Sitting of 10 July 1905

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [Lords]; Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting: Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Hitchm and District Gas Bill. Lords Amendments conisidered, and agreed to.
  Hessle Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Southend and Colchester Light Railways Bill [Lords]; Tees Valley Water
  60
  Board Bill [Lords]; Whitby Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Thames Conservancy Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  PURSHAD, THAKUR.
  Petition of Thakur Purshad, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DEER FORESTS (HIGHLAND CROFTING COUNTIES).
  Return [presented 29th June]; to be printed. [No. 232.]
  REDISTRIBUTION OF SEAIS.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum by the President of the Local Government Board [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 8th March; Mr. Joseph A.

  61
  Pease]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 233.]

  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of the Postal Order (Colonial) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations, 1905, dated 29th June, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of Post Office Savings Bank Regulations, 1905, dated 15th May 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Rutland, K.G., preserved at Belvoir Castle, Vol. IV. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for the Instruction and Training of Pupil Teachers from August 1st, 1905, to July 31st, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary for Scotland of a Departmental Committee on the Sea Fisheries of Sutherland and Caithness. Vol. II. Minutes of Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Rule made by the Secretary for Scotland as to the appointment of a Visiting Committee to the Prison at Glasgow (Duke Street) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of Proceedings by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, under the Diseases of Animals Acts, for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account presented, of Deposits in Naval Savings Banks, and the payments thereof, and the interest thereon, etc., during the financial year 1903–4. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 234.]

  REVENUE BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum explanatory of the Revenue Bill."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 235.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Convict Labour in Cape Colony.
  Mr. JOHN ELLIS: 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.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Ministers of the Capo Colony have stated that convict labour is hired out to various public bodies and private employers in the Cape Colony, and that, in accordance with this practice, an agreement was entered into in 1889 between the Government and the De Beers Consolidated Mines, Limited, for the establishment of a convict station on the company's premises at Kimberley, and for the supply of native convicts for employment in the diamond mines. The company pays the entire cost of the buildings and staff, and provides for the clothing, rationing, and medical attendance of the convicts; and in addition to this pays the Government a small sum per man for the convicts supplied. The system has legislative

  63
  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.

  Expenditure and Financial Position of Municipal Corporations.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of instituting an inquiry, by Committee or otherwise, into the expenditure and financial position of the municipal corporations in this country, with a view to obtain a Report thereon.
  (Answered by MR. A. J. Balfour.) The subject of local expenditure and local indebtedness is undoubtedly one of the utmost importance, but I doubt whether any such inquiry as my hon. and learned friend has in mind could at the present moment be started with advantage.

  Report of Vagrancy Committee.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Committee now dealing with the question of vagrancy will report during the present session.
  (Answered by MR. Gerald Balfour.) I understand that there still remains a considerable number of witnesses to be examined, and that it will not be possible for the. Committee to make their Report during the present session.

  Orange Disturbances in Glasgow.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether his attention has been called to disturbances of a Party character which occurred in the Partick district of Glasgow on July 1st, due to an Orange band parading the district playing Party tunes; whether he is aware that the shopkeepers in the vicinity were compelled to close their premises, and that two young girls had to be removed to the hospital suffering from serious injuries; and will he say whether any of the bandsmen were arrested, and, if not, why this step was not taken; and whether, in view of the proposal to hold Orange demonstrations in Glasgow on July 12th, precautions
  64
  will be taken to protect the lives and property of Catholics in those districts through which the demonstrators will pass.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) My attention has been called to the disturbances referred to. I am informed that one shop door was closed for a few minutes, and one girl suffering from a scalp wound was taken to the infirmary where the wound was dressed; the girl was then sent home. The bandsmen, were not in uniform and none were arrested, as they broke up and mixed with the crowd. The local authorities are fully aware of the circumstances, and I have no doubt that all proper precautions-will be taken by them.

  Loss of Public Holidays by Excise Officials at Distilleries.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in several distilleries working all the year round throughout the United Kingdom Excise officers are required to perform duty on recognised official holidays, even Christmas Day not being excepted, while other Government officials enjoy the privilege of these holidays; and whether, seeing that the Excise officers in such places have frequently to give attendance at irregular hours, as well as performing night duty in unhealthy surroundings from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., and in view of the difficulties of these Civil servants which are not experienced in other branches of the public service, the Treasury will consider the claims of these officials to special leave in lieu of service given by them on. official holidays.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I understand the advantages enjoyed by Excise officers holding the appointments referred to by the hon. Member counterbalance the loss of certain public holidays.

  The Crimes Act—Proclaimed Districts in. Ireland.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the several counties and districts in Ireland which are at the present time

  65
  proclaimed under Sections 3 or 4, or both, of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, together with the date of such proclamation and the names of the Privy Councillors who signed the same.

  County.

  Proclaimed District.

  Date of Proclamations

  Cavan

  The County

  16th April, 1902

  Clare

  The County

  16th April, 1902

  Cork

  The County

  16th April, 1902

  Cork County Borough

  The County Borough

  16th April, 1902

  Dublin County Borough

  The County Borough

  1st September, 1902

  Galway

  The County

  1st September, 1902

  King's County

  The County

  1st September, 1902

  Leitrim

  The County

  16th April, 1902

  Limerick

  The County

  1st September, 1902

  Limerick County Borough

  The County Borough

  1st September, 1902

  Longford

  The County

  1st September, 1902

  Mayo

  The County

  16th April, 1902

  Queen's County

  The County

  1st September, 1902

  Roscommon

  The County

  16th April, 1902

  Sligo

  The County

  16th April, 1902

  Tipperary

  The County

  16th April, 1902

  Waterford

  The County

  16th April, 1902

  Waterford County Borough

  The County Borough

  16th April, 1902

  Westmeath

  The County

  1st September, 1902

  The proclamations of April 16th, 1902, were signed by the Lord-Lieutenant (Earl Cadogan), and the following Privy Councillors—The Lord Chancellor, Viscount Powerscourt, Lord Clonbrock, and Mr. A. H. Smith-Barry. The proclamations of September 1st, 1902, were signed by the Lords Justices (the Lord Chancellor and Viscount
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Each of the counties and county boroughs set forth in the following list is proclaimed under both Sections 3 and 4 of The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887:—
  Powerscourt), and the following Privy Councillors—The Chief Secretary (Mr. Wyndham), and the Attorney-General (Mr. Atkinson).

  Aliens Bill—Danger to British Shipping Trade.
  MR. CHARLES WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the

  67
  Home Department whether, under his Amendments to the Aliens Bill, he will provide against the possibility of Scandinavian and Russian transmigrants being placed under disabilities which will endanger the trade being diverted to the competing Scandinavian and German lines, seeing that the British shipping companies will have to incur more expense and delays than at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I think that the hon. Member will find that his point is satisfactorily met by the proposed Amendment to Clause 8, page 6, line 20 of the Bill, which stands on the Paper in my name. This Amendment is designed, and is believed, to enable the shipping companies concerned to relieve themselves, under due security, of all unnecessary restrictions upon bona fide transmigrant traffic.

  Local Practitioners attending Patients in Isolation Hospitals.
  SIR CHAELES WELBY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, in the case of an isolation hospital having no resident medical officer, it is customary for the local practitioners to attend their own patients; and whether, in the event of any such practitioner being a member of the local authority to which such hospital belongs, it is the practice of the Local Government Board to take any steps to prevent the recovery by him of the usual fees paid by the local authority in such case.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I believe that not infrequently patients in isolation hospitals are attended by their own. medical men. I am not aware of any case in which the Local Government Board have taken steps to prevent the recovery of fees in such circumstances, but I think it right to draw attention to the provision in Section 12 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which disqualifies a person for being a councillor of a borough if he has directly or indirectly by himself, or his partner, any share or interest in any contract or employment with, by, or on behalf of the council. There is a similar provision in the Local Govern-
  68
  ment Act, 1894, as regards members of urban or rural district councils.

  Surrey Education Committee's Accounts.
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the last report of the Local Government Board auditor on the accounts of the Surrey Education Committee stated that sums amounting to over £5,900 had been illegally charged ' on the rates, making the rates liable to be quashed on objection; that considerable sums had been paid to managers for wear and tear and not refunded, although the education committee had decided that no such sums should be paid for the year under audit; that lump sums from the county funds had been placed at the disposal of managers of non-provided schools without I requiring accounts of these moneys to be audited; and, if so, what action has been taken, and what guarantees have been given, against the recurrence of such irregularities.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The auditor's report contained statements which were substantially to the effect indicated in the Question. I have received a copy of the reply of the education committee to that report, from which it would appear that the sums, amounting to over £5,900, referred to were raised by rates in certain special areas without account being taken of the net balances of the previous school authorities for those areas. The committee say that it was impossible to ascertain these balances at the time when the estimates for the rates had to be made, and that under the circumstances they were justified in making arrangements which would allow of o the necessary adjustments being carried out at a later date. I understand that the auditor was assured that the sums for wear and tear would be dealt with in adjusting future accounts between the Committee and the managers. With respect to the sums advanced by the Education Committee to the managers, the auditor reports that I arrangements were ultimately made for examining and checking the managers' I cash books, although this was imperfectly

  69
  done. As I stated in reply to a previous Question by the hon. Member on the subject, the education committee have drawn up some detailed instruction, with a view of securing that in future the financial transactions and accounts of the managers shall be properly controlled and supervised.

  Upholstery Work in Government Dock yards.
  MR. BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the upholstery work allocated to women in the Devonport Dockyard extends to the stuffing of chairs from the bare frames, work hitherto confined in the furnishing trade to men; whether the advertisement issued from Chatham asking for women to upholster chairs and couches is intended to cover this work; and, if so, whether he will take steps to confine the work of the women upholstresses in the dockyards to those lighter branches of the craft in which they usually find employment.
  (Answered by Mr. Prelyman.) The upholstery work allocated to women in Devonport Dockyard does not include the stuffing of chairs from the bare frames, but is confined to sewing work, such as making curtains, window blinds, mattress ticks, pillow covers, ovorcases for furniture, etc. Women have not been employed on any stuffing, and the only work done by them in this connection, after making the cases, has been to sew up the last of the chair covers, mattresses, etc., after the stuffing has been completed by men. The advertisement issued from Chatham, asking for women to upholster chairs and couches, was intended to cover this work, but qualified candidates were not obtainable. It is intended to confine the work of the upholstresses in the dockyards to the lighter branches of the craft in which they usually find employment, in accordance with existing practice at Devonport.

  Vaccination Prosecutions at Dundee.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether the prosecution in Dundee of twenty-one parents who conscientiously object to the vac-
  70
  cination of their children has been ordered by the Local Government Board for Scotland; whether such prosecutions take place in England; and why so many prosecutions of this kind are being conducted in one Scottish city.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Local Government Board do not directly order the prosecution of vaccination defaulters, but are required by the Vaccination Act to see that its provisions are duly carried out. The Board communicate when necessary with parish councils calling attention to the provisions of the Act, and, among the parish councils lately so communicated with, the parish council of Dundee was written to in the early part of the year. In regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question I have no information in regard to English prosecutions. The number of prosecutions, of course, depends on the number of defaulters.

  Regulations for Pupil-Teachers
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the altered arrangements for the education of pupil-teachers drawn up by the Board of Education, it is now possible, under certain conditions, to send pupil-teachers to a school, whether carried on for profit or not, and yet earn on them a grant, such grant being payable to the local education authority.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) It will be possible under the Pupil-Teacher Regulations for 1905–6 for grants to be earned for pupil-teachers attending schools conducted for private profit. Grants so earned will be paid to the local education authority.

  Issue of Regulations under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state when the regulations under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, with respect to the verification and stamping of weights and measures and weighing and measuring instruments will be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether the Board of Trade will undertake that

  71
  such general regulations, when issued, shall not dash with their prior approval of samples which have been submitted to the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Progress is being made with the drafting of the regulations in question, but I cannot say when the Board will be in a position to lay them before the House. Pending the making of the new regulations the regulations made by local authorities under the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, remain in operation. In framing the new regulations the point to which attention is drawn in the concluding portion of the Question will, of course, be borne in mind.

  The Indian Viceroy and Lord Kitchener's Army Proposals.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received from the Viceroy of India a communication that unless certain; modifications in the proposed new scheme of Indian Army administration are' agreed to by the Cabinet his resignation will take place; and, if so, when was such a communication received, and what are its precise terms; and what are the precise modifications in the scheme desired by the Viceroy and Government of India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I can only refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 28th ultimo† to a similar, Question asked by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs. I am not yet in a position to make any further statement.

  Promotion of Assistant Clerks in National Education Office, Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state if the circumstances which prevented the Irish Government from recommending the proposal for the; promotion of assistant clerks serving in the National Education Office, Dublin, now obtain; whether he is aware that an immediate saving of from £12 to £15 a year would be effected by the promotion of each assistant clerk recom-
  † See (4) Debates, cxlviii., 373.
  72
  mended in this case; and whether, in consideration of this fact, and of the suspense endured by these officers as compared with officers promoted in other Departments, he will see whether the recommendations can now be carried out.
  (Answered by Mt. Walter Long.) The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. I am not at present prepared to reopen the consideration of the matter.

  Applications for Reinstatement by Evicted Tenants in County Waterford.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what number of applications for reinstatement by evicted tenants have been received, since the passing of the Land Act of 1903, by the Estates Commissioners from the county Waterford.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Two hundred and ten, of which six appear to be outside the provisions of the Act.

  Grazing Lands on the King-Harman Estate.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in how many cases on the King-Harman Estate-have the Estates Commissioners offered to purchase large grazing farms from the vendor as untenanted land; what are the names of the present occupiers of these farms, and what were their yearly rents before the sale of the estate; and whether he can give the amounts, including the bonus, which the Estates Commissioners have intimated through their inspector OT negotiator that they are prepared to advance to the vendor for each of these farms respectively as untenanted land.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am not prepared to give any further information in this matter than that which I gave in reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 22nd May‡. It would be undesirable and contrary to practice to give particulars of pending negotiations for the purchase of lands by the Commissioners.
  ‡See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 952.

  The King-Harman Estate.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can state in how many cases since they have become the owners of the King-Harman Estate have they refused to sanction the sale by one tenant to another of the tenant's interests in their holdings; can they explain on what grounds and at whose instigation they refused permission to the National Bank to sell the tenant's interest in Corrigard and Termon holdings to Surgeon-Colonel Smith and ex-County Inspector Scott respectively; and whether they intend to pursue the same policy in the case of other farms where the tenant's interest is offered for sale on this estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Answer to the first inquiry is, in no case.

  Purchase of Turbary on the King-Harman Estate.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of I eland whether the Estates Commissioners can state the total sum advanced for the purchase of the turbary on the King-Harman Estate, and the amount of the yearly instalment for the repayment of this sum; what is the total amount of the salaries paid at present by the turbary trustees approved; of by the Estates Commissioners; what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners, or the trustees approved of by them, to publish to the tenants the terms of the trust deed dealing with the fuel supply; and where can a copy of this trust deed be inspected by any of the tenants on this estate.
  (Answered by MR. Walter Long.) The amount of the purchase money was £1,338, and the annuity thereon is £43 9s. 8d. The Commissioners have no information as to the second inquiry, the matter not being under their control. A certified copy of the statutory scheme dealing with the turbary has been furnished to the trustees, and it is presumed that an application to them by any person interested in or affected by the scheme for an inspection of the same would be duly entertained.

  Grazing Lands at Clew Bay, County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board recently purchased some islands in Clew Bay, near Newport, county Mayo; that those islands have been let to graziers who live long distances away, while the neighbouring tenants were much in need of them; and if he can say why they were not leased or sold to the neighbouring tenants whose holdings are small and uneconomic.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board issued public notices calling for tenders for the grazing on these islands, and in every case in which the Board's tenants sent in tenders their tenders were accepted, but this occurred in the case of only three islands out of the entire number. The islands will ultimately be added to the holdings of tenants on neighbouring estates purchased by the Board, but the title to the islands has not yet been vested in the Board.

  The O'Donell Estate, Newport, County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 27th ult. application was made on behalf of the Congested Districts Board to the Court of Chancery for the purchase of the O'Donell Estate at Newport, county Mayo; that the sale was postponed until November next; can he say why the sale was postponed; and whether, considering the poverty of the surrounding tenants, he will use his influence with a view to expediting the sale of the estate, so that their holdings may be enlarged.
  (Answered by MR. Walter Long.) The Congested Districts Board have issued a request under Section 77 of the Act of 1903 with regard to this estate. The application referred to was not made by the Board, but by the solicitors having carriage of the sale. The Land Judge directed the case to stand till next sittings, the receiver in the meantime to negotiate with the agricultural tenants as to the prices they would be prepared to pay

  75
  to the Board for their holdings. The tenants are very numerous, and it was considered that any shorter adjournment would have been useless.

  Promotion in Irish Agricultural Department.
  MR. DELANTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state on what grounds he refuses to grant the independent inquiry asked for into the methods of promotion prevailing in the Irish Agricultural Department, seeing that the Press and the local bodies in Ireland have repeatedly expressed the view that the facts demand an independent examination.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have already stated that I have carefully looked into the facts of this case, and am satisfied that no further inquiry is called for. I have nothing to add to that statement.

  Irish Poor Law Reform Commission— Publication of Report
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant. of Ireland if be can explain the cause of delay in presenting the Reports of the Irish Poor Law Reform Commission.
  (Answered by Me. Walter Long.) There has been no avoidable delay. The proceedings of the Commission, which have necessarily been very exhaustive, are approaching completion, and the Commissioners hope to present their Report before the close of the present year.

  Government Orders for Bayonets.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause bayonet orders for a larger amount than 2,500 to be placed with private firms within the present year, inasmuch as some 19,000 have already been turned out from the Ordnance Factories, 12,000 are still required to complete stock and reserve, and the proportion of private allocation is much higher in the case of other warlike stores and requisites.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Will the hon. Member kindly
  76
  refer to my reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield on the 5th instant.†

  Drainage of Bordon Camp, Hampshire.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURBAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any drainage takes place from Bordon Camp, Hampshire, into the sources of the River Wey, which, flows into the Thames; and, if so, what steps are being taken by the military authorities to prevent pollution of the rivers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster,) No unpurified sewage from Bordon Camp discharges into the River Wey. The effluent from the Bordon sewage works eventually finds its way, as must any such discharge in that locality, into the Wey, which, is the natural watercourse draining that area. Difficulties have been experienced in attaining the degree of purification of the effluent desired by the river authorities, and the matter has been and is receiving very special attention, and every endeavour is being made to put matters upon a proper footing.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

    Army Efficiency.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Regular troops on home stations were last medically examined; and if he will pledge himself I that, with the exception of those temporarily incapacitated by sickness, all are first-class shots and physically ready for active service, and that every precaution has been taken to prevent the recurrence of the state of affairs in 1899, when 36½ per cent, of the Regular Army was unable to embark for the field.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD - FORSTEB, Belfast, W): Regular soldiers at home are under constant medical supervision, both by means of the ordinary routine inspection of the medical officer or of special examination for gymnastic courses,
    †See (4) Debates, cxlviii, 1121.

    77
    service abroad, extensions of service, etc., or on the orders of commanding officers for the investigation of some defect which may interfere with a man's usefulness as a soldier, I cannot give a pledge that, with the exception of those temporarily incapacitated by sickness, all the men are first-class shots and physically ready for active service; but on mobilisation in 1899 it was found that 3·9 per cent, of the men returned as unable to embark were disqualified on the ground of medical unfitness, while 31·5 per cent, were unfit on account of non-fulfilment of age and service conditions. I consider the proportion of those unfit to embark is too high, and every effort is being made to reduce it, though, of course, there will always be a considerable proportion of men disqualified on account of their being under twenty years of age or insufficiently trained. As regards the musketry qualification, there is no regulation requiring Regular soldiers to be first-class shots as a condition of active service.

    Liability for Debts of Volunteer Battalions Disbanded.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will undertake that, in the event of its being found necessary to disband any Volunteer battalions, no pecuniary liability for expense legitimately incurred by commanding officers on behalf of the corps shall be allowed to fall upon such commanding officers.
    *MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: The Volunteer Regulations contain definite provisions regarding the finances of corps on disbandment, and there is no reason to suppose that these provisions are inadequate.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: But suppose any corps are disbanded under this order of January 20th, will any pecuniary liabilities rest upon the commanding officer?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no proposal in this circular to disband Volunteer corps. Where they have been disbanded in the past they have been dealt with under the regulation which I have just quoted.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked whether the circular relating to the efficiency of the Volunteers had been withdrawn.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir.

    The Volunteers—The Recent Circular.
    Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many Volunteer battalions have been reported unfit for war; by whom such reports were made, and to whom; whether every soldier enlisted into the Army has no defect likely to interfere with marching or active service; whether all Regular soldiers are first class-shots; and whether, if all Regular soldiers liable for foreign service do not fulfil the above conditions, he can state for what reasons they are to be applied to Volunteers whose only obligations are for home service.
    MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: Nearly all the Volunteer battalions are in the same position as the Line battalions, that is to say, they are unfit fox active service abroad until those men who do not fulfil the necessary conditions have been withdrawn from the ranks. In the care of the Regular Army facilities exist for filling up the vacancies from the Army Reserve. No such resource exists in the case of the Volunteers. In reply to the second part of the Question, the Answer is that many soldiers in the Regular Army are unfit for active service abroad. These men will not be utilised in case of war until they become fit. I consider the number larger than it need be, and the Army Council is making every effort to reduce the proportion of unfit men both by increasing the number of long-service men and by increasing the proportion of rejections of those medically unfit. All Regular soldiers are not first-class shots, but the Army Council has the means of ascertaining what number of men in all mobilised battalions are first-class shots. They desire to obtain the same information with regard to such of the Volunteers as might offer themselves for active service abroad. No obligation is imposed on the Volunteers in this respect. It is quite true that the Volunteers are enlisted for home service only, but past

    79
    experience has shown that many of them may be relied upon for active service abroad in time of war. It is therefore considered absolutely necessary to make suitable arrangements beforehand for the employment of officers and men who will volunteer.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: How many Volunteer battalions have been reported unfit for war, and by whom were such reports made?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have answered that Question. No Volunteer battalions are fit for foreign service in their present condition.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: That is not an Answer to the Question whether any Volunteer battalions have been reported as unfit, and, if so, how many.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: My Answer is perfectly clear. We are dealing merely with men who are likely to be engaged on active service abroad. No Volunteer battalion complies with the condition of fitness for active service abroad. It requires no report; it is perfectly well known.
    MR. MCCRAE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how he defines the words "a first-class shot" as applied to the Volunteers.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Gentleman had better give me notice of that Question.
    MR. C. R. SPENCER: Has any officer commanding Volunteer corps answered the circular?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I understand that a great many commanding officers are doing their best to obtain the information that we require, and no doubt we shall receive their reports as soon as they have obtained it.
    MAJOE SEELY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands the Question. In the circular to which my hon. friend refers the information is asked for on the ground that many Volunteer unite are
    80
    reported as not in a fit state to take the field. My hon. friend desires to know by whom the reports were made, and by whom they were received.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission states that many battalions are unfit for war.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Was the circular based on the Report of the Norfolk Commission, and nothing else?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is based on the Report of the Norfolk Commission and a great deal of other information submitted to the War Office. We are dealing entirely and solely with Volunteer battalions for service abroad. No Volunteer battalions are so fit.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: By whom, and to whom, were the reports made?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. CHARLES ALLENasked whether the period for the inspection ordered by the recent circular had been postponed.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes. I thought the time was too short. We have extended the time to October.

    The Army Council and the Volunteers.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House of the text of the Resolution of the Army Council with regard to the physical and dental examination of the Volunteer force for active service now proceeding, and the date at which it was arrived at; and, further, if prior thereto the Director of Auxiliary Forces and the Assistant Director for Volunteers were called into consultation.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The decisions of the Army Council are confidential, and I am not, therefore, in a position to give my hon. and gallant friend any information in regard to the Question.
    MAJOR SEELY: Was the Assistant Director of Volunteers consulted in any way?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not interfere in such matters.
    MAJOR SEELY: He was not consulted.

    Case of Convict Thomas Leonard at Maryborough.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when the Army Council considered the case of Thomas Leonard, now imprisoned in Maryborough, under a life sentence for desertion, the Council was aware that the desertion took place more than a year before the outbreak of the war, and that Leon wd, who was employed at the mines, was commandeered by the Boers on the outbreak of the war; I and, if not, will he put this fact before the Council and ask for a reconsideration of Leonard's case; whether he can explain what circumstances influenced the decision of the Army Council in ordering the discharge two years ago from Maryborough Prison of a man who belonged to the same regiment as Leonard, and who was sentenced to death for the murder of a soldier in South Africa daring the late war, while refusing to discharge Leonard, who has now been over five years in prison for desertion.
    MR. AENOLD-FORSTER: The Army I Council is aware that Thomas Leonard deserted before the outbreak of war. The evidence given at the Court-martial by which he was tried and sentenced for the offences of desertion and treason, showed that he had not been commandeered by the Boers. Leonard was sentenced in October, 1902, and accordingly only completes three years of his sentence in October next, when his release will be considered if his conduct is good. He was sentenced to penal servitude for life for treason, as well as desertion, in that he was found fighting against his country at Parrdeberg. The case of Private Coughlan, released from Maryborough Prison in 1903, was fully stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Kilkenny or February 28th† last. That case was
    † See (4) Debates, cxli., 1449.
    82
    quite different as the man, who had been convicted for murdering a comrade with a rifle, appeared to have been not entirely responsible for his action at the time, owing to his physical and mental condition.
    In reply to a farther Question the right hon. Gentleman said the case would have favourable consideration when it came up for review.

    Joint Stock Enterprises in the Transvaal.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the laws governing the flotation and operations of joint stock enterprises in the Transvaal remain the same to-day as they were before the annexation of the country by the British. Crown; and if so, whether he will consider the advisability of moving the Transvaal Government to make such alterations as will assimilate those laws more closely with those which have been found necessary and expedient for the control of joint stock enterprise and the protection of the investing public in the United Kingdom.
    THIS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): Some amending legislation has been passed since annexation, but the principal law regulating the; management of companies remains the Law No. 5 of 1874, The Transvaal Government has drafted a law consolidating the whole of the Company Law on the lines of the English Acts, 1862 to 1900, but was unable to proceed with legislation last session. I will inquire whether it is proposed to proceed with, the Bill during the present session.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Can Ministers of the Crown, act as directors of public companies in the Transvaal as in this country?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Collection of British Trade Statistics Abroad.
    Mr. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether any general instructions have

    83
    been given to Consuls to collect information as regards trade with the United Kingdom as a whole, thereby releasing them from any obligation to use their best endeavours to secure information as to the trade with Ireland specifically.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): It is the duty of the Consular officers in the first place to collect information as regards trade with the United Kingdom as a whole, but no instruction has been issued discouraging them from securing such information as may be available as to trade with the various parts of the United Kingdom separately. Special Reports have, however, from time to time been obtained from His Majesty's representatives abroad at the request of the Irish Department of Agriculture on matters of interest to Ireland.

    Motor Car Speed in Essex.
    SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received the resolution of the Essex County Council of July 4th as to the desirability of empowering justices to impose a severer penalty than fines on motorists who drive through populous districts and narrow roads to the danger of the public; and what steps he will take to give effect to the resolution.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. GERALD BALFUER, Leeds, Central): I have re-received the resolution referred to. The expediency of increasing the penalties for offences under the Motor-Car Acts is one of the matters which would come within the scope of the inquiry which the Government propose to institute as to the working of these Acts.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the inquiry will be commenced and when finished?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I hope the inquiry will commence with as little delay as possible.

    Holborn Municipal Finance Disclosures.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the recent proceedings at the meeting of the Holborn Borough Council, and to the fact that a special investigation committee recommended that Mr. Lewis H. Isaacs be proceeded against under the provisions of The Statutory Declarations Act, 1835; and whether, in view of the refusal of the borough council to take proceedings recommended by its special committee, the Local Government Board will take steps in furtherance of the public interest and to vindicate justice.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware of the proceedings referred to. I uaderstand that in consequence of the action taken by the auditor at the audit Mr. Isaacs has refunded a sum of over £600, and admitted that his future compensation should be reduced by £159 18s. 5d. per annum. I am informed that the debate with respect to the steps to be taken by the borough council in relation to Mr. Isaacs' conduct stands adjourned until the next meeting of the council.
    MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that the special investigation committee took counsel's opinion before they made the recommendation? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what that opinion was?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not in a position to answer that Question.

    Amalgamation of Transvaal Companies.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the proposed amalgamation of the Johannesburg Consolidated Investment and the Barnato Consolidated Investment Companies; whether he is aware that a large amount of English and European capital is invested in these concerns, and that attempts to raise further capital in this country are now being made; and whether, seeing that owing to these companies being registered in the Transvaal the English and European shareholders have no means of protecting their interests or of representing their

    85
    views, he will bring this transaction to the notice of the Committee which is at present inquiring into these subjects.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): I have no knowledge of the case mentioned, but the attention of the Committee has been specially directed by the Board of Trade to the question of companies registered abroad and appealing to investors in this country.

    Merionethshire Education Grant.
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether any grants or instalments of grant which in the ordinary course would have become due and payable to the local education authority of Merionethshire prior to 1st July have been withheld; what is the total amount which has been withheld; and what is the total amount which the local education authority is alleged to be in arrear in respect of payments due to non-provided schools.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University):
    No grants or instalments of grants which have accrued for payment during the first three months of the financial year have been withheld; though from the sums which have accrued the Board have made deductions amounting to £1,120 to meet payments made to managers in respect of expenses properly incurred by them between September 30th, 1903, and October 31st, 1904. The Board have been in correspondence with the local education authority in reference to the payment of an instalment of aid grant, and the payment would have been made before now had the assurances been received which have been asked for by the Board as to the fulfilment of certain legal requirements. I am afraid I cannot state exactly what further deductions it will be necessary for the Board to make to meet payments made to managers in respect of the above-named period, but I think it is quite probable that they may amount to another £500 or £600.

    Scottish Churches Bill—Government Amendments.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord - Advocate whether, in order to facilitate progress with the Churches (Scotland) Bill, he will place on the Notice Paper the Amendments on clauses to be proposed on behalf of the Government, or print the clauses as they are intended to stand after the Second Reading of the Bill.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (MR. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The Amendments to be proposed by the Government will be placed on the Notice Paper as soon as possible after the Second Reading of the Bill.

    The Crimes Act—Proclaimed Districts in Ireland.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the several counties and districts in Ireland which are at the present time proclaimed under Sections 3 or 4, or both, of The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, together with the date of such proclamation and the names of the Privy Councillors who signed the same.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): There are fifteen counties and four county boroughs still proclaimed under these provisions of the Act, and there are two sets of proclamations, with different signatures attached. I am giving the hon. and learned Member a list with all the information he desires; it is too lengthy to read.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The detailed information is not of a very long character, and in view of the great public interest, in the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman state here the names of the districts proclaimed and the names of the Privy Councillors who signed the proclamation.
    MR. WALTER LONG MR. WALTER LONG read the list as printed on page 65.
    MR. HAVILAND BURKE: Is the right hon.

    87
    Gentleman aware that at the assizes for King's County held only last week the Judge congratulated that county on its crimelessness?
    MR. JOYCE: And is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the Limerick Assizes last Thursday there were no cases for the city of Limerick? Why is that city, with its crimelessness and where white gloves are continually presented to the Judges, to be kept under this proclamation?
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the Government intend to continue the Crimes Act in force in these counties and districts?
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Government does not propose to make any change at present.
    MR. FIELD: I there any reason why Dublin City should be proclaimed?
    MR. WALTER LONG: That proclamation was issued in the time of my predecessor. I see no reason to make any change at present. I should be very glad indeed if I could.
    MR. FLAVIN: Why is not Belfast proclaimed?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Derry M'Edmond Estate, Clonlish, King's County.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now say if the Land Commission have come to the conclusion that a larger sum than £500 can be advanced to Mr. Frend for the purchase of his holding, situated on the Derry M'Edmond Estate in therbaronyof Clonlish, King's County, formerly in the possession of Amos Palmer Doolan, without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood, in view of the fact that these lands are surrounded by small holdings that it would be desirable to increase; and that the sons of small farmers in the neighbourhood are anxious for farms.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners have not yet come to a decision as to the amount of the advance to be made in this case.

    F. G. Mayberry Estate, Kenmare,
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that all the estates held by middlemen under Trinity College in the neighbourhood of Kenmare have been sold to the tenants, with the exception of the F. G. Mayberry estate; that there are at least eight evicted tenants of this estate who have not been restored to their holdings; and that the condition of the other tenants was disclosed at the inquiry held by the Trinity College Commission last year; and whether, in view of the applications for purchase made by the tenants, he will call the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this estate.
    MR. WALTERLONG: MR. Mayberry's estate has not yet come before the Commissioners, but I am informed that negotiations for sale to tenants are proceeding. The applications of the evicted tenants will be considered when the estate comes before the Commissioners.
    MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tenants can get no answer from this landlord to their request that negotiations should be entered upon?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not aware of that.

    Ulster's Claim on the Technical Instruction Grant.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will expend the whole or part of the surplus of £237,000 King to the credit of. the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, either in reduction of the charges on the city of Belfast in respect of its technical institute, or in establishing an agricultural college in such a central position in Ulster as to be of real benefit to students in that province.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The surplus moneys referred to consist of unexpended

    89
    balances of that portion of the Department's endowment which is applicable to expenditure on agricultural industries or sea fisheries. Legislation would appear to be necessary, therefore, for the application of any portion of this surplus in respect of technical instruction. I am informed that the agricultural station in Ulster is situated near the railway junction at Clones and is easy of access from all parts of the province. It is the intention of the Department to promote the establishment of additional stations in Ulster when a supply of qualified teachers becomes available.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the agricultural station is on the extreme edge of Ulster and in a most inaccessible part?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Cost of Teaching Irish in Irish Schools.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what amount has been expended by the Board of National Education in Ireland, in each of the years 1902, 1903, and 1904, on the teaching of Irish as an extra subject in schools.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In 1902, £3,050; in 1903, £7,220; and in 1904, £12,069.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: What return is there for the expenditure of this enormous sum of money? Could it not be devoted to more useful purposes?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Political Discussions at Irish Teachers' Meetings.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will lay upon the Table of this House the circular which has lately been sent to the national school teachers by the Board of Education in Ireland on the subject of the discussion of political questions at their meetings; and also the correspondence which led up to that circular.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir; this will be done.

    Malicious Outrage in County Tipperary.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 3rd June a bull was maliciously injured at Ballyphilip, county Tipperary, by having a portion of its tongue cut out; what is the motive for this injury; and whether the police have been able to trace the perpetrator.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir. At the hearing of the owner's claim for compensation, the motive assigned for this out-rage was that the owner had taken the grazing farm on which the animal was grazing when injured. The police have not succeeded in tracing the perpetrator, but are using every effort to do so.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: HOW you know the motive then?

    Irish Lord Chancellor and Statute made Magistrates.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the MR. Kelly, who has been appointed chairman of Loughrea District Council, is the Mr. P. J. Kelly who in November last, at a meeting at Loughrea, stated that people should be shot down for giving extravagant prices for land; and who, at a meeting on 29th December dealing with the negotiations for the purchase of the Clancarty Estate, said that if there were any renegades on that estate they would be shot down like dogs; and whether, seeing that MR. Kelly becomes a justice of the peace by virtue of his appointment as chairman of a district council, the Lord Chancellor intends to permit Mr. Kelly to retain His Majesty's commission of the peace, in view of the incitement to breaches of the peace which he has made.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor, whose observations are as follows: "MR. Kelly became a magistrate under the provisions of the Local Government Act without the need of any commission, sanction, or approval from the Lord

    91
    Chancellor, and he only thereupon became amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor under the enactment which places him in the same position as other Irish magistrates in respect of conduct after he became a magistrate; but this power does not authorise the Lord Chancellor to inquire into speeches made several months before his election."
    MR. CHAELES CRAIG: Then if such a magistrate commits a serous crime has the Lord Chancellor no power over him?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That seems to be a hypothetical Question.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: With all respect, Sir, it is not. [Cries of "Order."]
    MR. SLOAN: It is a question of time. What is the limit of time which debars action by the Lord Chancellor?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I really think my hon. friends are unduly pressing me. Obviously in a matter such as this I can only give the answer I received from the Lord Chancellor. I do not think I am called upon to say what he may do in certain hypothetical cases.
    MR. SLOAN: But what is the length of period which debars action?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have given, the Lord Chancellor's reply. Until the person in question is made a magistrate and comes under his jurisdiction he has no power over him.
    MR. MACVEAGH: The Lord Chancellor refused to reprimand Sir; Douglas Brooke, an Orange magistrate, for a speech he made while a magistrate as to arming his tenantry with guns.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is it not the fact that these men became entitled to act as magistrates under an Act passed through this House by a Tory Government?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Police and Bunting Displays at Armagh.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-
    92
    tenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the district inspector of police in Armagh visited the houses of Catholic licensed vintners in the city who displayed flags or bunting from their premises on the occasion of the consecration of the Catholic Cathedral, and compelled the removal of these flags; and that the same officer permitted the Protestant licensed traders to decorate their premises with flags on the 27th, 28th, 29th, and 30th ultimo; and will he state on what grounds were the latter displays permitted and a distinction made in favour of traders of one persuasion.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The warning which was given by the local police to the publicans of Armagh on the occasion first mentioned was given in error, the police having misunderstood the effect of the instructions they had received. The occasion mentioned in the second inquiry was that of an agricultural show, when the town was decorated by persons of all creeds. The question of religion does not arise. On neither occasion were the flags displayed of a Party character, and on neither occasion was a prosecution instituted.

    Conna (Cork) Evicted Tenant.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement to his former holding from MR. ThomasO'Keeffe, an evicted tenant on the Wallis Estate, Curriglas, Conna, county Cork; and what action will be taken by the Commissioners in the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir. The Commissioners will consider the application if the estate should come before them.

    Waterford Evicted Tenants.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in how many cases and on what estates in the county Waterford have the Estates Commissioners entered into negotiation with landlords with the view of reinstating evicted tenants; what has been the

    93
    result of such negotiations; have the Estates Commissioners been able to acquire any land, and, if so, how much for the reinstatement of evicted tenants on other parts of the estate from which such tenants were evicted, or on any other estate, in cases where the farms previously occupied by them have been let.
    MR. WALTER LONG: There have been negotiations in fourteen cases. Seven evicted tenants have been reinstated. The Commissioners have acquired a holding of forty acres for the reinstatement of another tenant, and proceedings are pending for the acquisition of 456 acres for the restoration of three others.
    MR. POWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Estates Commissioners, with a view to inducing them to open negotiations with landlords who have large tracts of vacant land available?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I should like to consider that.

    Arterial Drainage in Ireland.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to; the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet arranged the terms of reference to the Commissioners who are to inquire into the subject of arterial drainage in Ireland; and, if so, will he state their names and qualifications and the specific terms of reference.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have nothing to add to my previous replies to similar Questions.

    The Absconding of Constable Masterson.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary: to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the failure of Constable Masterson, Royal, Irish Constabulary, to surrender to his bail at the late Maryborough Assizes; and, seeing that the grand jury found a true bill against Masterson, who was charged with feloniously wounding and using unnecessary violence in the arrest of Edward Carroll near Mountmellick on
    94
    the night of the 17th March last, whether he can say what steps are being taken to prevent Masterson absconding, and why the Crown accepted his own personal recognisances.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The constable failed to appear at assizes, and a warrant for his arrest was at once issued. At the time his personal recognisances were accepted there was no reason to apprehend that he would abscond. His present whereabouts are unknown, but I the police are endeavouring to trace him.
    MR. JOYCE: If you communicate with ex-Sergeant Sheridan you will find him.
    MR. DELANY: Who was responsible for this man? Was he not living in the police barracks?
    MR. WALTER LONG: He was out on his own recognisances.

    Kerry Evicted Tenants.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have up to the present time succeeded in reinstating a singly evicted tenant in the county of Kerry, notwithstanding that 411 applications have been sent to them dealing with persons evicted from their homes; and whether he proposes to take any steps to ensure the more effective carrying out of the policy of the Land Act of 1903 in reference to the reinstatement of evicted tenants.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to Questions on this subject.
    MR. MURPHY: I have not before asked if the Estates Commissioners have succeeded in reinstating one evicted tenant in Kerry County?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I believe I stated in answer to a Question the other day that nineteen such tenants have been, or are in process of being, re-instated by the landlords.
    MR. MURPHY: That is not the point. How many have the Estates Commissioners reinstated?
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Parliamentary Division I represent, although more than half the land has been sold and there is much vacant land, not a single bit has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not aware of it.

    Galway—Special Jurors' Qualifications.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the qualifications of special jurors in. the county of Galway are freehold interests in lands to the extent of £10 a year, leasehold interests yielding £20 a year, rated occupation of lands to the amount of £100, directorships of banking and certain other companies, and membership of a harbour board or dock board, and that few persons who would be qualified under the last two provisions are not connected with the ownership of land, whether he will reconsider the question of the appointment of a special jury of that county for the trial of agrarian offences.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Special jurors must belong to five classes. In four of these classes the qualification is the same for special and common jurors. In the remaining class only is there any difference, namely, the class of rated occupiers. In this class the qualification is £100 rating in counties and £50 in towns for spec al juries, as distinguished from £40 and £10 respectively for common juries. Orders for special juries were obtained in the cases referred to because it was believed that such juries would be fairer and more impartial than common juries. Orders having been made by the King's Bench Division that the cases in question should be tried by special juries, I have no power to interfere even if I desired to do so.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the fact that the Court of King's Bench must grant the application?
    MR WALTER LONG MR WALTER LONG was understood to reply in the affirmative.

    Relief of the Education Rate.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will at once introduce legislation in order to secure relief to necessitous districts with regard to the burden of the education rate.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (R. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): This important matter is still engaging attention; but I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject, nor do I think that legislation in the course of the present session would, in any case, be possible.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: But when the East Ham Borough Council rescinded the resolution they were assured by the Prime Minister that—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is the time to ask, not to give, information.

    Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is able to state when the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline will issue its Report.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Answer I gave to a similar Question on a previous occasion still holds good. I have every reason to believe that the Report will be in the hands of the public before long, but I am not able to give any pledge on the subject.

    The Unemployed Bill.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now fix a definite date upon which the Committee stage of the Unemployed Workmen Bili will be taken.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The condition of public business does not enable me to give any pledge on this subject.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we can have an assurance that the Committee stage will be taken before the session comes to an end?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman will feel that the pledge he asks for, even if it could be given, would be a very inexpedient one to give. What is eminently desirable is that the
    Bill should pass. Nothing is gained by passing the Committee stage without the rest of the Bill.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give the Bill preference over the Redistribution Resolutions as a matter of urgent importance?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman appears to think the Redistribution Resolutions of no importance. I differ from the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. PIRIE: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the pledge which I think the House and the country understood him to give that the Unemployed Bill would be passed—if the word pledge has any meaning at all—the Government will do their best to pass the Bill?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly desire to pass the Unemployed Bill, as I have always desired; but I do not know in what sense the hon. Gentleman uses the word pledge. I use it in its accepted signification.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the Prime Minister has received communications from the demonstrations in favour of the Unemployed Bill which have now been held all over the country, and whether, in view of the public demand for the Bill, he will give it precedence over other subjects for which there is no public demand and which are relatively of less importance?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received resolutions about this Bill from many parts of the country and from many bodies, including the Landon County Council, who appear to take an adverse view of some of its main provisions; but when the hon. Gentleman gives his comparative estimate—
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: The country's comparative estimate, not mine.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: His comparative estimate, supported by what he thinks is the country's estimate, he must allow me to take a different opinion.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I will raise the question again.

    The Butter Bill.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as the Sale of Butter Bill is one of great concern to butter producers, he will afford facilities for its passage into law this session.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now say when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Sale of Butter Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am desirous of passing the Sale of Butter Bill into law, but whether it is possible to do so in the course of the present session must depend on the way in which the House chooses to occupy its time.

    Redistribution Resolutions.
    MR. GEORGE KENYON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing the limited time during which, it will be possible for Members to consider the probable effect of his Redistribution Resolutions, he will lay upon the Table at once such information and statistics as are available to enable them to form an approximate idea of their results, more especially as affecting the relative position of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope my right hon. friend will lay the Resolutions and some explanatory statements and figures with regard to them on the Table of the House immediately. [Some cries of "When?"] I hope they will he in the hands of Members to-morrow.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL:Who is going to lay them on the Table of the House? Who, among the galaxy on that bench, is "my right hon. friend"?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman may devote his time to discussing with his friends who the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be among those who sit upon this bench.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: A most improper Answer—most discourteous. Keep your temper.

    Customs Vote.
    MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now able to say on what date the Vote for the Customs Service will be submitted to the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot name any day. Of course the claim of this Vote will be considered in arranging the business of the House along with other subjects which require discussion.

    The Colonial Conference.
    MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to hold a Colonial Conference in the year 1906; and, if so, whether the British representatives at such conference will be free to discuss the advisability of a system of preferential trading based on the taxation of food and raw material imported into this country.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to what I have already said, I am afraid at undue length, upon this subject.

    The Inquiry into the Working of the Motor-Car Act.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the First
    100
    Lord of the Treasury if he proposes to set up a Royal Commission, Statutory Commission, Departmental Committee, or Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the working of The Motor-Car Act, 1903.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is proposed that the inquiry should take place by means of a Royal Commission.
    MR. SOARES: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the majority by which the First Reading of a Bill to amend The Motor-Car Act, 1903, was carried, and having regard to the number of accidents which have recently happened owing to the dangerous driving of motorcars, he will give facilities for this Bill, which is framed with the sole object of preventing driving to the public danger, and enable it to become law this session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman gives me two reasons why this Bill should be treated with peculiar favour. The one is that the division on the First Reading showed a very large majority in favour of the First Reading, and the other is that the Bill is brought in with the best intentions. I would point out that, as a rule, the First Reading of most private Members' Bills is passed unanimously, and that good intentions are, I hope, a characteristic of all legislation brought into this House.

    Public Accounts Committee's Report.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now s0ay what arrangement he proposes to make in order to carry out the undertaking given on 17th April to give either one of the days allotted to Supply, if the House agrees, or otherwise a Friday or an evening sitting, for the consideration by the House of the Public Accounts Committee's Report, and its decision thereon.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to give the evening of Wednesday, July 26th, for the discussion which my hon. friend presses for, but that must be subject to unforeseen contingencies.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: One unforeseen circumstance is that we are getting merely an evening instead of a whole day.

    Minister of Commerce.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to introduce this session the measure, promised in His Majesty's Speech from the Throne, to raise the status of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade and to create a Minister of Commerce.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is desirable to introduce the Bill, but whether it is proceeded with obviously depends on whether it is treated as an uncontentious measure or not.

    Workmen's Compensation Act Amendment Bill.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that a Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act has been repeatedly promised by the Government, he will give an early opportunity to complete the Second Reading debate in order that the Bill may be sent to a Standing Committee.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be quite vain for me to allocate time for the farther stages of this Bill unless I had some reasonable hope of passing it into law, but I can give no final Answer on the subject at present.
    MR. FENWICK: May I ask whether, having regard to the specific charges which have been brought on this subject against the Opposition in general and the Labour Members in particular, the right hon. Gentleman will take care that due notice is given of his intention to resume the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill so that answers may be given to those charges?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that any charges have been made against the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I am always desirous of giving what notice I can of Bills, and I am sure the
    102
    hon. Gentleman would be glad to see the measure pressed on under any circumstances.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SIR E GREY'S VOTE OF CENSURE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House a Question which I deferred at his request two or three days ago—namely, whether, in view of the very explicit statement he made last week, in moving his Motion regarding the Aliens Bill, as to the future pro pects of the session, he will now state the measures which the Government propose to proceed with and those which they propose to abandon. There are two other Questions I would ask of the right hon. Gentleman. The first is whether it is understood, as I think it has been amicably settled, that the Volunteer Vote will be taken on Thursday; and the second is what day he will give for the fiscal Motion of my right hon. friend the Member for Berwick.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for deferring his Question till to-day, and to express my regret that I was not able to be present in the House last Thursday. With regard to the matter of the Question, I have to point out to the House that it is extremely early in the session to make a general declaration with regard to immediate business, and I do not think anything would be gained by it. I have already told the House that it is clear that we must pass the Aliens Bill and the Resolutions on redistribution, if the House consents so to do, and that we must deal with the ecclesiastical difficulties in Scotland; but I think it would be very inadvisable at the present time to go further into details. With regard to the Volunteer Vote, I was informed at the rising of the House last Thursday that the Irish Members were prepared to give up a day which had been allocated to them in favour of this Vote—
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Postpone.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, to defer their day in favour of the Volunteer Vote;

  103
  and I was strongly pressed by one or two hon. Gentlemen below the gangway to give Thursday for that purpose, I replied that, in my judgment, the Secretary of State's Vote, on which larger and more general questions could be raised, would be very fitting subject for the only remaining day which we can afford to Army matters, but that, of course, if it was the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, with the full consciousness that this was the last day, that the Volunteer Vote should be taken first, I should, in accordance with the principles which were laid down some years ago, and which I have endeavoured scrupulously to follow, take the Volunteer Vote first. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, having considered all the circumstances of the case, is of opinion that the critics of the Government would prefer the Volunteer Vote before the Secretary of State's Vote; and that being the position, I have no alternative but to arrange that the Volunteer Vote shall come first on Thursday and the Secretary of State's Vote second. I hope it will be so arranged that some time may be left for the more general discussion on the Secretary of State's Vote.
  As to the final Question of the right hon. Gentleman, it came upon me really with the shock of a surprise. He asks that I should now fix a day for the discussion of the Motion put down in the name of the right hon. Member for Berwick. I think it was six weeks ago when we originally thought of discussing that Motion, and I am afraid it was owing not to my fault, but to my misfortune, that the discussion was not then taken. I was ill, and the vote was deferred. Then we had a debate on this very subject on the question of the adjournment for the Whitsun holidays; and in the course of that debate the right hon. Gentleman made a long and able speech and the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean also made an important contribution to the debate, stating at the same time, I think, that the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Berwick was quite out of date. If it was quite out of date five weeks ago it is still more out of date now. Then I offered a day. I pointed out to the House that it would be highly
  104
  inconvenient to give a day in the first, week after the reassembling of the House, and I suggested a day in the second week for the vote of censure. Well, Sir, that offer was gladly accepted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but for quite a different vote of censure—a Motion on a wholly alien subject—and the right hon. Baronet's Resolution has slept from that day to this. I venture to point out to the House the extreme inconvenience of the course now taken by the right hon. Gentleman. We cannot have this vote of censure in any case for a fortnight, because by the Sessional Orders of the House the time is occupied either with Supply or with the Aliens Bill. [OPPOSITION cries of "Friday" and "Wednesday evening."] Do right hon. Gentlemen seriously mean that a vote of censure is to cover no more ground than can be covered in a morning sitting or half a day? There is another point. The right hon. Gentleman was present just now when I was bombarded by hon. Gentlemen opposite representing various interests and views with Questions pressing me to take this or that Bill—the Unemployed Bill, the Workmen's Compensation Bill, the Butter Bill, and others. There is also a Bill in which the right hon. Gentleman and his Scottish friends, as well as Scottish Members on this side of the House, are deeply interested—a Bill which is really of the greatest importance, and the fate of which is now trembling in the balance from the matter of time. Surely it would be a great mistake for us to devote to this well-worn theme, on which we have had such endless debates, the time that might be spent on legislation which is so ardently desired, especially when, as I would recall to the right hon. Gentleman, there is an occasion when the subject of the vote of censure may be debated with all the appropriate pomp and circumstance, namely, the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. The rejection of that Bill amounts to a vote of censure, and the whole day can be devoted to the discussion. Therefore, I earnestly press upon the right hon. Gentleman that, having regard to the wholly peculiar and unexampled history of this Motion, he may consent to defer till then the discussion of it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I suppose I am to understand as the result of all this that the day is refused.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At any rate the Motion cannot be taken for a fortnight.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I presume that in the course of that fortnight no new matter will be introduced which the House has not yet dealt with, and which the House has not yet sanctioned. Here is a day which had been promised. The Motion has been prevented from being brought on first of all by the illness of the right hon. Gentleman, and then by the immediate urgency of the Butler Report question, which obviously took precedence of any such question; and now, the matter referred to in the Motion having received tome significant and vital developments, when we ask that the promise may be redeemed the right hon. Gentleman says he cannot give a day in the next fortnight. But the right hon. Gentleman is, I understand, going to deal with the question of redistribution, with which he has no authority to deal, no explicit and no inferred authority, because the country, whenever it gets a chance, shows that it does not wish to have any more of his Government. Therefore the Tight hon. Gentleman actually expects the House and the country to remain content when he puts off a promise that he himself has given on the ground that all the time is occupied, and then proceeds to occupy the time that might be given to this Motion by doing something that he has not been asked or authorised to do. That is how the matter stands.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is how the matter does not stand. The right hon. Gentleman has, I regret to say, used words which convey the meaning that I have refused to fulfil a pledge. That is not the fact. I originally offered a Monday. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not take that. Then the matter was deferred until the Tuesday when, I regret to say, I was unable to be present. Then I offered the next convenient day, and that was refused by hon. Gentlemen, and another vote of censure was interpolated. Is not that redeeming a pledge?
  106
  It is not as if there is the smallest attempt to burke the discussion, for I suggest that there is a fitting opportunity when the whole question can be discussed and a vote taken on it.
  MR. CALDWELL: No, no! Mr. Speaker has ruled frequently that it would not be competent on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill to raise the fiscal question, as it has nothing to do with the Estimates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman is right in that I have nothing more to say. But surely that can only be because the fiscal question has nothing to do with the work of the session and has no immediate or pressing interest for this Parliament. But, however that may be, the fact remains that there is not a whole day available for a fortnight. It does not exist. It is not a question of ousting the vote of censure for other subjects. There are, no doubt, morning sittings which I hope to allocate to other business; but there are no whole days; and that is a fact that cannot be got over.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet given a plain and intelligible Answer. Does he mean to give a day and does he mean to abstain during that fortnight from introducing a new Reform Bill into the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to introducing a new Reform Bill, I do not propose to take the Redistribution Resolutions on a whole day, because there is not a whole day available. But I do propose distinctly to introduce those Resolutions. [Cries of "When?"] It will not be in the course of the present week. Then the right hon. Gentlemen asks whether I will give a day for the vote of censure after that. My view, when I came down to the House, not having had long notice of the Question, was that the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill would be an appropriate occasion. But I understand that there is some doubt about it. I must inquire. If it cannot be taken on the Appropriation Bill I shall not take on myself the responsibility of preventing a discussion of the subject matter. But I must express my very

  107
  great regret that one of the remaining days of the session, which might be much more usefully employed, should be taken up with these rather vague and empty debates.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman said that he should take the Redistribution Resolutions on a half day. Does he expect to get them—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, no.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Only introduce them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce these Resolutions? I think we ought to have the longest possible notice.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to begin the discussion—which I do not for a moment imagine will terminate in one or even in two morning sittings—on Tuesday week.
  MR. PIRIE: Is it a matter of necessity that the session should end on a certain day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman wants to get away on that day.
  SIE H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What business will be taken on Wednesday and Friday of this week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Wednesday morning the adjourned debate on the Second Reading of the Scotch Church Bill will be taken; the Report of Navy Supply on Wednesday evening; and I hope to take the Scottish Education Bill on Friday.
  MR. BLACKsuggested that the Committee stage of the Church Bill rather than the Education Bill should be taken on Friday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the Lord-Advocate had to put on the Paper Amendments of great importance carrying oat the proposals which he stated in
  108
  his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. That could not be done until Thursday morning. He felt sure that the House would object to such rapidity of procedure, but if the House were content with the short notice of these Amendments he would put the Church Bill down on Friday.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had had no opportunity of consulting the Scotch Members on the subject, but he knew of their desire to get on with the Church Bill. However, perhaps it would be better not to determine the question that day.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsuggested that, as the Scotch Members did not appear to agree as to which of the Scotch Bills should be proceeded with, both Bills should be withdrawn in favour of the Unemployed Bill.
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. PARKER SMITHpointed out that if the discussion were taken on Friday, they would not have any knowledge of the opinion in Scotland on the Lord-Advocate's Amendments.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will do my best to meet the wishes of hon. Members generally. I cannot now determine the point.
  GENERAL LAURIEasked whether on Thursday next, when the Volunteer Vote was to be taken, the Secretary for War would have sufficient time to make a general statement on the efficiency of the Army under the new scheme.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend is very anxious to make that statement, but I do not know whether there will be time left for it on Thursday.
  *COLONEL LEGGEsuggested that the War Office-Vote should be taken first on Wednesday evening to allow time for the statement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the order of Supply was arranged in accordance with the wishes of the Leader of the

  109
  Opposition. It was, therefore, to that right hon. Gentleman, who had made a specific request with all the facts before him, that the Question should be addressed.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONasked if it was intended to proceed with the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. The Standing Committee on Law was to be summoned for Thursday to deal with it.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he tried the other night to get the order discharged but was unsuccessful. He would move again that day.
  Later,
  COLONEL LOCK WOODmoved that the order for the committal of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill to the Standing Committee on Law [April 7th] be discharged and the Bill withdrawn. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: As there is objection to the Motion it cannot be taken now.

  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., with Amendments.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 236.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 236.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

  CANALS (No. 2) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Canals (No. 2) Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
  MR. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr Higham and Mr. Joyce; and had appointed in substitution:—SirCharles Dilke and Mr. Jordan.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  NEW BILLS.
    PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT (1868) AMENDMENT (VINCENT SQUARE) BILL.
    "To amend The Public Schools Act, 1868, so far as it affects Vincent Square, Westminster," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree, MR. Benn, MR. Burns, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Lough, Mr. Louis Sinclair, Mr. Cust, and Mr. Cohen; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, July 25th, and to be printed. [Bill 266.]
    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT RESTRICTION BILL.
    "To restrict the punishment of whipping to the cases of male offenders under the age of sixteen years," presented by Mr. Lloyd Morgan; supported by Mr. H. D. Greene, MR. John Barns, and Mr. Abel Thomas; to read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 267.]

    ALIENS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [MR. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair]
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 23, to leave out from the word 'if,' to the end of the line, and insert the words 'it can be shown that he has not in his possession or is not in a.'"—(Mr. Bright.)
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 254.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gordon, Hn.JE(Elgin & Nairn)

    Murray, Col Wyndham (Bath)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gordon,Maj.Evans(T'rH'mlets

    Myers, William Henry

    Arnold,Forster, Rt.Hn. HughO.

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Arrol, Sir William

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Goschen, Hon. George J.

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Percy, Earl

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Balcarres. Lord

    Groves, James Grimble

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

    Hain, Edward

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

    Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balfour, RtHnGeraldW(Leeds

    Hamilton,Marqof (L'nd'nderry

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford

    Purvis, Robert

    Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pym, C. Guy

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N.W

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

    Bingham, Lord

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Bond, Edward

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Brassey, Albert

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Hope, JF(Sheffield, Brightside

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire

    Bell, William James

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

    Campbell, RtHnJ.A.(Glasgow)

    Homer, Frederick William

    Sackville, Col. S. G.(Stopford

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

    Cavendish, V. C W. (Derbysh.

    Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

    Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc)

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

    Shaw-Stewart, SirH.(Renfrew)

    Chapman, Edward

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.ColW.

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Kerr, John

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, HC(North'mbTyneside

    Colston, Chas Edw. H. Athole

    Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

    Smith, RtHnJ Parker(Lanarks

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Spear, John Ward

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lawson, Hn.HL.W.(Mile End

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lee, Arthur H(Hants,Fareham

    Stanley, Edwd. Jas(Somerset)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

    Stock, James Henry

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

    Long, RtHn. Walter (Bristol,S

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dorington, RtHn. Sir John E.

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

    Douglas, Rt Hn. A. Akers-

    Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Dyke, RtHn. Sir William Hart

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Thornton. Percy M.

    Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Tomlinson. Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Tuff, Charles

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Tufnell, Lieut,-Col. Edward

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

    Vincent, ColSirC.EH(Sheffield

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Walrond, Rt. HnSir Wm. H.

    Fellowes, RtHn.Ailwyn Edwd-

    Marks, Harry Kananel

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Ferguason, Rt.Hn. SirJ(Man'cr

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Welby, Lt-Col.ACE.(Taunton)

    Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Welby, Sir Chas. GE (Notts.)

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

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Wharton, RtHn John Lloyd

    Firbank, Sir Joesph Thomas

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Whiteley. H. (Ashton undLyne

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Mitchell, William (Burnley)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Fison, Frederick William

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    TELLERS TOR THE AYES—Si

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Viscount Valentia.

    NOES.

    Abraham, 'William (Cork N.E

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Allen, Charles P.

    Grant, Corrie

    Parrott, William

    Benn, John Williams

    Hammond, John

    Partington, Oswald

    Black, Alexander William

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Boland, John

    Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Bryce, Rt. Ha. James

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Higham, John Sharp

    Price, Robert John

    Burke, B,. Haviland

    Hutchinson, Dr Chas. Fredk.

    Reddy, R.

    Burt, Thomas

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Buxton, NE(York.NR.Whitby

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

    Rose, Charles Day

    Cameron, Robert

    Joyce, Michael

    Russell, T. W.

    Campbell, John (Armagh S.)

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Lamont, Norman

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Gauston, Richard Knight

    Langley, Batty

    Seely, Maj.JEB (Isle of Wight)

    Chapping, Francis Allston

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

    Sheehy, David

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark)

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cremer, William Randal

    Leng, Sir John

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Crombie, John William

    Levy, Maurice

    Spencer, RtHn.C.R.(Northants

    Cullinan, J,

    Lough, Thomas

    Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

    Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan

    Lundon, W.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Delany, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Tomkinson, James

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Toubnin, George

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Doogan, P C.

    M'Crae, George

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Mooney, John J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Weir, James Galloway

    Edwards, Frank

    Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Ellice, CaptEC.(SAndrw'sBghs

    Murphy, John

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Fenwick, Charles

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

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

    Field, William

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O Dowd, John

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

    Bright and Mr. Dalziel.

    Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

    O'Malley, William

    LORD HUGH CECILsaid the Amendment which stood in his name was an Amendment designed to make the language of this sub-section rather more clear. The effect of the words which he proposed to insert would be to direct the attention of the immigration board to what was really the object of the sub-section, namely, the exclusion of those who were likely to become chargeable to Poor Law relief. The words of the sub-section as they stood were not clear, they were rather ambiguous, and a good many different interpretations could be placed upon the words "is in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself."
    114
    He was not sure that it could not be interpreted in the way that a man who came upon the poor rate was in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself, and it was hardly for those who provided the workhouses to controvert it. He desired to make the words of the sub-section clear the other way. The immigration board might take a very strict view and exclude a great many persons who were not paupers or ever likely to become chargeable on the pool rates. He wanted to amend, the clause in the sense in which, it was intended to operate, namely, to prevent the influx of pauper aliens. He begged to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 24, after the word 'position' to insert the words 'without recourse to poor relief.'"—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said he could not agree that the words of the clause as it at present stood were not clear. He could not accept the suggestion of the noble Lord that a person by claiming Poor Law relief was in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself. He could not for a moment accept that as a proper interpretation of the clause. An immigrant had to show that he had the means of decently supporting himself and his family, and he could not satisfy that test if he could not show that he could support himself under reasonably satisfactory conditions. He thought it would be a very undesirable thing to say that these men satisfied that test so long as they did not come on the Poor Law.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the words of the clause were vague, and that they were so was shown from the fact that they had received entirely different interpretations from those who supported the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that the Bill was to protect the British working man against competition, but the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had constantly taken the other view. In reply to Questions the Home Secretary had declared that the fact of having work to come to would be sufficient, but it could not be forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had declared that the whole action of the supporters of the Bill was based on the protection of the British working man against the competition of underpaid aliens, and while such views were put forward it could not be said that there was no vagueness.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the clause was undoubtedly extremely vague, and the proposed Amendment
    116
    would make it more definite by indicating the proper interpretation to these who would have to administer the Bill. The desire was to exclude these men, not simply because they were poor but because they were likely to become a charge upon the rates. The great argument of prominent supporters of the Bill was that our present system permitted persons to enter the country who within a very short period became a burden on the rates. It was only reasonable that such people should be excluded, but it was not reasonable to ask the House to exclude a Garibaldi simply because he had not the means of maintaining himself according to the notion of what an immigration officer considered decently. The true test was whether or not a man was likely to become a charge on the rates; if he was, that was a fair reason for his exclusion. Therefore, the Amendment would introduce a definition which the clause at present sadly needed, and he was surprised that the Attorney-General should oppose it. The new suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a kind of margin of capacity to maintain himself beyond which the would-be immigrant must be put before he was admitted, embodied a most dangerous doctrine. It would be much better to have something definite in the clause.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEasked whether the words were intended to exclude a man who arrived possibly with little or no money in his pocket, but possessing strong arms, vigorous hands and ringers, good health, and experience for work. Trained artificers might come from France, Germany or Poland; would such men be excluded simply because they had not, say, £5 in their pockets?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYthought that, ordinarily speaking, in such cases the men would have every prospect of getting employment, and would be in a position decently to maintain themselves.
    *MR. LYELLsaid that while the Amendment was an improvement to the clause, it could be regarded only as a verbal improvement, as the whole clause was inevitably bound

    117
    to become a dead letter. An immigration officer would have no means of telling whether or not the money a man possessed had been borrowed. Before a man landed in the United States he had to show that he possessed thirty dollars; but there was a regular system under which persona desirous of going to the United States wrote to a certain agency by whom the thirty dollars were advanced, and then the immigration officer having been passed, the loan was repaid with perhaps a couple of dollars added. Even men whom the agency would not trust with the thirty dollars managed to get through, as they were met at the per head by a Party official who advanced the necessary funds, and by that means bought the votes of the immigrants for the remainder of their lives. There was no possible means by which such practices could be frustrated, and therefore the clause was bound to become a dead letter, a result which they on that side would not regret, seeing that the clause embodied the distasteful principle that a man should be excluded solely on the ground of poverty.
    *MR. MARKSsaid the thirty dollars illustration did not apply to this Bill, as there was no provision whatever as to the matter of money. The question was one not of money but of capacity and opportunity on the part of the immigrant to support hims If decently. The Amendment, instead of making the clause clearer, would confuse it. Under the present wording an immigrant was undesirable if he could not show that he had in his possession, or was in a position to obtain, the means of decently supporting himself. If he had recourse to poor relief, he would not be supporting himself, and therefore the words "without recourse to poor relief" were really unnecessary. But the idea was not simply to exclude men who were likely to come or the rates. There was another condition which made them undesirable. It was not that they themselves were likely to come on the rates, but that they were likely to, and frequently did, drive others on to the rates. This was an evil that was constantly happening; destitute people came over here from foreign lands in such conditions that they were compelled to do
    118
    work in the unskilled labour market at starvation prices, with the result that other men w re driven from the work and had frequently to have recourse to the rates. Recent statistics of the steady rise of pauperism bore eloquent testimony on this point and——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is hardly relevant to the present Amendment.
    *MR. MARKSsaid he would take another point. The regulations proposed in the clause under discussion might be a new departure so far as this country was concerned, but they were not a new departure in other countries. Great Britain was practically the only country in the world which had not made regulations for the restriction of pauper immigration. Such restrictions and regulations had existed for years in the chief Continental countries. They already existed in Austria, Bavaria, Belgium—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep closely to the Amendment before the Committee. It is a very definite and specific one.
    *MR. MARKSsaid he was endeavouring to show that the Amendment would weaken the provision of the Bill, a provision which existed and worked satisfactorily in other countries. It was the very existence of this provision in other countries which imposed upon this country the necessity of making the regulation now proposed. It was because other countries such as France, Germany, and Switzerland refused to take this undesirable class of immigrant that the burden which they refused to assume was imposed upon us, and made this provision essential. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that if the Home Secretary was sincere in saying he had no desire to keep out men simply because they were poor, there could be no bar to the acceptance of this Amendment. The speech just delivered conclusively proved that there was a very real danger of misunderstanding unless some such words were inserted. The action of the Government in leaving the matter to

    119
    be decided absolutely by a bureaucratic body nominated by the Home Secretary rendered an exact definition imperatively necessary. Under the clause as it stood it would be possible to exclude all competing labour—
    *MR. MARKS: Not all.
    MAJOR SEELY: If it be sufficiently poor. If the hon. Member does not mean that—
    *MR. MARKS: I moan exactly what I said, viz., that there is a certain class of unskilled labour which comes into this country under conditions so distressful that it is obliged to accept any sort of starvation wage in the labour market.
    MAJOR SEELY: This clause may make the Bill have a protective operation.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): No, no.
    MAJOR SEELY: If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree, why not accept the noble Lord's words or else make a clear statement of what is meant by the Government?
    MR. CHURCHILLprotested against the Government not expressing their opinion upon this Amendment. The
    Attorney-General could very well deal with the legal aspect of the Bill, but they were now dealing with the political aspect of it. The question was whether the clause would keep out undesirable immigrants or whether it was of a protective character. The Home Secretary was the political official in charge of the Bill, and he ought to tell the House why he refused to accept an Amendment which made it clear that there was no protective intention, or whether he studiously wished to leave it vague in order to favour those who had protective designs.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that as the hon. Member for Oldham was anxious to know whether his views were the same as those of the Attorney-General he was perfectly willing to give his opinion. He had not risen before because he thought it was hardly worth while for two members of the Government to repeat the same arguments, when they happened to hold the same views. Their object was to keep out undesirable aliens and not the other object which had been attributed to them. He did not think the words in the Bill were open to the charge of being vague or that they would be unworkable. The Government were of opinion that those words would carry out their object
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 145; Noes, 203. (Division List No. 235.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork,NE.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Fenwick, Charles

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Field, William

    Austin, Sir John

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Benn, John William

    Cremer, William Randal

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    Black, Alexander William

    Crombie, John William

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

    Boland, John

    Cullinan, J.

    Grant, Corrie

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hammond, John

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Delany, William

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

    Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Harwood, George

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Burt, Thomas

    Doogan, P. C.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Buxton,N E(York,NR,Whitby

    Douglas, Charles M(Lanark)

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

    Caldwell, James

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Cameron, Robert

    Edwards, Frank

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrw'sB'ghs

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Emmott, Alfred

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

    O'Dowd, John

    Spencer, RtHaCR(Northants)

    Lamont, Norman

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Langley, Batty

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W)

    O'Malley, William

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Parrott, William

    Toulmin, George

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Partington, Oswald

    Trevelyan, Chas. Philips

    Leng, Sir John

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Ure, Alexander

    Levy, Maurice

    Philippe, John Wynford

    Wallace, Robert

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Lough, Thomas

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Lundon, W.

    Price, Robert John

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Reddy, M.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Redmond, J. E (Waterford)

    Weir, James Galloway

    MacNeill, John Cordon Swift

    Rickett, J. Compton

    White, Luke (York. E.R.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

    M'Crae, George

    Russell, T. W.

    Whitby, J. H. (Halifax)

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Williams, Osmond (Merionethy

    Mooney, John J.

    Samuel, S, M. (Whitechapel)

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Wilson, Fred. W.(NorfolkMid.

    Morley, Rt.Hn. John (Montrose

    Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

    Wilson, Henry J (York, W. R.

    Murphy, John

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

    Sheehy, David

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Winston Churchill and

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Major Seely.

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Spear, John Ward

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Coddington, Sir William

    Groves, James Grimble

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hain, Edward

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford

    Arnold, Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Arrol, Sir William

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Atkinson, Bt. Hn. John

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Heath, Sir Jas. (StaffordsNW

    Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Baird, John George Alex.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Balfour, Rt Hn AJ(Manch'r

    Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Balfour, Capt, C.B. (Hornsey)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Balfour, RtHnGeraldW(Leeds

    Dimsdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Hope, JF (Sheffield, Brightside

    Balfour, Kenneth R(Christch.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Horner, Frederick William

    Banbury, Sir Fredk. George

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

    Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Hunt, Rowland

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo T (Denbigh)

    Bigwood, James

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn Col W.

    Bill, Charles

    Fellowes, RtHnAilwynEdward

    Kerr, John

    Bingham, Lord

    Fergusson, RtHn SirJ (Mane'r)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

    Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

    Bond, Edward

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

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Brassey, Arbert

    Fisber, William Hayes

    Lawson, Hn H.LW.(Mile End)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead>

    Bull, William James

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Campbell, Rt.HnJA(Glasgow)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col, A. R.

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Foster, K S. (Warwick, S.W.

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Long, Rt.Hn. Walter(Bristol,S

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin&Nairn)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gordon, MajEvans(T'rH'mlets

    Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J(Birm-

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Lacas, ReginaldJ(Portsmouth

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn JA(Worc.

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

    Chapman, Edward

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    Macdona, John Cumming

    122

    123

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Purvis, Robert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh,W

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Renwick, George

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. ChasThomson

    Tuff, Charles

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Rollit, Sir Abert Kaye

    Vincent, Col Sir CEH(Sheffield

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Walrond. Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Mitchell, William (Burnley)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Wards, Colonel C. E.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

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

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton undLyne

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Willonghby de Eresby, Lord

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

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

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Myers, William Henry

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Smith, HC(North'mbTyneside

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

    Smith, RtHnJParker (Lanarks

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Peel, Hn.Wm.Robt. Wellesley

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

    Wortley. Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Percy, Earl

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Stanley, RtHn.Lord (Lancs.)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Stock, James Henry

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Stroyan, John

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    MR. LEVYmoved to leave out the word "decently" in Sub-section (a) providing that an alien immigrant should be considered undesirable "if he cannot show that he has in his posession, or is in a position to obtain, the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents." The Amendment was a simple one. The clause as at present drafted made it imperative for a man coming into this country to show that he had the means to maintain himself and his dependents decently, otherwise he was liable to be refused admission. His contention was that the word "decently" was too ambigaous to put into an Act of Parliament, and especially was it so in this instance, because the word was not to be interpreted by a Court of law. It had in this case to be interpreted by the immigration officer, or, in the case of a dispute, by the immigration board. At certain ports a man might be able to come in with a much smaller sum than at other ports. There was no standard of living fixed in the Bill at all. A man with a wage of thirty shillings a week, if he had a careful and thrifty wife and if he was a sober individual, might be able to support himself, his wife, and three or four children, but again, another man with the same wage and only one or two children,
    124
    if he was a dissolute character, could not maintain his family decently. Perhaps the Home Secretary would be good enough to give the House an idea of what the word "decently" meant in regard to a man maintaining himself and his family. It was practically impossible to say what was decently maintaining oneself. Some men spent little and yet maintained themselves decently and some, again, spent large sums of money and yet never had a decent home for themselves.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 24, to leave out the word 'decently.'"—(Mr. Levy.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'decently' out stand part of the clause."
    Mr. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the Government could not possibly agree to leave out the word "decently" because they attached very great importance to it. The hon. Member had drawn a distinction between a working man who on coming here would be able, with the capable management of a frugal wife, to keep himself on a low sum of money, and another who, under other circumstances, could not support himself and family on a

    125
    like sum. That, of course, would be true, but what they wanted to do by retaining the word "decently" was to assure themselves that a man would not come here who was just able to maintain himself and family and be able to scrape through without living at all decently or living up to the standard required in this country. A great many aliens came in this condition already, and it was to this fact that a very large amount of overcrowding and sweating was clearly due. What they were anxious to do was to provide that aliens coming into the country should not be considered desirable and should not be able to pass the barrier unless they could show that they could do more than simply keep body and soul together. It would be impossible to lay down any actual money test. They knew what the money test was in America. What the aliens would have to show to the immigration officer was that there was a prospect of their being able to maintain themselves in a decent condition—to live under satisfactory sanitary conditions—and that they would be able to continue to do so. This question had been partly debated on other Amendments, and he had stated his own view that if an alien came here having the offer of employment with decent wages that in itself would in all probability be accepted by the immigration officer as satisfactory proof that the man would be able to live in this country under conditions which would be sanitary. If the word "decently" were omitted they would simply be adding to the difficulty they now had in the East End of London by allowing a large number of men to come in who were barely able to keep body and soul together, and who, therefore, could not live under the sanitary conditions which were desired.
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid the Home Secretary had made confusion worse confounded. The definition asked for by the hon. Member was what was meant by the word decently. The Home Secretary had never touched it, and had left matters more complicated than they were before. Suppose he went to a port with £20 in his pocket. The immigration officer asked, "Are you in a position to maintain yourself
    126
    and your dependents decently?" The most proper retort would be, "What do you mean by decently? Do you mean will I keep my home clean or do you mean that I have labour offered to me by someone who wishes to exploit my labour?" The intention of the Government had been to keep out men who would work for less wages than other people—undesirables. These men would not be asked if they would live moral lives and be law-abiding citizens. The intention was that they must also keep out the goods produced by the labour of those men on the Continent. Was that the real reason? He appealed to the Home Secretary to say what, in his opinion, was the standard he desired to maintain—a standard of money if he liked—a standard of cleanliness if he thought fit Let him give the House exactly the standard of decency so that when the immigration officer was putting the question the immigrant would know what he had to answer. It was impossible for a man with a salary of £2,000 a year to give a definition of the word decently in connection with the support of a family who lived frugally. It was no more possible for the representatives of the Government on the Front Bench to say how far a thrifty family whose income was fifteen to twenty shillings a week could make that money go. There were families brought up in decency and honour whose wages never averaged one pound per week. He thought they had a right to demand from the Home Secretary his definition of the word "decently" and what was included in it.
    *MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he thought the word "decently" as applied to an alien immigrant would be best understood by a definition of "indecency," and that "indecency" would be best defined by an illustration, He thought that much which he had seen at Whitechapel was indecent. He had seen, for example, eight people living night and day in a room 12 feet square. This was indecent. It was a form of moral indecency when the charity of millionaires enabled aliens just to maintain life in a state of squalor and to compete with our own workmen and

    127
    drag down and degrade their of Standard of life.
    *MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that he did not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument would stand examination in view of the fact that there was a considerable amount of overcrowding elsewhere than in White-chapel, and where the individuals were not supported by charity. The hon. Gentleman should look at St. Pancras and other parts, even of the West End of London, where aliens were not in evidence, for his definition of what was a decent standard of comfort. The Home Secretary had endeavoured to show that this Bill was workable; but it had been amply proved from that side of the House that it was unworkable. Under this Bill a man had to show that he was able to support himself and his dependents decently; but when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the alien, he seemed to think that the alien was as child-like and bland as the right hon. Gentleman himself. What was to prevent the alien coming alone to this country, and saying he was about to earn 18s. a week? They would have to allow him to come in. But the next week, or next month, he would send for his wife, with perhaps ten or twelve children! He, and those with him, were quite willing to help in passing a Bill that would keep out diseased, criminal, or other really undesirable aliens, but this Bill would not have that effect.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid that the hon. Member for Birmingham had described what he had seen in Whitechapel; but that was not the question. The question was, what was going to happen at an inquiry on board an immigrant ship, or at the landing place in the harbour? The hon. Gentleman had seen people overcrowded in a room in Whitechapel, but what happened in Whitechapel would not be evidence on boardship. The conditions in Whitechapel could be dealt with by the sanitary authority by a more rigorous enforcement of the sanitary laws, and not by prohibiting the entry of people at our ports. In the June number of the Fortnightly Review there was an article which showed that in the very worst parts of London where
    128
    overcrowding prevailed, the overcrowding was not caused by aliens, but, on the contrary, by British population, and that where a Jewish population had filtered into those areas there had been a marked improvement in that respect. The publicans in those districts were exceedingly anxious that this legislation should be passed because that improvement would be affected and their trade would not consequently suffer.
    MR. LYELLsaid that from the speeds of the Home Secretary he was sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have capitulated to the protection theory held by the right ton. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Unless some sort of definition. of "decently" were introduced, very much more clear and stringent than that given to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman, there would be no difficulty in finding accommodation for these people; but there might be difficulty in finding immigration officers to undertake the job of "deciding" decently at all. He wanted to know what salary the Home Secretary proposed to give these immigration officers into whose hands such enormous powers of discretion were to be entrusted.
    *MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)said that if this clause were allowed to stand, the standard of "decently" would be left to be defined, by each immigration officer according to his own view. One might take a favourable view, and another might take a harsh view. Unless a specific standard of decency was laid down in the Bill there would be an absolute want of uniformity at the ports.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he wished to ask the Attorney - General whether the phrase "decently supporting himself and his dependents" meant "maintaining himself and his dependents" in a decent standard of comfort, or supporting himself and his dependents by decent means.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: In a decent standard of comfort.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that on those grounds a prostitute or a criminal who came into this country could not be excluded. Supposing a man arrived here and produced a set of burglar's tools, and said that he was a professional burglar, and could decently support himself and his dependents by the exercise of his profession, he could not be excluded on the ground stated in the Bill.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: That case is so likely to arise!
    MR. HEEBERT SAMUEL: Well, take the case of a prostitute, what then?
    *MR. FENWICKsaid that this was a matter of so great and vital importance that they ought to have a better definition of "decently" than had yet been given by the right hon. Gentleman, They were entitled to know what the Government standard of decency was. Was it that the man was to be morally decent or financially decent? If it were financially decent, he know of families in this country who were able to maintain them-selves decently on £1 a week and less: and he knew aliens, and others, who were not able to maintain themselves decently on £1 a day. It was clearly desirable to know by what standard of decency persons corning from abroad was to be tested.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thought his non. friend was entitled to some further explanation either from the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General. It seemed to be common-sense that no word should be put into an Act of Parliament unless that word was capable of definition. He undertook to say that the Prime Minister, or the Home Secretary, if he were one of the immigration officers, would not be able to define "decently" in any one of the half-dozen cases enumerated by hon. Members, and put that definition on paper. He felt very strongly, with his hon. friends, that this word "decently" should be left out. What he wanted was that the Bill should be made a
    130
    workable measure, and that the least possible pressure should be placed on these unfortunate people who were brought over here, if they could show that they were able to make a living.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester E.)said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow him to state that he absolutely differed from him in the principle he had laid down that they must not use in the Bill a phrase which was incapable of an accurate mathematical definition. That was a statement which was absolutely and wholly contrary to common-sense; and no stronger proof had been given of that than the speech which the hon. Gentleman had just made. What the hon. Gentleman said was—"Cut out the word 'decently.' What we want is only to exclude those who will not make reasonable citizens." But what was a reasonable citizen? Silence, of course! The truth was that the hon. Gentleman himself showed how wholly absurd was the demand which he made. Two hon. Gentlemen, to whom he always listened with the greatest respect—the hon Member for Durham and the hon. Member for Wansbeck—both made the same point. They said that this word "decently" should not be in the Bill because it was incapable of definition. They stated that they knew people who could live decently upon £1 a week or less; but then they knew what "decently" meant. They had a very clear and practical working idea in their minds as to what "decently" meant. Was not that an illuminating reason why the immigration officer should have a practical knowledge of what "decently" meant? It was clear that if they were to make this Bill carry out its objects they must endeavour to secure that immigrants who would lower the standard of living in this country should be excluded. But there might be cases in which an immigration officer might admit a person who would lower the standard; and also cases in which he might refuse admission to persons who would not lower it. The broad directions given to the immigration officer would allow him to carry out the object of the Bill; and he rejected as altogether

    131
    unworthy of this country that the word should be rejected.
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he thought the Prime Minister had lost sight of the fact which would cause great confusion in the Law Courts if an immigrant had to appeal against the decision of the immigration officer. The right hon. Gentleman had made it quite clear that even the House of Commons could not. give a clear definition of what the word meant, and thus it would afford the lawyers a pretext for long discussions in the Courts. He thought the Attorney-General ought to attempt to give them some definition. The Prime Minister, finding himself in a dilemma, threw the onus of defining the word on the Opposition, but if he would change places with them they would willingly undertake the responsibility of defining it.
    MR. BONDsaid it was not a question of living on £1 a week, or whether the immigrant was thrifty and brought with him a wife who could assist him. It was a question whether he would be able to earn wages to enable him to live decently; and that was a matter which the immigration officer ought to decide.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that if the test were to be that aliens should be able to support themselves, it strengthened it to say that they should decently support themselves.
    *MR. FENWICKsaid that the Bill would admit men under a labour contract; and he, therefore, objected to the rate of wages as the test in the matter.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEmoved an Amendment, in order to include within the category of undesirables under the Act such men as are "brought into this country under contract or to take the place of workmen during a trade dispute." He was quite conscious of the fact that the hard and fast line laid down in this Amendment with regard to contracts would require modification if the Amendment was agreed to. They had known
    132
    cases both in the United States and in the Colonies where professional singers or even preachers or lecturers going into those countries under agreements to sing or speak had been excluded because they sought to go in under contracts. The Amendment was not intended to touch cases of that kind. But if some such Amendment as this was not adopted some plan could be adopted similar to that adopted in the United States in the early days of the attempts to restrict immigration. Agents were then appointed in every European country from which the aliens came to supply contract labour. He put it to the Attorney-General whether a workman might not come to this country without a cent in his pocket, but, having a contract for employment for three, six, or twelve months, would be eligible to enter under the Bill. Chinese labourers might even be imported as they were in South Africa. They read that night that gold mines were supposed to have been discovered in Donegal. If the proprietors of those mines endeavoured to introduce Chinese labourers to develop them, it would be perfectly competent for them to do so under contract. The question of strikes was a very important consideration indeed. He could cite two cases where workmen in ironworks who were vilely underpaid—men who had not even a pound a week—were agitating for an advance of wages when a gang of Spaniards and Poles were brought in under contract by their employers, and they were threatened that unless they remained content with their existing wages, more foreigners would be introduced. They might be told that the workmen so threatened would be no worse off than they were now. He admitted that the object of this Bill was to protect British labour against undue and unfair competition by foreigners. He submitted, as a matter of fair play, that an employer should not be able to call on reserves of foreign labour, and defeat his own workmen with whom he was at war during a strike.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDON: Will the hon. Member tell me how the British workmen will be worse off after the passing of this Bill?
    MR. KEIR HARDIEreplied that the Bill proposed to give protection to underpaid British labour against the competition of foreigners. At the present time the workman knew he had no such protection, but if this Bill became law he would relatively be worse off than he was now, because he would have a nominal protection. He would be more liable to competition under the Bill than he was now. Under the Bill no poor workman could come in unless he brought a contract of employment with him, and therefore the whole machinery would be set up for importing foreign workmen under a contract of employment, and it would be easier for the employers who wanted to obtain a gang of foreign workmen to obtain them. Consequently a British workman who was being threatened with a strike or a lock-out would find his position worse under the Bill than he did at present. The Government, had no right to so legislate as to give the employer an unfair advantage over his workman during a trade dispute.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 25, after the word 'or,' to insert the words, '(b) if he is being brought into this country under contract, or to take the place of workmen during a trade dispute.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
    Question, proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had listened with surprise and amazement to the hon. Gentleman—surprise because the principle upon which the hon. Gentleman's Amendment was founded was absolutely inconsistent with the arguments which had been advanced against the Bill from the same side of the House, and amazement because of the magnitude of the misunderstanding into which the hon. Gentleman had fallen as to the actual effects of the measure. The Bill had been most unjustly denounced as a protective Bill. It did not touch the question of protection one way or the other. It was simply a Bill for remedying certain well-defined evils which did a great deal of injury in the East-end of London and other parts of the country. But now the hon. Gentleman came forward and contended that the Bill failed because it was not sufficiently pro-
    134
    tective in favour of the British workman. The hon. Gentleman would keep out every alien, whether flying from a political or religious charge or not.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (interposing)said that the right hon. Gentleman had evidently not read his Amendment. Its only object was to prevent foreign workmen from being brought in under contract.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that was to say that a man who might be flying from religious or political prosecution was to be denied asylum in this country if he had made a contract with any employer of labour. The strange argument of the hon. Gentleman was due to his entire misapprehension of the effect of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was under the delusion that if the Bill were passed in its present form it would be easier for an employer to obtain foreign indentured labour, or labour under contract, to support him in a contest with his British workmen. On the contrary, so far as the Bill had any effect one way or the other in the matter, it would make it more difficult for the employer to obtain labour from abroad. At present an employer had the completest freedom to make any contract he liked with foreign workmen and bring them in under any terms. The Bill for the first time limited the power of the employer in that respect by providing that he could only bring foreigners in on wages that would enable them to live decently. In fact, instead of any new privileges being granted to employers some of their old privileges were taken away.
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid it was a pity that the Prime Minister was not in the House when the Home Secretary gave his definition of what was meant by an undesirable alien. Had he been so he would not have been so definite in the statements he had made. There was one portion of this Amendment to which he saw some objection, and that was the part referring to contracts under the Contract Labour Law. If a man brought over a theatrical company or a company of artistes or singers, they being under contract were liable to be excluded from this country, which was undesirable, but

    135
    he thought the Government might accept this Amendment with the words "under contract" taken out. The Prime Minister had not quite realised the position having regard to the statement made by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman stated that if a man came to this country with a letter in his pocket showing that there was employment waiting for him he would be a desirable alien.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: What I said was that, if a man came to this country and produced evidence that he could obtain work at fair wages, I thought he would have no difficulty in getting into the country.
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he had no objection to the qualification of the words, but he did not remember hearing anything about proper wages. Even leaving out of account the question of a strike, what was to prevent an employer, who wished to cut down wages, from sending letters to 100 foreigners promising them work? If those letters were to be taken as evidence of the immigrants' ability to maintain themselves, what would be the position if no rates of wages were fixed? He thought that having regard to the possibility of such men taking the place of British workmen in trade disputes the Government might very well accept the Amendment.
    *MR. H. LAWSONsaid the Prime Minister had pointed out that this Amendment would make the clause directly protective, but it was protective only of that class so well represented in this House, namely, the skilled and organised trades. There was no calling out for protection of the unskilled and unorganised workmen in the East End, from underpaid labour, but directly the skilled and organised trades were affected their spokesman called for a measure of protection which certainly had not been attempted in other respects. In one of his arguments the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil totally misrepresented the facts of the case. The hon. Gentleman said that under the Bill agents
    136
    would be able to canvass for blacklegs from abroad to take the berths of men who were displaced in a trade dispute at home. But one of the worst existing evils was that the foreign steamship companies employed agents broadcast throughout Poland and Russia to obtain men for the purpose of their companies, the worst of whom were left with us. If this Bill were in operation it would act as a deterrent in that respect. There would be fewer agents and they would be less active. There was a danger of the Amendment being a handicap to the very industries for which it was desired to be protective. He could give examples to prove it. If a new process in a new trade or a new process in an old trade were developed abroad it was necessary sometimes to bring an exponent or teacher of that process to this country. That happened in regard to the stereotyping trade, of which he had personal knowledge. When plates were first cast Italians developed a peculiar skill in the process, and Italian foremen were brought to English printing houses. They did not remain, their posts having now been taken by Englishmen, but Englishmen had to be taught by Italians who came over.
    As HON. MEMBER: As immigrants?
    *MR. H. LAWSONsaid they came under contract, and presumably might be excluded under the Amendment. If that were so it would be a great disadvantage to English trade. Although he had some sympathy with the idea, the Amendment was in terms so wide that he hoped the Committee would see that, in its present form, it was utterly unworkable.
    MR. FENWICKasked what provision there was in the Bill to guarantee that men brought in from abroad under contract should be employed at such wages as would enable them decently to support themselves and their families. Was there any provision whatever enabling the authorities to insist on the payment of such wages?
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that the trades most affected in the case

    137
    of a strike by the bringing in of the persons contemplated in this Amendment were the weakest and least organised trades. Such persons as those referred to by the hon. Member for Mile End, who were employed as foremen in connection with the introduction of new processes, would not be excluded, because the Amendment was confined to the persons against whom the remainder of the clause was directed, viz., steerage passengers and so forth, and these persons would not come within that category. He bad voted against the Bill at every stage hitherto, and should continue to do so. He did not think a case had been made out for a measure of this kind, but if such legislation was to be enacted, it was against the class of persons at whom this Amendment was aimed that he would direct it.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsincerely hoped that the Home Secretary, if he could not accept the Amendment as moved, would at any rate promise to introduce words to prevent contract labour from coming into this country for the purpose of pulling down the wages of British workmen.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDassociated himself with the appeal to the Home Secretary to do something to prevent the bringing of people under contract into this country in such a way as to injure British workmen, and particularly to prevent the importation of foreigners during a strike.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEhoped that, if the Bill was to go through, safeguards would be inserted against foreign labour being used as a means of keeping down wages or preventing their going up in this country. The provision would not keep out skilled workmen who were being brought in for a special purpose; it applied only to workmen coming in as defined by Clause 1. If employers wished to bring in persons to develop a new process they would take care to bring them in as second-class passengers by an ordinary passenger boat, and thereby remove them from the category of immigrants. Unless the spirit, at any rate, of this Amendment was accepted, the impression would be
    138
    intensified that the Bill was intended merely for window-dressing purposes, and not in any way to protect British workmen against the competition of foreign labour.
    MR. CREMERurged the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to strike out from the Amendment the words "under contract or," so that the Committee might have a clear issue before it; and thus reveal the real object of the Bill. The Amendment would then be exceedingly simple, and it would be seen how many Members really desired to prevent undue competition with British workmen. The words "under contract" had led to very unfortunate results in our Colonies. He had, in the past, boon engaged in efforts to prevent workmen from the Continent being brought to this country by unprincipled employers to compete unfairly with British workmen. If they divided the Committee upon this Amendment they would then see what amount of sincerity there was on the part of those who professed to be so seriously desirous of preventing undue competition with the British workman.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he should be quite willing to amend his proposal by leaving out the word "or."
    Amendment amended, by leaving out the word "or."
    Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
    *MR. FENWICKhoped the Home Secretary would tell them what power he had under this Bill of insisting that aliens should be paid wages sufficient to enable them to decently support themselves and their dependents.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he had stated over and over again that the object of the Bill was to keep out undesirables who were likely to become a charge upon the ratepayers. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was directly opposed to the principle of the Bill, and he could

    139
    not accept it. He did not believe that such immigration as the hon. Member referred to took place, but, if it did, it would not be affected by this Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 215. (Division List No 256.)

    AYES.

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

    Hammond, John

    Partington, Oswald

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harwood, George

    Perks, Robert William

    Allen, Charles P.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Hayter, Rt Hn. Sir Arthur D.

    Power, Partick Joseph

    Austin, Sir John

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Price, Robert John

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Higham, John Sharp

    Priestley, Arthur

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Reddy, M.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas- Fredk.

    Redmond, John E (Waterford)

    Black, Alexander William

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Boland, John

    Joicey, Sir James

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Russell, T. W.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Joyce, Michael

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

    Burt, Thomas

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan,W

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel

    Buxton,NE(York,NR,Whitby)

    Lamont, Norman

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar

    Langley, Batty

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

    Caldwell, James

    Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

    Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

    Cameron, Robert

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Sheehy, David

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Long, Sir John

    Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Levy, Maurice

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Lundon, W.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

    MaeNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tomkinson, James

    Delany, William

    MaeVeagh, Jeremiah

    Toulmin, George

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    M'Crae, George

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

    M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

    Ure, Alexander

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Wallace, Robert

    Doogan, P. C.

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    Mooney, John J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

    Dunn, Sir William

    Morley, Rt. Hn J. (Montrose)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Edwards, Frank

    Murphy, John

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrw'sB'ghs

    Nolan, Col. John P(Galway, N.

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Emmott, Alfred

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

    Evans, Samuel T(Glamorgan

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

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk.Mid

    Field, William

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Dowd, John

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

    Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    O'Malley, William

    Fenwick.

    Grant, Corrie,

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Griffith, Ellis J

    Parrott, William

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bigwood, James

    Allsopp, Hon. George

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

    Bill, Charles

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Balfour, Rt HnGeraldW(Leeds

    Bingham, Lord

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Arnold-Forster, Rt.HnHughO.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Bond, Edward

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Bowles, T. Gibson King's Lynn

    Brassey, Albert

    Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

    Percy, Earl

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Hamilton, Marqof(L'nd'nderry

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Power, Sir Francis Sharp

    Butcher, John George

    Heath, Sir Jas.(Staffords. NW

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Campbell, Rt. Hn JA(Glasgow)

    Hoaton, John Henniker

    Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

    Purvis, Robert

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn JA (Wore

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Cl asThomson

    Chapman, Edward

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

    Hozier, Hn. James HenryCecil

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Coddington, Sir William

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Kerr, John

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Smith, H.C(North'mbTyneside

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lawson, HnH.L.W.(Mile End)

    Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham

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

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Spear, John Waro

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stanley, Edward J (Somerset)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lockwood, Lieut.- Col. A. R.

    Stanley, Rt.Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

    Stock, James Henry

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Stroyan, John

    Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnE.

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamHart

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    M'Artbur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Tuff, Charles

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh,W

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Fellowes, Rt.Hn AilwynEdwd.

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Turnour, Viscount

    Fergusson, Rt.HnSirJ (Manc'r

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Vincent, Col. SirCEH(Sheffield

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Walrond, Rt.Hn SirWilliam H

    Finlay, Sir RB (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG

    Welby, Lt.-ColACE(Taunton)

    FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose

    Milvain, Thomas

    Welby, Sir Chas. GE.(Notts.)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Mitchell, Wm. (Burnley)

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Montage, Hn. J. Scott (Hants

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Forster, Henry William

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Wilson-Todd, Sir WH(Yorks)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Gordon, Hn JE(Elgin & Nairn)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'm'ts

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B.Stuart

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Muntz., Sir Philip A.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Greene, H. D (Shrewsbury)

    Myers, William Henry

    Younger, William

    Greene, W. Raymord (Cambs)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

    Viscount Valentia.

    Hain, Edward

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Question put, and agreed to.

    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESmoved to insert words to provide that an alien who was "a skilled workman in any textile or mechanical trade or industry" should not be considered
    142
    an undesirable immigrant. He said he moved his Amendment for the purpose of securing from the Home Secretary an explanation which he hoped might be satisfactory of the meaning of the

    143
    clause as it at present stood. The clause as it at present stood was that an immigrant should be considered undesirable if he could not show that he was in possession of, or in a position to obtain, the means of decently supporting himself. He was anxious to secure that no difficulty should be placed in the way of a man who was a skilled workman, even although he had not a penny in his pocket, and no immediate prospect of employment. He was anxious that a man should be admitted to the country quite independently of whether he had money in his possession or not. It might be the Home Secretary would Say that the words "in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself," carried out that meaning and would effect that purpose; and if that was so he should not press the Amendment. What he wanted to impress on the right hon. Gentleman was this: If this was not a protectionist measure, or if it was not put forward under the guise of a protectionist measure for English workmen, then the freest access would be given to skilled labourers who had trades or manufactures with which they could earn money in this country or elsewhere. But if it was a protectionist measure, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the case would be different.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 25, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'is a skilled workman in any textile or mechanical trade or industry; or.'"—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid this was a matter which had been largely discussed, although not quite in the exact meaning of the Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward. He had told the House not only to-day but on former occasions what he believed would be the effect of the sub-section in the case of a workman who could show that there was a prospect of his obtaining employment. He understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman wished that an alien who was a
    144
    skilled workman should be considered as having a right of admission to this country, and that no question should be raised by the immigration officer as to whether he was desirable or not. He would point out that there might be objections to an alien to counterbalance the fact that he was a skilled workman. A man might be a skilled workman in some particular trade, but at the same time he might be an undesirable immigrant. Take, for instance, the case of a skilled workman who was so intemperate that he was not able to obtain employment. If there were circumstances which showed that an alien though possessing a skilled trade, would not be able to obtain a position by which he could maintain himself and his dependents in a decent way, surely he should not be regarded as a desirable immigrant. The hon. and learned Member desired that this man should be taken out of the category of undesirables. He himself preferred the test which was provided by the Bill.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked whether he might take it that a protectionist character would not be given to the sub-section,
    MR. AKERS - DOUGLASsaid he had explained over and over again that the object of the Bill was to keep out those who might become a burden on the rates.
    *MR. EMMOTTexpressed the hope that his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. He did not, however, think the Home Secretary gave a happy illustration when he mentioned the question of intemperance. Nothing would be more difficult to detect at the port of entry than whether a man was addicted to intemperance. His point against the Amendment was that he did not see why any special class should be named in. the way proposed by his hon. friend. He was told by lawyers that this might have the effect of leading to different treatment of the classes not named.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASmoved to insert in Sub-section (b) the words "disease or" in order to include among immigrants who should be considered undesirable those aliens who, owing to their suffering from any disease, appeared likely to become a charge upon the rates or otherwise a detriment to the public. The Amendment was necessary to provide for certain cases in regard to which there was some doubt as to whether they would be covered by the sub-section as it stood. There were some diseases which were largely introduced by aliens and which did not come within the class of infectious diseases to which the regulations of the Local Government Board applied. As a matter of fact the diseases to which the Local Government Board regulations applied were cholera, yellow fever, plague, and one or two others. The inspection under these regulations was carried out by the port sanitary officer. The port sanitary officer would tell the immigration officer what diseases the immigrants were affected with, and they would be dealt with in the ordinary way in the infections diseases hospital at the port until they were cured, and if they had passed, in the first instance, the immigration officer, they would then bf allowed to remain in this country. But if they had not passed in the first instance, then another examination would be made by the immigration officer. He thought this clause was necessary in order to cover cases which would not be covered under the regulations of the Local Government Board.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 26, after the word 'any' to insert the words 'disease or.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR FEANCIS POWELL) thanked the Government for the modification which they had made in the Bill. He thought the Amendment of his right hon. friend might be safely adopted, because it was not liable to the objection which he successfully took last year to it.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought that this was a most proper Amend-
    146
    ment. But still, in the arrangement the right hon. Gentleman had sketched out, there was the difficulty of the double examination of the same man. The right hon. Gentleman had not said that one medical officer was to report to the other medical officer.
    MR. AKERVS-DOUGLASsaid that in no case did he think that would occur. What was proposed was that the medical officer of the port authority should make the examination, and it WAS expected that that medical officer would in most, if not in all, cases, be the medical inspector under the Bill.
    DR. HUTCHINSONsaid he had been trying to find out what diseases had been imported into this country by aliens. There had been a great deal of exaggeration on the point. He had been in communication with the medical officer of health for the Port of London and also with the medical officer of the London County Council. The latter said that the figures generally showed that where there had been an increase of alien immigrants there had been a decrease of the death-rate and an increase of the birth-rate. Only a few cases of trachoma had been found among the aliens in the East End. There had been a steady improvement by enforcing by laws as to sanitation in the houses let as lodgings. All the medical officers of health were alive to this subject, and the condition of the houses in Stepney was improving. The number of infectious diseases introduced into Stepney during the last few years was only six or seven; and the medical officer of health for the White-chapel Union said that hardly any of the aliens came on the rates because the Jewish Board of Guardians relieved them in any case of distress. If these aliens got too ill to be looked after in their own homes, they were removed to the Jewish wards in the London Hospital which were kept up entirely by the Jews. He thought that in this House they ought to acknowledge the enormously good work which the Jewish community did in looking after their own poor. Nothing had struck him more in Whitechapel than the generous way in which the rich Jews looked

    147
    after their poorer brethren. That was a grand lesson to Christians. The hon. Member for Liverpool had drawn a picture as to cases of lunacy introduced into Liverpool. He had made inquiry and found that during the last sixteen years there had been only fifty-four cases of alien lunacy in all the various asylums in Liverpool.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Committee had already passed the question of lunacy, and it could not be entered upon again.
    DR. HUTCHINSONsaid he bowed to the ruling of the Chairman; but he had been anxious to assuage the anxiety felt in regard to the difficulty of treating cases of lunacy. As to diseases generally, he believed that we exported a great many more diseased persons from this country than we imported. And it might be found that foreign Governments would try, if this Bill was passed, to play the same game with us. We exported thousands of patients every year to the Continent and had introduced to the Riviera that dreadful disease of phthisis. In that respect we could not throw stones at foreign countries. At the same time he was willing to help to carry a measure which would put a stop to infectious diseases coming into this country. The only disease which he knew of which was being introduced into this country by aliens was a sort of inflammation of the eyes, but of ninety-six cases only twenty-six were found to be infectious—which out of the thousands of aliens who came in was not a very large percentage. He understood that in the Jewish refuge in Whitechapel there was a special doctor to look after these cases.
    MR. WILLIAM EUTHERFORDsaid that this was a far more serious matter than the hon. Gentleman who last spoke would have the Committee to believe. The total number of immigrants who were excluded last year on the ground of disease was 1,560.
    DR. HUTCHINSON:Out of how many
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the total number excluded was 7,994, and out of these 1,560 on account of disease. Of those who were excluded on the frontier, before coming here, numbering 6,356, no less than 648 or 10 per cent, were excluded on the ground of disease. Now, it was very important that disease should be specifically shut out, but it did not follow that the disease should be that of a poor person. A person, however wealthy, suffering from disease ought to be shut out from this country, if possible. The hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House would have the Committee understand that very few cases of disease had been imported into this country froom abroad. In Liverpool in 1903 there were 99 cases of hightly infectious diseases landed, including 24 cases of smallpox, 22 of enteric fever, and 12 of phthisis. In 1904, there were the same number of cases of smallpox and enteric with 32 cases of measles; but in addition to those particular figures there were 581 cases of other serious diseases landed at Liverpool which required to be temporarily sent into the hospital; and every one of these cases, if this Bill had been law, would have been shut out.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that several of the diseases mentioned by the hon. Member were the very object of the regulations of the Local Government Board with which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said he would not interfere.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the next Amendment standing in his name spoke for itself, and therefore, without further remark, he begged to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 5, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'is an anarchist or person who believes in or advocates the overthrow by force or violence of all government or all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials, or.'"—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYpointed out that the words of the Amendment would involve an inquiry into "belief". It was not desirable to institute an inquiry in this country as to what a person believed. The inquiry must be made as to what a man had done. The Amendment could not be accepted.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 5, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'is a person who has been already refused admission to the United Kingdom under this Act, or.'"—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that a man might be property excluded on one occasion, and, the circumstances having altered, might be admitted subsequently.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved in Clause 1, page 2, line 7, after the word "case," to insert the words "or if he is an alien who has been recently rejected by or deported from some other foreign country." It was this particular class who were the bane of Liverpool at the present moment. In 1904 there were rejected by the United States, and dumped in Liverpool, 293 males and 100 females. From Canada there were lumped ninety-six males and twenty-one females. In the first three months of 1905 the evil had become much greater. He would mention a typical case, which happened three weeks ago. A woman from Helsingfors, who had taken a ticket at Liverpool, was brought back. It was calculated she would cost the ratepayers £720 for maintenance; but that she could be sent back to Helingsfors or about £100; and that course was adopted. Why should they be the dumping-ground for other nations. These people were thrown on the quays; and he ratepayers had to support them. He, therefore, asked the Commmittee to
    150
    seriously consider this very important Amendment. If any other words could be introduced which would enable them to get rid of the rejected of other countries he would not persist with his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 7, after the word 'case' to insert the words 'or if he is an alien who has been recently rejected by or deported from some other foreign country."—(Mr. (William Rutherford.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he quite understood the point of view from which his hon. friend had spoken, and which he had put before the Committee with such fairness and force. But he submitted to the Committee that it would be very undesirable that they should abdicate their right to select their own standard; and that they should rejeet an immigrant merely because he was rejected by another country. It would be very strangethat, having set up their own test, they should apply another standard. He quite recognised that this country should not be a dumping-ground for other countries; but they should rely on the conditions they themselves prescribed.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked if these people would be debarred if they came within the scope of the Bill.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid, of course, in that case they would be excluded.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that these people did not return in immigrant ships.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was afraid they could only deal with immigrant ships.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had previously stated that this Bill was recommended to the constituencies on anti-Semitic grounds. A considerable portion of the London Press supported it on that ground; and hon. Members

    151
    had received a great mass of correspondence which showed the same feeling. Although he fully admitted that that was not the object of the Government, still it was the main ground advanced in favour of the Bill by less cultivated persons outside. Nothing could have been better than the speech of the Prime Minister on this point. It was language of the highest statesmanship, if he might say so—language in which the right hon. Gentleman deplored the anti-Semitic agitation in other countries, and in which he expressed his opinion that it would be a most deplorable calamity to introduce into this country. But the question was how far this Bill would be used for that purpose by many people of less responsibility. A great many persons did desire to see an anti-Semitic use made of this Bill. The Government had made a feeble attempt to deal with this question. They proposed to add after "persecution" in line 9 the words "or punishment on religious grounds." He did not think these words covered the cases with reference to which Amendments had been put on the Paper. For example, the legal necessity for Jews in Russia to reside only in certain places would be covered by the words; but would they cover the case of Jews driven out of Russia by a police plot. He had facts in his pos session; but he would not weary the Committee with the details. The matter was sufficiently well known to induce the Committee to consider it as one which they would wish to deal with. The number o Jews who fled from Russia to the United States was almost infinitely greater than the number who settled in this country. The over-whelming bulk of the movement of the Russian Jewish emigration had been to the United States, but his impression was that both to this country and to the United States the acquisition of the population had been a benefit and not a drawback. He was of opinion, and he believed the country generaly was of opinion, that the religious persecutions which had disgraced the world at various times had in the past brought, incidentally, benefit to this country through the asylum we had extended to the victims of such persecutions, and he, personally, thought the present perse-
    152
    cution of the Jewish population of Russia did this country good rather than harm. He fully admitted that a case might arise when such an emigration might take place to a country where it might be necessary to guard against the complete change of the race by the influx of a foreign population, but no such case had arisen here. If it was possible without danger to ourselves to admit the victims of such persecutions surely it was the desire of this Committee and of the country that our shores should remain open to them. Those who knew the state of the Russian Jews, knew that their state was such that they would welcome with enthusiasm, welcome as the highest attainment, as the summit of their hopes, the treatment given to the Mahomedan subjects of Russia. Fleeing to this country and to America was the only relief these people had from the horrible persecution from which they suffered, and, if the Committee could see their way to do it safely, he was sure they all desired to insert in the Bill some such Amendment as he proposed. He begged to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 9, after the words 'country,' to insert the words ' by reason of the treatment of the religions body to which he belongs or.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CRIPPSsaid the Committee would appreciate that they had now embarked on a very important matter in connection with this Bill. No doubt the topic was a difficult one, and he did not know that he was in favour of the exact words of the right hon. Baronet, but they now had to consider the matter and he would like to say a few words to indicate why he should like to go as far as the right hon. Baronet had gone and why the Government Amendment did not, in his opinion, go sufficiently far. The Government Amendment only went so far as to give an asylum to a person who had been prosecuted for his religious faith and had sought the protection of this country. But if they looked at the laws actually in operation abroad, and the

    153
    number of cases equivalent to a prosecution in this country, they would see that the Government Amendment was much too narrow and would not deal with the great majority of the cases. It was not a question of instituting a prosecution in Russia or Roumania or some other country and punishing a man because he had done something out of accord with the criminal law of that country, the question was supposing a man came to this country bona fide fleeing from what we called religious persecution were we to shut the door which had been open from time immemorial and deny him an asylum. He felt very strongly on this point and had put an Amendment on the Paper to substitute the word persecution for prosecution. Take, for example, the case of a Jew in Russia. The authorities there might say to the Jew: "If you give up your faith and become an Orthodox Christian we will give you all the advantages we now deny you." If that Jew put his religious belief before the advantages held out to him, persecution was hardly the word to describe the horrors that person would suffer. Well, the sufferer flees to this country. Were we to refuse an asylum to a person coming to us under those conditions? By so doing we should abrogate all our great traditions as a free country. He would not refer to the Huguenots because he recognised that the present conditions? were somewhat different, but the same principle underlay the whole, and for iris part he could not support any proposal which, if a person came to this country being a bona fide victim of religious persecution, would refuse him an asylum. He could not be a party to shutting the door against the victim of a religious persecution under those circumstances and say he should not have such a refuge.
    It had been suggested that the Bill itself would to a great extent be destroyed if free entry was allowed to victims of religious persecution. In regard to that he would say, first of all, whatever the effect might be upon the Bill it would be a disgrace to this country to refuse an asylum to anyone in that position, and, secondly, he did not think it would do anything of the kind. He was strongly in favour of the general principle of this
    154
    Bill because it would stop immigration to a large extent. It would stop emigration agents undertaking to land emigrants in the United Kingdom if they were refused a landing in the United States. It was quite possible to do that and still keep an asylum open for those who were the bona fide victims of a religious persecution. Naturally the ipse dixit of an immigrant would not be taken as to his being such a victim, but it would be just as easy to examine into that matter as to examine into many others. If we thought the tribunal to be instituted was not sufficiently strong and capable to draw a distinction between the victim of persecution and an ordinary undesirable alien, then he would say that the framework of the Bill was wrong, but he thought the framework of the Bill was quite sufficient to enable the question to be judged. But even if a few people came into this country in this way who were not entitled to do so, in his opinion, that would be a very small evil compared to our shutting the door to those who fled to this country as an asylum from religious persecution. Let us not at this period of our civilisation, a civilisation of which we boasted, in a Bill of this kind, give the go-by to the best traditions of our past history and refuse an asylum to a man who for the sake of his faith came to us as a person who had been persecuted for his belief. He would not prolong a discussion of this kind. It was a matter upon which they all felt deeply, and he would only appeal to the Committee not to let this country go back on its great tradition as a free country; the tradition that all who sought an asylum on the ground of their religious belief found one in this country.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that this was, perhaps, the most interesting, if not the most important, Amendment which was likely to be moved to the Bill, and he rose early in the debate in order to indicate what were the views of the Government in regard to it. The medieval treatment of the Jews was a permanent stain on European annals; and he agreed that if they could do anything to wipe it out, if they could even do anything to diminish its effects in the present time, it would be their bounden duty to do it. The

    155
    right hon. Baronet had condemned the anti - Semitic spirit which disgraced a great deal of modern politics in other countries of Europe, and declared that the Jews of this country were a valuable element in the community. He was not prepared to deny either of these propositions. But he undoubtedly thought that a state of things could easily be imagined in which it would not be to the advantage of the civilisation of the country that there should be an immense body of persons who, however patriotic, able, and industrious, however much they threw themselves into the national life, still, by their own action, remained a people apart, and not merely held a religion differing from the vast majority of their fellow - countrymen, but only inter-married among themselves. He quite agreed that this country had not nearly reached the point when such a state of things became a serious national danger; but they must bear in mind that some of the undoubted evils which had fallen upon portions of the country from an alien immigration which was largely Jewish, gave those of them who, like the right hon. Baronet and himself, condemned nothing more strongly than the manifestation of the anti-Semitic spirit, some reason to fear that this country might be, at however great a distance, in danger of following the evil example set by some other countries; and, human nature being what it was, it was almost impossible to guard against so great an evil unless they took reasonable precautions to prevent what was called "the right of a ylum" from being abused.
    He thought the right hon. Baronet and his hon. and learned friend behind him who had supported the Amendment had fallen into an historical delusion when they said that there was an immemorial right of asylum which this country had given to all classes of victims of Continental religious persecution. He understood that at present there was a law which prevented Jesuits from coming into this country.
    COLONEL NOLAN: There is a law against the Jesuits. It is not repealed, but it is not used.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was quite right on the point. The truth was that the only immemorial right of asylum given by this country was to allow aliens in with whom the country agreed. He should like to ask English and Scotch Members whether they had ever studied the penal laws of Ireland. During the time the Puritans had control of the legislation of this country, say for a hundred years from the beginning of the Long Parliament, it was on religious grounds largely that the Irish Roman Catholics were persecuted, with the result that an enormous number of Irishmen, driven from their own country by religious persecution, sought refuge in other countries, to which they rendered brilliant and distinguished services.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, and Scotchmen, too.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Precisely. That only extended the force of his argument. Then where was this immemorial right of asylum which this country gave to the persecuted? This country, even in relatively recent times, instead of welcoming to its shores those who differed from it in matters of religion, drove forth from its shores those who differed from it in matters of religion. Did the right hon. Baronet regard the Irishmen who emigrated before the Catholic emancipation as flying from religious persecution? What was the condition of the Irish Roman Catholic subject before 1829? He had all the privileges of a British subject, but he could not enter Parliament. Did the right hon. Baronet regard that as religious persecution?
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Yes, but for other circumstances, not that one particularly.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What other circumstances?
    MR. LOUGH: He could not keep a horse worth £5.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are worse things than not being able to keep a horse. Let the House put aside this fancy picture that from time immemorial

    157
    this country had been so much in favour of religious equality and the rights of conscience that it gave an asylum to the religiously persecuted of all nations, for it had no historical basis in fact. The much quoted case of the Iuguenots only meant this—that we had just been at war with Louis XIV., and were about to go to war with him again, and that there was a body of his subjects who disagreed with him and agreed with us whom we welcomed with open arms. That kind of policy this country always had had, and it did not mean any high standard of civilisation or any broad views of the rights of conscience.
    But, to come to the Amendment, he would ask to what extent would the clause, as it stood, keep out those who were suffering in any true sense from religious persecution. Let the House remember that the great mass of alien immigrants was not touched by the Bill at all. Those who were kept out were but a small number, and they were kept out solely because they were likely to become a burden upon the country if they were allowed in. Did the House really think that the destitute victims of religious persecution, especially Jews, would not find among their co-religionists sufficient assistance to enable them to belong to that large class of immigrants who could come in instead of to the small class that might be kept out? Probably of all religious communities the Jewish community had proved itself to be the most devoted and most profusely liberal in providing for the destitute of its own body. The right hon. Baronet had said that of all countries in the world the United States of America had proved a harbour of refuge to the largest number of those persons; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the United States had really no law such as he proposed in his Amendment. They had placed restriction upon restriction on the immigration of undesirable aliens, but still there was nothing in what they had done which could in the smallest degree prevent the United States being the asylum of oppressed Jews from the East of Europe.
    He would make two further observations. The first was that it was useless passing a Bill of this kind unless
    158
    they made it a practical way of dealing with the situation. If they so drew their regulations that it would be impossible for the officers at the various ports really to exclude those whom it was intended to exclude, then it was unnecessary labour on their part to pass the Bill. If they put in an exception depending on facts which it would be practically impossible to disprove within the knowledge of the immigration officer—if they made the exception so wide, then no one would be excluded who wished to come in and who was prepared to make a statement at variance with the truth. That was an argument that ought to appeal to the House, which was of opinion, as expressed by a large majority at the Second Reading, that a Bill of the kind should be passed. There was a further consideration which seemed to him to be absolutely overwhelming. The case on the other side put by his right hon. friend opposite, and his learned friend behind him, was this—that the freedom-loving, tolerant country of Great Britain and Ireland should welcome immigrants who had suffered either from religious or political persecution, and should welcome at the public charge any cost which those unfortunate victims of foreign oppression might inflict upon them. If that argument was advanced, he must say honestly, after due consideration of all the facts of the case, did it not occur to the right hon. Gentleman or to his hon. and learned friend that that which was to be an act of national self-sacrifice in the interests of the persecuted should be a sacrifice paid for by the nation?
    AN HON. MEMBER: What is the remedy?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Were they going to have a charitable Vote for the victims of foreign persecution? They might have a collection in the churches, as had been recommended. Why was Stepney to be sacrificed because Britain owed an obligation? Obviously, if they thought this a national obligation they should make it a national burden. But no Chancellor of the Exchequer could seriously be asked to make the provision to which these fine sentiments inevitably and logically led. If they would remember the burden which was without doubt

    159
    thrown upon certain districts in the country in supporting these pauper immigrants, and if they thought that any burden should be borne, and any sacrifice undergone rather than that one persecuted individual should be kept from these shores, they had no alternative but to devise some plan by which the national Exchequer should be made responsible for what, all must admit, were a most unhappy and unfortunate class—a class, however, for whom, he must frankly admit to the House, he did not consider that, either by tradition or for any other reason, we were bound as s nation to provide an unlimited asylum by unlimited sacrifice.
    MR. STUART SAMUELsaid he thought the country would read the Prime Minister's speech with a deep feeling of astonishment and sorrow. At one fell swoop the Prime Minister had attempted to snatch from this country the reputation for freedom and as an asylum against persecution on which it had always prided itself. The Prime Minister had attached to the people of this country the role of religious persecutors. The day had passed for that.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman distinctly misunderstood him. The two hon. Members who preceded him both talked of the immemorial right of asylum based on religious equality and freedom; and he had pointed out that that had no historic foundation whatever.
    MR. STUART SAMUELsaid he could not agree with the Prime Minister in that argument.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that it was not present to-day, but it was present 150 years ago.
    MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that the action which the Prime Minister proposed to take to-day was the same taken 150 years ago.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the action to which he called attention was the action by which certain persons were driven out of this country by religious persecution.
    MR. STUART SAMUELsaid he fatted to see the difference. The right hon. Gentleman had laid it down that we were bound by out historical past to refuse admission to the victims of religious persecution upon the ground that to admit them would cost this country a certain sum of money. That sordid and unworthy argument he believed the people of this country would not approve of. His answer to one specific point put forward by the Prime Minister was that the poor Jews in Stepney were not a charge upon Stepney in any way whatever. The members of their own community did not let them come upon the rates, and so long, therefore, they could not be said to be a charge on the country, and the argument condoning religious persecution abroad on the ground that it would cost this country money disappeared at once. He went further and said that those who condoned persecution on the part of others participated equally in the wrong-doing. And they could not draw the line at the Jew. If they once admitted the argument they must apply it to the Catholic and the Dissenter, and to every other form of religion that was not the dominant religon of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to legislation in the past. The reason why the legislation of the past was not put in force today was that this country was ashamed of it; and it would be a sad day when the principles the Prime Minister had enunciated in this House should be those of the representatives of the majority of the people of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that he represented the opinions of the people of this country, why did he not appeal to them in that case? The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that up and down the country the people were in favour of religious freedom.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had never uttered one word in favour of religious persecution. On the contrary he had said many which showed that he was violently opposed to it.
    MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that if they refused asylum in this country to the victims of religious persecution and

    161
    threw them back into the country where they were religiously persecuted, they were participating in the wrong. The right hon. Gentleman was not doing him justice when the right hon. Gentleman said that he was imputing to him the effects of the legislation he proposed. He could only say that his people, the Jewish community to which he belonged, were perfectly prepared to undertake the burden of supporting all Jewish aliens.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then they will come in; they will not be kept out.
    MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that the right hon. Gentleman could not argue that they were a charge upon Stepney so long as the Jewish community were prepared to support them. The right hon. Gentleman must see that the logical conclusion of his argument was that these people could not be maintained by others and at the same time be a charge upon the public purse. No figures of any authority had been produced; but, nevertheless, again and again, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the pauperism of aliens in this country. Let them have the figures. He challenged the Government to make out any case upon their own official figures. If the figures existed they ought to be produced. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney said he would give figures; but no figures had yet been given which could be discussed across the floor of the House. He felt certain that the people of this country would not consent to join the right hon. Gentleman in casting back the unhappy victims of religious persecution, and he believed a certain number of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House shared that feeling. The principles of religious freedom would make themselves felt when the present Government had gone to pieces.
    *MR. COHENsaid he would try to interpret the speech of the Prime Minister a little more accurately than the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He, for one, had never argued that there was a right of asylum in this country, but nobody would deny that the privilege had been accorded, and by the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants it would be with regret that that privilege
    162
    would be refused. If refused at all, it would be in deference to the belief which was said to be entertained in the urgent economic necessity for such an enactment. The Prime Minister acknowledged—he was obliged to his right hon. friend for the acknowledgment—that the Jewish community did what it could to assist and maintain their own poor, and that, so far as he had any power, he could assert would be continued with the same success in the future. He earnestly asked the Committee not to abandon, for an economic consideration which could not be maintained and had hardly been alleged, the traditions, which had for centuries been the boast of England, of asylum on these shores for those whose only alleged offence was the faith they held. He thanked the Prime Minister for his condemnation of outrages inflicted on his community abroad. In that he was only following the precedent of his illustrious relative. He, himself, had a letter from the late Lord Salisbury, in which he expressed himself in indignant terms not only as regarded the outrages, but also with reference to the violation of the Treaty of Berlin, of which other Powers had been guilty. As a former president of the Jewish Board of Guardians, if there was the slightest risk, he would not say danger, which he did not for one moment believe, of an uncontrolled immigration of his community from any part of the world which would interfere with the industries of this country, he would do his best to avert it. As for the Amendment of the Home Secretary, he thanked him for it; but he did not think that the words proposed would attain the object in view. He hoped with all earnestness that words would be inserted which would render the clause wider and its effect more elastic.
    *MR. BMMOTTsaid that the Prime Minister had delivered a very interesting speech. The excursus on Irish history had, however, had extremely little relevance to the actual Amendment.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the (Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report progress; to sit again this evening.

  EVENING SITTING.

    ALIENS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
    Clause 1:—
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 9, after the word 'country' to insert the words 'by reason of the treatment of the religious body to which he belongs or'."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    *MR. EMMOTT, continuing his speech, said the Prime Minister had made a point of the fact that if we were to allow persecuted aliens to come into the country it would increase the pauper population. He had pointed out that if the case of these persecuted aliens was a matter on which the nation felt deeply the nation ought to pay for those paupers rather than that Stepney or any other parish should do so. He might remind the Committee that the number of alien paupers in proportion to population was very much smaller as regarded aliens than it was as regarded the British population, and where the alien population existed in great numbers, as they did in Stepney, then such portion of them as were paupers were largely supported by the alien population of that district who paid rates—as was the case in Stepney. In fact, it was obvious that in many districts in which aliens existed in large numbers, they must pay not only the proportion of rates which was necessary to support their own paupers, but also a considerable proportion of the rates which were necessary to support British paupers as well. And, therefore, he did think, looking on this matter broadly, that the case as regarded paupers had not been made out at all, and that that art of the argument of the Prime Minister must of necessity fall to the ground.
    The Prime Minister said that if the Amendment of his right hon. friend were
    164
    to be accepted, every alien immigrant pauper would say that he was a victim of religious persecution or might be the victim of religious persecution. When he heard that he could not help wondering whether the Prime Minister had looked at the Government Amendment or not. The Government Amendment, which would come on for discussion as a matter of form later, was to insert after the word "prosecution," "or punishment on religious grounds." It was obvious that if the pauper immigrants were allowed to plead as an excuse that they had come here to avoid prosecution or punishment, and solely on religious grounds, it would be perfectly possible for every pauper immigrant who came to make that an excuse just as easily as if the Amendment of his right hon. friend was carried. Besides, he ventured to maintain that it would be a far easier thing for the immigration officer to decide as to the genuineness of a plea of that kind than it would be to decide the very many difficult questions which he would have to consider under Sub-clauses (a) and (b) which they had already passed.
    Then the Prime Minister made another suggestion. He said that he did not think that those men ought to be allowed to come as paupers. He praised the way in which the Jews had assisted their co-religionists in times of distress, and he said that this case was rather one in which the rich Jews ought to help the poor Jews, and so enable them to get out of the category of paupers, and to except themselves from this particular section. Well, if that was the case, why had the Government proposed an Amendment at all? Clearly that was not the opinion of the Government when they put down this Amendment. If it was sufficient that the rich Jews should help the poor Jews who desired to come into this country, then surely the Prime Minister's objection argued just as strongly against the Government concession as it did against the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet.
    But the real question which he rose to put before the Committee was this—which I of three categories of Amendments on the Paper ought they to accept? There were a great many Amendments

    165
    down—most of them in different language—apparently quot homines tot sententiae. There was first of all the category to which the Amendment of his right hon. friend belonged; secondly, that represented by the Amendments of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stretford; and there was, thirdly, the Government Amendment. The right hon. Baronet's Amendment was the most liberal; that of the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Member for Stretford the second; and the least liberal was that of the Government. Now he wished to ask a Question with regard to the Government Amendment. What was meant in the Government Amendment by "solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious grounds." Would it be a proper plea for an alien immigrant to state that he had left his own country because he feared prosecution? Was that what was meant by the words "avoid prosecution," or must the prosecution actually have taken place before he could set up that as a plea to enable him to enter here? That was a somewhat important question, because if the more liberal view of that was taken—if an alien immigrant might set up the plea that he had left his own country because he feared prosecution might be coming—then of course the Government Amendment was perhaps very much more liberal than some of them had been imagining. Perhaps the Home Secretary when he spoke would be good enough to reply to that Question.
    He had an alternative suggestion to make to the House, Would the Home Secretary be willing to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet provided it came after the word "solely." It would restrict it a little if it read "solely by reason of the treatment of the religious body to which he belongs or to avoid prosecution for an offence of a political character." But supposing that the Home Secretary made an unfavourable reply to that suggestion, would he not take the words of the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division rather than those of his own Amendment. They should have the word "persecution" instead of "prosecution." He was quite sure the House would agree with him that the right hon. Baronet put forward a very
    166
    powerful plea on behalf of the views which he held. The argument for his Amendment as contrasted with other Amendments was that much of the worst cruelty on Jews was possible without any prosecution taking place at all. Organised attacks had been made on the Jews in many parts of Russia, which were connived at by the authorities, which were ignored by the police, and which would not make it possible for any of the victims of that kind of persecution to escape the reatriction which was placed upon them under the form of the Government Amendment. He was not going to say anything about the "right of asylum." He thought historically, undoubtedly, we could not talk very much about the light of asylum, but we could talk about the "practice of asylum," and that was the real point that they wanted, as far as possible, to keep up. Because of any evil that we saw now in this country resulting from alien immigration, we did not want to think that Jews in distant parts of Europe in fear of their lives; might be prevented from coming here because they feared that on arrival they would be turned back to face again the persecution which they were seeking to avoid. That was the real question; it was no vague altruism. It was no old-fashioned cosmopolitanism that members of the Opposition held in putting forward that plea. What they said was that this had been the traditional policy of this country in the past, that we had not suffered by it, that in some respects we had gained by it, and that was the policy which in regard to this question of religious persecution they desired to see continued by this country.
    MR. DUKEsaid that Members on the Government side of the House generally believed that the acceptance of this Amendment would deprive this Bill of a great deal of its practical utility. Many of them sympathised with what had been said on both sides of the House with regard to religious refugees, but they did not see their way to go so far as the hon. and learned Member for Stretford was evidently prepared to go. He, however, could not help thinking that there must be some modification of the terms of the clause

    167
    which would enable the Government to meet a sentiment which found strong expression in the House and would find a powerful echo throughout the country. There might not have been a right of asylum in this country in the past, but among the masses of the people there was an honest desire that they should do nothing to deprive themselves of a source of national pride in the sense that the oppressed of other countries were able to find a refuge here. He asked the Home Secretary whether the difficulty could not be solved by some form of words which would meet the case of a Jew who was in imminent peril of his life and who came to this country penniless because he had been stripped of all the means he had possessed. Could not words be inserted which would make it a qualification to be specially considered that the refugee was in immediate danger of life or limb arising from his religious beliefs? And could not we, for the purpose of securing that benefit to such deserving persons, arrange that the guarantee of the Jewish Board of Guardians should be accepted as a sufficient security that an otherwise deserving person would not become a burden on the rates.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid the Amendment placed on the Paper by the Home Secretary was a remarkable proof that the discussions on the Pill, short though they had been, had produced a marked effect on the minds of the Government. Had it not been for those discussions, the present Amendment which, although it did not go far enough, was nevertheless a concession, would never have been put forward. The Prime Minister himself had now admitted that the Huguenots did not arrive in this country in that state of prosperity which many people imagined, and that, as a matter of fact, some of them were in such a state of destitution that a public subscription had to be raised to help them. It was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken the present opportunity, if not to question the wisdom of the generous policy of the present day with regard to aliens, at any rate apparently to suggest to the Committee that he looked upon it as an open question as to whether this country should not at
    168
    any moment reverse or limit those great principles of liberal admission which were supposed to have become the common property of the nation. It could not be denied that owing to the wise legislation of the last century it had at any rate become the custom of the country to admit aliens without question, and whereas before the burden of proof lay the other way, it was now cast upon those who desired to exclude aliens. The law of England in this matter now depended on the statutes of the late reign, the most recent of which, the Act of 1870, removed the last disability attaching to aliens by enabling them to own real property. Why could not the Home Secretary extend the idea of this Amendment, so that instead of dealing merely with the individual it should deal with the class? The concession had been asked for from both sides of the House, and if it were granted it would probably be the best way of making rapid progress with the Bill.
    MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock)felt so strongly that his constituents would object to the passage of the Bill if it prevented this country from continuing to be the refuge of the victims of religious persecution, that he appealed to the Prime Minister to do something to meet the generally expressed view of the House. Under the Bill, persons persecuted for their religious views would be able to obtain access to this country if they were able to come over as second-class passengers, but not if they were poor and unable to travel otherwise than in the steerage. That was surely contrary to the wishes of the Prime Minister, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to meet the difficulty, possibly on the basis suggested by the hon. Member for Plymouth. It had been shown, particularly in the case of the Jews, that provision was generally made by their co-religionists to prevent these people coming on the rates, but, even if it should result, in some financial less, he believed the general sentiment of the country would be in favour of England continuing to be a refuge for people who were persecuted for their religious views. The people who had made great financial sacrifices to rescue the slaves would certainly back up

    169
    the Goverment in this matter. The granting of asylum to these people had not hitherto resulted in any damage to the interests of the country, and he sincerely hoped the Government would modify the Bill in the desired direction. He heartily supported the main lines of the measure for the exclusion of criminals and undesirables, but unless the Bill were modified on this point he would be compelled reluctantly to vote against it.
    *CAPTAIN ELLICEsaid he had listened to many speeches from the Prime Minister, and as a rule with great pleasure, but he had been extremely sorry to hear the address the right hon. Gentleman had delivered that night. Whatever the law might be, there was no doubt that the custom had been that those who suffered from religious or political persecution should be admitted to this country, and in the Journals of the House there was entered a protest by the Liberal Leaders of 1818 against the Aliens Bill of that day. With the permission of the House he would read one clause of that protest. It ran thus—
    "Because the Bill is crue', for even when not perverted to any improper purposes, it may deter the victims of civil and religious persecution abroad from seeking refuge under the laws of a free country."
    He hoped that that spirit would still prevail in this Assembly, and that the Government would, even now, reconsider their determination and permit some Amendment which would embody the general expression of opinion on both sides of the House.
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid the hon. Member for Tavistock seemed entirely to have ignored the great and wide concession the Government had already made in this matter. The Amendment of the Home Secretary went very far—in the opinion of many Members it went too far—and he hoped before the debate concluded the Attorney-General would explain what exactly the words meant. The present position was very serious. He repudiated in the strongest terms any desire to add to the burdens of the Jewish people, but when hon. Members spoke of religious persecution what did they really mean? Did they mean actual persecution such as occa-
    170
    sionally occurred in Russia, or did they mean the normal disabilities which arose out of the administration of the Russian laws, not only to Jews, but to every subject of the Czar? Probably every person coming from Russia, whether Jew, Catholic, or member of the Orthodox Church, could with perfect justice say that according to the standards of this country he was a persecuted person, either religiously or politically. In a country where a peasant living a harmless life could not leave the village without the permission of the head man, where anybody could be imprisoned at a moment's notice on an administrative order, without trial or inquiry, where men had only to get a revolutionary leaflet put into their pocket to render them liable to imprisonment, the whole population was, from our point of view politically or religiously persecuted, and it really meant that the Committee had to consider how far the people of this country were to be made the indirect victims of the misgovernment of foreign nations.
    He differed from the hon. Member for Whitechapel as to the burden imposed upon the people. There was a burden, and the influx of these aliens into certain areas entailed great hardship upon our own people. In view of the few categories the Bill was intended to exclude, he was bound to say that after the very liberal interpretation of persecution which the Government had introduced by this Amendment, they could not go much further without wrecking the whole Bill. By giving all foreigners who were persecuted and discontented free access to this country they were undertaking a very great risk indeed. In America no such exception either foe religious or political persecution was introduced into their Acts of Parliament, and it had never been complained or alleged in America that any hardship had arisen on that account, or that the American Government was reactionary or unmindful of the burdens of the Jewish people either in Russia or elsewhere. On the contrary, the Jewish community in America had protested again and again against their co-religionists being recklessly sent to the United States. There was no such provision as this in force

    171
    in America, while the Jewish colonies themselves did not admit people simply because they had been the victims of persecution, but solely on the ground of their fitness as colonists. The whole of the population of Russia, according to our ideas of liberty, was a politically and religiously persecuted population, and we had to consider how far we were to be made the indirect victims of the misgovernment of foreign nations. He opposed any alteration of the Government Amendment. If any Government in Europe desired to get rid of a certain section of its population it would only be necessary, under this Amendment, to set up religious disabilities to allow of that section being sent to this country. A man might still be an undesirable alien though subjected to persecution.
    As to the expulsion clause, he reminded hon. Members of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition at Limehouse, when he declared that if a man did not conform to our sanitary standard he should be sent back to the country whence he came. But among those men there would necessarily be some who came under the definition of persecuted persons. Were these to be sent away or not? If they were, then it came to this, that while to exclude a persecuted person was barbarous, to expel him after arrival was legitimate.
    The hon. Member for Whitechapel had grossly misrepresented the Prime Minister's speech. The hon. Member said that those who sent back these people or supported a policy of that kind were participators in the persecution. Was it not the fact that the Jewish community spent thousands of pounds in sending back people to their homes? How, then, could it in fairness be alleged that such a policy was participating in persecution? In face of the policy pursued by the Jewish Board of Guardians so steadily for so many years with the avowed purpose of relieving the burdens which these people had caused in the East End of London, it was monstrous for the hon. Member for Whitechapel or any other hon. Member to say that those who were supporting this policy were participating in the persecution of the Jewish people.
    172
    If the Jewish community found it necessary, as they did find it necessary, year after year to send thousands back to their homes, how could it be alleged that they would be doing anything wrong or harsh and unfair by attempting to exclude this small number of undesirable people who not only inflicted an injury upon the native population, but were also a grievous burden upon the Jewish community in the East End of London and many other parts of the Metropolis.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: All those people are sent back at their own request, and none of them are victims of religious persecution.
    LORD HUGH CECILsaid he would very much like to hear from the Government an announcement that they would be prepared to go some way towards meeting a widely-entertained feeling on both sides of the House in favour of some further concession to secure that the Bill should not be made an instrument for increasing the hardship of those who throughout Christian Europe, with the exception of Russia, were objects of very real pity. He found some difficulty, which constantly arose in these debates, in following his hon. and gallant friend, who seemed to take quite a different view of the scope of the Bill to that taken by the Government. He quite agreed with, the Prime Minister that it would be absurd to say that historically we had not been a persecuting people; but it was true that when we adopted the principle of religious liberty we did so for the whole human race, and the distinction that some people were disposed to draw—but not the Government—between our own people and foreigners was not a distinction known to English history, nor could it be defended on grounds of Christianity or reason. To say that we might exclude any aliens we chose was to enunciate a pagan doctrine difficult to reconcile with the essential part of the Christian religion that subordinated national distinctions to our moral obligations. It was no extenuation of a wrong to say it was done to a man of another nationality.
    It was obvious that an oppressed person had, prima facie, a right to

    173
    asylum, and if that right was withheld from him it must be shown that it was to prevent a greater evil. Could anything of the kind be shown in this case? He agreed with the Prime Minister that only a small class would be excluded under the Bill, and the whole scope of the Bill would not make a great difference to the country. It seemed to be overlooked that the burden of proving that he was the victim of persecution would be with the alien, he would have to satisfy the immigration board that he had been religiously oppressed and that that was the reason why he had passed the sea and come to this country. Unless he could prove that he would not get the benefit of the exemption, and surely the board could be trusted to discover the truth. Only a small number of persons would come within the exemption, for in the large number of cases friends would provide the refugee with sufficient money to take him outside the scope of the Bill altogether. It could make very little difference to the condition of things in the East End of London whether these few were or were not admitted, it would be no sensible eonomic factor. If they became in any considerable number chargeable to any union it would be an easy thing to relieve such union; and he was persuaded that if any community had the choice between bearing on the rates the burden of supporting the people and of sending them back to such persecution as the Jews had suffered in Russia, the community would not hesitate a moment in opening their door wide to the refugees. He would undertake to go to Stepney any day and convince the working men that that was their duty; and he was sure they would embrace it with positive enthusiasm. But they did not view this matter in its true light. What he wanted the Committee to do was to concentrate their minds on the case of an individual who had been in a scene of massacre, had lost, it might be, some of his relations, and had escaped from a place where pillage, cruelty, and all sorts of horrible acts were being perpetrated. Was he to be told that because he had not a certain property standard he was to be sent back whence he came? He was sure there was no body of Englishmen who
    174
    would tolerate such a thing. Therefore, he earnestly invited the Government to adopt some remedy which would prevent this Bill from being used in a way that would be an outrage on the moral sense of every Englishman.
    MR. RUNCIMANsaid the noble Lord's speech had sounded the right tone, and he was sure it would be responded to in the hearts of all the generous people of the United Kingdom. What a contrast it was to the speech they had just heard from the hon. Member for Stepney. It seemed for the time being to cut off from the hon. Member's nature every generous impulse which they believed to be characteristic of Englishmen. He was, however, not concerned so much with him as with the speech delivered that afternoon by the Prime Minister. He had had the fortune to hear that speech from beginning to end, and much as he admired the tone in which he opened, he heard many of the right hon. Gentleman's statements, first with pain, and afterwards with nothing short of disgust. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was based on two grounds. First of all, he said that the right of asylum in this country was by no means an immemorial custom, and that we at one time had been as much persecutors as were some European people at the present time. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman stated that even if religious refugees came to this country they were to be kept out solely because they were likely to become a burden on the rates if admitted. Both these arguments were quite foreign to the people of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord had done well in choosing one particular instance. He could give the right hon. Gentleman many instances within his own knowledge of men who had been driven from Southern Russia by religious persecution, Christians as well as Jews, and had found their way to this country destitute of relations and property, men who had nothing but the clothes they were wearing, and who were bound to depend on such gratuitous generosity as they could find from the hospitable people of the United Kingdom. Were men who came under such circumstances as these

    175
    to be told that they would become a charge on the rates of Stepney, and therefore we had no use for them here? The Prime Minister said we welcomed the Huguenots because we were at war with their oppressors. But the persecution from which people in Southern Russia had fled from time to time was absolutely antagonistic to the people of this country, and every sentiment which we possessed was at war with the feeling of the Russian autocracy. The philosophic hair-splitting of the right hon. Gentleman in a matter of life and death would not be accepted by the people of this country as the expression of their true and highest feelings.
    *MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he wished to re-echo everything that had been said on both sides of the House that the consideration of this subject must be absolutely free of the taint of anti-Semitism, which had hitherto been happily avoided in this country. The hon. Member who last spoke had truly said this was not a Jewish question alone. A Urge number of aliens who came to East London were Christian Poles, and they had been, not perhaps in equal degree, but in a very similar way subjected to the same kind of treatment as those Jews who came from the same country, and it was possible that before very long we might have incursions of subjects of the Turkish Empire coming for similar reasons. He believed that on both sides of the House there was a very genuine desire that the genuine religious refugee should not be a subject of any penal enactment; but of course they had to devise words whereby there should be some test between him and those who might abuse the protection. He could not help thinking that the words of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment were much too broad, and that if they were passed it would be competent for any alien, on being refused admission to this country, to say that the state of the law in the country he came from was not as good for the members of his religion as in England, and then it would be impossible to deny him admission. On the other hand, as to the Government Amendment, he could not help thinking that the words proposed by the Home Secretary were somewhat too narrow.
    176
    He thought they should find something between the two, in order to carry out the main purposes of the Bill and at the same time deal with the special case of the man who knew that if he remained in his own country his life, or at all events his safety, would be in danger. He was not a lawyer or a draftsman, but he ventured to suggest that the Government might consider the following—"Or on account of religious belief is unable to live without danger to life or limb in the place of his domicile."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he believed there was in every quarter of the House a real desire to arrive at a conclusion in this matter which would be satisfactory not only to the House, but to the country at large. No doubt there was no legal right of asylum here, but the traditions of this country were in favour of admitting aliens who had been subjected to religious persecution in their own countries. This question was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, and a strong desire was expressed that some unanimous conclusion should be come to in regard to it. He believed the right hon. Baronet was not particularly wedded to the words of his Amendment. The Amendment seemed to him too broad because he used the words "treatment" and "religious body." He thought the House desired to deal rather with the individual case than with a religious body as a whole. On the other hand it appeared to him that the Government proposal was far too narrow. The Government proposal was that an individual should be allowed to come into the country if there was actually some process of law in operation against him. A person against whom there was some process of law in operation would not be allowed to leave the country at all. It was the individual who feared that a process of law would be put in operation against him in his own country who should be allowed to come in. If the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean were amended in the sense suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Stretford and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, it would meet with the unanimous acceptance of the Committee.
    MR. EENWICKjoined in the appeal for words of greater liberality in regard to this most important question. The Government seemed to think that this was not a very large question, but he would point out to the Committee that the United States had already had to deal with it, and that they had found it a much larger question than many hon. Members seemed to believe. The United States did not deal with it on sentimental but on material grounds. In other words, they looked at it from the point of view whether the immigrants were desirable or not. If the immigrants were entering the United States to come into competition with workmen there they were not admitted. An hon. Member had stated that the Jewish body were prepared to guarantee that their destitute co-religionists would not become a charge upon the Poor Law. That was a statement which demanded the serious attention of this House. They all knew that a certain section of the Jewish community possessed enormous wealth, and that such a guarantee could easily be given. But it should be remembered that the poor Jewish aliens who came into this country entered into competition with the unfortunate people in the East End of London. He would like to call the attention of the Labour Members to the fact that these aliens were not members of trades unions, and that many of them had to work fifteen hours a day for 1s. 6d.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting a long way from the Amendment.
    MR. RENWICKsaid he had no wish to travel away from the Amendment. He only wished to point out what was the effect of the competition by aliens in the East End. They had heard from the other side as to the poor rates at Stepney. The result of these conditions in the East End of London was to seriously increase the rates. He appealed to the House to cast sentiment aside and look at this question from an Imperial point of view.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not intervene in order to reply to some of the
    178
    very singular attacks which had been made upon him in the course of the last two hours, although he might well have asked permission to do so. One hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he was justly open to the charge of inhumanity, and that he was indifferent to the sufferings of the Jewish race in Russia and other Eastern countries because he did not think that their rights, or indeed in any serious respect their interests, would be interfered with by the Bill. He would remind the Committee that at all events they who sat on that bench could not be regarded as indifferent to the interests of the race on behalf of whom the hon. Member for Whitechapel spoke. So far as he knew, alone among the nations of the world, and certainly alone among the Governments of this country, they had offered to the Jewish race a great tract of fertile land in one of our possessions in order that they might, if they desired it—[Ironical OPPOSITION laughter]—find an asylum from their persecutors at home. He did not know whether that offer was regarded as contemptuous or derisory, he could only say that such an offer had never yet been made by any country to the people on whose behalf the hon. Gentleman spoke.
    He entirely agreed with his noble friend the Member for Greenwich that they must not regard moral questions as questions purely of a particular nation. That was a commonplace of morality which no human being could deny, but his noble friend would be the first in courtesy to admit that our primary duty was to our own countryman, and that universal morality was not aided but hindered by diminishing the weight of the obligation to those nearest to us. It WAS the men who professed a universal cosmopolitanism who did least first for their family, and then for their country. He agreed that they ought to look at this from a wide standpoint, but that did not carry with it any suggestion that our obligations at home were not far more pressing than our obligations abroad. He did not read in any narrow fashion these obligations. He had put to the Committee an argument to which no speaker who followed had replied—namely, if it Were a national obligation for us to relieve the persecuted immigrants from Russia,

    179
    Roumania, or wherever it might be, that obligation should fall upon the nation and not upon the particular locality. No answer had been made to that.
    LORD HUGH CECILsaid that would be quite easy; the rates could be relieved.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his noble friend was consistent and logical, though hon. Gentlemen opposite were consistent less often than he could desire. He largely agreed with his noble friend. He thought that if this country regarded it as its duty, in the face of some sudden persecution, or some sudden series of outrages upon an alien population, to give them an asylum, they must do it on some broad ground and let that House contribute. His noble friend agreed. [OPPOSITION cries of "We are all agreed."] That was the first suggestion he had heard of such agreement. No one during the last three or four hours had suggested that the proper way of dealing with the matter was by a Vote on the Estimates, nor was he aware that any such Vote had ever been passed.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: The "Poor Palatines."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, there was the case of the Lisbon earthquake in 1705, which case was in his mind. This House did, it was true, contribute to mitigate the horrors consequent upon the Lisbon earthquake, but a great national calamity was not a contingency dealt with by this Amendment, which would simply throw on the ratepayers of a particular district the obligation of carrying out what it was suggested was a national responsibility. The real difficulty about this question was, after all, not the question of principle, but the difficulty of draftsmanship. There was a difficulty in the shades of difference that constituted religious or political persecution. When a man was brought up on a political or a religious charge, and given a definite punishment, the case might be clear. But by sensible modifications such cases shaded off to a point where it was almost impossible to say whether a man truly was the victim of what ought to be called religious perse-
    180
    cution, or whether he was using the fact that his life was made rather disagreeable to him in his own country as a reason for making himself a charge upon ours. The first of those cases they thought ought to be admitted. Possibly the words of the Government were too stringent; but he was certain the words of the right hon. Gentleman were far too lax. Perhaps they might agree on some formula between the two. He would suggest the addition to the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Home Secretary of other words which would make the whole Amendment read as follows—"Solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious grounds, or for an offence of a political nature, or to avoid danger to life or limb on account of his religious beliefs."[OPPOSITION cries of "Persecution."] Persecution was an extremely vague term, and he thought it would be better not to use it.
    MR. ASQUITHsuggested that "or liberty" should be added to "life or limb."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the term was perhaps too wide, while "persecution" was far too vague. Perhaps it would be better to use the words "or danger of imprisonment." [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]
    MR. CRIPPSsaid that what was wanted was to avoid danger to life, limb, or liberty on account of religious belief. So far as he was concerned he believed that the words of the Prime Minister would cover substantially all the cases which the Committee desired to see covered.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid he thought the word "imprisonment" was much too narrow. There were various other forms of coercion which amounted to a very serious disability. He would suggest the words, "or persecution involving danger to life, limb, or liberty."
    LORD HUGH CECILasked if that incorporated in the Bill the doctrine against religious persecution? It seemed to him that it made it clear that we did not hold the right of asylum.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the following terms might meet nearly everybody's views: "In order to avoid persecution involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb."
    *MAJOR EVANS-GORDONsaid he had no objection to the word persecution; if qualified in some such way as was suggested it would satisfy him.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR; I think these words will meet the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite: "In order to avoid persecution involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb. "[Cries of "Why not 'liberty.'"]
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if the Prime Minister had accepted the suggestion of his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife he should have at once withdrawn his Amendment, or he would have been willing to withdraw if he had accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich or that made by the hon. Member for the Stretford Division.
    LORD HUGH CECILsaid he did not think the difference between "imprisonment" and "liberty" was very great. He suggested that they should put in "liberty" now and consider whether they should put in "imprisonment" on the Report stage.
    MR. CRIPPSthought the words of the Prime Minister would cover substantially all the cases which the Committee desired to see covered.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No.
    MR. CRIPPS: May I appeal to the right hon. Baronet not to press his Amendment.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I certainly will not withdraw unless we get something more definite.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the Prime Minister on his own initiative and by his own volition suggested "liberty" in the first instance. [Cries of "No."] He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to be influenced by certain unchari-
    182
    table words which had been addressed to him, but to stick to the words "life limb, and liberty," all of which connoted and denoted what the House on both sides were prepared to agree to without a division. He appealed to the Prime Minister to rise to the level of the occasion and let them settle this matter without a division.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I should like to explain the position we are in. If this Amendment is defeated it will be after eleven o'clock, and then I cannot put any Amendment except the Government Amendments. If this matter is not settled before eleven o'clock then I must put the Amendment on the Paper and no other.
    MR. ASQUITHagain appealed to the Government to include the word "liberty," because "imprisonment" would not include such obvious cases as the confiscation of property.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, as he had already pointed out, the word "liberty" would have far too wide an application.
    MAJOR SEELYurged the Prime Minister to accept the word "liberty," and pointed out that any difficulties such as the objections raised to this word by the right hon. Gentleman could be settled by regulations, which in the past had been made in regard to similar matters.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY, whose remarks were almost inaudible in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that he hoped the Government would not agree to any compromise upon this question, because the compromise which had been suggested would make it possible for the 5,000,000 Jews in Russia to come to this country, and become competitors with the unskilled labourers in this country. They had no right to be generous at other people's expense. [OPPOSITION cries of "Divide, divide."] Hon. Members might call out "Divide, divide," but he claimed that he had as much right to have his say upon this subject of Jewish persecution as any other hon. Member. [More interruptions and cries of "go on" and "Agreed."] The people who were oppressed ought to take their part as men in their own country in upsetting and

    183
    overthrowing the misrule which oppressed them, and which was condemned by all right thinking men throughout the civilised world. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] He thought the Government, should adhere to their proposal—
    And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 5th July, to
    put the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words 'by reason of the treatment of the religious body to which he belongs or' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 189; Noes, 223. (Division List No. 257.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Murphy, John

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Field, William

    Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway,N

    Allen, Charles P.

    Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N.E.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Norman, Henry

    Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herb. Henry

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

    Austin, Sir John

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herb, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Benn, John Williams

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Black, Alexander William

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

    Boland, John

    Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

    O'Malley, William

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hammond. John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brigg, John

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Parrott, William

    Bright, Allan Hey wood

    Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Partington, Oswald

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Harwood, George

    Pease, J.A. (Saffron Walden

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Perks, Robert William

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Burns, John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Burt, Thomas

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Buxton, N.E. (YorkNRWhitby

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

    Price, Robert John

    Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Motley)

    Priestley, Arthur

    Caldwell, James

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Rea, Russell

    Cameron, Robert

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Campbell John (Armagh, S.)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Reddy, M.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir, H.

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Causton Richard Knight

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cawley, Frederick

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Gheetham, John Frederick

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (CavanW.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lambert, George

    Rose, Charles Day

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lamont, Norman

    Runciman Walter

    Crombie, John William

    Langley, Batty

    Russell, T. W.

    Crooks, William

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Cullinan, J.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Seely, MajJEB(Isle of Wight)

    Davies, M. Vanghan (Cardigan

    Leng, Sir John

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Delany, William

    Levy, Maurice

    Sheehy, David

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Lewis John Herbert

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Lough Thomas

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lundon, W.

    Slack, John Bamford

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Lyell, Chas. Henry

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacNeill. John Gordon Swift

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Spencer, Rt. Hn.CR(Northants

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    M'Crae, George

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Dunn, Sir William

    M'Kean, John

    Sullivan, Donal

    Edwards, Frank

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Taylor, Theodore C(Radcliffe)

    Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrw'sB'ghs

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Tennant, Harold John

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

    Emmott, Alfred

    Mooney, John J.

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Tomkinson, James

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Toulmin, George

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Younger, William

    Wallace, Robert

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

    Charles Dilke and Mr

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid

    Stuart Samuel

    Weir, James Galloway

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

    White, Luke (York, E R.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fellowes, RtHnAilwynEdward

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn SirJ(Manc'r

    Lockwood, Lieut.- Col. A. R.

    Allsopp, Hn. George

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Finlay, SirR.B.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

    Long, RtHnWalter(Bristol, S.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Arrol, Sir William

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

    Forster, Henry William

    Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

    Baget, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Garfit, William

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.

    Maconochie, A. W.

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Gordon, HnJE (Elgin & Nairn)

    M'Iver,.SirLewis(EdinburghW.

    Balfour, Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds

    Gordon, MajEvans(T'rH'mlets

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh.

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-

    Malcolm, Ian

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Bartley, Sir George C T.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Bigwood, James

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Bill, Charles

    Greville, Hn. Ronald

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

    Bingham, Lord

    Groves, James Grimble

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Bond, Edward

    Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

    Morrell, George Herbert.

    Brassey, Albert

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Hamilton,Marq of(L'nd'nderry

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bull, William James

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Butcher, John George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George.

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H

    Heath, Arthur Howard(Hartley

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Myers, William Henry

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A. (Worc.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

    Chamberlayne, T.(S thampton

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt.Wellesley

    Chapman, Edward

    Hope, J F(Sheffield, Brightside

    Percy, Earl

    Clive, CaptainPercy A.

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Hoult, Joseph

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Purvis, Robert

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Pym, C. Guy

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Rankin, Sir James

    Delkeith, Earl of

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Davenport, Wm. Bromley

    Kerr, John

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Keswick, William

    Renwick, George

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn.Sir Joseph C

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Ritchie, Rt Hn Chas. Thomson

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

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

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants,Fareham

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire

    186

    187

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

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

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Stock, James Henry

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Saunderson, RtHn Col.Edw. J.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H(Renfrew)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Skewes-Cox. Thomas

    Tuff, Charles

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

    Tufnell, Lieut,- Col. Edward

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Smith, HC(North'mbTyneside

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    TELLERS FOR. THE NOES—Sir

    Smith, RtHnJParker (Lanarks

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Viscount Valentia.

    Spear, John Ward

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

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

    Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

    The Chairman then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and on every Question necessary to dispose of the business allotted to the sitting.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 12, at the end, to insert the words, 'nor shall leave to land be withheld in the case of an immigrant who shows to the satisfaction of the immigration officer or board concerned with the case that, having taken his ticket in the United Kingdom and embarked direct therefrom for some other country immediately after a period of residence in the United Kingdom of not less than six months, he has been refused admission in that country and returned direct therefrom to a port in the United Kingdom.' "—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
    Amendment proposed—
    "After the words last inserted, to insert the words, 'and leave to land shall not be refused merely on the ground of want of means to any immigrant who satisfies the immigration officer or board concerned with the case that he was born in the United Kingdom, his father being a British subject, and that he intends to make
    only a temporary stay in the United Kingdom.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 17, at the end, to insert the words 'or if security is given to his satisfaction that undesirable immigrants will not be landed in the United Kingdom from those ships except for the purpose of transit.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 22, at the end to insert the words 'but an immigrant conditionally disembarked shall not be deemed to have landed so long as the conditions are complied with.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
    Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 237; Noes, 188. (Division List No. 258.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Arrol, Sir William

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

    Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Balcarres, Lord

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Balfour, RtHn. A.J. (Manch'r)

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Mount, William Arthur

    Balfour, Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Groves, James Grimble

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Myers, William Henry

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Hamilton, Marq of L'nd'nderry

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

    Bigwood, James

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt, Wellesley

    Bill, Charles

    Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

    Percy, Earl

    Bingham, Lord

    Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords,NW

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Bond, Edward

    Henderson, Sir A(Stafford, W.

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Brassey, Albert

    Hermon-Hodgo, Sir Robert T.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward

    Bull, William James

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Purvis, Robert

    Butcher, John George

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Pym, C. Guy

    Buxton, Sydney Chas (Poplar

    Hope, J F (Sheffield,Brightside

    Rankin, Sir James

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Cavendish, V. O. W. (Derbysh.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

    Howard, J. (Kent,Faversham

    Renwick, George

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A. (Worc.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. ChasThomson

    Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Chapman, Edward

    ebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

    Royds, Clement Molyneaux

    Colston, Chas Edw H Athole

    Kenyon-Slaney, RtHn. Col W.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Kerr, John

    Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

    Keswick, William

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Cross, Charles Alfred

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lamont, Norman

    Saunderson, Rt.HnColEdw. J.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Laurie, Lieut-General

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sharpe, William Edward

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew

    Denny, Colonel

    Lawson, Hn H L W (Mile End)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Lee, ArthurH. (Hants,Fareham

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Smith,H.C (North'mbTyneside

    Dimsdale, RtHn. Sir Joseph C.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Smith, Rt HnJ Parker(Lanarks

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lookwood, Lieut.- Col. A. R.

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    Long, Col Chas W(Evesham)

    Spear, John Ward

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Long, RtHn Walter (Bristol, S.

    Stanley, Rt Hn Lord (Lancs)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Faber, Admund B. (Hants, W.

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Stock, James Henry

    Faber, George. Denison (York)

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

    Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

    Fellowes, RtHnAilwynEdward

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Fergusson, Rt. HnSirJ(Manc'r.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh,W

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Tuff, Charles

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Malcolm, Ian

    Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col Edward

    Gardner, Ernest

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Garfit, William

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin&Nairn)

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Welby, Lt.-Col ACE(Taunton)

    Gordon, MajEvans(T'rH'mlets

    Milvain, Thomas

    Welby, Sir Charles G. E(Notts

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    190

    191

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Viscount Valentia.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    NOES.

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

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Dowd, John

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Malley, William

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Parrott, William

    Austin, Sir John

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Partington, Oswald

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E.(Berwick

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Perks, Robert William

    Benn, John Williams

    Hammond, John

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Black, Alexander William

    Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Boland, John

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Harwood, George

    Price, Robert John

    Brigg, John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Priestley, Arthur

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Holme, Norval Watson

    Rea, Russell

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Higham, John Sharp

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Bryee, Rt. Hon. James

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Reddy, M.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Burns, John

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Burt, Thomas

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Buxton,N.E(York,NR,Whitby

    Joicey, Sir James

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, David B. (Swansea

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cameron, Robert

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

    Runciman, Walter

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Russell, T. W.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Kennedy, Vincent P(Cavan, W

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lambert, George

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Langley, Batty

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

    Churchill, Winston Spencer.

    Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.

    Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

    Sheehy, David

    Cremer, William Randal

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Crombie, John William

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Aecrington)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Crooks, William

    Leng, Sir John

    Slack, John Bamford

    Cullinan, J.

    Levy, Maurice

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigay

    Lough, Thomas

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Delany, William

    Luudon, W.

    Spencer, Rt Hn C R(Northants

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Stanhope, Hon. Hn. Philip Jas.

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sullivan, Donal

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    M'Crae, George

    Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Kean, John

    Tennant, Harold John

    Dobbie, Joseph

    M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

    Donclan, Captain A.

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

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

    Doogan, P. C.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Tomkinson, James

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Mooney, John J.

    Toulmin, George

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Dunn, Sir William

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Wallace, Robert

    Edwards, Frank

    Murphy, John

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Elibank, Master of

    Nolan, Col. John P(Galway, N.

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Ellice,CaptEC (SAndrw'sB'ghs

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

    Norman, Henry

    Weir, James Galloway

    Emmott, Alfred

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Fenwick, Charles

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

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Field, William

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    192

    193

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Wilson, FredW(Norfolk, Mid.)

    Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd

    Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

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

    Yoxall, James Henry

    William M'Arthur.

    Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

    Clause 2:—
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 30, to leave out the word 'landing of immigrants for the purpose of,' and insert the words 'disembarkation of immigrants for the purpose of inspection'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas)—instead thereof.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 33, to leave out the words 'holding of meetings of the board if convenient on an immigrant ship,' and insert the words 'place of meeting of the board.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas)—instead thereof.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 36, to leave out the word landed,' and insert the word 'disembarked.'"
    —(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas)— instead thereof.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 36, at the end, to insert the words 'Rules made under this section shall provide for notice being given to masters of immigrant ships and immigrants informing them of their right of appeal, and also, where leave to land is withheld in the case of any immigrant by the immigration officer, for notice being given to the immigrant and the master of the immigrant ship of the grounds on which leave has been withheld.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
    Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided;—Ayes, 237; Noes, 187. (Division List No. 259.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Chamberlain.Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Chamberlain,Rt.HnJA.(Wore)

    Allsopp, Hon, George

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Chamberlayne,T. (S'thampton)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Chapman, Edward

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Bigwcod, James

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

    Bingham, Lord

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Arrol, Sir William

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cochrane, Hn Thos H. A. E.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bond, Edward

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Brassey, Albert

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Cripps, Chas. Alfred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bull, William James

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

    Butcher, John George

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)

    Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Balfour, RtHn.GeraldW(Leeds

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Davenport, W. Bromley

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

    Hartley, Sir George C.T.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Denny, Colonel

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Kerr, John

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Keswick, William

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Dimsdale, RtHn Sir Joseph C.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Renwick, George

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lamont, Norman

    Ritchie, Rt.Hn. Chas.Thomson

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

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

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Faber, George Denison (York)

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

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Fellowes,RtHn.AilwynEdward

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Fergusson, Rt Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford)

    Finlay, Sir R. B.(Inv'rn'ssB'gs

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Long, RtHnWalter (Bristol,S

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col.Edw.J

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Garfit, William

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Smith, HC(North'mbTyneside)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Smith, RtHnJParker (Lanarks

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

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

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

    Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'm'ts

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

    Spear, John Ward

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

    M,Killop, James (Stirlingsh.

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Malcolm, Ian

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Stock, James Henry

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs)

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Milner, Rt. Hn, Sir Fredk G.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Groves, James Grimble

    Milvain, Thomas

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Tuff, Charles

    Hamilton, Marq.of(L'donderry

    Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

    Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Hay Hon. Claude George

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Walrond, Rt. Hon, Sir Wm. H

    Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Warde, Colonel C.E.

    Heath, Sir Jas. (StaffordsNW

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Myers, William Henry

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton undLyne

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

    Pease, Herb. Pike(Darlington)

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

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Peel, HnWmRobt.Wellesley

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Percy, Earl

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Hozier, Hn. James H. Cecil

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Hunt, Rowland

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Purvis, Robert

    Viscount Valentia.

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

    Rankin, Sir James

    Kenyon-Slanoy, Rt Hn.Col.W.

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    NOES.

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

    Allen, Charles P.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Austin, Sir John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Asquith, RtHnHerbert Henry

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    196

    197

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hammond, John

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Harms worth, R. Leicester

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Benn, John Williams

    Harwood, George

    Price, Robert John

    Black, Alexander William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Priestley, Arthur

    Boland, John

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Rea, Russell

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Brigg, John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Reddy, M.

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Burns, John

    Joicey, Sir James

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Burt, Thomas

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Buxton, N.E(York,NRWhitby

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Runciman, Walter

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Russell, T. W.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (CavanW

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lambert, George

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

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Langley, Batty

    Shaw, Charles Edw (Stafford)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W)

    Sheehy, David

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Crombie, John William

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Slack, John Bamford

    Crooks, William

    Levy, Maurice

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lough, Thomas

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Davies, M.Vaughan (Cardigan)

    Lundon, W.

    Spencer, Rt. Hn.CR(Northants

    Delany, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sullivan, Donal

    Dewar, John A (Inverness-sh.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir-John P.

    M'Crae, George

    Tennant, Harold John

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Kean, John

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

    Dobbie, Joseph

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Tomkinson, James

    Doogan, P. C.

    Mooney, John J.

    Toulmin, George

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Wallacse, Robert

    Dunn, Sir William

    Murphy, John

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Edwards, Frank

    Nolan, Col. John P(Galway, N.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Elibank, Master of

    Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South)

    Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

    Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrw'Bghs

    Norman, Henry

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Weir, James Galloway

    Emmott, Alfred

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

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

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Connor, James (Wickslow, W.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Field, William

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

    Findlay, Alexander (LanarkNE

    O'Dowd, John

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull,W.)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Wilson, Fred W.(Norfolk, Mid

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N)

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

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Malley, William

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Woodhouse, SirJT(Hudd'rsfi'd

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Parrott, William

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Partington, Oswald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    William M'Arthur.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

    Perks, Robert William

    Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

    Clause 3:—
    Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 260; Noes, 133. (Division List No. 260.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Kenyon-Slancy, Rt. Hn. Col.W

    Allen, Charles P.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kerr, John

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

    Keswick, William

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Edwards, Frank

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

    Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

    Lamont, Norman

    Arrol, Sir William

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

    Fellowes, Rt HnAilwynEdward

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J Manc'r)

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

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Finlay, Sir R.B.(Inv'rn'ssBghs)

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Legge, Col. Hon. Hencage

    Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Balfour, RtHnGeraldW(Leeds)

    Forster, Henry William

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch.)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Garfit, William

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Lucas, ReginaldJ(Portsmouth)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Gordon, Hn JE(Elgin & Nairn)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gordon, MajEvans(T'rH'mlets)

    Maclver, D. (Live pool)

    Bigwood, James

    Goschen, Hn George Joachim

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Bingham, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Graham, Henry Robert

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

    Bond, Edward

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Brassey, Albert

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Brodrick Rt. Hn. St John

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs)

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Bull, William James

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Butcher, John George

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

    Groves, James Grimble

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Caldwell, James

    Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk G.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Milvain, Thomas

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hamilton, Marq of(L'donderry)

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants)

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. (Birm)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn JA (Worc.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Chamberlayne, T (S'thampton)

    Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Chapman, Edward

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

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Henderson Sir A.(Stafford,W.)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Clive, Captain Percy A

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. R.

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Colston, Chas. EdwH.Athole

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Cook, Sir Fredk. Lucas

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Myers, William Henry

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hope, J F (Sheffield,Brightside

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

    Dalkeith, Karl of

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

    Percy, Earl

    Davenport, W. Bromley

    Hunt, Rowland

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Summer, Sir Walter R.

    Denny, Colonel

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col Edward

    Dimsdale, Rt Hn. Sir Joseph C

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Purvis, Robert

    200

    201

    Pym, C. Guy

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

    Tuff, Charles

    Rankin, Sir James

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Shaw, Chas. Edw (Stafford)

    Vincent, Col Sir CEH(Sheffield)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Smith, H.C(North'mbTyneside

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Renwick, George

    Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Welby, Lt.-Col A CE(Taunton)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

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

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Spear, John Ward

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    Wniteley, H. (AshtonnndLyne)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

    Round, Rt. Hn. James

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Stock, James Henry

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Runciman, Walter

    Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hudd'rsfi'd

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn.Col EdwJ

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Viscount Valentia.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E)

    Field, William

    Murphy, John

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

    Nolan, Col John P (Galway, N,

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Austin, Sir John

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hammond, John

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Black, Alexander William

    Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Boland, John

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    O' Dowd, John

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Harwood, George

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Brigg, John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Kelly, James (RoscommonN

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Malley, William

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parrott, William

    Burke, E, Haviland

    Holland, Sir Wm. Henry

    Partington, Oswald

    Burns, John

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Burt, Thomas

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Buxton, N.E. (YorkNRWhitby

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Perks, Robert William

    Campbell, John (Armagh,, S.)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Price, Robert John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Priestley, Arthur

    Cremer, William Randal

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan W)

    Reddy, M.

    Crembie, John William

    Lambert, George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crooks, William

    Langley, Batty

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cullinan, J.

    Law, HughAlex(Donegal,W.)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Delany, William

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Levy, Maurice

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Russell, T. W.

    Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

    Lough, Thomas

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Lundon, W.

    Sheehy, David

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Slack, John Bamford

    Dunn, Sir William

    M'Kean, John

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

    Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Sullivan, Donal

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Mooney, John J.

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

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

    202

    203

    Tomkinson, James

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

    Toulmin, George

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Wallace, Robert

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Thomas Esmonde and Cap-

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull,W.)

    tain Donelan.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Wilson, Fred W (Norfolk, Mid)

    And, it being alter Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress, to sit again to-morrow.

    ALIENS [EXPENSES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise 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."—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
    And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to put forthwith the Question.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 152. (Division List No. 261.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bigwood, James

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Bingham, Lord

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Bond, Edward

    Davenport, W. Bromley

    Arnold-Forster, Rt.HnHughO.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

    Arrol, Sir William

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Denny, Colonel

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bull, William James

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Bagot, Capt. JoscclineFitzRoy

    Butcher, John George

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

    Balfour, Capt C. B (Hornsey)

    Chamberlain, Rt. HnJA(Worc.

    Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

    Balfour, RtHnGeraldW(Leeds

    Chamberlayne, T (S'thampton)

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

    Chapman, Edward

    Faber, George Denison (York

    Banbury, Sir Ferderick George

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Fellowes, Rt.HnAilwynEdw.

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Mancr

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Finlay, Sir R B(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham

    Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Garfit, William

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(BristolS.

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'm'ts

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col EdwJ.

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Graham, Henry Robert

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford.East

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW)

    Smith, H C (North'mbTyneside

    Grenfell, William Henry

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh)

    Smith, Rt HnJParker(Lanarks)

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Groves, James Grimble

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Spear, John Ward

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'donderry

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Stock, James Henry

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Heath, Sir Jas. (StaffordsN.W)

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Tuff, Charles

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Mount, William Arthur

    Vincent, Col Sir C EH(Sheffield

    Hope, J F (Sheffield,Brightside

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Walrond, Rt Hn Sit Wm. H.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

    Myers, William Henry

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

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Nicholson, William Graham

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Pecl, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Whiteley, H. (AshtonundLyne

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Percy, Earl

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Willoughby do Eresby, Lord

    Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

    Hummer, Sir Walter R.

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T(Denbigh)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    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

    Keswick, William

    Purvis, Robert

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Lamont, Norman

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Laurie, Lieut. General

    Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

    Alexander Acland-Hood

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Renwick, George

    and Viscount Valenntia.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Lawson, HnH.L.W.(Mile End)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    NOES.

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

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)

    Black, Alexander William

    Burns, John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Boland, John

    Burt, Thomas

    Allen, Charles P.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Buxton, NE(York, NR Whitby

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Brigg, John

    Caldwell James

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Bright, Allan Hey wood

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Cawley, Frederick

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Channing, Francis Allston

    206

    207

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent P (CavanW)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Langley, Batty

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Crombie, John William

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W

    Rose, Charles Day

    Cullinan, J.

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cornwall)

    Runciman, Walter

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Russell, T. W.

    Delany, William

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Levy, Maurice

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Dewar, John (Invernessh)

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lough, Thomas

    Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Lundon, W.

    Sheehy, David

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacNcill, John Gordon Swift

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Slack, John Bamford

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    MoCrae, George

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Edwards, Frank

    M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

    Soames Arthur Wellesley

    Elibank, Master of

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Ellis John Edward (Notts)

    Mooney, John J.

    Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Sullivan, Donal

    Fenwick, Charles

    Murphy, John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Field, William

    Nolan, Col John P. (Galway,N)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N.E.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

    Toulmin, George

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    O'Dowd, John

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Hammond, John

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

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

    Weir, James Galloway

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    O'Malley, William

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Harwood, George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Parrott, William

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Partington, Oswald

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Higham, John Sharpe

    Perks, Robert William

    Wilson, Charles Henry (HullW

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Wilson, Fred W.(NorfolkMid.)

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk

    Pirie, Duncan V.

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

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Price, Robert John

    Woodhouse.SirJ.T. (Huddersf'd

    Joicey, Sir James

    Priestley, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Rea, Russell

    Thomas Esmonde and

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Captain Donelan,

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh)

    Redmond, John E (Waterford

    Joyce, Michael

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Resolution to the House."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 262.)

    AYES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

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

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

    Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

    Bigwood, James

    Arrol, Sir William

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Chrisch)

    Bingham, Lord

    Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Bond, Edward

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bull, William James

    Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Butcher, John George

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Purvis, Robert

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

    Remnant, George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

    Hoult, Joseph

    Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn JA (Worc.

    Hozier, Hn. James HenryCecil

    Round, Rt. Hn. James

    Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton

    Hunt, Rowland

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Chapman, Edward

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. N. A. E.

    Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kerr, John

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Keswick, William

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

    Lamont, Norman

    Smith, HC (North'mb.Tyneside

    Denny, Colonel

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Smith, Rt.Hn.J.Parker(Lanark

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir JosephC.

    Lawson, Hn. H.L.W.(MileEnd)

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lee, ArthurH. (HantsFareham

    Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lees, Sir Elliott, (Birkenhead)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Douglas, Rt.Hn. A. Akers-

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Taylor, Austin (East Tuxteth)

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Faber, George Denison (York)

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

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fellowes, Rt.Hn.Ailwyn Edw.

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Fisher, William Hayes

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Tuft, Charles

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Forster, Henry William

    Malcolm, Ian

    Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield)

    Faster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Walrond, RtHn.Sir Wm. H.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Welby, Lt.-Col.A.CE(Taunton

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.

    Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Gordon, Maj.Evans(T'rH'mlets

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Whiteley, H. (AshtonundLyne

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B.Stuart

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. II.

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Morrison, James Archibald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Groves, James Grimble

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Halsey, Rt. Hn Thomas F.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Viscount Valentia.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Peel, Hn. Win. Robt, Wellesley

    Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

    Percy, Earl

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Findlay, Alexander (LanarkNE

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cremer, William Randal

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Allen, Charles P.

    Cullinan, J.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Dalziel, James Henry

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

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Delany, William

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway

    Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

    Black, Alexander William

    Dewar JohnA(Inverness-sh.

    Hammond, John

    Boland, John

    Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

    Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

    Brigg, John

    Dobbic, Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Donelan, Captain A

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Doogan, P. C.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Buxton.N.E(York,NR,Whitby

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Higham, John Sharp

    Caldwell, James

    Edwards, Frank

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

    Elibank, Master of

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Fenwick, Charles

    Joicey, Sir James

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Field, William

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    210

    211

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.

    Sheehy, David

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    O'Dowd, John

    Slack, John Bamford

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Langley, Batty

    O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

    O'Malley, William

    Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Parrott, William

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Levy, Maurice

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Toulmin, George

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Lough, Thomas

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Weir, James Galloway

    Lundon, W.

    Priestley, Arthur

    White, Luke (York, E. R.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Rea, Russell

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    M'Crae, George

    Reddy, M.

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Wilson, Fred W(Norfolk, Mid.)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Rickett, J. Compton

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

    Mooney, John J.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

    Murphy, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Nolan, Col. JohnP(Galway, N.

    Runciman, Walter

    Thomas Esmonde and Mr.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Russell, T. W.

    Patrick O'Brien.

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.

    Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)

    Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

    MEDICAL ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    (5)

    (6)

    (7)

    (8)

    Name of ship.

    Displacement.

    Where built.

    Date laid down.

    Date launched

    Date commissioned.

    Completed cost.

    Excess or saving on estimate.

    —(Mr. Kearley.)

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to, War Stores (Commission) Bill.
    Amendments to—Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords]; Mansfield

    DOCKYARD AND CONTRACT BUILT SHIPS.
    Return ordered, "of Ships of 5,000 tons and upwards built for the Admiralty since the 1st day of January, 1893, in (1) His Majesty's Royal Dockyards; and (2) by Contract, under the following headings:—
    Corporation Bill [Lords]; Hastings Tramways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
    Adjourned at nineteen minutes before One o'clock.

The Earl of Chichester sat first in Parliament after the death, of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:— Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6).
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Rathmines and Rathgar Extension and Improvement Bill, ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
Read, and agreed to.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill; North British Railway (General Powers) Bill. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bills was withdrawn. The orders made on Monday and Tuesday last discharged, and Bills committed.
Woolwich Borough Council Bill; Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill; Andover Lighting and Power Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 133.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for the instruction and training of pupil teachers.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Rutland, K.G., preserved at Belvoir Castle. Vol. IV.

  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Report to the Secretary for Scotland of a Departmental Committee on the sea fisheries of Sutherland and Caithness. Volume II. Minutes of evidence and appendices.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, 1905.
  1. (Money Orders) No. 783. The Postal Order (Colonial) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations, 1905; dated 29th June, 1905.
  2. (Post Office Savings Banks) No. 785. The Post Office Savings Banks Regulations, 1905; dated 15th May, 1905.

  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account of deposits in Naval Savings Banks and the payments thereof, and of interest thereon, of all investments under the Naval Savings Banks Act, 1866, and the application of the interest or dividends accruing in respect thereof, and of the sale of any stocks, annuities, or securities during the financial year 1903–1904.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1860 to 1904.
  Rule made by the Secretary for Scotland as to the appointment of a visiting committee to the prison at Glasgow (Duke Street).
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILL.
  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to modify the declaration required by the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to be made by the Sovereign. Was presented by the Viscount Llandaff; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 131.)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Moved, That Standing Order No, XXXIX. be suspended for this day's sitting.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne); agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
  DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next.—(The Earl of Mayo.) (No. 132.)

  HOME DEFENCE.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to move to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House, it would be a danger to the Realm, and limit the power of the Navy as an offensive force in war, to trust to it alone for home defence, and, inasmuch as it is admitted that the Navy cannot guarantee us against so-called hostile 'raids,' it is the more needful that our land defences should at all times be such that no nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile landing on our shores."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence while I endeavour to give a few reasons in support of the Motion which stands in my name. In The Times and the Morning Post of May 12th last there appeared reports of a speech by the Prime Minister upon our defences, and in that speech the Prime Minister is stated to have declared that—
  "Serious invasion of these islands is net an eventuality which, we need seriously consider."
  I had intended to take those words as my text to-night, but I received yesterday from the Prime Minister a corrected copy of his speech. It does not differ

  5
  very much, but the passage I have quoted, as corrected in the Prime Minister's copy, is as follows—
  "Serious invasion of these islands is not a possibility which we need consider."
  That seems to me practically the same thing. Now, my Lords, I propose to show your Lordships, as far as I can, why I think this speech of the Prime Minister's is a dangerous one. I think the danger of it is that it is calculated to put people into a state of confidence with reference to our defences which is not justified by the facts, and that course is certainly not desirable. Moreover, it is, I venture to think, a remarkable speech as coming from a Scotsman, because I have always been told that Scotsmen are known proverbially for their caution. This appears to me to be a very incautious speech, and I venture to traverse the position taken up by the Prime Minister—namely, that serious invasion is a possibility which we need not consider. I venture to think that the history of our past, and opinions which are worth listening to in the present, all point in a contrary direction. Supposing one of your Lordships pricks his finger, what happens? A drop of blood oozes forth. Now, what does that drop of blood spell? It spells invasion, for no civilised country that I know of has been so often successfully invaded.
  Let me give a short statement of the invasions which have produced this very mixed blood in English veins. I shall take this not from English history, but from a novel—a foreign novel which appeared towards the close of last year. It is called, "The Coming Conquest of England," and this is what I read in one part—
  "For nine hundred years no hostile army had landed on the shores of England. Certainly in ancient times Britain had had to fight against invading enemies. Julius Cæsar had entered as a conqueror. Canute the Great, King of Denmark, had subdued the country, the Saxons had come over from Germany to make themselves masters of the land; Harold the Fair-headed, King of Norway, had landed in England. But since the time of William of Normandy, who defeated the Saxons at Hastings and set up the rule of the Normans in England, not even her most powerful enemies, neither Philip of Spain nor the great Napoleon, had succeeded in landing their troops on the sea-girt soil of England."
  Then comes the question, the writer being a German—
  "Would a German army now succeed?"
  6
  I would just remark this in passing. In the extract I have read reference is made to the failure of Philip of Spain and Napoleon. To what was that due? It was due to chance, to the chance of a storm, to the chance of Nelson being out of the way, and to the chance of Sir Robert Calder tackling the French fleet and destroying it, and stopping Napoleon having those six hours which he said was all the time he wanted for landing his 150,000 men and the subduing of England. See what part chance plays in the affairs of the world! I am inclined to think that the Prime Minister and the Defence Committee, of which he made himself the mouthpiece, have not taken into consideration the chances there are in war. As I have said, it is not my intention to give my own opinion but I will quote the opinions of those who are entitled to speak with authority on this subject. The novel I have quoted answers the question of invasion iu this way: It supposes that a German army of 60,000 picked men lands somewhere convenient in the Firth of Forth—I am not sure whether it is at Dalmeny or Hopetoun, Lord Linlithgow—and marches straight to London, where they are met by the French army, the Russian army having already taken India from us, and peace is made, after our defeat and capture of London, at Hampton Court. The Prime Minister is the negotiator for England, and the result is that India goes to Russia, Egypt to France, and South Africa to Germany, and nothing is left to us I excepting Malta.
  I will proceed to quote the opinions of naval and military experts to which even the Prime Minister must how; they are opinions contrary to his view and to the view of the Defence Committee with regard to the present situation. I take the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, which Commission did its duty nobly by the nation in spite of the opposition it met with from officialdom in all ways. In that Report there is no end of evidence in the sense to which I have referred, evidence counter to the view of the Prime Minister and of the Defence Committee. I will quote some of the evidence given before that Commission, and will first take that of Sir John Ardagh, who was Director of Military Intelligence from 1896 to 1901. In

  7
  answer to Question 3243, Sir John Ardagh said—
  "Invasion is highly improbable, but possible. It is unwise to put all our eggs into the naval basket. No pains should be spared to ensure that, our Navy is amply sufficient to blockade the enemy's ports and to fight him besides in the open sea."
  That I heartily endorse. Sir John Ardagh continues—
  "And behind all that it is indispensable that we should have in the United Kingdom a thoroughly reliable force—
  not six battleships, as proposed under the new naval arrangements, but a thoroughly reliable land force—
  "which we can put in the field at a very short notice to oppose 150,000 men. The reasonable hypothesis is that if one method of defence may fail you do not trust to one alone—trust to more than one. A home-defence army is indispensable. If invasion was threatened the Fleet would never be allowed to leave England; there would be a demand for protection from all quarters."
  I now come to a naval authority, and will quote the opinion of Sir John Ommaney, who was Controller of the Navy from 1888 to 1892, Commander-in-Chief in the North America and West India Station from 1892 to 1895, and Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean from 1896 to 1899. Now, what does Sir John Ommaney say? He says—
  "Looking as the question as a whole, I think it is shortly summed up by saying that, though there is no probability of an invasion, there is a possibility of one which should be guarded against. German papers and magazines think there is no doubt about the practicability of an invasion. That being so, we should be prepared for it."
  He decidedly thinks, as did the Duke of Wellington—vide his letter—that
  "Steam makes the position more perilous to England."
  I shall next quote the view of a noble and gallant Viscount than whom no braver or better soldier ever lived— Viscount Wolseley. The noble Viscount says—
  "It would be living in a fool's paradise were the English people to depend entirely on the Navy for the defence of this country against invasion."
  Again he says—
  "It would be the madness the gods used to send to those whom they wished to destroy. Taking England as a righting man, it would be like tying one of his arms to his side if you tied your Fleet down to the Channel. Invasion will take place much more quickly than you imagine."
  8
  Your Lordships will have observed that I have put off this Motion on several occasions. I did so in the hope that Lord Wolseley would be able to be present in his place in your Lordships' House, but as he has not been able to come I wrote and asked him if he would send me his opinion on the question at issue. Lord Wolseley, in reply, said—
  "You ask me for my views upon the possible invasion of these islands. The subjects is one that I have long studied in all its aspects—"
  I am told that he has made a study, in the same way as the Duke of Wellington did, of all the different places on the East Coast where it would be possible to land—
  "The subject is one that I have long studied in all its aspects, learning from history whatever it can teach us upon this somewhat technical and highly professional question. A great deal of nonsense has been written about it. Admirals anxious to see our great and splendid Navy made still greater, preach upon the useless-ness, the folly, of spending large sums upon keeping up an Army for home defence. The only fact, I think, necessary to adduce is that England has been successfully invaded in the past, and that, as regards the future, its feasibility was believed in by Napoleon, Nelson, Wellington, and by other great soldiers and sailors in the nineteenth century."
  Lord Wolseley then refers to the Duke of Wellington's correspondence with Sir John Burgoyne, and adds—
  "I have not their letters by me, but I remember that in one of them the public was reminded that the invasion of England had recently become a much simpler matter than it was formerly because it was now joined to France by an isthmus of steam."
  The very thing which we are told makes us safe is here declared to have made the invasion of England a much simpler matter than it was formerly. Continuing, Lord Wolseley says—
  "May I say without offence to those who preach upon the safety of England as long as we keep up a very powerful Navy, that any great naval combination against us—which is a very possible contingency—might drive our fleets into their harbours. Further, that we have very imperfect data upon this modern naval question to warrant us in depending for the safety of these islands exclusively upon the floating ironclad batteries, which, now manned by artillerymen dress d as sailors, have taken the place of the sailing fleets manned by our seamen skilled in the management of ships under sail beyond the sailors of all foreign nations."
  I am inclined to think that before the Japanese War the tone of Russia was

  9
  very much the tone of the blue-water school in this country at the present moment, and they no doubt said that no harm could come to them while they had their splendid fleet. In his speech the Prime Minister talks about the improved state of telegraphy and means of communication which would prevent the possibility of such a decoy as took place with Nelson in 1805 before Trafalgar. We have an object-lesson in the Far East. With all the appliances of the present day, fast steamers, telegraphs, and so forth, did the Russians know where Admiral Togo was? They did not know; and, therefore, the reasons connected with steam which have been given for safety are reasons for the reverse. I will now quote the opinions of two experts in strategy, Mr. T. M. McGuire and Colonel Lonsdale Hale. Mr. McGuire says—
  "I have gone over the statement with regard to the possibilities of successful invasion with some of the ablest naval and military experts in England. We have also considered the chances of a raid which would paralyse out commerce and upset every industry of our people for months on the data given in The Times report of MR. Balfour's speech. We have also worked out, in company with able officers, schemes of invasion based on the history of combined naval and military operations before and since the use of steam and the nationalisation of armies; and we have come to the conclusion that Mr. Balfour's speech is not—"
  using the words which Mr Balfour applied to the possibility of invasion—
  "is not worthy of serious consideration."
  Colonel Lonsdale Hale, in a letter to me on this subject, says—
  "These 'blue-water maniacs' seem so terribly cocksure of what would be the result of one great naval battle."
  He heartily endorses paragraph 7 of the Report of the Norfolk Commission, and adds—
  "Even naval enthusiasts do not assert that the victors will have much more kick in them left than the vanquished. Some Power will quietly look on while the combatants smash each, other, and that Power will be the one untouched. As to guarding against raids we seem to be judicially blind."
  I have nothing more to say upon the question of serious invasion. I have not given my own opinion, but I have quoted authority which I think your Lordships must accept as such. The view I have quoted was the one held by the Duke of Wellington. It has the authority of
  10
  Cromwell, who said Lord Palmerston was one of the wisest Prime Ministers who ever ruled this country, and what was his view of the blue-water school? He said "that a man must be mad who trusted to the Navy alone."
  I pass from the question of serious invasion to that of raids. Now, all these blue-water men tell you that they cannot guarantee you against a raid, and raids are looked upon as rather pleasant interruptions to a monotonous country life on the coast. The Romans, however, took a different view when in occupation of England, for they built the great Roman wall seventy-four miles across the north of England, to protect raiding from the northern scourge, and, later on, when raiding was rife on the Scottish border, on both sides of the Tweed, there was an organisation by the appointment of Lords of the Marches to prevent it. But raids must be regarded from two points of view. You must look upon them as they affect the locality, and also as they affect the share market. Let us take locality first. In non-blue-water days, when there used to be raids, they were not looked upon as desirable things locally, and I very much doubt, the blue-water school notwithstanding, whether a raid would be regarded with pleasure by any of the towns on our east coast. I think they would all of them be asking for that protection from the Navy which, in one of the quotations I gave to the House, it was said would be the result of trusting to the Navy alone for home defence. As to individual properties, do you think the owners would like to have 10,000 men landed near their doors, and their castles or houses occupied? I rather think they would not.
  There are two raidable places to which I would refer. One is Whittinghame, the home of the Prime Minister. Some of your Lordships may have read that not only was the Thames raided by Paul Jones, but that there was also an attempt to raid the Scottish coast at Dunbar But happily for Dunbar, and for the Whittinghame of the day, which is within easy reach of Dunbar, this attempt of Paul Jones was defeated. But how was it defeated? Not only by an adverse wind, but mainly by the prayers of a Kirkcaldy minister. I do not know

  11
  whether the prayers of a Whittinghame minister would be as powerful if another raid was attempted in that part of the country, but Whittinghame is not more than eight or ten miles from Dunbar and is an easily raidable place. The other most raidable point in Great Britain is Sandringham. I do not, however, wish to dwell upon this question of a raid from the personal point of view, but from the national point of view. The question of the City is an all-important one. Last year when this question was up I asked a Member of this House what the effect would have been in the City if it was known that 10,000 hostile troops had been landed anywhere on our shores, and my friend disliked the question so much that he bolted, shouting, "I don't know." I holloaed after him, and said "But I do." I asked another City man the same question, and his reply was, not that he did not know, but that he knew too well. He said every man who had anything to sell would sell it for what he could get, and Consols would be down to 30.
  We have the very definite opinion on this subject of that great financier, Lord Overstone. In 1860 there was a Committee appointed by Mr. Sidney; Herbert, then Secretary of State for War, to consider the defences of the United Kingdom. That was forty-five years ago, and we are just as badly off as we were then, and perhaps more so. This Committee turned their attention, in the first instance, to the Channel, and then said—
  "This is the first and most obvious line of defence; but it is one that could not, in our opinion, be entirely relied upon at the present day, even if England had no greater external interests to protect than the countries which may be opposed to her."
  The Committee asked Lord Over-stone his opinion as to the effect on commercial and monetary affairs that would follow the landing of an invading army, and his answer was—
  "We may be well assured that the general confusion and ruin which the presence of a hostile army on British soil must produce will be such that it would be absolute madness on the part of the Government and people of this country were they to omit any possible measure of precaution, or to shrink from any present sacrifice by which the occurrence of such a catastrophe may be rendered impossible."
  12
  Further on he said, when asked as to the probable effect of the invasion of London—
  "I cannot contemplate the consequences of such a supposition. My only answer is—It must never be."
  It is in that belief, my Lords, and in the spirit of that answer, that I venture to propose the Resolution which stands in my name. Your Lordships will have observed that I have not given my own opinion. The Resolution practically embodies all I have said in the present stage on the question. It does not say what you are to do. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War smiles, because he does not in the least know what he is going to do.
  THE UNDER-SECR BTARY OFSTATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGH-MORE): I know what the noble Earl wants.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: The Government does nothing except undo what is the safe foundation of our military system in regard to the Militia. You are undoing, you are not doing. There is only one way of dealing with this question, and that is by taking it out of the domain of Party. Surely if foreign affairs are, as a rule, taken out of the domain of Party this question of national defence should be similarly treated. What ought to be done is this. The heads of one side should communicate with the heads of the other and say: "Let us consider what is necessary, no matter what it may be, to render the nation absolutely safe." It should be made so safe as regards our land defences that our fleets may go anywhere the world over, protecting our commerce, destroying the commerce of the enemy, and blockading him and pursuing him everywhere. At home our means of immediate defence should be so perfect that no nation, be they ever so strong, would dream of coming here any more than a sane man would think of putting his head into a roaring furnace. That is what is wanted and what ought to be done. Whether it will be done or not I know not. At any rate, this Resolution of mine, though it does not tell you what to do, is a step in the right direction; and it is in that spirit, and

  13
  with the hope and belief that it may help to bring about a better state of things, and that something may be done, that I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
  Moved to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, it would be a danger to the Realm, and limit the power of the Navy as an offensive force in war, to trust to it alone for home defence, and, inasmuch as it is admitted that the Navy cannot guarantee us against so-called hostile 'raids,' it is the more needful that our land defences should at all times be such that no nation would ever attempt, in any form, a hostile landing on our shores."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  *EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not propose to discuss directly the question brought forward by the noble Earl, but rather to show that, whether invasions of, or raids on, this country are possible or not, it is essential that we should possess armed forces, fit in all respects not only to protect our own country, but our large possessions abroad. During the last few sessions the subjects of Army reform and Army administration have received a good deal of attention in your Lordships' House, in the House of Commons, and in the public Press. But, so far as I can remember, no allusion has been made, except by the Prime Minister in his speech of May 11th last, to the scope of the demands which the armed forces of this country must be prepared to meet, and how they can best be organised so as to ensure success when called upon to respond to those demands.
  We may reform the Army to the end of time, and the system of Army administration may be changed as often as the Government of the day may see fit to change it, and yet we may be no nearer than we are at present to the solution of our difficulties as regards having the kind of Army we require for our peculiar needs and responsibilities. That solution must depend upon a correct, authoritative, and generally - accepted definition of our military requirements both at home and abroad. For, after all, is not that the initial problem which we have to solve? We must take into consideration, not only the protection of these islands, but the protection of the
  14
  vast commercial interests of our widely scattered Empire, upon which the very existence of the United Kingdom depends.
  I much doubt whether the public generally have ever considered the subject in this light, or have ever realised what the armed forces of this country will really have to do should war break out; and, therefore, they have never thought it incumbent upon them to satisfy themselves that these forces are in all respects capable of successfully carrying out any duties they may be called upon to perform. Five years ago the great fact that the life and prosperity of these islands are bound up in the existence of what is now known as the King's "dominions beyond the seas" was forcibly brought home to the British public. For the moment they realised this fact, and, unprepared as they were for any such service, they sprang patriotically to the call made upon them. But five years have passed since then, and other subjects have engaged the attention of the nation; the lessons of South Africa have been forgotten, and I have no hesitation in stating that our armed forces, as a body, are as absolutely unfitted and unprepared for war as they were in 1899–1900. The public still appear to restrict their ideas of precaution to the defence of the shores of this country. They lose sight of the fact that His Majesty's dominions are no longer a kingdom but an Empire, the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, and that if we intend to maintain the integrity of this great Empire, which means the prosperity of Great Britain, we must accept the burden which the responsibilities of such a charge entails. So far as I can judge these are matters in which the public think they have no concern. They are much troubled with the smaller details of home defence, forgetful of the larger issues which mean so much to them, and which may, and probably will, require our being prepared as a Continental nation not only to defend our possessions in the East, but to take an important part in affairs nearer home, either or both of which would necessitate our being able to place in the field an Army as large and as efficient as any that might be brought against us.

  15
  If my appreciation of the state of affairs is correct, of what avail is a discussion within the narrow limits of the Motion brought forward by the noble Earl? The question with which we have to deal is one of infinitely greater importance; it may, indeed, be one of life or death to this country, and it cannot, therefore, be left to be settled by some impromptu action when the time of trouble arises. We must calmly consider the dangers with which we may be confronted, and we must do all in our power by timely preparations to ensure our being able to cope successfully with those dangers whenever or wherever they may occur. The mere fact of our doing this would surely put a stop to the annual discussions on the Army Estimates being conducted in what I may be permitted to describe as a somewhat parochial spirit, and would enable us to arrive at some definite decision as to the strength of the Regular Army both for peace and war, also—a matter of supreme importance—as to the part to be taken by the Auxiliary Forces, not only in the defence of these islands, but in the defence of the Empire. This would, moreover, have the inestimable benefit of giving a certainty to Army life, and would obviate that feeling of restlessness which now permeates all ranks, and which is so detrimental to efficiency and to the best interests of the service.
  What we have to aim at is to get the people of this country to identify themselves with the Army, and to take an intelligent interest in what the Army may have to do. The peoples of other countries are identified with their armies from the fact that every man has borne his share of military duty, and for the best years of his life is liable to be recalled to the colours. With us, I grieve to say, it is very different; the Army is looked upon as something quite outside the national life. No thought is bestowed by the civil population on the means available for the training of the troops; not only so, but the law is often invoked to protect the rights of individuals against the requirements of military training.
  Modern war is not now a matter of brute force, as was more or less the case in former days. Both officers and men now
  16
  need to be most carefully trained. The officers must be given every opportunity of educating themselves to accept responsibility, and to carry out intelligently the arduous duties, either as staff officers or commanders, upon which success in the field mainly depends. The men must be given the means to practise shooting, so as to be able to use their rifles with skill and confidence when required to do so. But, I would ask you, how is it possible for these essentials to be obtained when manœuvring areas are so seldom available, and when year after year funds necessary for manœuvres are cavilled at, and either considerably reduced or denied altogether; when even ordinary training grounds are only obtained with the greatest difficulty, where ranges are few and far between, and where people object to the presence of troops in their immediate neighbourhood—one class because the noise of firing may disturb their game, another class because of an unreasonable fear that soldiers may create, disturbance—a fear entirely due to their ignorance of military life, and which has been entirely dispelled, I rejoice to think, in those places which have had soldiers amongst them during manœuvres?
  I am not exaggerating. These very excuses have been made to me personally as reasons why manœuvres should not be held, or gun and rifle ranges established, in this or that particular locality. And yet it is this Army, reduced to a minimum in numbers, trained in a most inadequate manner, with far too little musketry practice, and without the Auxiliary Forces so organised as to form a sufficient and efficient Reserve—a Reserve which can never be provided by the Regular troops, by reason of the conditions of our service—it is this Army, I say, which the nation expects to perform the most trying and difficult service in foreign countries without ever a mistake, and which is condemned when a disaster occurs consequent on its want of training. It is this Army which is expected to uphold the honour of the country against whatever odds may be opposed to it.
  When war breaks out there is a sudden change of feeling towards the soldier; too much cannot then be done for him, money is freely spent in providing him with

  17
  comforts, on the sick and wounded, and in looking after the women and children; and I am sure that every soldier was most grateful for all that was done in this way during the war in South Africa. But, my Lords, should patriotism end here? This evanescent enthusiasm does not entail any self-sacrifice, and it passes off as soon as war is over, and the danger has disappeared. When we consider the grievous disadvantages under which our officers and men labour I think it is nothing short of marvellous that His Majesty's troops should so often and so successfully have performed the severe and onerous duties which have from time to time been required of them in various parts of the world.
  But surely such a haphazard state of affairs should no longer be allowed to continue. Will our fellow-countrymen never realise the very grave risks we run—courting disaster, in fact—in attempting to maintain our position in the world under such eminently inadequate conditions as now exist, and when all the nations in Europe are so many nations in arms? How can we expect to protect our own interests and keep our Empire intact unless the whole nation will rise to the occasion by either personally bearing their share in the defence of the Empire or by enabling those to whom they delegate this responsible duty to become in all respects efficient for the work?
  I offer these remarks because I feel that I should be signally failing in my duty to the nation were I to keep silent on a subject which is of such supreme importance to its future prosperity—indeed, I may say, to its existence as a first-class Power. I have long wished for an opportunity of telling my fellow-countrymen what I believed to be the true state of our armed forces, and what I believed to be in store for them unless they bestir themselves to remedy our great shortcomings. I have no intention of blaming the present Government, or any former Government, for having failed fully to realise the military requirements of the British Empire. For is not every Government inspired and actuated by the national sentiment? And if that sentiment is apathetic or merely critical, how can we expect a Government to take any
  18
  decided action towards national improvements?
  It is to the people of the country I appeal to take up the question of the Army in a sensible, practical manner. For the sake of all they hold dear, let them bring home to themselves what would be the position of Great Britain if it were to lose its wealth, its power, its position. I would ask them not to allow the Army to be the shuttlecock of Party politics, or its organisation to be dependent on fanciful theories. The people of this country should return no Members to Parliament upon whom they cannot depend to make a study of the services the armed forces may have to perform, and to consider in a broad and liberal spirit under what system of organisation those duties can most effectually be carried out.
  We do not require a large standing Army. It is comparatively easy to come to a satisfactory conclusion as to what the constitution and strength of that Army should be. It mast continue to be constituted on the voluntary system, because one-half is always abroad while the other half is preparing to go abroad, and there are certain fixed quantities by which its strength must be guided—as, for instance, the number of men required to garrison India, South Africa, Malta, Gibraltar, etc, and, in addition, the number of men required annually as drafts to keep the several units abroad up to the established strength. Behind this standing Army there must be a Reserve large enough to mobilise all the Regular troops, and to expand the Army to and maintain it at such a size as circumstances may require. It is this Reserve to which attention must be chiefly paid. The Regular troops, as I have already explained, can only provide a very limited portion of the Reserve, the main body of which must be formed by the Auxiliary Forces and by the manhood of the country generally. It is for the people of this country to decide how this Reserve is to be brought about, whether by conscription or by some practical system of universal training. For in no other way is it possible for Great Britain to possess an Army so organised and trained in peace time as to be equal to the probable demands of the Empire in war.
  *LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, though I partly belong to the blue-water school myself, I think that it is best to have two strings to one's bow. The blue-water school would, I think, be more suitably named if it was called the "single - string school." At present, however, when compared with other nations, that "single string" is a very strong one, and if it is not cut by surprise it may be found sufficient to protect us, provided we keep up a moderately strong Army. As for the dinghy school, those who believe that no body of troops, however small, can ever be landed in this country, I sincerely hope that posterity will never have a chance of comparing it with the "gaiter-button school" which brought so many disasters upon France in 1870. A single ship can land 5,000 men.
  It has recently been stated that France is not likely to have in her harbours at any one time more than a 100,000 tons of shipping, and that this amount is insufficient to cam 70,000 men; that the French estimate for that number is 210,000 tons; and that our Admiralty estimate is 250,000 tons. When the Prime Minister said this, I think that he must have misunderstood his advisers, and mixed up the quantity of tonnage necessary for a voyage of twenty days to the Cape with that required for a passage of about twenty hours in the Channel or North Sea. On referring to the Board of Trade "Instructions as to the survey of passenger accommodation," I find that what is termed the home trade includes the United Kingdom and all that part of Europe which lies between the River Elbe and Brest. It therefore includes all the lines of steamers running from England to Hamburg, Rotterdam, Flushing, Antwerp, Ostend, Calais, Boulogne, Dieppe, Havre, St. Malo, and Cherbourg, lines with many of which your Lordships must be acquainted. In the home trade, a deck space of nine square feet and one ton of gross tonnage is allowed for each passenger. So that, according to our own Board of Trade rules, 70,000 tons would be allowed to carry 70,000 passengers to or from the Continent if the deck space was sufficient. Our excursion
  20
  steamers are under somewhat different rules. Each passenger must have nine square feet of deck space, but there is no tonnage limit whatever. These vessels run all over the Channel. Folkestone boats may go as far as Newhaven, and vice - versa. Dover boats may go to Newhaven or Sheerness. They must, however, be "of such substantial character as to be capable of standing bad weather if caught in it."
  I am presuming that an enemy would bring infantry, dismounted cavalry, and I artillery without horses, but that he would carry a few horses for officers. There are plenty of horses in England. In considering the question of tonnage, the enemy's guns and ammunition need scarcely be taken into account, as their weight would form useful ballast for the troopships. The weight of one of our thirteen-pounder six gun batteries of Horse Artillery with 176 rounds per gun may be taken at about thirty tons. A soldier carrying three days' provisions, knapsack, rifle, great coat, and water bottle, would individually take up much less space than a passenger with the average amount of hand luggage allowed under the one - ton rule, but he would require somewhat more than the ordinary excursionist, to whom the one-ton rule does not apply. Still, as the troops would be under discipline, they would pack much closer than excursionists, and would not endanger the I ship by running from one side of the I ship to the other like a Bank-holiday crowd. For a raid, or a surprise invasion, I do not think that an enemy would ever allow more than one gross ton per man, as an average. Ships are, however, built in very different shapes, and some can carry much more than others in proportion to their gross tonnage.
  It has also been laid down that the enemy's fleet of transports would either come from Cherbourg or from Brest. Now, if it is presumed that an enemy would make every conceivable mistake it is easy enough to beat him on paper. France has ten harbours on her north coast. On her west coast there are at least five. At all these ports troops could be embarked. It would be a very difficult thing to assemble 70,000

  21
  men at any one harbour such, as Cherbourg or Brest without attracting notice. Besides, the overcrowding would cause confusion, whereas if from five to ten thousand men were to be embarked at each of the different harbours that I have referred to, it could be done with much less trouble, and there would be no need for any large assemblage either of ships or men at any one place. If a powerful enemy were to invade France, and we decided to send every available man to her assistance with the least possible delay, we should embark our soldiers simultaneously on the banks of the Tyne, the Humber, and the Thames, besides making use of seven, or more harbours in the Channel; we should not think of restricting ourselves to the use of one harbour only.
  Germany possesses at least nine harbours on the coast of the North Sea at which she could embark troops, to say nothing of those she holds in the Baltic. Her gross available steam tonnage is more than double that of France. If only modern steel ships are considered it is treble that of France. No less than 1,260,000 tons of her commerce are in the hands of two companies only, a circumstance which would greatly facilitate concentration of steam tonnage at any prearranged time or place. If a country that disposed of an armed force of 3,000,000 men were to attempt to invade us with 70,000 men and we drowned every man of them, its loss would be less than 2½ per cent, of the total force at its disposal. Some wives and mothers might weep, but the strength of our adversary would remain practically unimpaired.
  Many theories that I consider to be quite untenable have also been deduced from our last year's raid at Clacton-on-sea. I therefore thought it worth while to spend a week-end there, and to take a large scale Admiralty chart with me. Among other things it is assumed that an enemy's force would take as long to disembark as ours did, but it would be unwise to suppose that an enemy's troops would, like ours, have had no previous training in landing on a beach. Besides, our expedition might have been better equipped with more modern appliances. Mr. Arnold - Forster has
  22
  drawn a harrowing picture of the fleet of transports waiting all night at anchor, exposed to an attack from torpedo-boats. But the War Office had issued instructions declaring that the command of the sea was to be considered as definitely and completely secured and that no naval opposition of any kind was to be expected. Had it been otherwise, had it been a real war, and not a make-believe manœuvre, very different tactics would probably have been adopted.
  My solution of the problem may not be the best, but I would suggest that the transports might, during daylight, one hour after high water, have been run on shore after letting go stern anchors, not only at Clayton, but at Little Holland, where they would have been closer to the shore. Being nearer to the beach the troops would have been lauded in less time. Then, though torpedo-boats might have damaged some of the vessels they could not have sunk a single ship nor have drowned a single soldier. Being unsupported by battleships, the torpedo squadron would probably have lost half its numbers in breaking through the screen of protecting cruisers, and half the remainder in trying to return to a place of safety. Some of the invaders' guns would, as soon as landed, have been placed in positions which would have enabled them to assist in the protection of the transports. In peace manœuvres the value of the lost or damaged vessels would, of course, have to be considered, and expense is one of the reasons that make manœuvres so unreal. We are, I believe, right to continue them, but one hour of Russo-Japanese experience is worth a month of manœuvres.
  Under our present arrangements our Home and Channel Fleets should never be sent to a distance from our coasts for fear of a naval surprise. If we were at war with any one Power, a large naval force would have to be kept in home waters for the purpose of watching neutrals. Until the principle of universal home service in some form or another is adopted, I shall always have the greatest sympathy with all Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State for War, whoever they may be, and whatever Parties they may belong to. They may organise and reorganise, change the

  23
  names of everything twice a year, but whatever money they may spend, and however able and industrious they may be, they cannot under our present laws give us an Army capable of defending our unique position on the surface of this globe. The conditions of the problem are perpetually changing, but if we look the dangers of raids or invasions straight in the face, never allow ourselves to minimise them, or to deceive ourselves about our real position, we shall be able to ward them oft. If, however, we declare them to be visionary and impossible, we shall run a great risk of being exposed to the disagreeable reality.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, we entirely agree with the noble and gallant Field - Marshal who spoke second as to the necessity of taking a broad view at all times of our military requirements, and I am sure the noble and gallant Earl will have noticed that the speech of the Prime Minister, which is so much under discussion this evening, was essentially one possessing the attributes which he considered so necessary. It was certainly not a parochial speech, to use the noble and gallant Earl's own phrase; it was a speech dealing not only with this country, but with the needs of India and the Colonies; and I am perfectly certain that the noble and gallant Earl in his efforts to interest the public in the Army will find allies on both sides of the House.
  I turn to the Motion which has been moved by the noble Earl at the Table, and it may, perhaps, be convenient if I state at once what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to it. The Motion contains two very tangible statements, and I for one would certainly not quarrel with either of them. The Motion first of all states that it would be unwise to trust to the Navy alone for home defence. I think that is a statement that everyone will agree with. I am not aware, indeed, of anyone having expressed a contrary view. At the same time the noble Earl, I am sure, will admit that there is a danger in certain quarters of a statement such as this being misunderstood. There is the danger of considering the
  24
  Navy as a unit, whereas it is nothing of the kind. It is a collection of different units, some of which can very rightly be looked to to take their share in home defence. I merely mention this, because I think it is a fact which is too often forgotten in dealing with the important question to which the noble Earl has turned his attention this evening. The Motion goes on to state that it is needful that our land defences should at all times be such that no nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile landing on our shores. My Lords, I think that, like the first, is a self-evident truth; and, as the Motion contains two statements which are practically axioms, I need not say that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to ask your Lordships to vote against it.
  But when I have said this about the Motion I have not said all that is to be said upon the debate that we have had upon it. The Motion only touches the fringe of the subject. I regret that, but, of course, I do not question the right of the noble Earl to move the Motion in any form he pleases. I pass on to refer, very briefly, to some of the points made by the noble Earl in the course of his speech, points which were not so much aimed at commending his Motion to your Lordships as aimed at the Prime Minister's speech of May 11th. The noble Earl first of all expressed surprise that a speech which he considers incautious should have come from a Scotsman. As a humble Member of your Lordships' House who is not a Scotsman, but who has the greatest respect for the Scottish nation, I might perhaps be allowed to say that the fact that the speech was made by a Scotsman is almost sufficient proof that it was not incautious. But, passing from that point, I would remind your Lordships what this speech was. The speech consisted of an exposition of the reasoned conclusions of the Defence Committee after, I think, rather more than a year's work.
  But what were the authorities which the noble Earl brought against these conclusions of the Defence Committee? First of all, he quoted a recent German novel. I am not appalled by that. Personally I have no time to read novels, but I did skim through a translation of

  25
  the book to which the noble Earl referred, and I am bound to say that my belief in the conclusions of the Defence Committee—that is to say, in the combined conclusions of the political, naval, and military experience of the Empire—has not been shaken by what is, after all, only a "shilling shocker," although it may be clothed in the decency of a foreign language. Then the noble Earl went on to quote evidence given before the Norfolk Commission. Royal Commissions are so thoroughgoing in their investigations that you can nearly always be sure, in going through the evidence of a Royal Commission, of finding portions to prove almost any view in connection with the subject with which you are concerned.
  The noble Earl should remember that all that evidence was available to the Defence Committee when they came to their decision. The Report and evidence of the Royal Commission have been in print since last July, and there was obviously plenty of time for the Defence Committee and the Government—for the Defence Committee has no authority save as an advisory body to the Government—to weigh all the evidence in coming to the decision at which they arrived.
  Then the noble Earl went on to quote other authorities. He quoted Lord' Wolseley. I am going to say nothing whatever depreciatory of Lord Wolseley, but as a humble student in the realms of history I cannot help thinking that Lord Wolseley in his letter was quoting a very bad witness when he cited Lord Nelson as being opposed to the idea that the Navy could guarantee us against foreign invasion. My humble opinion always has been that Lord Nelson very strongly believed in the efficiency of the Fleet to protect us from foreign invasion, and I see this fact was mentioned by the Prime Minister in his speech. The noble Earl then went on to quote the letter which he so kindly printed and sent round to your Lordships—the letter written by the Duke of Wellington. He also quoted the opinion of Oliver Cromwell and Lord Palmerston. I would only urge one thing against the very interesting pamphlet which the noble Lord sent round, and that is that the letter of the Duke of Wellington cannot by any
  26
  stretch of imagination be claimed as applying to the problem as it now exists.
  The proof of that is in the letter itself, for what does the writer say? In the first paragraph the Duke of Wellington speaks of having received a note from Sir John Burgoyne discussing the state of affairs under "our present system of military preparation." That, my Lords, was sixty years ago. Later on there are other sentences in the letter which show that the Duke of Wellington was thinking of the forces at that time. The letter was not meant to be a general treatise on the question of home defence, and I do maintain that the decision arrived at by the Defence Committee after consultation with the military and naval authorities must necessarily be vastly more valuable than an opinion expressed in a private letter sixty years ago, the writer of which obviously could not know the peculiar circumstances underlying the problem at the present day.
  I would only say one or two words with reference to the subject of steam. The noble Earl adopts the view of the Duke of Wellington, arrived at when steam was in its infancy and when its real powers were not fairly understood, that steam is all in favour of attack, and he neglects altogether the improvements that steam has made possible in the organisation of the defence. I would remind your Lordships that steam leads to concentration, that concentration is vastly helped by wireless telegraphy, and that it is to concentration that we must look as our great help in the defence of these islands. The noble Earl concluded his speech by an eloquent appeal to your Lordships to treat this matter in a non-Party manner. I am confident that that is an appeal which will be fully acceded to by your Lordships; and I am sure the noble Earl will have noticed that the spirit underlying that appeal was felt by both Parties in the debate which took place upon the Prime Minister's speech in the other House. I would remind your Lordships that the decision of the Defence Committee is not a hurried decision; it is a reasoned decision come to after months of labour; it is a practical decision founded on facts as they exist

  27
  at the present time; and it is one which, I think, should not be lightly rejected on the opinion of former authorities, however eminent, who at any rate cannot be claimed as having been cognisant of present day facts.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I asked myself, on reading the speech of the Prime Minister, what his object was in making it, what impression he intended to convey, and whether it had been conveyed. The Prime Minister stated that he hoped that it would be possible by the decision of the Defence Committee to put an end to the wrangling which had existed between different schools and between the military and naval departments. That was a sanguine hope. I doubt whether these wrangles will come to a conclusion, notwithstanding the view taken by the Defence Committee. The Prime Minister put his examination of the case—a most careful and brilliant examination—before the House of Commons in considerable detail. He dealt with it as a concrete case. Concrete problems have been put before the authorities of the War Office and the Admiralty before, and the public ought not to be allowed to think that these problems have not been attacked in the same spirit by previous Administrations.
  The merit of the Defence Committee has been to bring the matter to a crisis; but the examination took place in precisely the same form in the beginning of 1891, and a Report was made in 1894. It is an interesting piece of history that the War Office approached the Admiralty and put the hypothesis of the bulk of the Fleet being away, and asked what, given certain circumstances, would happen in that case. The reply was that the idea was so inconceivable, so preposterous, that it would be a waste of time to assume that the Navy would be away. However, the War Office insisted; and in the end two distinguished I naval officers, two distinguished military officers joining them, examined into the problem in exactly the same way as it was put to the Defence Committee by the Prime Minister, with the one distinction that they assumed a landing of 100,000 men, whereas the Prime Minister assumed 70,000 men. They
  28
  made exact calculations as to the tonnage required to carry the invading troops, what ships the foreigners possessed, I what provisions they would require, how many water-tanks would be necessary, and how many hours of daylight would be required to disembark the troops They studied the history of previous invasions and omitted nothing that bore on the question under examination.
  The naval and military officers made separate memoranda which were read by Ministers with the same interest and anxiety with which your Lordships must have read the speech of the Prime Minister. Ought they to have been published? The documents seemed to me to be conclusive against the possibility of invasion. The language used was very strong, and was to the effect that the possibility was beyond the necessity of being taken into serious consideration. The question whether these documents framed so many years ago ought to have been published involved the consideration of the calculations I have referred to. Would it have been wise to publish these calculations, to put out all these details for foreigners to criticise? I think it would be awkward if they were put before French and German candidates for promotion, with directions to find flaws in them. I expect that there may be flaws which would suggest themselves to the eyes of foreigners. There is this flaw, of course, that the hypothesis is based simply on the attack of one Power, whereas all our naval strategy has been based on the possibility of two Powers being associated. If part of the plans are published where is it to stop The nation will ask awkward questions. Are those questions to be answered? They may say, "We are satisfied with your conclusions as they stand, but supposing there were two Powers?" When I was at the Admiralty I was sounded as to whether I would give a guarantee that the Navy would be able to resist every form of invasion. I declined altogether to give that guarantee, because I felt that there was so much of the element of the unforeseen which could not be left out of consideration in a matter of this supreme

  29
  importance. We have seen the unforeseen occur in foreign countries, and, in regard to our own South African War, I think most military officers would have guaranteed that 15,000 British troops would have been able to hold Ladysmith, because it was assumed that it was impossible to bring the big guns from Pretoria, and mount them over Ladysmith. In the same way the naval authorities did not believe that it was possible to use the 4·7 guns on shore as they were used. War develops a number of possibilities which the most acute forecast of military and naval experience can scarcely reach; and, therefore, in a matter of this immense importance, while the case may seem clear on paper, there are certain conditions which must be kept in view at the same time.
  What is likely to be the effect on the Reserve Forces of the suggestion that invasion is impossible? Will it not lead them to feel that they are, after all, only an ornamental force? It must be remembered that it was the idea of invasion that created the Volunteer force, and it would have a very bad effect upon them if they were discouraged in any way. Would it not be more difficult, if a trying time ever came again, to find such a force as was sent to South Africa? Any discouragement of our Reserve Forces would, I believe, affect our resources very materially. The value of the Volunteer does not only consist in his being a good shot and well disciplined. It is also admitted that there is great advantage in the military knowledge which he obtains, and that he could on that account be more easily and quickly turned into an efficient soldier than the rustic or the town clerk who had never been in the ranks. The existence of the force familiarises the country generally with what a soldier ought to be, and arouses a certain interest in military matters in every part of the country.
  It is quite possible that there are some extreme opponents of militarism who would regret that; but, looking to the duties that are before this Empire, I think that a movement which strengthens
  30
  I an interest throughout the country in military affairs is greatly to the advantage of the country; and, therefore, I would deplore it deeply if the result—it is not intended to be so—of Mr. Balfour's speech should be in any way, not only to discourage the Volunteers, but to produce an impression in the country that our efforts are to be relaxed because our splendid Navy has given a guarantee that our shores are inviolable. I have addressed your Lordships mainly in order to deprecate such a result as that from the speech of the Prime Minister. A speech guaranteeing the country against invasion may be a powerful argument in the hands of those who wish to reduce our military forces, but I do not for a moment hold that the present situation of Europe and the world is such that we can to any extent lessen the efforts we are obliged to make.
  May I be allowed to say one word with regard to raids. I must say I feel inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Wemyss, on that point. I think sufficient attention was not given to raids in the speech of the Prime Minister. Raids were scarcely dealt with at all, yet they are a most important subject for discussion, and I have no doubt the Defence Committee has examined that question and gone into it. But there, again, arises the wisdom of publicity in this matter. As they have published their views on the subject of invasion, the country will say, "We want to know how we stand against raids?" The big towns may say, "What measures of defence can be extended to us?" It is, I venture to say, a problem that has to be worked out with as much care, and in as much detail, as the other problem with which the Committee have dealt so exhaustively. The noble Earl who raised this discussion dwelt on the question of panic. I associate myself to a very great extent with what he said. But I will put an argument to which he gave no prominence, but which, I think, is a very important argument, and that is that any idea of the possibility of raids on the coast when war breaks out might disorganise the plans of the Government and the arrangements for sending out

  31
  a military expedition, because every locality would clamour for a certain portion of the troops to be kept at home. Assuming the guarantee of the Government that we are safe, we cannot guard against panic, notwithstanding the investigations which have been made. Having regard to all the circumstances, I cannot with equanimity look upon any decrease in our military forces.
  But I am open to conviction. Let it be examined. Let us know what raid is possible. Is a raid of 10,000 men possible? Is a raid of 20,000 men possible? On that a great deal depends. But, quite irrespective of the actual danger, the very belief that raids are possible would have a terrible effect on the feeling and disposition of the country. I do not quite agree with the answer given to Lord Wemyss by some one in the City, that if 10,000 men were landed Consols would fall to 30. I do not go to that length. A panic might be produced which would disorganise the Government in their plans of defence. That is a much more probable eventuality. There was another part of the defence of the country with which, I think, the Prime Minister did not deal adequately—the question of the Colonies. The defence of the Colonies is closely wrapped up with the defence of these shores, and we must deal with the problem as a whole. From what I have heard I have doubt as to what progress the Government have made in their plans for utilising the military arrangements of the Australian and other Colonies and working them into a general result.
  In addition, we see that the situation has changed vastly, owing to the altered international situation. Colonies which were formerly so far removed from possible danger that they might, so to speak, snap their fingers at the would and fail to realise the enormous necessity of remaining firm to the Imperial connection are now in a different position. The international situation has rendered necessary various changes in the disposition of our naval forces. I think the concentration of our main fleets near home, which has been carried out with so much resolution and courage by Lord Selborne, was a wise move, and
  32
  I am inclined to pay a high tribute to him, because I know how difficult it is to move in such matters, looking to the traditions of the Navy and naval officers on whose advice one must rely. As to St. Lucia, Bermuda, Hong-Kong, and other colonies I am not so satisfied; but I admit the general principle that, if your opponent's forces are either diminished or increased, it requires a revision of your policy with regard to them. It may be necessary, therefore, when Powers grow or decay, grow or become I weakened, to readjust the forces you are going to set against them. You must distribute your forces differently. It is said that there has been a frightful waste of money in the expenditure which has taken place on certain posts which we are now evacuating, or almost evacuating. If that policy, however, was justified in a former international situation, it does not follow that those who were responsible for that expenditure deserve blame.
  I have considered it my duty to make this speech. I am sure the object of the Prime Minister was patriotic. As I one who has served at the Admiralty and can claim, I think, to have looked into these questions with as much attention, interest, and anxiety as the members of the present Defence Committee, it has been my desire to convey my impression that whilst the facts in the argument of the Prime Minister were very powerful, they ought not to have too great an effect upon the nation in placing a band of complacent security upon their eyes. In the speech of the Prime Minister we can see that he is alive to the necessities with which I have dealt; but at the same time the speech has produced the impression that great changes may now be undertaken in our military forces which before the production of that remarkable evidence it would never have been safe to undertake.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I venture to think that the importance of the Resolution moved by the noble Earl has been somewhat overshadowed by the speech of the noble and gallant Field Marshal on the Cross Benches. I have listened to a good many military

  33
  debates in this House, but I do not recollect bearing any statement made which approached the importance of that of the speech delivered by the noble and gallant Earl. That speech will, I hope, be studied by persons who have hitherto paid little or no attention to the question of national defence, and I trust it will induce them to think on the subject. I cannot help wondering whether the speech will not make the Prime Minister also think on the subject. The views of the Prime Minister have no doubt given considerable satisfaction to many people. They have no doubt given satisfaction to the adherents of the blue-water school, and to all those who consistently refuse to anticipate any danger to this country; and nothing suits a certain class of people better than to be told that if we would only consent to spend a certain amount of money on ironclads everything else may be left to take care of itself.
  No country on paper, apparently, enjoys such absolute security as this country. First of all, we have the Secretary of State for War announcing that without his permission a boat's crew cannot land upon these shores; and the Prime Minister improves upon that statement and tells the country that with our Army absent and with our Fleet absent it is equally impossible for an expedition to land upon these shores. This statement appeared so overwhelmingly optimistic that apparently it has been found necessary to interpret it, and the noble Viscount, whose exact position I am not quite clear upon, has come forward as the interpreter, unofficial or official, of the Prime Minister, and has explained, if my recollection has not failed me, that the Prime Minister's views apply to today and to to-morrow, but not to the day after to-morrow, whereas I confess it was my impression that the Defence Committee existed for the purpose of studying complications in the future.
  If everybody expressed the same optimistic views we might be perfectly happy, but in addition to Lord Esher, whom I have quoted, we now have the noble and gallant Earl coming forward and telling us in so many words that the nation which does
  34
  not prepare for war in peace is preparing disaster for itself; that we alone among civilised nations have refused to learn the lesson of the war; and that the country which enters unarmed into a life-and-death struggle with an organised and prepared enemy is courting its own destuction. In other words, what Lord Roberts says is that with our haphazard hand-to-mouth voluntary system it will be impossible for us to face a conflict with an organised enemy whose military power is based on the principle accepted by modern civilised States.
  The statement of the Prime Minister contained two most important propositions. One of them is that it is impossible to invade these shores. I will say nothing upon this point because I am not competent to discuss the question, and we know that all the most eminent authorities are disagreed upon it; but the other most important proposition is this, that the Indian or Afghan frontier is the only place in the world where we are likely to be called upon to conduct serious military operations. This is a contention which, I venture to think, any person with the most elementary knowledge of modern history or politics is competent to criticise. I should like to ask, who is there in this House or outside it, whether it be the Prime Minister or an ordinary citizen of this country, who can predict with any sort of certainty where we shall be called upon to fight on land?
  Is there anything in the history of the last century or the former century which justifies this assumption? Can anyone predict with certainty even upon which Continent we may be called upon to fight? It is quite true that probabilities indicate that when we have to embark on a contest on land with a great Power the country in which we shall have to fight will be Afghanistan or the neighbouring region. But it is surely obvious that there are other places on the globe where we might conceivably be called upon to fight, it not actually for our existence, at all events in a more important struggle than we have been involved in for many years. It might be in Asia Minor; it might be in Egypt; it might be again in South Africa; it

  35
  might be in the New World—which Heaven forbid!—or upon the Continent of Europe, not so far from these shores. I venture to think that if anybody ten years ago had predicted that we should find it necessary to send 400,000 men to South Africa he would have been looked upon as little better than an imbecile. These contingencies may seem improbable, but, as the late Secretary of State for War observed on another occasion, we cannot afford to run our Empire on an off-chance. Noble Lords sitting on both Front Benches know that the only real way of efficient preparation for war is to adopt the principle of universal service, as has been pointed out by Lord Roberts and by two Royal Commissions.
  What was the most important conclusion arrived at by the Elgin Commission? It was that the true lesson of the war, in their opinion, was that no military system would he satisfactory which did not contain powers of extension outside the limits of the Regular Forces of the Crown, whatever those limits might be; and the Norfolk Commission pointed out how that expansion was to be obtained. Now, I ask, what has been done to obtain this force outside the limits of the Regular Forces of the Crown? For five years, if not more, we have been talking of reform and efficiency; Ministers have come and Ministers have gone; Commanders-in-Chief have come and gone; Army Councils have come; Defence Committees have sat; Commissions have repotted; and what is there to show for it? Where are the powers of extension to which I have alluded and to which Lord Roberts alluded; and where is that national force which alone will enable us to grapple with a great emergency? When that great emergency does come again, as no doubt it will, Heaven forbid that it should find us still discussing such questions as the reorganisation of the War Office, want of officers in the Militia, behaviour of cadets at Sandhurst, waste of stores in South Africa, and other subjects which have occupied our attention during past sessions.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, there is one portion of the question which has
  36
  not been touched upon. I understand that it is proposed to take the defence of our harbours away from those to whom it is at present entrusted, and to place it in the hands of naval officers. I think that would be a very grave error, and I am sure the noble and distinguished Field Marshal will agree. The Engineers have done their work splendidly, and it we were so unfortunate as to be engaged in a great naval war we should require every single naval officer there. I wished just to point that out.
  *THB SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, in the course of the interesting speech delivered by the noble Viscount who sits behind me, he dealt with much emphasis on the fact that the great problem put by the Prime Minister before the House of Commons in the remarkable speech which we are discussing to-night was not raised for the first time by Mr. Balfour, but that it was a problem with which other Ministers had no less concerned themselves. My noble friend is perfectly right. I, for one, can recall interesting discussions when, if not exactly the same problem, at any rate problems closely resembling it were raised by the Admiralty or by the War Office, as the case might be. But I think there is this difference between the position which resulted from those earlier discussions and the position which has now developed itself, that owing to the manner in which the reconstituted Defence Committee has been able to deal with these problems the Government of the day is able, with the full weight of the authority of its military and naval advisers, to state to the public plainly and definitely what conclusions have been arrived at after a full interchange of views between the Departments concerned. My noble friend suggested, although I do not know that he pressed his suggestion very hard, that it was questionable whether conclusions of this kind should have been laid before the public at all. I fully appreciate the nature of the misgivings of my noble friend. On the other hand, it does, seem to me that in these days, when these questions of Imperial defence are so fully discussed and possess such an overwhelming interest to the people of this

  37
  country, it is impossible to keep back from them conclusions such as those which the Defence Committee and His Majesty's Government have arrived at in this case. We are constantly pressed to tell the people of this country what our Army is intended to do, what our Navy is for; and unless we are able to answer those questions, and answer them categorically, I fear we shall find it, difficult to justify the great sacrifices to which we ask the taxpayers of this country to submit.
  My Lords, the Motion of the noble Earl, and I am afraid I must add several of the speeches to which we have listened this evening, seem to me to proceed upon a fundamental misapprehension of the proposition which the Prime Minister enunciated. I will quote from the Resolution—
  "To move to resolve 'That, in the opinion of this House, it would be a danger to the Realm and limit the power of the Navy as an offensive force in war, to trust to it atone for home defence.'"
  Now, my Lords, who, sitting on these benches or connected with His Majesty's Government, has been found to say for one moment that we were prepared to trust to the Navy, and the Navy alone, for home defence? Not only did Mr. Balfour say nothing of the kind in the speech which has been referred to, but he said the contrary. He said it in terms. He assumed throughout his argument the existence of sufficient land forces for the purposes of home defence. Here are his words—
  "We assume land defences, we assume Volunteers, we assume Militia, we assume a residue of Regulars."
  and then further on he goes on to say—
  "So that an effective home force is assumed in the very statement of the problem we are attempting to solve."
  Well, my Lords, is it. fair, in the face of those explicit declarations of Mr. Balfour's, to tax him, and to tax those who think with Mm, with being out-and-out members of what you are pleased to call the blue-water school, and as being content to rely exclusively upon naval defence for the security of these islands? The noble Lord who spoke just now referred—it is not for the first
  38
  time that it has been done—to a statement attributed to my right hon. colleague Mr. Arnold-Forster, who is represented as having said that he would undertake to guarantee that even a boat's crew should not land on these shores. Mr. Arnold-Forster said nothing of the kind. He was describing the extreme blue-water school, and he said that he believed there were some people who would be found to contend that even I the crew of a dinghy could not land with; safety on these shores. We are, I think, entitled to beg that when our opinions are quoted in this House they may be quoted with some approach to accuracy.
  Now, let me turn for one moment to the problem as it was put by Mr. Balfour in his speech. He desired to assume a condition of things as unfavourable as possible to this country. He assumed that the Army was abroad, as it was in the year 1900 at the outset of the South African War, and, let me say in passing, is not that a very extreme assumption? Is it very likely that we shall be again at war with a Power possessing no fleet, and therefore at war under conditions which rendered it possible for us at the very commencement of hostilities to send the whole of our Army across the sea. Then the Prime Minister assumed that our main fleets were engaged at a distance from home. Again, I say, is not that also an extreme assumption? Is it likely that our fleets would be occupied in waters remote from this country and that simultaneously the greater portion of our Regular Army would be absent from these islands? I take it that before any large proportion I of that Regular Army is likely to be sent abroad we shall have endeavoured to take some steps, at all events, to establish our superiority at sea. Well, what; was the next assumption? It was that a sudden and secret concentration of troops and of the transports necessary for the conveyance of those troops had taken place at some port not distant from our coast, and that, finally, this force, assumed to be a force of 70,000 men, had been successfully conveyed across the Channel, and not less successfully disembarked. Now it is only after the whole of those somewhat improbable conditions have been fulfilled that the

  39
  military problem pure and simple begins—I mean the problem of the resistance to be offered to the invading force by the land forces of this country—and it is not until then that the result of what Lord Goschen so well called the unforeseen would begin to be felt. Then, and not till then, will our land forces find themselves opposed to the invading force. Well, is it true that when that moment arrives we shall be so entirely unprovided with the means of resistance as has been supposed? We shall have the remains of our Regular Army; we shall have the Militia; we shall have the Volunteers, and I should hope that with those forces we should be able to render a good account of any invading force that landed on our coasts. That, at any rate, is certainly an aspect of the problem of which we have not lost sight; and we are determined that those Auxiliary Forces, on which in the case I am supposing we should have to rely, shall be both so sufficient in numbers and so efficient in point of armament and equipment as to render them fit for the duty which they would in that case have to perform.
  But is it of any use to attempt to separate the military and the naval problems? The two problems are really one and indissoluble. There may be people whose minds are so constituted that they are content to say, "Give us a strong Army, fortify this country sufficiently, and we do not much care what happens to the Fleet." There may be others who will tell you that if your Fleet is sufficiently strong you need concern yourself very little with your land defences. We have nothing to do with either of these extremist schools. In our opinion we must consider naval and military defences together; and military and naval defences were so considered by the Prime Minister in his recent speech. And surely we may take this for granted, that, however we may regard the matter, anyone who undertakes to invade this country will certainly look not only at the naval but also at the military problem. Will the invader not ask himself two questions—in the first place, "What kind of resistance am I likely to encounter in reaching my destination," and, secondly,
  40
  "What further resistance am I likely to-encounter after I have readied it."
  Then there is another proposition which is indirectly affirmed in the Motion of the noble Lord; the Motion suggests that by relying on the Navy we limit its power as an offensive-force. I venture to say that that proposition shows an entire misapprehension, of the rôle which we intend—and I believe not only the present Lords of the Admiralty but their predecessors have always intended—should be fulfilled by the Navy of this country. The business of the Navy is to find the enemy's ships wherever they are and destroy them; and to talk as if we or any one else had suggested or implied that the battleships of England were to be tied up in the Channel, like punts in the River Thames, for the purposes of home defence, is to impute to us a heresy which certainly never possessed our minds. But I would venture to suggest this, that, if it is indeed the business of our Navy to damage the enemy at sea, there would probably be no more effectual mode of damaging him than by attacking the kind of flotilla of transports which is supposed in this case, and which would have to cross the Channel under circumstances of very great difficulty and in a very helpless condition.
  I may, perhaps, notice at this point one or two of the special criticisms which have been made upon the statement of the case by the Prime Minister. It has been suggested that the task of the invader would not be attended by so many difficulties as the Prime Minister suggested. We are told that he considerably over-estimated the amount of tonnage which would be necessary for an invasion across the Channel; we are told that he contemplated a hostile concentration at only one port, but that such a concentration might take place at more ports than one. Or, again, it is suggested that a hostile landing might take place simultaneously at several points; and another criticism is that we have not sufficiently taken into account the fact that the invading flotilla would probably be accompanied by a covering naval force of some kind. As to all these criticisms let me, in the first place, say

  41
  that the problem as stated by the Prime Minister was not intended to convey an exhaustive statement of every possible hostile combination which might be made against these shores. For example, take the case of the tonnage which would be necessary for such an invasion. The estimate taken by the Defence Committee was the best estimate which we could obtain from our expert advisers; but supposing, for the sake of argument, that you have to take away 50,000 tons from the tonnage estimated by Mr. Balfour, does that really essentially alter the conditions of the problem? Again, supposing, for the sake of argument, that the concentration has taken place at several ports instead of one; would it not be the case that if such a concentration were going on at several ports we should hear something about it? The whole of Mr. Balfour's hypothesis was based on the assumption that the attack was to be delivered suddenly and secretly. If there were to be a general concentration, if, for example, a whole fleet of liners were taken oft from the usual routes, of course the thing would get out, and we should take very good care that our main fleet was not far off when the time came.
  Then there is the question of the covering force. We naturally assumed that an invading flotilla would be accompanied by a covering force of some kind; but we are confident that the attacking force which we should be able to produce, even during the absence, remember, of our main fleets, would be amply sufficient to deal with the enemy's covering force as well as with the flotilla which it escorted. In a case of that kind there would be an enormous advantage on the side of those who were attacking the flotilla as against those who were defending it, because it is almost inconceivable, even if the two naval forces were evenly matched, that some ships of the assailant force would not be able to break through the line and deal havoc among the herd of boats and vessels which are supposed to be conveying the force across the Channel.
  Then my noble friend Lord Goschen told you that the Prime Minister had not dealt at sufficient length with the question of raids. It is quite true
  42
  that the passage in which raids were referred to was not very long; but let me say that, if the Prime Minister had attempted to deal with the whole of the conceivable incidents connected with the attack upon, and defence of these islands, no speech ever delivered in the House of Commons would have contained all he might have said or the subject. I am able to tell the noble Viscount, however, that the question of raids has certainly not beer left out of consideration. But when he suggests that, just as we have published statements of our views with regard to an attack upon a large scale, so we might give to the public information as to the manner in which raids would be dealt with, then I am tempted to say that at that point we arrive at a stage where greater reticence is essential; because you could not publish a disquisition upon the possibility of raids on different parts of the British coast without indicating pretty clearly what the raidable points were, and thereby giving information which it is not desirable to disclose.
  My Lords, if I may sum up in the fewest possible words our view of the case I would say this: The problem is a composite one, concerning both the military and the naval defence of these islands. We put the question of naval defence first, because in our view if we were to lose our supremacy at sea we should find ourselves face to face with the vastly superior military resources of Continental nations, and we should find that the sea, instead of being a barrier against attack, had become a bridge over which the attack could be delivered. In that event, which I should be sorry to contemplate, I doubt whether a Volunteer army would suffice for our needs, and I feel convinced that the growth of our military Estimates would be of a kind which would appal even the most extravagant advocate of Army expenditure. We believe that in putting naval defence first we are taking the view that the history of the world and of this country supports.
  Lord Wemyss at the outset of his speech quoted extracts from a German novel, but I thought I heard him say

  43
  that the novelist admitted that for 900 years the British Islands had been immune from invasion. For home defence we regard the land forces of this country as auxiliary to the naval forces, bat we do not for that reason for a moment suggest that the importance of a land force should not be sufficiently recognised. We feel it is necessary not only that we should have a strong Army for the purposes of offence abroad, but that the rest of our forces should be adequately organised for defence at home. That is the object which the present Secretary of State for War has in view.
  Some complaint has been made that we have achieved so little during the last few years. Well, I can say in the first place that we have achieved something. We have, in deference to a general demand, reorganised the central machine by which the affairs of the Army are administered. When we are told that, in the case of the Auxiliary Forces, we have not accomplished as much as some noble Lords would like, let us, at any rate, remember how immensely difficult is the task of those reformers who wish to make fundamental changes in the intricate constitution of the British Army. It is, at any rate, within our recollection that last year the present War Office desired to deal with the Militia forces, but they were stopped from doing so, and the original scheme had to be taken back and reviewed. Within the last few days again a suggestion has been made that some information should be collected as to the efficiency of the Volunteers. The immediate result of the appearance of these questions in the public Press has been to raise a general alarm and to produce interrogations in this and the other House of Parliament. I merely mention these things to show how difficult it is in a short space of time to deal in the thoroughgoing fashion which some noble Lords advocate with these military questions.
  My Lords, it only remains for me to say that, after very carefully considering the terms of the noble Earl's Motion, we find in it, if it is reasonably interpreted—and I am sure that the noble Lord does not desire to place any strained
  44
  interpretation on his words—nothing to which we can really take exception; and, therefore, we gladly avail ourselves of his suggestion that this question should be dealt with without any attempt to bring Party considerations to bear upon it; we shall, therefore, when he puts his motion to the House certainly not vote against it.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, the result, at which my noble friend appears to have arrived is rather a startling one, because he has been converted by the noble Lord near me and is going to accept his Motion. But I think the House must be somewhat disappointed that my noble friend has made no allusion to the very grave and startling statement made by my noble and gallant friend on the Cross Benches. I understood my noble and gallant friend to say that our Army at the present moment was not in any better state of preparation than it was at the commencement of the South African War. Coming from such an authority as Lord Roberts that is a statement so grave and serious that I think it ought to have been taken notice of by my noble friend, and that the House and the country ought to have received some explanation or statement of the views of the Government in regard to it. My noble friend appears either not to have heard that statement of Lord Roberts or to have thought it inadvisable to reply to it, but I hope that some words calculated to inspire more confidence in the public than they can feel after what has fallen from Lord Roberts with be forthcoming from some member of the Government before this debate closes
  I was very much struck in the speech of the Foreign Secretary to observe the different aspect in which he placed the questions raised in the speech of Mr. Balfour from that which they presented to the public when that speech was first delivered. I thought the "blue-water" scheme had rather retired into the distance; we heard a good deal more about the military defence of this country against the danger of invasion than we had heard on any previous occasion. My noble friend quoted certain expressions of Mr

  45
  Balfour's. He said that Mr. Balfour had stated—
  "Assume the Volunteers; assume the Militia; assume a special Regular force for the defence of the country."
  Well, my Lords, if the Government are relying not only upon the Navy, but also upon a force of that descriptian to be retained in the country for our home defence, we are entitled to ask: What is the present condition of the Militia; what is the present condition of the Volunteers; and what becomes of the territorial army for home defence? We had a discussion on the Militia the other night, in the course of which my noble friend opposite said—if I understood him rightly—that some battalions of the Militia were to be reduced and some were to be amalgamated. But, my Lords, you can do nothing with the Militia until you tell them how you are going to treat them. My noble friend says we must not press the Secretary of State for War. Well, we cannot wait indefinitely to have this question settled, particularly when we are told on the authority of Lord Roberts what the present condition of the Army is. These are questions which will not wait until Mr. Arnold-Forster is able to come to a decision in respect to them. They are questions of vital importance to the country, in regard to which, before this session closes, we ought to have some clear explanation of what is the policy of the Government.
  Then my noble friend spoke of the Volunteers, and he complained of the criticisms which had been directed to a recent Paper issued by the Secretary of State for War, and which has just been laid on the Table of this House. My Lords, it was not the fact that the Secretary of State for War made inquiries in respect to the present condition of the Volunteers which startled people in regard to that circular; it was the fact that the Secretary of State asked to be informed as to what number of Volunteers were fit for foreign service. The question is, what do you mean? You have made the Militia a part of the Regular Army Reserve.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Not yet.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My noble friend is more hopeful than I am.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: The Bill has not passed its Second Reading yet.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: And you are now asking questions about the Volunteers as if, instead of their being intended for home defence, your first view was that they were a force from which you could draw recruits for the Regular Army. In the late war many Volunteers went out, and I believe did excellent service. But accepting Volunteers who may be willing in the course of a war to go out on active service, and making it in any respect the declared intention of the Government that they should be employed for the purpose of service out of the country are very different things. The Volunteers—and, according to my old-fashioned notions, the Militia, too—are engaged for service at home. You admit that you must have a competent military force in the country, at all events, to resist possible raids, and yet, as far as we know, you have wasted the session in. regard to the organisation of both these forces.
  Then, my Lords, there is what is called the territorial army, or the short-service army, which was to be specially for home defence. Does it exist? Of course, I know it does not.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It was never suggested that the short-service army, or what the noble Marquess calls the home-service army, was to be for home defence; it was to go abroad in time of war.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Of course the noble Earl knows better than I do, but surely it was stated that the force which was being recruited for a two years service was meant for home defence?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Then what is the home defence? I may be quite wrong, but I have certainly always understood, and all those with whom I have discussed this question have always understood, that that short-service army was meant for home defence, and that it

  47
  was thought desirable to have a long-service army, with a nine years enlistment, to go abroad, leaving here the two years service army for home defence. However, if I am wrong in that, so much the worse. What is your army for home defence? You are recruiting now nothing but a long-service army to go abroad; where, then, is this force to which my noble friend alluded intended for home defence? We ought to have some clear and definite statement of what are the intentions of the Government with respect to the defence of these islands—I will not say the defence of these islands against a great invasion; I will, for the purpose of this discussion, accept the blue-water theory as far as it goes, but it is admitted now by His Majesty's Government that raids of considerable importance are possible, and what we ought to know before Parliament separates is this: What have you done and what are you doing to provide immediately against a danger of that kind?
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I should like to say a few words to take stock, as it were, of the situation. If this discussion had done nothing more than procure for us that admirable statement from Lord Roberts it would have been well worth while making the Motion and having the discussion. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that statement as to the state of the Army, and, to confirm it as regards the home force, here is what the Norfolk Commission Report says—
  "The result of our protracted inquiries is this, that Your Majesty's Militia, and Volunteer forces have not at present either the strength or the military efficiency to enable them to fulfil the functions for which they exist."
  That is a most unsatisfactory state as regards the Volunteers and the Militia. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne seemed rather sore that what they intended to do with the Militia was stopped last year. Now what was it the present Secretary of State for War tried to do with the Militia? He tried to do away with it altogether as a Militia. It was to be absorbed. I put the Question, "Do you mean the whole of it?" and my noble friend Lord Donoughmore said, "Yes, we do mean that the whole of the Militia
  48
  should be absorbed in the Regular Army." That is doing away with the constitutional force of the Militia, which was originally raised absolutely for home defence, with power to volunteer for, foreign service. Being defeated in that what does the Secretary of State next propose? Why, to alter it indirectly in this way: he brings in a Bill called the Militia Service Bill. That Bill passed this House through the support of Militia colonels, but happily it has not yet passed the House of Commons; it has not yet passed its Second Reading, and I do not think it ever will. In that case my noble friend will have further cause of complaint as to the Secretary of State's salutary measures for Army reform by getting rid of the Militia or altering its character being stopped.
  What are the alterations that this Bill proposes to make in the characte of the Militia? The Militia is the constitutional force for home defence, but it has the power of volunteering for foreign service with the Regular Army, and it has done so on many occasions to the great benifit of the nation. Bu under this Bill, instead of being enlisted for home defence, with power to volunteer for foreign service, all fresh members of the Militia will be liable to be sent on foreign service. Of course, existing members will be on the old footing. But the difference is this: under the original constitution you invite them, "Dilly, dilly, come and be killed"; whereas under this Bill you will say "Dilly, dilly, go and be killed." That is a great constitutional change which I hope will not pass the House of Commons. I trust that that Assembly will stand by the old Militia, thereby forcing the Government to find some other means of improving our home defences.
  My Lords, for my part I am thoroughly satisfied with the result of the debate on this Motion. What have we got? My noble friend seemed to think that all I said about the blue-water school was directed against the Government. It was directed against the school—Sir J. Colomb and others, the "Colombines" as we call them. By the acceptance of this Motion we have at any rate got the assurance that the view of that school is not the view of the

  49
  Government. That is a great step. The Motion says—
  "that … it would be a danger to the Realm, and limit the power of the Navy as an offensive force in war, to trust to it alone for home defence."
  That is a great step gained. Then another step we have gained is this—the agreement that we should at all times have our home land defence in such a state that no nation would ever attempt either a serious invasion or a raid. My noble friend discussed the position that the ships were to occupy under the speech of the Prime Minister. But what we want is that the ships should be perfectly free, and that they should not be required to be in the Channel to watch against invasion, because we should be in that state that no nation would ever attempt an invasion of our shores, either serious or otherwise.
  I would end by saying this. In the remarks which I made to your Lordships in support of this Motion I urged that this question was one of such vital importance to this nation that the two sides of the House—the leaders of the two sides—should meet and settle between them what should be done, and, that having been done, neither should endeavour to make political capital out of it. It should be treated as the most vital question in the world, as it concerns the safety not only of our hearths and homes, but the safety of the Empire as a whole. That, my Lords, is what I think should follow on the acceptance of this Motion which I have had the honour of bringing forward, and which I am thankful the Government have accepted.
  On Question; Motion agreed to.

  FLOATING MINES.
  LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose "To call attention to the grave risks to life and property presented by the great number of floating mines in the China Seas outside territorial waters, and to casualties caused by such mines; to ask whether the Merchant Service Guild, as representing the captains and officers of British ships trading in the China Seas, has appealed to the Admiralty to co-
  50
  operate in the destruction of these mines; and to ask whether the Admiralty cannot depute those of His Majesty's ships on the China Station which are available, to undertake the work of removing, as far as possible, the serious dangers to British ships which now exist in that quarter of the globe."
  He said: My Lords, having been made acquainted with the facts, and the indignation felt by British subjects in the. Far East over the laxity of the Admiralty in this matter of floating mines, I am impelled to call your Lordships' attention to the necessity of some active steps being taken to meet the situation and to prevent that terrible sacrifice of life which might occur at any moment. Being so far away, we are liable, perhaps, to minimise the risks and to imagine that a stray floating mine or two cannot be helped at a time like this and that there, is no cause for commotion. But my information comes direct from people on the spot, and the Merchant Service Guild have placed in my hands papers which disclose a really very alarming state, of affairs. They come principally from those who are commanding and officering the many British ships constantly trading in the China Seas. I am assured, for instance, that the Gulf of Pe-chi-li is full of floating mines, and, at certain places, vessels must, at night-time, come to a dead stop until, daylight. Then, on starting, the look-outs are doubled with the captain and an officer on the bridge. Passing steamers are constantly reporting the mines. I have a letter from the captain of a steamer travelling in Chinese waters in which he says—
  "The latest reports show that mines have now drifted south of Shanghai in the track of the mail steamers from Hong-Kong; two fishing junks were blown up last week and most of their crews killed. The feeling here is that if a mail-boat is blown up, it may appeal to the Government and cause something to be done towards getting rid of these dangers. As long as it is only coasters it doesn't matter. There were fifty-seven steamers here (Newchwang) just before the port closed last December, and about fifty here just after it opened, as well as Japanese transports, and probably quite as many running to Taku Bar for Tientsin, all of which have to come through this dangerous zone. The principal companies do not run at night and so minimise the risk, at, of course, a great expense in the way of time. No less than seven mines were reported in Chefoo two days ago, all seen in a few hours."
  I might state for the information of your Lordships that a British steamer, the "Kashing," had a hole blown in her bows by a floating mine and it was only a mere chance that the lives of all on board were saved. The question is, what is this country doing in the matter? So far as I understand, the Admiralty have done nothing beyond issuing warning notices to mariners. But these notices are almost superfluous, for the news soon spreads when it is a matter of life and death. We may rest quite con tent that navigators will exercise all the caution in their power, but as floating mines are not in the habit of giving a warning signal no amount of care can avoid risk of disaster.
  To voice some of the opinions expressed in Eastern circles the North China Daily News says in the course of an article—
  "Would it not be advisable, while the Gulf continues to be infested with these dangers to navigation, to station a small gun-boat here—in addition to the usual guardship—for the express purpose of searching out and destroying mines reported by passing ships? By so doing, our naval authorities would, I feel sure, confer a great boon on shippers and shipping engaged in the coasting trade, and also to the travelling public. The question becomes specially urgent and important when it is noted that the greater proportion of the northern trade is done in British bottoms."
  Then, again, in a leading article headed "The Dangers of Mines" the same paper says—
  "It seems to us impossible, for instance, that British steamers should be running up and down the coast between the Yangtze and the Peiho, in hourly danger of being blown up by Russian mines with all on board, and that little or no effort should be made by the British Navy to clear away these dangers. The danger of mines has not been exaggerated, rather it has been the endeavour of everyone concerned to minimise the danger, for obvious reasons. No one wishes to unduly alarm passengers, and shippers, and insurers. Last year we were told that the anxious look-out men ware mistaking empty barrels and bully-beef tins and fishermen's buoys for mines; but this year there has been no possibility of pretending that the sea between the Miatou Islands, and a point some distance south of the South-East Promontory, is not strewn with these dangers. Many junks and fishing boats have fallen victims to them."
  A NOBLE LORD: May I ask whether the noble Lord is in order in reading from a daily newspaper?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): Only by permission of the House.
  LORD MUSKERRY: Very well; I will pass over that, but this leading article sets out the matter very clearly, These remarks are intended to show what our fellow-subjects in the Far East think of the matter, and I should add that it was also referred to the British Minister at Peking by the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce and the leading steamship owners in China. As a contrast to the apathy of the Admiralty I am given to understand that even the Chinese have given orders for one of their cruisers to assist in destroying the mines.
  There is no question of infringing on territorial rights, for these mines are now floating broadcast on the high seas. Why some of our men-of-war out there are not directed to sweep the seas for these mines I really cannot understand. Their time would then be spent in a service to humanity, and as their business is to police the seas, it seems to me that they are sadly neglecting that duty. I should, like to hear from my noble friend who is answering for the First Lord of the Admiralty precisely what the reasons are for the inaction of His Majesty's Government in this most serious matter. And I do indeed hope to learn that it is now the intention of the Admiralty to assist in a practical way in ridding the China Seas of dangers which give rise to possibilities almost too awful to think of.
  Of course I cannot say what all the reply of my noble friend will be, but I think I can forecast a portion of it. There is a letter from the Admiralty to the Merchant Service Guild, from which I will read only some extracts—
  "The destruction of these mines in the waters of the Laio-tung Peninsula has been systematically undertaken by the Japanese
  and … the commanding officer has reported several cases in which mines have been destroyed by His Majesty's ships. This will be done whenever possible, but my Lords can not undertake to detail His Majesty's ships for this dangerous duty …"
  But these mines have got beyond territorial waters, and it is a poor thing; for British ships to be trusting to foreign navies to protect them from these dangers when we have our own Navy on the spot.

  53
  I have also received a letter, which I will not read to your Lordships, from the captain of a vessel out there showing the number of mines that were met and the number destroyed. Then the last thing was a report from the officer commanding H.M.S. "Hogue," published in Lloyd's Register of July 3rd. I do not know whether my noble friend is going to read that report?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LINLITHGOW): No, I am not.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I have a letter received since then, one paragraph of which says—
  "No less than three steamers have struck mines since that gentleman (the commanding officer of H.M.S. Hogue) said most of the mines reported were empty tubs, etc. Two of the steamers were sunk and one was beached and repaired. The Chinese Government have now-offered a small gun and an officer or gunner to any ship bound up the Gulf of Pe-chi-li who cares to apply for one."
  I will not read further; I will only say that it is not a nice thing that for the first time in our history the British merchant service should have to look to foreign navies for the assistance which they ought to get from their own. My Lords, I beg to put the Question of which I have given notice.
  THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: In answer to the noble Lord I have to state that the question of the risk to life and property through floating mines in the China Seas outside territorial waters has for some time past been occupying the attention of the Admiralty. A notice to mariners indicating the danger zone has been promulgated, and instructions have been issued to His Majesty's ships on the station to destroy any mines they may meet with on the high seas. The clearance of floating mines from territorial waters has been taken in hand by the Chinese and Japanese Governments. It is a fact that the Merchant Service Guild called the attention of the Admiralty to reports from certain captains trading in those waters representing the danger to navigation from this source, and asked that His Majesty's ships might take steps to clear away the mines; but the orders
  54
  given on the subject were not the result of this appeal, but of a previous communication from the Japanese Government inviting the co-operation of His Majesty's ships on the high seas.

  DOCKYARD DISCHARGES.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER rose "To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—(1) As to the system upon which the dockyard men are being discharged from the Portsmouth Dockyards; and (2) whether it is true that the 'St. Vincent' training ship in Portsmouth harbour is to be given up." He said: At this hour of the evening I shall say only a very few words in asking these Questions of which I have given notice, and I would apologise for having given notice to the First Lord of the Admiralty at a time when he was ill. I was quite unaware of his illness, or I would have refrained from putting the Questions. I venture to bring to your Lordships' notice the position of those who are now being discharged from employment in His Majesty's dockyards. This question was brought up two or three months ago, I believe, in the other House, and on June 7th Mr. Pretyman gave an Answer in which he stated that there were about 1,000 of these employees to be discharged from Portsmouth. We are now told that there are to be over 2,000 discharged at Portsmouth, while proportionate numbers will have to be discharged from Chatham and Devonport. Very naturally the result is a state of intense depression and a sense of grievance, more especially when those discharges are apparently conducted in a strangely capricious manner. I say "capricious manner," because the workmen seem quite unable to discover from the way in which the discharges are conducted whether any sort of account is taken of length of service, goodness of character, or skill and ability.
  I will not weary your Lordships, but I must give one or two instances. There is the case of a smith, aged thirty-seven, who has been in the Government service in. the dockyards some eighteen years. He recently received notice to quit, and the very same week he received notice that his wages had been raised by two

  55
  shillings a week. Complaint was brought before the authorities on. Behalf of this most deserving man whose character was quite superlatively excellent, and the authorities made reply that it was indeed a very hard case, but that there were numerous cases of the same land and no exception could be made. Three days ago another instance was brought to public notice in one of the evening papers in Portsmouth—the case of a man who had been twenty-five years in the dockyard, who had worked hard and who had borne a good character the whole time. He asked the reason why he was discharged, and he was told that fifteen years ago he had been seen smoking in the dockyard.
  My Lords, I have selected only two out of a very large number of instances which I have in my hand, and which I desire to bring before your Lordships' notice for the purpose of indicating that too little discrimination and consideration is being shown in the dismissal of men who have been engaged for the better part of their lifetime in His Majesty's service in the dockyard; men bearing the very best characters, and who have shown by their energy and workmanlike ability that they deserve well of the nation. These are the men who are being dismissed, and who, in consequence, will be thrown out of employment and become a portion ct the large number of unemployed in the country, at the very time that the nation is selling off a lot of old ships that are being bought up, I believe, by foreign nations, to be broken up by foreign labourers. I should have thought that it would have been possible at least to have retained those old ships, so that our men might be given labour and work rather than that they should be cast upon the rates of our great seaport towns. I very much hope that a reply will be forthcoming which will show that there is perhaps more system and more discrimination being exercised in the melancholy work of discharging some of our best workmen than appears to be the case at first sight.
  Then, my Lords, the other Question refers to the remoured abandonment of the training ship "St. Vincent." The "St.
  56
  Vincent" is a training ship with several hundred lads on board in Portsmouth Harbour. The lads—I have seen them myself—are well trained, well taught, well exercised, and they are in the enjoyment of excellent health, like the lads on board the "Impregnable" and the "Lion" at Devonport. I am told that the "St. Vincent" is about to be abandoned and the lads transferred to an institution at Harwich—that is, that the nation will have all the lads who are being prepared for the Navy collected in one great institution at Harwich. We are told that it is for the sake of their health and morals. I am not sure whether for the sake of their health it will be a good thing to have all lads who are being prepared for the Navy in one great, institution. It is far better to be exposed to epidemics in different centres than for all the lads to be exposed to epidemics in one great centre. So far as morals and discipline are concerned the same thing applies. If you taint a great institution containing 2,000 or 3,000 boys, greater harm will be done than if you try to exercise control in different local centres containing 700, 800, or 900 lads. At the same time at the small local centres there is a better chance of personal control and supervision. I very much trust that the suggested policy has not been finally decided upon, especially in a place like Portsmouth, which is one of the finest recruiting grounds that our country possesses for the Navy, where any lad who is being brought up for the Navy witnesses every day that which will inspire in him enthusiasm and hope for his future career.
  THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHG0W: My Lords, if the right rev. Prelate will kindly inform mo afterwards of any individual cases of hardship or unfairness which may have been brought before him, I am commissioned to say that they shall have the careful consideration of the Admiralty. With reference to the first part of the Question I am desired to say that the discharges now being carried out at Portsmouth and other naval yards are necessitated by the reduction in the amount of work, principally repair work, required to be done on His Majesty's ships. This reduction is due to several causes, the

  57
  chief of which are (1) the removal from the list of the Navy of a great number of ships which otherwise would have needed extensive repairs to maintain them in a state of efficiency; (2) the manning of the ships in reserve by nucleus crews, who themselves perform the ordinary work of keeping the ships ready for immediate service and carry out considerable repairs. Under the previous system a great deal of dockyard work was necessary on the ships before they could be regarded as ready for war. (3) The amount of work done in the last two or three years has been greatly in excess of the normal, partly owing to the large repairs to machinery and boilers necessitated by the difficulties which attended the first introduction of water-tube boilers. I may further say that an important Committee on Naval Establishments has been at work during most of this year, and has investigated the whole question of dockyard work. The Report of this Committee has not yet been received, but it will necessarily affect very greatly the problem of the work to be done in future in the Royal yards, and it is impossible to say before the Report has been considered by the Board of Admiralty whether any further large discharges will be necessary, or to give any limit of time for their completion. I may add that the Admiralty have the fullest sympathy with the individual cases where hardship has occurred. The general rule is, subject to the discretion of the admiral-superintendents of the yards, that those men who have the longer service have their services retained as long as is found possible, but due regard must also be had to the necessity of adjusting numbers between trades to meet the requirements of the service. It must also be remembered that the Admiralty, while it cannot give permanent work, gives constant employment—that is, constant while the employment lasts. With regard to the second Question, on the completion of the new training establishment at Shotley, boys will be transferred there from certain training ships, and among these the "St. Vincent," but no definite orders have been given on the subject up to the present.

  WAR STORES (COMMISSION) BILL.
  On the Order to go into Committee on this Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): Since this matter was last before the House I have looked into the question raised by the noble Marquess, and I adhere to the view I then took that there is power under the Bill to compel the attendance of witnesses and to insist on the production of documents. This power arises from a statute passed for the express purpose of giving a Commission power to-compel the attendance of witnesses both, in foreign countries and in the British Colonies, and that statute will apply. I feel satisfied I am right in that view, and I will only say that I think it would be a very serious thing to proceed over the head, as it were, of a self-governing colony and to interfere with the administration of justice in that colony without first informing them. Even if I were wrong in my view I do not think it would be desirable to put an express power in the Bill. It has been suggested that difficulty and delay might arise through the colonial Legislature not being in session. Even if that were so, I think the delay would be far less an evil than an attempt to do what might create dissatisfaction in the Colonies. I gather that the noble Marquess will not persist in his objection to proceeding with the Bill?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: On the legal question, of course, I accept the opinion of the learned Lord on the Woolsack. I wish, however, to say that I did not propose that the authority of the local Legislatures should be overruled by this Act. All I did was to ask what would be the course required to be taken if a Sub-Commission went out to South Africa.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX, having been suspended), Bill road 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.