Sitting of 4 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Western Railway (New Railways) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Hastings Tramways Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. l) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSinformed the House, That the Committee on Group L of Private Bills, not being appointed to meet until Thursday, the parties promoting the Littlehampton Urban District Council Bill [Lords], which was set down for consideration on the first day of the meeting of the Committee, had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of George Montague Percy, 19, Buckingham Street,

967
Strand, was essential to their case; and that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
Ordered, That the said George Montague Percy do attend the Committee on Group L of Private Bills upon Thursday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Donovan's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Donovan's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Donovan's Divorce Bill, together with the Documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)
Cork Junction Railways Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
City of London (Escape from Fire) Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved] Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
Sir HENRY AUBREY-FLETCHERreported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Limited, to act as executors, administrators, and trustees; and in other fiduciary capacities." [Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered27thMarch; Mr. Eugene Wason]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 227.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Outbreak of Epizootic Lymphangitis amongst Horses in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture has taken steps or propose to take steps to ascertain the manner of the introduction of the disease epizootic lymphangitis into Ireland, as requested by a resolution of the Waterford County Council; and whether, if it be shown that the disease was introduced by Army horses, compensation will be paid to the owners of horses lost or destroyed by the epidemic.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department do not consider it necessary to make any formal investigation in this matter. The first cases of epizootic lymphangitis in Ireland were notified to the Department by the military authorities in November, 1903, as having occurred in two Army horses at the Curragh Camp. These horses were diagnosed by the Army veterinary officers to be suffering from the disease mentioned and were destroyed. Where horses are compulsorily slaughtered by direction of the local authority, compensation is granted out of the local rate, and one-half of such compensation is recouped to the local authority out of the General Cattle Diseases Fund. There is no power under the Diseases of Animals Acts to award compensation for horses not so compulsorily slaughtered.

  Proposed Ministry of Commerce
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Bill promised in the King's Speech to appoint a Minister of Commerce will be introduced; and whether he will afford facilities to have it passed this session.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I fear I cannot, in the present condition of public business, make any announcement of a date for the introduction of this measure.

  South African War—Investigation of Field Force Canteen Accounts.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the disclosures of the Secretary of State for India as to the accounts and management of the field force canteen in South Africa during the war, will the Government take steps to secure investigation of these accounts by the Royal Commission or, failing this, could a separate investigation take place.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I think the hon. Member will see that the terms of reference to the Royal Commission are wide enough to include this subject.

  Arrears of Interest on Purchase Money uncollected from Tenants on the King-Harman Estate.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can state the total amount of arrears of interest at 3½ per cent. on the purchase money which has been uncollected, and also the amount forgiven to the tenant purchasers on the King-Harman. Estate, and for what period has it been remitted; when will the vesting orders be issued in the case of the purchasers in the town of Boyle as well as on the rural portions of the estate; and what has been the cause of the delay in issuing these orders, seeing that the terms of sale were agreed to in November, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Interest at 3½ per cent. on the purchase money is, in accordance with the agreement entered into by the purchasers, due by them
  970
  for the period from 9th November, 1904, to 19th May, 1905, when the advances were made; and receivable orders for the amounts due have recently been, issued. No rent or arrears of rent were payable to the Land Commission, and they have no knowledge whether any such arrears were remitted. The Commissioners have not finally agreed to purchase the town of Boyle, and the holdings cannot, therefore, yet be vested in the tenants. The rural holdings will be vested in the tenants at an early date.

  Government Redistribution Proposals.
  MR. NUSSEY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state the terms of the Redistribution Resolutions, and what amount of notice he proposes to give before they are proceeded with.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am not in a position at present to state the terms of the Resolutions; but notice will be given which I trust will prove adequate.

  Reduction of Telegraph Rate between Great Britain and India—Loss Incurred.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWN-AGGREE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if any loss has resulted since the reduction of the telegraphic rates between Great Britain and India; and, if so, will he give the actual figures of such loss for each year; and also state whether any compensation has been paid on account of such loss, and in what proportion it was charged to the British and Indian Exchequers respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Yes. The telegraph rates were reduced between Europe and India from the 1st March, 1902. For the thirteen months ending 31st March, 1903, the loss of revenue was calculated to have been £48,769, and for the year 1903–4, £5,214. The Government of India is responsible for the repayment of one-third of this loss to the telegraph administrations concerned. The British Exchequer takes no share in the compensation paid. For the year 1904–5 there has been no loss of revenue owing to the reduction of rate.

  Construction and Improvement of Piers at Smerwick and Ballydavid.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state when the Congested Districts Board will give grants for the construction and improvement of piers at Smerwick and Ballydavid, places which depend almost entirely on the fishing industry.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board informed the local authorities in August last that they were prepared to contribute a sum not exceeding £200 towards the cost of constructing a pier at Smerwick. No reply has been received. The Board will investigate the requirements of Ballydavid, but they have at present no further funds available for public works.

  Surrey Education Committee's Accounts
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the report of the district auditor, Mr. Wraith, on the county education accounts, for the year 1903–4, of the county of Surrey; whether he intends to take any action in view of the irregularities and illegalities disclosed by the district auditor in these accounts; and whether the payments disallowed by the district auditor have been refunded; and, if not, will he explain why this has not been done.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have seen the report referred to, which relates to the audit of the accounts of the county council for the first year in which the Education Act, 1902, was in operation in the county. Many of the irregularities to which attention was drawn by the auditor related to matters arising out of the transition from the old to the new arrangements, and will not be likely to recur. A certain number of the irregularities occurred in connection with the accounts of managers of elementary schools to whom the receipt and payment of moneys on behalf of the education authority had been entrusted. With regard to these I may state that the education committee, after consideration of the auditor's report, have drawn up some detailed instructions
  972
  with a view of securing that in future the financial transactions and accounts of the managers shall be properly controlled and supervised. The committee have applied to the Local Government Board for their assistance in settling these instructions, and their proposals are receiving careful consideration. The auditor made a number of disallowances, and in seventeen instances the amount of the payment disallowed has been refunded by the managers of the school. In two cases it is understood that an appeal against the auditor's decision will be made to the Local Government Board, and in the remaining six cases appeals have already been made to the Board, who are giving consideration to them.

  Lighting of Parliament Square.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if the Board of Works intervened in October, 1904, when the Westminster City Council was about concluding a contract for the better lighting of Parliament Square; if so, what steps have been taken since by the Board of Works to improve the lighting of the square; and if it will continue to be lighted by the Board or whether the City Council of Westminster will be allowed to perform the work.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) Parliament Square lies within the jurisdiction of the Office of Works, and the Westminster City Council has therefore no power to conclude any contract for the lighting of it; experiments have been made by the Office of Works to determine what method of improved lighting should be adopted. It is proposed to light the Square with the same lamp which has proved so successful in New Palace Yard; and it is expected that the work will be carried out in the autumn so that the lamps may be available before the winter.

  Contemplated Partition of Bengal
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that an influentially-signed petition opposing the contemplated partition of Bengal is under submission from the inhabitants

  973
  of Eastern Bengal; and whether he will postpone passing Orders on the proposals of the Government until this memorial has been considered.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The proposals of the Government of India on this subject reached me on the 18th of February, and I have already communicated to them the decision of the Secretary of State in Council accepting their proposals.

  County of Waterford Petty Sessions Cases.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of complaints heard in petty sessions by the justices in each of the thirteen petty sessions districts of the county of Waterford, exclusive of the petty sessions district of the county borough of Waterford, in the years 1903 and 1904 respectively; in how many of the cases were convictions obtained or orders granted; in how many was there no appearance; and how many complaints were dismissed.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have furnished the hon. Member with a tabular statement giving the information asked for.

  Destruction of Ancient Monument on King-Harman Estate.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are the legal owners of the ancient monument recently destroyed by malicious injury on the King-Harman Estate; and, if so, have they taken any steps to replace the same, and thus save the ratepayers from any liability in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners understand that the monument referred to is situate on land which is vested in them. They have instructed their inspector to inquire into and report on the matter.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Volunteers and Service Abroad.
    MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the terms of the instructions recently issued by the Army Council as to the efficiency of Volunteer units.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I only received notice of this Question as I came to the House, and I am unable textually to quote the document. The general effect of the instruction is to request the Volunteer officers to furnish the War Department with particulars as to the number of men in their respective commands who are, under the ordinary Army regulations, fit for service abroad. They have also asked for further information as to the number of first-class shots in the commands. The hon. Member will see that it is most important for us to ascertain in peace these particulars, which we should have to ascertain in time of war. I may add that the time which was originally named in this order appeared to me to be short, and that the Army Council has largely extended that time in order to give more opportunities to Volunteer officers to comply with the request of the War Department.
    MR. McCRAE: Have not Volunteer commanding officers been informed that the men fit for active service must be first-class shots, and is that rule applicable to the Regular Army?
    MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: No. I thought I had made that clear. We asked Volunteer officers to state how many men are fit under the ordinary service rules for service abroad. We also asked, as an additional question, how many of these men who are fit for service abroad are also first-class shots. To be a first-class shot is not a necessary condition to fit a man for service abroad, but it is a piece of information very valuable to the War Office.
    MR. McCRAE: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to send Volunteers on service abroad?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Cavalry Depots.
    COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state where the two cavalry depots, referred to at page 16 of his Memorandum relating to Army Estimates for 1905–6, will be located.
    MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: The cavalry barracks now at Canterbury will be utilised to form one depot barracks. The Army Council desires to establish a cavalry depot in the Midlands or the North of England. The position of these barracks will depend upon the extent of the facilities which are offered by the authorities in the different localities which are considered to be suitable for the purpose.

    Army Reorganisation.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army scheme proposed by him has been abandoned; whether the proposed reduction of fourteen battalions has been given up, and these battalions are in future to be recruited on the short-service system; whether that short-service system will be applied exclusively to these battalions; and whether he has any communication to make to the House with reference to his own position in the War Office in reference to these matters.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The reply to the first paragraph of the Question is in the negative. As I have explained on previous occasions, the introduction of the scheme of short-service enlistment has been necessarily postponed until a sufficient number of men have been enlisted for nine years service with the colours to provide the men necessary for the Indian drafts. This condition has not yet been fulfilled. It has never been proposed to reduce fourteen battalions unless and until an equal number of other battalions equally efficient has been created.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then is the Arnold-Forster scheme in a state of suspended animation?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Lord Milner and the South African War Stores.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the statement of Colonel Morgan that, in the presence of General Lyttelton and another, Lord Milner refused to make any further purchases of supplies from the Army stores for repatriation; whether he is aware that this refusal of Lord Milner was based on the ground that the making of these purchases would not be fair to the local merchants; whether this action on the part of Lord Milner had the previous sanction or subsequent ratification of the Colonial Office; what communications, if any, passed between Lord Milner and the Colonial Office with reference to this action of Lord Milner, whereby the main source of custom for the Army stores, to the loss of the taxpayer, was shut off; and whether he will lay these communications upon the Table.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by the Secretary of State for War to the similar Question addressed to him on the subject. I have already informed the hon. Member for Northampton on the 29th of June† that no such correspondence took place.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid his Question was to the Secretary for the Colonies. Did the right hon. Gentleman communicate with Lord Milner on the subject?
    MR. LYTTELTONI have said that there was no correspondence.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman now inquire? By the way, where is Lord Milner now?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    † see page 545

    Insolvency of Mr. Van Rensburg.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that at the first meeting, in Heidelberg, of creditors in the insolvent estate of Mr. Van Rensburg, who recently resigned his seat as a nominated member of the Inter-Colonial Council, debts to the amount of £51,000 were proved, and included in the list Was a sum of £20,030 due to the Colonial Treasurer of the Transvaal; and can he say for what purpose this loan was made.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not yet received the information, but hope to do so shortly,
    MR. WHITLEY: I first put the Question down eleven days ago and then postponed it for a week at the right hon. Gentleman's request. Surely it does not take all this time to get the information. Has the right hon. Gentleman cabled for it? Shall I repeat the Question on Thursday?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I cannot say if I shall have the information by then.

    De Beers Diamond Company and Convict Labour.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a system exists of hiring out for various terms of servitude persons convicted of offences in Cape Colony to the De Beers Diamond Company at the rate of 2d. per diem; and, if so, by what authority and under what regulations does the system exist, and does the Colonial Office accept any responsibility in the matter.
    MR. LYTTELTONThe Ministers of the Cape Colony have stated that the system has legislative sanction under Section 52 of the Colonial Act No. 23 of 1888. The matter is one entirely within the control of the responsible Government and Legislature of the Cape Colony.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Do I understand that the Secretary of State here accepts no responsibility?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I cannot go further than my Answer. It is the act of
    978
    the responsible Government of the Cape Colony.

    Financial Dispute with New Zealand.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his remonstrances with the New Zealand Government against their action in not refunding a large sum which was paid by mistake in New Zealand, being legally and properly chargeable in this country, have had any affect; and, if not, if he is in a position to take any further action.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The New Zealand Government are of opinion that the estate duty to which the hon. Member refers was properly charged and collected in the colony, and have hitherto declined to adopt legislation for the purpose of obviating future difficulties of the same kind. I am, however, communicating-again with the New Zealand Government on the subject.

    Income-Tax on Easter Offerings.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state by what section of the Income-Tax Acts income-tax is imposed on Easter offerings; and whether, seeing that the amounts of these Easter offerings are frequently less than £20, he will introduce a Bill this session to secure that the free gift of a congregation to a clergyman shall not be subject to any claim for income-tax upon it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: Easter offerings, when of the nature of Ecclesiastical Dues, are assessable under Schedule A, Section 60, of the Act of 1842, Rule No. II. (2). When of a voluntary character they are chargeable under Schedule E, and the First Rule in Section 146 of the Act of 1842. The Answer to the last clause of the Question is in the negative.
    MR. COGHILLasked whether for income-tax purposes there should not be a distinction made between payments for services rendered and a free gift.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must decline to answer any general Question of the kind in connection with a particular Question. Any Answer I might give in these circumstances might be misleading.
    MR. COGHILL: Supposing in any year a congregation refused these offerings, could the clergyman or the Chancellor of the Exchequer enforce their payment?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That does not really arise out of the Question. It is quite obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no business to enforce payments by congregations.

    University College Grants.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has taken any steps to give effect to the Report of the Committee on University College Grants; and if he is in a position to state the constitution of the Advisory Committee recommended in the Report.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The various universities and colleges concerned were invited to comment on the suggestions contained in the Report of the Committee in question. Their replies have only recently been received and are now under consideration. I hope shortly to be able to make an announcement on the subject.
    MR. WHITLEY: In view of the advanced position of the financial year, will the right hon. Gentleman give us some opportunity of discussing this matter if he does not intend to carry out the recommendations of the Committee?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is a Question which should be addressed to the Prime Minister, concerning as it does the arrangement of the business of the House. But, personally, I should be glad of an opportunity of hearing the opinions of hon. Members on the subject.

    Irish-born Americans and the Aliens Bill.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General, in regard to
    980
    the Aliens Bill, whether he can now say on what clause he intends to move the promised Amendment to provide for the exemption of Irish-born American citizens from the alien immigrant provision; and whether he will submit the wording of the Amendment to members of the Irish Party.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): This matter has been under my consideration. I think the Amendment might be introduced into Clause 2 or Clause 8. I shall be happy to confer with any member of the hon. Gentleman's Party, but I wish it to be understood I do not contemplate a general exemption. I think it would be possible, without varying the general principle of the Bill, to prepare an Amendment which would meet the case of persons desirous of visiting their relatives in the United Kingdom.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is not the only case aimed at. There is also the case of those—a very numerous class—who wish to end their days among their own people.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I had not that case in contemplation, but am prepared to confer.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in view of the fact that the Bill is to be closured by compartments, let us have the Amendment at the earliest possible moment?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Certainly.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESIs it proposed to confine the Amendment to Irish-born Americans, or to extend it to British-born people generally?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I do not propose to limit the Amendment to the case of Irish-born subjects revisiting their country.

    Motor Scorchers—Police Warning.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that it is the

    981
    habit of the police, in accordance with instructions given them, to warn such offenders as are evidently breaking the law through want of knowledge, he will consider the desirability of instructing the police to warn offending drivers of motors should the offence be not sufficiently grave to warrant a prosecution.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)I fear I am not prepared either to accept the general proposition as to police warnings which the hon. Member suggests, or to I give the police any further instructions as to warning the drivers of motor-cars. A constable's duty is to stop cars whose drivers are breaking the law, and to warn the drivers that they will be reported. The constable then reports the case to the higher police authorities, and it is they who decide, upon the facts reported, whether proceedings shall be taken against the offenders. The fact that the driver has been called on to stop and told that he will be reported, ought to be sufficient warning in most of the cases where a prosecution is not considered necessary.

    Traction Engine Traffic on Highways
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to take any steps to enable highway authorities either to exercise greater control over traction-engine traffic on roads, particularly when weather conditions render the roads specially liable to damage, or to recover from the owners of engines the cost of making good such damage, as recommended by the Departmental Committee on Highways, 1903.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: Legislation would be necessary to give effect to either of these suggestions, and I cannot hold out any prospect of introducing a Bill on the subject at the present time

    Alleged Preferential Railway Rates at Swansea.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the Board recently received a deputation appointed by the Swansea and District Freighters' Association, and that the members of the deputation complained that the Great Western Railway Company had, for some time, carried coal to Swansea for shipment and for patent-fuel making at 6½d. a ton less than they charged for coal carried by them for use in manufactories and works in Swansea and the Swansea Valley, and delivered by them at Swansea Valley Junction, Landore, and Swansea, and alleged that the said railway company have been guilty of an undue preference under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, the Board will, in accordance with the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, Section 31, Sub-section (4), forthwith submit to Parliament a Report of the complaints made by the deputation and the result of the proceedings taken in relation to such complaints, together with such observations as the Board thinks fit to make thereon.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,: The Reports which the Board of Trade have submitted to Parliament under Section 31 of the Act of 1888 have as a rule covered the complaints made during some period of time—in ordinary course another Report will be issued next year; it has not been the practice of the Department to present a special Report on a particular case, and I do not think it would be a convenient course to adopt. I may say that the Board used their best endeavours to bring about an amicable settlement of the complaint referred to, but unfortunately without success. As the allegation is one of undue preference the complainants would appear to have a remedy at law. More than this could not be said if the Department made a special Report.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman allow the deputation to have a copy of the transcript of the shorthand note taken at the interview.
    MR. BONARLAW: I will consider that.

    West Sussex Education Authority— Pupil-Teachers' Agreements
    MR. BULL: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Ham, North, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the West Sussex education authority are requiring the guardians of pupil-teachers to enter into an agreement under which pupil-teachers, on completing apprenticeship in the county, are to become and remain teachers in the elementary schools of the county until the authority allow them to accept appointments elsewhere or to cease teaching; and whether, having regard to the injury to the schools consequent on such restrictive regulations, the Board will decline to recognise such pupil-teachers as part of the school staff.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,: I have seen what purports to be a copy of the agreements in question. As these agreements are to be made by or on behalf of persons under age, their legality may be called in question. In other respects I am not prepared to express an opinion on a form of agreement which may be subject to modifications of which I am not aware.

    Sanitation in the Island of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Adviser of the Local Government Board for Scotland on the insanitary condition of the Island of Lewis.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): I propose to lay the Report on the Table without delay.

    School Grants in the Island of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will explain under what circumstances grants have been paid to the numerous public schools in the Island of Lewis, Ross-shire, which are clearly shown by the recently-issued reports of the parish officers of health to fall short of the sanitary standard required under
    984
    Article 17 (c), Scotch Code, under which school premises are requited to be healthy, well lighted, cleaned, warmed, drained, and ventilated; and will he state whether school inspectors are required to report in respect of these points before grants are paid.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: In administering the Article of the Code quoted by the hon. Member, the Scotch Education Department have regard to the reports; of their inspectors on the conditions of the schools, which necessarily take into account all local circumstances. The reports to which the hon. Member apparently refers are reports made to the local authority with a view to determine what is required to put the schools in a proper state from the health point of view, and till there has been opportunity to give effect to the requirements of the local authority the Department would not feel justified in reducing the grants to the schools.

    Lemreway School, Island of Lewis— Water Supply and Drainage.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that, although eighty pupils are on the register of Lemreway School, in the parish of Lochs, Island of Lewis, Ross-shire, the average weekly attendance since the middle of December last has been only twenty-six, owing to epidemics; and, seeing that both the water supply and drainage are bad, will he consider the expediency of calling for a report from Dr. Cameron, the medical officer of health for the parish, on the subject, with a view to the defects being remedied.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Local Government Board propose to ask for a report from Dr. Cameron on the subject.

    Fever at Balallan, Island of Lewis
    MR. WEIRI beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that Dr. Cameron, the medical officer of health for the parish of Lochs, Island of Lewis, Ross-shire, states in his report to the medical officer of health for the county that, being called upon to make inquiry in regard to two outbreaks of fever in the Balallan district, one of typhus and the other typhoid, he came to the conclusion that the outbreak was due to the

    985
    generally insanitary conditions prevalent; and, seeing that there are 108 pupils on the Balallan public school register, will he state whether it is proposed to take any action to protect the lives of these children.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I am aware that the outbreaks of fever referred to by the hon. Member are attributed to the insanitary conditions generally prevalent in the district, which affect not only the children on the school register but the population at large. The matter engages the anxious consideration of the Secretary for Scotland and the Local Government Board, who would be in a better position to remedy the evils complained of if the Congested Districts Amendment Bill now before the House became law.
    MR. WEIR: Will that Bill be proceeded with this session or will it be shunted as during the last four years?
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I hope it will be proceeded with this session. The shunting will depend on the action of hon. Members opposite.

    Alleged Boycotting of Jews in Limerick.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many Jews were compelled to leave Limerick owing to being boycotted; and whether he has any official information as to the condition of the Jews remaining in Limerick at present.
    MR. JOYCE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask if his attention has been called to the fact that at the Summer Assizes at Limerick next Thursday, there is no criminal case from that city to go before the Judge.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,: Yes, I believe so. I am informed that thirty-seven members of the Jewish persuasion have left Limerick since the agitation against their methods of business commenced. Of the 121 who remain, about a fourth are in poor circumstances, hut the remainder are stated to be comfortably off.
    MR. LUNDON: Is not the treatment to which the Jews have been subjected due to their charging excessive rates of interest?
    MR. SLOAN: And do not those who are in poor circumstances attribute their condition to the boycotting and intimidation to which they have been subjected?

    Mineral Deposits at Annaghmore, County Cork.
    MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what is the nature of the report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction regarding the mineral possibilities of the townland of Annaghmore, county Cork; and what steps were taken by the Department's engineer in order to ascertain the mineral character of the land
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Department's mining engineer reported that the geological formation of the town-land was carboniferous slate and shales and that coal would not be found in the land visited. During the course of his inspection he found carboniferous slates and shales in the pit put down by the owner of Annaghmore, aid also in the railway cutting. The report was considered unfavourable and would not justify any further expenditure on the surveying of the lands in question.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what are the total amounts of surplus funds now in the hands of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; whether the Department carry out or are prepared to carry out inspection of lands on which mineral deposits are thought to exist; and, if so, will the Department consider the advisability of procuring a boring drill, with a view to making practical experiments on the lands of Annaghmore, county Cork, and other places where coal deposits are believed to exist.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The surplus amounts approximately to £237,000. The actual amount could only be found by ascertaining the market value of the

    987
    securities in which the funds are invested. The Department undertakes inspections of lands on which minerals are believed to exist, but they do not engage in prospecting work and do not consider it desirable to procure a boring drill. I have stated in answer to the previous Question the result of the survey of the lands referred to.
    MR. FLYNN: But surely the right hon. Gentleman could point out to the Department that it was its obvious duty to undertake this work.

    Attacks on Clergymen in Dublin.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rev. Macredy, of St. Mark's Church, Dublin, when visiting on the 7th March last was assailed in the street, and that in April and May last, when the Rev. Denny was visiting a sick woman at right, the house was surrounded by a number of persons to the annoyance of the sick person; and whether, in view of complaints of Protestant clergymen of repeated assaults, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what steps to put a stop to such conduct.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The facts are as stated. In the case of the attack by boys on the Rev. Mr. Macredy, the offenders were made amenable by the police. In the Rev. Mr. Denny's case the police traced the offenders, but the rev. gentleman wished that no prosecution should take place. In that case the parish priest publicly condemned the conduct complained of, and a good effect was produced in the locality. The special efforts of the police have been directed to this matter and will not be relaxed.

    Newry Public Servant's Grievance.
    MR. SLOAN: I bag to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named James McAlorum, residing at Donaghmore, Newry, employed as surface-man, was informed by letter from the assistant county surveyor on the 25th May that his services had been dispensed with; that McAlorum wrote to the county surveyor asking the
    988
    reason of his dismissal, but received no reply; and whether, in view of the fact that this man has had twenty-four years service, he will order an inquiry to be made into the case.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Local Government Board have ascertained that this man was dismissed for inattention to duty. The Board have no power to hold an inquiry in the matter except on the application of the county or district council concerned.
    MR. SLOAN: But in view of the man's long period of service cannot something be done? Is it not the fact that he was dismissed without any knowledge of the charge against him and without having an opportunity of defending himself.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say; but even if it be so it does not alter the fact that he having been dismissed for dereliction of duty, the Local Government Board have no power to go behind the back of the local authority and order an inquiry.

    Ballynease National Schools.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Minute of the Board of National Education dealing with the proposed official amalgamation of the Ballynease boys and girls national schools, dated June, 1904, under the management of the Rev. P. M'Namee, P.P., Bellaghy, Derry.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to refer to the reply which I gave to a similar Question on May 29th.†

    Galway Assizes Jury Panel—Alleged Reintroduction of Coercion Practices.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a copy of the special jury panel for Galway Summer Assizes; whether this panel has been prepared or the jurors summoned under the provisions of the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act; if he can state when this procedure was
    † See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 93.

    989
    last resorted to; and whether persons charged with agrarian offences in the county will be tried by a jury selected: from this panel.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have not seen the panel referred to. The names of the jurors on the panel have been taken by the sheriff from the special jurors' book in the ordinary way, as provided by the Jury Acts. Orders have been obtained from the King's Bench Division under the third Section of the Criminal Law and Procedure Act directing that certain cases shall be tried before special jurors. The last case of the kind occurred in July, 1903, and there were four cases in the preceding year. The jurors to try the cases named in the Orders, which are generally of an agrarian nature, will be chosen by ballot from the panel.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not four years since these provisions were put in operation in Ireland, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Recorder of Gal way the other day declared in his charge to the grand jury that there was nothing unusual in the condition of the county. Under these circumstances does the right hon. Gentleman think it right to inaugurate a régime of coercion in the county
    MR. WALTER LONG: The same course was taken in July, 1903.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Then I will ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing that fifty or sixty men will be tried at the Galway Assizes under Section 3 of the Coercion Act, that this section has not been in operation for two years, and that this seems to be the inauguration of a coercion régime, he will give an opportunity to move an Address to the Crown under Section 5 for the revocation of the proclamation of the county under Section 3.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I have not had the opportunity of making myself acquainted with all the circumstances, but I understand there has been no new proclamation under the Act, parts of Ireland having been under the section for years past.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDBut it has not been used.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a law against crime, but if there is no crime it is not enforced. An Address to the Crown might be a proper mode of procedure if the situation were newly created. There seems to me an impropriety in taking such a course while the trials are proceeding, especially as the opportunity for comment and criticism arises in the discussion of Irish Estimates.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDpointed out that, according to the Act, if the House presented an Address to the Crown the proclamation would not continue in force. Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not deny that if the House of Parliament did present an Address to the Crown it would put an end to the particular proclamation, but it would not be expedient to consider that course while the trials were going on.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Very well, at the end of Questions I shall ask leave to move the adjournment.

    Bryanstown Boundary Dispute
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the surveyor recently sent by the Land Judge's Court to survey boundaries on the estate of J. G. Musters, at Bryanstown, county Longford, entered upon and insisted on marking into the landlord's demesne portions of unreclaimed bog belonging to a man named John Murphy, of Cornollen, who has a t tie to these lands; and, if so, will a direction be given that, pending the decision of the County Court Judge, this map be not used by the Court for purposes of sale of this estate.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed that no recent survey of any of the lands referred to has been made in connection with any proceedings in the Land Judge's Court.

    Toneymore Grazing Farm, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have yet been taken by the Estates Commissioners for the acquiring of the large grazing farm at Toneymore, near Granard, county Longford, with a view to its sub-division amongst the tenants evicted and otherwise in that district.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No proceedings for the sale of this farm appear to have come before the Commissioners, but they cannot give a definite reply unless the name of the owner be stated.

    Crime in Limerick.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Judges at the Assizes held in Limerick for some years past have congratulated the Grand Jury on the peaceable condition of the city; has the County Court Judge done likewise; how many pairs of white gloves have been presented to the Judges of both Courts in Limerick for the past five years; and whether he has any reports of the police authorities on the condition of that city; and, if so, will he state their purport.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am glad to say that the facts are generally as stated in the first two inquiries. White gloves have been presented to the County Court Judge on nine occasions within the past five years, but none have been presented to Judges of Assize during that period. The condition of Limerick city in regard to crime is satisfactory.
    MR. JOYCE: How about Belfast?

    Agricultural Experiments in County Cavan.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of experiments under the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act which have been carried out in county Cavan for the year ending June 30th, 1905, giving the lowest valuation of any holding upon which
    992
    experiments were tried, with the nature of the experiments; and, further, whether the holdings of agricultural labourers have been used for any of the experiments.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The number of experiments was thirty, namely—four to test the inoculation of vetches with nitro-culture; five to test the similar inoculation of clover; five to test varieties of potato; and sixteen to test the effect of sprouting seed potatoes before planting. The lowest valuation of any holding employed was £6 5s. No agricultural labourer's holding was used.

    Mullingar Asylum.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention-has been called to statements made at a meeting of the Longford County Council to the effect that patients per bead in Mullingar Asylum in Ireland cost from 45 to 75 per cent, more than in the Chester Asylum in England; and whether, in view of the capitation allowance in these cases, he will take some steps to have the Government grant in aid for asylums in Ireland increased so a to lessen the burden on the taxpayer.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The comparison drawn in the first part of the Question is inaccurate. The figures upon which this comparison is based are inclusive of building expenditure in the case of Mullingar Asylum, but are exclusive of such expenditure in the case of Chester Asylum. The reply to the second inquiry is in the negative.

    Waterford Bridge.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an arrangement has been come to whereby the sum of about £35,000, part of the sum of £93,000 which was lent for railway development the South of Ireland, and which has since been repaid to the Treasury, will be made available for the creation of a free bridge in Waterford in place of the old toll bridge which now exists in that city, and which is the last of its kind in Great Britain or Ireland.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The sum of £93. 000 was a loan made by the Treasury on mortgage of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway, and was subsequently repaid to the Treasury by the Fishguard Company in respect of the sale of the Treasury interests and in discharge of the principal and interest on the loan. Representations have been made to me by various parties in favour of a Parliamentary grant in aid of railway connection in Cork, as proposed by the Junction Railways Bill now in Committee, and of the bridge at Waterford. I have been in frequent consultation with the Treasury on this matter, and they have decided to waive the objection which was considered to be fatal to a grant in 1901, and to ask Parliament at a convenient opportunity to vote a sum of £93,000 in aid of the two proposals mentioned. It is intended to vote a sum not exceeding £60,000 as a contribution to the cost of the scheme for the junction at Cork provided the Bill now before the Committee receives the approval of Parliament, and subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions which have been communicated to the Chairman of the Committee. The balance of the Vote (£33,000) will be made available for the bridge at Waterford, and I cannot undertake to ask the Treasury to increase the grant on this project to £35,000.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and asked if it were intended to bring in a Supplementary Estimate this year or to make provision in next year's Estimates. Also would the Treasury take steps to bind its successors in the matter.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not propose to bring in a Supplementary Estimate this year. As to what was done next year must depend on the circumstances of the time. He was afraid it was not in his power to bind hypothetical successors—possibly the hon. Gentleman himself would be able to exert sufficient influence with them to secure the fulfilment of his desires.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: As long as we have a clear undertaking by both the
    994
    Irish Office and the Treasury I shall be satisfied.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Our views are embodied in the communications sent to the Chairman of the Committee.
    SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I hope this will not reduce the Sinking Fund.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is there any Treasury Minute earmarking this particular money for the purpose?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is a record of our decision on the subject. There is no power to ear-mark any special fund.

    The De L'Herault's Estate.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a fund, representing the De L'Herault intestate estate, was transferred by the Irish Government to the Crown's Nominee's Security Account, administered under the direction of the Treasury, when it had been for many years in the hands of the Irish Government, and when accounts of its state and management had been refused to the representatives of the widow of the intestate to whom the money had originally belonged; whether he is aware that the solicitor of the representatives of Madame De L'Herault, the widow of I the intestate, on application to the Treasury for an account of this estate, received in reply a refusal of his request on the ground that his clients had no claim or title to this money or any part thereof; and whether, having regard to the circumstances of the transfer of this money from the Irish to the English Treasury when demands for an account of its management had become pressing in Ireland, and the circumstances of its management, he will direct an account of the state of this fund to be furnished to the solicitor of the representatives of Madame De L'Herault.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,: The balance of

    995
    the estate in question was transferred to the Crown's Nominee Account as is usual in such cases. It is against the established practice to furnish outside parties with detailed accounts of sums so transferred.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What was the date of the transfer?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: April, 1899.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the moneys of an intestate estate, known as the De L'Herault Estate, on which in 1879 a claim was made by the Crown on the widow of the intestate, who thereupon transferred to the Irish Treasury a sum of £3,183 3s. 7d. India stock and £1,411 5s. 6d. cash for interest thereon at £5 per cent, from the death of her husband in 1869, were transferred from the Irish Treasury to the English Treasury, and what were the circumstances under which this transfer took place; whether he is aware that that transfer was made after many applications from the personal representations of Madame De L'Herault, to whom these moneys had originally belonged, for their restoration, and that when an account of the state of the fund was furnished so far back as 1897, at the request of those representations, it was found that moneys which, in 1879, when handed to the Irish Treasury amounted to £4,504 had only increased after eighteen years by a sum of £1,000; and whether he will, on the part of the Irish Government, direct that a full account of the state of the fund and its management till transferred from the Irish to the English Government be tendered to the representatives of Madame De L'Herault, having regard to the fact that since 1897 no account has been furnished.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: As the hon. Member must, I think, be aware from the communication made to him on December 31st last, by the then Chief Secretary, Madame De L'Herault received from the Crown all she was legally entitled to, namely, one-half of her husband's personality, and in
    996
    addition, by grace of the Crown, the interest of the remaining half of the personality for many years, as well as all her husband's realty. In addition, the present claimant, who is no blood relation of Victor De L'Herault, deceased, nor one of his next of kin, but merely the sister-in-law of Madame De L'Herault, was paid by grace of the Crown a gratuity of £500 in full satisfaction of all her claims. The stock was in April, 1899, transferred to the Crown Nominee's Security Account. Accounts were furnished to the Treasury at the time and were found to be accurate, and there is no reason to re-open them. The hon. Member apparently fails to recollect that Madame De L'Herault, until her death in July, 1890, received all the interest of the fund, which accounts for the small accumulation.

    Sneem Postal Arrangements.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can now make any statement as to the proposed improvement in postal facilities, whereby letters may be delivered at Sneem at an earlier hour than is the case at present.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: As I informed the hon. Member by letter on the 28th ultimo, the mail car from Kenmare was on the average about twenty minutes late in arrival at Sneem during the month of May, the delay being due to the irregular running of the goods train which conveys the mails to Headford Junction. The attention of the railway company has been drawn to the matter, and I hope some improvement will result.

    The Royal Canal.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he has any power to direct the Midland Great Western Railway Company, as owners of the Royal Canal, to clean up and keep this waterway in a condition fit for ordinary traffic; and, if so, will he take steps to see that the canal in the vicinity of Longford is cleaned immediately.
    MR. BONAR LAW: The Board of Trade have no powers which would

    997
    enable them to take the action desired by the hon. Member, but I am informed that the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland act as Commissioners for the control of the Royal Canal under an Act of 1818, and that as a result of a very recent inspection of the canal they have called upon the company to put the waterway, including the Longford branch of it, in a proper condition,

    The Unemployed Bill.
    MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state definitely whether he will proceed with the Unemployed Bill this session; and, if not, will he convene an early autumn session for the purpose of placing the Bill on the Statute-book.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot make any definite statement on the Unemployed Bill. It depends on the general course of business.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Unemployed Bill was to be considered on its merits or whether its further progress was to depend on the progress of other measures.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The progress of this Bill, as of other Government business, depends upon the method in which Government business is treated by the Members of the House. It must be evident—I do not say it in a critical spirit, but in a mathematical spirit—that, if large portions of time are taken up with discussions, which may or may not be important, upon other measures, it is impossible for every Gentleman to get the measure passed which is nearest to his heart. If, for instance, the hon. Member occupies Government time as he did last, night between twelve o'clock and half-past there he can hardly complain if some difficulty is thrown in the way of the Bill which he desires to pass.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: It was not Government time after twelve o'clock, and I did not interfere with the progress of Government business. I desire to ask
    998
    whether the Unemployed Bill is not to have an opportunity of passing equally with the Aliens Bill, and whether a day will be given to the Committee stage of the Unemployed Bill before the Aliens Bill is again taken.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member must know that if the Resolution on the Paper passes, and I hope it will, it will be impossible to comply with his request.
    MR. LEVYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman considered the Unemployed Bill to be of less importance than the Redistribution Resolution.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Ministerial Pledges.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the explicit and definite pledge given by him earlier in the session, that in the event of Money Bills being taken after twelve o'clock at night he would give notice at the Table, and that the failure to give notice of the intention to take the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill on the previous night was a departure from that very definite pledge, he will in future, for the convenience of the House, see that proper notice is given.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, so far as his memory served him, the pledge referred only to the Report stage of Money Resolutions.
    MR. DALZIELsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would refresh his, memory he would find that in Answer to a Question put by himself he did give the pledge referred to.

    Unanswered Questions—Lord Curzon.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if Lord Curzon had informed the Home Government that unless certain modifications were introduced into the Order recently issued regarding the Military Command in India he would resign, and what answer, if any, had been returned. Further he desired to know what explanation the Secretary for India had to give of his failure to have the Answer to this Ques-

    999
    tion circulated with the Votes on Friday last, seeing that under the rules it was his absolute duty, in cases where starred Questions were not answered—as was the case with this Question last Thursday—to send the Answer for circulation.
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think this Question comes within the purview of the rule which allows Questions of urgency to be put after five minutes to three.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
  MR. JOHN REDMOND, Member for Waterford, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the putting into operation in the county of Galway of Section 3 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, after an interval of some years, and without any justification having been shown for such a course;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen:—
  The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until the Evening Sitting, this day.

  NEW BILLS.
    VALUATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
    "To amend the Irish Valuation Acts," presented by Mr. Joseph Devlin; supported by Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. William McKillop, Mr. Kilbride, and Mr. Field; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]
    CANALS(No. 2) BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to Canals," presented by Sir John Brunner; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 260.]

ALIENS [EXPENSES].
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the salary and remuneration of any officers, inspectors, or persons appointed under any Act of the present session to amend the Law with regard to Aliens, and of any expenses incurred in carrying such Act into effect (King's recommendation signified)—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 141. (Division List No. 239.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bigwood, James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bill, Charles

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bingham, Lord

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bond, Edward

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Boulnois, Edmund

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Arrol, Sir William

Bousfield, William Robert

Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

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

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Dalkeith, Earl of

Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

Brassey, Albert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Davenport, William Bromley

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Baird, John George Alexander

Brymer, William Ernest

Denny, Colonel

Balcarres, Lord

Bull, William James

Dewar, Sir T R (Tower Hamlets

Baldwin, Alfred

Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

Dickson, Chas. Scott

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

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir J. C.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Douglas, Rt Hn. A. Akers

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Banner, John S. Harmood

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Dyke, Rt Hn Sir William Hart

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Worc

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Chapman, Edward

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. Manc'r

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehuret

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Finlay, Sir R. B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Fison, Frederick William

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penros

Lowe, Francis William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sackville, Col. S. G Stopford

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Saunderson, Rt Hn Col Edw. J.

Forster, Henry William

Macdona, John Cumming

Seely, Chas Hilton (Lincoln)

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

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Seely, Maj. JEB(Isle of Wight)

Galloway, William Johnson

Maconochie, A. W.

Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

Garfit, William

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H(Renfrew)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Majendie, James A. H.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Malcolm, Ian

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

Marks, Harry Hananel

Smith, Rt. Hn J Parker (Lanarks

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Spencer, Sir E (W. Bromwich)

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

Graham, Henry Robert

Melville, Beresford Valeitine

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Stock, James Henry

Grenfell, William Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hain, Edward

Milner, RtHnSir Frederick G.

Stroyan, John

Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

Milvain, Thomas

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Mitchell, William Burnley)

Talbot, Rt Hn. JG (Oxf'd Univ.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Montague Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Thornton, Percy M.

Heath, Sir Jas (Staffords. NW

Morpeth, Viscount

Tollemache, Henry James

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrell, George Herbert

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Helder, Augustus

Morrison, James Archibald

Tuff, Charles

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Mount, William Arthur

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hogg, Lindsay

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Turnour, Viscount

Hope, JW (Sheffield, Brightside

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Myers, William Henry

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton)

Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham

Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Peel, Hn. Wm, Robt. Wellesley

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

Hunt, Rowland

Percy, Earl

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Plummer, Sir Waiter R.

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

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wodehouse, Rt Hn ER (Bath)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Kerr, John

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Kimber, Sir Henry

Pym, C. Guy

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Knowles, Sir Lees

Randles, John S.

Wylie, Alexander

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Rankin, Sir James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lamont, Norman

Ratcliff, R. F.

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Younger, William

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

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Lee, Arthur H (Hant, Fareham

Ritchie, RtHn. Chas. Thomson

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robertson, Herb. (Hackney

Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N. S.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Benn, John Williams

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Black, Alexander William

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Allen, Charles P.

Boland, John

Burke, E. Haviland

Baker, Joseph Allen

Brigg, John

Burns, John

Barlow, John Emmott

Bright, Allan Heywood

Burt, Thomas

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

Buxton, NE (York, NR Whitby)

Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Caldwell, James

1002

1003

Cameron, Robert

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Price, Robert John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rea, Russell

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Joicey, Sir James

Reddy, M.

Causton, Richard Knight

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rickett, J. Compton

Cogan, Denis J.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Joyce, Michael

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Crean, Eugene

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan W

Rose, Charles Day

Crombie, John William

Kilbride, Denis

Russell, T. W.

Cullinan, J.

Kitson, Sir James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Dalziel, James Henry

Langley, Batty

Shackleton, David James

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.

Shaw, Thos (Hawick B.)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Sheehy, David

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Lease, Sir J, F. (Accrington)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Donelan, Captain A.

Leng, Sir John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Doogan, P, C.

Levy, Maurice

Spencer, Rt. Hn CR (Northants

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal

Edwards, Frank

Lundon, W.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Ellice, Capt EC (SAndrw's Bghs

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tennant, Harold John

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Emmott, Alfred

M'Crae, George

Toulmin, George

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wallace, Robert

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Killop, W. ((Sligo, North)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Ffrench, Peter

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.

Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose

Weir, James Galloway

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Moss, Samuel

White, George (Norfolk)

Flynn, James Christopher

Moulton, John Fletcher

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Muldoon, John

Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

Murphy, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herb. John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wilson, Henry J(York, W. R.

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Hammond, John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

Young, Samuel

Harwood, George

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Dowd, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Hutchinson, Dr Charles Fredk

Power, Patrick Joseph

CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,: Sir, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I think it would be desirable that I should explain some of the main provisions of the Bill, but also it would suit the convenience of the House if, in view of negotiations and arrangements and conversations which have taken place, I should also indicate some of the alterations which the Government are prepared to consider in the terms of the Bill as they now stand. I am quite aware that perhaps, strictly speaking, that is not entirely in accordance with the rules of a Second Reading speech, but I am sure everyone in the House will regard it as
  1004
  eminently desirable for the convenience of those interested in the question. May I remind hon. Members who are not thoroughly well versed in this Scotch ecclesiastical position, of some of the circumstances which led up to the condition of affairs necessitating, in the judgment of the Government, the introduction of this Bill. Prior to 1900, in addition to the Church of Scotland, there were in Scotland two large Presbyterian Churches, known as the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church. In 1900 a union was. arranged between those two bodies. The large majority of the Free Church was in favour of the union, but there was a. small protesting minority, and the union having taken place in October, 1900, it was followed by an action, raised at the instance of the minority, to have it found and declared that the union was ultravires of the Free Church, and that legal effect could not be given to it. On the

  1005
  other hand, the majority took proceedings in Court with a view to having it determined that the minority, who had retained some few of the churches, some twenty-six or twenty-seven, were no longer members of the Free Church and ought to be evicted from the churches and houses they then possessed. Judgment was given in favour of those supporting the union in the Scotch Courts, but in the House of Lords this judgment was reversed, and two passages from the judgment I should like to refer to as they bear upon the terms of the Bill and the discussions we are now entering upon. The House of Lords declared that—"
  "The association of a body of Christians, calling themselves the United Free Church, has no right, title, or interest in any part of the whole land, property, and sums of money."
  which, to put it shortly, were the property of the Free Church as at the date of the union. On the other hand, they declared that—
  "The adults who constituted the Free Church of Scotland are, and lawfully represent, the said Free Church, and are entitled to have the said lands, property, and funds applied.—"
  I direct special attention to the words I am now to read—
  "according to the terms of the trusts upon which they are respectively held for the good of themselves and those adhering to and associated with them."
  That judgment affected a considerable sum of money, amounting to between, roughly speaking, £1,250,000 and £2,000,000, and hereditable property to a considerable extent also. The corresponding judgment pronounced in the House of Lords dealt precisely with some four churches, though I believe the result, if it had been adverse to the minority, would have decided the question as to all the churches they possessed. Following upon that a great deal of litigation took place in Scotland with regard to the congregational property which was in the possession of the united body, the majority; and which had not been, in point of fact, technically included in the part, made the subject of discussion and adjudication by the House of Lords sitting in this matter in its judicial and not in its administrative capacity. Ultimately, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire and report upon the subject, and they reported, as all Scotch Members are aware, and many English Members
  1006
  also, in April of this year, recommending that the situation which had been created was one which required Parliamentary interference and that, that interference should take the shape of the appointment of an Executive Commission with power to deal with the property in question and the subjects in dispute between the two Churches. In particular they reported that, in the use and the administration of the whole or any part of the property, the first consideration should be the adequate provision for the purposes for which the funds were raised, but, where the minority, the smaller body, were unable to execute the trust, the Commission should have power to transfer the property to the United Free Church, but no such transference should take place except upon equitable conditions, and especially upon the due performance of the trust being secured. The Report said that provision should be made for the equipment: of the Free Church as a Christian Free Church according to the standard which prevails in the old Presbyterian Church of Scotland, proceeding upon a full estimate of its numbers, and making allowance in determining; the amount of allowance for such equipment for any unfavourable circumstances arising out of the poverty of the congregations or otherwise. Then followed several recommendations which I do not think I need trouble the House by reading, but which I refer to point out that all of them, dealing with congregational property, mission funds, and general trust property, had this in view, according to the judgment of the Commission, that provision should be made; for what they call the future development of the Free Church, that being, they thought, that the actual state of the Free; Church at the precise moment when the Executive Commission came to discharge its functions should not stereotype the-matter, but that some consideration should be allowed for the future development and growth of the smaller body.
  The Report of the Commission was considered by the Government, and, as a result, the present Bill was introduced The Bill, I agree, differs in some respects from the recommendations of the Commission, and in some respects probably

  1007
  will be in favour of one body and in other respects in favour of the other, but the reasons for these departures were to a large extent found in the development and discussion which had taken place upon the Report of the Commission after it was issued and before the Bill was actually introduced into this House. I think I can probably, with the greatest advantage, explain the Government position if I ask hon. Members kindly to turn to the copy of the Bill. The first section, which has three sub-sections, deals with the appointment of the Commission, and in Subsection 1 it is provided that the Commission established under this Act shall-allocate between the Free Church and the United Free Church the property in question as defined by this Act in. such manner as appears to the Commission fair and equitable having regard to all the circumstances of the case, but subject to the provisions of this Act. Then, as the House is aware, in accordance with the promise I made in introducing the Bill, the names of the Commissioners were to be communicated to the House. That was done, I think, some ten days ago, the Commissioners being the three gentlemen who acted as members of the Elgin Commission, Lord Elgin, Lord Kinnear, and Sir Ralph Anstruther, with two others added, Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, and Sir Charles Logan; and I think I may say that the names of the Commissioners have been received in a manner to show that they have the confidence of those interested in this matter.
  The Government do not propose to make any alteration of that first subsection, but with regard to the second sub-section, which provided the method by which the Commission were to ascertain what congregations were to be dealt with as Free Church congregations and what as United Free Church congregations, in view of the meetings and consultations which have taken place, we do propose to consider as to making a change in the terms. The House knows that the Commission were to inquire as to the numbers of the Free Church as at the date of their inquiry, and if they had then a third of what
  1008
  the undivided congregation would have been they were to get the church. Various representations have been made, and as a result of these, the Government are not unwilling to consider this modification, that instead of taking the date of the inquiry as the time at which the Commission actually comes to deal with the case, or the date of the present Act—I do not care which it would have been—we should have been prepared to favourably consider the proposal to go back to the state of things as in 1900. But while that might result, roughly speaking, in the survivors of the 1900 congregation being taken as the basis, it appears to us that the reversal from 1905–6 to 1900 would require careful consideration of what the proportion should be, and whether it is not necessary, as a consequence of that, that the proportion should be reduced. [Cries of "Oh!"] I do not expect that my proposal will meet with universal acceptance on both sides of the House, but that is the attitude of the Government in regard to the matter.
  There is a question on that clause. Members and adherents, the House will notice, are both mentioned. We propose to adhere to the inclusion of the adherents for a reason which certainly all who are acquainted with the Highlands will appreciate, where undoubtedly the greater part of the Free Church congregations are situated, and where special views are held as to the time and circumstances when the burden of membership of the Church should be taken up, and, of course, we adhere to the view that the adherents must also be taken into account. It has also been suggested that we should put a clause into the Bill defining an adherent, and while I have not, in the least, a conclusive opinion on that subject, I will tell the House frankly that I am not in favour of it, and for this reason. What we do propose is that the Commissioners, who are all Scotchmen, and all acquainted with the ecclesiastical situation and circumstances of the country, should have absolute and complete power to determine who are members and who are adherents, and we think it will be far better to leave that definition to them than to try to burden the Bill with it. They will, of course, see that no one but bona fide members and

  1009
  adherents are taken into account, and if the Bill does not provide—as I think it does—adequately and completely for their having complete power in that matter we are quite willing to make it perfectly plain, and accordingly the view we take in this matter is that we are acting wisely in leaving the Commission full discretion and judgment.
  MR. McCRAE: What proportion do you suggest?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The proportion would be, if there should be a change, that instead of a third it should be a fourth. [Cries of "Oh!"] I can assure the House that there are considerations on the other side from those who murmur against my suggestion, which are well worthy of consideration. I do not think it would serve any good purpose on a Second Reading debate to enter into these details. I trust the House will take it that the proposal to make that change has not been made, and that the decision was not arrived at, without having very good reasons for taking these things into account.
  Then on the same sub-section there are three lines on the top of page 2—lines 5,6, and 7,—which run at present as follows—
  "With power, however, to make special arrangements where several church buildings are situated in the same neighbourhood, and in any other cases which appear to them" (the Commissioners) "to require exceptional treatment."
  That is to say, while a specific rule is laid down in the preceding part of the section governing the general case coming up to 1900, the Commissioners shall have full power to make special arrangements where there are several church buildings, or a church and hall in the same village or parish, or where in any other case there is necessity for exceptional treatment. I understand that those who are advocates of the United Free Church consider that that applies only to cases where there would be allocation to the Free Church. I do not think that is a fair reading of it, and if it be we are quite willing to insert words so as to make it apply to both Churches alike, giving to the Commissioners full discretion in the matter.
  1010
  I think I have sufficiently explained the considerations which the Government have adopted so far as Sub-section 2 is concerned. Then with regard to Subsection 3 there are four purposes, the House will notice which are proposed to be dealt with. That is the section which authorises the Commission, passing away from congregational property, to deal with the general] property of a church, and to declare how much the smaller body is to get. The sub-section is as follows—
  "The Commission shall make adequate provision for the education of the students of the Free Church, for the support of aged and infirm ministers, and of widows and orphans of ministers of that Church, for supplementing congregational contributions towards the support of the ministers of that Church, and for the general, purposes of that Church, and shall appropriate for those objects either collectively or severally such of the property to be allocated by t hem as they think proper."
  I think these four purposes naturally divide themselves into two classes, the first class containing the first two, namely the provision of education for the students of the Free Church, and the provision for the support of aged and infirm ministers, and of the widows and orphans of ministers of that Church. The reason I put these in a separate class is that there are already in the general funds of the Church special funds set apart for colleges and bursaries, and special buildings appropriated for colleges and, accordingly, there is a fund out of which special provision can be made for anything that is required for the education of Free Church students without trenching on any other fund. In the same way aged and infirm ministers and the widows and orphans of ministers of the Church are provided for by the Aged and Infirm Ministers' Fund, which runs up to £170,000 or £180,000. There is also a widows and orphans' fund, so that there is a special fund out of which the Commission can make adequate provision for the Free Church without trenching at all on any other fund.
  With regard to the matter of supplementing the congregational contributions towards the support of the ministers, that stands in a somewhat different position. As the Bill stood in its original form—the form in which it is now in the hands of Member—sit would have been in the

  1011
  power of the Commission to take from any funds, whatever their original purpose was, so much as was required to supplement the stipends of the Free Church ministers or to provide the funds necessary for the general purposes of the Church. Further information given since the Bill was introduced—and we have been anxious to get it from those engaged on both sides of the controversy—has satisfied us that there is a larger fund available of what may be called free money than was originally contemplated. I do not think I need trouble the House with the details of it, but shortly they come to this. There is the Sustentation Fund, the Home Mission Fund, the Highlands and Islands Fund, the various special congregational endowments, and what I may call miscellaneous funds, which would amount, using the term in quite a general way, to a free fund of something between £350,000 and £400,000. Then the House will notice that under Sub-section 2 of Section 2 there is power to the Commission, if they think fit, to order that any property other than congregational property allocated to either Church under this Act, shall be burdened with such bond or charge in favour of the other Church as they may direct. Having in view the increase beyond what we thought at the time the Bill was introduced—the increased amount of the free fund—and the negotiations we have had as to the powers of bond, we are of opinion that we can alter Sub-section 3 of the first section which I am dealing with in such a way as certainly to secure that there shall be no diversion of foreign mission funds at all, and I hope and believe no diversion of any special fund to the Free Church at all. But I state unhesitatingly now, that there will be no diversion of the foreign mission funds, and I believe and fully expect that we shall be able to frame the clause so that the free fund, plus the power of bond, will give the Commission an ample fund for anything that may be required to establish the Free Church.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: Not to establish the Free Church?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Well, we do not propose to embark on any such
  1012
  enterprise. Perhaps a more fitting expression would be "to give an establishment to the Free Church." I mean, using the language of the Commission literally, to provide an equipment for the Free Church.
  MR. WALLACE: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the free fund would embrace the endowments of particular churches?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: What I meant was that there were, as far as we can judge, some of the churches which would undoubtedly be allocated to the Free Church with their special endowments, and it would be only to that extent. Of course, there is no proposal to divert the endowments of any particular church from that church to any other church. The result of that, of course, would be that the last three lines of Sub-section 3—
  "And shall appropriate for those objects either collectively or severally such of the property to be allocated by them as they think proper."
  would be altered so as to be confined altogether, I believe, to the free money. Now I hope the House will agree that these are alterations which, at any rate, show our desire, so far as possible, to meet what we believe to be the justice of the case, and I am quite certain that no objection will be taken to the mode of communicating the proposed changes to the House. Of course, necessarily there will be terms to adjust as to the precise form in which the Bill is to be expressed. I have explained as fairly and precisely as I can all the changes we contemplate.
  MR. BLACK: Has the right hon. Gentleman exhausted the changes?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: No, there is one matter which is not mentioned in the Bill, which has been the subject of discussion and consideration. The House will notice that in line 11, one of the purposes is—
  "For supplementing congregational contributions towards the support of the ministers of that Church."

  1013
  It has been suggested that there may be some nodules of Free Church population not large enough to be entitled to the church, and yet for which some provision must be made, and the question has been asked whether those should have supplements towards their congregational contributions. The Bill proposes that supplements should be confined to cases where the Free Church gets the buildings and that those small bodies of the dispersed Free Church people must be provided for by missionaries, on the principle of the ordinary home mission system, who would attend to their spiritual needs.
  There is one other matter on which I would like to say a word. Clause 2, Sub-section 1, gives power to the Commission to make temporary orders in regard to any allocation under this Act. It has been suggested that it might be useful if powers were also given to the Commission to make orders for the temporary use of the buildings in the interval before matters are concluded. That involves a modification of the Bill and may be of great service, and I propose that that should be given effect to. I need not trouble the House by going over the powers given to the Commission under Section 2. The purpose is to give them full powers to make the orders, as suggested by the Elgin Commission, authoritative by executive authority, and to give a final judgment which shall not be reviewable or subject to suspension in any Court of law. If the parties do not agree to these orders it may be necessary to go into the Courts of law to get execution. There will be no power to review or to reconsider the judgment—it will be merely a power to see that the order of the Commission shall be carried into effect. Clause 3 deals with the constitution of the Commission. The full measure of the importance of that has been given to the House already when the Bill was issued.
  Appropriately, in connection with Clause 4, which deals with the property, one very large question has been raised, and that is whether sums of money derived or to be derived from legacies left under these circumstances, where the will or trust deeds were executed before the date of the union, but
  1014
  did not come into operation until after the union, in respect that the testator only died after that date—whether these legacies are to be made subject to the disposal of the Commission. The consideration of both sets of circumstances as to how they should be dealt with are, I confess, weighty, and the question is not at all free from difficulty. The sum involved is, I admit, a large one. It amounts to £300,000, and I think in one case under a trust deed it amounts to £125,000 or £150,000. For my own part I should like to be more acquainted with the precise terms of the trust deeds before making up my mind on the matter. There are considerations which point in the matter of finance to reasons why the possibility or difficulty of putting these funds into the hands of the Commission should he removed, and I am in hopes that that will be done. Further then that I cannot go at the moment, and I trust that the House will be content with the statement which I have made. But the question is receiving the most careful consideration of the Government with every desire to arrive at a decision that is fair and just to both parties.
  So far I have dealt with the alterations we propose to make in the Bill. I now come to the fifth clause, which deals with the proposal we have made in regard to the Church of Scotland. I am afraid I shall require to trouble the House with a little of the historical position of this matter. But I shall be as brief as possible. Especially I would like those of my friends on this side of the House who are Englishmen to appreciate entirely the situation of the Scottish Church. May I be allowed to say, dealing with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when the Bill was introduced, and dealing with his remarks from no controversial point of view—because I can quite understand that it was difficult to appreciate the proposals we were making without having the terms of the Bill before him—but I think I shall be able to satisfy him before I have done that he hardly did justice in the remarks which he made at that time to what we actually propose. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of giving to the Church of Scotland a new constitution; of

  1015
  altering the constitution of the Church of Scotland; of tampering with the formularies and creeds of an ecclesiastical body; of rewriting its constitution and so on. I confess that I do not think that that at all fairly represents the proposal contained in this Bill. If I may remind the House, the foundation of our Scottish Presbyterian Church, so far as the matter we are now dealing with is concerned, is based on the statute of 1690—what I regard as the concluding statute of the Revolution settlement. That statute prescribes that—
  "Likeas they by these Presents ratify and establish the Confession of Faith now read in their presence and voted and approven by them as the public and avowed Confession of this Church containing the sum and substance of the doctrine of the reformed Churches."
  That, I think, has always been regarded as a charter of the Church of Scotland. The House will observe it went only to this length, to ratify and establish the Confession of Faith as the public and avowed confession of the Church of Scotland; it required no subscription. It prescribed no formula, and we do not propose in any way to interfere with, omit, modify, or mitigate that statute. The Confession of Faith still remains the public and avowed faith of the Church of Scotland. But, following on that Parliamentary ratification of the confession, the General Assembly itself in that very year did prescribe a formula, because they passed an Act of Assembly by which it is required that all persons admitted as ministers, preachers, or elders should be
  "obliged to subscribe their approbation of the Confession of Faith approven by former General Assemblies of this Church, and ratified in the second session of the current Parliament."
  So that the House will see that that was the first introduction of subscription or formula so far as the question with which I am dealing is concerned.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the exact years?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: In 1690 the General Assembly enacted that—
  "For retaining soundness and unity of doctrine it is judged necessary that all probationers licensed to preach, all intrants into the ministry, and all other ministers and elders re-
  1016
  ceived into communion with us in Church government, be obliged to subscribe their approbation of the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church, and ratified in the second session of the current Parliament."
  MR. WHITLEY: Who enacted that?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Parliament did not enact anything except that the Confession of Faith must be avowed as the confession of the Church of Scotland, but it required no subscription. That is the position of the Church of Scotland as primarily and conclusively established by law under the Evolution settlement. The-Church Courts enacted what was required from their ministers and office bearers, but that was not a matter with which Parliament had anything to do. Now, that is a feature which, at any rate, English Churchmen and English Nonconformists should keep in view: that so far as the requirements of individual ministers and the elders are concerned in regard to subscription, Parliament did not deal with it at all. The view I have expressed arises from the statute of 1693 which was passed by what Lord Macaulay, who studied these matters better than any of us have done, spoke; of as a strange Parliament."
  MR. McCRAE: No stranger than this. one.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Lord Macaulay speaks of it as Erastus, as even King; William, would desire, and that Parliament undoubtedly did pass this Act, that the ministers and elders would be required to sign this declaration, that they professed and declared that the aforesaid confession was their Confession of Faith, and
  "That no person be admitted or continued for hereafter to be a minister or preacher within the Church, unless that he, having first taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance and subscribed the assurance in manner appointed by another Act of this present session of Parliament made therenent, do also subscribe the Confession of Faith ratified in the aforesaid fifth Act of the second session of this Parliament, declaring the same to be the confession of his faith, and that he owns the doctrine therein contained to be the true doctrine, which he will constantly adhere to."

  1017
  Now, the reason for that Act being passed, was that at that time, when a change was being made from Episcopalian rule to the Presbyterian rule, there were a considerable number of clergymen who had formerly acted as Episcopalian clergymen, and it was believed that they were willing to conform to the Presbyterian Church. The Presbyterian Church declined to receive them, and this Act was passed to secure that if the nonconforming Episcopalian clergy were willing to make that declaration, and if they first took the oath of allegiance, and then accepted the Confession of Faith as the confession of their faith, the Church was to receive them. That was never accepted by the Church as a Bill which Parliament ought to have passed; but in the following year the General Assembly passed an Act of Assembly—and I ask the attention of the House to the preamble—
  "That this Commission may receive into ministerial communion such of the late conforming ministers as, having qualified themselves according to law, shall apply personally to them, one by one, duely and orderly, and shall acknowledge, engage, and subscribe upon the end of the Confession of Faith,"
  a declaration which did not materially differ from that contained in the statute of 1693. I refer to that as showing that the purpose of the Act of 1693 was, as the preamble of the Act of the General Assembly bears out, to allow the Episcopalian clergy who were willing to accept that declaration being received into the ministerial communion of the Church of Scotland. There seems to have been no change till 1711, when in that year the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland adopted a new policy and imposed more stringent formularies than those of 1693. That formula continued until 1889, so that so far as the records go from 1711 to 1889 it was not accepted as the formula for ministers, but on the contrary a formula prescribed by the General Assembly was taken, and it is only since 1889 that that formula has been really in operation.
  It has been said that this question of formula is a new one; but that, surely, is not a correct representation. Everyone knows that since the time that the Church of England received the relaxation of its formula in 1865, there has been a consistent agitation in the Church
  1018
  of Scotland, and especially among those who were either engaged as teachers for the ministry or were young men desiring to join the ministry, to get a relaxation of its formula, and that relaxation was given, so far as the lay officers of the Church were concerned, by the Church's own hands. What we now ask, recognising that we are the Established Church, is that we should be given the same relaxation of that formula which has existed for 200 years, and we ask it on this ground—that we are dealing with a pecuniary question to a large extent, but which is of great interest, not only to the two Presbyterian Churches concerned, but to all Presbyterians and to all Scotsmen. And we find that the Church which is now the United Free Church is claiming to have the power not merely to alter its formula, but its subordinate standards including the Confession of Faith. We do not propose to give the Church of Scotland any power to alter the Confession of Faith, but we do say in this matter of subscription that the result will be, if you give the United Free Church the income of relief which we think it is entitled to and we propose to give it, that you will handicap the Church of Scotland in a way which would be intolerable and leave a sense of unfairness and bitterness behind it. Hon. Members who are not of the Church of Scotland may think that a matter of small importance. I can assure them that if the threat of the possibility of pecuniary disendowment is bad, there is a worse kind of disendowment which prevents the best men who want to enter the ministry from coming into the Church. That is a disadvantage and a prejudice to which, so far as I am concerned, I will be no party.
  I think this clause is essential if we wish to establish ecclesiastical peace in Scotland, and to prevent a feeling of injustice, unfairness, and bitterness remaining which would be perfectly intolerable. To my mind there is no step being taken in this Bill beyond what is fair. The proposal is that the Church should have the power to alter the formula, but not the power to alter the Confession of Faith, and only if a majority of the Presbyteries agree to it. I am sure a good many English Members do not

  1019
  appreciate what that means. We have some eighty or ninety Presbyteries in Scotland, composed half of clergy and half of laity, yet every layman's vote counts as much as a clergyman's. In our synods, while there is a small preponderance of the clergy, there is an enormously large minority of the laity. Is there any suggestion in Scotland that the proposal we make would lead to any of the evils that have been conjured up through this clause?
  MR. FINDLAY: Why should this clause be introduced in the Bill at all?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: We are dealing with a difficult and complicated question in Scotland, and we do not think it fair to deal with it in such a way as would handicap the Church of Scotland, and leave the non-established Churches free. The result would be that the younger men desiring to enter the ministry would seek the wider portals of the United Free Church and the Church of Scotland would not at least get the more tender consciences. We think we are entitled to be put on a fair platform with the others. I am quite satisfied of this; you will not find in Scotland any man, to whatever Church he belongs, who will oppose this proposal on its merits. The House will keep in view that the Church of Scotland differs from the Church of England in this respect—that so far as trials for heresy or false doctrine are concerned the Church of Scotland Courts are absolutely supreme. They cannot be ruled by any civil Court, but they have absolute discretion to say: "This man has erred in this doctrine," and "We shall call him to account," or "We shall not call him to account," and when they have pronounced judgment no civil Court can interfere with the judgment. I think that goes deep into the matter. I think I have indicated the grounds on which I support this Bill. I will only add that why I have one strong reason for supporting it is that if you left the Church of Scotland fettered as the Act of 1693 is said to do, you will raise a barrier against what I trust will come to pass, the unity of all the Presbyterian churches, the importance of which would be difficult to overlook. I say
  1020
  there is no point raised which would justify any Member on either side of the House or of the Tweed, to whatever Church they belong, in offering opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has reserved all the warmth and vivacity of his speech for its latter part. That shows which particular part of the Bill attracts the most attention. The right hon. Gentleman spoke avowedly as a Churchman. I find no fault with him for being a Churchman in his proper place. But while he is on the Treasury Bench he is the official representative of the Government, and a Member of a House of Commons which is very much less interested in the Church of Scotland than the right hon. Gentleman seems to be. The right hon. Gentleman began by giving us a succinct account of the origin of all this mischief. I will not apply any microscopic examination to his narrative. I will accept it as correct. The decision of last year came as a thunderbolt to the people of Scotland; but the people of Scotland, being law-abiding and legal in their disposition in the highest sense, have accepted loyally that decision, and have respected it subject to two reservations to which I think it is right to refer. In the first place, it would not be fair to conceal the fact that there is an underlying sentiment that the judgment is weak in one particular: namely, that it was the judgment of a number of eminent men perfectly, impartial and perfectly competent no doubt in their own sphere, but men who with one exception had no personal acquaintance with the conditions, history, sentiment, and feeling of the people of Scotland, and especially of the Church of Scotland, and men who did not possess full knowledge of the actual situation in Scotland. This point in Scotland, at every stage of its career of litigation from one Court to another, and by every Judge whose duty it was to form an opinion on the subject, was decided in an opposite sense to the decision

  1021
  given by the House no Lords. How-ever loyal we may be and are to the judicial arrangements of the country we cannot somehow get this thing altogether out of our hearts.
  Then there is another thing. After all, the Church is not a limited liability company or a great engineering concern. It exists for a higher, nobler, and more beneficent purpose. The sight of this great ecclesiastical organisation, which permeates Scotland and which reaches out its hand in missionary effort to the ends of the earth—an organisation sustained by efforts and sacrifices perhaps as splendid as anything the history of mankind can show—being stripped of its power to fulfil its great functions, and its funds handed over to a small number of men who have no pretension that they I can fulfil these great duties, moved the heart of all Scotland more than anything in our generation. Therefore, while we accept the decision of the Supreme Court we accept it subject to these feelings and convictions; and we feel, with all respect, that the tribunal ought to have taken into account the ultimate result of their decision. At all events it became clear that this legal wrong must be remedied. I am bound to say that unfortunately the smaller Church involved in this controversy has done much to exaggerate the feeling which existed by pushing its efforts far beyond the limits of any parishes in which it could claim predominance or even considerable support. I think that is very unfortunate and has exasperated feeling, and I think the Government would have been wise if very early in the matter they had introduced a suspensory Act preventing the possibility of this action on the part of either one side or the other. But they preferred not to do so, and I daresay saw good reasons for the line they took.
  They appointed a Royal Commission for inquiry, a Commission which had the confidence of us all and which has increased that confidence by the nature of their examination and the Report they have produced. What I say is, why did they not trust this Commission a little further? They are now asking to revive this Commission, as the Lord-Advocate said, with two ad-
  1022
  ditional names, but why did they not allow this second Commission to deal with the matter in the light and in the spirit of the Report already rendered, and why did they think it necessary to interfere with the sub-sections and clauses to which the Lord-Advocate has referred; to interfere and prescribe conditions to this new Commission which vary considerably from the recommendations of the former? I think the right hon. Gentleman himself took refuge in this Royal Commission whenever he found himself in a difficulty. There was a question of defining an adherent, and he said the members of the Royal Commission were so well known and so trusted that they could do without a definition. Well, if they can define an adherent they can do most things, and no one can doubt that they could have apportioned the funds in question in such a way as, after perhaps a little heart-burning at the time, would at all events ultimately have brought peace and given satisfaction to the Scotch people. That would have been the simplest thing to do, but the Government thought fit to introduce these clauses, two of which have been specially referred to, namely, the one affecting the trenching on actually-designated trust funds in order to find the money necessary and the other where it is sought to discover whether a congregation has a right to congregational property. I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman has been authorised to announce material improvements and modifications in those clauses, because if they had stood as they stand now in the Bill I am bound to say I should have found great difficulty in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman has promised great modifications which I think, though not perhaps quite satisfactory, go a great length. I may say incidentally that I think the Bill should in the meantime be only committed pro forma, in order that when we go into Committee we shall have the amended Bill before us and not this Bill at all. I will not dwell on those points, because the right hon. Gentleman explained them very fully and there is much that is satisfactory in them. When we have done with them and seen the ultimate shape they assume

  1023
  we shall be better able to know how we are to regard the Bill.
  But the Bill does not stop there. Here is this great misfortune befallen Scotland affecting two Churches, and the Government for some mysterious reason which no one can fathom introduces another provision altogether affecting another Church, and the fact that it is a very important matter that has been introduced is proved by the long, elaborate, and historical argument that the Lord-Advocate had to employ in order to justify the clause. My right hon. friend behind me interrupted him by saying he wanted to know why it is here, however good it may be, and no doubt that is the most important point of all. We are all agreed that there must necessarily be some differences if we attempt in this House to lay down the actual apportionments of the funds, but we are all agreed, at all events, that there should be such an apportionment, and the whole of the clauses of the Bill, except Clause 5, are perfectly germane to the main purpose we have in view, and which is close to the heart of the Scotch people. But "Medio de fonte leporum surgit amari aliquid" An apple of discord coming heaven knows from where is flung on the field, and we are told that if this Bill is to be amended, which in its original form dealt rather hardly, as most people think, with the funds of the United Free Church, and the Government themselves acknowledge it and their willingness to amend it—if alterations are to be made in this Bill there is this Clause 5 which we must swallow as the price of it. I object altogether to the House of Commons, as a public body, being treated in this way, and I think our business here to-day is to separate the two subjects. The hon. Member for Halifax has given notice to move an instruction that the Bill be divided into two Bills, and whether the form in which he has framed that instruction is right or wrong, he is perfectly right, because the two things are totally distinct, and ought to be dealt with in separate Bills. Let us today pronounce on the contention between the two Churches and leave out of count this undesirable alien who has been dumped upon the shores of this unfortunate Bill, and who is likely to do more
  1024
  harm than most other aliens do. However, this can be dealt with in Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman has entered into so elaborate an explanation of it that there are one or two things I should like to say.
  In the first place, so far as I know, it is a wholly new thing and without precedent as applied to a State Church, and in the second place it is not a thing to be sprung upon us without full opportunity for consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has shown what an elaborate story it is. He has brought in Lord Macaulay, King William, and I do not know whom, and a series of Acts of Parliament and Acts of Assembly, but the fact remains that this restriction, if restriction it be, is in force in the Scotch Church, and if it is desirable to have relief from it let it be sought for in a deliberate, formal, and constitutional way. We have a recent precedent, and that is a precedent of a case which is on all fours with this case. I refer, of course, to the Clerical Subscription Act of 1865. Now under this clause the whole question of defining the formula of subscription of ministers is to be left to the Church Courts, to the General Assembly, with the support of a majority of the Presbyteries. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the presbyteries were about as much lay as clerical, but I doubt as a matter of fact whether that can be maintained at all in practice. I do not know why he did not extend his reference down to the Kirk Sessions. They are undoubtedly to a large degree laymen, and why should not they have a voice as well as the Presbyteries in settling a matter so vitally affecting their-well-being? I merely throw that out as an idea, but that of course can hardly be done by a left-handed clause such as is now before us, but would require special legislation. But the Church is left free to change the subscription as it likes. Was ever State Church treated in that way, or rather was ever a State so treated in reference to a. State Church? What is this Act of 1865? The right hon. Gentleman is afraid its portals are so narrow that all young men of intelligence and large views will be shut out, and in some way he tries to make out that the Established Church would be handicapped as

  1025
  regards the other. How is it handicapped? We do not alter the formulas of the United Free Church.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This Bill does not.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Certainly.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps explain afterwards in what way we have altered the form of subscription of the ministers of the United Free Church. What was the reason for the Act of 1865 being introduced? Here is what Sir George Grey said, and it is exactly what the Lord-Advocate has said in this instance. He said he hoped that the objections felt to these subscriptions and declarations which had a tendency to prevent entrance into the Church of men of the highest character and most undoubted attachment to the Church would be removed by the Act. That is the very thing the Lord-Advocate has in view, but what they did in the English Church was this. It is entitled, "An Act to amend the law as to the subscription and declaration to be made and the oaths to be taken by the Clergy of the Established Church of England." This is the declaration of assent—
  "I. A. B., do solemnly make the following declaration. I assent to the thirty-nine Articles of religion, and to the Book of Common Prayer and to the ordering of Bishops, priests, and deacons. I believe in the doctrine of the Church of England as therein set forth to be agreeable to the word of God, and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments f will use the form prescribed and none other, except in so far as will be ordained by lawful authority."
  That is the declaration which has to be made by every person instituted to a benefice after reading the thirty-nine Articles before the congregation after he has been instituted or collated. The House will observe that Parliament in that case prescribed the formula. It was to be a declaration of assent. They did not hand it over to the Church to enact anything they chose and to disenact it the next year. So that if we are to follow precedent, and surely we ought
  1026
  to follow it in this case, it will not be by such a clause as this is that that will be done. But this Bill was introduced following a Royal Commission to examine into the question, and they did not act in. the darkness as we act. Many Members of the House did not know anything about it until the Lord-Advocate gave his Scotch history. The Scotch people had never heard of it, and were amazed when they heard it was included in this Bill. The members and adherents of the Church of Scotland themselves had not been consulted in the matter, and I shall be surprised if there is not a great deal of friction and trouble over it. What knowledge have we of the feeling of Scotland on this subject and even in the Church itself? Therefore, in my opinion, before moving in the matter we ought to have a Royal Commission or else ample time whereby my countrymen may be able to come to a conclusion for themselves. The Church of Scotland, its leaders and friends, have most of them played a most generous, sympathetic, and patriotic part in the events of the last year. They have behaved with great credit to themselves. They have been ready for the sake of peace and the cause of religion to help even those between whom and themselves there might be a certain in natural feeling of resentment. But their help has hardly been so conspicuous that they can set up as the honest broker for bringing about a peaceful solution of this question, and, above all, they cannot surely ask that the favour they now seek should be given them as a sort of brokerage commission. On what possible ground is this inserted in the Bill unless it be to take the opportunity of giving a quid pro quo to the Established Church? I do not know what the quo means. What does it? This is giving something, but what has been got in return? I object to treating the whole of these things by way of bargaining, but when we find this clause mysteriously inserted here, we have to come to the conclusion that there must be some object other than that stated. I do not believe any object has been stated. Let the Church of Scotland seek the favour which they desire by the manly and open constitutional process of Parliament, and I, for

  1027
  my part, shall be ready in a proper constitutional way to meet their desires so far as it is possible they should be met. I object altogether, by a side wind and in this unconstitutional way, to bringing in a matter of controversy into a Bill which ought to be without controversy, and bringing delay to a Bill whose essence is in the direction of rapid action. I object to this clause being' introduced in this way. At this stage, however, I for my part support and should advise others to support the Second Reading of the Bill. We can deal with Clause 5 in Committee. We shall see the changes proposed by the Government when they take shape and when they come out of Committee, and then we can determine our future course. For my part, I earnestly hope that the result of the consideration of this Bill may be such that the Bill may secure general assent not only here but in Scotland, and that the final decision of the Royal Commission may meet with the approval of the Scotch people so that a new era may open with the cause of religion freed from the impediments, heart-burnings and anxieties which have formed an unhappy era of dissent in Scotland.
  MR. CORBETTsaid the speech of the Lord-Advocate would give a great deal of encouragement to those who had been apprehensive. He was glad to hear the observations he made with regard to the pooling of the funds. They hoped with the Lord-Advocate that none of these trusts would be interfered with, but that they would all be kept for their right purpose. Then he was glad to hear that hope which he expressed that to this Commission might also be referred the legacies which had been left in recent times. He referred to a legacy of a large amount. It was distinctly a case for reference to a Commission to investigate the will and intentions of the donor, because otherwise the money would go to those with whom the testator was not in sympathy and for purposes which he did not wish. He could not agree with some of the conclusions drawn by the Leader of the Opposition from Clause 5 of the Bill. He alluded to it as a kind of bargain. The United Free Church as a central
  1028
  organisation had made no declaration as to Clause 5. Certain Presbyteries of the United Free Church had made declarations as to the possibility of the progress of the Bill being facilitated by that clause being omitted, but, taking that clause upon its merits, a very large number of the United Free Church felt as keenly in favour of it as any member of the Established Church. It was no question between rival denominations; it was a question for earliest men who wished to see the moral and religious progress of their country best advanced through both channels. The clause in no way changed the legal position of the Established Church, but it relieved any member of it from having to sign a declaration as the declaration of his individual faith which more or less damaged and strained his conscience. Christian men everywhere ought to welcome a proposal which did not change the legal status of the member beyond relieving him of the obligation to sign as a matter of personal faith that which did not fully express his religious opinion. It was a question whether the inclusion or exclusion of this proposal would facilitate the progress of this Bill, but he wished it to be clearly understood that there were very many in the United Free Church who welcomed most cordially what they believed to be an advance in the right direction.
  MR. BLACKsaid he was sure every Member in the House was glad to see the Bill introduced, because it dealt with a state of matters in Scotland which, if it had occurred in any other country, would have resulted in riot and bloodshed, and social serious disorder. At the present moment, about 100 men were being turned out of churches which were associated in their minds with everything most sacred to the human being, at the instance of persons who had contributed nothing to their erection, and who in some cases had up to this time had no relations with the congregations. And the parties who were being treated in that way were still further provoked by the knowledge that they themselves were the parties who had subscribed the funds for the erection of these churches. If it were a fact that the parties now in possession

  1029
  of these churches were able to make full use of them the position would not be so acute, but in many cases these parties who had gained possession of the churches had shown themselves entirely unable to make full use of them, and in point of fact the churches were found empty for many Sundays, instead of being filled by their regular congregations. What wonder was it that throughout the whole English-speaking world it had caused amazement that such a position should be permitted so long to continue in Scotland! Had it occurred in any other country it would have resulted in scenes of the very greatest social disorder. The good order which in circumstances so trying had been preserved was a very good reason for the House intervening, and that rapidly, to remedy those evils and grievances. "Who were the parties who were being treated in this way? Were they malefactors or persons who had done anything worthy of censure? No, they were parties who, in accordance with the universal sentiment of the civilised world, entered into a union against which no reasonable person saw any good ground. The cause of difference between the two churches who had united was a very abstruse question of the legitimacy of civil establishment, but that that question had never been made a term of communion in the Free Church b afore its union with the United Presbyterian Church in 1900. It was an open question in that Church, and over and over again the contrary proposition had been affirmed with by large votes of the General Assembly when the questions of the maintenance of the existing establishment had been before it. He thought the House would agree with him that they, at all events, should not be the parties to be punished for having carried out this very desirable operation of union.
  It was asked what about the House of Lords judgment and how that affected the situation? Were they not bound by that judgment, and ought they not to carry it out in its entirety? He submitted that that was not a correct position to take up in this House. In; this House they were representatives of
  1030
  the people, and they were called upon to administer common sense and justice, and therefore they were entitled to examine how far the House of Lords decision conformed to the dictates of common sense and justice. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned one or two points in which the decision of the House of Lords was open to criticism as regards its essential characteristics. At all events it had failed to realise that the Free Church had in fait prior to 1900 freely exercised the power of joining with other bodies and that it had before 1900 asserted and did now assert its right to define and alter its doctrinal standards. It was one of the good features of the present Bill that, recognising this right in the part of the United Free Church, Parliament was restoring the property dealt with in the Bill on the basis of the United Free Church, through its Assembly in the future, exercising full rights as to union with other bodies and alteration and definition of its doctrinal standards. It was true the Bill did not in express terms make any statement on this head, but after the Declaration passed at the last General Assembly of the United Free Church and the Lord-Advocate's speech at the First Reading this was clearly implied.
  In the second place, the facts were obviously not known to the House of Lords when they gave their decision. It was a matter of common notoriety in Scotland that only a partial statement of the facts was put before the House of Lords, because the Judges in the Court below were fully informed of the true position of matters from 1843 onwards in regard to the Free Church. They knew all this of themselves and therefore it was not considered necessary to lead formal proof upon matters of common knowledge in the Court below. But in the House of Lords the Judges were in. the main not aware of these matters of common knowledge. Now what was the original attitude of the Free Church with regard to this question of union with other bodies outside itself? The Lord Chancellor in his judgment quoted one dictum of Dr. Chalmers, but there were other

  1031
  dicta to which he paid no attention whatever. Dr. Guthrie, speaking in the Disruption Assembly, in 1843, said—
  "I am for the union in the meantime in the way of cooperation. We cannot stop there, and I defy any man to stop there."
  Dr. Chalmers said on May 2nd, 1843—
  "I trust we are now upon the way immediately to co-operation, as I trust that by itself it will be a very great and important step towards incorporation."
  These were dicta laid down at the very launching of the Free Church, to which no attention whatever was apparently paid in the House of Lords judgment.
  Another fact which was not ascertained by the House of Lords was in regard to the intention of donors to the funds of the Free Church. No evidence at all was led upon that head, and it was a matter of regret that even the Royal Commission, who had otherwise done their work so well, did not admit evidence in regard to the intentions of donors. There was reason for believing that a very large proportion of the money contributed to the Free Church before the Union was contributed by parties who were favourable to the Union. He would give one illustration. In the year 1899 he had the privilege of being the means of communicating to the Free Church a gift of £1,000 from a lady, and that lady gave this sum of money in express terms communicated at the time of the gift-as a token of her approval of the approaching Union. Now what was the effect of the House of Lords judgment in this case? It was that this particular gift had been transferred to those parties who were opposed to the Union. If that was true with regard to this particular case it was equally true with regard to a very large percentage of the other funds held by the Free Church at the time of the union. This was evidenced by the fact that in 1873, while Union negotiations were broken off at that period, very great progress had been made in that direction by resolving upon mutual eligibility between the two Churches. That was to say, ministers of both Churches were eligible to be transferred from one Church to the other, and were in fact interchangeable. The small differences existing between them were not considered to be a
  1032
  barrier to the election and ordination of ministers of one Church into the congregation of another. Now the proportion of funds contributed since the year 1873 had been very large indeed as compared with what was contributed before that time. He was not very wrong in saying that not less than three-fourths of the whole central funds dealt with by the House of Lords judgment was contributed after everyone knew that the Union was only a matter of time. He had the privilege of being born in a Free Church manse, and, therefore, he knew the sentiment which animated the Church in 1873 and onwards. All throughout the Church it was looked forward to as an early and argent matter that this union should be consummated.
  Did this Bill meet the case even with the Amendments suggested by the Lord-Advocate? Did it conform to the requirements of the situation? Did it not, even with the Amendments now suggested, unduly penalise those persons who had carried out a great and sacred duty in uniting with their brethren? Did it meet the standard which might be reasonably set up of their requirements in the Way of participation in the funds of the old Free Church? He concurred in the observation made by his right hon. friend the Member for Stirling Burghs, why not trust the Commissioners? They were a body of trusted men in Scotland, and they were trusted with the very important duty of defining adherents, and why not leave the whole thing to them to say what was an equitable solution of this problem? He thought they should have an answer upon that point before the Second Reading of this Bill concluded. The second point was, did the provision in this Bill meet the requirements of the case as regarded the model trust deeds of the old Free Church? There they found that members only were to be voters in disposing of congregational property, and that a majority of them we to decide as to such disposal. In regard to this point he would give the substance of the ninth Article of the trust deed. That Article provided as follows—
  "If at any time hereafter one-third of the whole ordained ministers shall not only publicly separate from the said body, but at the same time publicly claim and profess to hold

  1033
  truly and in bona fide the principles of the protest of the 18th May, 1843, in that case it shall be competent to, and in the power of a majority of the congregation to provide and declare that the congregational property shall, from henceforward be held as in connection with the body of Christians adhering to the ministers who shall have separated as aforesaid,"
  That was precisely the case with which they were dealing, except that they were dealing with less than a third of the ministers who professed to remain by the old position, but this was a difference against, not in favour of the legal Free Church. He thought this House, if it studied the reasons set out by the Lord Chancellor for disallowing the application of the trust deeds to this case, would find very great difficulty in following them as a matter of ordinary common sense. What he felt this House ought to do and appreciate was that this very case which had arisen was dealt with, and was provided for, by the men who invited contributions towards this Church in 1843; that it was easy to see what they intended to provide, and that this intention had in point of fact not been given effect to by the judgment with which they were now dealing. He suggested that the Government should revert frankly and without reserve to the terms of the model trust deeds, and give congregational property to the majority of members, and members only, of the congregations affected. It was said that this would not do in some Highland places because the adherents were there more numerous than the members. That was quite true, and he knew that there were congregations where adherents formed a large proportion of the congregation. But, after all, the probability was that in each congregation the same proportion of members and adherents respectively adhered or dissented to the union. It was improbable that in any congregation a large proportion of the adherents dissented from the union while a large proportion of the members entered into it, so that neither party took advantage nor suffered disadvantage by adhering to the membership as forming the constituency which was to determine the destination of congregational property. There was this very great advantage in that course, that they had no difficulty in ascertaining the parties who were to vote and who were to exercise
  1034
  their rights in relation to congregational property.
  Another provision of this Bill related to the endowment of the ministers of the legal Free Church. It was very natural that the parties connected with the Established Church should think that some endowment should be made in connection with the establishment of a congregation. But in the Free Church it had not been the habit to endow ministers. Upon the whole the inclination had been to hold that the ministers were better dependent upon the general freewill offerings of the people. That had been the principle acted upon up till now in the Free Church, and it was a principle which seemed to him should not be departed from without very grave and earnest consideration, and only for very good reasons. On that point he hoped the Government would give the matter their very careful consideration.
  Now he came to Clause 5. With regard to this clause, he should not say very much except that when the decision was given by the House of Lords many of them felt that a great opportunity had arisen in Scotland for the promotion of further union between the various Churches. That was something very near to the heart of many in Scotland, but what he rather feared was that this clause was, if anything, anteunionist in its effects. The mountain having been in travail had brought forth a mouse. He regretted that those responsible for advising the Church of Scotland had not brought forward proposals to bring about a comprehensive union, even though it might have been at some cost in the matter of endowments. He was satisfied that if what had been proposed had been directed to that end it would have had large support throughout Scotland, and happier results would have flowed from this great upturning than if the clause as it stood was pushed through. As had been intimated by his right hon. friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs, it was not proposed, so far as could be seen at present, in view of the concessions which had been made by the Lord-Advocate, to divide on the Second Reading of the Bill, but he hoped that the points he had mentioned would be kept in mind and that they would receive

  1035
  further consideration in Committee. He sincerely hoped that the net result would fee an era of greater peace and quiet in Ecclesiastical Scotland than they had during the past year.
  MR. WYLIEsaid he wished to congratulate the Lord-Advocate on the able and lucid manner in which he had explained this difficult Bill. He thought it was a great pity that the necessity for such a Bill had arisen. The people of Scotland and the Government had fondly hoped that the two Churches would have come to an amicable arrangement, which would have been much better for all concerned. Recently, however, they had given up almost all hope of such an arrangement. But he thought there was still a faint glimmer of hope in connection with this matter. He might mention that he had been authorised by the leaders of the Free Church to hand to the Lord-Advocate a private statement of the terms which they were prepared to recommend to their constituents for a friendly settlement in connection with this matter, including the share of the buildings belonging to the Free Church on the Mound at Edinburgh, the number of churches in connection with the free churches which they were prepared to accept, and the amount of money which they also would be prepared to accept as a settlement. It was a very simple statement; it was contained on a half-sheet of notepaper, and his suggestion was that the other Church, the United Free Church, should send to the Lord-Advocate a similar private statement of what they were prepared to accept to secure a friendly settlement. The Lord-Advocate had shown the greatest interest and, he thought, the greatest impartiality in this matter, and there might be associated with him the Attorney-General, whose clear understanding in connection with all Church matters, in Scotland especially, would be of the greatest benefit. These two hon. Gentlemen would act as advisers and as the general recipients of the views of both parties. He would suggest that the Churches should be represented not so much by the clerical and legal element as by laymen from
  1036
  both sides, business men of common sense.
  If an amicable arrangement were adopted, which he thought there was some small chance of there being, then it could go before the Commission which was about to be appointed, who could accept and legalise it, and there would be enormous advantages connected with the reception of such a friendly arrangement. In the first place, it would prevent the recurrence of those squabbles and bickerings which had been so frequent before the Royal Commission which was appointed to investigate this subject. It would also prevent the irritation which must necessarily follow from any decision come to by the Commission. He had been receiving letters stating the feelings of the people who thought that if a friendly settlement was nit arrived at, and if there was a compulsory settlement, there might not be the same law-abiding feeling on the part of the people who had suffered so much. He thought these expressions were exaggerated, and that the people of Scotland would prove themselves to be the law-abiding people they had been in the past. But the advantages would be enormous if there could be a friendly settlement in connection with the matter. It would be the beginning of that great friendly settlement which would include all the Presbyterian Churches in one great union, and it would show that the people of Scotland connected with those Churches, which had done so much in the past for the religious life of the country, were now prepared to bury all their animosities and go forward in a common union. It would prevent the disagreeable friction between the two Churches in their future conduct of the religious life of a very large portion of the people of Scotland.
  He just wished to say in one word as to what was his own position in this matter. He was entirely and absolutely a friendly neutral. He had all his life been connected with the Established Church of Scotland, but he had warm friends in both the Free Church and the United Free Church, and it was entirely in the interests of peace and religion that he had intervened

  1037
  in this matter to make the suggestions which he now did with all diffidence, to the leader of the United Free Church, that they also should send in a private statement similar to that to which he had referred in connection with the Free Church, and that they should leave it to the advice given to them by his right hon. friends the Lord-Advocate, and the Attorney-General. He had some hope, at any rate, that a friendly settlement might be arrived at which would be in the interests of not only the United Free Church and the Free Church, but of the whole people of Scotland, and, he thought, in the interests of religious concord throughout the world.
  MR. EUGENE WASONcongratulated the Lord-Advocate upon the very lucid statement he had made in moving the Second Beading of the Bill. He was especially glad that he had gone back to the bedrock of 1900 as the date at which the Churches should be dealt with. They ought, however, to insist that the proportion of one third should be retained. For his part, he should endeavour to get the Bill amended in that respect and he believed if that was done it would in a great measure satisfy the people of Scotland. The Lord-Advocate asked whether any Scotchman would stand up and say that the Scottish people did not approve of the fifth clause of the Bill, which was the most controversial in it. He had in his hand letters from two distinguished gentlemen in regard to this clause. One said in his letter—
  "I dislike exceedingly the trick of tacking on Clause 5 dealing with the Established Church formula, but far more do I resent the two leading features of the Bill."
  The other gentleman wrote—
  "The fifth clause—Established Church—is extraneous. Let the two things be kept separate. Ours is an emergency measure. That is an historical fact, and by the clause injustice is done to our cause by diverting attention to a matter with which we have nothing to do. Let the Established Church attend to her own affairs and not saddle us with them."
  He had received innumerable letters protesting most strongly against the
  1038
  fifth clause being introduced by a side wind into the Bill.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: My point is that nobody objects to it on its merits.
  MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he thought that did not alter the point he was endeavouring to make, and when the Member for Halifax came to move his Amendment to separate the Bill into two he should most heartily and cordially support it. The hon. Member for Banffshire said it would be impossible for a gentleman from the South of the Tweed to go into a Free Church or a United Presbyterian Church and to tell which Church he was in. He would go one better than that. Before the Union in 1900, they might take a Southerner into an Established Church, a United Presbyterian, or a Free Church, and he would not be able to say which Church he had been to. He remembered having a friend in Scotland whom he took round to those different churches; he never could tell which was which, and he said that he did not understand why the people of Scotland should not have disestablishment when they were all of the same religion. His friend stated that it was quite different in Wales because there the forms of worship in the Established Church and in the Nonconformist Churches were quite different. He was a strong supporter of the Union which took place in 1900. That year was a black one for this country; it was the year of the. Boer War and of the Khaki elections. The one brilliant feature in the whole year was the great union of the United Presbyterian and the Free Churches, which everyone looked to as an event which was to bring about the larger union of Presbyterians which had been alluded to, and which he was sure every Scotsman wished to see carried out. They had been spoken about as a law-abiding people in Scotland. Well, the relations were getting very much strained. He did not wish to allude to what took place at Newton-on-Ayr last Sunday; those who wished to know could read it in the Scotch papers for themselves. They could strain loyalty too far. He was reminded of the petition which was sent by Robert Burns to the right hon. and

  1039
  hon. Scotch representatives in the House of Commons—
  "For God's sake, Sirs, then speak her fair,
  And straik her cannie with hair,
  And to the 'Muckle House' repair Wi instant speed,
  And strive a your wit and lear To get remead."
  They were trying to put an end to an intolerable state of things in Scotland. He hoped this Bill would get a Second Reading, that they would get it amended in Committee and make it a better Bill, and that they would get what was so ardently desired for the ecclesiastical peace in Scotland.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he thought every man in the House felt the absolute necessity-of closing the strife which there had been in Scotland of late months. He believed that Church and State were now much nearer to an understanding with each other than in the past. The Disruption of 1843 was a blunder. It was a magnificent performance on the part of those who went out, but it arose to a great extent from a lack of understanding between Church and State. He hoped that now they were nearer to that understanding. He was quite sure that any attempt to go back on the judgment of the House of Lords would not solve the difficulty in which they found themselves; but it was absolutely necessary to stop the course of evictions. They must assuage the religious war which was now raging and. quiet the feelings which were so keen when men felt themselves outraged in regard to their deepest sentiments. This conflict in Scotland had been between a small and tiny handful of men strong in their own beliefs. This handful of men had a greater strength in the most backward districts of Scotland and among the least educated of the people. On the other side there was a great body, who could, in vigour and power of education, bear comparison with any religious community in England. To that small handful they must give justice. This had been done; their claims had been fully recognised. But they must take care that in doing them justice they did not impair the great Christian work carried on by the larger section, the United Free Church of Scotland.
  1040
  Now, the House of Lords had declared the Free Church to be the legal owners of the property of the late Free Church, but they were owners as trustees and the trusts had to be regarded. The Elgin Commission had declared that the Free Church could not adequately discharge many of the trusts in connection with the property in question, and that in such cases the property should be given back to the United Free Church subject to a liberal provision being made for the Free Church. It was a great relief and satisfaction to find from the Lord-Advocate's speech that the Government was able to take that line, and that the House would be asked to use for the satisfaction of the claims of the Free-Church only the free funds and not those destined to particular purposes. The Lord-Advocate spoke with confidence in regard to sonic trusts, but not with the same confidence with regard to others. He thought the feeling of the House would be strongly expressed not only in regard to foreign missions but also in regard to all special and particular trusts. It was the duty of a trustee to use the funds in his charge for the benefit of the specific objects of the trust which should be considered as permanent. He believed that the free funds would be sufficient for all purposes of providing liberally for the Free Church. If not it might be necessary for the United Free Church to pledge its credit-to raise any further sums that they needed for the purpose. He hoped that the result of the Bill would be that sufficient funds would be obtained by the Free Church in that way, and that those funds which were earmarked for special purposes would not be touched, or their destination in any way altered.
  If that was true of the funds it was; still more necessary in regard to buildings, both central and congregational. There was as great a difference between buildings and funds in this case as between a, money indemnity and a loss of territory in the case of war. Money might be replaced, but the memory of the possession of lost, provinces remained. "While he thought that money compensation should be given to the full amount of the requirements of the Free Church, he trusted, to the greatest possible extent, all the

  1041
  buildings which had been used by the larger body would remain in the future in their hands. Everyone who had spoken had felt that the Lord-Advocate, by fixing for counting the number of members and adherents, had indicated a way of putting an end to t he scramble for increasing the number of members and adherents which had, in many cases, shocked Scotland. With regard to legacies, he hoped that that question might be fully and completely settled before the Bill passed out of their hands without the need of any future litigation. There were difficulties in connection with legacies, but this was one of these matters which might be fairly and readily left to the Commission to deal with. Without going so far as some hon. Members wished to do, and without feeling it right to give the Commission an absolutely free hand to deal with all matters as they might please, he would leave them to deal with legacies in a spirit of equity. There was one point he would like to ask the Lord-Advocate about, namely, whether funds not connected with the trusts of any particular Church, such as the Ferguson Bequest Fund, were to be touched. The trustees of that fund were composed of representatives of the different Presbyterian Churches of Scotland and they had a free hand in distributing this fund. He hoped there was nothing in the Bill that would interfere with the continuance of that freedom, or make it necessary for the Commission to lay down any more hard-and-fast rule than existed at the present moment.
  One important point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition with which he could not agree, and that was that the present Bill made no change in the constitution or tests of the United Free Church. He thought it made the very greatest change in the constitution and the position of the United Free Church and its trusts in the future. Under this Bill the property allocated to the Free Church was allocated according to its constitution. What was the constitution of the Church? He hoped that the United Free Church would have full and ample time to decide what its constitution in the future was to be, and upon what trusts it desired to receive
  1042
  back the property that was going to be re-allocated to it. They had just found that the compact which united their members was too straight for them. In all the discussions in the House of Lords the question was whether, under the form of compact or bond of union, the General Assembly had the power to vary the doctrine of the Church, and what were the limits of such a power. The present difficult. I had arisen because it had been decided by the House of Lords that under the old constitution of the Free Church they had not the power which they desired to alter or vary its doctrines, or the bond of union which united its members. The Free Church, since the time of the Disruption controversy, had always asserted the fullest spiritual independence, but no such assertion of independence could ever displace the right and duty of the State to interpret the compact and bond of union whenever the question arose as to what the compact between the members was. That was decided long ago in the Cardross case. That was the whole principle and point on which the present case was decided. If power was assumed by a Church in the compact entered into by its members to alter from time to time its formularies and standards, and if that was clearly and precisely explained and laid down, then, of course, the State would recognise it, as they would recognise any other form of the constitution of a Church. But the choice must be made. Either a fixed and settled standard might be adopted or freedom must be given to change. They could not have both. The Church might either assert that her standards ware to be those which were held and asserted from time to time by the majority of her own body, or it might declare that certain principles were to be accepted as cardinal principles for all time. Now the United Free Church was prepared to ask full freedom and to lay aside any fixed standard or formularies except the fundamental standard of the Bible, as contained in the Old and New Testaments. This principle was declared in the resolution of the last General Assembly—
  "That the Church has the sole and exclusive right and power, from tune to time as duty may require, to her Courts to alter, change, add to, and modify her constitution and laws

  1043
  according to the standard and formularies, and to determine and declare what these are, and to unite with other Christian Churches."
  That gave full and complete liberty to the United Free Church. Supposing, to take an extreme, that the majority of the General Assembly and of the Presbyteries agreed to join the Church of Rome, they would have full liberty to do so. That was an extreme illustration—but it was quite possible that in future this freedom now claimed by the United Free Church might lead very far to the adoption of other principles than those now held by the majority of its members. The same principle of absolute freedom was being laid down in the declarations of trust which were taking the place of the old model trust deed, out of which this difficulty had arisen. This was a very large step. It was giving the Church the right to reconstruct its formularies as and when it pleased and to relax its standards if and when it was convinced that that was right and necessary. He agreed in principle, because he believed in the principles of evolution and development. He held that—
  "Through the ages one increasing purpose runs,"
  and he would rather leave to the wisdom of the Church in the future the decision on points that arose from time to time than try to confine them according to ideas that were held at the present time.
  The freedom which was thus given by the Bill was not realised by the Leader of the Opposition, and necessarily reacted upon all other Churches, and most directly upon the Church of Scotland. Therefore, it was upon Clause 5 that so much of this debate had turned. There had been no clear objection to Clause 5 on its merits. He could not make out what the views of the Leader of the Opposition were. He told them this was an apple of discord, and amari alquid, but he did not know whether he objected to it on its merits. He raised difficulties about the Established Church altering its formularies, but he should like to know whether he objected to it on its merits. He wished the right hon. Gentleman had not used words which were hardly worthy as to the attitude of the Church of Scotland in this matter. He talked of brokerage or bargaining. That
  1044
  was not the right way in which to approach a subject of this sort, and it was not the way in which leading men in the United Free Church or other prominent men had approached it. A great religious problem was under discussion in this Parliament, produced by the case of the United Free Church, but that problem stirred the waters altogether, and it was right that it should be dealt with as a whole. What the Lord-Advocate said was true as to the effect upon men desiring to join the Church, and who found in the one Church rigid and archaic standards, and that they were tied down to every single word of the declaration 200 years old, of which the manner at any rate had become obsolete altogether, and which was no longer believed by one man in a thousand. It was a serious matter, when a man was considering what Church he was to join, whether he found himself pledged to sign his full and exact belief in a declaration of that sort, or whether he was called upon to give his assent and approval to the standard as a whole. In that case he accepted and believed the main principles, but he could leave out of consideration smaller details which were no longer part of our modern method of thought. It would be a grave thing for the Church of Scotland if the most promising young men with tender and delicate consciences were lost and driven into other Churches whose activity was as great, and whose ideals and views on all other points were so closely akin to those of the Established Church. When this problem was once opened they ought to deal with it as affecting all Churches and not the one only, therefore this relaxation of formula, was sought.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of it as if it was some new idea, and that they did not know what the feeling of Scotland was. As if the thing had not been under discussion for many years and accepted unanimously by the General Assembly. The Church of England obtained a similar relaxation forty years ago in regard to the Articles. Under the Clergy Subscription Act a similar change was made from a form which made a man declare his absolute assent and consent to everything prescribed in the Thirty-nine Articles

  1045
  and the Book of Common Prayer. There was a certain difference, for that Act prescribed the exact terms of the formula which was to be substituted for a too narrow and rigid formula, and this Act while maintaining the standard of the Confession of Faith, left it in the hands of the Church to decide upon the exact formula. That difference was a very small one. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no precedent; but there was the Scotch precedent of 1690, that great Act of the Revolution settlement to which they wished to return. What they wished was to take away the stringent test imposed for a temporary purpose and to return to the strong principle which was embodied in the first Act. That was what they desired and the difference was very small. The constitution of the Church of Scotland, in which the governing body was infinitely more a lay body than in the Church of England, and the certainty that any proposal of serious change would arouse the keenest interest in Scotland, and would be fully discussed in each independent Presbytery before it was accepted, should be an amply sufficient protection against any rash or ritualistic changes which some Members seemed so to fear. It was absolutely and completely a Liberal principle to relax tests and to give freedom of opinion to men in all positions, to professors as well as to ministers, and he could not conceive any real objection being taken to the change on the merits.
  Of course the point might be raised that it was a separate matter, and might be dealt with in a separate Bill. He had tried to show it was not-a separate matter, but was more closely akin to the rest of the Bill than appeared at first sight. In addition to that they all knew there was a practical reason for joining the two, viz., that it was extremely difficult to get a Bill through Parliament which had not the immediate pressure of urgency behind it. That was a practical answer to the suggestion that the Bill would be better separated. Seeing that there was not the smallest chance of this clause becoming law if it was not taken as part of this measure, he did not think it should be
  1046
  separated. The objections to it had merely been that it would endanger the Bill, because it would be a stumbling; stone and would raise opposition. All that went if it did not arouse opposition, and people were content to take it on the merits. He believed and trusted this measure would bring back peace to Scotland and that it would be a great boon to all the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON, as an English Member apologised for intervening in a debate which related purely to a Scotch matter, but the whole of the discussion had gone to prove that every speaker was conscious of the fact that-there were questions raised by the Bill different from the particular effect on the Free Churches. The introduction of Clause 5 into this Bill had created a feeling of surprise and alarm amongst a good many people interested not only in these questions from the Scotch point of view, but in the question of the relationship-existing between Church and State in England as well as in Scotland. In the first place, he thought, and hon. Members on the other side must feel, that it was-not exactly a praiseworthy action on the part of the Government to take advantage of the present difficulties of one Church to advance the interests of another, while many other Members could not possibly accept the principle laid down in Clause 5. A very great price might be paid by his hon. friends who accepted this Bill with this clause in it, for it was more far-reaching than any Committee point. They had had a learned defence of Clause 5 from the Lord-Advocate and an able defence from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The Lord-Advocate referred to the handicapping of the Church of Scotland and the hon. Member for Partick referred to the tender consciences of the clever young men who wished to enter the Church who had grave difficulties in regard to the present Confession of Faith. It was the first time he had ever heard of the handicapping of the Established Church or of the State with regard to the Established Church. Up to the present the Established Church had had all the advantages. Other people had been

  1047
  handicapped and had tender consciences, but they had had to come out of the Established Churches both of England and Scotland. He was surprised also to hear the hon. Member for Partick in that portion of his speech dealing with the Disruption of the Church speaking of that Disruption as a blunder. He was perfectly certain that had it not been for the Disruption they would never have heard anything of Clause 5.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I made a mistake. What I meant to say was that the Disruption was the result of a misunderstanding.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that he used the word "blunder."
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I daresay I used the word "blunder," but I never should have described it as a blunder; it was a misfortune, and the result of a misunderstanding in the Church.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid it was due to the Disruption that we had that liberty of conscience of which we had hoard so much. This clause went much further than the limitation as to the subscription to the Confession of Faith. When they left it to the Church from time to time to alter its formula of subscription it was certain that the Confession of Faith was itself in danger. But when they could draw up a formula of subscription the State could say they no longer insisted on the Confession of Faith as a test of the basis of faith. It was an extraordinary thing that the Government never paid any attention to the Reports of its own Commissioners when their Reports were inconvenient. The Commission appointed in connection with the Scotch Churches never referred to the conditions of the Established Church at all, yet the Government presumed to introduce this clause. The Government also appointed a Commission to inquire into the question of the Scotch Universities' tests, and in the face of the recommendations of that Commission they proposed to hand over all the power in regard to the religious tests to the Ecclesiastical Board. What about the tender consciences in that case? They were to appropriate all
  1048
  these positions of emolument, position, and power but when it came to giving any real and satisfactory relief they gave the lie direst to the Commission and were going to hand over the power in regard to the tests to the Ecclesiastical Board and withdraw the powers which the State had hitherto held over their own Universities. He presumed the friends of the National Church, the State Church, were not merely friends of the State Church from the £s. d. point of view. They were friends of the Established Church because they believed in its principles; because they believed the nation had some duty, some rights to exercise, which it could only exercise through a Church; some duties and rights, spiritual and moral, which it could only perform through the agency of a Church.
  When the State withdrew from the performance of its duties to the Church and handed over to the Church the right to draw up its own formula of subscription: and test of profession of faith that was a denial of the principle of Establishment, and the advocates and supporters of this Bill knew the State were taking the first step towards disestablishment. I But when they took the first step they had no right to stop where they did. If they were going to claim a right of freedom spiritually they must claim the whole of the rights of free property. They must retain all the power and patronage and freedom of property, which was really the meaning of a State Church. That would be creating a precedent which he could imagine the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich using in a very formidable manner in times to come. It would delight the heart of the noble Lord to hear that this House was going to abandon the principle which governed the Established Church, and to adopt new one which left it to the National Church to draw up its own subscription, its own formula, its own creed, and to practice its own ritual; because that was bound to follow in the long run. In fact, it might obviously take the form of saying that they were not bound by any particular Confession of Faith or the whole Thirty-nine Articles. This was legislation to justify that doctrine of reservation which came under the contempt of all honest men, and he thought the

  1049
  action the Government was taking in connection with the Scotch Churches was a very doubtful one. He begged to move.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he desired to second the Amendment submitted to the House so ably by his hon. friend, and should like to emphasise the objection he hid taken to Clause 5. He should have called it an extraordinary clause were it not for the fact that they had been treated by the present Government on many previous occasions to similar legislation. The object of this Bill had been very ably and adequately described by the Lord-Advocate in introducing it, and he could not help feeling that in the latter part of his remarks the right hon. Gentleman himself showed he must be aware of the invasion made by this clause in the Bill. It appeared that the authors of the Bill saw an opportunity of dealing with a question which had often, no doubt, been referred to, but as to which there was no fielding in the House or the country. Clause 5 dealt with the Established Church. It must be noted that the two Churches coming to the House of Commons to seek relief were neither of them Established Churches, and therefore it was a matter of apportioning property belonging to either one or the other. But when they came to deal with property belonging to the Established Church they were on altogether different lines, and it seemed that in framing this Bill the Lord-Advocate and those acting with him had framed it on lines which they knew would not pass this House, but which would meet the opposition of the bulk of the United Free Church. They must have been aware that this Bill could not find acceptance with the large body of the Free Churches represented in this House, and the question therefore was, why was this Bill framed on principles which were known to be unacceptable? Clearly so that the rest of the Bill might be used to bargain for the retention of Clause 5. It was not a high moral proceeding to frame a Bill on principles known to be unacceptable in order that they might be bartered with. The Bill savoured more of the horse-dealing principle of do not
  1050
  bid as much as you mean to give; but leave a little to bargain with."
  He was quite sure that the Lord-Advocate was wrong when he said that as a body the United Free Churchmen would not object to the principle of Clause 5. He believed they did object to it, but the position was this: They were offered the Bill with certain Amendments which would to a large extent meet the needs of their own Church, but those Amendments were offered on, the condition that this fifth Clause was accepted with the amended form of the Bill submitted by the Lord-Advocate. That was a principle which they too often treated with in the House. Members of the Government, and he ventured to say the Prime Minister, on more than one occasion had offered to this House Bills on the principle that "I will do justice to you if you will allow me to do an injustice to somebody else." That really was the position of this fifth Clause in the Bill now before the House, and on the whole he regretted that the members of the United Free Church had not stood firm in demanding what the Lord-Advocate had given them in the amended form in which he proposed to introduce the Bill without at the same time assenting to the principle of the fifth Clause to which he believed they almost universally objected, because in assenting to this principle they were doing it at the expense of the Free Churches generally. He could well understand the anxiety they had to see a just Bill carried through the House, and he could well understand the vast issues at stake. The Prime Minister understood that, and he was perfectly sure he was playing a game in which he must ultimately be victorious, but he thought it would have been more worthy of the past traditions of the United Free Church of Scotland if they had determined to adhere to their own righteous demands without sacrificing a principle which must put the Free Churches generally into a position of disadvantage. Moveover, he believed that their friends of the United Free Church would have carried a Bill worthy of the claims which they made, because, whilst he knew the Prime Minister would probably have threatened the withdrawal of the Bill, he did not feel that even he, who was very

  1051
  often capable of defying public opinion, would dare to risk the withdrawal of such a Bill in the present state of religious affairs in Scotland and in face of the disorder which would be likely to grow out of such withdrawal.
  The Free Churches of England looked upon this struggle with the greatest possible interest and sympathy, although he feared the admission of the fifth Clause into the Bill would somewhat lessen the sympathy which would otherwise have flowed out in the fullest and freest manner. They felt that that clause contained a most dangerous principle, and by sacrificing the present advantage for the sake of a great principle, they would perhaps have found the easiest way out of the difficulties which now surrounded them. Like his hon. friend who had preceded him, he would not enter into those matters which entirely affected the interests of Scotch Members, but, in acceding to the Bill with this fifth Clause in it, he felt they would be conceding a principle to which they were diametrically opposed. The attitude of the Free Churches was very easily defined. They believed that every Church had a right to proclaim its own creeds and Confessions; but the clause in question dealt with what claimed to be a National Church, and therefore Parliament, in their opinion, should keep complete control over its property. The fifth Clause proposed to make a stupendous change. It was like the Redistribution Bill. It was very simple, but it had to do with great constitutional questions which had occupied the attention of many of the ablest ecclesiastical minds, as well as lay minds, for generations past. It would give to the General Assembly, or to Convocation if the same principle were carried out in England, the disposal of all that property which was regarded as national property with no responsibility resting upon it as to the creed to which it adhered. Therefore it claimed all the advantages without the disadvantages which they felt belonged to a National Church. He thought that the argument had not been recognised with regard to freedom of conscience and liberty of subscription and so forth. They contended that those things were incompatible with a National Church, and that
  1052
  if a Church claimed, as they thought it ought to rightly claim, religious freedom in these respects, it could only do so by resigning those emoluments and properties which it had in trust for the nation. It submitted in a sense to be handcuffed, and yet wanted to slip those handcuff a and enjoy freedom whenever it saw fit to do so.
  Down to a certain period in our English history Royal hands were laid upon this property and it was dealt with as they thought best until limited by Parliament. Then the property was transferred to Parliament, and right down from that time to now it had always claimed to exercise its authority over it. Therefore the title, he thought, was good enough for the contention he placed before the House. It is for those who supported the clause to justify the change which it brought about. They had to convince Parliament that it had no claim over a Church which claimed to be a National Church holding property on behalf of the nation, and that it had no more control over such Church than it had over Nonconformist Churches which had never held allegiance to Parliament at all. Perhaps it might be thought a matter in which he, as a Free Churchman, had no right to interfere, but they claimed to have certain rights in connection with the National Church so long as it remained allied to the State. To what extent could a National Church alter its beliefs and still remain the same Church and have the same hold upon the properties entrusted to it by the nation? There, he thought, was the gist of the whole matter. The question presented to many members of the Established Church now was how far could a Protestant Church go towards Romanism without sacrificing its claims to be considered a Protestant Church and, therefore, losing its claim upon properties which it now administered on behalf of the nation. He contended that the fifth Clause asked Parliament to resign its control over the Confessions and formulae of the Established Church, and that was the serious part of it in their judgment If that clause passed, the General Assembly in Scotland would have power to subscribe practically to anything which the predominant party

  1053
  in that General Assembly might desire to carry. He thought the clause far too serious a one to be inserted in a Bill brought in for another purpose, and that it was far too serious a question for a Parliament in senile decay to attempt to settle when it had engaged the attention of the ablest men in this country for generations past. If the Church of Scotland desired to complete its freedom and to have none of those restrictions referred to, it knew the way by which that freedom could be obtained. It could not in its present position deny the right of Parliament to interfere, and could not ask Parliament to give it complete liberty in regard to matters of its belief. It had only to follow the example of those Churches relying on voluntary aid instead of State funds to secure that precious inheritance.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' and at the end of the Question to add the word" 'in the opinion of this House no approval should be given to any measure which has the effect of giving an Established Church the right to change or modify its creeds, or any formula of subscription thereto, without such change or modification being submitted and specifically sanctioned by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BRYOEsaid that without in any way attempting to throw any disparagement upon the speeches of the mover and the seconder of this Amendment he should like to recall the the House to the provision which was intended to be made by this Bill for settling this question in Scotland. He joined in the satisfaction which had been expressed in regard to what the Lord-Advocate had said in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, for he had removed a great many difficulties out of their path by the changes which he had announced on behalf of the Government. The Lord-Advocate knew that there had been some dissatisfaction with several of the provisions in this Bill, but the majority of those difficulties had been removed by his statement and so they might now expect a comparatively easy passage for the Bill. He did not deny that there
  1054
  were some questions which still required very careful consideration, but a great many of the difficulties which previously existed had now been removed. He did not quite follow what the Lord-Advocate conveyed by his reference to the free funds. He did not know whether he considered the fund belonging to the colleges were free funds.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I meant free in this sense, that they would be available for the education of ministers of the Free Church.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he did not dissent from that view, but he thought that it would require some further consideration when they reached that point. He would now say a few words about the sustentation fund and the provision for the legal Free Church. It was very difficult to put an interpretation upon the words "adequate provision," for that might mean a great deal. He thought it would have been a great deal better, considering what an admirable Report the Commissioners gave them and how thoroughly they appeared to understand the question, to have left them rather more freedom than the use of the words "adequate I provision" would give them. He felt uneasy lest the Commissioners should think that they would be tied by the word "adequate" to make a provision for the legal Free Church which would be, so to speak, adequate to bring the incomes of its ministers and manses up to that obtained from the sustentation fund previously. Before they agreed to the principle of saying that funds must be taken from the United Free Church to make a full and ample provision for the legal Free Church, he thought the House should consider what the actual facts were. The congregations of the legal Free Church had nearly always been small and poor congregations. According to the admirable principles laid down and enforced with so much eloquence by Dr. Chalmers they had been supported by the rest of the Church and in particular by the richer congregations. The endowments of the sustentation fund had given them this assistance, and the annual gifts which the poorer congregations had received in addition to the income from the

  1055
  sustentation fund had also come from the richer congregations. The richer congregations belonged to the United Free Church and the poorer congregations to the legal Free Church. These richer congregations had now a new burden thrown upon them, and they would have much to do in the way of supplying the property which the decision of the House of Lords had taken from them. They would have to expend larger sums, not only for their own poorer congregations, but also to make up what they had lost in other ways. Was it right that, in endeavouring to allocate property between these two religious bodies, they should consider that everything was to be taken from the United Free Church to supply all the needs of the legal Free Church He submitted that that would be going a good deal too far and this Bill, even after allowing for the alterations which had been suggested by the Lord-Advocate, was too much in the direction that full provision must be made for the legal Free Church at whatever cost to the other Church. It was all very well to be generous, but they must look at the facts and at what had been done by the two parts of the community which had now been separated into these two Churches. It would be a very great hardship to impose upon the United Free Church majority the obligation of requiring them to take from their libraries and buildings, and from their funds, all that might be supposed to be necessary for the purposes of the congregations of the other Church.
  He would turn now to the question which had raised a certain measure of controversy—he alluded to the question raised by Clause 5. It should be remembered that this Bill was properly an emergency Bill which had been brought in to deal with an acute question which, if not dealt with, might give rise to social disorder. Although the people of Scotland had, as a rule, a great deal of restraint and control over their feelings, he might say that upon this question those feelings had run very high, and if a measure of this kind was not Immediately passed nobody could say what would happen in Scotland. It was a Bill which dealt with the question of property only and property between two
  1056
  Churches, neither of which was an Established Church. There had suddenly arisen a new and large question which raised enormous and wide issues which stretched far beyond anything contemplated when the Bill was first promised. This was a question which effected not only the clergy but the laity of the Established Church, because the laity were profoundly affected by anything which affected the Church. When a clergyman was appointed and there was a new creed every member of the congregation was affected, and the security which the members of the congregation had before was removed. What was now proposed was nothing less than a provision that the Established Church of Scotland should be allowed to change its creed. It was said by the Lord-Advocate that the General Assembly of the Established Church of Scotland was composed of laymen as well as clergymen, but the Lord-Advocate must know that the representation of the laity in that Assembly did not prevent the clergy, owing to their superior knowledge, powers of speech, character, and influence, from exercising a predominating influence and consequently the security of the Scottish laity was really to be found in the control of Parliament.
  The Lord-Advocate gave an interesting historical sketch of what happened in 1693, and he drew the moral that we should do what was done in 1690. The Parliament of 1690 and the people were not satisfied with the way matters were left at that time. Although the nation and the Church were then regarded as coterminous, still the General Assembly was not considered a body to be left entirely to itself in a matter of such gravity, and consequently Parliament stepped in, in 1690, and considered that this was a question which affected the whole laity, and, therefore, nothing else than a council of the nation could deal with it. Consequently they decided that they would not leave the question in the hands of the assembly, and they took it over themselves. That action had been allowed to remain good from that date until now, and until quite recently no question was raised as to Parliament being the proper body to deal with a matter of such extreme gravity and importance. It was nothing less

  1057
  than changing the creed of the country. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite said "No, no," but he would endeavour to make that point clear. The proposal of this Bill was to allow the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to alter the form of subscription, and that, in his opinion, was altering the creed. He thought the Attorney-General would not deny that that was the ease. That was the whole burden of this controversy. With every deference to the authorities he saw before him, he submitted that there were many formulae, which would be within the meaning of Clause 5, which would be entirely different from the declaration of assent which was made by a minister now when he took his declaration. Let them suppose, for instance, this formula: "I assent to the Confession of Faith in so far as the same is agreeable to Holy Scripture." With great deference to the Attorney-General, he was not prepared to accept his ipse digit on that question. He thought there were forms which would be more complicated, and which would give more opportunity for captious criticism. He thought that was a form which would be within the term of the clause. It would be a formula of subscription to the Confession of Faith, and yet it would be a formula under which very large liberty of confession would be left in the individual case. He did not deny that the matter was open to controversy, but he did not admit for a moment that the Attorney-General was right in saying that a Court would reject that as not within the meaning of Clause 5.
  Should an Established Church possess the power of making its own creed or altering the formula of subscription? Why did the State in the seventeenth century establish a particular Church? It was because that Church held the truth as delivered by Christ and His Apostles. It did not choose the Church from a particular body of men; it chose the Church because it held the doctrine which the State believed to be true. The nation said, "We believe this creed to be true, and therefore we adopt it, and establish the Church accordingly." It was the act of the nation, and not the act of the Church, or, rather, it was the act of the nation acting in its capacity as
  1058
  a Church, because they were assumed to be identical. Well, they had passed a long way from those times. The nation and the Church were no longer identical. The nation now consisted very largely of persons who did not belong to the Church. In the Presbyterian Churches there were about a-half, broadly speaking, who did not belong to the Established Church, and if they took the whole of the population, church-goers and non-church-goers, it would be still more apparent that the Church and the nation were no longer coterminous. Was it right and proper that the nation should abrogate the function which it had hitherto held of determining what was to be the creed of the National Church, and leave that to a body which no longer represented the nation, but only a particular part of it? That was really the main question which they had now to discuss. It would involve a very protracted discussion, and, therefore, he would not attempt to examine at present the propositions which were submitted by his hon. friends the Members for the Morley Division of Yorkshire and North-West Norfolk, who brought this question before the House in an Amendment. It might be that they would have to argue that in Committee. It would take a long time to argue it now, and, therefore, he preferred to leave it to the Committee stage. But he did desire to emphasise the point before passing from the matter, that, so far as he knew, there was no Established Protestant Church in the world which left the determination of the faith of the nation to an ecclesiastical assembly. It was certainly not so in Germany and Holland. The Roman Catholic Church was in an entirely different position. It was the Church Universal according to its own claims. It was the Church which claimed to be the universal Christian Church of he world. Where it was established it was established not in respect of any Act of Assembly. It was established in respect of the doctrine which was held to be the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as declared by the Pope, or the General Council, or the Pope and the General Council combined. That was a very different position from the position taken up by any Protestant Church. He

  1059
  asked, and he hoped he would have an answer, whether there was a Protestant Church in the world which left, as this Bill proposed to do, the determination of the national faith to an ecclesiastical power.
  Let him examine one argument raised by the Lord-Advocate. He said that it had become necessary to restore to the Established Church the position of freedom which would enable it to compete with the United Free Church. He must say that there was something distasteful to him in talking about competition between Churches. It was rather unfortunate, he thought, that this Bill should be put forward as a method of securing competition between two Churches. That was not the spirit in which they were accustomed to approach these questions in Scotland, and he was sorry to think any countenance should have been given, no doubt quite unintentionally, to that view by any language used by the Lord-Advocate.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: You have misrepresented my argument. I used no language which would convey to anyone the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman says.
  MR. BRYCE: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. My observation was founded on the remark that "this is a handicap" to the United Free Church. I understand that he withdraws the expression.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I do not withdraw the expression. I object to the misrepresentation of the expression.
  MR. BRYCEsaid nothing was further from his mind than to misrepresent the Lord-Advocate, and he was very glad to have elicited the explanation that nothing of the kind was present in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought the best way would have been to withdraw the expression. The remark of the Lord-Advocate appeared to him to be founded on a misconception. He seemed to think that something was being done by this Bill to give to the United Free Church a freedom which it did not previously possess, but that was not the fact. What
  1060
  had happened was this. The United Free Church conceived itself, until the House of Lords gave decision, to be the Free Church of Scotland as it had gone on from 1843. The House of Lords had said it was not so. It had said: "You are a new body altogether, you are not the old Free Church." That body did not wish any gift of freedom from the Government. It had its freedom already, and enjoyed it as a new body. Therefore, there was a complete misconception on the part of the Lord-Advocate, and it was one which was shared by his right hon. friend the Member for Partick. He saw nothing in the rest of the Bill to justify the introduction of this novel and highly controversial element. He thought this was a very great question to be undertaken at this part of the session. He ventured to believe that the proposed change was not accepted with perfect unanimity in the Established Church itself. They had all received statements purporting to come from organisations of the Church protesting against it, and he thought time ought to be given for the due expression of the opinion of the Established Church as to whether or not they desired this change to be made.
  There was one other point to which he wished to draw attention. It was the provision in this clause in regard to Universities. Now the House knew that it was only in the Faculty of Divinity in the Scottish Universities that tests were still imposed on the professors, all other tests having been abolished. The Royal Commission on the Scottish Universities was directed to make a special Report on this question. The Royal Commission made a special Report in 1892 in which, by a majority, they recommended the abolition of tests in the theological faculties. That Report was signed by extremely influential members—by Lord Elgin, by two Judges of the Court of Session, and by three gentlemen belonging to the Conservative Party; so that it was in no way a Party question. No Party issue was raised. This deliverance was given on the ground of what was best for Scotland and the Scotch Universities; and the majority of the Commission observed that to

  1061
  maintain the tests was most unfair to the other Churches. This Bill proposed not only to provoke and maintain, but it to aggravate, that feeling. Hitherto the tests had been imposed by Parliament, but this Bill proposed to leave it to an ecclesiastical body which was no longer representative of the nation, but only of a part of the nation, to impose any test it pleased upon the Chairs in the theological faculties of the national Universities. It declared the Universities to be pro tanto not national but denominational. That was an unheard of novelty and it had created great astonishment in Scotland that the Government should have taken the opportunity of this Bill to try to sectarianise the Scottish Universities. Although the tests had remained under the Established Church, it was in virtue of an Act of Parliament; they were not imposed by the Church itself. This was a matter which would require to be dealt with in Committee. He proposed to move an Amendment in Committee which would have the effect of throwing open these Chairs, as was proposed long ago by the Royal Commission, and, as he thought, the general opinion of Scotland desired.
  They were all glad that the Government should have chosen the Commission which they had done. They had confidence in the gentlemen composing that Commission, and wished that it should have, if possible, wider discretion than the Bill gave it, because they believed it would be wisely exercised, and that it was extremely difficult to state in the words of an Act of Parliament the precise principles which ought to be applied. He was quite sure they would all join in desiring for this Commission that blessing which had been promised to those whose labours made for peace.
  SIR MARK STEWARTsaid he desired to speak only a few words on this occasion. He must say he was somewhat disappointed in the latter part of the speech of the Tight hon. Gentleman opposite; but in the first part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman spoke very convincingly of the Bill as being all for the good, and
  1062
  he seemed to think that the Government had, on the whole, satisfactorily devised a scheme to adjust the claims of the two Churches. He also predicted that the Bill would have a comparatively easy passage through the House so far as his friends were concerned. He hoped that that would be the case. It was all-important that this Bill should be read a second time, and passed through all its stages as speedily as possible, to show the country that they Were all in earnest in it is matter. If that were not the case the result might be painful, and in some respects worse than painful. He did not wish to stir up any Party feeling whatever. He viewed this question from an entirely non-Party standpoint. They all knew the circumstances since the decision of the House of Lords was given. They also all knew that it was absolutely impossible to satisfy everyone concerned in every detail. There must be compromise, and there must be give and take. The Free Church in the meantime was master of the whole of the revenues as well as of the whole of the buildings and lands, and the United Free Church could hardly expect to get entirely what they had before; but, at the same time, they expected justice to be dispensed by the Commission. In that case he was satisfied that this Government Bill was the only engine to bring about that result, although he could not say he agreed with every sentence in it. On the whole the Bill was wisely conceived, and with the Amendments foreshadowed by the Lord-Advocate, especially as to the non-alienation of the trust monies and of the legacies, he thought it would be a very good Bill for the purpose they had in view.
  Let him say one or two words in regard to the fifth clause. The Leader of the Opposition asked why should not the elders be consulted as well as the ministers? The right hon. Gentleman really forgot the constitution of the Church of Scotland, by which one-half of the members of the General Assembly were elders. When they had this lay element in the General Assembly, and in the Presbyteries also, was it to be supposed that they would throw away any advantage, that they would not look on

  1063
  both sides of the question? The right hon. Gentleman said that this clause had been sprung upon the country. That was quite an inaccurate statement. The subject of the formula was mooted in 1877, and it had since been brought up five or six times in the General Assembly, and in divers ways. In 1889 there were sixty-four Presbyteries which approved of a relaxation of the formula, and only sixteen dissented, while four desired alteration. In 1900 the Presbytery of Auchterarder forwarded to the General Assembly an overture on the subject, and the attention of the General Assembly was called to it by Sir John Cheyne, the Procurator of the Church, who took a very active part in this matter. In 1901 a committee of the General Assembly presented a report on this overture, and in 1902 and 1903 the subject was discussed. In 1904 the resolution in favour of the relaxation of the formula was carried unanimously in the General Assembly. Therefore, it could not be said that the Church of Scotland or the people of Scotland were taken unawares on this matter. There was a general consensus of opinion in Scotland that the formula was obsolete. They were asked only to go back to the Act of 1690 from that of 1693, so that ministers might give a general assent to the Confession of Faith instead of making every word of that Confession their own. He thought this ought to be conceded to the Established Church of Scotland. In after years they would have in Scotland a strong Church like the Free Church. He would warn the House that the Free Church must be dealt with justly and fairly. It would not do to keep up old animosities. They could not forget that the Free Church had made great sacrifices for a cause which they believed to be sacred to their principles, and they had carried it out most nobly. The great point was whether one Church should get better terms than another, but they should bear in mind that union might be established between the three Churches, than which nothing could be better for Scotland. There was not such a difference between these great communities, and if they could help them by passing this Bill, and if the result were an United Presbyterian Church, they would have done more good to Scotland than would
  1064
  be done by any other measure they were likely to pass that session. There were many points which would have to be discussed in Committee, but he hoped the Second Beading would pass to-night, and that the Bill would be law within a few days.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH,speaking as a Free Churchman and as a Scotsman, said his point of view was not exactly the same as that of the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment. He was very familiar with the theological opinion of Scotland, having followed it for forty or fifty years, and he felt an amount of sympathy for a clause intended to give a certain amount of liberty to the Established Church of Scotland. His view was that Churches should assist each other as far as they could. He belonged to a Church which had assumed liberty and paid very heavily for it, but that was no reason why it should not assist any other Church in obtaining liberty. During the last few years almost every Presbyterian Church except the Established Church of Scotland had sought to change their subscriptions to the Confession of Faith, and he hoped the House would deal generously in the matter and give, as far as possible, substantial justice to that Church. He quite admitted the present was a very inexpedient moment to raise such a question as the rights of the Established Church, and if he thought that perseverance with the clause would imperil the Bill he would certainly vote against it, but he hardly thought that would be the case. He believed the opinion of Scotland was practically unanimous that such a change was necessary, and he reminded the House that there was a far wider breach between the Nonconformists of England and the English Church than was the case in Scotland. He doubted if there was a single intelligent man who believed everything contained in the Confession of Faith. It was drawn up in an age of religious persecution, and was full of persecuting principles, and so every Church had made declarations that they did not believe in those persecuting principles. He could not conceive anything more demoralising than to require a man

  1065
  to subscribe to doctrines he did not believe in, and if they once destroyed truth in a man they destroyed everything.
  He guarded himself against saying that it was not a reasonable thing to give to an Established Church some identity. He agreed with the right hon. "Member for Aberdeen that there must be some limit. There must be real identity in a Church. If it was to be an Established Church there must be some means of establishing identity. It was quite possible to see a union between the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland such as had taken place elsewhere. He suggested that in place of Clause 5 the Government should adopt the exact language used in the Assembly of the Established Church this year. A resolution was passed unanimously that everyone subscribing in future should subscribe to the Confession of Faith as containing the sum and substance of the reformed faith. That would tie them down to what might be called evangelical doctrines, from which no church could deviate. He believed himself that the feeling of Scotland was entirely in favour of this measure of relief.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he felt the same reluctance that other English Members felt in addressing the House on a matter which Scottish Members regarded as of a purely domestic character. But as he thought the clause to which the Amendment now before the House referred had a certain bearing on all Established Churches, he wished to be allowed, as a member of the Established Church of England, to say a few words. He did not wish to enter into the merits of this controversy between the United Free Church and the Free Church of Scotland. He did not share the view that no change was made in the status of the United Free Church by this Bill, because it would be open to that non-Established Church to remodel, not only its formula, but its subordinate standards and Confession of Faith without losing its property at the will of a bare majority, whilst the minority, however strong, would have no Parliamentary title. That was a considerable change. A similar change would be brought about by the clause under discussion with regard to the Established Church of Scotland, in so far
  1066
  as the formula of subscription was concerned. There was no question of relaxation about Clause 5. What was done by Clause 5 was that it abolished from the Statute book the present formula of subscription dating from 1693, leaving it to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to substitute such formula of subscription from time to time as seemed to them good. From the point of view of an Established Church that seemed to him to be a fundamental change, and he could not understand the frame of mind of those who thought the form of subscription was a secondary matter. It was perfectly true that the present intention of the General Assembly had been expressed in the direction of a relaxation of the formula of subscription, but practically what the State said to the Church of Scotland by the fifth clause was this "Your, subordinate standards and Confessions of Faith will remain on the Statute-book, but the terms by which you secure unity from your individual adherents can be modeled as you please, we want to know nothing about it, and no inquiries will be made." He thought that was a very remarkable change to bring about in the relations between the State and the Church as they had known it in this country, and even in some Continental countries.
  He could not understand the frame of mind of some hon. Members on his side of the House, who seemed to think that the real formula of subscription was quite a secondary matter. Why, in the Church of England it was everything. From his point of view, the formula was in some ways more important than the subordinate standards. If His Majesty's Government would only keep the formula of subscription in their minds they could almost do anything. So far from disestablishing Churches, he did not see why something should not be done to establish every Church. Why should not all their creeds be on the Statute-book? Why should not a formula be invented, a theological master-key, which would fit them all? The only drawback would be that you might have a Church so comprehensive that no one would comprehend it. If it were once recognised that formulæ of subscription were in some cases of more importance

  1067
  than the standards, then he thought they would appreciate the true bearings of this momentous change.
  With the terms of the Amendment before the House he did not altogether agree, but, to use a phrase which he thought not inappropriate, with "the sum and substance" of the Amendment he completely agreed. He had not the least desire to withhold spiritual liberty from the Established Church of Scotland. He wished to make that point clear. If it were a question of the relaxation of the formula of subscription, he would be the last man in the House to get up and oppose it. The Church of Scotland was so democratic that he had not the least fear of a relaxation, but what he did feel was that the Government in introducing this particular point had raised the whole question of Establishment as between Church and State. If the proposition were, as the hon. Gentleman who last spoke suggested, something that would give them in the Statute-book the formula which it was proposed to adopt, which would give to Parliament the power of review, then he thought there might be a great deal to be said for the clause as it would then appear. Bat the clause as now drafted appeared to him designed not to keep the Church in connection with the State, but to put all Established Churches in the extraordinary position that whilst the State maintained their standards upon its Statute-book it was to have no further real concern in their spiritual development.
  He did not see his right hon. friend the Prime Minister present, but for some time past he had felt the greatest desire to put to him one question: What did he think was meant by a State establishment of religion? He knew no man more competent to answer a question of this kind, and he would gratify the House if he would tell them what, when this Bill had been passed, was going to be left of the ideas which had hitherto governed the relations between Church and State. Surely a State, in choosing a particular Church to represent it, affirmed that in that Church lay the national idea of religion, and that that Church was the most proper vehicle for its expression. How was it
  1068
  then possible, putting aside all questions of temporalities and pounds, shillings, and pence, for the State to say, as he maintained it did, if it passed Clause 5, that it was absolutely of no concern what turn spiritual events might take in that Church, which was the national embodiment of religion? How was it possible for a member of the Church of England to contemplate without alarm a precedent of that kind, which possibly sooner or later might be applied to his own Church. He hoped the Government would see their way to modify the clause. As the country South of the Tweed became possessed of the real significance of it, he was quite convinced it would excite considerable apprehension. He sympathised so strongly in every fibre of his being with every Scotch sentiment in religion and with the warfare they had had to wage in times past for principles which he held dear, that he would be the very last man to do anything to arouse their susceptibilities, but, after all, there was a solidarity in the Establishment principle that could not be ignored. He hoped that this matter would be again considered by the Government. The General Assembly did not ask for what was proposed in the Bill. They asked for something much less and quite different, and he was quite sure if time were given for consideration some modification would be found possible which would enable them to withdraw opposition to a contentious clause in a Bill which they all desired should otherwise have a safe and speedy passage.
  MR. COMPTON RICKETTsaid he sympathised with the last speakers who said that it would be much better to leave Scotsmen to settle this question for themselves. Although they might be inclined to blame the United Free Church for want of consideration to the minority, they felt that by the introduction of the fifth clause in this Bill, England was brought into this question. They could not understand why a Clause which opened the whole question of the relaxation of creeds and the revision of trust deeds throughout the length and breadth of these islands should have been introduced accidentally in a Bill which

  1069
  touched a question largely of money, and which affected two Churches which were not established. It would not he very long before the effect of the judgment in the case of the United Free Church of Scotland would be felt among the Free Churches of England. Indeed, it was already being felt, and their trust deeds had been already challenged. It would probably be the fate of someone in the next session of Parliament to approach this House with a Bill relaxing the conditions under which trust deeds were interpreted, giving power to many more Churches than the United Free Church of Scotland to bring themselves in line with the spiritual feeling and intellectual standard of the thought of the day. A clause which laid down a principle so grave as that which was found in the fifth Clause of this Bill would naturally arouse suspicion, and be likely to create the impression that it was only the harbinger forecasting changes that might be introduced into the Established Church of England.
  There were two ways in which this clause had been approached. One was to minimise it by stating that it was merely declaratory, simply the interpretation of a great historic creed, a little relaxation of the bonds. If that were so, then they were asked to sanction words in the form of a declaration and to explain away statements in a nonnatural sense. They were to introduce into the theological arena a diffentiation of meaning in clear statements of fact. This was certainly demoralising and would not be entertained in the world of business or in the domain of philosophy. Therefore on moral grounds they would be justified in resisting the suggestion that they were to allow religious teachers in any part of the country to interpret a creed in a sense in which they would not interpret any other formula and which they would scout under the ordinary conditions of daily life in the intercourse of man with man. If on the other hand this minimising was declared not to be the form desired then, in fact, as some speakers had argued, it really meant a revolution in the creed of the Established Church of Scotland. She was free to open her windows to the
  1070
  light to get into touch with the thought; the culture; and the revelation of today.
  There could be a very great deal said in favour of the claim made on behalf of the Church of Scotland, and nobody realised more than he did the injury done to both countries from, he would not say the cast-iron, but the wrought-iron creeds which bound the religious bodies of to-day. The effect of it was shown in diminished attendance in churches, the want of support to religious movements, and the reaction in the spiritual and moral thought of the country. The liberty which was demanded was perfectly fair, and it should even go farther. To attempt to standardise the statements of theologians who lived 250 years ago, and to endeavour to encumber the thought of to-day, with its broader outlook and its larger knowledge with a fetish of ancient formulæ was doing great harm to religion, particularly among the working classes of the country. A great many of them on his side of the House, even a mongst Free Churchmen, were in favour of this relaxation of bonds, were they not arrested by the fact that for an Established Church, the Government of the country assumed a sponsorship and there must be some kind of definition of its faith. The State could not support a chameleon Church, differently coloured at one time and another. That was one of the great objections to the principle of an Establishment. On the one hand it was necessary for Parliament to undertake the duty of definition. To enter upon theological discussions was inappropriate to that House. Members of an Established Church were tied closely to formulas and creeds which they did not believe, and were driven to adopt every kind of expedient which intelligent men could devise in order to get behind them. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] With the freedom for which they asked, many in that House had much sympathy. How was that to be reconciled with the position of an Established Church?
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 10) (OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW IN COUNTY GALWAY.)
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he did not suppose that any one would deny that the inauguration of a period of coercion in the government of Ireland was a matter of the gravest possible import, and the fact that this coercion regime was not open and avowed made the matter all the worse. The complaint he had to make was that while the pretence was held out in England that Ireland was to-day being governed according to the ordinary law, in reality the Government had entered upon a course of government of the country under exceptional legislation, which did not exist in any other part of the United Kingdom or the Empire. He was not there to defend law-breakers, but what he did complain of was that men under those circumstances charged in Ireland were about to be tried, not under the ordinary law, but under an exceptional law which existed in Ireland alone. In September, 1902, the Coercion Act, which had not been in operation for some considerable time before that date, was suddenly put into operation over a great portion of Ireland. A considerable number of counties were proclaimed by the Lord-Lieutenant. Sections 2 to 4 were put in force in those districts. Section 2 provided for the total prohibition of trial by jury, and the trial of serious offences by tribunals, consisting of deputies of the Executive Government. Section 3 provided that in the case of trial by juries in those districts, the ordinary juries could be set aside, and what were called special juries empannelled for the trial of the case. These special juries consisted of holders of £100 and upwards valuation, and it was not necessary to point out to anyone acquainted with Ireland, that that meant a very select and a very small body of the population. Section 4 provided that a change of venue from one county to another might be carried out. British Members might say that special juries and change of venue were things not unknown in Great Britain. Quite so but those things in Great Britain were
  1072
  only to be obtained under the ordinary law by regular reasoned and argued motions made in the Courts, while under the sections he had quoted they were granted as a matter of course without any notice to the parties, without any argument—granted as a right on the motion of the Attorney-General. Under the provisions of the Act a number of people, including several Members of Parliament, were imprisoned.
  But a change came over the spirit of the dream of the Irish Government, and they were told that those methods were to be cast aside, and that, owing to the better spirit shown both by the Irish people and by their rulers, a new era was about to commence, and that the ordinary law was sufficient to govern Ireland. And one of Lord Dudley's first official acts was the revocation of the coercion proclamation. Section 2, the most offensive of those proclamations, was withdrawn absolutely, and Lord Dudley himself openly gloried in the fact that he was able to put an end to coercion. Speaking on February 11th, 1903, a few days after the revocation of those proclamations, Lord Dudley said—
  "Prophecy was always dangerous, especially in Ireland, but there was abundant reason to hope that they were entering upon a period when conditions would be very different from those of the immediate past. The reports from the country were satisfactory, and they were happily able lo remove much of the exceptional treatment which they had been obliged to impose in the earlier part of last year. He hoped with all his heart that those who were responsible for the Government of Ireland would never again be compelled to enforce treatment of this kind. Never in his life had he signed anything more gladly than the proclamation of last week" (that was the proclamation revoking the proclamation of the Coercion Act). "He believed, indeed, that there was a good time coming."
  At that time the general sentiment of England was that coercion had come to an end. Immediately after that speech the prison doors were opened, a number of Members of Parliament were released, and they were told that coercion was at an end. But it appeared now that all the time when that pretence was made (he did not use the word offensively with regard to Lord Dudley) that coercion was at an end in Ireland, the Government were keeping up their sleeve a stone in the shape of the powers under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act which now

  1073
  they were going to put into force. Three or four or five months ago a cry was raised by the Press of Great Britain and certain politicians in Ireland, that coercion should once again be put in force in Ireland, and a conspiracy was set on foot to delude the people of Great Britain into the belief that certain parts of Ireland were in a state of disturbance and crime. That conspiracy was set on foot, as he believed, with the direct intention of forcing the proclamation of Ireland under further powers of the Coercion Act, and once more abolishing trial by jury in those districts. They all knew what occurred—how bogus outrages were reported at full length in the London papers, how the changes were rung day after day upon them, and how in every single case of such an alleged outrage it was proved on investigation that the whole story was untrue and that no outrage had taken place at all. The truth was that no outrages had been committed in Ireland, and the country was to-day, as it had been during all those months, in a state of crimelessness and peace which compared most favourably with that in any part of England, Scotland, or Wales. The hollowness of that conspiracy was exposed, with the result that the plot failed.
  Another plan of campaign was then adopted, of trying to put in force those sections of the Crimes Act which were not revoked by Lord Dudley in 1903. At the present moment Galway was absolutely free from crime. The Recorder had recently said there was nothing unusual in the state of the country. But notwithstanding this fact the Government Lad arrested some fifty or sixty men, almost all of them connected with branches of the United Irish League, for trial on charges of unlawful assembly. His objection was that these men were not to be tried by any ordinary law but by juries made up of men who were their accusers. The object of the meetings which these men held was to promote the satisfactory working of the Land Act. He had visited this place of Galway. The situation there had been for a generation absolutely appalling. There was no spot in Ireland where so many magnificent grass lands were to be found, but alongside were these wretched congested
  1074
  districts where people could not wring from the soil sufficient to pay rent or to live. Unfortunately the district was cursed with landlords whose conduct could not be defended even by Colonel Saunderson—men who ground the faces of the poor and never made a concession to enable the people to eke out a livelihood. To these people the Land Act was a mockery; it had no meaning. These people had called upon the landlords to sell, and for the good of the country, and almost for the sake of humanity, to agree to enable the Act to work. There was no allegation that they did any violence or disturbance, and the only unlawful character attributed to the meetings was that they tried to bring public opinion to bear upon these men to put the Land Act in operation. The jury panel under which these people would be tried was made up entirely of landlords of the district and agents and graziers. Under such circumstances trial was a mockery, when one remembered that in addition the Attorney-General, as representing the Crown, through his position had the unlimited right of challenging any juryman who came into the box to be sworn and ordering him to stand aside.
  While the pretence of trial by jury was still kept up they were sent to a special panel struck under the Coercion Act and consisting of their enemies; and then, lest one of them might be fair, the Crown could come in and pick and choose any twelve men they liked of the lot. If it was his case he would prefer to be tried by a coercion tribunal of two magistrates under Section 2 rather than be tried under the formality of trial by jury when in reality there was no trial by jury at all. The provisions of this section had not been put in force for over two years, and that was the point of his asking permission to move the adjournment of the House. From the time that they were told that coercion would be dropped these provisions were permitted to remain a dead letter, but now, for some extraordinary and unexplained reason, they were resuscitated and put in force. He protested against this action. He said the Government ought either to have the courage of their convictions and proclaim these districts I under Section 2, abolish trial by jury, and

  1075
  try these men by two removables from Dublin Castle, or else they ought to leave trial by jury to its natural course. They were not doing one thing or the other. They had not the courage—courage was, perhaps, the wrong word to use in a case of this kind—they had not the audacity to proclaim Galway and abolish trial by jury nakedly and honestly, when in the view of their own Judges there was no crime in the district. On the other hand, they had not the fairness to allow these men to be tried by the ordinary tribunal. They had taken a middle course, and were relying upon nominal trial by jury on a specially selected and packed tribunal. This was a very serious matter. It meant the inauguration in Ireland of a coercion campaign, and of a mean, cowardly, and dishonest coercion campaign. He would far prefer that trial by jury should be openly abolished than that trial by jury should be maintained, while the substance and reality of it was filched away from the people. He would leave his hon. friends who were more intimately acquainted with the particular districts to amplify what he had said. He contented himself with declaring that he regarded this proceeding as the inauguration of a dishonest and cowardly campaign, and he invited the right hon. Gentleman, if he wanted to put in operation exceptional laws and powers in Ireland, to do so openly, and not to act in this way under the pretence of trial by jury.
  MR. ROCHEseconded the Motion. He said he would not have intervened in the discussion at all were it not that the vast majority of the men referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford were constituents of his own. He was thoroughly conversant with all the facts of the case. He happened to be present when two batches of prisoners were tried before a removable magistrate. He was aware of the treatment which some of these prisoners received at the hands of the constabulary, who, of course, were acting on the dictates of Dublin Castle. One batch of prisoners, numbering thirteen, were arrested between four and six in the morning. They were taken out of their feeds and were not allowed even to have their breakfast. They were driven into
  1076
  the Court House at Ballinasloe and kept there until about twelve o'clock, when they were brought before a removable magistrate. They had a farce of a trial, and were committed to appear before the Judge of Assize in about a fortnight hence. What he complained of in this particular matter was that the alleged offence took place more than a month previous to the morning of the arrest. During all that time recourse might have been had by the Crown to the ordinary law. The men might have been summoned, and he could assure the House that not one of them would have attempted to evade the summons or the responsibility attaching to it. But that would not gratify the graziers, landlords, and grabbers in the district. At the trial of four of the men, everyone of the witnesses swore positively that not the slightest intimidation was used towards them by the prisoners, and yet in face of that these four men were sent for trial—
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: No. Is it in order to discuss the evidence which witnesses will give at a trial that is now pending, and may take place within the next ten days?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: He is discussing the arrest of the men.
  MR. ATKINSON: No. I should not have intervened so long as he discussed the arrest, but he is now discussing the evidence that witnesses will give.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is very undesirable to discuss the evidence on which prisoners are going to be tried, and I am sure no hon. Member would wish to say anything which would prejudice the trial.
  MR. ROCHEassured the House that he had not the slightest desire to prejudice the trials. Another complaint he made was as to the jury panel. The qualification on this special jury panel was £100.
  MR. WALTER LONG: That is only one of the qualifications. I do not intend to suggest that the £100 is an essential

  1077
  qualification of a special jury, but what I mean is that a £100 is one of five qualifications.
  MR. ROCHEsaid some of the jurymen were in possession of farms from which tenants had been evicted. Did the House imagine that men of that stamp were going to mete out justice and fair-play to the unfortunate creatures who came before them? No matter what amount of coercion might be used he warned the government that it would fail, and that the people of the districts concerned were determined to have their rights under the Land Act. It was the wrong policy to try to govern the country by prosecuting the people. If the Government wanted to rule Ireland with peace they must adopt Lord Dudley's principle of governing the Irish people according to Irish ideas.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he was considerably satisfied that this debate had taken place, because the memory of the House of Commons and the country was short. The Motion and speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford served as a reminder to the House and the country that in some parts of Ireland the state of affairs, the state of opinion, and the state of politics, was practically as it was. If he had the temerity to address a Radical meeting in this country and he were to describe the condition of affairs in the agricultural parts of Ireland, not only would he not be believed but he should be called an Orange fanatic, traducing and caricaturing his country. He did not think that debate was meant for the House of Commons. He rather thought the debate was meant for Galway. Undoubtedly a debate of that kind might influence one or two men there, but whatever the Motion was meant for, one thing had astonished him in the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford. He said that the object of the meetings in Galway, the object of the National League in holding these meetings, was to further the successful performance of the Land Act. But in
  1078
  doing that why should they threaten? If hon. Gentlemen opposite contented themselves by holding meetings and explaining the Land Act and showing how the people could take advantage of it, he would be ready to admit that there was something in the hon. and learned Member's observation, but he could not understand how it came about that it was necessary not to advise but to threaten—
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: There were no threats.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid the tenants in Ireland who refused to obey the law of a certain society, of which the hon. and learned Member was chief, were threatened. Over and over again he used to point out that there were two laws in Ireland—the law of the land and the law of the League. In the hon. and learned Member's view the law of the League ought to be supreme. A grazier farmer in Galway who had grazed land for years—whose ancestors had grazed land for generations—and wanted to go on in the same way should be allowed to do so without let or hindrance. The hon. and learned Member and his friends said he should graze land no longer. Often he heard of friends of his saying they were going off to India to shoot tigers or to the Rocky Mountains to shoot bears. But he could point out to them how they could get equal excitement at far less expense. Let them become graziers. A grazier in Galway had just as much right to remain a grazier as he had to remain on his land in the North. Even some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had land, and they would think twice if they were asked to leave their land in order that somebody else should take their place. This was just one of those harmless devices that occurred from time to time in order to induce these graziers in Galway to give up the land they had held for many years. He would read them a resolution which had appeared in a report in the Connaught Leader on 18th February last. It was as follows—
  "That we strongly condemn the action of those who are not living in Clare Madden, as tenants or tenants' sons, to send proposals to

  1079
  the Estates Commissioners for farms while the tenants are able to occupy them as an addition to their small holdings, on which they have suffered for years, some of them living on two acres, whilst this land is their lawful right, and we protest against any outside interfering. It is not in keeping with the national spirit to do so, and we will use the sword of the United Irish League against any such cool-minded, so-called Nationalists."
  The sharpness of the sword of the National League depended a good deal on whether or not the Crimes Act was enforced. That Act had taken a good deal of the edge off. Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite did not want the Coercion Act to be put in force. He asked any law-abiding man would England, Scotland, or Wales tolerate any organisation to deliberately go outside the law of the land and proclaim that a man should, under the penalty of the sword of the League, give up his land. They would be accused of exaggeration if they were to tell the people of England that these things existed in Ireland. As far as the juries were concerned the hon. and learned Member for Waterford condemned them. He would really like to know what sort of jury Mr. Redmond would approve of.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I have said over and over again that no man should be tried in Ireland except by precisely the same sort of jury as he would be tried before in England.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid the House of Commons had decided that the ordinary law was not sufficient to deal with the law set up by the organisation of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Well, as far as the jurymen were concerned to try these gentlemen he said nothing. What the House must remember was that this action of hon. Gentlemen opposite—and they had a perfect right to take that action—was part of a policy. The attacks which they were making on the juries in Gal way—attacks which they made through the organisation of the National League—formed part of their policy. They held one view of that policy, and he held another. He did not judge the prosperity of Ireland by the amount of wealth in Ireland. He had always objected to that test, and when he had brought figures for-
  1080
  ward—and figures were awkward things—to show that Ireland was more prosperous hon. Gentlemen opposite rather demurred. Their argument was that population was the test of prosperity in Ireland. He did not hold that view. He looked at two well-to-do Irishmen as indicating more prosperity than six poor, struggling Irishmen. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite disagreed with him. They desired that Ireland should be a great congested district—[NATIONALIST cries of "Oh!"]—composed, as far as he could make out, of priests, patriots, and paupers. That did not accord with his view of the prosperity of his countrymen. Irishmen were as intelligent as any other nation in the world, and he believed that if an intelligent Irishman was offered the alternative of becoming possessed of four or five acres of land or of going to America, Australia, or other countries where Irishmen always flourished, he would choose the latter. He did not think the proposal to break up grass lands, which had produced large numbers of cattle, and fill them up with a population unaccustomed to agriculture, to grow turnips and potatoes, would secure the prosperity of Ireland. On that point hon. Gentlemen opposite and himself were absolutely opposed. They had the right to ask this Government, or any Government deserving of the name, to secure even for the grazier the right which every subject of the King possessed to live unmolested on his own land.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid he had followed this debate with some interest, because it referred to matters affecting the county he had the honour to represent. The speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh were somewhat entertaining but not convincing. He had observed since he came into the House that the chief object the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to have in addressing this House was to poke fun at the expense of the majority of the people of Ireland. If legislation of a beneficial character which had been passed for Ireland were looked over, and if the debates which preceded the bringing about that legislation were studied, it would be found that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was

  1081
  invariably opposed to that legislation, and to-night he continued that rôle.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what beneficial legislation I have opposed?
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: All the Land Acts, with the exception of the last one, which was of special benefit to himself. There was one remark which ought not to have come from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and that was in dealing with the poverty of the people of Ireland. He made it practically a crime for the people of Ireland to be poor; and he pointed out that in other countries where just laws prevailed Irishmen had risen from poverty to affluence. But why should Irishmen remain poor in Ireland? He maintained that the cause of the poverty of Ireland was the unfortunate, drastic, criminal, and cruel laws which, at the instigation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the section he represented, had been passed by this House against Ireland. The people of Ireland had property, but it was stolen from them; they had means, but they were taken from them by the Party and class to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman belonged, as was shown by the past history of their country. Poverty, therefore, should not be thrown into the teeth of Irishmen by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Irishmen might be poor in their own land, but it was through no fault of their own. When they had a fair field they were able to rise to the highest positions, even in the British Government as represented in other lands. The Grand Dukes, who had long held sway in Ireland, were the very men who had brought about the poverty of the country. When one of his colleagues in the county of Galway pointed to men who had been taken from their homes at four o'clock in the morning, not allowed to get breakfast, and put into a cart to be dragged to prison, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General burst out into laughter. Was that a laughing matter? They might imagine they could afford to laugh; but they had not the confidence of the Irish people. They had never made a sacrifice for Ireland, and only drew their £7,000 a year! They
  1082
  were the judges and prosecutors in this case, and they laughed at their victims. They were the last men in this House who should laugh at this matter. In the King's Speech, at the beginning of the session, Ireland had no mention; but now they were to get coercion until the next general election had passed. The representatives of the majority of the people of Ireland would see to it that even the strong man who had been sent to Ireland as Chief Secretary would not have it all his own way in grinding down the people without having his conduct exposed in this House, and to the people of the country.
  During his eight years' residence in Ireland he had been told that the people were struck down and batoned, but he had never seen anything of it until the case under discussion arose. He went to address a meeting in his county of Galway, and had no idea that that meeting would be forbidden by the authorities on the benches opposite, and had no reason to expect it. When he arrived at the meeting place he was confronted with a few hundred policemen. He had seen political life in other countries, and had been a Member of another House within the limits of the British Empire. Hon. Members boasted of the loyalty of the colonial possessions and of the attachment of Australia and Canada to the motherland; but if they attempted to commit such deeds as he had described in these lands, he wondered how long they could boast of having them They knew what the policy of the Chief Secretary was in respect to the western portion of Ireland. The facts were brought out by the I Leader of the Irish Party. Crime was the excuse for the imposition of this coercion policy. That day his hon. friend who represented the city of Limerick asked if the Judge of Assize in that district had been presented with white gloves, and the answer was "yes." The fact was that there was no crime there. And what occurred last week in Galway? There were only nine cases set down at the Assizes, five of which were for malicious injury, I but not one of these five had been proved—all were dismissed. Crime was not at the bottom of this matter. It was

  1083
  that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite wished that persecution and prosecution should go hand in hand so that they might get some substance for their speeches on July 12th! He knew that the Attorney-General, when he came to reply, would mention that there were threatening letters. Fortunately some of these letters had appeared in the Press in England, when it was seen that there were practically no threats. What were the facts? Any man who went to the West of Ireland would at once be struck not only by the poverty of the people, but by the sight of ruined homes, evicted holdings, and big grazing farms. The right hon. Gentleman asked what right they had to dispossess a grazier from his farm? He, in return, asked what right had they to dispossess the poor people who were born on that land of their small holdings and give them over to the graziers The result of all this policy was that the people were still fleeing to other lands to try and get there what they could not obtain in their own. He held that the land of Ireland should belong to the people of Ireland, who should be allowed to live there; and that the legislation should not be such as to make them hate the law. This House passed the Land Act in 1903 because it was said that it would bring peace and prosperity to Ireland. Why was it that peace and prosperity had not come? It was because the landlords would not sell, and because the people could not get the land which should be theirs. The people of Ireland had a right to meet together as the people of England, Scotland, and every other civilised country were allowed to meet for the purpose of forming a combination and keeping public opinion alive as to their wants and necessities. But, in the West of Ireland, they were forbidden to meet, and if they did meet they were dragged off to prison at four o'clock in the morning. He protested against such treatment, and against the policy initiated by the Chief Secretary in the West of Ireland. But, in view of the successes which had been won in spite of the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Irish Members had no fear for the future. They were satisfied that in this, as in many other struggles, the people would get their
  1084
  land, and that the miserable policy of coercion would fail.
  MR. GORDONsaid that there were two things which struck him in reference to the Motion. In the first place, so far as he could ascertain for himself, the matter which it dealt with was not urgent. It had reference to a state of affairs which began on September 1st, 1902, when this Act of which they had been hearing so much was applied to all these districts. From that date to this nothing had been heard about it. But suddenly, when the Act interfered with the progressive ideas of the United Irish League, it was found to be a matter of urgent public necessity to discuss it! In the second place, from the speeches made that night, it was perfectly obvious that the ideas of those on that side of the House of right and wrong, of crime and innocence, were as far asunder as the poles from those of hon. Members opposite. The views of hon. Members who had spoken were the same as those of the people in the West of Ireland, but they were absolutely different from the views of every right thinking and law-abiding man in England and Scotland. They said that the small farmers in Ireland ought to have large farms which were legally in the hands of other farmers so that these might be divided amongst them. He held that the graziers who were acting within the law ought to have the protection of the law. It was said that under the Act of 1903 these lands were to be acquired and divided, arid because the lands had not been acquired, the people should take the law into their own hands, and that they were absolutely justified in bringing every possible influence to get possession of these grazing lands. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that the people were perfectly right, and he admitted that the object of these meetings was to get the grazing farms broken up.
  MR. ROCHEasked if the hon. Gentleman would deny that, during the passing of the Land Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover said that the grazing farms would be broken up?
  MR. GORDONsaid that even if that were so that did not abate one jot or tittle his argument that it was absolutely-indefensible to seek to bring that about by illegal means. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that the meetings in the West of Ireland were only to bring public opinion to bear on the matter. He would read a couple of resolutions which had been passed at there meetings. They had a plan of attempting to drive out all graziers in order to get their farms divided up amongst themselves. Did hon. Members opposite contend for a moment that resolutions of that kind came within the four corners of the law. These gross attacks were made upon the people who had a right to keep those grazing farms in their possession, and these resolutions appeared in such local papers as the Connaught Leader, in order that everybody in the Ideality should know all about it. The unfortunate grazier was not only subjected to words of abuse, but he often found that his liberties were curtailed and his freedom of dealing with others restricted, and probably his own life would be threatened and his cattle injured.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the hon. and learned Member quote to the House a single case?
  MR. GORDONsaid he would call the attention of the House to another resolution. [NATIONALIST cries of "Withdraw," and an HON. MEMBER: You are slandering your own countrymen.] He was glad to say that his own countrymen were law-abiding citizens. That kind of abuse they were all used to. On January 1st this year another resolution was passed by a different branch—
  "Referring to communications received in answer to letters sent to graziers we wish to state that we will no longer tolerate such a system—"
  [NATIONALIST cheers]. He really was sorry that they could not call upon representatives on both sides of the House from England and Scotland to hear those cheers. The resolution continued—
  "tolerate such a system in our parish, and hope those gentlemen will reply to us by surrendering their farms on the 1st of April
  1086
  next, or if they do not" (and this was the cream of the matter) we beg to state that we will bring public opinion to bear upon them very quickly."
  Public opinion! They knew the form it took there. But, after all, was this to go on or was it to be stopped? If it were to be stopped was it of any use putting into the jury box the men who were the members of the same branch of the League at which those resolutions were passed to try the men who passed them? But what was the terrible thing that was being done? They had under the law provision for common juries and special juries in Ireland, and if a man had an action which might involve every farthing he had in the world, he had a perfect right to get a special jury of that county. That special jury panel was composed of people a little better off, and who perhaps "had less sympathy with crime, and having less sympathy with crime they were chosen in the ordinary way to administer the ordinary law. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh, oh!"] Was not the proper and reason able way to have a jury who would act fairly and reasonably in the matter? Did the hon. Gentlemen who cried "Oh" assert that the special juries of Galway were as a body unworthy of trust? He was surprised to hear it. He could quite understand it if those so-called bogus cases were taken away to some other parts of the country, but they were tried in the county. Was it creditable that representatives of Ireland made that gross charge against the special juries of their own country?
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: It is against the principle.
  MR. GORDON: I do not think the hon. Member would think much about the principle if he did not fear that it would result in putting an end to what every man deplores. The House ought to reject this belated Motion, and reject it by an overwhelming majority. He was not going to contradict what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said about the Recorder of Galway, because he had not himself heard his speech, but the Recorder of Galway dealt with the urban area as well as the county. Sitting in Galway

  1087
  he would be dealing primarily with the urban constituency. ["No, No!"]
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: All those cases which I referred to—cases of malicious injuries were from the county.
  MR. GORDONwas not aware of that, but the fact remained that those meetings had been held, those resolutions had been passed, and meetings had subsequently been held so as to try if they could give effect to them. Those things were in existence, and if the law were applied to put them down that House ought to express its strong approval of such application of the law.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid he did not think that the House of Commons, had ever listened to such a deplorable exhibition as the speech they had just heard from the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. This exhibition of inaccurate statements and bad temper was due to the desperation of a Chancery lawyer—[Mr. Gordon here left the House]—who ran away when his statements were challenged. That was quite characteristic of a man whose one ambition was to become a removable magistrate in his own country. When he rose to point out the gross manner in which the hon. and learned Member had misrepresented what the Recorder had said he deliberately walked out of the House, and refused to listen to his reply. He commended to the attention of hon. Members opposite the tactics pursued by the hon. and learned Member who had abused and attacked his own countrymen, and had based his impeachment of the Nationalist movement upon a series of inaccuracies. There was not a single incitement to crime or outrage, and not a single angry word in any of the resolutions which the hon. and learned Member had read to the House, and yet upon those resolutions he based his statement that Ireland was seething with incitement to outrage. He could well understand how difficult it was for a Unionist Member of this House to understand the real situation in Ireland when the hon. and learned Member opposite was the type of Unionist who, in the name of the Union, came to the House of Commons and made the
  1088
  most scandalous charges against his countrymen which were based upon absolute falsehoods.
  The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had given them once-more the same old grotesque jokes and witticisms which were not witty, the same old attacks upon his own countrymen, and the same old appeals to the ignorance of his British listeners. Neither he nor any of his colleagues had brought forward a scintilla of evidence for the charges they had made. The hon. and gallant Member had stated that politics were just the same as they used to be. He wished to remind the House that only the other night Lord Castlereagh, the son of Lord Londonderry, was hounded out of a place in West Down by the Orangemen of the North. He ventured to predict that the hon. and learned Chancery lawyer opposite, who always grew enthusiastic, when attacking his own countrymen, would also be hounded out of South Derry at the next election. The hon. and learned Member for South Derry, it, should not be forgotten, sailed into Parliament on the cry of compulsory purchase in Ulster, and the very first vote he gave in this House was against compulsory purchase. He would, no doubt, go back to his constituency to give an account of his stewardship, and then he would once again appeal to their religious passions, to crime in the West of Ireland, and other considerations which would arouse racial hatred. Probably there would be no need for him to again face the electors of South Derry, because his ambition would probably be satisfied by an appointment as a removable magistrate, and then he would be able to put the Crimes Act into force himself. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had justified the existence of these large grazing ranches by saying that Ireland was a splendid country where grazing could be profitably carried on, and, in fact, that it was the fruitful mother of flocks and herds. "The hon. and gallant Member did not say that when the Land Act was before the House. The reason why the Nationalist Members accepted the Land. Act was because they believed that it would restore the evicted tenants to their

  1089
  holdings. In this way they were anxious that a brave and noble peasantry should spring up under decent conditions, instead of being compelled to go to America to be a source of bitterness and ill-feeling against the British Empire, and who would be a force which would have to be reckoned with in any possible differences between this country and America. The hon. and learned Member opposite had sneered at public opinion, but, perhaps, he would give the House a Chancery interpretation of how to solve a problem or undo a wrong without enlightening public opinion upon it. How was the Workmen's Compensation Act brought about, except by public opinion? By public speeches in Ireland, by riveting public attention on the grievances of Ireland, and by giving expression to Irish public opinion in that House, they had extorted from that House every remedial measure that had been passed for Ireland. And merely because they had adopted that constitutional method of calling attention to the condition of the West of Ireland the Coercion Act had been put in force, and sixty honest, decent men were dragged before a jury packed by the right hon. packer, the Attorney-General. He was much amused when the right hon. Gentleman jumped up and said that the £100 qualification was only one of the qualifications necessary for a juror. Possibly that was one of the things which the right hon. Gentleman learned whilst driving through Ireland in a motor-car during the Easter holidays. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what the other qualifications were when he replied.
  The Prime Minister, the Member for Dover, and the Chief Secretary had admitted that there could be no proper solution of the land question unless the congested districts problem was satisfactorily solved. flow was he going to solve it? By imprisoning the men who asked him to put the Land Act into operation? This was the strong Chief Secretary who was going to put down all agitation in Ireland, and to rule the nation with a happy hand, and the first thing he did was to bring the Coercion Act into operation again, because it would satisfy Lord London derry and the Unionist Members, and
  1090
  so that he should stand well with the ascendency class. It would be a great deal more manly thing to suspend trial by jury altogether, and to impeach these men before a tribunal consisting of two men in positions to which they had been raised by the ambitions of hon. Gentlemen opposite; thereby doing the thing fair and straight before the people of Ireland and England. But the Chief Secretary said they would proceed by trial by jury, and he proceeded to pack the jury. They were told that this was equal law, and that Ireland was governed by the same system as operated in England. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted war in Ireland he would get it. Stronger and abler men than he had endeavoured to settle the Irish question by coercion, but there never was a Chief Secretary, from Mr. Forster down to the Member for Dover, who had not learned that John Bright was right when he declared that coercion was no remedy for Irish discontent
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,said it was not necessary for him to say, after the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that he rose with the greatest possible misgiving to take part in the debate. The hon. Gentleman had delivered a powerful speech, the great part of which consisted in a great deal of advice to him (the Chief Secretary). They had heard the old familiar statement that it was no use to try and maintain the law in Ireland.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Who said that? Did I say it?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman even when he made a most offensive and unfounded charge against himself. He had not stated his words, but he had stated what he thought was the effect of his speech. He adhered to what he had said. He allowed the hon. Gentleman to have his opportunity to traduce him and his character, and the least he could do was to let him have his say. He had warned him that fate would overtake him as it had overtaken his predecessors and that he ought to be

  1091
  dismayed. He had tried to find in: the hon. Gentleman's speech some reference to the Motion before the House. That Motion was one for the adjournment of the House, moved by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, upon grounds which he liberally laid down, namely, that a great and serious crisis had arisen-in which recourse was being made to coercive legislation. After that speech, how much had they heard of trials by special jury? The House would hardly believe that the whole of the case of coercion, as it was called, rested upon the action of the Executive in employing special juries. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was very severe upon him because he said his interruption of the hon. Member for Galway was altogether irrelevant, and he sneered at his knowledge of Irish law, because he suggested that he interrupted that hon. Gentleman incorrectly when he stated that the £100 qualification was one of the qualifications of the special juror. That was not his interruption. He rose for the purpose of reminding the House that the hon. Gentleman was not quite correct when he sought to represent that there was only this particular qualification attached to everybody who served on a jury. As the hon. Gentleman knew, there were five classes who were covered by the special jury selection, and the class to which he referred was only one of the five. The main charge made was that they were falling back on coercion, but what on earth had that got to do with the question of the special jury? The House would hardly believe that they had heard in the debate that by employing a special jury they were trying these men by people who were prejudiced against them. He could not help thinking that this argument was double-edged. What was the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite? It was that the Government could not trust a common jury to try the men, and that they therefore brought forward a special jury. What was their position? They could not trust a special jury or the Motion would not have been made. The allegation was that the special jury would be composed of men who were interested on one side or were not impartial. He would give the House the panel exactly
  1092
  as it was returned to him, and he would leave it to the House to decide whether there was any foundation for the charge that the employment of the special jury involved the assumption of unfair treatment of those tried. The numbers given were 293, and they were classified in the following way gentlemen and proprietors, eighty three farmers, 148 merchants, thirteen; shopkeepers, thirty-eight; hotel keepers, two; clerk, one; no special classification, seven; grazier, one. He submitted to the House that that was not a very solid foundation on which to raise the charge that by empannelling a special jury they were reverting to coercion and cruel treatment of the Irish people and were instituting an unfair trial.
  What was the second indictment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because his was really the only speech in which they found any attempt to justify the case put forward? He returned to the old familiar charge about a conspiracy which created crime in order to justify coercion, but he was glad to observe that he did not accompany it by other-charges that they had in the debate in May last. He contented himself with repeating the charge that there had been within the last three or four months in the Press both in England and Ireland a conspiracy which had for its object a return to coercion. The House perhaps, would be interested to know that so far as the Irish Government was concerned—and he was speaking not only for the Irish Government since he had been responsible for it, but also for the Irish Government before he became the Chief Secretary—it had never been actuated in its policy either in Ireland or England by any statements in regard to crime in the public Press in regard to which they had not been able to satisfy themselves there was foundation. He regretted as much as the hon. and learned Gentleman could do that in the Press either of England or of Ireland statements should be made in regard to alleged crime unless those statements had been most carefully tested and sifted, and unless they could be justified. Such statements might not only be justly described as an offensive libel on the county concerned, but they were themselves a most serious

  1093
  impediment to the maintenance of order. He would be the last to deny that cases of this kind had occurred. There had been statements both in the English and Irish Press of alleged outrage when there was no foundation whatever. On the other hand, he would repeat that the Irish Government, not only since he had been responsible for it but during the time of his predecessor, had never acted in Ireland or in that House upon allegations of that kind, never had they been included in their list of agrarian outrages, and never had they justified their action in Ireland by reference to any crimes of that kind. They had satisfied themselves that the facts were as stated, and had acted only as they believed their duty pointed, solidly in one direction. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was the dawn of a new era of coercion, and he said that for some years these particular sections of the Crimes Act had not been put in force. He confessed he listened with some surprise to the reference he made to the Lord-Lieutenant. He had never heard the Lord-Lieutenant quoted when he could not be quoted in opposition, as it was believed, to the Chief Secretary of the day, and what a poor compliment the hon. and learned Gentleman paid the Lord-Lieutenant if he accurately described his conduct! He described the Lord-Lieutenant as having signed with delight the proclamation which would put into operation these sections of the Coercion Act, and he proceeded to denounce the Executive for their action. But what an extraordinary position, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had rightly described him, that put the Lord-Lieutenant in! He was Lord-Lieutenant when the so-called policy of conciliation was adopted, and he was Lord-Lieutenant to-day. Did the hon. Gentleman suggest that while he was willingly Lord-Lieutenant then he was unwillingly Lord-Lieutenant now? If he did not, his reference to the Lord-Lieutenant was uncalled for, and his attempt to create a difference between the head of the Irish Executive and the Chief Secretary was one unworthy of the position he held.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid his reference to the Lord-Lieutenant was made with no such intention at all.
  1094
  His quotation from the Lord-Lieutenant was to show that they were led to believe that at that time coercion was over and was dead and gone. Now it appeared that was wrong, and there was a revival of coercion. Of course, he quoted the Lord-Lieutenant's own words. He should be sorry to do anything unfair to the Lord-Lieutenant. If there were any difference between the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. Gentleman it was not for him to say.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Oh, no! I was not referring to what the Lord-Lieutenant said. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he had no fault to find with the Lord-Lieutenant.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: No, I said I did not question his sincerity when he made the speech I quoted, and I do not still question his sincerity. Your interpretation was not what I intended at all.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that in that case he would not pursue the point further. He would return to that part of the question that this was the dawn of a new era of coercion. He did not want to make reference to any action or policy of his predecessor in order to justify the action for which he was responsible, but, at the same time, it must be remembered that the two sections under which that action was taken had been in force for four years, that they were put in force by his predecessor, that they had never been repealed, that in the year 1902 they were acted upon by his predecessor in several cases, and that in July, 1903, the late Chief Secretary exercised the same powers which had been exercised by the Irish Government now. He thought, therefore, he was not unfairly straining his language when he said that it was not quite a fair description of the case to say that these sections had been in abeyance for a long time and had been suddenly revived, when it was a fact that in the time of his predecessor they were used in cases both agrarian and non-agrarian as late as July, 1903.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the case?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was a case of riot and unlawful assembly, tried at Cork in July, 1903. The defendants pleaded guilty, and were discharged on their own recognisances. It was the very kind of case they were now discussing. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken about the present condition of Ireland. He (the Chief Secretary) had said before that he rejoiced to know that in regard to many of the classes of crime which had figured in the history of Ireland the condition of the country at the present moment was far more satisfactory than it had been. He shared in the wish that the benches opposite had been as well filled as they were at the present moment.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The other side as well?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman mistook his reason. He was not suggesting blame to the Leader of the Opposition, whose duties he was sure were sufficiently onerous to justify him not being present, nor was he suggesting blame to the right hon. Gentleman's friends for not being present. He wished they had been present for reasons which would not exist in the case of his hon. friends behind him; he wished they had been present because their presence would have enabled them to appreciate, as they could in no other way than by being brought personally in contact with them, the difficulties with which they had to deal. It was perfectly true that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had cheered sentiments which hon. Gentlemen opposite would-regard as altogether repugnant and detestable if applied to their own constituents. If it were represented to hon. Gentlemen representing county constituencies that the same pressure was to be brought to bear upon owners and occupiers of land in their constituencies to give up their land in order that it might be used for other purposes, however beneficial, as was to be brought upon the graziers of Ireland, he did not believe there was one hon. Member who would not repudiate, and repudiate with indignation, any such attempt. Yet that night the announcement of those views had been received with unqualified applause. There were
  1096
  other directions in which they must judge the condition of the county. When it was said there was a diminution in overt crime, that was not insufficient by itself to enable them to judge of the actual condition of the country. They had heard a great deal about grazing farms. In 1903, in the East Riding of Galway, there were nine farms and 1,670 acres of land unlet. In 1905 the number of farms had grown to forty-five and the acreage to 6,074. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered that as a satisfactory result. It was the result of the agitation they had been carrying on. This result had not been brought about by the voluntary surrendering of these lands, but they had been given up by men who would willingly have continued to hold them, bat were afraid to do so because of the agitation conducted against them. The number of agrarian crimes must be regarded as an indication of the peace of the county or the reverse. From January 1st to May 30th, 1904, the number was seventy-five, of which forty-two were cases of threatening letters. During the same period in 1905 the number was 127, of which eighty were cases of threatening letters. Hon. Members received any reference to threatening letters with derision, but he believed that, if they were in the position of the people who received them, they would not regard them with so much contempt. The small cottier and the small farmer in Ireland were told, and they had been told in the House that night, that their continuance in their holdings was an outrage to those among whom they lived. If that intimation was accompanied by strong language and threats, was it to be wondered at that they should be alarmed?
  He was inclined to believe that if those hon. Members who sat for English constituencies, and who were inclined to sneer at the dangers of these men, were placed in the same position, they would be the first to demand that the law of the land should give them protection. The hon. and learned Gentleman and his supporters had denounced the Government because they had fallen back on special dries. He thought he had shown there was justification for special measures in the condition of things in some parts of the country. Whether or not

  1097
  he had satisfied the House in that respect, he was content to fall back on the general proposition that he believed it to be the duty of the Government to give protection to all and to enable all to do their duty in the way they thought right, so long as they acted within the law. If in maintaining those principles he was guilty of the charge which was levelled against him by hon. Gentlemen opposite, all he could say was that he would bear it with considerable equanimity. He had reason to know that what had been said in the House that evening did not represent the views of all the people who were most intimately concerned. He had reason to believe there were many small farmers, graziers, and tenants in Ireland who, whatever might be their political views, were anxious that there should be freedom and that they should have the protection of the law. It had been said with great unfairness that the beneficial operations of the Act of 1903 had been interfered with by the action of his right hon. and learned friend. There was no shadow of foundation for that charge. The Land Act had gone steadily forward. So anxious were hon. Gentlemen opposite to drive home the charge of coercion that they had not said a word of acknowledgment of the good work which had been done by the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board in the direction they had advocated—namely, the turning of the uneconomic into an economic holding, Great steps had been taken in that direction. There were large districts which had been already turned into economic holdings. The responsibility lay with hon. Gentlemen opposite for retarding the operations of the Act if they made speeches supporting a policy which sought to bring grass land into the market by illegitimate and coercive measures rather than by supporting the policy of maintaining the law and carrying out the development of the Land Act of 1903 by legitimate and peaceful methods.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that one of the reasons why the Nationalist Members gave the Act of 1903 their support was that they believed the measure would deal primarily with the congested districts and
  1098
  the evicted tenants. The district which was the subject of this Motion was the one district of all others in Ireland where they looked for a remedy under the Act of 1903, and yet they found that instead of being dealt with the old conditions remained practically the same, the land still remained unoccupied, men were still evicted, and the war between Lord Clanricarde and his tenants still continued. It was a dishonest argument to bring the foul shadow of crime over this discussion when all over Ireland the Judges were receiving white gloves because there was no crime in Ireland. He knew that in Ireland in times of excitement strong statements were frequently made. He could, if necessary, give instances of similar statements having been made in this country. He confessed that he had listened with some trepidation to the reading of those terrible resolutions which had been read to the House by the hon. and learned Member opposite. What did they state? They simply stated that they would bring the force of public opinion to bear in order to see that the Land Act was carried out in those districts, and in his opinion they were quite justified in taking that course. Were the people of a country which was bleeding at every pore from the effects of bad government to be blamed because they insisted upon their holdings being increased under the operation of the Land Act by the addition of the untenanted land which was now given up to sheep and cattle grazing? They would not be men and patriots if they did not protest against this state of things, and bring public opinion to bear in order to obtain what was promised them at the passing of the Land Act. What was the remedy of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? To put in force the Coercion Act. One would imagine from the euphemistic language of the right hon. Gentleman that the Coercion Act was one of the mildest and most innocuous processes of law that could possibly be, and the Attorney-General for Ireland assumed an air of pious and saint-like attachment whilst this beautiful system of special juries was being described by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. What did a special jury mean? The right

  1099
  hon. Gentleman had read out a list, but a more monstrous attempt at mystification was never before attempted in the House of Commons. He said there was only one grazier on this particular jury, but as a matter of fact there was practically nothing else but graziers upon it. Every man on that jury must have a valuation of £100. That meant that he must possess in Ireland 100,200, and even 300 acres of land, and only graziers possessed that amount of land. Who were the men who sat upon these juries? They were landlords and land-agents. Mr. Tennant was one of them, and he was the land agent for Lord Clanricarde. That was the kind of jury before which these poor tenants, were going to be tried. Besides this the Crown had an unlimited right of challenging jurymen, and he ventured to say that upon this particular jury the Crown would use its right of challenge until in the end these poor Irish, Catholic, Nationalist peasants would be tried by twelve of their bitterest opponents in creed, in class, and in interest. To call that trial by jury was a mockery. He wished to say a word or two about jury-packing. The right hon. Gentleman accused them of calumny when they
  charged these special juries with deciding against the weight of evidence. Had the Attorney-General never heard of the name of Sheridan. Why was Sheridan able to send four or five men to prison for six and twelve months, and for penal servitude, in Sligo? Why was Sheridan, able to send those four men to prison for a crime which he and his colleagues had committed with their own hands? Simply because the Attorney-General did in Sligo what he was now proposing to do in Galway, that was to put into the jury box the political, the religious, and the class opponents of the poor wretches who stood in the dock. By that means, as the result of the blind class hatred which unfortunately still divided Ireland, they were able to secure convictions in the Sheridan case upon evidence on which any body of impartial men would have dismissed the prisoners. That was the issue which they were trying to-day, and that was a specimen of the equal laws and the equal justice which the Government were meting out to Ireland.
  Question put—
  The House divided:—Ayes, 136; Noes, 17G. (Division List No. 240.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Doogan, P. G.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Duffy, William J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Joyce, Michael

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Elibank, Master of

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (CavanW

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Ellice, Capt E.C (SAndrw's Bghs

  Kilbride, Denis

  Boland, John

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Lamont, Norman

  Brigg, John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Langley, Batty

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Ffrench, Peter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark NE

  Leigh, Sr Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Buxton, N. E. (York NR Whitby

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lough, Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Lundon, W.

  Cameron, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift-

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hammond, John

  M'Crae George

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Harcourt, Lewis

  M'Kean, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harwood, George

  Mooney, John J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Moss, Samuel

  Cremer, William Randal

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Muldoon, John

  Crombie, John William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Murphy, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Rose, Charles Day.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Russell, T. W.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Dowd, John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  O'Malley, William

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Wills, Arthur W. (N. Dorset)

  Partington, Oswald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Slack, John Bamford

  Young, Samuel

  Priestley, Arthur

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Reddy, M.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr Patrick O'Brien.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Sullivan, Donal

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  NOES.

  Agnew Sir Andrew Noel

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Fison, Frederick William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Forster, Henry William

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Montague, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs)

  Myers, William Henry

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'ry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bingham, Lord

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Bond, Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bowles, Lt. Col. HF. (Middlesex

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Brassey, Albert

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. NW

  Percy, Earl

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Helder, Augustus

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford. W

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Bull, William James

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Butcher, John George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, John S.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A. (Worc)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chapman, Edward

  Kerr, John

  Renshaw, Sir Chas. Bine

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Keswick, Wiliam

  Renwick, George

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S

  Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanarks

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)

  1102

  1103

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Tuff, Charles

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

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)

  Stroyan, John

  Turnour, Viscount

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Walrond, RtHn Sir William H.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Talbot, RtHn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

WAR STORES (COMMISSION) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for the Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he did not know whether it was the intention of the Government to press this Bill through this evening, but if so he should like to ask the Attorney General a question. He understood that there was no compulsion in regard to the proceedings under this Bill. He believed that there was a general desire, both inside and outside of this House, that the whole proceedings of this Commission should be open to the Press. Already there had been a great mount of secrecy in regard to the questions to be dealt with, and he hoped the Attorney-General would be able to give them some reassuring statement in regard to this point. He was aware that it was open to them last night to move Amendment securing this object, but as they were anxious to facilitate the business they refrained from moving any such Amendment. As things stood at present the whole matter was in the hands of the Commission. That might be a wise course or it might not, but he thought that there ought to be some instruction given by this House in the matter. The public were deeply interested in this matter, and he hoped the Attorney-General would tell them what the desire of the Government was in regard to this point.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he also wished to press very strongly what his hon. friend the Member for Kirkcaldy had urged, namely, that the proceedings this Commission should be
  1104
  made public. He thought there ought to be a Parliamentary mandate to this effect. He remembered when the War Commission was being established he asked the then Secretary for War, the paragon Minister, whether the proceedings would be public or not, and he gave the House a definite assurance that they would. As a matter of fact, they were not public, and instead they were furnished with misleading, wretched, belated, jejune, scanty, scrappy notes. Now they wanted to have this Committee open to the public and no hugger-mugger about it. He must have from the First Lord of the Treasury, who was accustomed to make promises and not so accustomed to keeping them, literally [Cries of "Oh"], some assurance there would be a Parliamentary mandate to this Commission that the proceedings would be made public, and that they would not be hugger-muggered and concealed from the public.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he had not looked into this Bill so closely upon the Committee stage, which was taken without discussion, but statements had been made to the effect that there was a clause in the Bill which provided that a witness who gave evidence could not be proceeded against even if he was proved to be one of the guilty parties. Take, for example, the contractors. The indemnity absolutely prevented any proceedings being taken against them. He should like that point cleared up either by the right hon. Gentleman or the Attorney-General before they passed the Third Reading. Another point was whether there was any provision in this Bill to provide for the taking of evidence under the same powers in South Africa as in this country, and he should like to know what were the views of the Government in this respect. It seemed to him that there was a loophole for

  1105
  the contractors to escape if it was found that they were to blame.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,said he acknowledged frankly that as far as this particular measure was concerned, hon. Gentlemen opposite had done their best to facilitate its passage through the House. As regarded, the particular point put to him as to whether the Commission should sit in public or in private, the Government proposed to follow the unbroken practice of allowing the Commission to settle for themselves whether their proceedings from day today should be open to the public, or whether they should reserve a full disclosure until the fitting moment in their judgment, arrived. His learned friend, in consultation with the learned Gentleman opposite, came to the conclusion that in the interest of a true and full disclosure of all that had taken place, it was desirable to put in this Bill, as in many previous Bills, a provision which would enable any witness who could not otherwise give evidence without subjecting himself to pains and penalties to disclose the whole truth without fear or favour. There was no provision in the Bill for making inquiry under oath in South Africa. It was not desirable that the Bill should create a new offence in portions of the Empire not under the immediate jurisdiction of Parliament. As regarded the Transvaal they might secure such a provision, but they could not impose upon Cape Colony or Natal such an obligation. They had, however, some reason to believe that Cape Colony would favour the passage of a Bill of this kind, and if it were found necessary they would follow the example of this House. It would be eminently desirable that when this Parliament had passed the Bill, a similar measure should pass in South Africa, and nothing the Government could do to secure such a result would be omitted by the Government. That prom se be gave on behalf of the Government, and he had every reason to think that no difficulty would arise with the independent Legislatures of our South African Colonies, but they
  1106
  would be as anxious as the Government to further the interest of truth by furthering investigation into the darkest corners of these complicated proceedings.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that in the case of the Parnell Commission and the Belfast Riots Commission the proceedings were held in public. He thought it was a serious matter to give Commissioners such powers as were contained in this Bill, and leave a matter like this to their own sweet will. They had great powers in regard to witnesses, and he thought those powers ought to be exercised in public.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not know of any statutory requirement that publicity should be insisted upon.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid the Commission would inquire into the question as to what had become of certain sums of money. He wished to know whether in case it was shown that any of the witnesses had wrongfully got possession of any of this money if there were any means of compelling them to disgorge it. Would the indemnity leave them in possession of their ill-gotten gains?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the Bill protected, or might protect, witnesses only if the Commission so decided. It was in the power of the Commissioners to protect them against criminal proceedings, but not against civil proceedings, and it was in civil proceedings that persons would be compelled to disgorge any money if illegally acquired.

  PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill read the third time and passed.

  FOREIGN SHIPS (STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS) COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Sir Hugh Shaw-Stewart be discharged from the Committee.
  Ordered, That Mr. Evelyn Cecil be added to the Committee.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

  PROTECTION OF LIFE FROM FIRE COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Mr. Malcolm be discharged from the Committee.
  Ordered, That Mr. Guy Pym be added to the Committee.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire,gave notice that the first order to-morrow (Wednesday) would be the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister with regard to the Aliens Bill, and that it might be necessary to move the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule before proceeding to that business.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
MR. DALZIELsaid that in reference to the Scotch Churches Bill, greatly to their surprise, the Bill had been allowed to be interfered with by the Aliens Bill, and he wished to impress upon the Lord-Advocate the extreme urgency of this Bill. He wished to know whether the Government could give them any assurance as to when the debate on the Second Reading of the Scotch Churches Bill would be resumed. The next few days appeared to be already allocated, and it seemed a great pity that an important measure like the Scotch Bill should nave to give place to the Aliens Bill, which was not at all so pressing. He hoped the Lord-Advocate would be able to assure them that this interruption would not be likely to endanger the passage of the measure.
THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,said the Government were most anxious that the Scottish Churches Bill should be finished that night, and it was no fault of theirs that it was not finished, but that the evening sitting had, as he thought, been wasted. They were anxious to resume the consideration on the earliest possible date that the state of public business would allow.
MR. CALDWELLasserted that the delay surrounding the progress being made with the Scottish Churches Bill was due to the unwillingness of the Government, in the first instance, to introduce the Bill until the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had met and given the Government the one to insert Clause 5.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he could not allow the statement to go unchallenged that the Motion which they had been discussing that evening had been a waste of time. He reminded the Lord-Advocate that if the Speaker had not thought that it dealt with a matter of urgent public importance he would not have allowed the Motion for the adjournment to have been taken. It was a reflection upon the Chair to say that the time had been wasted, and what did the Lord-Advocate mean by it? He would not allow any Irish discussion in this House to be characterised by a petty Treasury official as a waste of time, and the Lord-Advocate had better alter his Parliamentary manners as quickly as he could. He noticed that the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury had put down for to-day the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill No. 2. Upon this measure he had given formal notice to move its rejection in order to bring before that House a matter of imperative public interest dealing with military law.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present:—
Adjourned at nineteen minutes before One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Rathmines and Rathgar Extension and Improvement.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Rathmines and Rathgar Extension and Improvement Bill. Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill; Woolwich Borough Council Bill; Skegness Water Bill; Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company Bill [H.L.]; Bootle Corporation Bill; Andover Lighting and Power Bill Reported, with Amendments.
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Wemyss Dock Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Hitchin and District Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Barrymore Estate Bill [H.L.]; Hythe Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; University College, London (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]; Weaver Navigation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Seaham Gas Bill; Swansea Corporation Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill; North British Railway (General Powers) Bill, Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill; Rhondda Urban District Council Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; North-Eastern Railway Bill; North-Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Bolton Corporation Bill; Wemyss Dock Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

D. Northumberland (chairman),

E. Fitzwilliam,

E. Westmeath,

E. Craven,

L. Clinton;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES,
  No. 3428. Netherlands (Curacoa);
  No. 3429. Mexico (Mexico).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL
  Read 2a (according to order). Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered on Thursday next in order to its being suspended for that day's sitting.

  THE VOLUNTEERS.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private notice relating to the Volunteer force. We have long time been anxious to know what His Majesty's Government were going to propose with regard to the Volunteers. I admit at once that the information upon which I base my Question is taken from newspaper this morning, but it seemed to bear evidence of authenticity, and, therefore, I thought it desirable, as this is very important matter that it should be cleared up at once. I, therefore, beg to ask the noble Earl whether a statement in the Daily Chronicle of July 4th is correct to the effect that, in future, in the Volunteer force a severe test of physical fitness is to be required; that an age limit of forty-five is fixed; that the commanding officer of each battalion is asked whether he thinks his command is in such a state as to justify disbandment or amalgamation; also whether instructions have recently been issued to officers commanding Volunteer baltalions to the above effect; and, if any such instructions have been issued, whether the noble Earl will present them to the House.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl should have taken such early action in putting this Question, because it gives me an opportunity of explaining to your Lordships and to the public what is obviously a very serious misconception. The foundation, I think, for this report is a certain action which we have taken, and which is as follows. We have asked for information from general officers commanding districts as to how many Volunteers in their commands are fit for active service in the field. The conditions are defined in the circular which has been sent out. I do not think it will be necessary for me to read those conditions, because, in
  924
  answer to a later part of the Question, I am prepared to place this letter on the Table; but we have asked, firstly, how many Volunteers in the commands are physically fit for active service in the field; and, secondly, how many of those are first-class shots. We believe that is information which the Volunteers will gladly provide us with. It is obviously information which we should have to ask for the minute war broke out, and we think it only right to try and get that information for ourselves in peace time, so that we may have it by us. It is obviously a very different thing from what the report in the paper states, that all units not fit for active service have been ordered to be eliminated from Volunteer battalions, that the test of physical fitness is to be equivalent to that possessed by men of nineteen, and that a new age limit of forty-five has been fixed. With regard to the age limit, I may mention that it is stated in this letter as one of the conditions of fitness for active service in the field, that a man should be below the age of forty-five, but that is a very different thing from imposing a limit of forty-five on all Volunteers throughout the country.
  The noble Lord then asks whether the commanding officer of each battalion has to state whether he finds his command in such a state as to justify disbandment or amalgamation, and whether instructions have recently been issued to officers commanding Volunteer battalions to that effect. The Answer is that that question is asked in this letter to general officers commanding. It is a question we are obviously quite right in asking. The amalgamation of weak units in the Militia and Volunteer forces is not new. It very often leads to efficiency and economy, and we have simply asked for information on the point. We have not, as suggested in the report, taken action. The noble Earl also asks whether we can present any Papers to the House. This document is, of course, a confidential one—instructions issued in the ordinary course of business by the War Office—and one such as we issue very frequently in the administration of the Army. I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me that it may very often be undesirable that a document issued confidentially

  925
  should be laid on the Table of the House. I am not prepared to admit that there is any obligation on us to lay documents when we think it inexpedient to do so, but I am prepared on this occasion to meet the noble Earl's wishes, and I will see that the letter is circulated in the ordinary course.
  EARL SPENCER: I beg to thank the noble Earl for the Answer he has given me, and for consenting on this occasion to lay this document on the Table. It is satisfactory to know that the asking of these questions on the part of the War Office is not precursory to immediate action in the direction indicated. That is what the public were led to understand from the report in the newspaper to which I have referred. It would have been a very serious matter, and I need hardly say that if that had been the intention of His Majesty's Government it would have required strong action on the part of those who are interested in the Auxiliary Forces of the country. I do not wish to say any more at the present moment, but shall wait to see the Paper which the noble Earl has promised to present.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I should like to ask, with regard to the question of physical fitness, whether the general officers commanding are to give their own opinion, or whether there is to be a medical examination.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I should say both. We have asked the officers for their opinion and we have asked them to obtain from the medical officers of the corps their opinion as well.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)explained
  926
  that the Amendments which he had to move were placed on the Paper at the suggestion of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. The first Amendment enabled the council of the society to nominate one of their body in the event of the president not being able to attend; and the second Amendment made a modification which he thought was important.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 2, to leave out Clause 5, and insert the following clauses—'In Section twelve of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) (No. 2) Act, 1897, the words "or such other member of the council of the society to be nominated for the purpose by the council" shall be inserted after the word "Ireland." In the Schedule to the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, the words: "In Section seventy-two the words 'body or' shall be substituted for the following words relating to the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857, namely, 'In Sections seventy-two to seventy-five the words 'body or' and the said Act of 1893 shall be read and construed as if the words so substituted had originally been enacted therein.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment to Sub-section 2 of Clause 2. This sub-section provided that any local authority might make by-laws for regulating, restricting, or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in such places and in such manner, or by such means, as to affect injuriously the amenities of a health or pleasure resort, public park, promenade, or to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape. He moved to leave out the words, "health or pleasure resort," and to insert,

  927
  before the word "promenade," the word "pleasure." The object of the Amendment was to limit the scope of the measure, and it had been put down in the hope of conciliating some opposition to the Bill, which was considered too drastic as it stood. Those promoting the Bill had agreed to this Amendment as a concession, with a view of obviating opposition in the House of Commons. The promoters, however, desired to make themselves secure from any charge of breach of faith by stating now that if that hope was falsified they would, in a subsequent session, reintroduce the Bill in its present form.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, line i4, to leave out the words 'health or pleasure resort,' and after the word 'park' to insert the word 'pleasure.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD HERRIESasked why the word "pleasure" was proposed to be inserted before "promenade."
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHreplied that it was part of the bargain that had been made. He did not attach importance to it himself, and he was quite sure that the promoters of the Amendment did not attach so much importance to it as they did to the omission of the other words proposed to be left out; and if the noble Lord had any strong objection to the insertion of the word "pleasure" he would not press it. But on the whole he thought it would be better to let the Amendment pass as it stood on the Paper in the hope that it would conciliate opposition in the other House.
  LORD HERRIESWhat sort of a promenade is a pleasure promenade?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can only answer that I suppose it is a promenade used for pleasure. That question must be one of fact to be decided as it arises.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Privilege Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, in moving that the Bill do now pass,
  928
  explained that the proviso to Clause 2 was to the effect that a local authority, in making by-laws under the section, should provide for the exemption from the operation of such by-laws of any hoardings and similar structures in use for advertising purposes, and of any advertisements exhibited at the time of the making of the by-laws, for such period, not being less than twelve months, as they might think fit. For the sake of peace they would have been quite willing to increase that period, but just as they were agreeing to that with one set of opponents another set stated that they would prefer no period at all. He was afraid that this matter, if it was to be settled, must be a matter of negotiation in another place; and, therefore, he refrained from suggesting to the House-the making of any Amendment at the present time.
  Moved, "That the Bill do now pass."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  THE MILITIA.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORDrose "To call attention to the present condition of the Militia; and to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if, in view of the large number of officers and men wanting to complete the establishment, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of invoking the assistance and using the agency of lords-lieutenant in the recruitment of men and the selection of persons suitable for recommendation to the Secretary of State for War for commissions as officers in the Militia." He said: My Lords, In calling attention to the present state of the Militia, I cannot do better than quote from the summary of the speech of the Secretary of State for War with regard to the reorganisation of the Army, presented to Parliament on July 14th last. That summary contained the statement that—
  "During the last two years the falling off in the strength of the Militia has been as follows: Numbers wanting to complete establishment, January 1st, 1902,21,148; January 1st, 1903,20,596; January 1st, 1904,32,601. There is

  929
  no sign that the fall will be arrested. Moreover, the Militia is undoubtedly deficient in quality as well as in quantity, and every year the rate of decay is likely to be accelerated, for a battalion which once loses prestige goes rapidly down hill."
  The deficiency at present is 32,168 men, but what is still more serious and significant is the rapid decline in the number of officers. In 1903 there was a deficiency of 667, but at present there is a deficiency of 987 officers.
  Not many weeks ago a Bill passed your Lordships' House entitled the Militiamen's Service Bill. The object of the Bill is to enlist the Militia under the obligation for foreign service on embodiment, thereby carrying out the military policy expounded by the Committee of National Defence. That policy is based on the opinion of all naval authorities that the invasion of this country is an impossibility. Accepting the correctness of this opinion then it is unnecessary and wasteful to maintain a large and expensive force, ear-marked for service at borne, where no active service can occur, whereas it is most necessary to maintain as large a force as possible enlisted for service abroad, where campaigns of great magnitude and many years duration are by no means so improbable as we could wish.
  I would remind your Lordships that in the Report of the Royal Commission on the South African War the opinion is expressed, that—
  "No military system would be satisfactory which does not contain powers of expansion outside the limit of the Regular Forces of the nation."
  His Majesty's Government, by seeking to make the Militia, which is a force composed of men who are not professional. soldiers, liable for foreign service, are taking the first step towards extending the forces of the nation outside the limits of the Regular Army for the defence of the Empire abroad. I may add that I have only heard one feeling expressed among all ranks in the Militia as regards this Bill, that of anxiety to see it passed through the necessary stages and become law.
  We see, then, in the Militiamen's Service Bill an attempt made to carry out not only the principles of the military policy
  930
  laid down by the Committee of National Defence, but also the recommendations made by the Commission appointed to inquire into the war in South Africa. But as things stand this attempt is foredoomed to failure. Both officers and men are a vanishing quantity, and it is idle to expect that a national citizen Army can be recruited by the Departmental methods and purely military machinery of the War Office. The military authorities can train a national force. They cannot call it into existence. A national citizen Army can only be recruited by the nation. The principle of national recruiting is that the civilian authorities in the State accept the responsibility of finding officers and men and of handing them over to the military authorities to train. The Militia has been deprived of that assistance to which it was formerly entitled from civilian authorities in the matter of recruiting. The result is the deplorable and increasing failure to obtain officers and men, described by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War last year.
  The present recruiting staff for a Militia battalion consists of the adjutant, the sergeant-major, and eight or ten sergeants, members of the Militia Permanent Staff. The adjutant is an officer, usually a young officer belonging to the Line. A Militia adjutancy is not a well-paid appointment, not nearly so well-paid as a Line adjutancy, although, of course, the work of recruiting is of paramount importance. The appointment is for a term of three years, too short a period to allow of any officer acquiring anything beyond a most elementary knowledge of his recruiting duties and of his district. At the end of three years he is recalled to the Line, and another officer is appointed, to be in turn removed before he has time to become efficient. Recruiting sergeants, however worthy in themselves, and many are most excellent men, have inherited traditions which make them objects of dislike and distrust to the parents and friends of those whom they seek to enlist in the Militia. For the working classes the recruiting staff of the Militia means nothing beyond the barracks. From the barracks they come, just a lot of soldier

  931
  men, to the barracks they return, and in the barracks those whom they take back with them find their perdition. Such is the unfortunate misconception which it is our duty and interest to remove. No recruiting agency could well be more feeble. None could well be more unpopular. It is ineffective because it is unsupported by any local influence, and appeals to none of the higher feelings of the people. It is disliked because it has inherited all the unpopular traditions which cling to recruiting for the Line. Cannot this futile and absurd recruiting agency be transformed into one of the most congenial and influential agencies in the country, and cannot the unpopular traditions be removed?
  In order to secure influence and that prestige, the loss of which is alluded to by the Secretary of State for War, I should place my hand at once on the representative of the Sovereign in the county, namely, the lord-lieutenant. As your Lordships are aware, Militia regiments used to be entirely under the control of the lords-lieutenant of counties. At this very moment all lords-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenants owe their existence to the old Militia laws. It is the lord-lieutenant who ought once again to become the authority charged with all recruiting operations for his county Militia. For reasons which I need not now go into, lord-lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants were so completely severed from all duties connected with the Militia that they do not at present feel in a position to concern themselves actively with that force.
  When we come to the officer commanding the Militia regiment, it certainly does seem a little unreasonable of the War Office not to allow that officer to have control over the recruiting of his own regiment. But such is the case. He has no right at present to conduct recruiting work for his own regiment. The adjutant of the Militia battalion is for all recruiting purposes under the command of the Line field officer at the depot. This officer will in future be a major. He is of necessity without any shred, of influence amongst the civilian population. The Militia commanding officer does not command his own recruits when assembled for
  932
  their preliminary drill. His position during the non-training period is altogether absurd and impossible. The officer commanding the Militia regiment must be the link between the civilian authorities and the military recruiting staff. It would be his duty to inform the lord-lieutenant of the progress of recruiting, and to confer with him about all matters connected with that work. For instance, if he should report that in certain districts recruiting is making no progress and is very unpopular then the lord-lieutenant might direct the deputy-lieutenants connected with the neighbourhood to endeavour, by means of interviews and meetings, to explain to the people of the locality the value of the-Empire and the necessity for maintaining a national Army for its defence.
  At present in many districts where recruiting is unpopular, doors are slammed in the face of Militia recruiting sergeants, and they, for the sake of avoiding disturbance and unpleasantness, return to that district no more. The district is closed for recruiting. This is a frequent occurrence before which the military element is helpless. It is a case which can only be met by acquiring influence through educational processes carried out by the civilian and not by the military authorities. A visit from the lord-lieutenant to the Militia recruits when assembled for their preliminary drill would be very advantageous. I do not suggest that the lord-lieutenant should appear in a military capacity, but that he should come giving his personal sanction and direct encouragement to the youthful patriotism of his county. I should myself like to see the preliminary drill of Militia recruits extended during the winter to the full legal limit, that is, six months. Employment is, we know, scarce in the winter, and the more young men and lads there are in barracks the more employment will there be for the older and married men at home-Six months of physical drill, together with sound discipline and healthy surroundings, would be of great moral and physical advantage to these lads in after life.
  There is no need to keep the recruits continuously away from their homes.

  933
  On the contrary, they should be encouraged to go and even be sent home from Saturday noon to Monday morning, and they should be sent home for a week both at Christmas and Easter. The object is that they should be constantly returning to their homes well-dressed and smart, with a few shillings in their pockets, and contented with their new life in barracks. I fear, however, that the barracks at a depôt are but a gloomy place, and of a winter's evening, when it is dark at four o'clock, cheerless, depressing, and comfortless in the extreme. Here is an opportunity for the lord-lieutenant, the deputy-lieutenants, and the county generally to come forward and show their appreciation of the recruits of their county regiment by organising entertainments to pass away the long winter evenings. The cost of military training and equipment should be provided by the State and not supplemented by the money of civilians. But a cheerful recreation room for the barracks during the winter evenings, or a cricket ground at the county camp in summer are legitimate gifts by the county to its regiment, and would be matters within the discretion of the lord-lieutenant.
  I now come to the question of the supply of officers for the Militia, and that, with a deficiency of 987, is a serious problem. In this matter the lord-lieutenant and the deputy-lieutenants could be of the greatest assistance. At present the only person interested in finding officers for the Militia is the officer commanding the regiment. I find that the number of deputy-lieutenants in the United Kingdom in December, 1904, was 3,700. My proposal is that it should be the duty of deputy-lieutenants to submit the names of persons eligible for the rank of subaltern in the Militia to their lord-lieutenant. The lords-lieutenant, assisted by the commanding officers of Militia regiments, would then select names for submission to the Secretary of State for War. Thus if 3,700 deputy-lieutenants were called upon to supply 1,000 officers, every three deputy-lieutenants would have between them to find one candidate. Surely a group of three deputy-lieutenants could, from among their combined families, friends, relations, and connections, raise
  934
  one desirable recruit officer for the Militia. Society should cooperate and should close its doors to the idle man of leisure who does nothing for his country. The man who is deaf to patriotism should be dead to Society.
  The lord-lieutenant should have the necessary authority to summon together all his deputy-lieutenants for the purpose of filling vacancies in the subaltern ranks of the Militia—I say "summon" advisedly, because it must be a command of the superior officer to attend on the business of the State. When the business in hand is the defence and the maintenance of the Empire there must be a command. There must be no question of attending if agreeable, or preferring a social engagement because it is infinitely of more interest than any meeting to discuss military service. The clerk of the lieutenancy would keep a list of names recommended by each deputy-lieutenant, and in the event of a deputy-lieutenant failing for five consecutive years to recommend a possible candidate for a commission, never showing any interest in the Militia, and never helping in the recruitment of men, the lord-lieutenant should recommend the Secretary of State for War to remove such deputy-lieutenant from the list. A deputy-lieutenant is by his qualification a man of influence in his county. If he neglects to use that influence I submit to your Lordships that he should vacate his office to make way for someone better qualified to discharge his duty to his country. My Lords, without some such penalty there will be no real work, and it is real work which we require. The keynote to any form of national recruiting must be that it is the business of the nation, and, as such, takes precedence of all other duties, pleasures, and engagements.
  I apprehend that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War will take exception to my proposals on the score that national recruiting for the Militia will injure recruiting for the Regular Army. I do not admit that such would be the case. I do not for a moment suggest raising the pay of the Militia. That would certainly upset the balance all round. The Militiaman is a man who seeks to soldier by the month

  935
  except in time of war. He does not look upon himself, neither does he wish others to look upon him, as a professional soldier. The Regular soldier soldiers all the year round and regards soldiering as his profession. Some men who enlist into the Regular Army mean to make soldiering their profession. These men will not join the Militia. Some do not mean to stick to soldiering, but they fancy going abroad for a time and the shifting scenes of a soldier's life. They will not go to the Militia. Some men enlist because they have got into scrapes and difficulties and wish to change their locality. His county Militia is the very last place to which a man who wishes to lose his identity will go. Some enlist because they are "deadbeats" and cannot get on in any civilian profession. They will not go to the Militia, because they would have to remain civilians for the greater part of the year, which is exactly what they cannot afford to do. I, therefore, ask the noble Earl if he is aware of any large class of men who would be attracted to the Militia to the detriment of the Regular Army, owing to the influence of lords-lieutenant, deputy-lieutenants, and a system of national recruiting.
  It is, I believe, admitted that no matter how excellent our Regular Army may be, it is numerically so insignificant that it cannot of itself bring a lengthy campaign against a military Power to a successful issue. You cannot hope to make any impression on a nation in arms, and trained as a nation to arms, and numbering its trained forces by the million, by means of a few hundred thousand Regular soldiers. If follows, therefore, that in any great struggle it will be by our second and not by our first line that we shall stand or fall. The importance, then, of the second line cannot be over-estimated. I do not suggest for a moment sacrificing the first line in any way to the second. I see no difficulty in holding the balance equally between them. The Militia must look to the Line for its permanent staff, therefore the Militia must give recruits to the Line. At present a Militiaman enlists for six years. I suggest that ac the end of three years a Militiaman raised by national means of
  936
  recruiting should be allowed to transfer to the Line. If national recruiting increases, as I am sure it cannot fail to do, both the quality and the quantity of the Militia, there will be a far larger body and a far better body of men from whom transfers to the Line are likely. The man who had served three years in the Militia would not be a recruit. On the contrary, he would be ready for foreign service the moment he transferred to the Line. Thus I believe that national recruiting for the Militia would be a benefit and not a detriment to the Line.
  Continental nations, my Lords, have learnt cruel lessons from the march of conquering armies through their native lands. From this calamity we have been saved, not by our superior patriotism but by our insular position. Thus we have never realised, as our Continental neighbours have realised, in the bitter school of humiliation and subjection, that military training and organisation are the first and foremost duty of every citizen. Insular we are at home but Continental we have become abroad. Hence the necessity for the principal civilian authorities to come forward and take the lead in recruiting a national citizen Army for the defence of the Empire all the world over. At present we have no such force. In whatever light His Majesty's Government may view my suggestions, I am confident that they will agree with me on one point, namely, that a patriotic offer is worth all the sterile criticism in the world. I beg to ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War the Question standing in my name.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: My Lords, I rise to support the general proposition which has been laid down by the noble Duke, and especially that part of it which more closely concerns the shortage of officers in the Militia service. I do so because it appears to me to be most necessary that some steps should be taken to counteract that shortage. One cannot deny for a moment that the present inducements to young men to join the Militia service as officers have proved conspicuous failures. I am sorry to say that at this moment

  937
  military service in this country is singularly unpopular among all classes. There is distinct disinclination throughout the country to join the service. Many reasons might be given for this unpopularity. The principal ones are, first, that there is a feeling of insecurity of tenure, that men do not know from day to day how they will be dealt with; and, secondly, that—as has been very well put forward in an article which appeared in a distinguished magazine within the last few months by a Member of your Lordships' House, who is himself a gallant soldier—while young officers are expected to go through a great deal more training and to be more highly educated in military science, no further financial inducements have been offered to them to make the Army their profession for life. I do not for a moment say that what is required of officers now is not in every way desirable, but you cannot expect young men to devote the best years of their lives to an arduous and dangerous profession unless they are adequately remunerated. That may not be a very lofty view, but it has undoubtedly been the reason why many young men have not joined the service.
  I hope the proposition of the noble Duke that lords-lieutenant should be allowed to go back practically to the position they occupied before 1882 in respect to the procuring of officers for the Militia will receive favourable consideration from the noble Earl the Under-Secretary. It may be said that one of the powers enjoyed before 1882 is, to a certain extent, still preserved to the lord-lieutenant, who has the right of nomination to the lowest rank of Militia officer if he sends in the notice within thirty days of the vacancy being announced. But a large number of lords-lieutenant have waived that power in view of the general tenor of the Act of 1882. I am sure that lords-lieutenant have only one wish—namely, to do all they can to help the Militia, which, as a matter of fact, they are really compelled to do. If the lords-lieutenant are brought once again more actively into touch with the Militia regiments of their counties they will undoubtedly be able to afford much help the officers commanding. There are
  938
  at this moment certain Militia regiments which are commanded, and effectively commanded, by officers who, through one cause or another, live outside the county in which their regiments are situated. That is to say, from the end of one Militia training to the beginning of the next the colonel commanding the regiment has practically no status in the county. That is an unfortunate occurrence, which cannot sometimes be avoided through there being no one in the county capable of commanding the Militia regiment; but if that officer were in close correspondence with the lord-lieutenant, and the latter was able to deal more effectively with recommendations, he would greatly aid the colonel. I beg most cordially to support the suggestion of the noble Duke, more especially with regard to the recruiting of officers.
  LORD BLYTHSWOOD: My Lords, we are greatly indebted to the noble Duke for bringing this matter before the House, and, as an old Militia officer who now occupies the position of lord lieutenant of his county, I beg to thank him for doing so. I desire at the same time to say that I cordially support the views which he has expressed. Thirty years ago, when I first joined my county Militia, the counties were in quite a different condÎtion. The old county families are gradually disappearing, and those from whom we got recruits in those days are disappearing also. The Militia then was looked upon by the Volunteers as a different class. All this is changing. County government has completely changed. There are different authorities, and the municipal bodies, both in the counties and boroughs, are of greater importance than they ever were before; and I feel quite sure that unless you are able to enlist their co-operation in getting recruits, both for the Volunteers and the Militia, you will find it utterly impossible to fill the ranks of the Reserve Forces. On the other hand, if you enlist their goodwill I believe you will have no difficulty in filling those ranks. Some years ago I prepared papers on that very subject for circulation among a few friends. I expressed the wish that the counties should be the recruiting areas, that they should be appraised as to the number of officers

  939
  of Militia that they should be able to support, and that every quarter the numbers that the county was really giving should be published throughout the county. If that were done I think you would set up a rivalry between the different counties and a great deal of the difficulty in getting recruits would be overcome. Of the men that you get to join the Reserve Forces there are always a certain number who will go into the Army. Increase your Reserve Forces and you will make it easier to get men for the Regular Army. I trust that His Majesty's Government will see their way to broaden the basis and enlist the sympathies of all the authorities in the county in carrying out this great work.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I wish to claim your Lordships' attention while I say a few words with regard to the gravity of this question of the scarcity of officers. It is difficult to discuss the question of the shortage of Militia officers alone, because, since the Militia are being made liable for service abroad, the question becomes wrapped up in the other and greater question of the shortage of officers for the Army as a whole. I should like to ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the actual shortage of officers for the Militia when mobilised for service abroad. We have heard the figure of 1,000 quoted. The Militia is short of 1,000 officers at the present moment, but the question of inefficiency is not taken into account.
  When the Militia becomes available for service abroad the object presumably for which they will be sent will be the defence of India. It would be criminal to send boys of seventeen, who, after all, comprise a large proportion of the junior officers in the Militia, to take part in a campaign in the North of India where enteric is so rife. In the same way, a large number of officers, from their positions in this country—Cabinet Ministers and others—would certainly not be able to go out with their units, which would add considerably to the number of inefficients. Moreover, the Militia, if it is to be sent abroad, must go as a fighting force; it will have to have a staff as well as a service corps. There are no arrangements at the present
  940
  moment for a staff or for the other requirements of the Militia on mobilisation. Then, again, a number of officers would-be seized for the Regular Army. It is well known that, when a campaign takes-place, from 300 to 400 junior officers are at once taken off for the Regular Army. It is all very well to argue that in the next campaign, because the Militia are liable for service abroad, the junior officers will not be snatched away for the use of the Regular Army, but is it probable that the young men who enter the Militia with a view of joining the Regular service can be kept back from entering that service when war breaks out? I contend that it is not. That, again will add considerably to your shortage of Militia officers. I would like to ask the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, whether, when organised as a fighting machine, the Militia is not deficient in officers, not to the extent of 1,000, but to the extent of nearer 2,000.
  The important point, however, is how the authorities are going to make good this deficiency? Where are the officers-to come from when your Militia goes abroad? We learnt, from a reply given in another place the other day, that the reserve of regular officers was 2,000, while 30 per cent. of them were unfit. From the point of view of the-Militia, the reserve of officers is almost entirely composed of old officers; but the shortage of the Militia is, as was. brought out by the Norfolk Commission, in junior officers, and you are not likely to get these older officers to take positions as subalterns in the Militia. Is the supply likely to come through promotion to the Militia from the Volunteers? There is already a shortage of 2,700 officers in the Volunteers, and I suggest that many of the scandals and disgraceful surrenders in the South African War were due to the fact that many of the officers had been picked up anywhere and sent into the Army in the field-How can we guard against the junior officers in the Militia being taken and put into the Regular Army when war is Declared? As we know, there are two classes of Militia officers—those who enter the Militia permanently and those who may be called birds of passage. Will it be fair to the birds of passage

  941
  who wish to make the Army their profession and who only enter the Militia temporarily, to refuse to allow them to go into the Regular Army in the event of war breaking out? I think not.
  I would like to ask the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, what the Government has done to remedy this crying deficiency. We have had this deficiency pointed out on many occasions. It was one of the greatest criticisms made by the Elgin Commission, and we next had our attention called to it by the Norfolk Commission. The deficiency has been alluded to by the noble Duke opposite on more than one occasion, and by Lord Heneage and other noble Lords on both sides of the House. What, I ask, has the Government done to remedy this alarming deficiency in officers and staff? The deficiency, as has been pointed out by the noble Duke, is getting worse, and, though I am in hearty sympathy with the suggestion which the noble Duke has brought forward, I doubt whether lords-lieutenant can be induced to do more than has already been done to remedy the evil. I do not in any way wish to oppose the suggestion, because any suggestion ought to be welcome, but is it likely to be final in getting us an additional 1,000 or 2,000 officers?
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I was rather suggesting increasing your agency by getting hold of the 3,700 deputy-lieutenants who at present are not active in getting recruits for the Militia.
  LORD LOVAT: But, even with the assistance of deputy-lieutenants as well as lords-lieutenant, are you likely to produce the thousands of officers necessary for the Militia and the Volunteers, and make up the deficiency of 400 which you have in the Yeomanry? At any rate, I hope we shall be told by the noble Earl that an effort is being made to reduce this alarming deficiency, and that the House will not be informed by the Government that they are waiting for some scheme of defence, or that the blame is shifted from one party to another. We have been waiting for this scheme of defence for some years, and I trust that the Answer which will be given to-night will not be worked off on that particular line.
  942
  Before I sit down I would like to express a pious wish that, before the end of the session some prominent military Peer will raise a debate on the subject of military officers as a whole. The officers engaged in the South African War suffered a great deal of blame through the inefficient officers, through the rubbish, sent out to command the troops and in the event of war taking place again it seems to be probable that the same worthless material will be given out to the Army. I may mention that me I sent home as worthless as privates came out afterwards to command 100 men, whom they made even worse than they were themselves.
  EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, in my opinion there is a great deal in what the noble Duke has urged, and I trust that his words will be carefully considered. It is some thirty years ago since the Militia was removed from the control of the lords-lieutenant and put under the War Office; and, looking at its present condition, I cannot say that any great improvement has taken place from that change. Not only is there a shortage of officers, but very many of them are not fit to go on service if asked to do so. Now that the Militia under the new arrangement will be required to take a portion of service in foreign countries, it is essential that the officers should be men who can take their place with the troops in foreign countries. I have great faith in the territorial system, and it answered admirably during the war. We saw then, when soldiers were sent home ill and wounded, how the families were taken care of by the counties; and I believe that if some arrangement is made, such as the noble Duke has sketched out, the Militia recruiting as to-men and officers will be very much increased in value and in numbers.
  I feel strongly on this point because I have been accused of not saying very much in favour of the Militia regiments that came out to South Africa, and that I did not value the regiments nor the service to which they belonged. It caused me, however, the greatest anxiety when I saw regiments in the field who had come out with eight, nine, and ten officers only, instead of their full

  943
  complement, owing to the officers having been taken away from the battalions to fill the vacancies caused by casualties or by the need created to fill up a number of staff appointments. We require not only that the Militia should be thoroughly officered in time of peace, but that there should be officers in the Militia and Army sufficient to fill up the vacancies that occur in troops mobilised to go on service as war proceeds. I hope, too, that before the end of the session the question will be raised in a specified form. In the meantime I commend the matter raised by the noble Duke to the earnest consideration of your Lordships, for it is of the most extreme importance to the efficiency of our Army that there should be not only officers to every unit, but a larger reserve of officers even than your Lordships seem to have any idea of. We want a reserve of 5,000 officers. I hope to see some carefully-considered plan by which we shall be able to get the number of officers provided willing to take their places in the Army after they have had a certain amount of training. Unless this be done it is impossible for us to hope to go to war with any chance of being successful. One way of considering how our object can be attained is carefully to consider what the noble Duke has brought forward.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I desire to say a few words on this subject as an old Militia officer who received his first commission from a lord-lieutenant. I anticipated, until I heard the remarks of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who has just sat down, that the noble Earl who would reply on behalf of the Government would remind us how enormously the Militia had improved since the power was taken away from lords-lieutenant. It seems to me that there is a radical confusion of ideas in the minds of many persons between the functions of the civilian and the functions of the military in respect of this question. No doubt the moment the Militiaman is put into a uniform and has a rifle placed in his hands the soldier knows best how to deal with him. I say that with some reservation, because the fact that a man puts on a uniform and carries a rifle does not
  944
  wash out all his civilian instincts immediately, and I think that in some matters of internal economy the civilian officer of Militia understands the Militiaman better than the soldier; but in other respects, such as training, we admit at once that the civilian ought to step aside.
  As regards recruiting, however, civilians are better judges of how to bring in recruits than the military. The civilian knows their feelings and their prejudices, and can deal with them in a way which is absolutely impossible in the soldier. I remember being ordered over and over again, when I commanded a Militia regiment, to send recruiters to districts where I knew it was impossible to get recruits. When I sent a reply to this effect I received this answer, "It is a large district, and you have not got any Militiamen from it." In accordance with instructions I sent men down, and the result was, as I predicted, that we got nobody. I knew that in this district it was impossible to get a recruit, whilst in other districts recruits could be obtained; but this was unknown to the military authorities. It is perfectly true that in many respects the Militia has improved enormously since the days when the lord-lieutenant signed the commands, but it has not improved in the particular matters with which the lord-lieutenant then had to deal. Even in those days the deputy-lieutenants, to whom the noble Duke is looking for support now, did not take any part in getting officers.
  When we had a debate on this subject earlier in the session the noble Earl the Under-Secretary for War, answering the proposal that the lord-lieutentant should take a more active part in this matter than hitherto, said that that would possibly lead to competition in recruiting between the officer commanding the district and the lord-lieutenant, and that nobody could want that. I confess I heard that statement with very great surprise. I could wish for nothing better. It seems to me that if you had two persons responsible for recruiting for the Militia—the officer commanding the district and the lord lieutenant—you would probably have a

  945
  competition between the two which would get you far more recruits than you could obtain in any other way; and, although I admit that there may be something to be said on both sides, I was astonished that the noble Earl scouted the suggestion on that ground. If, however, the two systems are incompatible I should certainly give my vote in favour of the responsibility being thrown on the lord-lieutenant and the deputy-lieutenants, and especially for the purpose of getting officers.
  There is another matter which ought to be mentioned in this debate, because it has some bearing on the question whether the intervention of the lord-lieutenant would be useful in these cases. I hardly know how to deal with it, because if I put a supposititious case I know that the answer will be "You can always put supposititious cases." If I gave a concrete case it would be improper, but I will give an instance, without mentioning names, of the sort of thing which is going on at the present time. About three weeks ago a lord-lieutenant was informed that a second lieutenant, who had lately resigned his commission because he thought his private affairs would make it impossible for him to train in the Militia, had discovered after all that he could do his training and was anxious to go back to the regiment. I may say that he was perfectly willing to go back as the junior of his rank; there was no question of his superseding anybody else or of complications of any kind. He was a good officer, recommended by his own commanding officer and the lord-lieutenant, and the latter added a most urgent request that he should be gazetted as quickly as possible because the regiment was very short of officers and the training was just about to take place. Three weeks have passed. The training has begun. Nothing more has been heard upon the question.
  I do not know what the experience of other lords-lieutenant is, but my experience is that a lord-lieutenant recommends a gentleman for a commission and gets no acknowledgment whatever. Now what, I ask, is to be done in a case like the one to which I have referred? If the lord-lieutenant had the authority
  946
  of appointing these officers the difficulty could never have arisen. The Militia of the county would have been his chief interest, and he would have seen that this officer was gazetted without delay. In fact, I do not know that it was even necessary under the power originally held for that to be done. I imagine that if the lord-lieutenant signed the commission it would empower the officer to act. But when I commanded a Militia regiment a good many years ago the lord-lieutenant could not have interfered, and I should have gone as a commanding officer straight to the War Office. I should have asked to see the officer commanding the Auxiliary Forces, and should have laid the grievance before him; and from my experience of the way in which I was received and I am afraid I was very troublesome to the War Office in those days—I believe the grievance would have been got over, and the whole thing settled satisfactorily.
  But now what has happened? The officer commanding the regiment, as I understand, has no access to anybody except the local general officer commanding. That officer may or may not be interested in, or know much about the Militia, because it is by no means necessary for an officer to be cognisant of the details of Militia service in order to be a very distinguished officer in the Army. The lord-lieutenant can do nothing. As far as I understand, he has no locus standi, no right to intervene, and in this way your decentralisation, which sounded very well on paper, has had this effect, that any friction in the machine is fixed-there and cannot be removed with that speed and facility with which it used to be. I have not one word to say against that kind of decentralisation which prevents a long correspondence with the War Office as to whether a man ought to have received sixpence more or sixpence less of his pay, which used to go on, but I do deprecate the present system, which seems to me to entirely preclude access to any of the higher authorities, either by the lord-lieutenant, by the officer commanding the regiment, or by anybody else. I have only brought this instance forward as showing the deadlock which there now seems to be

  947
  in working the Militia satisfactorily. I believe that the increasing of the authority of lords-lieutenant over the appointment of officers would give them more interest in the Militia, would do much to improve that force, and, if extended to the Volunteer force, to improve the whole of the Auxiliary Forces.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I had no intention of addressing our Lordships on this subject, but, as I have been prompted to do so, I trust that you will extend to me that consideration which is invariably given to those who address your Lordships for the first time, The whole of the Militia force will be grateful to the noble Duke behind me for having brought this matter before the attention of your Lordships. I must say I am not altogether enamoured of the way in which he suggests that his proposal for increasing the number of officers and men in the Militia should be carred out. I think the proposal to import the lord-lieutenant and the deputy-lieutenants into the recruiting service bristles with difficulties, nor can I agree with the noble Duke who spoke last that to set up competition between the commanding officer of the regimental district and the lord-lieutenant of the county would be a good thing for recruiting. I am afraid that, on the contrary, it would bring matters to a deadlock at once. If the Militia were enlisted under the old conditions of a more or less civilian force, I think something might be done in the way suggested by the noble Duke. But, since the recent Bill, which passed through your Lordships' House about two months ago, throwing on them the liability to foreign service on embodiment, the Militia force has become practically an integral part of the Army; and, speaking as an old Militia officer of many years standing, I am proud to think that we are looked upon as part of the effective Army of this country.
  Those who have taken any interest in the Militia must have seen with extreme regret the deficiency now existing in men and officers. My noble friend below me (the Earl of Wemyss) has a panacea for these defects; but if any attempt were made to put the Militia ballot in force
  948
  at this moment in order to increase the numbers, it would cause such a dislocation in the whole of the civil conditions of the country that some other system would have to be adopted at once. I agree with a great deal that fell from the noble Lord opposite, Lord Lovat, more especially with regard to the scarcity of officers and the material which was put forward during the South African War to fill up vacancies. It is somewhat invidious to bring personal experience to bear, but in this case I think your Lordships will excuse me if I make a personal allusion. I was rather more fortunate than a good many others when I took my regiment to South Africa, because we had gone through a term of embodiment and had become more or less effective; but there were many regiments sent to South Africa almost immediately on embodiment, which had not the advantage of that thorough military training which those who remained a longer time in this country before going out were able to be put through. Some of these regiments were in no more effective condition for being put into the fighting line than a Militia regiment would be to-day immediately on mobilisation. That is a point which will have to be considered.
  It is all very well to talk about the shortage of officers and men and the means by which that shortage can be made up, but I would point out that not only must the men be got but they must be put through such a training as would fit them to take their place in the fighting line. This question of efficiency is not a toy to play with. It is a matter which bears a very near relation to the safety of the country; and what I want your Lordships to consider is that the country has to be provided with a force which can be relied upon in time of need. It is no part of my business to defend the War Office. I am well aware that it has been brought home more closely to Militia officers than to others that the shortcomings of the War Office are great. We feel it in the Militia service more especially, but I think the complaint made by the Duke of Northumberland with regard to the difficulty found in getting a young officer appointed to a certain regiment might have been overcome by a little arrangement. Almost

  949
  the same thing has happened not infrequently to me, and if the commanding officer had gone to the officer who represents the Militia at the War Office
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: May I remind the noble Duke that he is not allowed to do so now by the regulations?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I think my noble friend is wrong. If the officer commanding the regiment had gone to the officer who represents the Militia at the War Office and told him that the officer's name had been sent in and that it was desirable he should be gazetted as soon as possible, that would have been done. It has, as I have said, happened to me over and over again, and I have always found that no obstacle has been placed in my way by the War Office.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: May I ask the noble Duke if it has recently happened to him?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I am not able at this moment to state the last time it occurred, but I have never had any difficulty in regard to the matter. There is nothing to prevent an officer approaching the War Office on a question of that kind. This subject of Militia service is one which appeals so much to me after the many years I have spent in that force that my anxiety to see it in the condition in which it ought to be is my excuse for having addressed your Lordships this evening.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any. great length in answering the interesting speech of the noble Duke and the comments upon what he said which followed. The noble Duke outlined his scheme in a speech earlier in the session, and I stated then very briefly what I thought were some of the objections to it. He now brings forward his scheme in greater detail, and in the Notice which he has placed on the Paper he asks if we will consider what he says. I need not say that we shall be most happy to consider the subject in all its bearings. With a
  950
  great many of the theories of the noble Duke I, of course, must most cordially agree, though I cannot help seeing difficulties in putting some of those theories into practice.
  Before I refer more closely to the matters brought forward by the noble Duke, I would like to reply to some of the criticisms advanced by subsequent speakers in the course of the debate. The noble Marquess below the gangway, Lord Granby, commented on the shortness of officers, not only in the Militia, but also in the Regular Army, and he put forward certain reasons which, in his opinion, account for what he called the disinclination throughout the country to join the Army. The main reason he described, in what was to me somewhat veiled language, as insecurity of tenure. I wish that the noble Marquess had expanded his views on that subject in the same way as he did on the second point he mentioned. It is well within your Lordships' recollection that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War has repeatedly shown that in the forefront of his mind there exists a belief that it will be necessary in the very early future to increase considerably the number of officers in the Army; and I am not able to see, in view of that definite statement by the Minister who is responsible to Parliament and to the nation for the Army, how any officer in the Army at the present moment can feel insecure in his tenure of his commission.
  The noble Marquess also put forward the view that officers are not sufficiently paid. I admit that the pay is low; but we must not forget that the supply is still considerably in excess of the demand except in one particular branch of the service—the cavalry. I have not got the figures with me; I did not know that this point would have been raised or I should certainly have had them; but I am aware that at the last examination the number of gentlemen who passed the standard qualifying for admission to Sandhurst was considerably in excess of the number we were able to accept owing to the accommodation at Sandhurst. We hope very shortly to largely increase the accommodation there, and that increase will, obviously, considerably

  951
  help us in combating the deficiency to which the noble Marquess referred.
  I come now to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lovat. The noble Lord asked for particulars as to the deficiency of officers if the Militia were mobilised for war now; and, going further into detail, he said that though we were about 1,000 officers deficient at the present moment, we should, owing to the want of a service corps and an ordnance department, be 2,000 deficient if the Militia were mobilised now. If I may say so, I think the problem should be looked at rather differently. When the Militia is mobilised. for war it is not mobilised separately from the whole Army. It does not have its service corps and ordnance department separate to itself. I therefore think the noble Lord should have asked for figures as to the number deficient on any mobilisation scheme for the whole Army.
  LORD LOVAT: Are you not short for the Army now if it were mobilised?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I quite admit that we are deficient; but the noble Lord has asked me a very complicated Question as regards mobilisation for the whole Army, the figures of which I do not think it is quite reasonable to expect me to have in my pocket on an afternoon when I am to be asked a Question with reference to the condition of the Militia. I shall be glad to ascertain what the figures are, but I cannot promise to give them to the noble Lord, far I do not know that it would be advisable that they should be published. If I am permitted to do so, I will be very glad to let the noble Lord have them. The noble Lord asked where the officers required are coming from in the future. He asked the Question straight out, and then he slid, in substance, though in more formal language—"Do not let us hear any nonsense about considering a scheme; but let us know definitely where these officers for the Auxiliary Forces are to come from." I was amazed at that statement, and I think your Lordship will be amazed, too, when I tail you that we are at this moment inquiring into a most detailed and complicated scheme which has been put
  952
  before us by the noble Lord himself. I think it is rather unreasonable, when we have had this scheme in our hands for a few weeks and are gladly going into it in great detail, to be asked this Question, and to be told that the questioner did not wish to hear any nonsense about the matter being under consideration.
  I do not in the least depreciate the importance of this question of officers for the Auxiliary Forces. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the suggestion he has given us. There are other schemes of a similar nature which are at present being worked out in detail at the War Office, and amongst these naturally would be the remedy which has been suggested to us this evening by the noble Duke who initiated this discussion. But, as regards this particular one, I am not entirely convinced that it will prove the final solution of the problem. As has been said, lords-lieutenant already have power to nominate candidates for the Militia, and it is difficult to see exactly how their activities are to be considerably extended. They have no staff for the purpose. They have certainly not the facilities, in spite of what has been said, that a colonel of a regiment has—a colonel who, in every case we can manage it, is a county man and always should, be a county man.
  Difficulties suggest themselves on every side. One of the difficulties with which the Militia has to contend has been referred to tonight by the noble Lord behind me, Lord Blythswood—the paucity of young country gentlemen in many of the counties of England. Your Lordships will remember that last year my noble friend Lord Raglan, putting it rather bluntly, stated that as we have been legislating the landed class out of existence for many years, we could not expect them to come forward now to officer our Auxiliary Forces, because they did not exist. I confess, therefore, that I am not sanguine that lord-lieutenants, if they had the machinery, could, as regards officers, help us very much more than they do now. Still, as I have said, I would be most reluctant to refuse to inquire into the question. I should think that it is in regard to officers far more than in regard

  953
  to men that we can look for assistance in this direction. As regards the men, I entirely agree with the noble Duke who initiated this discussion that the more we can increase local interest, not only in the Militia, but in the whole of the military forces of the Crown, the easier must the recruiting problem become. So far I can agree with him in the generality. At the same time it is difficult to follow him in the particular remedy which I understand he now advocates—namely, that recruiting for the Militia should be organised under the lord-lieutenant and entirely separated from recruiting for the Regular Army under the direction of the War Office.
  And here I would turn to the point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, with regard to what I said on a former occasion as to the danger of competition between the lord-lieutenant of a county and the officer commanding the district. The noble Duke thinks that nothing could be better than competition; that having the lord-lieutenant on one side and the commanding officer of the district on the other, both recruiting for the Militia, is bound to lead to the most favourable results. I am afraid that I did not make myself clear to the noble Duke. What I objected to was the prospect of having the lord-lieutenant recruiting on one side for the Militia and the commanding officer of the regimental district recruiting on the other side for the Line. If I remember rightly I used the phrase "pull devil, pull baker," as illustrating the condition of affairs which I thought must inevitably ensue, and I still feel very strongly the objection I then raised. The noble Duke who called attention to this subject to-night discounts that objection. He says the Militiamen and the men going into the Line are a different class, and that rivalry between them is, therefore, not to be feared. I wish I could agree that the Militia and the Line recruits were of a different class. We know that last year in the General Annual Report of the British Army it was shown chat just under 15,000 men went on from the Militia into the Line. I cannot imagine a more convincing or damaging-fact than that as against the theory that the Line
  954
  and the Militia recruit from a different class.
  Your Lordships will also remember a speech delivered last year by a noble Lord who I regret is not in his place tonight, Lord Harris, in which he laid particular stress upon the fact that he regarded the Militia as a feeder for the Line—a further justification for my saying now that Militiamen are regarded as coming from a separate class from the Line. I think it is a pity. I wish the Militia did consist of a different class and did not compete for recruits with the Line; but, convinced as I am that the Militia and the Line do draw men from the same classes in the community, I cannot but feel very nervous as to the result of any experiment laying us open to the danger, if competition should be set up, that one branch of His Majesty's forces should do harm to another. Whatever remedy we find, it is useless to suggest that remedy if there is danger of its simply improving one branch by doing harm to the other. The noble Duke will recognise that at the present moment the Militia permanent staff is looked to at non-training periods to act to a large extent as recruiting sergeants for the Line; and the carrying out of his suggestion would involve a considerable change, therefore, not only in the recruiting arrangements for the Militia itself, but for the whole of His Majesty's forces.
  I do not wish to appear a carping critic, but simply to point out to the noble Duke that there are difficulties in the way, and that we cannot rush quickly into the remedy that he suggests. I can only repeat that I shall be most happy to ask my colleages at the War Office, who go more into detail on these questions than I do to work out the whole of his scheme and consider it in all its bearings. I would like to mention one fact which may be of interest to your Lordships. Perhaps rather justly, one or two of the speeches this afternoon, though not impatient in tone, have had a little impatience underlying them at the apparent lack of rapidity of progress. Your Lordships, I am sure, will not be impatient. This is a matter which must be approached cautiously. Everybody is in favour of reform, but

  955
  most people are opposed to any particular reform, and everybody is opposed to being reformed themselves. The lines which we would like to follow—the lines recommended by the Norfolk Commission which reported last year—all involve expense, and until money comes along we are unable to carry out such recommendations as that the Militia should train for six months on enlistment and at least six weeks during subsequent years; that commanding officers should form part of the permanent staff, and that there should be organisation in brigades and divisions, and so forth.
  I have already explained how we hope to obtain money to carry out some of these things, but there is another necessity which has been referred to this afternoon—the necessity for organising the Auxiliary Forces at home for the purposes of war. I am glad to say that considerable progress has lately been made in formulating proposals in this direction. It would not be expedient for me now to explain the details, but I may perhaps be allowed to state to your Lordships that from papers which have been before me during the last few days I am able to say with confidence that I believe considerable progress has been made in formulating proposals in this very important direction. Naturally matters have been facilitated by the work of the Defence Committee, and I have every hope that before very long we shall be able to finish and settle finally such a scheme of organisation as that to which I am now referring, which must effect a considerable improvement in the general efficiency of the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to speak on this subject after what we have heard from so many noble Lords who themselves command or have commanded Militia regiments and have had great experience in regard to them. At the same time I feel that I have perhaps some little claim to say something on these matters, as I have been for a considerable time one of the Sovereign's lords-lieutenants. The subject we have before us to-night and the
  956
  topics that have been referred to range over a very wide area. I will say a few words with regard to the difficulties that now exist, and which were put forward exceedingly well by the noble Marquess who spoke second. The noble Marquess referred to what he called insecurity of tenure as one of the reasons of the unpopularity of the Militia at this moment. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary for War criticised that expression, but I interpret it in this way—that those who are now proposing to enter the Militia have really no idea what kind of Militia they are entering, or what changes will be made in it. A short time ago a measure was passed through this House altering fundamentally, as I conceived, the position of the Militia. Some noble Lords held one view and some-another, but I confess myself that I had very grave doubt, not only whether it was right and expedient to alter the fundamental character of the Militia, but also whether the doing of that might not make the Militia more unpopular, and make it much more difficult to secure officers and men for that force.
  The noble Earl who has just sat down complains that there is impatience about the plans of His Majesty's Government. I do not really know whether I ought to say the plans of the Secretary of State for War or the plans of the Defence Committee. I have always felt that I there was a considerable danger in the creation of a Committee which would take off some of the serious responsibility which always used to rest on the Secretary of State for War, who was really responsible to Parliament for all that was done with regard to the Army. I will touch on the point with regard to officers first. I could not quite follow all the arguments of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary with regard to the want of officers. At one moment he said there was no real want of officers for the Army generally, and that lately there were more applicants to go to Sandhurst than they could accommodate there, and yet in another part of his speech he rather admitted that Lord Lovat was right in saying that if there were a mobilisation there would be a great dearth of officers. I do not understand the position of the noble

  957
  Earl, and I would venture to say that anybody who has had anything to do with young men wishing to enter the Army as officers knows that there are an enormous number of applicants for commissions. One young man who was nearly related to myself was seeking to be an officer, and on the two occasions that he went up there were between 600 and 800 candidates with only a limited number of vacancies at Sandhurst. Why is this? We see an enormous number of men seeking to be officers, and a great number rejected. Why, then, is it that there is this great deficiency?
  Is it not the fact that it is after men have entered the Army that the great falling off occurs? And thus there are an enormous number of resignations of officers. That is a very serious matter indeed, and I should like very much if some time or another a member of His Majesty's Government would explain the reason. I sometimes think that, though it is most desirable and important to make the officers of the Army as efficient as possible, the regulations, both with regard to officers of the Regular Army and officers and men of the Militia and other Auxiliary Forces, are driven too hard, that the authorities forget that these are all officers voluntarily, and that they make the conditions for young officers so hard now that you cannot get them to remain in the service. I think that in some way or other this should be modified. Men entering the Militia are also uncertain as to what will happen to them. The late Act of Parliament may have a very considerable effect in checking entry.
  With regard to what the noble Earl said just now upon the question whether the Militia are drawn from a different class from those who enlist for the Line, I think it is the case that the men who enlist in the Militia and those who enlist in the Line come from the same class, but they are men who have different intentions as to what they will do in the world. Those who enter the Militia are men who do not want to give up their whole time to soldiering. They want to do patriotic service and enter the Militia while working in some profession or trade. Those who enter the Regular Army, on the other hand, are ready to
  958
  devote themselves for a much longer time to the service. Though you may say that they are drawn from the same class they have different ideas, and they ought certainly, if possible, to have their separate views in this matter kept in mind, and those who intend to serve in the Militia while following their profession or trade ought not to be driven out of their course by too onerous duties being imposed on them during training. I believe that a great deal of the falling off in the numbers who enlist for the Militia has been caused by bringing the Militia for training too often to places at a distance from their own homes. I am happy to think that in my own county that has now been changed. In my county last year, for the first time in five years, the Militia trained in Northampton, and at this moment the Militia are under canvas close to my park training for the first time in the rural part of the county. This is a system which it is exceedingly desirable should be extended.
  I have stated what I think are some of the reasons why enlistment for the Militia has so considerably fallen off. I now come to the proposal which has been submitted by the noble, Duke opposite. He proposes not merely to go back to the old system of giving authority to the lord-lieutenant to enlist for the Militia, but to go a great deal further. I do not speak from experience, because I was appointed just after the change was made in 1872 or 1873, it was made under Mr. Cardwell; but I think the noble Duke will not contradict me when I say that before the charge was made, though the Militia were under lords-lieutenant, the lords-lieutenant, so far as I know, never did anything in regard to recruiting. They did everything in regard to appointments. They appointed all the officers, from the colonel down to the sub-lieutenants and ensigns, that existed at that time. I cannot help thinking that to the change which took place we cannot attribute the whole of the difficulties which now exist. Certainly, for many years after the change took place the Militia prospered and there were plenty of enlistments both of officers and men. I do, however, say that the result of taking away the

  959
  appointments from the lords-lieutenant has removed to a very great extent some of the inducements which created the local interest in the Militia. I agree with the noble Duke with regard to that. At the present moment the lord-lieutenant has very little inducement indeed to assist in this matter. The Duke of Northumberland spoke of the way in which he had been treated, and said that many of his recommendations had received very little notice, and that he had waited a long while before he got any reply.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I did not complain of the want of carrying out of any recommendations I have made. I have only been a lord-lieutenant for a very few months, but what I said was that there was no acknowledgment of any letter sent in recommending a commission. The commission was granted, but there was no letter.
  EARL SPENCER: I was going to say that that is exactly the position in which I was placed. Very great changes have taken place with regard to the recommendations of lords-lieutenant. At one time the recommendations for first commissions always went to the Under-Secretary, but that has been changed several times. Latterly I have sent in recommendations and have never had any answer whatever. I have merely received an acknowledgment from one officer saying that my letter had been forwarded to the proper quarters. In one case an officer whom I had recommended was appointed, and was obliged later to give up his commission, but I was never informed either of my recommendation having had effect, or of the officer's resignation. I agree that the lords-lieutenant in this respect have not been encouraged in the proper way, and on one occasion I proposed to give the whole thing up, and no longer to recommend any officers, but the colonel at the time said he thought that there was some advantage in the lord lieutenant intervening in regard to first commissions, and, therefore, I reluctantly continued the practice.
  The fact is, the influence of lords-lieutenant with regard to all these
  960
  matters has been confined to getting up subscriptions for the men in time of war, and in that way they have no doubt done something to encourage local feeling, but I cannot help thinking that if they received more encouragement in regard to the Militia, they might have more influence than at present, and might be able to do a considerable amount of good service. I will give an instance which came before me. One of the reasons why we get fewer recruits at this moment in my own county is that the whole organisation of the staple trade of the county has been altered in recent years. In Northamptonshire the staple trade is shoemaking, and in my early days the men followed it in their own homes. But that has now been entirely altered, and the trade is carried on in factories. I understand that the greatest objection is offered by the proprietors of these factories to the breaking up of the men, who work together in small gangs or parties, and when one or two want to join the Militia, the employers say they must not go, and they are prevented from joining. That is a case where the lord-lieutenant might exercise local influence, and see whether some arrangement might not be possible. Therefore, I agree with the noble Duke that more encouragement ought to be give n to lords-lieutenant to excite interest locally in the Auxiliary Forces, and if that were done some good at all events would follow.
  At the present moment the double system does not work very well. The Militia ought either to be, taken completely out of the hands of the local authorities and entirely centralised, or some serious modification with regard, at all events, to the officering of regiments ought to be made. It is, I admit, a difficult matter. I do not think that the whole difficulty arises from the change, but I think it is desirable and important that more local influence should be exercised, and it would be exercised if the lords-lieutenant were in some way or other brought in more directly to assist the Militia and the Auxiliary Forces generally. I listened with interest to what the noble Earl opposite said at the end of his speech with regard to what was going on. He spoke of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War

  961
  having in the forefront of his mind the question of the increase of officers. Well, it may be that he has got it in the forefront of his mind, but we have never really arrived at what his mind is on the subject. We have had scheme after scheme hinted at; we have been told that this scheme or that scheme was going to be carried out; but we are still in the dark on the matter. We do not know what is going to be done, and that is a very serious matter.
  We have very great reason to complain of this, because it is really affecting the services. I have no doubt that if these questions were once settled, and we saw what was going to be done with regard to the Auxiliary Forces generally, our difficulties would be diminished. We cannot press too strongly on His Majesty's Government the importance of solving these problems. Though the solution may be difficult, it is their business to find the solution for these difficulties. This evolution of schemes has now been going on for many years. We have had so many schemes that we are bewildered, and it is high time that the question was finally settled. It would be very satisfactory, if the noble Marquess the Leader of the House is going to speak, if he could assure us that this has actually been done. We are getting tired of hearing that this scheme or that scheme is being considered and that fair progress has been made in regard to it. Alas! we never arrive at what the scheme is, and, therefore, I think we have a right to demand that this state of uncertainty should come, to an end, and that the Government should declare finally what-their proposals are in regard to this most important subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, both the noble Earl who has just addressed your Lordships and the Duke of Northumberland have mentioned cases in which they, in their capacity as lords-lieutenant, addressed the War Office in regard to matters connected with the Militia regiments for which they are responsible, and in which they failed altogether to obtain a reply. My noble friend the Under-Secretary assures me that if any one is to blame in these cases the War
  962
  Office is not the culprit. The War Office, I know, is the habitual criminal of these debates; and it is always assumed that, if anything goes wrong the War Office should be taken to task. But not very long ago, in deference to a general demand for decentralisation—a word which sounds so blessedly in the ears of many people—a good deal of work which had previously been transacted in Pall Mall was transferred to the general officers commanding districts. It was generally felt that it was desirable that the War Office should be as far as possible relieved of the detail of administrative routine, and correspondence of this kind was in consequence transferred from Pall Mall to the districts. My noble friend tells me that if the noble Duke and the noble Earl will supply him with particulars of the cases he will make it his business to inquire into the causes of the delay.
  As to the Militia we are agreed up to this point—that the present condition of the force is most-unsatisfactory and urgently calls for improvement. But when we come to the question of remedies the agreement is not so complete. The number of prescriptions that have been drawn up is remarkable. The noble Earl, like other speakers to-night, expressed some surprise because the Secretary of State for War had not yet seen his way to produce a full and complete scheme for remedying all the defects which recent experience and inquiry have disclosed. But is it reasonable to complain of the Secretary of State for his inaction.
  Your Lordships will recollect the important Report produced by the Royal Commission presided over by the Duke of Norfolk. I have here a Memorandum drawn up by the Secretary of State for War containing an analysis of some of the more important recommendations of that Commission. There are between thirty and forty substantive propositions, all of which require the utmost care before they can be accepted or refused. Not only do the raise points of great difficulty and intricacy, but they are propositions which involve a large expenditure of public money; and it is not so many nights ago that I was taken to task in this House on account of

  963
  the growth of our military expenditure. Although we certainly should not grudge the expenditure of money to make the Militia efficient, we certainly owe it to the country, particularly after our experience in these matters, to scrutinise with the greatest care these proposals, some of them very far-reaching, for altering the character and conditions of service of the Militia force.
  Then it is incorrect to say that the Secretary of State for War has taken no steps to deal with the Militia. A Bill has already passed this House—the most important measure affecting the status of the Militia which has for many years been produced in Parliament—I mean the Bill under which Militiamen become liable in certain circumstances for service beyond the limits of this country; and I heard with great satisfaction the cheers which greeted the mention of that Bill by the noble Duke. The fact is that these proposals are proposals of very great delicacy and difficulty; because what is the cardinal proposal of those who, like the noble Duke, wish to see the efficiency of the Militia increased? The Duke of Richmond, to whose speech we listened with great interest and satisfaction, put the case well when he said that it was of no use to raise the numerical strength of the Militia; but what mattered was the quality and efficiency of the men. But efficiency implies training; and when you come to proposals to increase the training of the Militia, you find yourself at once face to face with a problem of the utmost difficulty.
  It is very easy to talk of training the Militia for months instead of for weeks, but if you take away a Militia officer or private for six months training, as the Norfolk Commission proposed, you at once place it beyond his power to follow those civilian pursuits upon which he depends for his livelihood. These are matters about which it is impossible to dogmatise; and I think my right hon. colleague is right when he pursues a careful and deliberate line of action in regard to this question, and, above all, when he refuses to deal with it without consulting, as he is doing, the commanding officers of Militia battalions. We have taken the Militia Vote this year at the full amount at which
  964
  it stood last year; and the hope of the Secretary of State is that we may gradually, by reducing useless units or by amalgamating smaller units with larger bodies, find ourselves able to spend on the units which remain a larger amount with good results for their efficiency.
  I pass to the particular remedy recommended by the noble Duke. His desire is that a more conspicuous part should be taken by the lords-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenants of counties in dealing with the Militia. I am perfectly prepared to say that, so far as the principle of the noble Duke's proposal is concerned, we are entirely at one with him. We think that no pains should be spared to increase the connection of the Militia with the territorial authorities; and the suggestion made by Lord Blythswood that not only lords-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenants should be encouraged to interest themselves in the Militia, but that other local authorities might take a similar part, is one well worthy of consideration. That is the more true because, in the case of lord-lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants, they are constitutionally connected with the Militia force. The deputy-lieutenants hold their commissions under the Militia Act, and it would be natural, therefore, for them to take an interest in that force. But I am bound to say that it seems to me that the lord-lieutenant is more likely to use his influence with advantage in the case of the officers than in the case of the men in the Militia. The lord-lieutenant and his deputy-lieu tenants may be presumed to have some knowledge of their counties and of the families from whom officers are likely, to be drawn. Therefore, as far as obtaining the services of subalterns is concerned, there is no reason why their aid should not be usefully invoked.
  I am not sure that I should go quite so far as the noble Duke when he suggested that, if the deputy-lieutenants do not at the end of a fixed time produce their full quota of subalterns, their commissions should be withdrawn. I picture to myself the pitiable state of mind of the three deputy-lieutenants who are expected by the noble Duke to produce one subaltern amongst them, and who, at the end of the

  965
  five years period of grace which he allows them, finding themselves unable to produce a suitable candidate are to be themselves sentenced to extinction. That, however, is not an essential portion of the proposal. The case is different as to recruiting the men for the Militia. The lord-lieutenant has no staff which could assist him in organising the county or in drawing recruits from different parts of it.
  I admit that the Militia in the past has suffered very greatly from the undue competition to which it has been subjected owing to the practice of taking recruits for the Militia and passing them into the Line, sometimes even before they have actually joined their Militia battalions. That is a matter to which the Secretary of State is giving his earnest attention, and he is in hope of being able to devise some means of avoiding competition of that kind.
  As to the general subject, I agree with the noble Earl that, although the change under which the lords-lieutenant were deprived of their functions in respect of the Militia may have had an effect upon the force, it is unfair to attribute to that change the whole of the falling off in its strength. The explanation of that must be sought for in other causes into which I will not now enter. I will only say that His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the necessity of taking some adequate means of arresting this decadence, and that the particular suggestions which have been made by your Lordships during this debate will certainly receive the most attentive consideration.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I should like to be allowed to say a word or two upon the subject of the appointment of subaltern officers. I do not think that the double system that exists at the present can really work well. Somebody must be responsible, either the lord-lieutenant or the commanding officer of the regiment. At present either of them can appoint. I have certainly in my own experience not had any difficulty in the matter, but it has been because, acting upon what I understood to be the view of the War Office, I have hardly ever interfered in the appointment of these officers. But if you want to get
  966
  the influence of the lord-lieutenant brought forward to secure a large proportion of local officers for the Militia, you must, at least so far as subaltern officers are concerned, revert to the practice by which he was the person who made the selection and recommended the proper persons. No lord-lieutenant would be so foolish as not to consult the commanding officer of the regiment on the subject. I feel that the double system will not work satisfactorily, and that so long as it is in force, in that respect at any rate, no material change will be introduced. You may debate these questions as much as you like, but the discussion will be unavailing and the difficulties will remain until the Militia force knows what His Majesty's Government really intend to do.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.