed to make no further recommendations for promotion of assistant clerks (new class) to the second division, although empowered to do so by the Treasury circular; and, if so, whether this accounts for the small number of such recommendations recently made for promotion.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Postmen performing Night Station and Mail Apparatus Duties at Darlington.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the allowances mentioned in his Report will be made to postmen performing night station and mail apparatus duties at Darlington.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Inquiry is being made whether the duties to which the hon. Member refers are such as to warrant the payment of special allowances.

  Postal Arrangements at Bundoran.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the scheduled time for the arrival of mails from Bundoran Junction to Bundoran is 8.45 a.m.; that it is impossible for the replies to catch the outgoing morning mail, entailing a delay of two days in replies to England and Scotland; that letters arrive at Bundoran from Sligo at 9.45 a.m. and Grange, Manorhamilton, at 10.45 a.m., but are not sent out for delivery till after the arrival of the 2.45 p.m. train, while letters from Ballyshannon, Donegal, and Balinton, which arrive at Bundoran at

  351
  4 p.m., are not delivered till the following morning; and that a letter posted at Ballyshannon, the market and banking town of, and three miles distant from, Bundoran, is not delivered till twenty-four hours after it has been posted; and whether, having regard to the inconvenience and dislocation of business transactions, and to the negotiations which have been on several occasions entered into between the postal authorities and the Great Northern Railway for an effective rail-posted service between Bundoran and Bundoran Junction and Omagh in lieu of the present horse-cars, steps will be taken to secure the amelioration of the deficiency in the postal service in those localities.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) As I informed the hon. Member on Monday last†, a recent inquiry into the postal services in this district showed that it was not practicable to effect an improvement in them. I am, however, making further inquiry, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  Protection of Scottish Fisheries.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the fact that in the early part of the year the Admiralty gunboat "Harrier" and the cruiser "Barham" were detailed for fisheries duties in Scottish waters, will he state whether either of these vessels has succeeded in detecting cases of illegal trawling; and, if so, will he state the names of the trawlers and in what waters they were detected.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) H.M.S. "Harrier" replaced H.M.S. "Jackal" at the end of January last. No convictions have been obtained in consequence of the action of the "Harrier." It is not the fact that H.M.S. "Barham" has been detailed for Scottish fishery duty.

  Defaulters on the Syre Estate, Sutherlandshire.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state how many tenants have been settled by the Congested Districts
  † See (4) Debates, cl., 907.
  352
  Board on the Syre Estate, Sutherlandshire; and what number have failed in their obligations to the Board, owing to the holdings not being sufficiently productive to admit of payment of the rentals exacted.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension as to the Syre Estate. The settlers, who are twenty-three in number, are not tenants but purchasers of their holdings; the only payment exacted is interest at Treasury rate on money actually advanced. There have been three cases of default, of which one has led to a removal of the purchaser. The hon. Member's assumption in the last part of his Question cannot be admitted.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that much of the land acquired by the Congested Districts Board at Syre, Sutherlandshire, was purchased by the Board at a price far exceeding its productive value, with the result that some of the tenants to whom holdings on the estate have been allocated are unable to obtain a sufficient return from the land to enable them to pay the rentals exacted by the Board; and whether, in view of the sums spent by these tenants in stocking their holdings, he will consider the expediency of having the value of the holdings reviewed in order that more equitable rentals may be fixed.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am not aware of the facts as stated by the hon. Member, and I can only refer him to the Answer given to his previous Question.

  Fuel, Light, and Cleaning Allowances of Schools in the Parish of Lochs, Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate it he will call the attention of the inspector of schools for the parish of Lochs to the inadequate sum of £1 10s. allowed for one year's fuel, light, and cleaning of Lemreway and other public schools in the parish of Lochs, Island of Lewis; and will he ascertain why the inspector failed to refer to this matter in his annual report.

  353
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) His Majesty's inspector in his annual reports has from time to time drawn attention to defects as regards cleaning, etc., in the various schools of the parish of Lochs, and it is inferred that when he has not done so, the provision made was, in his opinion, sufficiently satisfactory, having regard to the circumstances of the schools. The Department believe that their inspector is fully alive to his duty in the matter. No complaint has been addressed to the Department on the subject, and they do not consider it necessary to make further reference to the inspector till reasonable evidence is put before them, tending to show that in point of fact one or more of these schools are insufficiently heated, lighted, or cleaned.

  Sustar—Current Price Compared with Price previous to the Brussels Con- vention.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade how much the wholesale price of sugar has fallen in the last three months; and how to-day's prices for prompt and for future delivery compare with the average price paid previous to the Brussels Convention.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The fall in the market price of 88 per cent. beet sugar, f.o.b. Hamburg, since the beginning of May has amounted to 2s. 5¼d. per cwt. The present quotation (3rd August) for prompt delivery is 10s. 1½d. per cwt., and the latest quotations for future delivery are 9s. 3d. per cwt. for delivery in October and 9s. 1¼d. for delivery in November—December. The average price for prompt delivery for the ten years, 1892–1901, before the signature of the Brussels Convention was about 10s. 9d. per cwt.

  Conduct of Mr. M. Vos while Acting as Agent for Training Ships.
  MR. LAWRENCE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether there has been any complaint from any quarter of the manner in which Mr. M. Vos has discharged his duties as agent for certain training ships in finding employment at sea for their pupils and, if not, why has his
  354
  licence been revoked, and that without notice, whereby his living is prejudiced.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Yes, Sir. Many complaints reached the Board of Trade with regard to the manner in which Mr. Vos conducted his business under Board of Trade licences to supply boys as seamen, and, after making inquiries, the Department came to the conclusion that it was not desirable that he should continue to act as licensee, and the licences were accordingly withdrawn.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the withdrawal of the licence by the Board of Trade from Mr. Maurice Vos, shipping superintendent of the Father Berry's Homes and other Liverpool institutions; whether, seeing that Mr. Vos has been instrumental in placing hundreds of poor orphan boys in a way of earning an honest living as sailor apprentices on various merchant ships, he will state the reason which called for the withdrawal of the licence from that gentleman.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Yes, Sir. Many complaints reached the Board of Trade with regard to the manner in which Mr. Vos conducted his business under Board of Trade licences to supply boys as seamen, and, after making inquiries, the Department came to the conclusion that it was not desirable that he should continue to act as a licensee, and the licences were accordingly withdrawn.

  Additional Land for Tenants of Labourers' Cottages in the Granard Urban District.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can indicate any section of the Labourers Acts by which tenants of labourers' cottages in Granard urban district can secure the additional half-acre of land to which they would be entitled if the tenants were still living in a rural district.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) None of the sections of the Labourers Acts

  355
  apply to urban districts or houses situate within them.

  Royal Commission on Working of Motor-Car Acts.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can yet state the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Motor-Cars, and the names of the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Royal Commission will be appointed to inquire and report as to—(1) The working of the Motor-Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, and of the regulations under them; (2) The law and practice in relation to motor-cars in the principal foreign countries; (3) What Amendments, if any, should be made in the Motor-Car Acts, and the regulations under them; (4) The injury to the roads alleged to be caused by motor-cars; and (5) Whether any and, if so, what additional charges should be imposed in respect of motor-cars, and how any money thus raised should be applied; with power to issue an ad interim Report on the first three heads, if that course should appear desirable. The King has been pleased to approve of the following as Commissioners:—Viscount Selby, Chairman; the Marquess of Winchester (Chairman of the County Council for Hants); Sir William Bower Forwood (late Lord Mayor of Liverpool and Chairman of the Lancashire Quarter Sessions); Mr. H. C. Monro, C.B. (one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Local Government Board); Mr. E. R. Henry, C.B. (Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police); and Mr. W. J. Mure, C.B. (formerly Legal Secretary to the Lord-Advocate). It is proposed to add to these a seventh Commissioner, whose name I hope shortly to be able to announce.

  Nursing of Sick Poor in Workhouses.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Order which he has announced to be in preparation with regard to the nursing of the sick poor in workhouses may be expected to be issued before the end of the current year.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I hope that this may be done.

  Fatal Accident to Member of Crew of H.M.S. "Melampus" at Athlone— Compensation for Relatives.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the Admiralty has been directed to the case of a man named Gilleran, of H.M.S. "Melampus," who was killed at Athlone Railway Station in January, 1903, in an effort to save the life, of a fellow sailor belonging to the same ship; whether the deceased had spent three years five months in the service of the Navy, and had always borne a good character; and, if so, whether his father will receive any compensation for his loss.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Question probably refers to the case of Private T. Gillarian, R.M.L.I., who was killed at Athlone Railway Station on the 13th January, 1904, while on his way to rejoin the "Melampus" from his Christmas leave. The facts of the case do not appear to have been accurately represented to the hon. Member. From the official report it appears that Gillarian and a stoker from the same ship, both under the influence of drink, caught hold of each other and fell off the platform together just as an incoming train was within a few yards of them. The engine passed over Gillarian's neck, but the other man escaped with a slight cut on the face. In the circumstances of the man's death I regret that no compensation can be granted by the Admiralty.

  Promotion of Gunner Warrant Officers in the Navy.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that many gunner warrant officers with over twenty years service as such are still awaiting their step in promotion to chief gunner, the Admiralty will consider the advisability of quickening the flow of promotion by at once filling the ten unappropriated positions of lieutenant remaining of the total of 100 established in 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) There are only thirteen gunner warrant officers with twenty years service as such and satisfactory records who are awaiting promotion to the rank of chief gunner, the senior of them having only twenty and one-third years service. Owing to

  357
  the increase in the gunners' list, a longer period of service will in future be necessary before promotion, and the time does not seem to be ripe for filling the ten posts in question, especially as there are no appointments which the additional lieutenants, if made, could fill.

  Promotion of Warrant Officers in the Navy.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the number of

  1903.

  1905.

  Percentage of Lieutenants to Chief Gunners

  4

  3·77

  Percentage of Lieutenants to Gunners

  Percentage of Lieutenants to Chief Boatswains

  3·92

  4·1

  Percentage of Lieutenants to Boatswains

  Percentage of Lieutenants to Chief Signal Boatswains

  5·66

  4·47

  Percentage of Lieutenants to Signal Boatswains

  Percentage of Carpenter Lieutenants to Chief Carpenters

  3·93

  3·46

  Percentage of Carpenter Lieutenants of Carpenters

  The number allotted to each class in 1903 was based on the combined number in commissioned warrant and warrant rank, and not on the former only. It was desired that the percentage in each class should be as near four as possible, and this is still kept in view. To explain the high percentage allotted to the signal branch it must be pointed out that, as only three lieutenants are allowed, a reduction of one would bring the percentage below three.

  Sale of Obsolete War Vessels.
  MR. CREMER: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of war vessels which were recently condemned by the Admiralty as useless or obsolete; and how many of them have been disposed of, and the total amount which has been realised by their sale.
  lieutenants promoted from the chief gunners', chief boatswains', and chief carpenters' lists stands in the same proportion to each of these classes as when the promotion took place in 1903; and whether the percentage proportion then established is being and will continue to be maintained.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The percentages are as follows:—
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I must refer him to the Return of Vessels Struck Off the Effective List, issued in March last, No. 74 (1). The number of ships sold up to the present time is fifty-eight, and the total amount realised £250,812.

  Sugar Beet Cultivation Experiments in England.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what progress has been made with the inquiry into the practical value of growing sugar beet in this country as a commercial product for manufacture into sugar; what number of factories, and where situated, are producing sugar from English-grown beet, and with what success; and what price does sugar so turned out realise.

  359
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) So far as I am aware, no factories in Great Britain have as yet been established for the extraction of sugar from English-grown beet, but I am informed that the subject is under consideration in more than one quarter, from which the capital required for the purpose may possibly be forthcoming. I do not think that we can carry our own inquiries any further until the feasibility of the proposal has been tested on a commercial basis.

  Conference on Morocco—Prison Reform.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed conference on Morocco will be held in the near future; and, if so, whether the question of prison reform will be brought under consideration.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The date of the conference is not yet fixed, and the programme of the subjects to be discussed is still under consideration.

  Inadequate Fines for Breaches of the Factory Act.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the observations of several of His Majesty's inspectors of factories, including the chief inspector, upon the inadequate nature of the fines imposed by many benches of magistrates in respect of offences under the Factory Acts; and whether he can see his way to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am aware of the observations of the inspectors on this subject which appear in the annual Report that has recently been submitted to me by the Chief Inspector of Factories and has been laid before Parliament. I agree that in some cases the penalties imposed appear to be inadequate, but the amount of the penalty, subject in certain instances to a statutory minimum, is left by the Factory Act to the discretion of the justices, and I do not think that there is any action I can usefully take in the matter.
  360
  I may add that there has been a gradual rise in recent years in the average amount of the penalties imposed under the Factory Act; the average fine in the year 1903 having been 19s. 6d., as against 12s. 1d. in 1896.

  Suggested Appointment of Two Irish- women as Factory Inspectors for Ireland.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now prepared favourably to consider the appointment of two women inspectors of factories and workshops who shall be Irishwomen and reside permanently in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have recently appointed an additional lady inspector who is to reside in Ireland and to give most of her time to inspection there. It is not proposed to appoint more than one lady inspector for this purpose.

  Committee to Consider the Allowances of the Subordinate Services of the Government of India
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in regard to the Committee recently appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. R. M. Dane, to consider the question of revising the allowances of the subordinate services of the Government of India, he will state the terms of reference; and whether Papers can be laid with reference to the subject-matter and scope of this inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have no information as to the terms of reference to the Committee mentioned in the hon. Member's Question, which appears to have been appointed to consider the allowances of the employees in the secretariats of the Government of India. It was within the competence of the Governor - General to enter upon such an inquiry, without reference to me, as an ordinary measure of administration, and I do not think it necessary to ask for the Papers for submission to Parliament.

  Interest on Credit Balances of Irish Development Grant.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has yet come to any decision regarding the obtaining of interest on the credit balances of the Irish Development Grant and on the credit balances of any other public Departments in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The residue of the Development Grant in any financial year, after payment of the statutory charges, forms part of the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund, and it is not practicable to ascertain until the end of the year whether any portion of the residue will be required to satisfy claims against the Guarantee Fund. During that period the residue is not available for deposit in an interest-bearing account. The Treasury Regulations, under Section 1 of the Development Grant Act, 1903, provide for the temporary investment in approved securities of such portion of the unexpended balances of the Grant from previous years as the Lord-Lieutenant, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine. I am communicating with the Treasury in the matter. With regard to the concluding inquiry, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Gentleman's Question of Tuesday † last by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

  Application for Sale of Farm of Toney- more, Granard, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any application has yet been received from either the tenant or the landlord of the farm of Toneymore, barony of Granard, county Longford, for sale under the Land Purchase Act of 1903, the landlord of which, Mr. Shirley Ball, is understood to be willing to sell to the Estates Commissioners for sub-division amongst the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Answer is in the negative.
  † See (4) Debates, cl., 1176.

  Purchase of Holdings on the Netterville Estate, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say how many tenants on the Netterville Estate, county Galway, who have purchased their holdings are in possession of uneconomic farms; in how many cases did the gross purchase money not exceed £150; and whether, seeing that these holdings practically surround the Woodbrook Farm, recently purchased by the Congested Districts Board, the Board, in striping these lands, will take into consideration the claims of the Netterville tenants to increased holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The purchase money of the nine holdings on the Netterville Estate which have been sold to tenants by the Board averages £271 for each holding. In every case the purchase money exceeded £150. These holdings do not surround the Woodbrook Farm; and no proceedings for the sale of the remainder of the Netterville Estate have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners.

  Catholic Clerks in the Irish Board of Agriculture (Veterinary Branch).
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since it has been represented that the Irish Agricultural Department is competent to deal with matters affecting its internal discipline, he will state what steps he proposes taking to prevent the chief clerk from repeating his attempt to induce one of the Catholic clerks engaged in the veterinary branch to withdraw his signature to the joint representations addressed to the Secretary in May, 1904, by certain clerks serving in that branch.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This incident was fully dealt with in the reply to the hon. Member's Question of 1st March last.‡
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxlii., 27.

  Suggested Extension of Irish Marine Works Act to Districts outside the Con- gested Areas.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a number of resolutions within the last few days from county councils, harbour boards, and public meetings in Ireland, requesting the Government to pass the Bill now before the House to extend the Marine Works (Ireland) Act to districts outside the congested districts; and if, in view of the fact that nobody opposes this Bill, the Government will take it up and pass it before the House rises.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am afraid that the hon. Baronet is hardly correct in suggesting that this Bill, which proposes fresh demands on the Exchequer, is unopposed. But even if no such objection applied, the Government at the present period of the session could not undertake to give facilities for the passage of the Bill.

  Payment of Fees for Teaching Irish in National Schools.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the fees for teaching Irish in national schools, examined in June, will be paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The payments will be completed next week.

  Delay in Forwarding Minute of the Inspector's Report to Irish National School Managers.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of the delay of four months in forwarding to the managers of national schools the minute of the inspector's report on the annual inspection.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is only in very exceptional circumstances that any such delay would occur. If the hon. Member will furnish me with information which will identify the case to which he refers inquiry will be made.

  Promotion of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the 1,500 intergrade teachers under the National Board remain to be promoted in each grade; when the next promotion will take place; and whether the promotion will date from 1st April, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is impossible to say how many teachers are eligible for promotion. Eligible teachers are promoted annually. The Answer to the last inquiry is in the negative.

  Convicted Chinese Coolies Employed on Penal Labour in Transvaal Mines.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether Chinese coolies in the Transvaal convicted of offences are employed on penal labour in the mines, as is the case with Kaffir convicts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.): I have no information on this point.

  Position of Pensioned Officers Recalled to Service during the South African War.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can take steps with a view to ensuring that pensioned officers who were recalled to service during the South African War shall be placed on the same footing financially as those officers who had accepted a gratuity in lieu of pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) This question was thoroughly considered two years ago, and I am not prepared to reopen it.

  Volunteer Long-Service Medal—Claim of Mr. J. Gibbs, of Cable Street, St. George's East.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that Mr. J. Gibbs, of Cable Street, St. George's East, served upwards of

  365
  twenty years in the 2nd Tower Hamlets Rifle Volunteers before he was transferred to the 1st City Imperial Yeomanry, would an application for the Volunteer long - service medal receive favourable consideration if supported by the commanding officer of Mr. Gibbs' regiment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I cannot undertake to give a reply to the Question until the application has been forwarded to the War Office through the proper channels.

  Episcopal Patronage.
  MR. LAWRENCE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact of the unequal episcopal patronage accruing to new dioceses formed under the Bishoprics Act, 1878; whether he is aware that the Liverpool Diocese with 410 clergy when created had assigned it only eight livings, while that of Chester with 407 clergy was left with sixty-four, in addition to fourteen belonging to the chapter of Chester Cathedral; whether the powers of the Act 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 77, which arranged episcopal patronage according to the magnitude of the diocese, are long since exhausted; whether he will permit of a Return being issued showing the present state of episcopal and capitular patronage in each diocese; and whether, having regard to the desirability of giving fairly equal chances of promotion to the clergy generally, he will consider the propriety of legislation following on the lines of 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 77.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) My attention has been called to the fact referred to, and while I have very inadequate means of verifying the figures quoted by my hon. friend, I believe them to be substantially correct. It is also the case that the powers conferred by the Act 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 77, are long since exhausted. There appears to be no objection to the issue of the Return suggested by my hon. friend, if he desires to move for it; but it may be observed that the information is
  366
  already available in unofficial publications. Although the subject is worthy of consideration, I can hardly promise legislation.

  False Electioneering Statements.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBERLAYNE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of proposing legislation which would make the publication or utterance of false statements at election times with regard to the actions or alleged intentions of any political Party, and with the object of deceiving the electors, a penal offence.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Act of 1895 (The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1895) makes it an illegal practice to publish false statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate. It is evidently not easy to go further, if only because of the difficulty of distinguishing between the mis-statements which are due to malice and those which are due to mere stupidity.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Vote for Naval Guns, Projectiles, and Ammunition.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can explain to the House the reduction of the Vote for naval guns, projectiles, and ammunition, and the extent to which it is disconnected from the reduction of new shipbuilding; and whether, in spite of the reduction of the Vote, it is intended to increase practice with full charges.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYIVIAN,): Under Sub-head F (Guns), the Estimates for 1904–5 included an abnormal expenditure for payments for guns purchased with the "Swiftsure" and "Triumph." The sum available for normal services in that year was, therefore,

  367
  approximately the same as the amount voted for 1905–6, there being a reduction on normal services of only £9,000, which is due to the amount required for rearmaments in 1905–6 being less than in 1904–5. The decrease under Sub-head C (Ammunition) is due to surrenders of ammunition by ships removed from the Effective List, which becomes available for practice of the Fleet, etc. The Answer to the concluding paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative, and the money taken provides for the increased practice with full charges (battle practice).

  Corporal Punishment in the Navy.
  *MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will, by the institution of a Departmental Committee, or in some other way, take steps to present to Parliament and the country the actual facts relating to the imposition and infliction of corporal punishment in the Royal Navy.
  MR. PRETYMAN: No. The facts are well known, and have been repeatedly stated in this House.
  *MR. HUNTasked how it was that if there was the slightest suspicion of illegal flogging of the Chinese, that the Colonial Secretary at once set to work to find out if there was any truth in it, whilst the Secretary to the Admiralty would do nothing to make sure that British boys under eighteen years of age did not suffer from ill-treatment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Seeing that the number of birchings is given, why cannot we have the number of canings returned? Is it not the fact that they are computed at 10,000 a year?
  MR. PRETYMAN: I do not think so.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will you, as a matter of fact, say if the number can be given?
  MR. PRETYMAN: They are included in the minor punishments.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Being of every-day occurrence.

  Boys Recruited in Ireland for the Navy.
  *MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the number of boys recruited for the Royal Navy from Ireland during the years 1903 and 1904.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The boys recruited for the Royal Navy in Ireland in the financial years 1903–4 and 1904–5 numbered 232 and 139, respectively.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: How many did the "Calliope" get? Not half-a-dozen.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Effect of Flogging on Recruiting for the Navy.
  *MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any official reports showing that the use of corporal punishment in the Royal Navy has had a deterrent effect upon the enlisting of boys in the service.
  MR. PRETYMAN: No, Sir. The number of candidates is far in excess of requirements.

  Corporal Punishment in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty on what ground is the provision in No. 759 of the King's Naval Regulations, entitled Birching and Caning of Boys, whereby drummers under the age of eighteen may be caned but not birched, founded; and why is this exemption from birching thus conferred on drummers not extended to all the boys rated as such in the Royal Navy.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The rule is one of long standing, and was confirmed by the Board as long ago as in 1878.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why are drummer boys exempted and A.B.'s, and men in the Engineering Branch not?
  MR. PRETYMAN: The Marines, I believe, come under the Army Act, and the others are under the Naval Discipline Act.
  MR. BRIGHT: Cannot the hon. Gentleman take steps to

  369
  put a stop to the brutal practice of flogging in the Navy?
  MR. PRETYMAN: I absolutely deny, as I have done many times before, that there is any brutal practice. The hon. Member, in making that statement, is throwing an undeserved slur on the officers of the Navy. I ask him and his friends to produce any single case where there has been brutal treatment, and it will be investigated.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I have produced dozens.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Until the hon. Gentleman and his friends are able to produce such a case I think they have no right to make these statements.
  MR. BRIGHT: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he did not himself say that a boy who had corporal punishment inflicted upon him had to be put under surveillance for fear that in an outbreak of temper he might commit suicide?
  MR. PRETYMAN: No, Sir; that is a specimen of the way in which statements made in this House are perverted; and I dare say very often outside this House, where it cannot be contradicted. What I said was, that the boy was examined by the doctor both before and after punishment as a precautionary measure; and that it was thought better while he was smarting under the irritation of punishment that he should be kept to himself so that he should not commit himself.

  Nature of the Birching in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there has been any change or modification of No. 759 of the King's Naval Regulations which provides that the birching of boys in the Royal Navy is to be inflicted with birches supplied from the dockyards, is to be given over the bare breech, is limited to twenty-four cuts or blows, and is to be inflicted by the ship's police in the presence of all the boys; and whether, if this regulation is still unchanged, what are the steps which, if taken, would secure its change or modification.
  MR. PRETYMAN: No change has been made in the regulations. I should
  370
  say, from my own observation, that the hon. Member is a better authority than I am as to the last part of the Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am not going to do your duty.
  AN HON. MEMBER: You are not paid to.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Thank God I am not. But what steps can I take to procure a change. I am entitled to an Answer to that.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has said no change is proposed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But I want to know what steps I am to take to procure a change.

  No Flogging in the French Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that boys who are drafted on board French ships of war between sixteen and eighteen are technically rated as men, and are not subject to flogging, he can explain why in the British Navy youths of sixteen to eighteen, who are rated as boys, are liable to flogging and caning.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The reason is that the regulations of the two services are different.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What do the French naval officers think of us?

  Sales of Obsolete War Vessels.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many obsolete warships have been sold to foreigners and been taken abroad to be broken up; and whether he will arrange to have such ships broken up at home in future, so as to help in providing work for those who are being dismissed from His Majesty's dockyards.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Out of fifty-six ships recently sold, twenty-two are being, or will be, broken up in the United Kingdom. Ten, which were sold to

  371
  London merchants, are being, or probably will be, broken up abroad. To impose the condition suggested in the last part of the hon. Member's Question would greatly limit the competition, and, where so many ships have to be disposed of, would have a prejudicial effect on the prices realised. It was recently decided to grant special terms to secure certain ships being broken up in England.

  Volunteers and Service Abroad.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General what statutory authority is vested in the Government to order Volunteers enlisted for home defence to be medically examined for service abroad.
  *THE SECERTARY or STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FOESTER,), who replied, said: So far as I am aware there is no such statutory provision. But as no such order has been issued the question does not arise.
  MR. LAMBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman not ordered that the Volunteers should be examined for service abroad?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No such order was issued.
  MR. LAMBERT: Why, the order was issued only the other day.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No order, but a circular has been issued. The circular was to this effect:—"Medical officers are to report on the general physical standard of the men under their charge, with a view to ascertaining their fitness for active service abroad."
  MR. LAMBERT: Is not that an order?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. It is not an order, and there was no order to carry out this medical examination. There may possibly be units of the individuals who do not desire to submit to it. The circular still remains, and if the medical officers do not get
  372
  these facilities they will report as completely as they can, upon the best information obtainable.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether commanding officers of Volunteer battalions have power to expel, reduce in rank, or otherwise punish any Volunteer who refuses to submit to the medical inspection as to fitness for foreign service prescribed by the War Office circular letter of the 11th July, 1905.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACS: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the commanding officer of a Volunteer battalion which is in brigade camp with Regular troops, and thus subject to military law, will, have power to arrest or imprison, or disgrace or punish any Volunteer who refuses to submit to the medical examination prescribed by the War Office circular letter of the 11th July, 1905.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have already replied to the hon. Member's first Question in my Answer to the hon. Member for the South Molton Division. In reply to the second Question, I do not desire to put a limit to what might be the powers of an officer commanding troops under military law; but no such order as that suggested by the hon. Member has been given to Volunteers under military law, nor will it be given.
  MAJOR SEELY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state as a fact that any Volunteers have been ordered to be examined under the order?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Many Volunteer corps have, under the orders of commanding officers, submitted to this examination, to the great advantage of the public service. As I have already stated, this is not an order issued by the War Office, but it has been found by commanding officers a most convenient method of obtaining this information.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Can the right hon. Gentleman

  373
  state what Las been the result of the examinations referred to?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have not as yet any official report, but the examination has been very satisfactory in the case of those corps which have carried it out.

  Royal Army Medical Corps.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to form a reserve of officers to the Royal Army Medical Corps.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The question, of whether it may be possible to form a reserve has been under consideration, but no decision has yet been arrived at.
  DR. THOMPSON: Have not the Advisory Board strongly recommended it?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir. There is general agreement as to the desirability of forming a reserve, but both at the Admiralty and the War Office difficulties have been found from a professional point of view in carrying out the suggestion.

  The Shortage of Officers.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is, in the event of war, the present shortage o officers in the Regular Army, Militia, and Volunteers; whether candidates for commissions have decreased recently; and if so, what steps are being taken by the Government to remedy such shortage.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The number of officers which would be required in the event of a war must depend upon the magnitude of the war in which it is supposed that we are engaged; under these circumstances, only hypothetical figures could be given and these would be liable to misconstruction. The number of candidates for commissions in the Regular Army has not diminished, except as regards those desiring commissions in the Guards and the cavalry. A temporary arrangement has been made to fill the Guards vacancies, and the question of
  374
  supplying officers for the cavalry is now receiving the attention of the Army Council. The Army Council is desirous of increasing; the number of candidates who enter the Army, but this has hitherto been found impossible, owing to the want of accommodation at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst; when funds are available for adding to the capacity of the college it is hoped that this difficulty may be surmounted. I may add that we have made special arrangements for obtaining additional candidates from the University.

  Soldiers' Convalescent Home at Skelton.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the convalescent home for soldiers at Skelton, near Saltburn-on-Sea, provided and kept up entirely by Mr. W. H. H. Wharton, is likely to be given up because the War Office authorities are unwilling to pay the railway fares of soldiers going to and from the home; and whether he proposes to take any, and, if any, what steps in the matter.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. War Office authority was granted on the 29th June to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, York, to issue railway warrants at the public expense to soldiers who are convalescent and require change, on proceeding to Colonel Wharton's home at Saltburn, provided that the total expenditure of £25 previously sanctioned for sending convalescent soldiers to Tynemouth and Scarborough is not exceeded. Nothing is known as regards the suggestion that the home is to be given up.

  Guards on Sentry Duty.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the Guards stationed at Windsor are not provided with the same protection to their tunics when on sentry as are the Line regiments, with the result that the tunics of the Guards get soiled and that they have to buy new ones out of their own money.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not clear to what my hon. friend refers in the word "protection." The shoulder pad

  375
  was abolished throughout the service in 1903. I may add that the Guards receive a tunic annually and Line regiments every eighteen months.

  Attendance at Afternoon Parades of Non - Commissioned Officers in the Guards stationed at Windsor.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why double the number of non-commissioned officers in the Guards regiments stationed at Windsor have to attend afternoon parades as can have practice in drilling the men; and whether, seeing that such regulation deters good soldiers from desiring to become non-commissioned officers, and that trained private soldiers do not have to attend afternoon parades, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing this regulation.
  *MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: These matters rest within the discretion of the officer commanding the battalion, with which I do not propose to interfere.

  Guards' Summer Uniform.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the Guards regiments are obliged to wear in summer heavy cloth tunics, with crossbelts and pouches, a knapsack across the back of the shoulders, with a rolled cape lower down, and a heavy bearskin cap; if he will consider the possibility of substituting a lighter material for the dress tunic and do away with the other appendages, and change the bearskin cap for a white Kitchener helmet; and if he has received any complaints of the inconvenience and discomfort caused by the use of this uniform in hot weather.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not considered necessary to make any alterations in the existing uniform of the Guards; which has been worn by them for many years during the summer months without complaint. No knapsack is carried by the Guards, and the valise was abolished in July, 1904. On guard duty the men composing the firs relief carry great-coat, cape, two pouches,
  376
  One pouch only is worn after the first relief.

  Army Medical Establishment.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is a properly-trained medical establishment for the balance of any Army exceeding 55,000 men taking the field abroad.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The war establishments of the Army provide for a considerable portion of the medical staff being civilians. As the numbers of the latter available on mobilisation have not been determined on, it would not be practicable to give the hon. Member any precise figures on the subject.
  I may add that the Army Council is aware that the strength of the Royal Army Medical Corps is not yet adequate, and are making every endeavour to increase it.
  MR. LAMBERT: Is it not the fact that j if an Army exceeding 55,000 men went abroad, there would be no properly-trained medical service for them?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is not so. Experience in the last war showed that we could rely on a large number of very highly-trained medical officers.
  MR. LAMBERT: Civilian officers?
  *MR. ARNOLD - FORSTEE: Very highly - trained and highly - competent civilian officers.

  Conscription.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any recommendation from the late Commander-in-Chief in favour of conscription.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir.

  British Control in the Administration of Egypt.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's present advisers share the views

  377
  of Earl Granville and the Earl of Rosebery, as expressed in their despatches of 1884 and 1893, respectively, that, so long as the British occupation of Egypt continues, His Majesty's Government is responsible for the maintenance of law, order, and good government in that country; and whether it is by reason of such responsibility, or upon any other ground, Egyptian affairs are being administered by Lord Cromer under the direction of His Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The administration of the country is conducted by the Khedive and his Ministers with the advice and under the supervision of Lord Cromer as the responsible representative of His Majesty's Government.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Arising out of that Answer, I beg to ask whether Egyptian Ministers are bound to accept; such advice on pain of dismissal from their offices. I specially allude to Lord Cromer's advice to remit the salt tax.
  EARL PERCY: The Egyptian Government are under an obligation to follow the advice of Lord Cromer.

  Shoreditch Inquest—Case of Annie Higgs.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an inquest, held at Shoreditch on the 25th of July, on the body of Annie Higgs, a middle-aged widow, and to the fact that her husband had died in November last, leaving her with three children (girls) to maintain; that at first out-relief was given her, but was stopped on her eldest child attaining the age of fourteen; that the coroner's officer stated that he found the room in which the woman and her children lived very clean, but there was neither food nor money there, and very little furniture; and that the medical officer deposed that death was due to heart failure, resulting from general
  378
  bodily weakness from want of food and heart disease, and that she had had no food recently, the stomach and bowels being empty; and whether he will inquire who is responsible for this widow being thus left to starve to death.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,). My attention has been drawn to the circumstances of the Case referred to, and I am making inquiry on the subject.

  Epizootic Lymphangitis.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the several places in which South African horse disease has been and is at present in Great Britain; the precautions taken to prevent the disease spreading, including the number of military and private establishments quarantined, and shows and race meetings stopped because of its prevalence.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES,): Seventeen outbreaks of epizootic lymphangitis have been reported from the following places—namely, London (3), Hampshire (3), Hertfordshire (2), Essex (2), Kent, Nottingham, Stafford, Suffolk, Surrey, Wilts, and Lanark (1) each. All animals returned as affected have been disposed of, either by slaughter or otherwise, and no case of the disease is now known to exist amongst civilian horses. The precautions to be taken to prevent the spread of the disease are set out in the Epizootic Lymphangitis Order of 1904, a copy of which I shall be glad to send to the hon. Member. It has not been necessary for us to interfere in any way with the holding of horse shows or race meetings. Any question as to the existence of this disease in military establishments should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War.

  Cotton Goods sold as Linen.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been

  379
  called to the remarks made by the stipendiary at Salford, on the hearing of a prosecution instituted by the Flax Spinners' Association of Belfast for the sale of cotton collars as linen; and whether, having regard to the judgment of the Court in the case of Coppen v. Moore, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what steps to prevent the custom now prevalent of selling cotton goods as linen.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAE LAW,): I have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to. The Board of Trade are prepared to consider, with a view to prosecution, any specific case of infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which is submitted under the regulations which govern prosecutions.

  Printing and Stationery for County Courts.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that for many years County Courts have been able to get their forms printed locally; and, having regard to the competition to which master printers and compositors throughout the provinces are now subjected from foreign countries, if he will cause the recent circular of the Stationery Office to registrars withdrawing the local custom in favour of a central issue in London to be reconsidered.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): Under the new system local firms will have opportunities for tendering for the supply of stationery and printing for County Courts.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department has his attention been drawn to a circular addressed by the Treasury to the registrars of County Courts, informing them that all printed forms will henceforth be printed and supplied by the Controller of the Stationery Office; and will he state what grounds exist justifying, in his opinion, a change in the present system
  380
  which deprives the printing trade in the different County Court districts of a substantial portion of work.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply on the 3rd instant † to the Question of the hon. Member for Mansfield upon this subject.

  Moy Murder Case.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Donegal, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has had his attention called to the case of Rex v. McMullen, in which the accused was charged with the murder of one Daniel Mallon, near Moy, county Tyrone, in November last, and in which the justices refused informations, although the resident magistrate dissented from their determination; and whether, seeing that it has been represented to him that there is further evidence in existence affecting the accused, and having regard to all the facts of the case, he will exercise his power to have the facts considered by a jury.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I have examined into this case most carefully. There is no evidence in the possession of the Crown other than that already given, nor have the police been able to obtain any clue which might lead to the discovery of further evidence. The case was one in which men might justly and reasonably come to the conclusion arrived at by the magistrates. I have no reason whatever to think there was any miscarriage of justice, or that there is anything justifying further action in the direction suggested.

  Irish Trade Returns.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the announcement of the Board of Trade that they have no objection to separate Returns of Irish commerce being issued, he can now see his way to annul the Treasury
  † See page 63.

  381
  Minute of 1823 which provides that Irish commerce shall be treated as coasting trade, and require the Customs to furnish separate particulars of imports and exports to and from Ireland, as is done in the case of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, and all other parts of the Empire.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): My hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade stated in reply to a Question of the hon. Member on July 20th † that the Irish Board of Agriculture had under consideration the question of compiling statistics of the trade between Great Britain and Ireland, but that referred only to information which would be obtainable under the existing system. I cannot agree to the proposal of the hon. Member, as in my opinion no sufficient advantage would be gained to counterbalance the increased expenditure and the interference with trade which such a change would involve.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Then the right hon. Gentleman refuses.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I decline respectfully to annul the Treasury Minute of 1823, but if a further Question is put down I will consider whether it is possible to afford any more statistical information without a further interference with trade or an additional expenditure of public money.
  MR. LOUGH: Do you not admit that Ireland would derive some advantage if the exact imports and exports were known?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have had a good many discussions with the hon. Gentleman both in and out the House with regard to interference by the Government with trade. He always urged that we should interfere as little as possible, and he has not infrequently denounced us for interfering. Now he asks us to do a thing which would
  † See (4) Debates, cxlix., 1401.
  382
  involve a considerable interference with trade.
  MR. LOUGH: I altogether deny that. I say it would assist trade.

  Richard Kellet's Meath Estate.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Meath, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the estate of Richard T. Kellet, in the county of Meath, signed agreements to purchase their holdings in April, 1904; and that the landlord's brother, Vernon Kellet, also applied to purchase about 136 acres of untenanted land on the property; if so, will he say when was he made tenant; and whether, seeing that a number of tenants on the estate, having uneconomic holdings, have sent a memorial to the Estates Commissioners, praying that the land, nominally in Vernon Kellet's possession, be purchased by the Commissioners with a view to rendering their holdings economic, he will say what is the decision of the Commissioners regarding the prayer of the memorialists.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The tenancy in the holding for which Mr. J. Vernon Kellett has signed a purchase agreement was created in 1904. The memorial of the tenants will be considered before advances are made,

  Irish Land Purchase Payments.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability, in those cases of land purchase under the Act of 1903 in which the purchase money cannot be immediately paid, of paying interest on the same until the transaction can be completed, and so avoiding any necessity for delay in the operation of the Act.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Interest in lieu of rent is now payable by the tenant purchaser pending the completion of the purchase, and such interest has

  383
  been collected in nearly all cases up to the last gale day, viz., May 1st, 1905, and paid over to the parties entitled. I have carefully considered the hon. Member's suggestion, but am afraid it is impracticable to give effect to it.

  Captain Taylor's Bective Estate.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Meath, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for the sale of Captain E. R. Taylor's Bective Estate, county Meath; whether Mrs. O'Reily, an evicted tenant of the estate, has made an application to be reinstated; whether the lands from which she was evicted are untenanted and let on the eleven months system; and, if so, whether the sale can go forward without having regard to Mrs. O'Reily's case.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The reply to the first and second inquiries is in the affirmative. The evicted tenant's holdings, however, are not included in the estate which is being sold, but her application will be considered when the estate is being dealt with.

  Reenard and Valentia Ferry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to make any announcement as to the improvement of the ferry facilities between Reenard and Valentia, under the Marine Works Act; and whether, in the event of further inquiries being made by him daring the recess, he will give an opportunity to those locally interested of placing their views before him.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not yet in a position to make any statement in this matter. Any representations that may be made to me by persons locally interested will, of course, be carefully considered.

  Belfast Constabulary—Proposed Band.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state the decision
  384
  of the Inspector-General regarding the recommendation of the Belfast Corporation that a Royal Irish Constabulary band should be established in Belfast.
  MR. WALTER LONG: A decision has not yet been arrived at in this matter.
  MR. SLOANIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been under consideration for eighteen months?
  MR. WALTER LONG: It has only lately been brought under my notice. I hops it will be decided almost immediately.

  Waveney Street National School, Ballymena.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the committee of Waveney Street National School, Ballymena, contemplate closing their school, he will consider the advisability of granting temporary aid until such time as sufficient accommodation is provided for infants in other schools; and, if not, where is it proposed to put the infants attending the Waveney School, should it be closed.
  MR. WALTER LONG: For the reasons stated in reply to former Questions, the Commissioners cannot grant even temporary aid to this school. There is ample accommodation in existing schools for the infants attending this school.
  MR. SLOAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that if this school is closed for want of aid the children will have no other school to go to?
  MR. WALTER LONG: On the contrary, I am told there would be no difficulty in providing for them in existing schools. If the hon. Member has any information to the contrary I shall be glad to consider it.
  MR. SLOAN: Your own Answers state there is not sufficient accommodation in the other schools.

  Inquiry into Working of Labourers Acts in County Antrim.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what date the Local Government Board inquiry into the general working of the Labourers Acts in the county Antrim was held; what was the result of that inquiry; and can copies of the Report, if any, of the person or persons who held the inquiry be obtained from the Local Government Board.
  MR. WALTER LONG: In 1902 inquiries were made as to the working of the Labourers Acts in counties Antrim and Down, and the result went to show that owing to disinclination on the part of the farmers and to the apathy of the labourers, the Acts were rarely applied up to 1899, but that since that date many schemes had been formed and others were being prepared. These inquiries were made for the general information of the Government, and the Reports made are not available for public use.

  Trinity College Estates.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when he proposes to give effect to the Report of the Trinity College Commission; whether he is aware that middlemen who hold under Trinity College for a period less than sixty years cannot sell to the tenants, although they are willing to do so; and what action the Government intend to take.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This Report, as I have already stated, raises a number of very difficult and complicated questions, including the case of middlemen who hold under leases for an unexpired period of less than sixty years. These are receiving the careful consideration of the Government. I am not yet in a position to state the indentions of the Government in the matter.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the middlemen are willing to sell and the tenants to buy? Cannot something be done to
  386
  enable the agreement to be carried out?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Sub-tenants and Cottiers and the Irish Land Act of 1903.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Irish Government or the Estates Commissioners have issued any instructions whereby cottiers or sub-tenants occupying agricultural holdings are debarred from negotiating or purchasing their holdings under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; and, if not, can he say whether a sub-tenant or a cottier have the right to purchase their holdings when an estate is being sold of which their holdings form a part.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The only tenants who can purchase under the Purchase Acts are tenants in occupation. Under the 15th Section of the Act the Estates Commissioners have power to declare that a sub-tenant, to whom the tenant has let portion of the holding, shall be deemed to be the tenant of that portion so as to enable the sub-tenant to purchase. Paragraphs 15 and 19, Part 1, of the instructions of the 9th February last deal with this matter.
  MR. FLAVIN: Who is to act on behalf of the sub-tenant?
  MR. WALTER LONGasked for notice

  Irish Education Grant.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the amount per head of the population voted by the State in the year 1905–6 in England, Ireland, and Scotland for the purposes of primary education; what would be Ireland's share according to the English or Scotch scale; and how much less does Ireland receive annually than she would be entitled to were grants for education made on this bash.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Owing to the different systems of elementary education in the three countries an accurate

  387
  comparison on the basis suggested cannot be drawn. It would appear, however, that the amount per head of population, according to the latest Census Returns, is, approximately:

  In Ireland

  6s.

  5d.

  In Scotland

  7s.

  7d.

  In England and Wales

  7s.

  4d.

  On this basis, Ireland would be entitled, on the Scotch and English scales, to about £259,000 and £201,000, respectively, more than she is receiving. But a calculation on the basis of population is obviously misleading, because an important element in the grant is the capitation allowance, common to the three countries, of 10s. per pupil in average attendance; and taking the average school attendance as the basis of calculation, the amount voted per head is:

  For Ireland

  £3

  2s.

  7d.

  For Scotland

  £2

  8s.

  2d.

  For England and Wales

  £2

  3s.

  11d.

  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why is it, when we have money to receive, the calculation on the basis of population is misleading, but when it is to be paid it is the reverse?
  MR. THOMAS O'DONELL: Seeing it is admitted that Ireland is not getting her fair share, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the desirability of making a further grant?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not admit anything of the kind.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: You have admitted that on the only satisfactory basis of population Ireland is not getting anything like she deserves.

  Clifden Harbour.
  MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the actual sum allotted under the Marine Works Act for the construction of a pier at Clifden Harbour has yet been fixed; and, if so, what is the sum, and when is the work likely to commence.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir; the matter is still engaging consideration. I will give it my personal attention during the recess.

  Epizootic Lymphangitis in Ireland.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, considering that the South African horse disease was introduced into Ireland by Army horses, and considering the loss that has already occurred by the stoppage of shows, sales, and race meetings, he is now able to state that the entire cost of animals slaughtered with the view of stamping out the disease will be paid, without calling upon the ratepayers of the county where the disease has broken out to pay half the estimated value of the animals so destroyed.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject, which will be fully considered on an early date at a joint conference between representatives of the English and Irish Departments of Agriculture.

  Irish National School Teachers' Examination.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why not a single question relating to Ireland appeared in the history papers set by the Board of National Education to the teachers who completed their course of training at the various training colleges, and who were examined in the first week of July this year for certificates of competency to teach Irish children.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The programme in history for this examination was "European history from 1815 to 1871." The Commissioners do not interfere with the discretion of the examiners in setting questions.

  Teaching of the Irish Language in Irish Schools.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  389
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any correspondence which has passed between the Treasury and the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland on the proposed withdrawal of the grant for the Irish language as an extra subject; and whether he will also lay upon the Table the Minutes of any meetings of the Board at which the subject was considered.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I answered this Question on Wednesday † last.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he wall give the Minutes of the meeting or meetings of the National Board at which it was agreed to withdraw payment for Irish as an extra subject in Irish national schools; whether, in coming to this decision, the Board made any, and, if so, what arrangements for the teaching of Irish within ordinary school hours; to what purpose it is intended to devote the money which formerly was spent in paying for Irish; and whether any steps are being taken by the Board for training teachers for the teaching of this subject.
  MR. WALTER LONG: For the reason already stated by me I am unable to lay these Minutes on the Table of the House. The rules in the Code relating to the teaching of Irish as an ordinary subject within school hours are as follows:—No. 121. A bi-lingual programme (Irish and English) may be sanctioned in Irish-speaking districts or in localities where Irish and English are spoken. No. 123 (b). All the extra branches may be taught during the time constituting in "attendance," provided the adequacy of the course of instruction in the ordinary school subjects is not impaired or hampered thereby. The Board agreed, by resolution passed unanimously, to the withdrawal of fees for all extra subjects, provided the savings thereby effected should not be applied in reduction of the Vote, but should be devoted to the purposes of Irish national education. That decision does not in any way affect the
  † See (4) Debates, cl., 1344.
  390
  existing facilities for the teaching of Irish or other extra subjects within ordinary school hours. The Government have at present under consideration, in correspondence with the Treasury, a proposal to provide an increased staff in small schools by means of the appointment of manual instructresses. The expenditure on fees for all extra subjects amounted in the year 1904 to £14,368, which included a sum of £12,069 paid for Irish. Irish is taught in all the training colleges, with the exception of the Church of Ireland Training College in Kildare Place. The Board examine for certificates in Irish, and the number of teachers holding Irish certificates is 1,045.
  In reply to further Questions, Mr. WALTER LONG denied that the teaching of Irish language had been excluded. It was merely no longer treated as an extra subject.

  Enniskillen Lake.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any decision has yet been arrived at between Lord Enniskillen and the Commissioner of Works, Dublin Office, in reference to the ownership of the bed and soil of the lake surrounding the town of Enniskillen; and, if so, what is it.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Communications are still pending between the Commissioners of Woods and Lord Enniskillen. A decision will be come to as speedily as possible.

  Irish School Plans—Kerry Schools.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state when the new plans for building schools in Ireland will be issued; and can he say whether, in the case of necessitous districts, such as Curraheen, Glenbeigh, county Kerry, a contribution of more than the usual two-thirds will be contributed by the Board when a new school is required.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I am disappointed that this matter has not yet been settled. A decision on the main points has been arrived at, but

  391
  some questions of detail have unfortunately arisen which require settlement before I shall be in a position to announce the Government's proposals.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: How soon may we expect them.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I cannot say. They will be announced as soon as possible.

  Lord Roberts' Speech.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can say if the statements made by Lord Roberts at the Mansion House on the condition of the Army were laid before the Army Council; and whether they represent the views of His Majesty's Government on the subject.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Lord Roberts' speech was not laid before the Army Council or before His Majesty's Government. Lord Roberts alone is responsible for it. It is hardly possible to do what my hon. and gallant friend desires, namely, to express either assent or dissent from a speech which in the nature of the case contains a great many propositions, each of which would have to be separately formulated and separately dealt with.

  Recruiting.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to Lord Roberts' opinion that the Cardwell system of enlistment of seven years with the colours and five with the reserve should be reverted to for the Army, he will direct that no progress shall be made with the proposed dual system of enlistment for two years and nine years.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the pledge he asks for.

  The Colonial Conference.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when
  392
  he proposes to issue invitations for the Colonial Conference of 1906; and whether these invitations will be so framed as to meet the case of the colonial delegates being called upon to meet delegates from this country representing a Government pledged to the electorate to oppose the preferential taxation of wheat or flour or raw material in this country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No invitations have as yet been sent. It would be premature to discuss the terms in which they would be sent.
  MR. BLACK: Is the House or the country to have no say in this conference? The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question as to when the invitations will be sent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That also is premature.

  Standing Committees.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the Special Report of the Chairman's Panel relating to the working of Standing Committees; and whether he proposes, by amendment of the Standing Orders, to make such provision as will remedy the inconveniences incident to the working of the Standing Order now in force.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have read the Report to which my hon. friend calls attention, and I must say that, so far as I am able to judge, the existing system of Grand Committees will require modification in the very near future. I do not think anybody can read that Report, drawn up as it is by those best qualified to judge, of the working of the present system and regard the system as satisfactory. It would, however, be premature for me to suggest what course ought to be taken in the contingency to which my hon. friend refers.
  SIR WTLLIAM TOMLINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a Government Bill ought not to have precedence over Bills of private Members?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not discuss the question of precedence; but it is the fact that when a Government Bill is sent by the House to a Grand Committee it ought to be able to find a Grand Committee which could immediately deal with it.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not a fact that many Bills before the Grand Committee have been mauled by members of the Government themselves?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it quite possible that they ought to have been mauled.

  Redistribution.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether a Redistribution Bill for next session has been drafted, and whether a Boundary Commission is to be set up before Parliament meets again, or whether the inquiries will be made by a Departmental Committee; whether the Bill as drafted contains clauses dealing with the ancient right, ownership, and other voters whose status is different in county and borough constituencies respectively, and, as regards Great Britain, with the starring of voters; or whether it is intended that the provisions dealing with franchise and registration necessitated by any merger of boroughs in counties, division of boroughs, or alteration of county and borough boundaries, are to be placed in a separate Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that the best course in the first instance would be to appoint a Committee to obtain information for the guidance of the Government. The appointment of the Commission would follow in due course. Whether it should be set up after or before Parliament meets again is a matter for consideration. It would be impossible to give any details at this stage of the clauses of the Redistribution Bill, but I see no reason why any provisions that are actually consequential on Redistribution should not be contained in the same Bill as the Redistribution proposals.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If there is a separate Commission for Ireland, will there also be a separate Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think I have stated whether there ought or ought not to be a separate Committee for Ireland. There was a separate Commission before for Ireland, but whether there will be a separate Committee I think it better not to commit myself. But the previous precedent will probably be followed in the present case.
  MR. EMMOTT: Will the names of the Committee be announced when they are appointed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not imagine that the matter will be kept secret, but if the hon. Member means a formal announcement of the names for the purposes of discussion I do not think they will be.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In Ireland, at all events, there was a separate Report obtained from the Ordnance Survey Department before the Commission took action.
  MR. McKENNA: Is there any precedent for establishing a Boundary Commission without previous Parliamentary sanction?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, yes, in 1885. [Cries of "No."] Well, to be accurate, at the end of 1884.

  Deal Castle.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state the conditions under which the present occupier enjoys the privileges of Deal Castle as a seaside residence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The nomination to this appointment does not rest with the Government, but with the Lord Warden for the time being. I have not been able to make any investigations into the conditions, but if the hon. Member wishes I will endeavour to ascertain

  395
  the exact historical position held by the occupant of the Castle.
  MR. WEIR: Who is the present occupier?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUE: My noble friend the Member for Ealing.
  MR. WEIR: For how long does he hold it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope for a great many years. It is held for life.
  MR. WEIR: A very bad arrangement.

  Highland Deer Forests.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the deer forest area in five Highland crofting counties, viz., Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, and Caithness, increased between the years 1898 and 1904 by 424,957 acres; and will he state whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent further extensions of the area.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I do not propose to recommend any legislation on this subject.
  MR. WEIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that the Highlands shall become one vast deer forest?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, what I intend to do is to abstain from proposing any legislation.
  MR. WEIR: You will do nothing for the Highlands.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Strath-connan!

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR A. HAYTER: What is to be the course of business this week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government propose to day to begin business with the Unemployed Bill, as amended, the Committee stage of the Naval Works Bill, the Committee stage of the East India Loans (Railways) Bill, and the Third Reading of the Expiring Laws
  396
  Continuance Bill. After these will come the Provisional Order (Marriages) Bill in Committee, and the Public Works Loans Bill. The Government will be grateful if the House allow a stage to be taken of the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports Bill. It raises no question that can possibly induce much controversy, and it would be of the utmost convenience to have the question settled. To-morrow the Third Reading of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill and the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill will be taken, the Committee stage of the last named being taken on Wednesday. On Wednesday we hope to find time, among other things, for the discussion on the Telephone Agreement, and probably other business which ought to be transacted. If I am sufficiently fortunate in realising expectations as to this programme of business I shall take the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill on Thursday.

  TRADE MARKS BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]
NEW BILLS.
  AUXILIARY FORCES BILL.
  "To provide for the more effectual officering of the Auxiliary Forces, and to ensure a sufficiency of trained officers in the event of mobilisation," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Sir Came Rasch, Captain Norton, Genenal Laurie, Captain Pirie, and Mr. Ridley; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 308.]
  BANKRUPTCY LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  "To Amend the Law of Bankruptcy," presented by Sir Albert Rollit; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 309.]

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Clause (Application to Scotland).
  "In the application of this Act to Scotland—(1) 'The Local Government Board for Scotland' shall be substituted for 'the Local

  397
  Government Board'; (2) 'Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh' shall he substituted for 'municipal borough and urban district,' and for 'borough or district'; (3) 'Parish council' shall be substituted for 'board of guardians,' and 'town council' shall be substituted for 'council of the borough or district' and for 'borough or district council'; (4) 'Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh with a population according to the last census for the time being of less than fifty thousand, but not less than twenty thousand,' shall he substituted for 'county borough'; (5) References to special county purposes shall not apply; (6) 'Burgh general assessment' or 'assessment for police purposes,' as the case may be, shall be substituted for 'borough fund or borough rate'; (7) 'Inspector' shall include general superintendent and visiting officer; (8) Sections 47, 52, and 53 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, shall be substituted for Sections 85, 86, and 88 of the Local Government Act, 1894; (9) 'Municipal elector' shall be substituted for 'burgess'; (10) Sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 2 of this Act shall not apply to any county or part of a county, or to any burgh, except with the consent of the Local Government Board for Scotland expressed by Order made on the application of the county council, or town council, as the case may be."—(Mr. Scott Dickson.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the clause be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELLdrew the Speaker's attention to the fact that there was a question of rating involved, and raised a point of order as to whether on that account the Bill would not be required to be recommitted in order that the question should be considered in Committee. He fully appreciated the necessity of sending the Bill up to the House of Lords that day, but he wanted to make sure that the Amendment he had given notice of would be discussed.
  The LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,)said the Amendment of the hon. Member was the only one down, and he was prepared to accept it.
  MR. BUCHANANasked whether, as the clause involved a question of rating, the Bill ought not to be recommitted.
  *MR. SPEAKERagreed that the question of rating was raised, but he pointed
  398
  out that the whole clause was the result of the Committee's desire on Friday that Scotland should be included in the Bill.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONrepeated that he was prepared to meet the hon. Member, and, in that case, he questioned the necessity of recommitting the Bill.
  MR. BUCHANANurged that, as the clause did involve a question of rating, the Bill must be recommitted.
  *MR. SPEAKERfinally said he thought it would be dangerous to deal with a question of rating in the House, and that it would be the better plan to recommit the Bill in respect of the Lord-Advocate's new clause, dealing with the other Amendments first.
  Motion and clause, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause (Application to Ireland).
  "In the application of this Act to Ireland the Local Government Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the Local Government Board, and as respects population ten thousand shall be substituted for fifty thousand, and five thousand for ten thousand, and the provisions of this Act relating to the inclusion of a county borough in a county shall not apply."—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
  MR. T. M. HEALYinquired if the acceptance of relief under the Bill would have any effect upon the franchise.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)replied in the negative.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 6, at the end, to add the words 'Sub-section 3, Section 2, of this Act shall not apply to any county in Ireland except by order of the Local Government Board for Ireland made on the application of the council

  399
  of the county."—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After the last Amendment to add the words, 'That Sections 43 and 45 of the Local Government Act, 1894, shall be substituted for Sections 84, 86, and 88 of the Local Government Act, 1894."—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. T. M. HEALYpressed upon the Government to include words which would place it beyond all doubt that relief under the Bill would not interfere with the franchise. If some such words were not included, he ventured to prophecy that people would be disenfranchised.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not consider it necessary to specifically guard against disenfranchisement.
  MR. POWERcould not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not accede to what he termed the most moderate proposal of his hon. and learned friend.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)urged that if words were included to say that the franchise should not be affected in Ireland, the effect would be to weaken and not strengthen the Bill, because it might read that in the case of England it should be affected.
  MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that in England the Bill applied direct, but in Ireland it only applied by secondary order. He was quite sure that the Government was absolutely bona fide in the matter, and he threw no imputation on the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he did venture to say that in view of the excitement with which these things were discussed in Ireland there should be something definite inserted. He should, however, be content if the Government would consider the matter in another place.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said that surely if the hon. Member for Louth was right the words should be introduced in Sub-section 4, in order that they might be applicable to all three countries.
  MR. T. M. HEALYacquiesced,
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'distress,' to insert the words 'such persons to be nominated by the borough council and board of guardians respectively."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CLANCYmoved to exclude the words "emigration or," in Sub-section 5 of Clause 1 which gave the central body power to aid a person referred to them by the local distress committee in emigrating or removing to another area, and so place him in a position to obtain employment. He declared that Ireland had already suffered too much from emigration, and objected to its promotion. In the case of a rural district in Ireland the organisation concerned would be the creation of the Government, and the retention of the word "emigration" would give the Government of the day power to carry out the emigration of the whole of the Irish people.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 20, to leave out the words 'emigration or'."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'emigration or' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not think they ought to exclude the word "emigration." They had to remember that all the organisation contemplated in the Bill would be under the control of members directly or indirectly popularly-elected. If the authorities in

  401
  Ireland did not wish to use those powers, there was no reason why they should.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the matter deserved a little more consideration from the Government. There was a constant stream of emigration from Ireland going on, and he believed a society had been formed to suggest how it could be checked. There was only one thing which stopped the whole people emigrating, and that was the want of means. They were now passing a Bill which would allow popularly-elected bodies to furnish funds at the expense of the ratepayers to pay the cost of emigration in any case they liked to do so. Here in Great Britain the word might be left in without serious disadvantage, but it would run contrary to the stream of popular feeling in Ireland. Words could easily be introduced making an exception in the case of Ireland. If an Amendment could be put in somewhere else, everybody would be satisfied. It raised a grave point with regard to Ireland, and it should receive more attention from the Government.
  MR. CLANCYasked if he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would consider the question. It seemed to him that the Local Government Board were not only able to extend provisions to every part of the United
  Kingdom, but in the case of a rural district in a county actually to constitute the distress committee. Under those circumstances it seemed to him that it would be absolutely giving to the Government of the day power to emigrate the whole of the Irish people, when what they wanted was to remain at home.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid there was no compulsion in the matter. They might form the distress committees, and the central bodies, but they could not compel the central bodies to carry out their powers with regard to emigration.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the bodies would be popularly-elected, but in the case of a rural district the committee would be the creation of the Government.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman was wrong. The Local Government Board might require that the organisation should be formed, but the appointment of the particular members would be left to the local bodies.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 341.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hon.Sir Joseph C.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Doughty, Sir George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bull, William James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn. Hugh O.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Dyke, Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Fellowes, RtHn.Ailwyn Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

  Finlay,RtHnSirR.B(.Inv'rn'ss)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chapman, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir Michael Hicks

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Forster, Henry William

  Bigwood, James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Bill, Charles

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

  Black, Alexander William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bond, Edward

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Brassey, Albert

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dowar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  Greene, YV. Raymond.(Cambs.)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Hamilton, Marq.of (L'nd'nderry

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords, NW

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)

  Hope J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Smith, HC.(North'mb. Tyneside

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, RtHnJ.Parker(Lanarks

  Horner, Frederick William

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Howard, John (Kent Faversham

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stanley, Rt.Hon.Lord (Lancs.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Jeffreys, Rt.Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Stroyan, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshre

  Partington, Oswald

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

  Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Percy, Earl

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

  Keswick, William

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lamont, Norman

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tuff, Charles

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Vincent, Col.SirC.E. H(Sheffield

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Purvis, Robert

  Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William H

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham

  Randles, John S.

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Welby, SirCharlesG.E. (Notts.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Liddell, Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wills, SirFrederick(Bristol,N.)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

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

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ritchie, Rt.Hon.Chas.Thomson

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lowe, Francis William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Lyttelton, Rt.Hon. Alfred

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  and Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Parrott, William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Higham, John Sharp

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Buxton, NE(York,NR,Whitby

  Hutchinson, Dr. CharlesFredk.

  Rea, Russell

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Crean, Eugene

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Walter

  Crooks, William

  Kennedy, P.J.(Westmeath,N.)

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Lambert, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cornwall)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n,N

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lundon, W.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Fadden, Edward

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

  Hammond, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Woodhouse, SirJ.T(Huddersf'd

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Murnaghan, George

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murphy, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harwood, George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Mr. Patrick O'Brien and

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Nolan, Col.JolinP.(Galway,N.)

  Mr. Clancy.

  MR. KEIR HARDIEmoved to insert in Clause 1 the words "and the provision of temporary work therein." His object in raising this question again was to give the Government an opportunity of reconsidering its position in regard to this most important principle. The whole aim of the Bill was to enable the unemployed to tide over a period of temporary distress, and for that purpose the new authorities were enabled to acquire land. The object of his Amendment was to secure that when land had been acquired the authorities should have power to employ labour temporarily upon it, and thereby be able to carry out the real object of the Bill. Objection was taken to a similar proposal the other day on the ground that it might interfere with the independence of the workmen, but that was just what the Bill would do as it now stood. Instead of the workmen being dependent upon private charity they wished to make the rates available for that purpose. If hon. Members would withdraw their objection to this principle they would be carrying out the original intention of the Bill and at the same time be saving themselves from being made ridiculous by passing a Bill
  to do a certain thing without providing the means by which it could be done. When the winter came on and the people were clamouring for employment, if they were told that there was no power to give them work because the Bill did not allow the rates to be used, the situation would be a very awkward and difficult one. Therefore, he hoped hon. Members on both sides of the House would waive their academic objections to this principle, and enable the Government to carry out its deliberate intention, which was only abandoned when coercion was applied by those hon. Members opposite who were opposed to the Bill altogether. He hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would accept the spirit if not the wording of the Amendment he now begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 10, after the word "Act" to insert the words "and the provision of temporary work thereon."—(Mr. Keir Hurdie.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 86; Noes, 186. (Division List No. 342.)

  AYES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

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

  Barry, E. (CorkS.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parrott, William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayter, Rt.Hon.Sir Arthur D.

  Partington, Oswald

  Boll, Richard

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Black, Alexander William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Russell

  Burke E. Haviland

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Buxton, N.E.(York NR Whitby

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Buxton Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Walter

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath.N.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lambert, George

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lamont, Norman

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crooks, William

  Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cullinan, J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dolany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Thompson, Dr EC(Monagh'n, N)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Tully, Jasper

  Dobbie, Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ure, Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wallace, Robert

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Weir, James Galloway

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  Whirley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Woodhouse, SirJT.(Huddersf'd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Nolan, Col.John P.(Galway,N

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.

  Henderson.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Percy, Earl

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Arrol, Sir William

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Purvis, Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords,NW

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Heaton, John Honniker

  Randles, John S.

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Rankin, Sir James

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Horner, Frederick William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Howard, J.(Midd.,Tottenham)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bigwood, James

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Bill, Charles

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bingham, Lord

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Jeffreys, Rt Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bond, Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnH.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brassey, Albert

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Keswick, William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Bull, William James

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Saunderson, Rt.Hn. Col.Edw.J

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W- (Mile End

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Liddell, Henry

  Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Smith, Rt Hn J.Parker(Lanarks

  Chapman, Edward

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

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

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Rt.Hon.Lord (Lancs.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Stone, Sir BenjaDin

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stroyan, John

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Davies, Sir Horatia D.(Chatham

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hon.Sir Joseph C.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tuff, Charles

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Dyke, Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fellowes, Rt Hn.(Ailwyn Edw.)

  Mitchell, William, (Burnley)

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

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Not(s.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol,N.)

  Finlay, RtHnSirRB.(Inv'rn'ss

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, Arthur H. Alymer

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fitrzoy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Murray, Col. Wyndham

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Forster, Henry William

  Myers, William Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  and Viscount Valentia.

  *MR. SPEAKER: The effect of the Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Merthyr would be to enable the Local Government Board to impose a
  408
  rate on the outside districts without their consent. That is a rating question which cannot be considered on the Report stage.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, in moving to reduce the minimum population limit imposed by Clause 2 to 10,000, said there was frequently a great deal of distress in these small towns and while the farmers in the county generally could not be induced to rate themselves for the relief of that distress, the small towns themselves might be disposed to impose a penny rate, or to make even greater sacrifices for the purpose. He thought the power ought to be given to such towns to levy a rate to tide over the winter months. There could be no objection on principle, as the power would be subject to the consent of the Local Government Board, who were very cautious in such matters, and would not give their consent unless very acute distress existed. In Wales while there were a number of small towns, there were only two or three of considerable size, and the Bill would be practically worthless to the Principality unless this Amendment were made. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 9, to leave out the word 'twenty' and insert the word 'ten'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONhoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment. It was intended to apply to cases in which a particular borough might, in view of peculiar circumstances, wish to institute a committee, although the county council did not see its way to do so for the county generally. There was no question of compulsion, and the Local Government Board would not give its consent if the county council or any other body made out a good case against it. The Amendment could not possibly do harm, and it might result in considerable good.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that from his knowledge of borough feeling he was sure the desire would be in favour of reducing the population limit. There was a distinct difference, especially on economic and industrial questions,
  410
  between boroughs and counties, and he fully agreed that a county might well refuse to rate itself as a whole, whereas boroughs within the county would consider it absolutely necessary to do so. Many of the smaller boroughs were dependent upon one staple trade, and times of depression inevitably came when it was extremely desirable that they should have the means provided by this Bill of reducing the distress. The larger boroughs, on the other hand, were going in for a variety of industries, and were not subject to periodic distress to the same extent; consequently the smaller boroughs were just the places that required the advantages of the Act. The precedent of the Education Act with regard to elementary education afforded another reason for maintaining autonomy in the smaller boroughs.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he raised no objection to the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Word inserted.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 40, after the word 'may,' to insert, the words 'aid emigration or removal or.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELmoved an Amendment the object of which, he explained, was to enable such works as land reclamation to be undertaken under the Bill if the local authority concerned could obtain the funds for the purpose. He understood that the President of the Local Government Board accepted the principle of the Amendment, but desired it in a different form. He would therefore move the Amendment formally, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might make an explanation.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 6, after the word 'colonies,' to insert the words 'or such other works upon the land as may be approved by the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid there appeared to be some confusion in the discussion of this subject between "works" and "work." There was nothing to prevent the central body from providing work of any kind for the unemployed, but without particular provisions in the Bill they could not erect dwellings for the workmen. All that was required to give effect to his intention was that the central body should, with the leave of the Local Government Board, be entitled to supply temporary accommodation for work carried on upon the land Take such work as the reclamation of the foreshore. That work could not be undertaken without accommodation being provided for the persons engaged. Take another scheme suggested more than once by eminent philanthropists like Mr. Charles Booth, to level roads in different parts of the country where the gradients were too steep. If labourers were sent long distances to do such work it would be necessary to provide accommodation for them. He thought such provision ought to be made, and he should propose later on to insert after the word "Act" in line 7 the words "and the provision, with like consent of such body, of temporary accommodation for persons for whom work upon the land is provided."
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid those words did not meet the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cleveland, which distinctly proposed that, having acquired land for the purpose, work might be done upon it. He understood his right hon. friend to say that he had no objection to temporary accommodation for those who were working being provided, but that did not quite meet the case. The proposal of his hon. friend opposite was to be allowed to undertake reclamation work. If there was one thing which would justify the House in proceeding with this Bill it was the experience of the Mansion House Committee in respect of farm colonies, which had been a great success. It seemed to him that one of the chief advantages of this Bill would be to allow local experience to make itself felt in the direction of being able to carry out something in the nature of an experiment with the sanction of the Local Government Board. This was a class of work which was both useful and dignified, which would be the means of maintaining
  412
  the men without sacrificing either decency or dignity; and to simply say that there should be accommodation provided for those who did the work was not sufficient. The whole thing was temporary and limited to a certain period; therefore, if the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cleveland to enable other classes of work to be undertaken with the sanction of the Local Government Board were adopted, they would be following the exact lines adopted by the Mansion House Committee.
  *MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not think he had made his meaning quite clear. There would be no objection tinder the Bill to putting unemployed persons to work on reclamation work.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked, in case it was necessary in land reclamation to lay down plant, such as pipes, etc, could that be done under this Bill?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that could be done under the Bill.
  MR. WHITMOREsaid he understood that if land reclamation was undertaken the money would have to be provided out of voluntary subscriptions. If the wages were to be paid out of the rates he should object.
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is quite clear that no wages can be paid to the unemployed except out of voluntary subscriptions.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the words suggested merely created temporary residences for the workmen employed. He understood that there was no objection to giving the fullest power with regard to all these experiments. He should have thought the right hon. Gentleman might have accepted his hon. friend's Amendment without enlarging the scope of the Bill. He was sorry the words now proposed to be inserted were limited specifically to farm colonies.
  MR. CROOKSasked if some philanthropist was willing to put down £40,000 for labour for the reclamation of land, would the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman allow them to provide shelter and accommodation for the men employed out of the rates?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir. The provision of temporary accommodation would itself have to coma out of voluntary subscriptions.
  MR. CROOKS: Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that they wanted an Act of Parliament to allow people to spend voluntary subscriptions? Surely he did not mean that. There were plenty of wealthy men who were ready to employ labour when trade was bad, but they had not the means of offering them accommodation. If the rates could be used for this purpose it would be a distinct advantage.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the point raised by the hon. Member had already been decided by the Committee.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpointed out that if they specified temporary accommodation it might be taken to mean the exclusion of other purposes. The general words suggested in his hon. friend's Amendment would decide the question definitely.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he agreed with what the hon. Member had said, and it would be better to keep the Bill as it stood.
  MR. GERALD BALPOURsaid the point was already clearly defined in the Bill. The words he had suggested would enable the central committee to provide temporary accommodation.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this sub - section specifically limited the authorisation of the Local Government Board to work on farm colonies. He did not see why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment; he thought the form of words met all objections.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he very much doubted whether the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman really would cover the case.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 92; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 343.)

  AYES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.

  Bell, Richard

  Healy, Timothy Michael

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

  Black, Alexander William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Partington, Oswald

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Higham, John Sharp

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Buxton, N.E.(York, NR, Whitby

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Buxton,Sydney Charles(Poplar)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David Brymnor(Swansea)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Runciman, Walter

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kennedy, P. J.(Westmeath,N.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crooks, William

  Lambert, George

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cullinan, J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n,N.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Tully, Jasper

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Ure, Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lundon, W.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn Herbert John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Moss, Samuel

  Wood house, SirJT(Huddersf'd

  Hammond, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tytdvil)

  Murphy, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Mr. Herbert Samuel and

  Harwood, George

  Nolan, Col.JohnP.(Galway,N.

  Mr. Russell Rea.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederic

  Percy, Earl

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Purvis, Robert

  Bagot.Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

  Randles, John S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Heath, Sir James (Stafford.NW

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Banner. John S. Harmood-

  Horner, Frederick William

  Ritchie,Rt.Hon.Chas. Thomson

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Howard, John(Kent,Faversham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Beach, Rt.Hn.SirMichaelHicks

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bigwood, James

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Bill, Charles

  Hunt, Rowland

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bingham, Lord

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bond, Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T. (Denbigh)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Brassey, Albert

  Keswick, William

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col.Thos.Myles

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

  Bull, William James

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Butcher, John George

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks.NR

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

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

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Smith.H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, RtHnJ. Parker(Lanarks

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Liddell, Henry

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

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

  Long, Col.CharlesWr.(Evesham

  Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

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

  Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Rt.Hon.Lord (Lancs.)

  Chapman, Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stroyan, John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Colomb, Rt.Hon.SirJohn C.R.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tuff, Charles

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Marks, Harry Hananel

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hon.SirJosephC.

  Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliamHart

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

  Wills, Sir Frederick(Bristol,N.),

  Fellowes, Rt.Hn.Ailwyn Edward

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wylie, Alexander

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Finlay, RtHnSirR.B. (Inv'rn'ss

  Mount, William Arthur

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Myers, William Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fitzroy, Hon.Edward Algernon

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Forster, Henry William

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Hn. Win. Robert Wellesley

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 7, after the word "Act" to insert the words "and the provision, with the
  416
  like consent, by such body, of temporary accommodation for persons for whom work upon the same land is provided."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that these words will not have a limiting effect on the sub-section.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think that clearly they will not.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the expense of providing accommodation will be charged on the rates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No; that will be charged on the fund raised by voluntary contributions.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITmoved an Amendment providing that the audit of the accounts should be "by a professional accountant." A new departure was being made by this Bill, and he thought a new departure should also be made in the manner of audit. By the Bill as it now stood the accounts of these bodies would be audited in the same manner as the accounts of the county council, which meant that the audit would be by a Government auditor. The accounts would involve matters demanding some knowledge of accountancy, for there would be voluntary subscriptions mixed up with rate contributions. These would have to be kept very distinct, and in addition there should be the best security for the administration of the funds and the accuracy of the accounts in order to induce voluntary subscriptions. The working of the Bill as it stood would depend very largely indeed on voluntary contributions, and unless the accounts were kept in such a manner as to give confidence to those contributing, one of the chief sources of doing anything under the Bill would be lost. He wanted it to be clearly understood that this was not to be an audit according to the borough mode, which was by two members of the borough council, and which excluded what he thought was a very great improvement, adopted especially by certain of the larger municipalities, viz., the right to
  418
  have their accounts audited by a professional auditor. The Municipal Trading Committee had issued an interim Report as to the finances of municipalities and local authorities which stated that although all the county councils, London borough councils, and urban district councils were subject to the Local Government Board in respect to audit, that audit was carried out by district auditors who, as a rule, were not professional accountants or professional auditors. He thought that as the accounts of those new bodies would be very mixed there should be an adequate audit by trained accountants or professional auditors and not by what he would call "machine accountants." Besides, it would save expense and ensure confidence in the locality in the administration of the funds, and so secure larger public subscriptions to the unemployed fund. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 26, to leave out from the word 'Act,' to the end of the sub-section, and insert 'by a professional accountant.'"—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
  As there was no seconder to the Amendment, Mr. SPEAKER announced that the Amendment fell to the ground.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 7, after line 9, to insert as a new sub-paragraph the words 'That all regulations made under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be before Parliament'."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had no objection to the Amendment, but he would point out that these regulations could not possibly be discussed this session.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the Government were engaged in drawing up the regulations, but he could not promise to have them laid on the Table of the House before the session closed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be recommitted in respect

  419
  of a new clause (Application to Scotland.")—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Clause (Application to Scotland).
  "In the application of this Act to Scotland—(1) 'The Local Government Board for Scotland' shall be substituted for 'the Local Government Board'; (2) 'Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh' shall be substituted for 'municipal borough and urban district,' and for 'borough or district'; (3) 'Parish council' shall be substituted for 'board of guardians,' and 'town council' shall be substituted for 'council of the borough or district' and for 'borough or district council'; (4) 'Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh with a population according to the last census for the time being of less than fifty thousand, but not less than twenty thousand,' shall be substituted for 'county borough'; (5) References to special county purposes shall not apply; (6) 'Burgh general assessment' or 'assessment for police purposes,' as the case may be, shall be sub-stituted for 'borough fund or borough rate'; (7) 'Inspector' shall include general superintendent and visiting officer; (8) Sections 47, 52, and 53 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, shall be substituted for Sections 85, 86, and 88 of The Local Government Act, 1894; (9) 'Municipal elector' shall be substituted for 'burgess'; (10) Sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 2 of this Act shall not apply to any county or part of a county, or to any burgh, except with the consent of the Local Government Board for Scotland expressed by Order made on the application of the county council, or town council, as the case may be."—(The Lord-Advocate.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. 'SCOTT DICKSON,in moving the new clause, said that there were one or two verbal alterations to be made to it, as printed on the White Paper, in consequence of the Amendment made on the Report stage. It would be necessary under the third head that "parish council" should be substituted for "Poor Law union." That was a verbal Amendment. The hon. Member for Mid.-Lanark proposed certain Amendments to the sixth head which he was willing to accept. As the clause stood now the rate would fall to be paid by assessment wholly by occupiers. The
  420
  hon. Member for Mid.-Lanark proposed to alter it so as to make it fall half upon owners and half upon occupiers. In Section 6 of the clause the word "improvement" would be inserted after "general," and the words "or assessment for police purposes, as the case may be," would be deleted, and there be substituted for them the words "any other assessment leviable in equal proportions upon owners and occupiers." The effect of that was to make the rate fall equally upon owners and occupiers. The only other alteration he proposed to make was on head 10, which would be made to read so as to agree with what had been carried for Ireland—"Sub-sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall not apply to any county or burgh," leaving out the words "two and" in line 24, and the words "or part of a county" in line 25. Subject to these alterations he begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, be now read a second time.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the Scottish Members had been put in a very invidious position by the action of the Government with regard to this Bill. There was no Amendment on the Paper on Friday that this Bill should be applied to Scotland, and it was not within the knowledge of the Scottish Members that any such intention was in the mind of the Government. The Bill had never been circulated in Scotland, and no views had been ascertained in regard to it on the part of any of the local authorities in the country. He had left the House on Friday afternoon without anticipating that this substantial change would be made without notice. It was quite impossible for them to judge on the merits of the clauses and the Amendments proposed by the Lord-Advocate. He thought the Government should accept the full responsibility of this large change which they were introducing into the Scottish Poor Law system—admitting into the category of those who were entitled to Poor Law relief people who were not before so entitled, and doing this without notice to the people of Scotland and without their having been consulted on the subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the hon. Gentleman had stated that the Government should accept full responsibility for this amendment in the law of Scotland. That was so; they did act on their own responsibility but he did not think that that responsibility was so heavy as the hon. Gentleman seemed to believe it to be, because it did not really, as the hon. Gentleman supposed, make a fundamental alteration in the Scottish Poor Law system, and because this change was of an experimental character and would last for three years only, unless the House should otherwise determine. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it would have been desirable to have had a longer opportunity for consulting Scottish opinion on the matter. But they had the alternative of including or excluding Scotland in the scope of the Bill at the last moment; and of the two courses he was quite confident that they had adopted the one most in consonance with the feelings of the people of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman wag acquainted with the opinion in Aberdeen. Aberdeen was strongly in favour of the Bill, and Glasgow had unanimously expressed its desire that the Bill should be extended to Scotland. Although he did not deny that there was some force in the hon Gentleman's remarks, he hoped that the House would not feel that the Government had taken a wrong course in this matter. The Amendments on this clause were purely technical. The terms of the Scottish law in the existing system of rating were different from those of England, and they required a great many sub-sections in order to translate the English law into Scottish law. Otherwise there was no substantial difference between the Bill as applied to Scotland and the Bill as applied to England.
  MR. DOBBIEsaid the passage of the Bill at this late period of the session was really the result of a compromise, and he was satisfied that Scotland would give the Government the credit which it deserved for having at the last moment, in response to appeals from both sides of the House, applied the Bill to Scotland. He would like to suggest, in the interests of the time of the House, that the Lord - Advocate
  422
  should explain briefly what direct effect the clause he had put down would have. The Amendments put down by the Attorney-General for Ireland differed radically from the Amendments suggested by the Lord-Advocate.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he joined in the protest against applying the Bill to Scotland without any warning whereby hon. Members could have ascertained the views of their constituents in the matter. This was, of course, a necessary incidence of the hurried system of legislation at the end of the session; and, if it were a question whether Scotland should be included or excluded, he confessed that he was not prepared to take the responsibility of saying that she ought to be excluded. He thought, however, it was most unsatisfactory that they should have had the Bill under discussion the whole of the session without any previous suggestion as to the inclusion of Scotland and as to how it would affect the different circumstances of their constituencies. He confessed he was astonished when he found on Friday that an Amendment had been put down without a word of consultation with the Scotch Members.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that if there was any fault at all it rested with the Scotch Members. The Irish Members put an Amendment down and came to an arrangement with the Government that Ireland should be included. The Scotch Members, despite the appeal made to them by the organised trades unions of Scotland, allowed their opportunity to pass.
  MR. DOBBIEsaid he would like to explain that his hon. friend beside him put down an Amendment which might have clashed with one he would have put down, and he therefore refrained.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid the usual practice of Scotch Members, with regard to Bills relating to education, licensing, and the Poor Law, was to allow England to go first and then to have similar measures for Scotland in accordance with Scotch opinion. That was the view he

  423
  took upon the matter at first; but he looked into it again and found that it did not affect the Poor Law at all. It was a new system being introduced into the United Kingdom as a whole to enable local authorities to find work for the unemployed. He expressed no opinion whether that made for good or for evil, but it seemed to him that it should apply to Scotland as it was to apply to Ireland.
  MR. WYLIEsaid he wished to say a word as to the universal approval of the inclusion of Scotland in the Bill, but, as he would have something to say on the Third Reading of the Bill, he would not now say anything further.
  Motion made, Question proposed, "That the clause be now added to the Bill."
  MR. BLACKmoved an Amendment to add at the end—
  "As respects population 10,000 shall be substituted for 50,000, and 5,000 for 20,000."
  He said the object of the Amendment was to assimilate the Scotch laws with what had already been done by the House in regard to the Irish laws. It would make the application of this Bill extend to burghs of 10,000 population instead of 50,000. As the Bill at present stood, every burgh of a lesser population than 50,000 would be thrown into the county as the administrative area under the Bill. If they looked into the position of Scotland they would find that only five or six burghs throughout Scotland would have the right to administer their own unemployed system, and all other burghs, however large which were under 50,000 population, would be thrown into the county areas. Anyone acquainted with Scottish life was aware that burghs and their inhabitants had become accustomed to deal with measures of economy in a particular manner. It was the custom in the burghs to convene a meeting of the people and consult them upon the general affairs. It would be very largely resented by those self-governing communities if, with regard to the unemplyed, they were to be thrown
  424
  into the county administrative, area with which, up to the present time, they had had very little to do. It was quite true that with regard to certain county council purposes these burghs sent representatives to the counties, but, with regard to internal administration, they had had nothing to do with the counties. The result of the Bill, as it stood at present, would be to throw the main part of the administration of the Bill into the hands of the landlord and his factor, and of those persons who usually occupied themselves with county administration, and to take it out of the hands of those who knew intimately the affairs of the burgh. They might, for instance, see a Primrose dame administering this measure in a burgh, with the net effect that the coal and blanket fund of the county gentry would be thrown on the burgh rates. The Government should also consider whether what had been done for the good of Ireland would not also be for the good of Scotland. On the Motion of the Government, the Irish boroughs of 10,000 population and over were to have the administration of their own affairs. In this respect Scotland and Ireland were nearly of similar relative population, and it was very hard to see why the Irish boroughs of 10,000 were to be given their own administration and Scottish burghs were to be excluded from a similar privilege. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In new clause, at the end to add the words 'as respects population ten thousand shall be substituted for fifty thousand, and five thousand for ten thousand.'" (Mr. Black.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid he hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. The effect of bringing the number down to 10,000 in the Scotch burghs would be to include all the burghs that would be largely affected by the proposal. In view of that fact he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be content with having al the burghs up to 10,000 included. The only result would be that the small burghs would not be brought in, and he asked that the Amendment should not be persisted in.
  MR. DOBBIEasked whether burghs above 10,000 and under 50,000 required the sanction of the Local Government Board.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSONreplied that they were to be in exactly the same position as English boroughs. He did not think they could claim more than that.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that in a small town in his neighbourhood, which, now was happily thriving, they found that when the state of trade became stagnant the county gentlemen were obliged to take large numbers of the workmen and give them Temporary employment, but it struck him that it would be much more convenient that the local authorities should put the Act in force, and provide temporary aid. He could not help saying that in this proposed grant the Amendments of the Member for Banff would meet the circumstances.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Bill, as amended, on recommittal in respect of new clause (Application to Scotland), considered.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  *MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he thought he was justified in protesting as a Member of the House against the extraordinary manner in which the Bill had been passed through the House. Looking over the range of the twenty years that he had been in Parliament, he felt himself entitled to say that the conduct of the Government in relation to the passage of the Bill had been absolutely unprecedented. It was without excuse; for the Government at the commencement of the session announced their intention to introduce an Unemployed Bill, yet they waited till the 10th July before they brought
  426
  it forward. It was clear to the House that the absolute intention of the Government was that it should not pass to law.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I absolutely deny it.
  *MR. ATHERLEY-JONESretorted that all he could say was that the conduct of the Government gave an absolutely contrary impression as to their intention. In fact, but for the act of the Member for Woolwich moving the closure on the Second Reading of the Bill the debate would have gone over. It was to the Member for Woolwich alone that they owed the fact that the Bill was not extinguished on the Motion for the Second Reading. Then coming to the Committee stage, they were told by the Prime Minister that if they did not pass it sub silentio the Government would withdraw the Bill and the Opposition must take the consequences in the country. In other words, they would be represented as being unfriendly to the cause of labour. Therefore the character, the dignity, and every attribute of the House of Commons which they regarded with pride and satisfaction must go to the winds so long as this precious Bill was passed. Then he was startled to hear from the Prime Minister that this Bill was a mere experiment and was framed for only three years, at the end of which period it might be abrogated Were they going to the expense of establishing central and local authorities throughout the length and breadth of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and erect costly machinery which was to be broken up at the end of three years because the Bill was only an experiment? A greater outrage in the way of legislation had never previously been perpetrated by Parliament.
  The Bill was an imposture, and not only was it an imposture, but it was antidemocratic in its character. It proposed, in the first place, to establish throughout the country various distress committees, which were to have absolutely no power. They were to be merely a police and detective agency used for purposes of investigation, which, when made, was to be repotted to the central authority. The latter, if it pleased, could make further

  427
  investigation and then proceed to spend the fund at its disposal.
  In the Metropolis it would be able to spend £160,000 or £170,000 from the poor rate. How ludicrous, how insulting to common sense, it was to suggest that £160,000 or £170,000 would be of any use to deal with the immense amount of distress that had to be dealt with in the winter months in the Metropolis. The small borough of St. George's, Hanover Square, spent £150,000 in relief of the poor, and the Metropolitan boroughs spent £30,000 or £40,000 in distress expenditure in a few months; yet they were told that £170,000 was going to deal with the immense amount of misery found in London every winter. But the right hon. Gentleman said beyond that there were voluntary contributions. Had he made the slightest inquiry as to what was to be derived from voluntary contributions? The best way to kill voluntary contributions was to set up State machinery. More than that, there was in existence a rough-and-ready way of dealing with distress—a method which was not efficient but effective so far as it went—for the Metropolitan boroughs. In the winter months shoals of people besieged their doors for employment; they gave them work which was not remunerative to the boroughs, but it was work which did not carry with it the taint of pauperism, and the Metropolitan boroughs spent £30,000 in that kind of work. He had inquired of some of the officials whether they would continue to do that when this Bill became law, and they replied, "Certainly not. We shall say you must go to the distress committee." Let them be honest in this matter if they intended to do anything in the way of finding employment for the unemployed. At present the Government were trying to delude the House, and he could not help saying that when the winter came and the people realised how utterly inadequate this Bill was to meet the needs of the suffering millions, those who were responsible for the passing of this Bill would have to pay the penalty of having cheated and deluded the working classes.
  In this Bill there were provisions that the State should find the money to emigrate people. It had always been
  428
  a tradition of the democratic Party of this country that they should not provide money to expatriate the people of this country, and the provision of this Bill was simply an old device of the middle class, the plutocracy, to get rid of the discontented and the turbulent by a system of State emigration. Those on the Liberal side of the House did not dare to vote against this Bill because it would go forth that those who voted against it were antagonistic to the interests of labour. His friendship for labour took the form that he would never be a party to deluding the working classes, and this Bill was a deliberate attempt to delude them. He should vote for it through coertion and intimidation. He could, however, see one gleam of light. If the Bill were extended on honest lines it would afford a germ of some future hope, and to that extent his honest friends were justified in supporting the Bill. But he wished to avail himself of this opportunity of protesting against the manner in which the Bill had been carried through, and of making it clear that, in his opinion, the measure would not be any immediate benefit to the working classes, but was merely an electioneering device for the benefit of the Party opposite.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the extraordinary speech just delivered raised many questions, but he hoped the statement of the hon. Member for North-West Durham that he would not vote against the Bill because he had not the courage to take the consequences did not apply to Members generally. His own opinions on the matter were well known. It did not rest with any hon. Member on the Opposition side to cavil at the meagre Bill now before the House. Ten years ago the unemployed question was more acute than at present, the Liberals were then in office, but the hon. Member for North-West Durham was silent concerning the claims of the unemployed, and voted against every proposal to assist them. It was true that the present Bill was a mere trifling with the greatest social problem of the day. The question of the unemployed was not a new one, and he dissented altogether from the view that the present Bill introduced a new principle into English law. By quotations

  429
  from Acts of Parliament, extending from Queen Elizabeth to William IV., he could show conclusively that under the English law, as it stood, Englishmen had a right to demand from the Poor Law authorities an opportunity of working, and that the authorities were empowered to spend whatever rates were necessary to provide that opportunity. He altogether dissented from the view of the Local Government Board that people so enabled to work were thereby made paupers and disfranchised. But he would not dwell on the point.
  The House must not suppose that by passing this Bill they were solving the unemployed problem. The fact that there was no work did not relieve the rates of the responsibility of maintaining the unemployed. During the six months ending June of this year the able-bodied poor in receipt of relief, for the whole of England and Wales increased by 17 per cent., but in certain parts of the country, notably in Essex—which included East and West Ham—the increase in twelve months was 142 per cent. The able-bodied poor did not want Poor Law relief or charity; they simply wished an opportunity of working for their living. If they were denied that light—as they were under this Bill—they were forced on to the rates, degraded, and demoralised, and there happened just that which hon. Members often professed an anxiety to avoid. That being so, he was against the Bill as it stood, and would divide against the Third Reading were it not that some of his colleagues did not agree with his view. The hon. Member for Woolwich, whose practical experience of the working and administration of the Poor Law entitled his judgment to carry weight, believed the Bill would be helpful, and in deference to that opinion he was prepared to yield his own judgment. During the coming winter, despite this Bill, the unemployed difficulty would recur, and next year, whichever Party was in power, it would have to be dealt with drastically. The present Bill, however, made a beginning for which he was grateful, and it would afford a foundation upon which a proper superstructure might subsequently be erected.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that if the hon. Member for North-West Durham claimed to be a friend of the working classes his proper course, after declaring the Bill not to be in their true interests, was to have the courage of his conviction and vote against the Third Reading. Personally, he was not in favour of the Bill, and if the hon. and learned Member would "tell" with him he would divide the House against it.
  *MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid his point of view was diametrically opposed to that of the hon. Baronet. What he said was that the Bill had a germ of good in it and that if the Government had the courage to allow the rates to be used for the purpose of helping the poor it would be a good Bill. But at present there was simply the machinery provided with no means of putting the machinery into operation.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that if that was the view of the hon. Member he could not understand the object of his letter in that day's Times. His proper course was to have moved in Committee that power should be given for the rates to be so used. As to his own position, he felt very strongly against the Bill, believing as he did that for the first time it introduced into English law the principle that work must be found for anybody who chose to demand it. That principle, instead of tending to the relief of distress, would increase and aggravate it, and the Bill as it stood would do nothing to ameliorate the unemployed difficulty. It was likely to stop voluntary contributions, and, as the rates could not be used, it would do nothing more than encourage a principle which he believed would be ruinous to the future of the country.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that from its introduction he had done his utmost both privately and publicly to make the Bill as good as possible. He believed that when it was introduced it did not meet the necessities of the case, and he said so. That view was held by many persons in his constituency who had had very long experience of the unemployed, and they desired a stronger measure. He also wished to have a

  431
  stronger Bill, but having regard to the fact that in the coming winter there was every indication that great difficulties would have to be faced, and having regard also to the fact that the corporation of Leicester desired the borough representatives to do their utmost to secure as much as they could, he supported it as it was. He would rather have this Bill than no Bill, for if they once established a principle which would do a great public service and great good to a portion of the community it would never be repealed. They would then try to strengthen it, enlarge it, and broaden it.
  With regard to voluntary contributions, he did not join in the harrowing description of the effect of the appeals to the rich to help the distress committees. It was not the rich only who made voluntary subscriptions. If he lived until next November he should have made his contribution to hospitals and convalescent homes for twenty-eight years as part of his trade union subscription. Charity was not measured by thousands but by the sacrifice made by the giver. He was not so sure that in this matter the channels of voluntary subscriptions would dry up. The money would be administered by a statutory committee instead of by a voluntary committee with many busy-bodies and goody-goody people, and that fact would induce people to give and to feel sure that their aid was put to the best advantage. As to the question generally, he believed they would never get to the root of it until public policy, aided by law, kept the people in the villages, giving them opportunity to engage in useful and profitable employment near their own homes such as was being done in Lincolnshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk. He was pleased to support the Bill, small as it was; but it was a beginning, and he hoped some good might be got out of it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURmade an appeal to the House to bring the debate to a conclusion in order that the Bill might be introduced into the House of Lords in sufficient time to be passed. He pointed out that when he undertook to give the first day possible to this Bill he counted on the House to assist him by not taking up time
  432
  unnecessarily. Time was getting on, and though he recognised that everybody had been anxious to expedite matters as far as they could, he made this appeal because he thought it would be desirable to bring the debate to a conclusion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he trusted the Bill would be through the House in a short time, but there were just one or two points he would like to put to the President of the Local Government Board before the Bill left the House. The hon. Member for Woolwich seemed somewhat alarmed that some of the Amendments passed precluded the admission of women on the central boards. He did not believe that to be the case, but he certainly thought there should be some indication in the Bill that it was desirable that women should be on these central boards.
  One other word he would like to say with regard to the Bill generally; he should like to say that he agreed with the hon. Member for Durham that this Bill would raise very false hopes. It was said that the House had been deluded, but his experience was that the House was never deluded except with its own connivance. He objected not so much to the House being deluded as to the public being deluded. The very high hopes that had been excited would never be realised. Having gone through the Bill he was amazed that so much fuss had been made about a Bill which would do very little good, except that it recognised a very important principle—a principle he should have thought the Government supporters would have been the last to recognise. Did they realise what they were giving statutory recognition to? The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham, with his customary astuteness, had recognised that the Bill itself without considerable amending was not of great importance, but he recognised that the Bill contained the germs of a revolution; and whichever Party might be in power in the future could not stop there. It recognised the right of a man to call upon the State to provide him with work. The State replied by recognising the right but would not provide the

  433
  work. The Bill was like a motor-car without petrol or only such petrol as it could beg on the road—an elaborate machine without motive power. Personally he was not afraid: he wished that its object had been enlarged. He remembered a Motion which was made by his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr on the subject of afforestation. Was there anything with regard to that in this Bill? because that scheme of employing labour had been utilised in Wales with unqualified success.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid there was nothing to prevent its coming into the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that might be, but was there anything to encourage its coming in? This Bill engendered false hopes, and, therefore, must be a danger in that respect. The Government regarded this as a revolutionary measure and had carried it—he would not say gladly, but with melancholy alacrity—to avoid prolonging the session, rather than fly from ills they knew to others that they wot not of. But a dissolution would have been much better for them than many things which were in this measure.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was quite true there was nothing in the Amendments accepted in any way to make it less likely that women Would be appointed upon those bodies. There was nothing to weaken the provisions of the Bill in that matter, but he did not know that it would be advisable to go beyond that, and to say that there should be more women on those bodies. It was suggested that this Bill would cause great disappointment in its operation, and he thought that was possible. But nothing that he himself had said would justify any hopes that might have been raised. He had from first to last been careful to say exactly what the Bill could do and what it was intended to do. He had always said that the Bill was not intended to deal with the whole of the vast problem known as the question of the unemployed, but only with a comparatively small part of that problem—namely, the case of thoroughly deserving workmen who were ordinarily in regular
  434
  employment, but who, in consequence of fluctuations in our industrial system, were from time to time thrown out of work through no fault of their own. He would remind the House that at the present moment local authorities were doing what they had been doing for years past—undertaking works for the very purpose of relieving the class of workers whose relief was contemplated in this Bill. They had done that in accordance with methods which he thought in most cases had been thoroughly faulty, and one of the great objects of this Bill was to substitute better methods. If nothing else than that were to follow as the result of the Bill, he thought it was capable of doing a great amount of good. If it were true that the Bill would cause disappointment, the fault lay with those who had exaggerated what it was possible or desirable to do. What was called the principle of giving work to all deserving persons in the State who applied for it was not the principle of the Bill, and, in his opinion, any attempt of that kind would be fraught with the greatest possible danger. He did not believe it to be true that in this country when legislation entered upon a particular path this House and the country would never be satisfied until the principle in germ had been carried out to what was called its logical conclusion. That was not our way in this country.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not a logical conclusion, but a practical conclusion.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not think it was a practical conclusion, but he did not wish to dispute with the hon. Member on that point. His conviction was that, although there was a good deal that was novel in this Bill, it would not take them along the path suggested by hon. Members opposite.
  *MR. WHITMOREsaid that he and some of his friends on his side of the House voted against the Bill on the Second Reading. He was strongly tempted to repeat the protest now. But, apart from other modifications in the Bill, his mind was affected by two material considerations, but he found that the measure had been considerably

  435
  altered since it was introduced. In the first place, the Bill since the Second Reading had been limited in its operation to a period of three years. In the second place, it had been announced that a Royal Commission was to be appointed to make an inquiry of a large scope. He hoped the Commission would report before the termination of three years. He still considered the central principle of the Bill mischievous and fraught with possible evil to the whole community, but under the circumstances he thought he was justified in regarding the Bill in its present shape as an experiment from which the Royal Commission might be enabled to draw some useful lessons. He wished to reserve to himself absolute freedom of action in future whenever Parliament was called upon again to review this important question. Whatever might be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the binding character of the Bill, whatever they might think as to its being bound to be followed by legislation of a more drastic or more logical kind, or, if they liked, a more practical kind, he would, for his part, regard the Bill as merely an experiment. He declined to be governed by its passage in his action in the future.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he voted against the Second Reading of the Bill because he thought it contained a most mischievous principle, and its operation would be to manufacture unemployed rather than to decrease their numbers. The only difference in the Bill now before the House as compared with the measure originally presented was that the present Bill merely setup machinery. If there was a division on the Third Reading he should vote against the Bill again, because he believed it involved the principle that the working people of this country had some right to claim employment, and that was the most demoralising idea that could possibly be introduced into the minds of the working classes. People appeared to think that either the State or the ratepayers should provide employment for any number of the unemployed in this country. He joined issue on that matter altogether. It was absolutely impossible for the State or local authorities to provide any quantity of employment for which there might be
  436
  a demand. It was an inconceivable and impossible position. Therefore, they were raising hopes which were absolutely incapable of being fulfilled, and that, in his opinion, was the worst thing they could possibly do as regarded the working classes.
  He thoroughly agreed with what was adumbrated by an hon. Member opposite, namely, that this was not the way to approach the unemployed question at all. They might deal with it from the point of view of reafforestation, or by creating a large number of additional holders of small plots of land—a method of which he had always been in favour—or they might deal with it by different systems in connection with industrial organisations. They needed to prevent the constant recurrence of unemployment and not to encourage it, as this Bill might do. Although the Bill was not so obnoxious to himself and those who thought as he did as it was when first introduced, he believed they were sanctioning a great departure in a wrong direction. The Bill contained the germ of a great revolutionary idea, and when they had once planted that germ to try to sweep it away would be like Mrs. Partington trying to sweep back the Atlantic with a mop. Undoubtedly the Bill would lead to the most bitter disappointment. Supposing that in Manchester, or any other large town, there was a serious difficulty as regarded unemployment during the coming winter, what would the unemployed find if they turned to this Bill? They would, as, he understood it, find an organisatioa and secretaries, but nothing else.
  He differed from the President of the Local Government Board in that he thought the Bill would have a great effect on charitable contributions. It would be inconsistent to suppose that people would contribute to the rates, even to a small extent, and at the same time give charitable contributions. Before they introduced such a revolutionary method of dealing with the question there ought to have been a thorough inquiry and a full consideration of what were the true lines on which they should advance. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had referred to the Poor Law. The difference was this, that if a man got relief under the Poor Law,

  437
  not only must he be destitute, but there were deterrent influences in connection with the social status disenfranchisement, and other disagreeable elements connected with pauperism.
  MR. KEIR HAEDIE: The Poor Law does not apply to compulsory work.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid it did, but it was only given to the destitute. The difference was this, that they were giving here a semi-fictitious and artificial assistance under conditions which were no test as to whether it was wanted or not. They were introducing artificial conditions which, in his opinion, could lead to nothing except further industrial disorganisation, further distress, and increased want of employment. Why should the landowner, the small shopkeeper, and even the artisan himself provide for the unfortunate derelicts of our too competitive industrial system? If money had to be provided for the purpose it ought to come either from the industrial organisations themselves or from the National Exchequer. The last person whom they ought to expect to bear a burden of that kind was the man who was most heavily burdened at the present time—the borough or the county ratepayer. He protested, as he had done on other occasions, against the system of introducing measures of that kind and not boldly facing the expense, but throwing it on the ratepayer.
  *SIR JOHN ROLLESTONsaid that doubts had been expressed in his constituency as to whether a Bill of this kind was desirable or not. He should like briefly to explain his reasons for his constant and consistent support of it. As the senior Member for Leicester had said, it was in response to the urgently expressed desire of the mayor and? corporation of Leicester, made known to them by means of deputations in that House, that the Members for the borough and of the surrounding country had pledged themselves to support the original Bill; and it was only last Thursday that a deputation, headed by the mayor of Leicester, urged on the President of the Local Government Board to persevere and carry the Bill through, even as proposed to be altered and amended. Now,
  438
  the Corporation represented all classes, all sections, and all parties, and might be assumed to express, with accuracy, the desires of the people as a whole. At the same time it was fair to say that not even when the original Bill was introduced, and not even now, was there complete unanimity on the subject at Leicester. In the first place, the leaders of the Labour Party were not very enthusiastic about it; and one of them, in the public Press, said that it did not matter whether the Bill was passed or not, What his Labour friends might think of the Bill now before the House they would have to wait to find out.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Very little.
  *SIR JOHN ROLLESTONsaid that, again, there was another section of the community, that section which provided the rates, many of whom were very poor people and in a condition of indigency themselves. They were fearful of any increased demands on the part of the rate-collector, which they had already difficulty enough in meeting, and they, naturally, regarded with dislike the introduction of a Bill which might add to the weight of the burdens which they had to bear. This was not numerically a very large class, he wished it was a larger class, but it was a class whose interests no Party now, or in the future, could afford to disregard. It was a matter of some difficulty to know what line should be taken in regard to this Bill. But the representation of the corporation prevailed, and were accepted as possessing such authority as the Members for the Borough could not disregard; and if, therefore, any considerable section of the people were inclined to find fault with them in his part of the country for having, throughout, pressed forward this Bill on all occasions, they must find fault with the corporation and not with them. He acknowledged that the position of the Government was very difficult. The Bill was announced in the King's Speech, and the Ministers responsible expressed their determination to persevere with it; but when Gentlemen opposite were found to be lukewarm, and Members on the Government side bitterly opposed, there did not seem to be much encouragement to proceed with the Bill. But, for his

  439
  part, he was glad that it had been proceeded with, and was grateful to the Government for their perseverance.
  He had no fear of Socialistic tendencies. It seemed to him that all measures of social reform had a Socialistic tendency. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, No!"] He had heard the same Gentlemen, both outside and inside the House, who were so afraid of that Socialistic tendency, say the only way we could have an effective Army was by means of conscription. That seemed to him to be a measure of domestic reform having the most extreme Socialistic tendency. In any case, he could say that never before in his constituency had the need for an organisation capable of dealing with temporary distress been so forcibly demonstrated as during the last six months. The Bill would certainly lay the foundations of such an organisation upon which, should it unhappily be required, a more complete scheme could be based in the future. He believed, with the senior Member for Leicester, that if such a organisation were established, the officers of which would conduct a close scrutiny into all claims made upon it, and the funds of which would doubtless be properly administered under the authority of an Act of Parliament, if that were done he believed that wealthy and well-to-do men would come forward and aid liberally those who were thrown out of employment, whether by work inside the towns or outside upon the land.
  He did not think the fears of those who thought there would not be money enough, nor the fears of those who thought they would be called upon to pay rates were either of them justified; and he believed the distress, although it was real and acute, was only temporary. Some of the causes of bad trade were already passing away, and even supposing our commerce were in a condition of decline he had no doubt that the wisdom of our statesmen would devise, and the good sense of the people would support, some means for arresting that downward tendency. The town which he represented had no fear of any permanent condition of decline. Preparations were being made, and money was being freely spent, to receive a much larger population than it now had; and
  440
  in the meantime those who conducted its local government desired that some means might be devised by which a scandal might be removed from their doors by which numbers of their citizens were walking about idle and asking for charity in the streets. The Bill would forward that desire without doing any injustice to any section of the inhabitants, and he was glad to have the opportunity of helping forward its accomplishment by recording his vote in its favour.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair].
  Clause 1:—
  *MR. McKENNAmoved to reduce the amount authorised to be borrowed under the Bill by £2,000,000, which would leave the amount to be raised £3,835,000. He pointed out that his proposal would not affect any works which were intended to be carried out in the current financial year. Out of the £5,000,000 it was proposed to borrow, only £1,250,000 would be spent in the current financial year, leaving the balance to be spent in the year 1906–7. The effect of his Amendment would be that in next year's Naval Estimates it would be necessary to include an additional £2,000,000 on Vote 10 in order to make up the money required for the works authorised by Parliament. The Amendment did not touch the works themselves, but only the way in which the money was to be provided. Not a single man would be thrown out of employment, and not a single one of the works would be stopped. Prior to 1895 the whole cost of these and similar works was placed upon the Estimates, but during the last ten years it had been found necessary to resort to large borrowings, and that at the very time the revenue

  441
  was going up by leaps and bounds, so much so that to day our revenue was very nearly double what it was ten years ago.
  In 1895 there was a reasonable case for raising money on loan for the purpose of naval works. The very fact that they had been in the habit of putting all the cost of naval works on revenue had rendered successive Chancellors somewhat unwilling to find the necessary money, and consequently permanent works had fallen into arrears. The Bill then introduced authorised the expenditure of £8,500,000, and it was quite reasonable that these arrears should not be thrown upon the Estimates of one year, but should be spread over a long period. But it was no longer a total expenditure of £8,500,000; they were now dealing with a total capital expenditure of no less than £32,000,000, and he would ask the Civil Lord whether that in any proper sense represented arrears. He thought he would agree with, him that it represented not only arrears, but practically the whole of the present and future permanent works that might be necessary for the proper provision of the Navy. Was it reasonable that they should borrow in the way they were doing in order to provide for these works? That part of his case was very easy to establish, because both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury had in turn declared that the policy ought to be abandoned. There was no quarrel on either side of the House on that point. They were all agreed that the borrowings must come to an end; the only point on which they were not agreed was when they should come to an end. They on that said of the House said they ought to take that step now and that they ought at once to make provision out of the revenue for so much of the capital expenditure as they could reasonably meet.
  Anyone who took the trouble to go through the schedule would find that it contained a great number and variety of works. Twelve years ago, similar works, or such of them as were then undertaken, would, as a matter of course have been included under Vote 10. Would anyone suggest that they ought not properly to be included under Vote 10 now? He had turned to
  442
  the Estimates for 1893–4, and he found a list exactly similar to that in the schedule of this Bill. He found Gibraltar, Portsmouth, Chatham, and Bermuda all provided for under Vote 10 then. Why were they not under that Vote now? That Vote had not in any way increased in the same proportion as the general expenditure on the Navy. He knew it was to-day very much larger than in 1893–4 and 1894–5, but that was because they had had to bear under Vote 10 such a very large charge in respect of annuities in order to repay their borrowings. Vote 10 in 1903–4 amounted to £1,000,000, in respect of works, and £502,000 in respect of annuities, in 1904–5 it likewise amounted to £1,000,000 in respect of works and to £634,000 in respect of annuities. But in 1905–6 the works had fallen to £900,000 and the annuities had risen to £1,015,000, whilst next year the charge on annuities would be larger, and in the course of the next six years he understood they would amount to no less than £1,500,000. It might be asked if it was reasonable, while Vote 10 was so swollen by the charge for annuities, to increase it in the next year by throwing upon it, as he proposed, an extra £2,000,000. Sooner or later they would have to pay for their extravagance, and, if they did not begin next year, or the year after, or the year after that, the result would be that in 1910 they would have to pay £1,500.000 under Vote 10 for annuities, in addition to the whole cost of any works undertaken in the year.
  It was true his proposal would increase Vote 10 next year by £2,000,000, but the effect would be to decrease the Vote in the year after. He would ask the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee whether, if they did what he asked them to do, it would have any effect upon the carrying out of the works, whether it would not leave him perfectly free to carry on the works already undertaken without the least hindrance, and he would ask him whether it would do anything but entail an additional charge of £2,000,000 next year on Vote 10. If on those points they were agreed, he would ask him further whether the additional charge on Vote 10 would not be compensated for by an economy on the Vote in subsequent years, when they would otherwise have to pay interest and

  443
  sinking fund in respect of the £2,000,000 which he now proposed to borrow, and which as he (Mr. McKenna) proposed should be paid out of the revenue. Under the authorised borrowing Acts in connection with military, naval, and public works they proposed this year to raise a sum of no less than £9,000,000. At the same time the Chancellor of the Exchequer was paying off out of annuities on those works about £1,500,000, and he would also be repaying by means of the Sinking Fund something like £8,000,000. The net result, therefore, would be that, so far as borrowing and repayments were concerned, at the end of the year their debt would practically remain where it now stood. They would have paid off a few hundred thousands, but no more. Was it reasonable, when the national credit stood so low as it did, when Consols were at 90, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer with great difficulty was going to the market to borrow, that they should go on borrowing for these works and not make an effort to pay as they went along and so restore the British credit? It would be a great economy in the long run.
  Quite apart from naval works, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to be a borrower in the market for years for the Irish Land Act, and it was therefore essential that he should borrow as cheaply as possible. With Consols at £90 the right hon. Gentleman was borrowing at 3 per cent., but put Consols up to £100 and he Would be able to borrow at 2½ per cent. It was in the interests of the strictest economy that he asked the right hon. Gentleman to accept his Motion to cut down the borrowing by £2,000,000. Let the House remember that the Admiralty was not infallible, and that so long as the House placed in the hands of that Department an abundant supply of borrowed money, so long would it find it necessary to go on spending. If the First Lord of the Admiralty found it difficult to extract money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would be much more likely to cut down his Estimates. He did not question that all these works were good works. He was quite prepared to admit that every one of them could be shown to be a good work in
  444
  itself, but it might not be so easy to show that it was a necessary work at the present time or a work out of which they would get full value for the money expended. He had not the slightest doubt that if the Admiralty were given £100,000,000 at this moment they would know how to spend that money in putting up docks and piers at every seaport in the country, but whether it would be a wise expenditure was another matter. So far as the proposed works were essential let them be paid for out of revenue, but it was far more necessary to restore British credit than to spend borrowed money on them, and that being so, he begged to move to reduce the Vote by £2,000,000.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'five' and insert the word 'three.'"—(Mr. McKenna.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the clause."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he did not know how long the hon. Member was speaking before he came in, but he (Sir John) had heard enough to convince him that the hon. Member's arguments were not based on sound principles. All he had heard was that it was better not to do what was necessary for the Navy either in armaments or works—that it was very much more important to restore the credit of the country. That was a doctrine, which no sane man would advocate. He saw no danger to our credit either by a Naval or any other Works Bill. The point of view from which he regarded these Bills was, were they essentially necessary, and had they been thoroughly well thought out? Were they based on a policy fully explained to the House? If so, let the House deliberately give its judgment, and having done so let the House and country be bound by it. He must again remark upon the impropriety of introducing Naval Works Bills at the end of the session. One Party was just as bad as the other in this matter; but it was an absolutely wrong practice. A Naval Works Bill ought to be founded on a well-thought-out and deliberately considered policy,

  445
  and the House should have an opportunity of discussing what that policy was and why it was necessary. In such a way only was it possible to come to a reasonable and sound conclusion.
  Turning to the Bill itself, he must say that the explanation of the Civil Lord had for the first time alarmed him in regard to a change in Admiralty policy.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. and gallant Member would not be entitled to go into the whole question of naval policy on this Amendment.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that he would resume his remarks on the policy of the Bill when the whole clause came up for discussion.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he usually found him self in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member opposite, but on this occasion he thought the hon. and gallant Member had done some injustice to his hon. friend below the gangway, whose contention was that it was more important to restore the national credit than to proceed with Naval Works Bills under this system. He quite agreed that these Bills were brought in too late in the session, but he did not agree that both sides of the House were to blame in the matter. The present Government had been in power ten years and had had the management of all these Bills except the first, for which he was responsible, and which he succeeded in passing through Committee before the Government were defeated in the middle of June. The Amendment proposed to reduce the sum asked for in the Bill by £2,000,000, but as the Government had an unused balance and borrowing powers amounting to nearly that sum, its effect would be simpiy to limit the borrowing power to the amount named in the Bill. The Amendment might be taken in several ways. It might be a proposal to limit the time during which the Admiralty could go on without coming to Parliament, to limit the works they were to go on with, or, without impugning any of the works mentioned, to say that some of them ought to be taken out of the schedule and placed on the Esti-
  446
  mates, or to declare that the proposed expenditure during the two years should be reduced and the works retarded. The Amendment might be taken in any one of those senses, so peculiar were these Bills, the only limit being one, not of time, but of money.
  The original Act was based on the principle that the expenditure should be assimilated as far as possible to expenditure under the Estimates: the intention as to have annual Bills, so that Parliament would have the same opportunity of discussing the works as would be provided under the Estimates. All that was changed directly the Party opposite came into power. His hon. friend had made the most serious attack upon the whole system that had been delivered since its introduction. At various times, notably during the South African War, there had fallen to his lot the individual task of objecting to new works on the ground that they were not urgent, and he had received little support even from his own side. He was glad, therefore, to recognise that at last there was a disposition to criticise severely the whole scheme of these Acts. He should vote for the Amendment on the broad and general ground that it was a protest against the continuance of the policy of borrowing, not only for naval, but also for military and other works. There had been some mystification about the policy of the Government. He and many others held they were justified by a statement of the Civil Lord in believing that the Government intended to drop entirely the system of Naval Works Bills. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had dissipated that belief, and had announced that the system was to come to an end only when all the items in the present schedule were completed; in other words, there were to be no new items. But if the system was condemned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by both sides of the House, as it had been, why should not the change be made here and now. The amount would not necessarily have the effect of putting the £2,000,000 on the next year's Estimates; if the present Government were in charge of the finances of the country he was confident it would not be so charged.
  One reason why he supported this Amendment was the enormous extension which

  447
  had been given to this system of borrowing during recent years. Unquestionably a former Liberal Government committed themselves to this same principle years ago, but it was in relation to a much smaller scheme, and was comparatively small when placed side by side with the scheme which the House was now considering. Not only had there been a great extension of this principle in regard to naval works, but the same principle had been extended to other works. The system which a former Government began in order to remedy the unsafe state of the Navy had now been spread over six or seven other matters, and the magnitude which these loans had now reached made the problem a very difficult one, and quite justified him in giving his support to his hon. friend's Amendment. What never seemed to have been properly avowed by the Admiralty was that these vast works at home and abroad ought to be taken into account in estimating the strength of our Navy. These works gave them an advantage over all their competitors which could hardly be estimated by the Power-standard. He objected to continuing this system because it had grown so greatly in regard to naval works and because it had grown greater still in regard to its extension to other works. In spite of this vast expenditure by loan upon naval works, Vote 10 had grown to a sum which was twice as large as it was before this system of naval works loans was adopted. He thought it was time to call a halt. Since they began this system of borrowing for naval works their national credit had fallen, and Consols, which then stood at 110, had fallen to the present low figure. He thought it was a great mistake to issue loans at a time when their national credit was low. They were supposed to have a Sinking Fund, but, as a matter of fact, in the current year the actual reduction of the National Debt would be a very small sum indeed. In spite of the co-operation of the so-called Sinking Fund he had calculated that our national liabilities this year would be £2,500,000 more than they were the year before. He did not see why the Government should not have proceeded upon the; same principle as was adopted in the earlier years of the Naval Works Act, when the old Sinking Fund was suspended and applied to naval and other works. In the
  448
  words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, what was the use of paying off debt with one hand and increasing it with the other. He was afraid that the public had been led to believe that a large sum of money was being applied every year to paying off debt, when, as a matter of fact, last year nothing at all was paid off. For these reasons he intended to vote for the Amendment.
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,)said he sympathised with the hon. Member for Dundee in the position in which he found himself when attacking the principle of these Bills, inasmuch as he was the original culprit in these matters.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Not culprit.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the hon. Member repudiated the word "culprit." He agreed with him and did not think there was any reason why the hon. Member's Government or the present Government should be ashamed of the principle which underlaid these Bills. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment half admitted that the necessity for these loans arose originally through the neglect of the essential business of providing proper works for the Navy by their predecessors. He did not mean their immediate political predecessors, but their predecessors during the last generation. The Amendment was one which he did not think the hon. Member for North, Monmouthshire would expect the Government to accept, because it struck at the principle of the Bill—a principle which the hon. Member stated that he took exception to. But he would remind the Committee that there were no new items in this Bill at all, and that what the Government was asking the Committee to do was merely to provide for the continuance of the policy which the House had already sanctioned with reference to the items contained in the schedule. These items had all been approved by the House in previous years, and all the Government asked the Committee to do was to continue the provision necessary to carry on these works for the next two years.

  449
  They all admitted that it was desirable to bring this system of borrowing to an end as soon as it could conveniently be done. A beginning had been made in that direction this year. It was a modest beginning, but from the point of view of the Committee he hoped it showed signs of grace. The Government had carried the beginning of the new system as far as they thought it would be safe or convenient to carry it with justice to the present generation of taxpayers. The hon. Gentleman opposite said they ought to begin the end of this system "here and now." They had begun here and now in this Bill. They considered that it would not be fair to the taxpayers of this generation to pay out of the revenues of the year the whole of the large sums required to be raised, but that, following the contention put forward by Sir William Harcourt when Chancellor of the Exchequer, the expenditure ought to be equalised as far as possible over a number of years in view of the fact that these were permanent works for the benefit not only of this generation but of the next as well.
  The hon. Member said that in the old days we used to pay our way out of revenue. We certainly paid for what works were constructed, but all the time we were letting the estate run down and letting arrears accumulate. That was not paying out of revenue. It was the falsest kind of economy. The hon. Member for North Monmouthshire admitted that there had been arrears to a certain extent, and he endeavoured to contend that the late Liberal Government provided in 1895 for the whole of the arrears amounting to £8,500,000. He did not propose to contest the point with the hon. Member as to what was the exact amount of arrears at that date, beyond saying that it was very much more than that. But the hon. Member must remember that the Navy had greatly increased since those days, and that there must also be an increase in the works and dock accommodation which were absolutely necessary to keep it in an efficient condition. In the case of works which were not seriously advanced they proposed to transfer the expenditure on them to the Navy Esti-
  450
  mates. They had made a beginning, which they thought was substantial, in transferring certain items to the Estimates of next and subsequent years. They had gone as far as they had thought it wise or fair to go in that direction, and it was therefore impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
  MR. WHITLEY, said that in supporting the Amendment the only doubt he had was whether the amount of the reduction was large enough. As a matter of fact, hon. Gentlemen on the other side were not now in a fit condition to sign a cheque for £5,835,000. When they remembered the circumstances of terrorism under which the Government came there he doubted whether any Court would hold that their signature was valid. Imagine their reading what was said by the Daily Telegraph and considering that hey were in a fit condition to sign the cheque! Surely his hon. friend was a little too modest in only asking a reduction of £2,000,000. He noticed that a Cabinet Minister was ordered peremptorily to be in his place on this occasion. Were members of the Committee aware that his system of expenditure meant that for every £1,000,000 worth of work done the nation had to pay £1,500,000 before getting finished with it? By paying in this way, as compared with putting these sums on the annual Estimates, it meant that they were actually paying 50 per cent. more than value received. If they took the thirty years sinking fund and reckoned the interest at 3 per cent. they would readily see that this system of loans meant a large extra cost, quite apart from the question of the necessity, or otherwise, of the particular items which appeared in the schedule. Of course, it was a well-known fact that if they were put on the annual Estimates there was certain to be more care in the spending of the money. The very terms of the Bill enabled the Admiralty to levy a demand on the Treasury, and the Treasury parted with almost its whole control. The Bill said that the Treasury "shall issue" the money required by the Admiralty under the Act; and he hoped that that would be altered in the future. He was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not favoured the Committee with his presence at all during these proceedings,

  451
  and that even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had been present for only a few moments. He thought his hon. friend's Amendment demanding the reduction of £2,000,000 was an extremely modest one.
  MR. McCRAEsaid he supported the Amendment for a reason which had not yet been given, and that was that the present Government, in his opinion, should not be granted any more borrowing powers in regard to naval works until they had settled the policy which they meant to pursue. They had not a continuity of policy in regard to either the Army or naval works, and he thought the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had made a very perfunctory reply to the speech of his hon. friend. In 1903, in one of these Naval Works Acts, the Government got power to spend £4,500,000 at Chatham, and the other day they were told that these Chatham extensions were not to be proceeded with.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question of the Chatham extensions is not at present before the Committee.
  MR. McCRAEsaid that, with all due deference to the Chairman, he was using an argument why the amount of money authorised in the Bill to be borrowed should be reduced by £2,000,000. He was going to show that this money was not required because the Government had already power to borrow £4,500,000 for the Chatham extensions, which they were not going to exercise. Apart from the question of the expense of the system of borrowing, it had a bad effect on national finance, and he maintained that this Government could not be trusted with those borrowing powers until they had definitely made up their minds what they were going to do. He hoped that before the Amendment was put, some more definite reply would be obtained from he Civil Lord as to why he should come to the House in the closing days of the session and ask for such a large sum of money as was in this Bill—money which was not actually required. Moreover, the expenditure authorised by the schedule was revenue
  452
  and not capital expenditure. The responsibility for that expenditure would fall on those who would follow the hon. Gentlemen opposite in office, while they would not be responsible for the methods by which the money was to be raised.
  *MR. BRIGHTsaid it seemed to him that the £5,835,000 to be borrowed under this Bill ought to be charged to Vote 10 of the Estimates. To put this money down to capital account was bad finance. Expenditure on docks, moles, etc., should be debited every year to revenue, and not to capital account. They might as well borrow £1,000,000 to build a battleship, and then charge £100,000 every year for repayment. Municipal borrowing had been quoted in defence of this system of borrowing for naval works; but there was all the difference in the world between the two. Municipal works, like electric lighting, gas, and waterworks, were productive, and gave an interest on the capital invested. There was nothing productive about these naval works. Again, even in the case of municipal expenditure on public parks, it was, if not directly, indirectly productive, because these parks promoted the health and comfort of the community. The expenditure on these naval works had been compared to fire insurance, but whoever heard of any business man charging fire insurance to capital instead of against revenue? Then it was said that there were assets for this expenditure; but could those assets be realised? Besides, these borrowings led to a bad system. There was now a Funded Debt, an Unfunded Debt, and a semi-secret or side-track debt; and all that system was hindering the prosperity of the community at the present moment. What had been the result of this system on finance? In 1897, Consols stood at 114, they were now at 90¼, and local loans, which stood at 115, were now only 100¼.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING FITTING.

  OCEAN ACCIDENT AND GUARANTEE CORPORATION BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that, in moving that the Bill be considered this day three months, he was actuated by no hostility towards the company promoting it, but the character of the Bill was such that, with regard to the powers it was sought to give, it ought not to be considered at so late a period of the session. It was a commentary on the procedure of the House that at the very time when every moment was required in order to get through public business a Bill of this character should be brought up to be considered. He had no knowledge that there was such a Bill in existence until by the courtesy of a member of the Private Bill Committee he learned the character of the Bill, and he moved this Resolution in order to give the House an opportunity to consider whether such powers should be given to a private company for its own ends, whether such powers ought to be granted to any private corporation, and, if granted, whether they ought not to be given by public Bill.
  He had always taken a keen interest in trust matters, and was fully alive to the enormous importance of something being done which would prevent the terrible misappropriations of trust funds which had taken place from time to time in recent years. It would be well within the knowledge of the House that a Bill having that purpose in view had passed all its stages. This was not a matter which came before Parliament for the first time. A company entitled "The Executors and Trustees Insurance Corporation" promoted a Bill, which was rejected, and before very long the company got into financial difficulties. Then there was an Edinburgh company, called the "Public Trustees, Ltd.," which promoted a Bill in the House
  454
  of Lords, which was thrown out on the ground that powers such as these should be given by a public Bill giving all companies interested in this class of work equal opportunities. He would not enter into the legal technicalities of the matter, but would leave them to the hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury, who took a great interest in these matters, but he trusted the House would press for an authoritative opinion from the President of the Board of Trade and the law officers of the Crown before they agreed to grant these powers to a private corporation.
  They were not without expert opinion on these matters. The present Lord Chancellor gave cogent reasons why such powers should not be granted to a private corporation in his evidence before the Royal Commission presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries in 1894, and he trusted that the House would reflect very carefully before granting these large powers, because they must remember that once given they could not be revoked and if any misfortune arose in the future they themselves would have to bear the responsibility for having granted the powers. The statements made in regard to this company in a circular issued recently were somewhat misleading. The company was a respectable company, and its directors were highly honourable men. One of them whom he now saw before him he would gladly trust with any property he had if he knew that he had the time to attend to it, but he knew that that hon. Gentleman gave all his time to the State, and would have no time to look into such matters. The memorandum said that this company had been established thirty-five years, which was in itself not a very long time, but as it at present existed it had only been established fifteen years, owing to its amalgamation with other companies. With regard to its financial condition, he had turned to the Stock Exchange Yearbook, the only authority he could turn to, which showed the state of affairs to be—revenue account £50,000 odd, investment and reserve account £40,000 odd, and the loan from the bank £30,000, and he could not understand how that tallied with the statement in the memorandum that their invested assests

  455
  amounted to £1,250,000. No doubt that could be ascertained. He found that the company took such very wide powers in its articles of association that it was impossible to take wider powers, and that this company should now be entrusted with the very wide powers taken by this Bill was a matter for the very serious consideration of the House. He asked the House to say whether in a matter of this kind, having regard to the facts he had laid before them, it was not desirable that these powers should not be given by private Bill, and to say that it was not right or proper that Parliament at this late period of the session should convey to one private company these wide powers, which would be a valuable asset to the company itself, but of no benefit whatever to the public.
  *MR. H. D. GREENEsaid he opposed the Bill as being utterly subversive of all the principles on which private Bills were allowed to pass the House. It had never been considered right that a particular company should obtain a concession, as it were, to abrogate the general law of the land in its favour to the exclusion of every other individual. It might be suggested that it would be a hardship to the company if this Bill was stopped at the present stage, but there was no weight in such an argument because it came before this House as an unopposed Bill and was sent to the Unopposed Bill Committee, which had not the advantage of having any discussion whatever, and which only had to see that the preamble was proved as far as matters of fact were concerned. They had nothing to do with matters of principle, and could therefore only pass it. It was therefore no hardship to the company that opposition should be taken to he Bill when it was realised that that opposition was raised upon the earliest opportunity, namely, the consideration stage.
  The reason for the company coming to Parliament was because without an Act of Parliament they could not do two things. No executor could under the law of the land obtain authority to act from the Court of Probate, unless he made an oath to execute the office justly and properly, and an oath that he would return to the Court of Probate a true and proper
  456
  inventory and account of the deceased's estate. And under an Act of George III., an executor had to make an oath that he would declare the true audit of the estate that came into his hands. By well-established law a corporation had never been able or been allowed to act as executors, and what they had been obliged to do was to appoint a syndic or manager to act on their behalf, because the manager could take the oaths required which a corporation could not take. What this company was now asking was that it should be allowed to act as executors without having to take the oaths required of executors that the office should be executed justly, that a true account should be rendered, and that the value of the estate should be truly declared; and also to act as administrators on giving their own bond for proper administration without finding two sureties for the bond, as was required under the present law in the case of administrators. These were very extraordinary proposals to make, and it would be still more extraordinary for the House to accept them simply because the Bill was being opposed, as it was said, at the eleventh hour.
  Turning to the principle involved, he did not say that a company should not be allowed, to act as executors or administrators, and he hoped hon. Members would not be misled by any argument from the otherside as toits being a question whether any company should or should not be allowed to act in this way. That was not the point. The point was whether this company should be allowed to have all these advantages, which no one else in this country, company or individual, possessed, for the purposes of their own gain. In 1890 the late Lord Herschell introduced a Bill in the House of Lords to enable companies to act as executors and administrators. A carefully drawn-up Bill was introduced and amended in various clauses and was passed through the House of Lords; but, although it was formally introduced in the House of Commons, it never came on for Second Reading, In that Bill a sort of code was drawn up which would have been applicable to any trust company which desired to engage in business of this kind. That was a reasonable and proper proposal if the terms and clause

  457
  had been suitable. The idea was that there should be a model law applicable to all companies. What a different thing that was to the present Bill! Here they were asked to sanction one company and one company alone. They had heard from the hon. Member who proposed the Motion that the Executors and Trustees Corporation had tried, and tried in vain, to get such a Bill through private legislation. It was felt to be a sine qua non that there should be a general Act regulating the manner in which companies should be absolved from the requirements of the Probate Law. That being so, he felt there was a very strong case against the Bill.
  It would be said that in the other House precautions were taken and the company was required to find £50,000 and pay it into Court so that it might stand as security; but that sum was not earmarked for that particular purpose; it was only put aside out of the general assets, and would stand to the good of the company and for any of its creditors. There was £1 paid up on £5 shares, and, supposing they called up the remaining £4, what would be left if somebody made away with the trust securities, and what would become of the creditors? To talk of the £50,000 being a security was idle and childish. The Board of Trade was introduced and they would be told that the Board of Trade was allowed under the Bill to fix the amount of remuneration and, if necessary, to name the amount of costs that might be charged. He objected in toto to allowing the Board of Trade ægis to be thrown over any company. It seemed to him it ought not to be put in the power of any company to advertise that they were protected and supported by the Board of Trade and that they had got an asset of that kind in their power. Without discoursing upon the general principle, it seemed to him absolutely contrary to the interest of anyone that their affairs should be thrown into the hands of a company. A company desired, for its shareholders, to carry on a trust as long as possible so that the remuneration should endure as long as possible; but his view was that a trust should be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible. Therefore, a public or a private
  458
  trustee was much the better. That, however, was not of the question that night. What they had to consider was whether exceptional and peculiar privilege should be given to this company, whether they could show a case for singular and exceptional treatment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three mouths.'"—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. HALDANEsaid that, like the hon. Member who had just sat down, he had no concern or interest in the company. He knew nothing about it except what he had gathered from the Bill and the statements circulated. Unlike him, however, he rose to appeal to the House to give the Bill its Third Reading, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury that the question was not to be decided on any technical ground. It was not enough that the Bill had come too late, that it had passed both Houses, and that the promoters had had all the trouble of getting it to this stage. It had to be considered on its merits, and it was just because he had considered it upon its merits that he made his appeal to the House. For twenty years he had been more or less indirectly concerned with questions affecting trusteeship, and more and more, as year succeeded year, he had observed the extraordinary and increasing difficulty of getting proper and efficient people to act as trustees. The hon. Member for Sheffield had got a Bill of his own very much in his mind—the Public Trustees Bill. He was strongly in favour of that Bill, and he voted for it. He thought it would be a most useful Bill, but it would not serve the purpose of the Bill which was now before the House. The Public Trustees Bill was a Bill which would serve the purposes of the Court when, in an emergency, it was a moot point that somebody should take the place of a trustee. It would serve the purpose of small estates and poor people, but it would not serve the purpose of the ordinary

  459
  testator who wanted somebody to take charge of his affairs free from the red tape which was essentially associated with every Government Department.
  The case which had been made against the Bill was in the main, not that no company ought to act as a trustee, but that the conditions under which the company ought to act should be regulated by general legislation. He was also of that opinion, but what chance was there of obtaining anything of the kind? The present Government had been in office for a considerable time, but what steps had it taken to give effect to the propositions which came before the House in the Bill of 1890? What chance was there of stops being taken which would make available to the general public conditions under which the trust companies were to act? There was one chance by which they could make progress, and it was for some enterprising company, such as the present company, to succeed in getting a private Bill through, and for them then to lay the foundations on which other companies could come in. If this Bill passed, it was inevitable that Parliament must legislate at an early date and lay down conditions applicable to all companies. There was no sacredness about this Bill. He shonld be in favour of subjecting the present company to the usual stringent regulations; but, unless the House took some such opportunity as the present of making a start, what chance was there of this most useful and necessary piece of legislation being carried by which efficiency in private trusteeship should be supplemented? They were not dealing with a Bill that had passed Parliament. Aa the hon. Member for Sheffield had pointed out, the Lord Chancellor made some remarks upon the Bill when it came before the other House, and the Bill was amended by the insertion of the £50,000 and other clauses to put it on a level with, and make it subject to, the conditions of the General Trust Company Bill of 1890, with which the names of Lord Herschell and Lord Davey would always be associated. He could not help thinking that the House did not realise the consensus of opinion in favour of companies undertaking the business of a trustee. They had the sanction of some of the most eminent lawyers of the day
  460
  —Lord Herschell, Lord Davey, and, he thought he might add, the Lord Chancellor himself.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard what I said.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he had heard what the hon. Member had said. The Bill, as it came before them, was one which had received very careful consideration and had been amended at the hands of those responsible in the other House, He was not arguing that as conclusive, but that they had got a real public difficulty to deal with. There was not the smallest prospect of the House being induced to take up the general subject, pressed as it was with other business, either now or immediately hereafter, unless a start was made. He desired to see some promise made to those unfortunate testators who could not find trustees to carry out their affairs. They would not do that with the Public Trustee Bill. They would not provide for the class with which this Bill sought to deal. Those who were in favour of private companies acting under proper restrictions and conditions thought it was no longer desirable that people should be driven to hunt about for trustees.
  The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down talked about this company as though a private company was something vastly inferior to the ordinary private trustee. Who was the ordinary private trustee? Generally somebody too busy to look after the affairs of the trust, or, if he was not too busy, who was not competent to look after it. He left the matter to the solicitor. He had a great appreciation for that honourable profession, which had rendered the public a great service, but it was not desirable that the trusteeship should rest with the solicitor entirely. Therefore, this Bill, to his mind, afforded a choice between leaving it to a very large extent under the control of the solicitor and putting it in the hands of somebody who would attend to the matter according to fixed rules and in a business fashion. The hon. and learned Member opposite did not mean to convey that a

  461
  company could not act as a trustee under the law. Of course it could; as far as their difficulties in acting were concerned, that was a mere matter of technicality. The oath could just as well be made by the manager of a corporation as by anyone else. The deposit of £50,000 at any rate raised the wealth of the corporation, and he would ask whether a company of the kind and standing of the present was not less likely to embark in speculation than the ordinary trustee, who might be a man of business, a man of no fortune at all, and a man who wa asppointed with the risk that, if his own private fortune went and the temptation came to him, he might meddle with the securities just as much as any trade corporation. The duty of the corporation was to administer this as a matter of business, and in the vast majority of cases the corporation had to act on a businesslike footing and had to submit to audit, which no private trustee had to submit to.
  *MR. H. D. GREENE: By the company's own auditors.
  MR. HALDANE: They have to submit to audit. That is the point, and if the Board of Trade is dissatisfied—
  *MR. H. D. GREENE: There is no power on the part of the Board of Trade with regard to the audit.
  MR. HALDANEsaid under Section 22 the Board of Trade might make rules as to the audit of any trust company.
  *MR. H. D. GREENE: What about the London and Globe Company?
  MR. HALDANEasked what the London and Globe had to do with the Bill. There was a special provision giving the Board of Trade power to insist upon a private audit of the trust administration of the company. That was a provision they did not have in the case of a private trustee. He was not speaking for the corporation. It was a Bill which embodied the general conditions of the Bill of 1890, and these conditions were laid down as being essential to the security of the public. He desired to press the point as one worthy of the
  462
  serious consideration of the House, that if they rejected this Bill they rejected at least that which would make it necessary for the House to proceed to the consideration of the whole of the subject on the lines of broad legislation such as would lay down conditions to which all trust companies must conform. They had reached a state at which it was impossible to find trustees to do the business as it ought to be done, in an efficient and satisfactory fashion. They had reached the state at which, unless they took up a measure of this kind, they would find more and more difficulty of getting trustees who could attend to the business entrusted to them; and, speaking for himself, he should regard it as an opportunity lost if, by rejecting the Bill upon the Third Reading, they were unable to deliver themselves from the haphazard condition of things to which they were subjected at the present time. There was not the smallest comparison between the Public Trustee Bill and the present Bill. They aimed at different classes of administration. It would not help the class of administration he desired to help and which must be helped if business was to be put on a satisfactory footing. He was anxious to see the Third Reading of the Bill assented to, believing that it would lead to general legislation which would put the whole law of trust administration on a better footing.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given a vague reason why they should pass the Bill. He asked that they should pass the Third Reading of the Bill and so enforce legislation and see what was the proper line on which to allow what was asked for. That, he thought, was a dangerous principle. If they carried out what the hon. Gentleman had recommended they would give special privileges, which the House had always hitherto refused, to a private company for private gain, and they would then, having created that vested interest, proceed to legislate upon the general law of the subject.
  There was only one way in which the subject could be dealt with

  463
  properly, and that was, if the House or the country thought it was necessary, to change the general law of the land, making proper restrictions under which public companies might be allowed to administer the estate of a testator. The first restriction ought to be, and would be, that the House must be satisfied, either through a Committee or some other inquiry, as to the stability of the company they were going to entrust with these powers. He did not say a word against the present company. He knew nothing about it; but up to the present there had been no inquiry whatever as regarded its position. They were asked, without any inquiry, to allow a company, which undoubtedly engaged in a business of a special nature, to associate with its business, without any restrictions whatever, the business ox acting as trustee and executor under wills in this country, and to allow the company in so acting to make a profit, even though the testator had not authorised any such action either by will or by settlement. What would be the result if the House allowed such a proposition? They would have company after company—and there were companies and companies—coming to the House with Bills framed exactly like the present one, and they would point to the present case as a precedent to show why the House should give them the same privilege without inquiry. What the result of that would be it would be difficult to say. The moment they proceeded to abrogate the requirements of the ordinary law of the land they ought to proceed, not by private Bill, but by public Bill. They ought to give the privileges they granted, not to one company but to all companies, always subject to the necessary restrictions.
  The hon. Gentleman had said very properly that there was no comparison between the present Bill and the Bill for the creation of a public trustee, in which he (Sir E. Carson) was extremely interested, believing it was a necessary reform which ought to be made; but how had the House dealt with that Bill? After sending it to the Grand Committee on Law, and alter two days examination in that House, the House still thought it had not sufficient
  464
  time to consider the necessary change. Yet they were now asked to change the law after a few moments consideration and without all the examination thought necessary in the case of the public Bill. He knew a great deal could be said on behalf of the promoters, that it was hard that at the last moment the Bill should be opposed, but the question of unopposed Bills stood in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was all very well in cases where there were rival interests and where some one was sure to take care that the Bill was properly discussed; but in a Bill like the present one, where the interests of the public were concerned, who would go to the expanse of opposing and in that way bringing the matter fully before the Unopposed Bill Committee or Select Committee? He was informed that there was no precedent for the Unopposed Bill Committee throwing out a Bill. He was, therefore, taking no extraordinary course, because it was not the case of a Bill coming back to them after thorough sifting, after evidence had been taken, and after a Committee had reported. It was actually a case of a Bill coming back to them almost in the same condition, as far as the result of any inquiry was concerned, as when it left the House. He was not at all sure, from what he knew of the Unopposed Committee, whether, if it had known the Bill made serious changes in the ordinary law of the land, that it would for one moment have allowed it to pass. But, as it was without precedent for throwing out such a Bill, they were confronted with the fact that serious changes in the ordinary law of the land might be made without any investigation and inquiry in consequence of the procedure of the House. The House ought not to allow a company for its own private gain to take up the position of trustee and have the privileges asked for without thoroughly inspecting every clause and every line in the Bill. The principle required the minutest examination. Of course, it was absolutely impossible at that time of the session that any such examination should take place, and he, therefore, recommended the House to agree to the Motion of his hon. friend.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that as a member of the

  465
  Unopposed Bill Committee which reported this Bill he desired to make one or two observations. Upon the whole he agreed with the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman who seconded the Motion now before the House, but he desired the House to know the difficulty in which the Unopposed Bill Committee was placed with regard to Bills of this character. The practice in his experience of several years was for some gentleman to be asked to prove the preamble. He was asked if it was true and he simply said, "Yes, it is." They then proceeded to consider the clauses and the reports made from the various public departments, but it was really impossible for them to examine whether the allegations of the preamble were or were not true. In this case the position of the Committee was one of especial difficulty, because there could be no doubt that every allegation in the preamble was true, as it could be vouched for by public documents. The only possible question about the preamble was the question of policy. Though he did not like the Bill, when he found on the authority of the Speaker's counsel that there was no case in which a Bill had been thrown out by an Unopposed Bill Committee, he felt he could do nothing except join in the Report to the House. The Committee proceeded to consider the various clauses, and the Bill was reported in due course-He thought the House ought to understand that they were not committed in any way by anything in the Report of the Unopposed Bill Committee.
  *MR. DUKEdid not think the Unopposed Bill Committee really needed the apology which had just been addressed to the House. There had been raised an alarmist cry that the funds of trust estates were going to be put in danger of being fraudulently employed or embezzled. But that danger existed to a great extent at present, and there were people who seemed to regard themselves as having vested interests in that respect. The great hindrance to providing against fraud and embezzlement with regard to trust funds was the impossibility of establishing a public trustee. At the same time very great difficulty was experienced by settlers in finding anybody who would take the
  466
  risk and trouble to manage their affairs as if hey were his own.
  There was really no foundation for the suggestion that the trust funds were proposed to be given to a trust company to speculate with or to mix with their own funds. The Bill provided that which had never been provided for before on the part of a trust company, namely, a cash deposit of £50,000, which could be increased by the Board of Trade if the business in which the company desired to embark was a successful one. It would be an immense benefit to private persons. [Cries of "No."] He had heard the same outcry against the public trustee, and out of doors people professed to understand what that outcry meant. There was in the Bill the further security that there was to be regular audit, and the provision that the Board of Trade might make rules as to the audit of the trust securities held by the company. The Bill followed the general provisions of Lord Herschell's Bill which was carried in the Lords in 1890, with the exception that there had been introduced into it safeguards which did not exist in that measure. He was aware that that was a public Bill, but what was cried out for was that people who desired to do this business should conform to the requirements of a public standard. That standard had been set by one of the greatest lawyers this country had ever known, and acquiesced in by great masters of equity, and the present Bill offered even greater safeguards. He understood that clauses had been introduced which met all the objections raised in the House of Lords and which satisfied the Board of Trade. No one disputed that such a Bill was necessary, and the present measure tested the sincerity of the expressed desire that an existing need should be met.
  MR. McKENNAsaid the speech of the Solicitor-General would have left on the minds of persons who had not lead the Bill the impression that its purpose was to compel everybody who died hereafter to leave his estate in trust to be administered by the Ocean Accident and

  467
  Guarantee Corporation All the House was asked to do was to permit a person of sound mind to leave his property to be administered by this corporation if he desired so to do. Why should that liberty be refused? What public interest would be served by refusing it? The corporation had had the enterprise to come to Parliament and ask for the removal of certain technical disabilities which stood in the way of its acting as trustee, and by passing the Bill the House would simply enable testators to do with their property what they desired to do with it, and enable an honest company to act in the way in which they desired to act. There was far more security given for proper administration by this company than there was by the ordinary private trustee, and he trusted the House would not be misled by the speech of the Solicitor-General.
  MR. PARKER SMITHthought the question whether they should give a private company those rights and privileges was entirely different from the question whether the clauses of the Bill might be made into a general Act of Parliament. The extraordinary theory that had been advanced that because a general Act was desirable therefore this particular company ought to be allowed special privileges and other companies left to follow, illustrated the risks attaching to our present system of dealing with unopposed private Bills. Private opposition was relied upon to prevent the passage of undesirable provisions, but in the case of unopposed Bills that security did not come into operation. The House of Commons ought to place a more effective check upon these Bills. More care was certainly taken now by the Unopposed Bill Committee than used to be the case, but yet more was required. At present it was a chance whether Members looked into a matter adequately, and he thought there ought to be a permanent official whose duty it should be to raise all the points that could be raised against unopposed Bills when they came before the Committee.
  *MR. WEIRsaid he desired to look at this matter from the point of view of the testator.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved that the Question be now put, but the Motion was not accepted.
  *MR. WEIRexpressed his surprise that no reference had been made to the Royal Exchange Company, established 200 years ago, with a capital of £2,000,000, which had been carrying on this kind of business for many years, he believed, in a perfectly satisfactory manner. He had not a penny interest in any assurance company, but he objected strongly to matters of this description being rushed through in the last hours of the session. He had a fair amount of caution, and in arranging for the few bawbees he would have to deal with, he would certainly not like to leave his affairs to be managed by any company such as the one under consideration. As to the argument that sane men ought to be allowed to do as they liked, the greater part of the speculation on the Stock Exchange was carried on by sane men, and it was necessary to protect even sane men lest they should fall into any of the traps set for the unwary. He agreed that general legislation was required; it was a pity the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General and his friends had not realised that fact before, and dealt with the matter during the ten years they had been in office. He did not agree with his right hon. friend the Member for Haddingtonshire that the present Bill was better than nothing. It was preferable that the matter should be left alone. He had not much faith in the so-called safeguards. £50,000 would not be much good against the operations of speculators, while, as for the Board of Trade, the scheming artful dodgers of the city of London would be too quick for them, and the Department would endeavour to make arrangements when it was too late to do any good. He was not saying a word against the particular company concerned in this Bill, but he strongly objected to measures of this kind being, rushed through at the end of the session, and he should vote against the Bill.
  SIR AUGUSTUS HELDERsaid there were various companies carrying on business of the description referred to in the Bill, and he thought it

  469
  would be a hardship on this particular company if, after having gone through the usual forms and offered to furnish security, they were deprived of their Bill at this stage of the proceedings.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 189. (Division List No. 344.)

  AYES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murnaghan, George

  Benn, John Williams

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Harwood, George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bill, Charles

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Bond, Edward

  Healy, Timothy Michael

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

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Burns, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Randles, John S.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rankin, Sir James

  Caldwell, James

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Coddington, Sir William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Walter

  Cullinan, J.

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopfond-

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath,N.

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lamont, Norman

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Edwards, Frank

  Liddell, Henry

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thompson, Dr. E. C (Monagh'nN

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

  Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

  Tully, Jasper

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark,N.E

  Lough, Thomas

  Ure, Alexander

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wallace, Robert

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gorst, Rt.Hon.Sir John Eldon

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Woodhouse, SirJT.(Huddersf'd

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Crae, George

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Mr. Duke and Mr. Slack.

  Griffith, Ellis, J.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dewar, SirT.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dixon-Hartland,SirFred. Dixon

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cavendish, V.C. W.(Derbyshire

  Doogan, P. C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cawley, Frederick

  Doughty, Sir George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fabor, George Derison (York)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Fellowes, RtHn.Ailwyn Edward

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Bigwood, James

  Colomb, Rt.Hon.SirJohn C. R.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Bingham, Lord

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Finlay, RtHnSirR.B.(In'vrn'ss

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Brassey, Albert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Crooks, William

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Bull, William James

  Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chatham)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Delany, William

  Forster, Henry William

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col.Thos.Myles

  Gretton, John

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Groves, James Grimble

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Milvain, Thomas

  Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(IsleofWight)

  Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hammond, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Smith, RtHnJ.Parker(Lanarks

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords,NW

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Horner, Frederick William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stroyan, John

  Howard,John(Kent, Faversham

  Murphy, John

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Hozier, Hon.James Henry Cecil

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Jones, David Brynmor Swansea

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Tomlin on, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Tuff, Charles

  Keswick, William

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Parrott, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Langley, Batty

  Partington, Oswald

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks.N.R

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Pryce-Jones. Lt.-Col. Edward

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

  Purvis, Robert

  Whitmore Charles Algernon

  Leese, Sir JosephF(Accrington

  Pym. C. Guy

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ranch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ridley, S. Forde

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Sir Howard Vincent and Mr.

  Lucas, Reignald J. (Portsmouth

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  H. D. Greene.

  Lundon, W.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  Consideration of Bill, as amended, put off for three months.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'five,' and insert the word 'three.'"—(Mr. McKenna.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the clause."
  *MR. BRIGHT, continuing his speech, said the present unsatisfactory state of their national credit was largely due to this system of borrowing money for expenditure which ought to be met out of the revenue of the year. Local loans, which in 1897 stood at 115, were now 100¼. The credit of this country had dropped from 10 to 15 per cent. in regard to all our securities, whilst those of other countries had appreciated. Argentine securities during the same period had appreciated 4½ per cent. and Brazilian securities 17¼ per cent. He protested against a system of backstairs borrowing, which had resulted in the decadence of the credit of the country. Last year £6,000,000 of Exchequer bonds were issued which did not appear in the Unfunded Debt, and he supposed if this Bill passed they would have another issue of Exchequer bonds for which the market would have to provide.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said there would be no issue of Exchequer bonds.
  *MR. BRIGHTsaid he was glad to have that assurance. Sound finance was the keynote of good government, and the proposal in this Bill was not sound finance. By this system of borrowing the Government were setting a bad example to municipal authorities. The principle of this Bill was simply part and parcel of the romantic finance of the Birmingham school of economics, which laid down that things were not what they were, but what they wished them to be.
  MR. COHENsaid it the Amendment were carried at this late pariod of the session it would interfere with the Estimates and with the provision for the Navy for the year which Parliament had sanctioned. But he hoped that if the Bill passed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not conclude that the House was not determined to stop this annual borrowing for annual expenditure. On all sides there had been a unanimous expression of opinion against the system of borrowing for military and naval works. Although the hon. Member for Dundee was the original sinner in regard to this matter his successors had been the principal offenders. Although he did not think these loans were altogether responsible for the low state of the national credit, they had undoubtedly delayed the automatic recovery of securities. In future he thought those persons who sanctioned work of this kind should pay for them, and the Government had no right to leave posterity to pay for works of the kind contained in this Bill.
  MR. GUESTsaid the Amendment emphasised the fact that there was no support to this system of raising money for naval works. It would not affect the programme for the year; it would merely compel the Admiralty next year to put their works programme on the Estimates, and the Government, having surrendered the policy, it was difficult to see why the Amendment should be resisted. In his somewhat perfunctory reply the Civil Lord said the
  474
  system was required to make up for the past neglect, but, though that might have been said for the first Naval Works Act, it had now become the normal method of meeting the extra expenditure for the upkeep of an increasing Navy. It was not kept in view when large increases were made in the Navy that this involved further expenditure on dockyards, harbours, and coaling stations, There was something which appeared to him not quite straightforward in failing to recognise the incidental obligations which an increase in the Fleet involved, and he regarded this failure with considerable apprehension. It might be a delightful thing to live upon borrowed money, but it was a very bad habit for a country to get into. This system of borrowing had extended to other Departments, and our total liabilities extended to £60,000,000, the growth of recent years.
  It was a delusion to consider these naval and military works as of a permanent character. The world was littered with such works that had nothing but a slight archæological interest, and it was unfair to impose upon future generations the cost of works that might be considered useless, just as we considered much of the expenditure of our forefathers useless. Nothing could be more temporary than military or naval works, and it was extremely impolitic and unfair to throw upon a future generation the obligation of paying for defensive or offensive works which would probably in a few years cease to be of any practical value either for military or naval purposes. Their descendants in the near future might come to the conclusion that the whole system of their naval stategy required revision.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It will not be in order for the hon. Member to enter upon a debate on general naval policy.
  MR. GUESTsaid all he was trying to do was to illustrate how impossible it was to defend the permanency of any of the works which they were now creating. He thought it was wrong for them to pledge posterity for thirty years. It bad been pointed out how these loans affected national credit and threw an

  475
  additional burden on the taxpayers. He meant to fight this Bill at every stage, believing that it was wrong in principle, and that if his policy was pursued it would land the country in a more disastrous position than the Civil Lord could well imagine.
  His hon. friend who moved the Amendment had made a very reasonable proposition. He had not attempted to destroy the Bill or to curtail any of the works which the Admiralty wished to overtake in the next twelve months. His hon. friend was calling upon the Government to fulfil, if not a pledge, what almost amounted to a pledge, so strong was the expression of opinion on their part as to the desirability of ending this course of borrowing. Let the Admiralty begin at once. They had received every penny they asked for on the Estimates, and he was quite certain that if they put the cost of naval works on the Estimates next year and the year after they would get their money. He appealed to the Civil Lord to reconsider his position even at the eleventh hour and to give an assur-
  ance that this system of borrowing which all Members of the House joined in condemning would not be continued beyond the next twelve months.
  *MR. WEIRsaid that Consols not very long ago were at 114 and now they were at 90. He was amazed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who knew the effect of this system of borrowing on the national finance, did not support the modest Amendment of his hon. friend. Why did not the Government bring forward the measure at an earlier stage of the session so that an opportunity might be given for full discussion? He objected to business being rushed through in this way in the closing hours of the session. There was no opposition to naval expenditure when it was wisely controlled. This money should be raised on the Estimates next year.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 345.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fitzroy,Hon,Edward Algernon

  Allhusen,Augustus Henry Eden

  Chapman, Edward

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Arkwright, John Stan hope

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Arnold-Forster,Rt, Hn.Hugh O

  Coddington, Sir William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Arrol, Sir William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Godson,Sir Augustus Frederick

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gretton, John

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Davies,Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'nderry

  Bigwood, James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashford

  Bill, Charles

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Bingham, Lord

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Heath,Sir James(Staffords.NW

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dorington,Rt.Hon.Sir John E

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bond, Edward

  Doughty, Sir George

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Brassey, Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Doxford,Sir William Theodore

  Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Bull, William James

  Dyko,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Butcher, John George

  Faber, George Denison (York

  Hozier,Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Campbell,J.H.M(Dublin Univ.

  Fellowes,RtHn.AilwynEdward

  Hunt, Rowland

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Fcrgusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ. (Manc'r

  Jeffreys, Rt.Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir John H

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Kenyon,Hon.Geo.T. (Denbigh)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finlay.Rt HnSirR.B.(Inv'rn'ss

  Keswick, William

  Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Myers, William Henry

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Lawson,Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanark*

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Poel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhcad)

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanley.Rt.Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Liddell, Henry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stroyan John

  Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Purvis, Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Pym, C. Guy.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Randles, John S.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tuff, Charles

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Turnmour, Viscount

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Vincent,Col.Sir CEH(Sheffield)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Ritchie,Rt.Hon.Chas. Thomson

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyn

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B.Stuart-

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Morpoth, Viscount

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. Edw. J

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N.E.)

  M'Crae, George

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  Bell, Richard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, John

  Benn, John Williams

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hammond, John

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harrington, Timothy

  Parrott, William

  Buxton,Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Harwood, George

  Parlington, Oswald

  Caldwell, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hemphill, Rt.Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Crean, Eugene

  Higham, John Sharp

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Crooks, William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cullinan, J.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rose, Charles Day

  Delany, William

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Runciman, Walter

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath,N.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Edwards, Frank

  Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Slack, John Bamford

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Thompson,Dr.EC(Monagh'n,N

  Evans,Sir FrancisH.(Maidstone

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tully, Jasper

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  478

  479

  Ure, Alexander

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  M'Kenna and Mr. Leif Jones.

  Wallace, Robert

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Woodhouse,SirJT.(Huddersf'd

  Question, put, and agreed to.

  MR. WHITLEYmoved an Amendment for the purpose of providing that the control of the Treasury over the expenditure authorised by the Bill should be more effective than it would be under the clause as drafted. Under the clause as it stood it would be possible for the Admiralty to call for any amount up to the total of £5,835,000. He thought it was very undesirable that this large amount should be taken out of the control of the Treasury. All he asked for was that it should be within the power of the Treasury to issue the various sums of money from time to time as they were required. That was to say that if the Admiralty required money for these works, it should have to prove the case to the Treasury. Treasury control had been a decreasing quantity during recent years. Some very larmist statements had been made on this subject. Even the Secretary of State for War the other day said he thought the Comptroller and Auditor-General was an inquisitive gentleman who ought not to draw attention to certain things in the way he had done during the past few years with such advantage to the public service. If that opinion was spreading in Government offices it was high time that this House took the matter into consideration. The Comptroller and Auditor-General had a right to inquire into anything which he thought it was necessary to inquire into in connection with the expenditure of public money. The acceptance of this Amendment would restore to the Treasury the control they ought never to have parted with, namely, the power in the first place to see before issuing any of these large sums from the Consolidated Fund that the authority of the House to spend the money had been obtained and, secondly, that the amount of money applied for was actually required for works in progress. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'required by the Admiralty,' and insert the words 'from time to time approved by them.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'required by the Admiralty' stand part of the clause."
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the effect of this Amendment, if carried, would be to take away from the Admiralty the power which was vested in it to decide whit expenditure was necessary on works already approved by Parliament. The Amendment was also unnecessary, because in all cases there was a previous conference between the Admiralty and the Treasury in regard, not only to the amount to be raised, but also to the necessity of the works themselves, and the Bill represented the joint decision of both Departments. In all cases the money was only asked for when it became due. Although the House might give authority, no sums were raised until they were actually wanted, and there was no case of sums being borrowed and the money being allowed to remain idle.
  MR. McKENNAsaid the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman did not cover the ground. One of the items in the schedule was "Chatham Dockyard Extension," and that was now abandoned. Now it was quite conceivable that, if the Chatham extension was abandoned, nevertheless the Admiralty, having taken the power to borrow the whole of the £4,500,000, would use the money for some other works. The Civil Lord shook his head, but they had been told, on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the excess cost of other works had been met out of this Vote. It was perfectly obvious that the Admiralty having got the money in hand would use it for expenditure on other items mentioned in the schedule, and he asked whether it was wise for the Treasury to abandon its control over this money. When a Department had got at its disposal a large amount of borrowed money, running to millions, it would be more than human if it did not spend the money in some direction. Therefore, he thought that the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend, though drastic

  481
  in form, was necessary, and he did not think that the explanation given by the Civil Lord was satisfactory.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the Treasury only issued the money which the Admiralty reasonably required for the works embodied in the schedule. If there was any variation necessary, either in the work to be done or the amount of money required, the Admiralty had to go to the Treasury for a special sanction.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his place he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether what he had just said would apply to the items between the first year and the second year to which this schedule related. Did the Treasury control the extra expenditure within the first year covered by the schedule as well as that of the second year?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that then all he had to remark was that his Amendment would do no harm and might do a great deal of good.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid that the Amendment which stood in his name was to leave out from the word 'Act' to the end of the section. The Amendment raised the question of the duration of the annuities by which the money borrowed under this Bill was to be paid off. Under the Act of 1895 the money was to be paid off in thirty years after the passing of the Act. Presumably that was the period for which the contemplated works were expected to endure. In the subsequent Acts of 1896, 1897, 1899 and 1901—which were treated as a continuing series of Acts dealing with the same works—the whole annual expenditure was to be paid off in thirty years from 1895. But in 1903 a new departure was made and for the first time words were inserted in the Act which he now proposed to leave out in the Act of
  482
  1905. The effect of these words was to make the annuities run for thirty years from the period of borrowing instead of thirty years from the fixed period of 1895. The result was that instead of a definite date being fixed for paying off loans there would be an indefinite period, and in any case the period would be greatly lengthened. He thought that if the Government would not except this Amendment, they ought at least to state some definite period during which the annuities should run, and a date at which all these borrowings in regard to naval works should come to an end.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word 'Act' to the end of the clause."—(Mr. Leif Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'thirty' in line 17, stand part of the clause."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not attach the special importance which the hon. Gentleman did to having a particular date at which these loans should be paid off. It was the intention of Parliament, when these borrowings were first sanctioned, that there should be a currency of thirty years from the date when the money was borrowed. It was afterwards contemplated that there should be an annual Act in similar form, and instead of the clause being repealed, it was incorporated by reference, with the provision that each annuity should run for a period of thirty years from the date when it was sat up. In his opinion thirty years was a more reasonable and a more sensible proposal than that the currency of the annuities should be from 1895. If all annuities dated from 1895, the system of the Bill would be reduced almost to a nullity, and to vote for the Amendment would be equivalent to voting against the Second Reading of the Bill. He hoped the Committee would affirm the practice in the present case that thirty years was a reasonable time for the annuities to run.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thought that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really in favour of the Amendment instead of against it. It was evidently the intention of Parliament when the first Act was passed that the cost of these particular naval works should be repaid in thirty years; but the Government appeared now to be turning over a new leaf, and desired to alter the system and throw as much as they could on to the current year. That seemed to him to be an overwhelming argument in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman
  MR. McCRAEasked whether the thirty years would date from the passing of the Act authorising the expenditure, or from the date when the money was raised.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the thirty years would be from the date of borrowing.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that the money raised under these Acts—he was not discussing the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that regard—was, until four years ago, repayable in twenty-four years; but by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the present Bill made it repayable in thirty years. In these circumstances he appealed to the right hon. Member for Croydon, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had condemned the system of borrowing so far ahead, to vote for this Amendment, and to show that his plea for economy was not merely lip service. He also appealed to the hon. Member for Islington, who had described these Acts as pernicious to vote for the Amendment. It had bean said that if the Amendment were adopted it would upset the whole arrangement of the naval programme; but this particular Amendment had the peculiar merit that it would not upset any naval programme nor upset any arrangement voted for by the hon. Gentleman for Islington and by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Amendment would make a pernicious practice less pernicious, and would make the money repayable in a shorter period,
  484
  without a breach in the continuity of the policy.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Committee that anyone who voted for this Amendment would be practically giving a vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. But they had often heard from the bench opposite, as a defence of these Acts, that they were brought forward to carry out certain specific schemes. Now they were informed that the Government were going to abandon the old practice, and that the schemes for naval works were practically at an end. Down to 1901 it was always provided that the annuities were to run from the starting of a scheme and that they would all come to an end in the year 1925; but under the amended words of this Bill the time when the country would get rid of its liability for these works had been indefinitely extended. A good part of the debt would not be extinguished before 1942–3, and they would have the burden of this scheme of loan expenditure for naval works extending over a period not of thirty years but of fifty years. He thought the words his hon. friend desired to omit from the section constituted a grave departure from the original plan of the works. They made the system more lax than before, and they extended the time in which they would get rid of the liability. He should support his hon. friend.
  *MR. McKENNAsaid that under the Act of 1901 the money was borrowed for a period of thirty years from the Act of 1895, and the sum which was then estimated to be the total cost of the works was £27,500,000. The total amount authorised, with the addition of the £5,000,000 now proposed, made £32,500,000. The proposal in 1901 was for an individual scheme which was to be brought to a conclusion and paid for within thirty years from 1895. They were still dealing with the same scheme and yet they were now asking that the repayment should be spread over a longer period, although no reason had been given why that should be done.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid there was one argument even stronger than that just addressed to the Committee. It was that in 1901, when they were content to borrow for twenty-four years, they were in the middle of a great war, the national finances were in a serious condition, and the Sinking Fund was suspended. Yet now, when the war had been over for three years, in a time of peace, when taxation had, to a small extent, been reduced, and when the Sinking Fund had been restored, they were asked to go back to a longer period of borrowing and borrow for thirty years, not from the time of the Act, but from the time of borrowing. There had been two alterations made since the original Act. Firstly, there had been the alteration of the period, so as to make it from the passing of the Act, and not from the origination of the policy, and secondly, there was the alteration from the date of the passing of the Act to the date of borrowing. That was an extension of laxity and not an increase of rigidity in the control of finance, and he hoped his hon. friend would obtain large support.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adduced no reason whatever connected with the nature of the works for adhering to the thirty years period from the date of the loan. It was proposed to extend the period of repayment in respect of some of the most important items. For instance, under the Naval Works Act of 1895 a large part of the Keyham scheme was provided for, and it was intended that the scheme should be entirely wiped off in thirty years, but they would probably find that it would take forty years, and if they took Portsmouth and Dover exactly the same thing held good; in fact, in nearly every one of the items which were in the Act of 1895 it was proposed to extend the period of
  repayment of thirty years to something like forty years. If they looked at the items they would see coaling facilities and fuel stores. Did anybody suppose that they would remain at their full value for forty years. Anybody knew that fifteen years was the limit of life they could grant to properties of that nature. There was, too a large item down for torpedo ranges. Could anyone say that forty years was a reasonable period of life for torpedo ranges? It was perfect nonsense. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and made a death-bed repentance, he thought he might do something to reduce his own vice.
  MR. McCRAEsaid that in 1903 the House authorised an expenditure of £4,500,000 in the case of Chatham, but in the Loan Bill of that year the amount was a very small one. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintain that that expenditure of £4,500,000, if it had been made, would have been paid off in thirty years from 1903?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not.
  MR. McCRAEsaid that was the very point, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not met the argument addressed by his hon. friend and himself. This system rather encouraged Departments getting sanction for small expenditure one year and then coming forward the next year, when the House had forgotten the expenditure it had sanctioned, with a new scheme. That was how they were misled, and hence the condition in which they were at present.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 92. (Division List No. 346.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Bingham, Lord

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Balfour,RtHn GeraldW.(Leeds

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Bond, Edward

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Brassey, Albert

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bathurst, Hon.Allen Benjamin

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Bull, William James

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bigwood, James

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bill, Charles

  Butcher, John George

  Campbell,J.H.M(Dublin Univ.

  Hope.J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hornby Sir William Henry

  Purvis Robert

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Howard, Jn. (Kent,Faversham

  Randles, John S.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Chapman, Edward

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir JohnH.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Keswick, William

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Coddington, Sir William

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ritchie Rt.Hon.Chas. Thomson

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lawson.Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Davies,Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Liddell, Henry

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Dewar, Sir T. R(Tower Hamlets

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long,Col.Charles W. (Evesham

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long.Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dixon-Hartland,Sir Fred Dixon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dorington, Rt.HonSir John E.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maedona, John Cumming

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanarks

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Dyke.Rt.Hon.SirWilliam Hart

  Maconochie, A W.

  Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley,Rt.Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Fellowes,RtHn. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stroyan, John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Finlay.RtHn SirR.B(Inv'rn'ss)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlomore, John Throgmorton

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fitzroy, Hon.Edward Algernon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tuff, Charles

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Turnour, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Godson,Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Welby.Lt.-ColA.C.E (Taunton

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Welby,Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Grenfell, William Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Gretton, John

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Peel.Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wylie, Alexander

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Percy, Earl

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Yerburgh Robert Armstrong

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Heath,SirJames(Staffords.NW

  Plumer, Sir Walter R.

  Alexander Acland Hood and

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Viscount Valentia.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  NOES

  Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Doogan, P. C.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Edwards, Frank

  Bell, Richard

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fllis, John Edwards (Notts.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Emmott, Alfred

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Crean, Eugene

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cullinan, J.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark,NE

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Delany, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  488

  489

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rose, Charles Day

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lundon, W.

  Runciman, Walter

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Guest, Hon, Ivor Churchill

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hammond, John

  M'Crae, George

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

  Harrington, Timothy

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Harwood, George

  Murnaghan, George

  Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Thompson,Dr.E C(Monagh'n,N

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tully, Jasper

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Holland, Sir Williom Henry

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Huddersf'd

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Priestley, Arthur

  Kennedy, P. J.(Westmeath, N.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Leif Jones and Mr. Bright.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Robson, William Snowdon

  MR. WHITLEYmoved to reduce the period for the redemption of the loans from thirty to twenty-five years. He thought the discussion that had taken place on the last Amendment absolved him from saying more than a very few words in support of this Amendment. His case was practically proved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who told the Committee that so recently as 1901 money was borrowed for only twenty-four years for the same kind of work as was referred to in the schedule of the Bill. In 1901 when they were in the middle of the South African War the financial position of the country was much more serious than it was at the present time. If twenty-four years was a proper period then something less should be the proper period at the present time. He thought his Amendment an extremely reasonable one. It was only a proposal to revert to the practice which right hon. Gentlemen opposite followed so recently as four years ago. He thought if the Government could be induced to accept this Amendment some of the other Amendments to the clause might be passed over so that the Committee might get to the discussion of the schedule. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 17, to leave out the word 'thirty,' and insert the word 'twenty-five.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the clause."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Bill of this year followed exactly the model of the Bill of 1903. The term was that which, for reasons he then stated, the House sanctioned in 1903. He must ask the Committee to adhere to the proposal in the Bill.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an extraordinary reply. If this Amendment were accepted they would regard it as a concession and they would be enabled to go on to the discussion of the schedule. While the Government were asking them to be more profligate in their methods of expenditure than in 1895, the only answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave was that the model of the 1903 Bill was being followed. The Committee wanted to know what reason the Government had in 1905 for what seemed to them a most extraordinary financial operation. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would hear more of this subject if the only reply he could make to their arguments was that this kind of thing had been done before. He protested against a Bill of this kind being brought in at this late period of the session without any arguments whatever in support of it.
  MR. GUESTsaid that the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be said to have contributed to the deliberative character of the Assembly. What was there sacrosanct, he asked, about

  491
  the period of thirty years? He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to treat the House in a considerate manner. They did not want to keep the House sitting all night, but they would be obliged to do so if they were not met in a more conciliatory spirit. They meant to fight
  on until some concession was made to their arguments.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 185; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 347.)

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finlay,Rt HnSirR.B.(Inv'rn'ss

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Allhusen,Augustus Henry Eden

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Arrol, Sir William

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Gordon,J.(Londonderry, South

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Balfour,RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peel,Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Percy, Earl

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Bigwood, James

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bill, Charles

  Hamilton,Marq of(L'donderry)

  Pryce-Jones,Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bingham, Lord

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bond, Edward

  Heath,Sir James(Staffords.NW

  Randles, John S.

  Brassey, Albert

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Rankin; Sir James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Bull, William James

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Howard,Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Butcher, John George

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Campbell.J.H.M (Dublin Univ.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ritchie,Rt.Hon.Chas. Thomson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Kenyon,Hon.Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain,RtHn J.A.(Worc.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Chapman, Edward

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Coddington, Sir William

  Lawson,Hn.H.L.W (Mile End)

  Saunderson,Rt.Hn.Col.Edw J.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Corbett, T. L. (Dawn, North)

  Liddell, Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Long,Col.CharlesW. (Evesham

  Smith, Rt. Hn.J.Parker(Lanark

  Davies,Sir HoratioD(Chatham)

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

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

  Dewar,Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stroyan, Lord

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dorington, Rt.Hon.Sir John E.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Doughty, Sir George

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Doxford, Sr William Theodore

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tuff, Charles

  Dyke.Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Walrond,Rt.Hon.SirWilliam H

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

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

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

  TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Sir

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Asquith.Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harrington, Timothy

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

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.

  Bell, Richard

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Hayter, Rt. Hon, Sir Arthur D.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Higham, John Sharp

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Priestley, Arthur

  Buxton,Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Caldwell, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Runciman, Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy.P.J. (Westmeath.N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cullinan, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Edwards, Frank

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wallace, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Weir, James Galloway

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans,Sir FrancisH.(Maidstone

  M'Fadden, Edward

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

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Hudd'rf'd)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Murphy, John

  J. H. Whitley and Mr.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Nannotti, Joseph P.

  Guest.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Kilkenny Mid

  Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. LEIF JONESmoved the rejection of the clause, as a protest against the system of borrowing, and paying for naval works out of capital account, which had been increasing so much of late years. He claimed to do so with some authority, for he was one of the new Members of the House who had been returned very largely on account of the strong feeling there was in the country against the recurring extravagance on the part of the Government. He claimed that he was within his right in expressing the feeling of his constituents in regard to this increasing expenditure.
  He ventured to say that the history of these successive Naval Work's Acts contained a warning which ought not to be disregarded by anyone who cared for the financial soundness of the country. The total expenditure contemplated by the first Act in
  494
  1895 was only £8,000,000; in 1896 it was £14,000,000; in 1897, £17,250,000; in 1899, £23,500,000; in 1901, £27,500,000; in 1903, £31,750,000, and that was the year when the Secretary to the Admiralty told them that they had already reached the final stage in the items which were to be included and paid for in this way. The increase, which was steady and continuous, had come about in two ways. It was partly due to the fact that the items first included had constantly grown greater and greater. In 1895 they were told that the works at Gibraltar would cost £1,500,000, but the cost amounted to £5,000,000. In the case of Dover they were told that the cost would be £2,000,000, and now it was £3,500,000. Other items were nearly all swollen in the same way. Another cause of the increase was that new items had been put in from time to time. There were, for example, Chatham and Rosyth. In respect of all these items the Estimate was now £32,250,000. But that was not the end. Anyone who looked at the schedule could see that

  495
  there were many items which would be increased. For instance, the cost of Rosyth was put down at £200,000, but that was for preliminary expenses only. In 1903 the Secretary to the Admiralty had told them that Rosyth was "to be on the largest scale, provided with all possible known requirements." Who could tell what all this would cost? The Secretary had talked of finality in 1903. That word "finality" was a favourite word with this Government, as with the spendthrift who went to a moneylender. It reminded him of Lord John Russell, who spoke of the Reform Act of 1832 as being a final Act of franchise reform, and who was long after known us "Finality John." He dared say that they would often think of the present Secretary to the Admiralty by the same title.
  Another objection he had to the present system of these loans for naval works was that it withdrew the control over expenditure from that House. He submitted that no Government had the right to withdraw from the purview of that House the expenditure of public money. He did not know whether the Government expected to be in power two years hence. They, on that side of the House, hoped to get rid of them long before two years were over; and for that reason alone he objected to this Bill. Another objection was that the country was being continually deceived in regard to this expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a considerable parade of virtue because he had put aside a million more than last year for the service of the debt, but when accounts were cast up it was found that, instead of paying off debt the liabilities of the country would be greater at the end of this year than at the beginning. Then, this system of loans injured the credit of the country; and struck thereby a blow at the national strength. He had another objection to the whole system which the Government were carrying on. Their extravagance—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the Committee. He was discussing the points that might be raised on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  *MR. LEIF JONESsaid that he objected to the expenditure on this class because it led to their losing sight of what was of more importance than this expenditure. It led to inefficiency. The first mark of inefficiency was a neglect of economy and care in administration, and he observed that there was a growing tendency to—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was continuing the line of remark which had already been ruled out of order.
  *MR. LEIF JONESsaid he regretted very much that he had transgressed the ruling of the Chairman. He only wanted to show that expenditure was not the measure of efficiency. Last year the Russians had spent five times as much as the Japanese on their navy, and it was not an exaggeration to say that the Japanese had proved themselves five times as efficient as the Russians. The point he wanted to put was that we were not gaining in efficiency by this expenditure, and that that was the reason why he was opposing both this extravagant expenditure and the methods by which the money was raised.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid that he wanted to oppose the principle of this Bill. He knew that the Government had realised that the principle embodied in this clause was a bad one, and therefore they had promised that they would not repeat their offence. The hon. Gentleman knew that the Government would not be responsible for what was done in the course of the next two years. He hoped that hon. Members would oppose the renewal of the system which had divided the expenditure on naval works under two heads. The result was that by putting on capital what was really annual expenditure they were not apparently adding to the Debt though really doing so. They were rendering the Sinking Fund absolutely nugatory by adding to the Debt by means of these naval and military proposals. He thought it was a bad system because it undoubtedly impaired the credit of the country, and it was bound to do so. The City some time

  497
  ago warned the Government that if these proposals were put into the Bill the credit of the country could not be restored, but in spite of that warning and of the fact that Consols were exceedingly low, the Government went on with these proposals, and in addition to that this clause was very much worse than preceding clauses. In 1901 there was a proposal to repay in the course of twenty-four and a-half years, but now there was a proposal to repay in the course of thirty years. They were not merely increasing their expenditure, but they were extending the period of repayment of liabilities incurred years ago. He did not know where this process was going to end. The result would be a very serious financial crisis some day.
  He thought it was about time the House of Commons really took au interest in these things. These Bills were generally introduced at the end of the session, when everybody wanted to get away and when there was no real thought given to them. Any discussion was resented. The result was that these Bills were being piled up, and the debt of the country was increasing and its credit was being impaired. It did not seem to be the interest of anyone to check the expenditure, and the tyranny of the Party system was so strong upon the House of Commons that it had really ceased to exercise its preliminary function because, after all, its greatest function was to vote Supply, to see that those supplies were properly expended, and to see that grievances were redressed before those supplies were given. There was really no scrutiny of Supply at all. They had had no criticism whatever from the other side except from the hon. Member for Islington, and he had supported the Government upon every Amendment, so that his criticism was necessarily futile. The Member for Croydon was a great financial authority, and he should have thought he would have given them some guidance on this Bill. Then there was the right hon. Member for West Bristol. He remembered him perfectly well complaining of the way in which these proposals were piled up year after year and the expenditure of the country increased, and he more or less suggested that that was a subject for his resignation; but he was not present now to criticise the same proposals which had caused him so much uneasiness and
  498
  which he evidently brought before the Cabinet.
  The Bill was originally a Bill of £8,500,000, purely temporary, and he recollected perfectly well how they were assured that it was simply to meet an emergency and that it would not occur again. It was because of certain arrears which had arisen. It was admitted at the time that all the expenditure really ought to have been placed upon the Estimates, but that it had been neglected for years, and it was thought unfair to put it all on that year. That was the excuse then, but the result was that the Bill had grown until now, with this clause for another £6,000,000, it had reached practically £32,000,O00. That was also occurring in nearly every Continental country, leading to growing expenditure and decreasing credit. It was a serious thing for this country, because there was no country which depended more upon its credit. It had fought very largely upon its credit. It fought Napoleon on its credit. The strength of this country rested more on its credit than that of almost any country in the world, and yet they were frittering it away in this reckless manner.
  The Bill had been discussed in languid Houses, and the only eagerness shown was to rush through it as soon as possible. Hon. Members were much more concerned as to the hour they should adjourn than as to whether they should add this £6,000,000 or not. He was not complaining of it; it was the result of constantly supporting such a Government as the present. It blunted the individual conscience. He was perfectly certain, if they could get hon. Members to apply the same scrutiny to these proposals as they would to any proposals made in connection with some business concern they were interested in, they would not look at them for a moment. Supposing the head of their business brought before them a proposal which approximated to Clause 1 in the Bill, they would dismiss him at once as one who did not understand the very elements of sound finance. Hon. Members had no right to support proposals dealing with the affairs of the nation which they would not support in their own businesses. A good many hon. Members

  499
  were interested in municipalities, but he was sure they would not in connection with them support proposals of the same character, and he was sure the Local Government Board would not. He was perfectly certain if a municipal authority attempted such proposals as were in Clause 1, the Local Government Board would institute an inquiry. It would say the thing was absurd, and it would ask how many of the works would last thirty years. They ought to apply the same principles to the Government and not to impose upon municipalities restrictions and regulations which they were not prepared to adopt with regard to their own business. When they were dealing with municipalities, they first of all asked how long the works would last, and even then they allowed a margin of five or ten years. They never extended the period of borrowing over the whole length of time the works might last. Houses might last sixty or seventy years, but they never gave sixty or seventy years in which to repay the money. But what did they say here? They said that these works, hospitals, or barracks, might last thirty years, and they would give the full period for which they might possibly be useful. Everybody, however, knew that new ideas were constantly springing up, ideas on fortification and all those things; and in another twenty or thirty years the works would have to be altered, and they would have to incur fresh expenditure before they had paid off the whole of the, old. That was not sound business, and the House of Commons ought not to sanction it. It was a gross dereliction of duty on their part to do so. Whatever might be their anxiety to terminate the session, he did not think they were acting conscientiously in neglecting the business of the nation; and he sincerely trusted that even now they would have the intervention of Members like the hon. Member for Islington, who had a sound financial conscience, which was a very rare thing in these days. He had not seen it on the Treasury Bench for over ten years, but he hoped soon to see a recurrence of it in that quarter.
  The hon. Member in charge was naturally not concerned about the finance of the
  500
  matter; he left that to the Treasury. It was his business to get as much out of it as he could. But the watch-dog was there slumbering, meanwhile the hon. and gallant Member walked off with the money. What they wanted was a resurrection of the Treasury; they wanted fortified, strengthened control by the Treasury. There was no real control. He knew that earlier in the evening there was an Amendment as to the control of the Treasury discussed and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and said the control of the Treasury was perfect. All he could say was that there had been no outward and visible sign of it during the last five or ten years. The Estimates were being exceeded, and the increase now was £5,835,000.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: No, the total increase in this Bill is £500,000.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What is the £5,000,000?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: That is the instalment for two years of the total estimates already sanctioned by Parliament.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it did not all represent new work, but it was an increase in the estimate as originally formed. What he complained of was that in 1895 they got an estimate for some works or other and they were told that that was all they would require, and then they found in another two years the estimate had increased. How came it to be increased? It showed there was no careful scrutiny, and he would like to know whether the Treasury ever looked into the items. Did it ever carefully examine them, and exercise real control over them as the Treasury ought to do? It was not their business merely to deal out money. Parliament expected them to represent what ought to be the attitude of Parliament itself, an attitude of careful scrutiny of all fuller expenditure. For six months of the year Parliament was not sitting, and it was no one's business to do that except the Treasury, and they did not do it. The credit of the country used to be the greatest in the world, but it was so no

  501
  longer. It used to be a source of pride to us. It was our legitimate boast that our credit was the best in the world, it was the source of great prestige and power, but they had thrown it away in a careless, indifferent fashion. It was about time the House of Commons woke up, and, if the House of Commons would not do so, he hoped the country would.
  MR. McCRAEsaid the Civil Lord had made a very significant interruption. They understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they had called a halt with regard to the system of borrowing, but the Civil Lord now said that that was not so, and that they were going to have other Naval Works Loan Bills.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): No, sir.
  MR. McCRAEasked what the sense of the interruption was. What was the meaning of the note with regard to Rosyth which said that future expenditure would be borne by Vote? Surely that meant that they were going to put a stop to this method of borrowing? Was that so or not?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there was really no difference between what his hon. friend had said and what he had said. The policy of the Government was not to include any new works in the Naval Works Loan Bill, and in cases where preliminary work had only been done, as in the case of Rosyth, they proposed to treat it at once as new work to be approved by Parliament, and the contract would not be entered into until Parliament had approved of it. They proposed to make proposals with that object in the Estimates next year; the other works he specially referred to were the coastguard buildings and dredging, They proposed to finish the coastguard works now in course of construction, and in the case of dredging they took just enough money to do the work this year, and they proposed that all new work should appear in the Votes. Coaling facilities were treated in the same way. He had made the same statement upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and he
  502
  did not wish to repeat that statement now. They did not propose to add any new works.
  MR. McCRAEsaid he had carefully studied the right hon. Gentleman's speech of last week, and his complaint was that the interruption of the Civil Lord was contradictory of what the right hon. Gentleman had laid down. He understood now that there would be no further borrowings for naval works for new expenditure. That, after all, did not mean much, because the task of providing the money under this Bill would be imposed upon the successors of the present Government. Perhaps the Civil Lord would inform the Committee how the expenditure of £8,000,000 under the Act of 1903 was made up.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is all given in the schedule.
  MR. McCRAEsaid that this system of borrowing encouraged extravagant expenditure. This death-bed repentance did not mean much, because the Government had got all the benefit they could out of this vicious system. He hoped the House would refuse to pass this clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that of the £32,250,000 dealt with in this Bill only about £75,000 was spent in Ireland. This was the kind of treatment they got from a Government which, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had refused to give them some paltry little Returns because they would be too expensive. Irish Members were now asked to vote £32,000,000 of which Ireland would probably contribute as its share about £2,000,000, and they were expected to be happy and contented and allow their representation to be cut down while the Government were shovelling out £32,000,000 all over the Kingdom and the Colonies and Ireland would only get a beggarly sum of £75,000. Could any country in the world stand that kind of thing? They had been refused even a jetty in Ireland, and the Government had declined to grant them Returns showing how they were robbed. This Rosyth job almost took his breath away, for it was a place he had never heard of before.

  503
  Because some Lord was to be paid for this site at Rosyth—and he was informed that he was a member of the Government—it was considered to be a most desirable spot at which to have a naval base. He could not imagine how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could expect contentment and loyalty to this Empire when they did nothing for Ireland but drain it dry. He hoped the British public when they talked about cutting down Irish representation would also consider the advisability of cutting down Ireland's contribution towards the national expenditure. The only thing the Government desired to cut down was the voice of criticism.
  With regard to this Bill what did they see all round their coast? All the hulks and defences they put up fifty or sixty years ago were now staring them in the face and were absolutely useless. No doubt a good many years hence people would be pointing to the useless works created under this Bill at Rosyth, and they would probably say, "These were the ideas of young Mr. Chamberlain." A sum of £75,000 for Ireland and £32,000,000 for England! That was the treatment meted out by a great Imperial race which expected loyalty and enthusiasm for the Empire and for the Army, Navy, and Volunteers in Ireland. How could they expect Ireland to be loyal at the price? Loyalty meant contentment, but he could not imagine how any system of government could justify such treatment. He was in the habit of reading all the speeches about war. He read the other day the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury in which he said this country was impregnable. Ireland was more impregnable still, because nobody there was allowed to carry even a popgun. He understood that this country was considered impregnable by reason of the Navy. If there was any part of the Kingdom which was not impregnable it was Ireland, which was said to be always ready to open its harbours to the enemies of England. Under these circumstances one, would have thought that they would have erected all these naval bases in Ireland to prevent the enemy landing in that country.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was generally agreed that this system of borrowing had led to great extravagance and that it had seriously affected our national credit. What he could not understand, however, was the position of the Government in regard to this matter. He should certainly vote for the omission of this clause, which he considered was a test of the sincerity of the Government in this matter. He could not gather that the Government had made any beginning at all in this matter of raising some of this money in the Estimates instead of by loan, and that was the reason why he should vote for this Amendment. Last year the Government transferred from Vote 10 a considerable sum to this very loan, and that was actually the year in which they intended to turn over a new leaf. He wished to point out the position in which the Exchequer and the country stood this year. The Government admitted that they ought not to raise such expenditure as this by loan any more. During the current year they had remitted £2,000,000 and at the same time they were raising £4,000,000 by loan. This appeared to him to be a form of vicarious economic virtue which the successors of the Government would find it most difficult to carry out. Many of the items in this Bill were new and small matters which certainly ought to have been placed upon the Estimates. He was sorry the Government had not the courage to carry out the policy they had laid down this year of placing these charges upon the ordinary Estimates.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the successors of the Government would have to bear the burden of this Bill for years to come, whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now claiming praise for having done a very courageous thing. As a matter of fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down a rule for the future which he was not prepared to apply to his present policy. The principle which had been applied to these loans was one which would not be tolerated for a moment in any other Government Department. The repayment of money on land even was limited to sixty years. The right hon. Gentleman was always ready to lecture local authorities in regard to

  505
  their unsound finance, but his own finance in this Bill was much more unsound. He thought it would be generally agreed that a large amount of the expenditure on the Navy might in the near future become out of date owing to alterations in naval strategy. The strength of their naval bases depended very much upon the development of the next few years. It would be well worth our while spending money in other directions which were less subject to the attacks of torpedo boats and submarines, but expenditure in that direction ought to be made with the greatest caution. The hon. Gentleman in making his proposals this year had evidently nothing of the kind in his mind. Portsmouth and Plymouth were dealt with as though they were to be permanently of great value and as though no works in other parts of the Kingdom or the world could ever be substituted for them. He trusted that the Admiralty would keep in mind the important fact that strategical centres altered and that we must be prepared to embark on expenditure in other parts of the Kingdom. We could not expect that the present naval ports would always have the im-
  mense value they had now. The justification given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the thirty years period was the thinnest he had ever heard in that House. It was perfectly absurd to defend the proposal on the ground that that was the period laid down in the Act of 1903.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I am reluctant to accept the closure, but this is a matter which has been discussed on two stages of the Money Resolution, discussed on the Second Reading, and discussed again in Committee. I think, therefore, it is not encroaching on the rights of the minority, which I desire to protect, if I accept the Motion.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 348.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry,South

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Chapman, Edward

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Bt.Hn.Hngh O

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gretton, John

  Arrol, Sir William

  Colomb, Rt. Hon.Sir JohnC.R.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hamilton, Marq.of(L'donderry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

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

  Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Dewar, SirT.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords,NW

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hermon-Hodge. Sir Robert T.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dorington, Rt.Hon. Sir John E.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Howard, John (Kent Faversham

  Bigwood, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Bill, Charles

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bingham, Lord

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur F

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dyke, Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon. Sir John

  Bond, Edward

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Brassey, Albert

  Fellowes, Rt.Hon.Ailwyn Edw.

  Keswick, William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fielden, Edward Brockle hurst

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Bull, William James

  Finlay, RtHnSirR.B.(Inv'rn'ss

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Law, Andrew Bouar (Glasgow

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Forster, Henry William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Liddell, Henry

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Smith.RtHnJ. Parker(Lanarks

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stanley,Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stanley,Rt.Hon.Lord(Lancs.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stroyan, John

  Lyttelton Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pym, C. Guy

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Randles, John S.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Thompson,Dr.EC(Monagh'n,N

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Thornton, Percy M.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Reed, Sir Edw. James(Cardiff)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tuff, Charles

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Turnour Viscount

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Walker.Col. Wm. Hall

  Milvain, Thomas

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Bt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und Lyne)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col.Thos.Myles

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Viscount Valentia.

  Percy, Earl

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Smith, Abel, H.(Hertford,East)

  NOES.

  Asquith,Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hammond, John

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harrington, Timothy

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

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Higham, John Sharp

  Priestley, Arthur

  Buxton,Syndey Charles (Poplar

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Caldwell, James

  Hutchinson Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cawley, Frederick

  Joicey, Sir James

  Runciman, Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath,N.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cullinan, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Edwards, Frank

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Wallace, Robert

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Weir, James Galloway

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans,SirFrancis H.(Maidstone

  M'Fadden, Edward

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

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Murnaghan, George

  Woodhouse,Sir J.T.(Hudd'rsf'd

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John

  O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  McKenna and Mr. Leif Jones

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Question put accordingly, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 349.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton,Marq.of (Lond'derry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Purvis, Robert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Harris, F.Leverton(Tynem'th

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bigwood, James

  Heath,SirJames(Staffords,N.W

  Randles, John S.

  Bill, Charles

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bingham, Lord

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside)

  Reed, Sir Edw.James (Cardiff)

  Bond, Edward

  Howard,John (Kent,Faversh'm

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hozier,Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Jeffreys, Rt.Hon.Arthur Fred.

  Ritchie,Rt.Hon.Chas.Thomson

  Bull, William James

  Kennaway,Rt. Hon.Sir John H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T. (Denbigh)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Butcher, John George

  Keswick, William

  Round, Rt. Hon. Sir James

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rutherford W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sackville, Col. G. S. Stopford

  Cavendish. V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.JA.(Worc.

  Lawson.Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants, Fareham)

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Lees, SirA.Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clare Octavius Leigh

  Legge, Co.l Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Liddell, Henty

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Smith, RtHnJ.Parker (Lanark)

  Crossley Rt. Hon. Sir Savile,

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley,Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Davies, SirHoratioD. (Chatham

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Dewar, SirT.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stroyan, John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dorington, Rt.Hon.Sir John E.

  Maconochie, A. W

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Doughty, Sir George

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool.

  Thompson,Dr. EC.(Monaghan, N

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tomlinson, Sir W. Edw. M.

  Dyke.Rt.Hon. Sir William Hart

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tuff, Charles

  Faber, Edward B. (Hants, W.)

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Milvain, Thomas

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Walrond,Rt,Hon.SirWilliamH

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Finlay,RtHnSirR.B.(Iriv'rn'ss

  Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Welby, Lt.-Col.ACE.(Taunton

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Welby,Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.

  Fisher William, Hayes

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B.Stuart

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Murray Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col, W, H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Gardner, Ernest

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Gordon, J.(Londonderry, South)

  Peel.Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Percy, Earl

  Viscount Valentia.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  NOES.

  Asquith.Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

  Causton, Richard, Knight

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Emmott, Alfred

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Clancy, John Joseph

  EvansSirFrancisN.(Maidstone)

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Crean, Eugene

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cullinan, J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Delany, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Burke, E, Haviland

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Gladstone,Rt,Hn.Herbert John

  Buxton,SidneyCharles(Poplar)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Caldwell, James

  Edwards, Frank

  Guest, Hon, Ivor Churchill

  510

  511

  Hammond, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rose, Charles Day

  Harrington, Timothy

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Murnaghan, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murphy, John.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Hutchinson, Dr.Charles Fredk.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Kennedy, P.J. (Westmeath,N.)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

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

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Woodhouse, Sir T. J(Hudd'rsfi'd

  Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington

  Power, Partick Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  M'Crae and Mr. Leif Jones.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Schedule:—
  MR. GUESTsaid that no attention had been called to a number of items in the schedule and no explanation or justification for them had been offered by the Government.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member is going to move an Amendment to leave out lines 14 and 15; of course, general observations on the whole of the schedule would not be in order.
  MR. GUESTsaid his object was to draw attention to those and other items in the schedule, but he would confine himself to that particular one when he said that some of the money had not received any justification or explanation. On the other items, as far as he knew, no explanation had been offered in recent times. It might be that in 1895, or in one of the subsequent years, the Government had explained how the money was to be spent and the objects for which they were asking the House to sanction the loan, but to those who had not been in the House so long as that there was no source of general information with regard to those items. Not only was that the general position with regard to Gibraltar, but Gibraltar itself was the subject of considerable controversy. It was stated, and those who had had the opportunity of going there had been told on the spot, that the modern range of artillery was such as to render the position of Gibraltar wholly different to that which
  512
  it was believed it would hold when the works were first undertaken. He did not think they ought to be asked to go on spending money on the work if it was a fact that the defences could be enfiladed from the Spanish coast. The harbour and port of Gibraltar where those very extensive works were to be constructed were only distant from the mainland of Spain an average of about 6,000 or 7,000 yards. He believed the minimum distance was something over 5,000 yards and the maximum distance was not more than 10,000 yards. He was afraid they had not yet entirely assimilated one of the lessons of the Boer War, and that was that it was possible for large guns to fire projectiles with great accuracy from at least 10,000 yards without remaining in a stationary position. It was obvious to anybody that that would increase the difficulty of locating guns. Therefore, not only was the range greater since the works were first contemplated, but they also had to consider the mobility of the guns. He thought they ought to know what the view of the Admiralty was upon that serious point because, if, as was asserted, the works were open to this fire, much of the money was being spent to very doubtful purpose.
  There was not only that practical consideration which required some explanation, but there was also the whole question of what justification they had for saddling posterity with the defence and maintenance of Gibraltar. The question arose as to whether the Mediterranean Sea was likely to retain in the future the same pre-eminent importance in the eyes

  513
  of naval men as it occupied at present. The Mediterranean was in the nature of an old-world policy, a policy which was well enough in days when they merely had to consider the European situation. Gibraltar had even been held to be the key to the Mediterranean or the place where the key was kept. He did not deny that a good case might be made out for Gibraltar as having Atlantic importance, but the question was whether other centres would not serve the Atlantic batter, centres which were not so exposed to attack and which did not excite such hostility and envy on the part of other nations, and whether in some other portion of the Atlantic they could not find some far more convenient station. The main importance of Gibraltar was its Mediterranean position, and the question arose as to whether the Mediterranean would in the future occupy the same important position in the eyes of naval stretagists as it did at the present day. One was almost tempted to think that, if we had not been in the possession of Egypt, the Mediterranean would have sunk to secondary importance as a station for the Fleet. Naval history showed that there was nothing more liable to variation than the views of naval strategists, and therefore the question arose as to how far they were justified in saddling posterity with the obligation to maintain the Gibraltar works which were primarily of Mediterranean importance. He suggested that it was very probable in future that the Mediterranean might occupy a relatively different position in the eyes of strategists, and he would like to have something more in detail as Co the views of the Admiralty.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, to leave out lines 14 and 15"—(Mr. Guest.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he thought the hon. Member who had just moved the Amendment was under some misapprehension. He seemed to imagine that great expenditure was foreshadowed at Gibraltar with reference to those two items.
  MR. GUEST: There is also Malta.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment applies to Gibraltar only.
  MR. GUEST: I will raise the question again on Malta if you like.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that, however valid the hon. Gentleman's objections might be to Gibraltar, the expenditure had already been incurred and had also been practically completed.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he presumed they would be able to raise the question on the further amount of £500,000.
  MR. GUESTsaid he raised the question with the object of discussing the whole of the Gibraltar policy. There were three items amounting to £573,000; including the works contemplated at Malta, they amounted to £717,000.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid Sub-section (a) of the schedule covered all of the works, and he suggested that the discussion desired could be obtained by moving its rejection.
  MR. GUEST: My object was to call attention to those near to the Mediterranean station.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he was anxious to give the fullest information. He thought, however, it was really not much good arguing these points because no action which they could undertake could unmake those works. He admitted that there were differences of opinion at the time, but the works were now almost completed. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment expressed doubt as to whether Gibraltar was still of any value as a base for the Mediterranean Fleet. It was not now the base for the Mediterranean Fleet, but the base for the Atlantic Fleet. Gibraltar was not only a strategic but a repairing base, and in the opinion of the Admiralty, fortified by the unanimous opinion of its naval advisers, Gibraltar was admirably suited for that purpose. It had a most commanding position, and it had been largely developed with the view of increasing its

  515
  importance and value as a strategic base. It had now been developed into a naval base of the first magnitude. As to the vulnerability of Gibraltar that question had been discussed in the House almost ad nauseam. They would all remember the speeches of the hon. Member for King's Lynn upon this subject, and all he had to say was that there had been no change whatever in the view expressed by the Admiralty in the previous discussions. The view of the Admiralty was that the harbour and naval base at Gibraltar had been established in the best position for the requirements of the Fleet. It would have been almost impracticable and far more costly to have attempted to establish a harbour and base on the East side of Gibraltar. It was true that in certain contingencies the present harbour would be exposed to a certain amount of fire, but the Admiralty nevertheless considered that the dockyard had been afforded all reasonable protection, and as much protection as could possibly be given in view of the peculiarities of the site. He did not think there were any valid grounds for the criticisms which had been made by the hon. Member.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he desired to acknowledge the courteous reply which had been given by the Civil Lord, but he appeared to have lost sight of the fact that they were protesting against putting down to loans expenditure upon matters which ought to be put upon the Estimates of the year. Naval bases were always of a changeable nature, and even Gibraltar had its advantages and its disadvantages. This was the first time the Committee had had to consider a Naval Works Act in face of the fact that they had recently abandoned no less than four important naval stations. He put it to the Committee that it might be considered necessary in the near future to abandon other naval bases, including Gibraltar. With regard to the danger of fire from the Spanish coast, since the plans for Gibraltar had been decided upon new facts had arisen. Not only had guns increased in power, but the most important discovery had been the great force of plunging fire. The Russian fleet within Port Arthur was almost wholly destroyed by plunging fire from a
  516
  greater distance than the Spanish coast was from the spot where our Fleet would lie in the harbour of Gibraltar. He was sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for Yarmouth was not present to give the Committee his views upon this matter. Before the Committee was asked to vote money for Gibraltar they ought to be placed in possession of the views of the Admiralty in regard to the new situation which had been created by their experience of the war in the Far East. If the Government chose to bring in a Bill of this character at this late hour they were not absolved from the necessity of laying their reasons before the House. He trusted the Secretary to the Admiralty would give them some assurances as to the position in which Gibraltar stood in view of the important discovery he had alluded to.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he had a strong desire to make some observations upon matters of general policy dealt with in this Bill. A debate upon these matters was always attractive to him, but after listening to the present debate upon this measure for over seven hours he was bound to say that he had never heard a greater waste of time before in the House of Commons. This Bill, he admitted, raised very great questions of policy, but he refused to join hon. Gentlemen opposite who were dealing with this subject like children in the nursery and with political toy spades making Party dirt pies.
  MAJOR SEELY: On a point of order, I wish to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in order in saying that he will not join in making dirt pies.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had said anything which was out of order.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he had stated what he thought of the character and tone of the debate. He would take another opportunity of stating his views on this Bill, and mean while he would sit silently and patiently and vote in favour of this Bill, which had no doubt been framed after due consideration, but which nevertheless exhibited a certain

  517
  vacillation of policy upon which he should like to say a few words.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he wished to make an appeal to the Committee to think Imperially upon this matter. Here was another instance where an enormous sum of money was put down as expenditure, and Ireland in this case did not get a single farthing of it. Out of the sum of £6,000,000 there was not a single sixpence to be spent in Ireland. When he heard the question of Gibraltar raised and the range of gun-fire from the Spanish coast alluded to, it seemed to have been forgotten that the King of Spain had recently honoured them with a visit, and they had an entente cordiale with him. If this complete understanding with Spain existed was it fair to talk about plunging fire? Was it fair to ask Ireland to contribute nearly £2,500,000 towards keeping off this plunging fire? If they were such friends with the King of Spain was it not a farce to come to that House and ask for all this money to fortify Gibraltar against a plunging fire from the Spanish coast? He asked the Government to give a reason for all this expenditure. He wanted some Englishman on the Treasury Bench to get up and give an explanation on the question of policy. Irishmen would not get a sixpence out of all this expenditure the Committee were asked to vote. What was the ground
  of apprehension? The triumph of their pacific policy was stated in every newspaper printed in English, and he was at a loss to understand this demand for money. There used to be a peace Party in England, but it seemed to have completely disappeared. He had never considered himself as belonging to any peace Party whatever. They could not tell the world that they were on terms of amity with France, Spain, and all other nations, and then throw in their faces a Bill for £32,000,000 for war expenditure. It was an incredible position. It was worthy of "Alice in Wonderland." No doubt there was something secret locked up in the breast of the Government. He did think that even at that hour (2.45) they ought to hear an explanation of the mystery.
  *MR. WEIRasked why the hon. Gentleman did not give an explanation. The question raised by his hon. friend as to the danger on the West side of the rock of Gibraltar was of the utmost importance, but the hon. Gentleman in his reply made no reference to it. He thought they were entitled to a statement as to the views of the Admiralty.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 350.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bull, William James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Butcher, John George

  Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Atkinson, Bt. Hon. John

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Finlay,RtHnSirR.B (Inv'rn'ss)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

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

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Forster, Henry William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Bigwood, James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Bill, Charles

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bingham, Lord

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Bond, Edward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Gretton, John

  Brassey, Albert

  Doughty, Sir George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hamilton,Marq.of(L'donderry)

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Hope,J.F.(SheffieId, Brightside

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Howard. J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col.Thos.Myles

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Smith, Abel H.) Hertford, East)

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Smith,RtHnJ.Parker (Lanarks

  Keswick, William

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury

  Stroyan, John

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lawson,Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End)

  Percy, Earl

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Liddell, Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Tuff, Charles

  Long, Col. Chas W. (Evesham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Turnour, Viscount

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lowe, Francis William

  Randles, John S.

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rankin, Sir James

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton uud. Lyne

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  M'Killop. James (Stirlingshire

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Alexander Acland - Hood

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  and Viscount Valentia.

  NOES

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Priestley, Arthur

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Junes, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rose, Charles Day

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N

  Runciman, Walter

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cullinan, J.

  Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Edwards, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wallace, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Crae, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt.John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Guest and Major Seely.

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Harrington, Timothy

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

  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he wished to ask what was the reason, for the great increase that had taken place in the
  520
  item for dredging since the first scheme for dredging had been inaugurated by the Board of Admiralty. The amount

  521
  first contemplated was about £1,000,000; now it was £1,360,000, and no explanation had been made why such an increase had taken place. He could imagine no expenditure for dredging which should be charged to capital account. The major portion of the expenditure had been on dredging in soft grounds such as the entrance to Portsmouth, the deepening of the Medway to Chatham, and so on, and all of that was expenditure which must occur again and again. It was perfectly absurd to say that thirty years was a reasonable period in that case; everyone with any experience whatever knew that within a period of ten years a channel would silt up and lessen its draught by four or five or even ten feet. There was no work coming within the limits of the Bill that could be more varied in its nature owing to causes over which even civil engineers had little or no control.
  A great amount of money devoted to dredging was said to be largely owing to the increased size of vessels. That might be perfectly true, but there was no doubt that the expenditure, so far from lasting over the long period described in the Bill, would have to be increased from time to time as ordinary annual expenditure in order that the ports might be kept open for the very vessels they were now building. Dredging was largely a question of locality. At Keyham he believed a large amount of rock had been cut away, but even then a large amount of silt had to be taken out every year, and they would find that in a great many cases the expenditure was not put into a Bill of this kind, but was dealt with in the Estimates. He had taken out a number of items from the Votes for the the last two or three years. At Chatham in 1902–3 £1,000 was spent on dredging, and something like £8,000 was spent in the previous year. Was there any dredging at Chatham included in the present Bill? If so, why should some of the expenditure go to capital and some be put on the Estimates? In the case of Keyham a new dredger was provided. Was there any provision made for Keyham in the present Bill? In the case of Malta something like £9,000 was spent in 1902–3 and £10,000 the previous year. At Bermuda £15,000 was provided for
  522
  out of the Estimates. Were any of these ports included in this capital account? It certainly ought to be explained whether out of this item of £1,360,000 any money was being spent in those ports, and, if so, why there should be a distinction between one class of mud and another class of mud, why one should be paid for out of capital expenditure and another paid for out of revenue.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, to leave out lines 21 and 22."—(Mr. Bunciman.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
  MR. PRETYMANsaid there was a clear line of distinction drawn. Dredging for the maintenance of a channe at a required depth was done out of Votes, but dredging to create a deep channel was obviously a new service and was included in the Bill. It was perfectly correct that, generally speaking, where dredging was carried out silting took place, but the new dredging necessary to maintain the required depth was met out of Votes. With regard to Devonport, when once the original mud had been removed the depth would be maintained out of Votes. In smaller matters such as Wei-hai-Wei and other small dredging, a certain amount of new dredging was done out of Votes; the only money spent out of loan was for the removal of large quantities of mud where there was no deep water before. The cost of dredging by contract at Devonport in order to obtain access to the new works had been £500,000, and the estimated cost of providing their own plant was £126,000.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid they understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when they dredged out a new depth it was placed on capital expenditure and was provided for by loan, but when once they had obtained the required depth they provided for the necessary dredging on the Estimates. He thought, if the right hon. Gentleman looked a little further down the page, he would see that what he defended as a reasonable proposal was shown to be

  523
  most unreasonable. There was a note which said that expenditure subsequent to March 31st, 1906, was to be charged to Navy Vote 10. What they contended was that all such works should undoubtedly be charged to current account and should be put upon the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman's reply was somewhat inadequate, because he tried to make the House suppose that it was a reasonable proposal that the maintenance of depths should be put on the Votes.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that what he said was that what had been done by the authority of the House was done under the Naval Works Loans Act. It had already been stated that it was now proposed to take all such expenditure on dredging of all kinds and dredging plant, whether new dredging or dredging to maintain existing depths, and put it back on the Votes.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he thought they were justified in all the protests they had made. They had protested that the Bill violated all the true canons of financial purity. It charged to capital account and to loans what ought to be charged to current account and put upon the Estimates. They were met by evasion after evasion by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they were now assured by the Secretary to the Admiralty that every contention was true and that after April 1st all dredging would be placed on the Navy Estimates. Why did they not do that before, and why did they try to crush through an unwilling House at that hour of the morning a Bill which violated all the canons of financial purity and which was admitted by the Secretary to the Admiralty himself to be absolutely indefensible?
  MR. McKENNAsaid that if they dredged, no matter what they dredged and where they dredged, so long as they dredged in the financial year 1905–6 it was proper to charge the cost to capital account, but if they dredged the same matter in the same place after March 31st, 1906, then it was proper to charge the cost to revenue account. Were hon. Gentlemen opposite satisfied that that was a reasonable way of conducting the financial business of the country? If they really believed that that was the way to conduct the business of the country and that it was proper to distinguish between dredging, not in the matter they dredged nor in the difficulty of dredging, but in the time they dredged, he could only say he did not agree with them.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid they had always been accustomed in all their Departments to make all their charges to revenue, and he failed to see why this particular item had been selected for special treatment. He did not know anything, except the electric light work, which ought to be more regularly paid for each year than dredging, and it was very idle of the Government to set up a plea that it was right to charge it to capital account. If they were going to have a capital account in connection with all their affairs, he could understand it, but his impression was that it was just an effort on the part of the Government not to pay their proper share of the expenditure.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 166; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 351)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bull, William James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Butcher, John George

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Bigwood, James

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

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bill, Charles

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Atkinson, Bt. Hon. John

  Bingham, Lord

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bond, Edward

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Chamberlain,RtHn J.A.(Worc.

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Chapman, Edward

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lawson,Hn. H.L.W. (Mile End

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Liddell, Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn Sir William Hart

  Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Smith,RtHnJ Parker(Lanarks)

  Finlay,RtHnSirR.B (Inv'rn'ss)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Stroyan, John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Milvain, Thomas

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Thompson,Dr.E.C(Monagh'n,N

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gordon,J.(Londonderry, South

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Greene,Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tuff, Charles

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Turnour, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walrond.Rt.Hn.SirWilliam H.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hamilton,Marq of(L'donderry)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Percy, Earl

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

  Heath, Sir J. (Staffords., N.W.)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton und.Lyne

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hunt, Rowland

  Purvis, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Alexander Acland - Hood

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn.Sir John H.

  Randles, John S.

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Keswick, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  M'Crae, George

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hammond, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Caldwell, James

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murphy, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Cullinan, J.

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  Delany, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Edwards, Frank

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rose, Charles Day

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  526

  527

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

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wallace, Robert

  Woodhouse,SirJ.T (Huddersf'd

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

  Weir, James Galloway

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Runciman and Mr. M'Kenna.

  SIR A. HAYTERcalled attention to the fact that certain works at the Pembroke Jetty had exceeded the original estimate. The estimated cost up to March 31st, 1904, was £92,530, but the total estimated cost was now £133,500. He wished to know how this enormous sum had been expended.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that in this particular case the contractor had failed to carry out his obligations, and the Admiralty had had to take the contract from him and complete the work themselves. Under the contract this contractor was liable for the additional cost which the Admiralty had been put to in the matter, but as the case was still sub judice he would not go further into details.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he wished to move as an Amendment to leave out line 33 in the schedule which referred to Bermuda. They were now being asked to vote £600,000 for this place, notwithstanding the fact that a large number of the troops forming the garrison had been removed. They had been told that it was impossible for them to feel safe at Bermuda unless the garrison there was maintained at its full strength. Nothing had changed there in regard to the strategic possibilities, and yet the garrison had been reduced whilst their responsibilities had increased there. He understood that Bermuda was to be retained as a naval and military station. St. Lucia and Barbadoes had been abandoned as naval
  528
  stations, and although they had been promised further information about Jamaica he understood that that place also was going to be abandoned. These were extraordinary proposals for the Admiralty to make without a single word of explanation. The excuse made for retaining Bermuda was that it offered special advantages for the protection of our commerce and our food supply in time of war. After all, what was the chief value of a naval base? It was of value for all the purposes which they so often heard described when they were discussing the Naval Estimates, but it was also of value on account of what could be obtained there in the ordinary course of trade. Had they decided to maintain a naval base at St. Lucia they would have been maintaining a place which, from the nature of its situation, contained all the trading and coaling facilities which were of such great value at a naval station. This was a matter of some importance, and he ventured to think that if anyone had ventured to tell Lord Nelson that they would eventually abandon St. Lucia he would have replied that they were telling him an idle dream; and he would have been still more amazed and disgusted had he been told that the only opportunity afforded to them in the House of Commons of protesting against this policy was at 3.45 in the morning. The expenditure of public money in this extravagant way was a gross act of folly. Nothing that had been said on behalf of Government seemed to justify this gross act of folly, or this most

  529
  extraordinary policy. Hon. Members opposite boasted that they belonged to the great Imperial Party, and they complained bitterly when any British territory was given up. He wished to point out that all they now retained of the West Indian stations was Bermuda, which he was informed was far less suited for a naval base than the other stations which had been given up. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, to leave out line 33."—(Major Seely.)
  Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said the hon. Gentleman had travelled very far from the schedule. His speech was directed to what he called the abandonment of the West Indies. The hon. and gallant Member confused the abandonment of islands with the abandonment of fortifications of islands or the refusal to fortify them. They had not abandoned the islands, but they did not fortify them.
  MAJOR SEELY: "Abandon" was the word used by the Secretary of the Department.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he hoped the islands would always remain part of
  the British possessions. The question whether Bermuda ought to remain a naval base was, he thought, a question which was not relevant to this schedule, and he ventured respectfully to say that this was not a proper occasion on which to discuss it. There was no question of abandoning anything in the nature of British territory.
  *MR. RUNCIMANsaid this was a case which illustrated the loss which resulted from changes in policy. We threw away thousands of pounds in one direction and then started work on other naval bases. There were many who thought that the expenditure of money in Bermuda was not good expenditure. It was said that the expenditure of money there did not, in fact, add greatly to our naval strength, and that St. Lucia would have been better for the British Fleet. He thought they ought to protest against expenditure being made at this station.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid what was here proposed illustrated the faulty policy of these Bills. The money spent this year might be declared useless next year, although for twenty-nine years our successors would have to go on paying interest and sinking fund on the amount.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 352.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour.Rt.Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

  Ark wright, John Stanhope

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Banner, John S. (Harmood-

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thos. F.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hamilton,Marq.of(L'ndonderry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col.Edward

  Bigwood, James

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Purvis, Robert

  Bingham, Lord

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords.NW

  Pym, C. Guy

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Randles, John S.

  Bond, Edward

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brassey, Albert

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hunt, Rowland

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bull, William James

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Remnnant, James Farquharson

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Butcher, John George

  Keswick, William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

  Lee. Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Chapman, Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col.Thos.Myles

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Liddell, Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

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

  Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Crossley, Et. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith.Rt.Hn J.Parker(Lanarks

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Davies, SirHoratio D.(Chatham

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stroyan, John

  Doughty, Sir George

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dyke.Rt.Hon. Sir William Hart

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fellowes, RtHn.Ailwyn Edward

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tuff, Charles

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Finlay, Rt Hn SirRB.(Inv'rn'ss

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Walrond, Rt.Hon.SirWillianiH

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Welby, SirCharlesG.E.(Notts.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund.Lyne)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Gordon, J.(Londonderry,South

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Percy, Earl

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Groves, James Grimble

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Emmott, Alfred

  Higham, John Sharp

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Joicey, Sir James

  Caldwell, James

  Evans,Sir FrancisH. (Maidstone

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Cawley, Frederick

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kennedy, P. J.(Westmeath,N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. HerbertJn

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Crean, Eugene

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hammond, John

  Lloyd-George, David

  Delany, William

  Harrington, Timothy

  Lundon, W.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  532

  533

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  M'Crae, George

  Pearson, Sir Weetman, D.

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Weir, James Galloway

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Murnaghan, Goerge

  Priestly, Arthur

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Murphy, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hudd'rsfi'ld

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Major Seely and Mr. Runci-

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  man.

  MR. WHITLEYsaid that the next Amendment standing in his name was a very important one, viz., the item dealing with coaling facilities and fuel storage. That was quite out of the run of naval works, and there could be no justification for paying that expenditure out of loan. He appealed to hon. Members who were business men whether in their own business they would be justified in putting down the cost of handling coal to capital expenditure to be repaid over a period of thirty years. Besides, the machinery for manipulating coal did not last long, and was being continually replaced by newer inventions. He strongly protested against this item, which was one of the largest in the schedule. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, to leave out line 35."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule,"
  *MR. RUNCIMANsaid this grant was by no means of the same nature as that for other works provided for under the Bill. He understood that a small portion would be devoted to the erection of coal stores, and it was quite possible that works at Gibraltar would be included in the amount. He asked what amount had
  534
  been expended on Temperley transporters, which were practically new inventions, and of great utility. If any portion was devoted to that, he ventured to say that thirty years was a very much longer period than was justified. Nothing was more likely than that the great change made by this invention would lead to other considerable improvements. Secondly, there was no more reason why a Temperley transporter should be put down as a permanent capital charge than ropes and blocks on the ships. He understood that a large amount of coaling was now done by what were known as grabs, and he asked what amount was to be used for the purchase of grabs. There was no portion of the coaling facilities given under the heading with the exception of sites which could be treated as permanent expenditure.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he thought the hon. Member rather underestimated the permanent or semi-permanent character of the works. A very large portion of the expenditure had gone on sites which had to be purchased, and upon those sites coal storage had to be erected which would last, in all reasonable probability, a good deal longer than the period of the loan. The rest of the expenditure, which was a very small proportion, being £120,000 only out of £1,280,000, had been expended on what

  535
  was known as "fixed machinery," which had always been included in loans, and was a proper charge to be met by capital expenditure.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 162:, Noes, 73. (Division List No. 353.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gretton, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Randles, John S.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Heath,Sir James(Staffords.NW

  Reed, Sir Edw.James (Cardiff)

  Bathurst, Hon.Allen Benjamin

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bigwood, James

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'sh'm

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bingham, Lord

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bond, Edward

  Jeffreys,Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brassey, Albert

  Kennaway,Rt. Hon.Sir John H.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brodrick, Rt, Hon. St. John

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Bull, William James

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Butcher, John (George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Lawson, Hn. H.L.W.(Mile End

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Liddell, Henry

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

  Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Worc

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Chapman, Edmard

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

  Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stroyan, John

  Callings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Win, Edw. M.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuff, Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Doughty, Sir George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Warde, Colonel C.E.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

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

  Dyke.Rt.Hon.SirWilliam Hart

  Milvain, Thomas

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart

  Fellowes,RtHnAilwyn Edward

  Morgan,David J.(Walth'mst'w

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Finlay, RtHnSir R.B.(Invern'ss

  Morrison, James Archibald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Mount, William Arthur

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayter.Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Caldwell, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joicey, Sir James

  Priestley, Arthur

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond,John E. (Waterford)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rose, Charles Day

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Walter

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, P.J.(Westmeath,N.)

  Samuel Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isleof Wight

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Edwards, Frank

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wallace Robert

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans,SirFrances H.(Maidstone

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  Woodhouse,SirJ.T(Huddersfi'd

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, John

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  J. H. Whitley and Mr.

  Hammond, John

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

  Bright.

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow W.)

  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that the schedule of this Bill be now put.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that before that was put he would like to ask, on a point of order, whether under Standing Order 25 it was open to a Minister or anyone to make such a Motion. In that Standing Order the only reference was to a clause; there was no reference to a schedule. He was perfectly aware that on one occasion the closure was given upon a schedule, but on that occasion no objection was taken that the Motion was contrary to the Standing Order. He submitted that the Motion was one which could only be made on the express authority of a Standing Order. There was no practice of the House dealing with the closure. The Chairman was therefore directly bound by the words of the Standing Order, and, the matter
  538
  having now been brought to his notice, he submitted that he was not competent to accept the Motion.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he quite appreciated the point of order. He had, in fact, anticipated it, and he had referred to Mr. Speaker and had looked up precedents upon it. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that there was only one precedent; both his immediate predecessors had allowed a similar Motion on a schedule.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that on both those occasions objection was not taken. The attention of the Chairman at that time was not drawn to the fact that the Standing Order only related to a clause, and did not include a schedule. He submitted that the point having been brought to the Chairman's attention the Standing Order was binding.
  Question put, 'That the Question "That this be the schedule to the Bill' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 354.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn.Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pym, C. Guy

  Balfour.RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Randles, John S.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfor.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Heath,Sir James(Staffords.NW

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bigwood, James

  Hope,J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bingham, Lord

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bond, Edward

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brassey, Albert

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bull, William James

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Butcher, John George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lawson.Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants.,Fareham

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith,Abel H.(Hertford,East

  Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

  Liddell, Henry

  Smith,Rt.HnJ.Parker(Lanarks

  Chapman, Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Stanley,Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk)

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

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

  Stanley,Rt.Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stroyan, John

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuff, Charles

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Doughty, Sir George

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

  Welby,SirCharles G.E.(Notts.)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Fellowes,RtHn.Ailwyn Edward

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morgan,David J(Walthamstow

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Finlay,Rt,Hn.SirR. B(Inv'rn'ss

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Morrison, James Archibald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Alexander Acland Hood and

  Fitzroy,Hon. Edward Algernon

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Caldwell, James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Priestley, Arthur

  Delany, William

  Kennedy, P.J. (Westmeath,N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lamont, Norman

  Rose, Charles Day

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Edwards, Frank

  Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isleof Wight

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal

  Evans,Sir FrancisH.(Maidstone

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Wallace, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  Murnaghan, George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Murphy, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hammond, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

  TELLEES FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

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

  McKenna and Mr. Lief Jones

  Question put, accordingly, "That this be the schedule to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 158; Noes, 69. (Division List No. 355.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chatham)

  Kennaway, Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Keswick, William

  Arkwright John Stanhope

  Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

  Doughty, Sir George

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End)

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

  Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart

  Lee,ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham)

  Balfour,RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds)

  Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Fellowes,Rt.Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Liddell, Henry

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Finlay,RtHnSir RB.(Inv'rn'ss)

  Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

  Bigwood, James

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

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

  Bingham, Lord

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Francis William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bond, Edward

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Brassey, Albert

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bull, William James

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Butcher, John George

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gretton, John

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Groves, James Grimble

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Chamberlain,Rt.HnJ.A.(Worc.

  Hamilton.Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Chapman, Edward

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Heath,SirJames(Staffords,N.W

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Howard, John(Kent,Faversham

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Mount, William Arthur

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hunt, Rowland

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Percy, Earl

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tuff, Charles

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos,Myles

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

  Purvis, Robert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

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

  Randles, John S.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und Lyne)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Smith.Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

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

  Reed, Sir Edw, James (Cardiff)

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Stroyan, John

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  and Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor. James(Wicklow,W.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Priestley, Arthur

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, P. J.(Westmeath, N.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cullinan, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Delany, William

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

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

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Edwards, Frank

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Crae, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

  Murnaghan, George

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Murphy, John

  Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

  Hammond, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Mr. Bright and Mr. Lamont.

  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL [LOKDS].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  REVENUE [EXCISE DUTY].
  Order for Committee thereupon read, and discharged.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Committee read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 31st day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes before Five o'clock, a.m.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Wigan Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Bristol Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Wigan Corporation Bill. Moved, That Standing Orders No. 143 and 143A be considered in order to their being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a; agreed to. Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Earl of Stamford's Cheshire Estate Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
North Eastern Railway Bill; North; Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Acton Sewage Bill; Bolton Corporation Bill; Halifax Corporation Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
North-East London Railway Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHANTREY TRUST.
  Memorandum by the Royal Academy on the Report of the House of Lords' Committee on the Chantrey Trust. Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord Windsor.)
  CHANTREY TRUST.
  Memorandum respecting. Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day) and to be printed. (No. 166.)
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Report of Proceedings at the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, Thursday, 22nd June, 1905.
  Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1904–1905.
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Twenty-seventh Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland), 1904–1905.
  CENSUS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE (1901).
  Summary tables and detailed tables for the several colonies, etc.; area, houses, and population; also population classified by ages, condition as to marriage, occupations, birthplaces, religions, degrees of education, and infirmities.

  INDIA (RECONSTITUTION OFTHE PRO- VINCES OF BENGAL AND ASSAM).
  Papers relating to the reconstitution of the provinces of Bengal and Assam.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY.
  1. (Army Reserve). Further regulations relating to the Army Reserve.
  2. (Militia). Further regulations relating to the Militia.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY BOROUGH OF BRIGHTON).
  Order made by the council of the county borough of Brighton, altering certain polling districts in the borough.
  PAWNBROKERS (IRELAND).
  Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin for the year 1904.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1891).
  Return of advances under the Act, during the year ended the 31st March, 1905.

  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Return of the amount payable on 5th January, 1905, out of the Consolidated Fund or ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HOME DEFENCE.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I beg to give notice that I shall to-morrow ask the tinder-Secretary of State for War how Mr. Arnold-Forster's statement that the intended "allocation of the Volunteer forces in view of the policy that has been laid before the House of Commons by the Prime Minister" and "in view of the present strength and disposition of the Fleet" is to be reconciled with the Resolution on Home Defence adopted by the Government and passed unanimously by this House on July 10th.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Moved, That the Standing Orders be amended as follows—
  The words within brackets are to be omitted; and the words printed in italics are to be inserted.
  9. In the months of October and November, or either of them, immediately preceding the application for a Bill, the notice shall be published once in the London, Edinburgh, or Dublin Gazette, as the case may be, and in the following newspapers (namely):—
  (1) In the case of a Bill relating specially to any particular city, borough, town, [or urban] urban or rural district, the notice shall be published once in each of two successive weeks, with an interval between such publications of not less than six clear days, in some newspaper or newspapers published in such city, borough, town, or district, or if there be no newspaper published therein, then in some newspaper or newspapers published in the county in which such city, borough,
  316
  town, or district, or any part thereof, is situate.
  Deposits on or before the 21st of December.
  33. On or before the twenty-first day of December a printed copy shall be deposited
  (7) Of every Local Bill—

  (a) relating to a local Court or stipendiary magistrate;

  (b) whereby power is sought to take any churchyard, burial ground, cemetery, or any part thereof, or to disturb the bodies interred therein, or to take any common or commonable land.

  [(c) in which provisions are contained relating to houses inhabited by the working class in London];

  [d] (c) promoted by any Municipal or other Local Authority, by which it is proposed to create powers relating to police or sanitary regulations which deviate from, or are in extension of, or repugnant to the general law;

  (11) Of every Bill affecting Crown property at the Office of [the Commissioners of] the Commissioners of Woods, and if the property is in England or Scotland at the Office of the Commissioners of Works, or if the property is in Ireland, at the Office of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland [His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings and at the Office of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues]; and of every Bill affecting the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy of Lancaster, at the Office of such Duchy respectively;
  43. If it be intended to divert, widen, or narrow any public carriage road, navigable river, canal, or railway, the course of such diversion, and the extent of such widening or narrowing, shall be marked upon the plan, and if it be intended to divert any public footpath, the

  317
  course of such diversion shall be marked upon the plan.
  106. In the case of any Bill relating to the supply of electricity to persons or bodies other than the promoters, the Bill shall not be reported by the Committee until a report from the Board of Trade on the powers sought has been laid before the Committee.
  [106] 106 a. Every report made on any Bill by or under the authority of any Public Department shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  Miscellaneous Matters.
  140 b. Two clear days at least before the day appointed for the consideration ot any Private Bill by a Committee, there shall be laid before the Chairman of Committees, by the agent, a copy of the Bill as proposed to be submitted to the Committee, and such copy shall be signed by the agent for the Bill.
  143 a. A copy of every Local Bill, if amended in Committee, shall, as so amended, be deposited at the Office of His Majesty's Treasury, at the Local Government Board, and at the General Post Office three days before the Bill is read a third time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  Agreed to. Standing Orders amended accordingly, and to be printed as amended. (No. 165.)

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read, and discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, as I had charge of the Amendments which were drafted by the Free Church, I wish
  318
  to say one word on the course I think it right to take. At this time of the session the Governments, of course, all-powerful, and in refusing to accept Amendments to this Bill I think they were right, for if they had accepted them it would have meant the loss of the Bill, and that would have been much to be regretted. The Government having refused to accept the Amendments it was useless on my part to press them further, especially when my noble and learned friend Lord Robertson notified his intention not to move Amendments. Therefore, I hope I did right in not pressing my Amendments, but I must say they were very rightful Amendments. One was that the Free Church, which had acquired this property by the judgment of your Lordships' House, should not be deprived of that which they had capacity of using. The other point was the establishment of the principle of dealing with private property in the way proposed in this Bill. The former point must be left to the discretion of the Commissioners, who I trust will be just, and do to the Free Church as they would be done by, and not take away from the Free Church to give to the United Free Church property which the Free Church can beneficially use. I trust they will exercise their judgment unheeding outside representations and the prayers of Dr. Rainy.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  PARLIAMENTARY AGENCY.
  Moved to resolve, "That, until the House do make further order, the rules respecting Parliamentary agency (laid before the House on Tuesday last) be observed by the Officers of the House and all Parliamentary agents and solicitors engaged in prosecuting proceedings in the House of Lords upon any Petition or Bill."—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  THE HOUSE AND LEGISLATION.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, in accordance with the notice

  319
  standing in my name on the Paper, I have to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any of the Bills passed through this House and introduced into the House of Commons are likely to become law; and how far such Bills have been advanced in the House of Commons. I may remind your Lordships that, on April 6th last, this House arrived at the following Resolution—
  "That this House, recognising its duties as a deliberative Assembly, protests against the practice of introducing Bills into it under conditions which afford insufficient time for their consideration, and declares its intention to refuse to consider any Bills unless sufficient time be afforded for due deliberation thereon."
  That Resolution was agreed to unanimously, and there was reason to feel that it was not a formal Resolution. There had been great sympathy expressed with it when it was moved; but at a prior date, namely, on February 16th, my noble friend the Leader of the House had made a statement of a very practical character. After expressing sympathy with the Motion which was made for a Return for the purpose of founding the Resolution of April 6th, the noble Marquess said—
  "I may perhaps be permitted to say that having made a very careful note of the feelings expressed in different parts of the House last year on this subject, I represented the matter as strongly as I could to my colleagues, and I am able to tell your Lordships that some of the Bills referred to in the Gracious Speech from the Throne will certainly be introduced in your Lordships' House. I may mention, in particular, that the Workmen's Compensation Bill will certainly be so introduced, and I am in hopes that we may be able to make arrangements for also introducing the Valuation Bill in this House. There is, besides, an important Bill which was omitted, owing to an oversight, from the Speech from the Throne—I mean a Bill dealing with the conditions of service in the Militia, which my noble friend Lord Donoughmore will introduce in this House at an early date. There is also a Bill with regard to Crown Cases Reserved, which the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack intends to introduce, and, I believe, another Bill dealing with Corrupt Practices. I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to convince my noble and learned friend that we are sincere in our desire to give the House those opportunities which he is so anxious should be accorded to us."
  I can assure my noble friend that he did convince me. I have no doubt that the noble Marquess was perfectly sincere in his desire to give the House
  320
  those opportunities for consideration which were asked for, but we must look at the facts and see how these good intentions of my noble friend have been dealt with. In pursuance of that statement of the Leader of the House your Lordships proceeded to legislate. Sixteen Bills of considerable importance were introduced into the House, considered, dealt with in detail in Committee, and forwarded to the House of Commons. They were Bills singularly uncontroversial, but yet Bills of great utility. They were not political Bills of the first class—it would, perhaps, be inexpedient that such Bills should be introduced into this House—but they were all Bills dealing with the social and economic life of the country and singularly deserving the attention of Parliament.
  What happened? Not only has not one of those Bills been returned to this House, but, as far as my information goes, not one step has been taken in regard to them except the formal step of placing the Bills on the Paper of the House of Commons. Not even the compliment was paid to any one of them of being placed on the sacrificial altar of the Prime Minister. They have been put on one side as if they were of no account and as if no one desired that they should pass into law. I should like to know, if I may ask without displaying any impertinent curiosity, what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack thinks of this treatment of two of the Bills for which he was particularly responsible—the Criminal Cases (Reservation of Points of Law) Bill, and the Prevention of Corruption Bill. Those were Bills very deserving of the attention of Parliament and Bills which would, I think, have been highly approved of by the public. I do not think the noble and learned Lord's Bills have always been treated with very great consideration, but here were two Bills which could scarcely have been in the hands of anyone a matter of controversy and dispute, and they have been treated with supreme contempt, and not the slightest notice has been taken of them. Is there any excuse for this neglect of legislation sent down from this House? It is true that Parliament met late, but I suppose that the date

  321
  was fixed with due consideration of what was required, and it is not rising unduly early. There was a generous recess at Easter and at Whitsuntide, and there was a week, what the late Lord Salisbury would have called the sacred Ascot week, which was employed, not in passing any of these uncontroversial Bills which would have effected good legislation, but in wasting time and losing time in the discussion of the details of a Bill which has never been heard of since. Are your Lordships to go on passing Bills, are we not even to have the courtesy of acknowledgment of them, or is our work to fall as seed on barren soil and nothing more be seen of it?
  I desire to ask the noble Marquess another Question, of which I have given him private notice, which represents a serious matter, because, as we stand now, there will be a clear contravention of the Resolution of April 6th. When the Aliens Immigration Bill and the Churches (Scotland) Bill came to your Lordships' House some twelve or thirteen days before the rising of Parliament I certainly hoped that that would give sufficient time for their consideration, but when the Aliens Immigration Bill was before the House I found that I was in error. As it turned out, there was not time for one Amendment to be moved on that Bill. Lord Belper put down certain Amendments which were needed, or he would not have them put down. They were withdrawn. Why were they withdrawn except it was because there was not time to consider them if the Bill went down amended to the House of Commons?
  So we proceeded with that Bill with the knowledge that, however meritorious an Amendment might be, it could not be moved. I do not wish to attach any great practical effect to that, because I did not share the view that many of the Amendments that were proposed ought to be carried. But one Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Ripon, ought certainly to have been made. Who can doubt that if we had had sufficient time to discuss the Bill, this House would have asserted its right and put in a provision that the rules and regulations made on so important a matter as that which
  322
  affected the immigration of aliens should be brought to the attention of Parliament? Even the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack stated openly that the rules and regulations would be laid before Parliament. I had thought that it would be difficult for them to be so laid if that requirement would delay the use of the rules in the meantime; but the noble Marquess opposite said quite plainly that he did not suggest for a single moment that the operation of the rules should be delayed, but simply that Parliament should have the rules placed before them. There is nothing of that kind in the Bill. We were compelled to let that Amendment drop because we understood that the Government could not and would not accept it, as there were not enough days in the other House to enable the House of Commons to deal with the Amendment. Therefore, it is proved that the Resolution of April 6th has already been broken, and that sufficient time has not been afforded to this House for the proper consideration of the measures brought up to it.
  This session has not yet ended, and we have a most important Bill still to come before us—the Unemployed Workmen Bill. That is a Bill which the Members of this House are eminently capable of dealing with. Late on Friday night a provision was inserted applying the Bill to Scotland. I believe there are many Scottish Peers who are desirous of discussing that application. What is our position in regard to this Bill? At this very moment the House of Commons, if I may use the term, is hammering away at the Bill, and a few minutes ago they were dividing upon it. It is impossible, the House of Commons now being only in Committee, that we can have the Bill before Tuesday. I am told that Parliament will certainly not sit later than Friday. Where is now the possibility of our discussing that important Bill? In February last my noble friend Lord Lansdowne said that he had consulted with his colleagues as to this evil. May I ask him if he has during this session consulted his colleagues on this matter; has he placed before them the case of this House and

  323
  the detriment which it is sustaining, and has he protested against our power of legislation being treated as a nullity? Can there be any excuse for the position in which we are placed? I make no apology for calling your Lordships' attention to this matter. It does not affect the Party in power or any particular Party. It is a matter of great and grievous complaint that is felt by individual Members of this House and the House collectively. We may be told we can do but little; that is true; but we can make our protest against being placed in the position of accomplices in effecting the degradation of Parliament and in lowering the efficiency and credit of this House.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, whether the noble Marquess will be able to answer the Question satisfactorily or not, I feel bound to state that, so far as I can see, it does not seem altogether fair to blame him for the present state of affairs. The noble Marquess, after all, has done his best to fulfil our wishes. He gave a pledge last year that he would see what could be done, and he undertook to introduce Bills in this House. Well, the noble Marquess has carried out his promise. He did introduce Bills, and, as has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, they were Bills of considerable importance. It certainly does not appear to me fair to charge him with the crime of being responsible for the loss of these Bills when they went elsewhere.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I certainly made no such charge.
  LORD NEWTON: I quite understood that. I am only anticipating such a charge being made. It occurs to me, therefore, that if there is a real culprit it is no less a personage than the Prime Minister himself. The other thing which is apparent as regards what has passed during the present session is that under present circumstances it is clearly impossible for any Government to pass more than one or two Bills of any first-rate importance.
  A NOBLE LORD: That is too many.
  LORD NEWTON: My noble friend below me says that that is too many. The ideal state of things no doubt, in his opinion, would be that no legislation should be passed at all. We must assume, at all events, that one or two important measures will be passed under ordinary circumstances, and when I observe, as I did the other day, that this somewhat exiguous legislative outcome is jeered at by the Opposition, I very much doubt whether, when they come into office, they will achieve anything more substantial in the way of legislation unless they pass a number of Bills through the House of Commons with the object of getting them rejected here. This annual farce, or harlequinade, with which we terminate the legislative business of the session derives some point on this occasion from the fact that my noble and learned friend induced the House, certainly against my view, to pass what I can only term a sort of blood-and-thunder Resolution in the earlier portion of this session. What is the result? In spite of this Resolution we have swallowed the Aliens Bill practically at two sittings, and I presume we shall be expected to digest the Unemployed Workmen Bill in all its stages in one or two sittings.
  I confess, my Lords, I do not think we shall ever do any good by passing Resolutions of this character, for it seems to me that we have not got the courage to carry them out. I have always urged a conciliatory course, and I believe we shall never do any good until we rearrange the session, and the first step preparatory to any change of that kind is to consult with the other House and endeavour, by amicable arrangement, to see if it is not possible for the House of Commons to get through their business in such a way that we may be given an opportunity of expressing our legitimate opinions on such Bills as are sent up to us. A rearrangement of the method of taking Supply would probably make a considerable difference, and it might result—in all probability it would result—in Bills being sent up here in time for us adequately to discuss them.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies to the Question which has been put to him by Lord James I should like to say how entirely I endorse every single word that has fallen from him as to the humiliating position in which we are placed in reference to Bills that are politically uncontroversial, but in regard to which many of your Lordships, and not least those who sit on the Episcopal Bench, are keenly interested. I have received in the last few days letters and telegrams from Bishops in different parts of England, and even abroad, stating their readiness to come back at once in order to take part in discussing Bills which we expected to be before us at this time, and I have been in the humiliating position of replying that the Government had intimated that either the Bills were not to be proceeded with or that we were absolutely precluded from moving any Amendments to them. I am not blaming the noble Marquess the Leader of this House. The fault lies elsewhere; but that there is fault somewhere nobody can possibly deny who desires to maintain—I was going to say the English Constitution, but certainly the dignity and honour of the Upper House of the Legislature. I should like to express with all the weight that I can possibly give to the words my sense of the position in which the House of Lords is placed while that Party in the State is in power which is supposed to be especially careful of its honour, character, and reputation, and of the way in which, at this moment, this House is being degraded and its Members deprived even of the opportunity of making their voices heard on subjects of vital importance, except they wish that their words may vanish in the air in so far as any practical effect of their efforts is concerned. I think this deeply concerns the reputation of His Majesty's Government as a whole and of any Government under whom such things can take place, and I hope before another session we shall have this matter placed in a different position.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if I speak before the noble Marquess replies. I feel bound to
  326
  raise my voice in support of the view which has been put forward by my noble and learned friend opposite. It is an annual matter that I, or anyone who stands in my position, should rise at this time of the year and make a protest as to the manner in which the business of Parliament is conducted. But it is a matter of duty, because we on this side of the House are, I hope, just as tenacious of the dignity of the House, and of the importance of its debates being carried out in an effective manner, as any of the noble Lords who are in office. What we want to try to secure is that this House should not be a mere House to record the decisions of the other House and the proposals of His Majesty's Government, but a real House of Revision. It is of the greatest importance that this power of revision should be maintained, and I venture to think that this House is in great jeopardy of losing that power of revision.
  I at once admit, with the noble and learned Lord, that this is not an attack on the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. It is an exceedingly difficult matter, and difficult particularly in this respect, that the business on certain Bills in this House is almost entirely connected with the manner in which business is conducted in another place. It is not for us to go in detail into the question of how the other House conducts its business. I have heard it stated that the Opposition have been responsible for a good deal of the difficulty. If that means that the Opposition, in conducting their part of the discussions in another place, have improperly obstructed the business of the other House, I entriely deny that that has been the case in the present session.
  I believe there have been cases in which the leaders in the other House have admitted that during protracted debates there has not been undue discussion, and, therefore, there could not have been obstruction. The noble Marquess engaged to press on his colleagues that they should take steps to remedy this evil by sending up Bills at an earlier period. We have very little doubt, from what we know of him, that he carried out his promise, but I fear he

  327
  will admit that he has not been in any way successful. The fact, as stated by the noble and learned Lord who called attention to this question, that sixteen Bills have been sent from this House to the House of Commons, and not one of them has come back, is a very serious position of affairs. I think it must be admitted that in consequence of action taken on this side of the House last year on the Finance Bill we have improved the position with regard to that measure. Last year the Finance Bill was brought up as late as July 29th, and, if your Lordships remember, we were told that if the Bill was not passed before August 1st there would be very serious difficulty in collecting the taxes. On this side of the House—though I did not take a leading part in the protest, having to a certain extent pledged myself in the matter to the noble Marquess—there was a very serious protest made by many of my friends, and in consequence of that protest the Bill could not be passed before August 1st. I must congratulate His Majesty's Government upon the fact that this year, instead of the Finance Bill being brought up on July 29th, it was brought up on June 29th, and, therefore, we did not have the difficulty in regard to that Bill which we had last year.
  I fully admit that there is always a difficulty with regard to big measures. It is a difficulty which is very much greater with us when we are in office. We have always felt that if we had a great measure which was likely to arouse considerable opposition in this House it would be futile to bring it up before it had the backing of majorities in the other House; but His Majesty's present Government are in a different position To some extent they may wish to have the opinion of the other House before presenting an important Bill here, but still they can carry almost any Bill in this House which they present. A few Bills have been brought forward first in this House this session. We have had, I believe, three important Bills, but none of them have made progress elsewhere. One of those Bills was the Service of Militiamen Bill. That Bill,
  328
  I understand, has been dropped. You may flatter us by saying that the arguments used against the Bill in this House had the effect of convincing the Government that the Bill should not proceed, but I do not think they will admit that. This is one important Bill which has passed this House but not been proceeded with in the other House. Then there was the very singular debate we had in Committee on the Aliens Bill. That was a measure which the Government thought was of first-rate importance, because it was put forward in front of many other Bills which seemed to the public of far greater importance. It was closured on many occasions in the House of Commons, and some of the most important clauses were not discussed there at all. When it came up to your Lordships' House the Government showed that they considered certain Amendments necessary, for there were several Amendments placed on the Paper in the name of Lord Belper. The Government, however, abstained from bringing forward any one of those Amendments. Then, as my noble and learned friend opposite said, there were several Amendments moved from this side of the House which were merely carrying out the declared opinions of the Government—opinions expressed by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and by Lord Belper. We only wished to have things clearly understood and expressed in the Bill, and those Amendments were also refused by His Majesty's Government.
  It is, I think, a very serious state of things to have a Bill which was not thoroughly discussed in the House of Commons, brought up to this House and closured in the sense that no Amendments were allowed upon it. I wish to protest as earnestly as I can against the position in which this House is placed, and I would urge the importance of impressing on His Majesty's Government in the other House the great necessity of allowing Bills to come up here at a proper time. I do not know whether there will be any serious opposition to the Unemployed Workmen Bill, but there certainly ought to be opportunities of discussing that measure

  329
  and of bringing forward Amendments upon it. I hope that the noble Marquess will be able to give us some assurance that if His Majesty's Government are in office next session they will take care that measures from the other House are brought up here in such time that your Lordships' House can have a reasonable opportunity of thoroughly considering them and of making any Amendments which they may think it necessary to insert.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, my difficulty in replying to the speeches which have been addressed to your Lordships this evening arises from the fact that I am very much in agreement with most of the arguments which have been addressed to us. I can say, in all sincerity, that there is no Member of this House who deplores more than I do that our opportunities of taking a useful part in the legislation of Parliament should not be greater than they are. I am glad that it has, at any rate, been admitted that the pledge which I gave to your Lordships' House last year, and again in the beginning of the present session, has been to this extent redeemed, that several important measures were introduced in your Lordships' House, but I am afraid that I must admit that the result has been entirely disappointing. These measures, together with many other measures which have passed through your Lordships' House, have not been further advanced in the other House of Parliament, and I assume that when my noble and learned friend put his Question upon the Paper he was perfectly well aware that I could give only one Answer, and that a most unsatisfactory one, to it. I must say that I do not know that it makes much difference whether these Bills were interred with a suitable funeral oration on the occasion of the annual massacre of the innocents, or whether they have been allowed, as some of these Bills were allowed, to pass silently into oblivion.
  Your Lordships should remember that it is not this House alone which suffers from the conditions under which business is at present transacted. If our legislative harvest has been disappointing, the
  330
  harvest of the House of Commons has not been much better. I am asked what excuse there is for this state of things. I do not think you can lay the blame upon His Majesty's Government, certainly not upon anything that has been done or undone by this House. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed a statement that was made a week ago by the Prime Minister with regard to the manner in which the time of the House of Commons had been occupied during the present session. That statement was a remarkable and suggestive one. It went to show that there were, altogether, ninety days in which Government business had priority; that out of those, owing to the time taken by debates on the Address, on the Budget, on the Finance Bill, and on Supply (which took no less than thirty-seven days), there remained only a balance of twenty days available for the purposes of legislation. That is a very serious state of things, and it is not one which could be mitigated by the addition of a week at the beginning or at the end of the session. The difficulty lies much deeper than that, and it is this state of things which also leads to the fact that even in the case of those Bills which reach this House we are invariably afforded an inadequate allowance of time for the discussion of their details.
  My noble and learned friend spoke of the Aliens Bill. Well, my Lords, that Bill was not one of those measures which come up to the House in the last moment of the session, because it was read a first time on July 20th. My impression is that the Second Reading was put off, and also the Committee stage, in deference to wishes expressed by Members of the House, and for the convenience of the House; but my noble and learned friend suggested that when the Aliens Bill came here we absolutely refused to entertain the idea of making any Amendments in it. Now, I think I must say, in fairness to those of us who sit here, that the Amendments which we did object to and against which we divided were in every case Amendments which struck at the very root of the Bill. I take, for example, the Amendment of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. He desired that the premises to be provided

  331
  for the examination of immigrants should be provided at the public expense. That was a question of principle, and we could not listen to his proposal. Again, there were the Amendments moved by Lord Coleridge. Lord Coleridge desired to substitute for the simple and expeditious procedure which we had proposed a Court of summary jurisdiction with appeal to another Court of law. It was impossible for us to entertain that proposal. Then, again, another noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, moved an Amendment which would have obliged us to strike out of the Bill the clause dealing with the question of overcrowding. That, to our mind, was a matter of the greatest importance. I mention those merely to show that if we resisted these Amendments it was not because we had a parti pris against all Amendments, but because we really found that they were of a kind we could not entertain.
  The noble Earl said, "Why, then, did Lord Belper not press the Government Amendments?" Well, my Lords, Lord Belper's Amendments were, as he told the House, drafting Amendments, and we were, I think, perfectly within our right to say that we preferred not to introduce those drafting Amendments in order that we might avoid another stage of the Bill, and the delay which would be consequent upon it. Then there was the Amendment moved by Lord Ripon, to which reference was also made. Lord Ripon's proposal was that the rules and regulations made under the Bill were to be laid upon the Table of the House, and an assurance was given from this bench that they would be so laid. That did not quite content noble Lords opposite, who wished that we should insert in the Bill a clause compelling us to lay the rules and regulations on the Table. Surely it would not have been worth sending the Bill back to the House of Commons in order to insert an Amendment of that kind, dealing with rules which your Lordships will remember are published by the King's printers, and are the property of anybody who chooses to look at them.
  I was asked whether we should adopt a similar policy in the case of the Un-
  332
  employed Bill, which is now on its way to your Lordships' House. Obviously, it would be most improper, before a Bill is on the Table of the House, that I should undertake to say how we shall deal with any Amendments which may be proposed. I have said these few words in defence of our conduct in regard to an important measure, but when I say them I do not wish for a moment to suggest that the state of things to which attention has been drawn this evening is not a very serious one and does not demand the attention, not only of His Majesty's Government, but of both Houses of Parliament, because, as my noble friend Lord Newton told us, unless we can get both Houses of Parliament to address themselves to a solution of this problem it certainly will not be solved. I am afraid all that I can add to what I have already said on this subject is that I will take care that the weighty words which have been addressed to the House are duly considered by His Majesty's Government, and, as far as any influence which I possess is concerned, I certainly say that I will spare no efforts to secure the full and careful consideration of this problem in the hope that it may not be beyond our power to discover some solution satisfactory to your Lordships and conducive to the efficiency and dignity of your Lordships' House.

  WATERING LONDON STREES.
  LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the present unwatered and unwashed state of the wooden pavement in the Metropolitan boroughs and in the city of Westminster has been brought before their notice; and whether the Local Government Board are able, and, if so, willing to take any steps in the direction of a remedy; and whether in accordance with the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Section 29, the Local Government Board can induce the local authorities to cause the whole of the wood-paved areas to be watered instead of the edges near the stone pavement only, as is now the case, and to compel the removal of the refuse, not at intervals of several hours, to the detriment of public health,

  333
  as is now the case, but continually all day long, as the present practice is in the city of London.
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, I am instructed to reply on behalf of the Local Government Board to the noble Lord's Question. The Local Government Board have received no complaints as to the state of the streets in Westminster, but they have made inquiry and the borough council inform them that they do wash the streets thoroughly as often as occasion requires, the principal thoroughfares once every night, and all at least once a week during the night. It would be impossible to wash the streets during the day in consequence of the traffic. With regard to washing the sides of the streets only, that is the result of experience. It is better to wash the sides than to wash the streets all over when they are either of asphalte or wood paving. With regard to the removal of street refuse, the practice in all the important streets is to send round men all through the day to remove refuse, and in the less important thoroughfares the refuse is removed every morning. It is true that Section 29 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, makes it the duty of the sanitary authorities to keep the streets in order, and if they fail they can be summoned and are liable to a fine; but the Local Government Board have no control over the sanitary authorities in this matter. Looking to all the circumstances, the Board do not think they have any reason to intervene.
  LORD BRAYE: I am sorry to say the Answer which the noble Lord has given is unsatisfactory. This is really a question of fact. The refuse of the street is removed into the gutter, and there it remains for several hours, and in the hot weather the nuisance has become intolerable. This state of things would not be tolerated in any other capital of Europe for a single day, and, what is more extra-ordinary, it is not tolerated in the city of London. Why the city of Westminster and the rest of what is commonly called the West End should be treated in this way when the city of London is carefully attended to, I am quite at a loss to understand. In the city of London there is a practice of collecting refuse—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I must remind the noble Lord that he has no right of reply.
  LORD BRAYE: I thank the noble and learned Lord for calling my attention to that fact. I can only leave it in the hands of the Local Government Board to test the facts I have brought before them, and, if possible, to use their influence with the local authorities to remedy the matter.

  THE UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  EARL SPENCER: I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether he can tell us when we are likely to have the Second Reading of the Unemployed Bill.
  *THE MARQUESS OP LANSDOWNE: We propose that the House should adjourn during pleasure, in order to receive the Unemployed Bill and read it a first time to-night. If the noble Earl approves we should like to take the Second Reading to-morrow.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  MEDICAL ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the Earl Waldegrave.

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Lord Kenyon.) (No. 167.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.