Sitting of 12 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London County Council (Tramways) Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
Corbett Estate Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Central London Railway Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 2) Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed], Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTY OF LONDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY BILL.
MR. REMNANTproposed the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order [6th July] for Committal of the Bill be read and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection. That all Petitions against the Bill presented not less than four clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and
378
Counsel heard in support of the Bill. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. That Five be the quorum."—(Mr. Remnant.)
Objection being taken, the Order was deferred to to-morrow evening.
MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)asked whether a Committee which had been nominated to deal with this Bill, and was to sit to-morrow, could sit when a Motion of this kind was on the Agenda.
MR. SPEAKER: Certainly it can sit and go on with its business. It does not follow that because a Motion of this kind is on the Paper it will be carried.
MR. WHITLEY: To-morrow evening is allocated to Army Estimates. Will this Motion be proceeded with then?
MR. SPEAKER: That rests with the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is a matter entirely within his discretion.
MR. LOUGH: But if the Committee goes on it will nullify this Motion altogether.
MR. SPEAKER: The Committee must go on. It has been put down for to-morrow, counsel have been briefed and witnesses summoned. There is no reason why it should not go on. In fact it must.
MR. REMNANT: What will be the result if the Motion is carried?
MR. SPEAKER: The work of the Committee will be undone.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, against Clause 5; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
    Copy presented, of Supplement to the Thirty-third Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1903–4, containing the Report of the Medical Officer for 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th June; Sir Henry Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 239.]
    CIVIL SERVICES (ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE, 1905–6).
    Estimate presented, of the Amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1906, for certain Expenditure, including sundry Grants in Aid, in connection with the Relief of Distress in Ireland [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 238.]
    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3434 and 3435 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    PROSECUTION OF OFFENGES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
    Address for "Return showing the working of the Regulations made in 1886 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, with Statistics setting forth the number, nature, result, and cost of the Proceedings instituted by the Director, in accordance with those Regulations, from the 1st day of January, 1904, to the 31st day of December, 1904 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 267, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Cockrane.)
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Progress of Harbour Works at Avoch, Rossshire
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state what progress has been made with the
    380
    new harbour works at Avoch, Ross-shire; and when the works are to be completed.
    (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The contractor is bound to finish the works in nine months from 27th March, and hopes to do so.

    Utility of Submarines.
    SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Report confirming the statement that the utility of submarines has been amply demonstrated during the extensive work carried out by them during the last three years, describing the nature of that work; and whether it was such as could only be accomplished by submarines.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The results of the work carried out by submarine boats are essentially confidential. Since submarines are the only torpedo craft that can approach an enemy in daylight it is evident that no other craft can accomplish the same duties.

    Dock Labourers' Strike at Liverpool.
    MR. NANNETTI: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the provisions of the law as to smoking in or about any dock or shed where cargo is loaded or discharged, and of the fact that smoking takes place nightly among the imported labourers of Messrs. Harrison at Liverpool, and that these men are sleeping on improvised beds of straw and other inflammable covering, he will take such steps to put a stop to this practice so as to prevent any possibility of a conflagration.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No, Sir; neither the Local Government Board nor the Board of Trade are prepared to act as suggested, seeing that the duty of enforcing compliance with legal provisions on the subject of smoking in or about the estate of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board does not devolve upon them.

    Dock Labourers' Strike at Liverpool— Insanitary Condition of Non-Union Labourers' Quarters.
    MR. NANNETTI: To ask the President of the Local Government Board

    381
    whether he is aware of the condition of the place where the imported non-union labourers are housed by Messrs. Harrison, of Liverpool; whether he is aware that it has been found necessary to shift them to other quarters in consequence of the danger to public health, and will he say whether a licence has been obtained by the shipping company as is required by lodging-house keepers; whether he is aware that several batches of the labourers have been sent away owing to sickness having broken out among them; whether, in view of the complaints made by the men as to the verminous state of their beds and the absence of proper means for washing themselves, he will take such steps in these matters, by surprise visits or otherwise, as will insure public safety to health of those coming in contact with these labourers.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have received a memorandum on this subject prepared by the medical officer of health for the city of Liverpool. The memorandum does not bear out the statements referred to in the Question, but I will communicate further with the town council with respect to the matter.

    Merthyr Tydvil and the Redistribution Proposals.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether under Rule 2 of his Memorandum on the Redistribution of Seats it is proposed that the new municipal borough of Merthyr Tydvil shall become a separate constituency entitled to one Member; whether the part of the parish of Vaynor, included in the existing Parliamentary boroughs of Merthyr Tydvil, will in future form part of the Parliamentary Division of Brecon-shire; whether the remainder of the existing Merthyr constituencies, consisting of the parish of Aberdare and part of the parish of Llanwonno will form a separate constituency; what was the population of this part of the Merthyr borough in 1901; and whether the Boundary Commission will be authorised to recommend that the boundaries of such new constituency should be extended so as to include a part of a Division of the county of Glamorgan, if they deem such extension desirable.
    382
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) It is not intended that the new municipal borough of Merthyr Tydvil should become a separate Parliamentary borough. If it did, the present Parliamentary borough should be considerably curtailed, and this would be inconsistent with the concluding part of Rule 7. The Answer, therefore, to the second and third parts of the Question is in the negative. The population of the parish of Aberdare and of the part of the parish of Llanwonno which is included in the Parliamentary borough amounted to 63,574 in 1901. In the circumstances above stated the point referred to in the last part of the Question does not appear to arise.

    Newport (Mon.) and the Redistribution Proposals.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Local Government; Board whether, under his Memorandum on the Redistribution of Seats, it is proposed that the county borough of Newport shall become a separate constituency apart from the towns of Monmouth and Usk; and whether Monmouth and Usk will be thrown into one of the Divisions of the county of Monmonth.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) It is not proposed that the county borough of Newport should become a separate constituency. It is intended that the Monmouth District boroughs, which at present contain part of the county borough, should be extended so as to include the whole of it.

    Accidents Caused by Covered Vans.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how the accidents with covered vans for the year ending 30th April last compare with the figures for the year prior to the introduction of the London County Council new by-law; and will he state the number of prosecutions during the year for non-compliance with this by-law.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The figures asked for in the first part of the Question are not available, and would require to be specially collected. I will obtain and forward them to the hon. Member if he

    383
    attaches importance to them, but perhaps he will not think it necessary to press for them, in view of the figure given in my Answer to his Question o the 1st March † last on the same subject. No proceedings have been taken up to the present by the Metropolitan Police for contraventions of the by-law.

    Sale of Furniture, etc., at Walmer Castle.
    COLONEL STOPFORD SACKVILLE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain the circumstances under which a sale has been effected of furniture and other articles hitherto contained in Walmer Castle; have the public any interest in the proceeds of such sale; have any objects of historical or antiquarian interest been secured for the nation; and is the castle to be kept up in future as a national museum.
    (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The furniture which has been sold was the private property of the Lord Curzon of Kedleston, it having been purchased by him from the preceding Lord Warden. The Answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. All objects of historical and antiquarian interest have been secured for the nation. The Answer to the concluding paragraph is in the affirmative.

    Salaries of Junior and Assistant Clerks in the Government Service.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, when in 1897 the increments of junior clerks in the Office of Woods were raised, the salaries of officers actually serving were increased to the amount to which they would have been in receipt if the new

    Financial Year.

    1897–8.

    1902–3.

    1903–4.

    1904–5.

    April

    1,999

    5,261

    2,404

    2,950

    May

    1,981

    3,630

    2,235

    2,107

    June

    2,319

    2,696

    2,348

    2,574

    Normal establishment rank and file, exclusive of colonial corps.

    194,293

    238,030

    238,738

    233,511

    scale had been in force at the date of their appointment; and will he say what were the special circumstances which prevented assistant clerks (new class) being treated similarly when the increments of that class were raised in 1902 and 1905.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I am aware that retrospective effect was given to the increase of salaries in the case of the junior clerks of the Office of Woods. Special circumstances existed in that case which did not exist in the case of the abstractors.

    Mail Service at Dungloe and Burtonport.
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he an arrange for an outgoing mail service from Dungloe and Burtonport, county Donegal, by the train leaving Burtonport at 9 a.m.; and also for an incoming service by the train arriving at Burtonport at 4.30 p.m.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will make inquiry on the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Army Recruiting.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what were the numbers of recruits enlisted in each of the three months of April, May, and June for the years 1897–8, 1902–3, 1903–4, 1904–5 respectively; and what were the normal Army establishments of each of these years.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The numbers were as follows, excluding colonial corps:—
    † See (4) Debates, cxlii., 18.

    Rules for Management of Regimental Theatres.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of theatres open to the public within the walls of barracks in the United Kingdom; whether such theatres are controlled by the commanding officers; and, if so, under what regulations.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) There are several so-called "theatres" within barracks in the United Kingdom. In most cases the "theatre" is a stage erected in the recreation room. It is the custom in the larger establishments to hire professionals for the amusement of the men. The men may introduce their friends into a recreation room. On certain occasions and special performances it is believed the public are admitted. The "theatres" are controlled by commanding officers under the "Rules for Management of Garrison and Regimental Institutes."

    Education Estimates.
    DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will put down the Education Estimates for a day before the Education Code for 1905–6 becomes operative on 1st August.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I quite hope it may be found possible to take these Estimates before Supply closes. I can, however, give no pledge as to a date for before 1st August, but I will bear the hon. Gentleman's request in mind.

    Naval Works Bill—Date of Introduction
    MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Naval Works Bill will be introduced.
    Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Bill is ready, but I cannot yet fix a day for its introduction. I will give the best notice I can.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Submarine Hatches.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty
    386
    whether the disaster to the French submarine "Farfadet" having shown, like the casualties to the British submarines 1, 5, and 8, that the sinking of such vessels is followed by the drowning of every man under the hatches, the Admiralty will consider the necessity of fitting all our submarines, built and to be built, with hatches so made that in cases of emergency they can be quickly opened and so provide the crews with a way of escape.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The opening of hatches under water would not provide a way of escape, but would admit the water and drown the crew. Both in the case of A 8 and the "Farfadet" the cause of the accident was that hatches were open which should have been closed.

    Lord Roberts' Pay.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the full pay of Commander-in-Chief is still paid to Lord Roberts, although the office was abolished more than a year ago; and, if so, under what Vote is the salary taken or under what authority, and from what source is it paid.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Lord Roberts is still in receipt of a special non-effective allowance of £5,000 a year, which is paid under Vote 14 B., Field-Marshals.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Under what authority has the Secretary of State allowed the large sum of £5,000 to be paid as half-pay to a retired Field-Marshal?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Under the authority of Parliament.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Is not the half-pay of a Field-Marshal regulated by the Army Pay Warrant?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes; but this was a special allowance voted by Parliament.
    MR. BUCHANAN: It has not yet been voted.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes.
    MR. DALZIEL: When?
    MR. BUCHANAN: Is it not the fact that Vote 14 has not yet been submitted to the House, and that no statement has been made upon it?
    MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: None of these have yet been voted, but they stand in exactly the same position as the other Votes in the Estimates.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will this Vote be on the same footing as all other Votes in the Estimate? There never was before, and, I suppose, never afterwards will be, such a Vote. This is a Vote, as I understand it, for continuing the pay of an officer after he has been removed from his place. No work is done, and yet the pay is continued. I have no desire to criticise the services of a distinguished officer, but this is surely a most irregular proceeding.
    MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: Lord Roberts is giving his services on the Defence Committee.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then why should not his pay be put on the Vote for the Defence Committee?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I was only answering the right hon. Gentleman's statement that Lord Roberts was doing nothing.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But these are not the services of a Commander-in-Chief. He is continued in the pay of a Commander-in-Chief, but, whatever he may be doing, he is not doing the duties of a Commander-in-Chief. Why should he not be paid under the designation of the office that he holds?
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Are the other members of the Defence Committee receiving £5,000 per annum?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. It will be competent for the House of Commons to reject this or any other Vote. This Vote was put forward by the Government because they thought it was suitable treatment to meet the case.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it right to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the explanation of the situation is that because Lord Roberts was treated almost with indignity by the right hon. Gentleman in being summarily dismissed from his appointment, this is a douceur, and the British taxpayer has to pay £5,000 a year until the end of his term of appointment—I think there are two years to ran yet—in order to atone for the discourtesy of the right hon. Gentleman?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I protest against the unjust and unfounded remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, for which there is absolutely no particle of foundation. Every step was taken with Lord Roberts' agreement and consent, and Lord Roberts was never made, and never could be made, the object of any discourtesy on my part.
    MR. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that not until this moment was the House made aware that under Vote 14 Lord Roberts is receiving this sum, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will secure to the House an opportunity of discussing Vote 14 of the Army Estimates?
    MR. DALZIEL: Are we to take the statement of the Secretary of State for War that the House will have an opportunity of considering this matter as a pledge that the House will have an opportunity of discussing it, and that it will not be guillotined?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. It is not in my power to say what opportunities the House will be given.
    MR. DALZIEL: You have just said it.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said the House will have an opportunity of rejecting this Vote.
    MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask the Prime Minister to say whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing Vote 14?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member and the whole House have had the Estimates before them since they were laid some months ago.
    MR. BUCHANAN: But there is no indication of this Vote.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In those months they have discussed at quite unexampled length various questions connected with the Army Estimates. They have teen forewarned that it is really impossible to give more than another day to the discussion of the Array Estimates. They have insisted that it should be occupied in the first place by the Volunteer Vote and in the second place by the Secretary of State's Vote. If I am informed on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there is a desire that the order for to-morrow shall be altered, of course altered it will be. But I am not in a position to offer two days more for the Army Estimates in addition to those already given.
    MR. DALZIEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that the Estimates are absolutely misleading in regard to this matter?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The statement in the Vote is perfectly clear:—"Field-Marshals, one at £1,300, one at £2,000, and one at £5,000 a year."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman out of what money this pay is being paid?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I suppose it is paid from the source from which the salaries of all the officials of the War Department are paid.
    MR. BUCHANANasked leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the
    390
    continued payment of £5,000 a year to the late Commander-in-Chief after his office had been abolished.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can hardly bring this matter within the rules of urgency. This payment to Lord Roberts has been down on the Estimates certainly since March or April, and it cannot, therefore, be said to be urgent.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid it was impossible for any one to know that Lord Roberts' salary was borne on Vote 14 until it was so stated by the Secretary for War that afternoon. The House was certainly not aware of the fact before this, and now they were told by the Prime Minister that they would have no opportunity of discussing it.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The matter was brought to the notice of the House last year; I have a distinct recollection of the statement being made in reply to a Question.

    Medical Examination of Volunteers.
    MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what financial provision he proposes to make to enable officers commanding Volunteer battalions to defray the expense of medically re-examining the men under their command.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no reason to suppose that the service will appreciably add to the necessary expenditure of Volunteer corps; and it is not, therefore, proposed to grant any special allowance. But the matter is receiving consideration.
    MR. FULLER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Volunteer medical officers have private practice which would be considerably interfered with by their having to examine hundreds of men?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I understand that in many cases arrangements are being made by commanding officers to have the men examined in camp.

    Ammunition Grants for Volunteers.
    MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is

    391
    the allowance of ball ammunition per man per annum in the Volunteer force for practice and competitions, apart from the allowance made for the annual course of musketry.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The State makes an annual grant to every infantry Volunteer of ninety rounds. The musketry regulations permit of ten rounds of this ammunition being expended in practice and competition. Further, it is a custom of Volunteer corps to utilise for matches the ammunition in hand on completion of the regulation and repetition practices.

    Military Prison Regulations.
    MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any changes in the rules relating to military prisons have recently been made with the view to improve the condition of military prisoners; and, if so, what are those changes.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No change has been recommended by the Inspector of Military Prisons and none has been made. There are, however, certain points with regard to prison discipline which are under consideration, with a view to possible amendment.
    MR. BRIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time take into consideration the question of corporal punishment?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is one of the questions under consideration.

    Canadian Cattle—Embargo on Importation.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has observed that the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, speaking on Friday in the House of Commons at Ottawa, declared that the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle into the United Kingdom is detrimental to Canadian trade, and a financial injury to the people of the Dominion; that he did not hesitate to declare the embargo an unfriendly act to Canada, and that it
    392
    shows a lack of consideration for those bonds of Imperial unity which should be as dear to the mother country as to Canada; and whether, as the Canadian Minister added that nothing would appeal more to the Canadian people than if the motherland were to remove the present stigma from Canadian cattle, he will bring these statements under the consideration of the Government with a view to meeting the representations of the Dominion Parliament.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have seen a telegraphic report of the speech referred to by the hon. Member; but I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to his Question on this subject on June 7th†.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether this embargo was imposed not merely in order to keep out diseased cattle, but also as an acceptable form of protection for the British cattle-breeder?
    MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock): Is it not a fact that before the embargo was imposed we constantly had foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia attacking our cattle?
    MR. LYTTELTON: That Question should be addressed to the President of the Board of Agriculture.

    Cost of Repressing Riots in the Rand Mines.
    MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as a result of negotiations between the Chamber of Mines at Johannesburg and the Government, two troops of constabulary are to be stationed in the East and West Rand to assist the authorities in coping with disturbances among the Chinese; and whether the whole or any part of the cost involved in this arrangement will be borne by the mineowners.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not received information to this effect.
    † See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 946.

    The Transvaal War Contribution.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Estimates for the year ending June 30th, 1906, presented to the Transvaal Legislative Council by Sir Arthur Lawley on July 8th last contain any provision for the £30,000,000 war contribution, or any part thereof; and if any steps have been taken to prevent the allocation of the revenue from the Premier Diamond Mine to other purposes until the promised contribution has been made. May I point out that the sum referred to in the Question—£400,000—would exactly provide a sinking fund for the first loan of ten millions?
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Estimates have not yet reached me, but they will not contain any such provision. The war contribution loan has not so far been charged by law upon the revenues of the colony, as that is a matter which, as has already been fully explained to the House, has been left for the decision of the new Elective Assembly. The Answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.
    MR. WHITLEY: Then are we to understand that the revenue from the Premier Diamond Mine is to be allocated to new purposes, and not for the service of the loan?
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Government portion of the Premier Mine's profit is allocated by statute.
    MR. WHITLEY: Allocated to what?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I must refer the hon. Member to the statute.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do not the Government propose to take any steps to procure the £30,000,000, on the faith of which the £35,000,000 loan was guaranteed?
    MR. LYTTELTON: The circumstances have been fully debated on many occasions, and the Government have stated their views.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: They do not, I gather, propose to take any steps.

    The Royal Commission on the Motor- Car Act.
    SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he will appoint the Committee of Inquiry on the Motor Act.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The inquiry will be conducted by a Royal Commission, and steps are now being taken with a view to its appointment.
    SIR CARNE RASCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are using broken bottles and such like arguments in East Anglia? The matter should not be unduly delayed.

    Watches not Gold or Silver Plate.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent case of the Wardens and Commonalty of the Mystery of Goldsmiths of the City of London v. William Wyatt, in which it has been held that a watch is not gold or silver plate within the meaning of Section 59 of The Customs Act, 1842; and whether he will introduce legislation to deal with this state of the law.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): My attention has been called to the case, and I understand that the Goldsmiths' Company have under their consideration the question of an appeal from the decision referred to.

    Scottish Board of Manufactures.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate when he proposes to introduce the promised Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the Board of Manufactures.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): I hope to be able to introduce this Bill next week.

    Kindergarten Instruction in Irish Schools.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have made any regulations under which, teachers in schools and King's scholars in training colleges should be trained in the teaching of kindergarten; and, if so, what are these regulations.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state at what date did the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland first employ an organiser of kindergarten for the schools; in how many schools has this organiser and her assistants been engaged up to the present time; and in how many years do the Commissioners expect that the teaching of this important subject will be properly organised in all their schools.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): No special regulations have been made, but the Commissioners have made provision for kindergarten instruction in suitable schools; and the organisation of such schools, as well as the instruction of teachers in the subject, is being effected by a staff of organising teachers. Instruction in kindergarten has also been given to teachers in the training colleges since 1883. The organiser of kindergarten was appointed in June, 1903, since when seventy-five schools have been fully organised by her and her assistants. The Commissioners have formed no estimate of the length of time necessary to organise all infant schools. The subject, however, is now taught in 2,138 schools.

    Mixed Schools in Ireland.
    ME. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention, has been called to Rule 136 (2), (a), (b), (c) of the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, and will he explain on what grounds the regulations made in them are considered necesary; and will he say whether, when a manager objects to have grown girls taught with
    396
    grown boys by a master only with no adult female in the room, the Commissioners will persist in forcing this arrangement on him.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have read the rule referred to, the reasons for which are sufficiently shown by the wording of the rule itself. In reply to the latter inquiry, the Commissioners consider it very important that in mixed schools under a master there should be a female teacher also. Rule 86 provides for this.

    Banogue National School, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the national school in Banogue, county Limerick, the separation of the pupils into practically two schools, of which the junior for boys and girls on one floor is conducted by the mistress, the senior for boys and girls is conducted by the master on another floor, has been made by the direction or at the suggestion of the inspector; and, if so, whether the manager of the school was consulted on the arrangement; if not, by what authority the arrangement is carried out.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have nothing to add to the full replies which have already been given to the hon. Member's similar Questions of May 25th † and June 5th.‡

    Croker Estate, County Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that arrangements as to sale and purchase have been made on the Croker Estate, in the parish of Herbertstown and adjoining parishes, in the county of Limerick, as between the landlord, Mr. Courtney Croker, and the tenants, and can he say how far these arrangements have been carried; can he say whether the Estates Commissioners have before them an application from Mr. Michael Power for reinstatement to his farm in Moohane, from which his father, the late Richard Power, was evicted over fifteen years ago; is he aware that the
    † See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 1399.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 715.

    397
    man who took up that farm is prepared to leave it in favour of Power if he gets fair compensation; and, if so, will he recommend Power's case as one for immediate settlement.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No proceedings for the sale of this estate have yet been instituted before the Commissioners. The application which has been lodged by Michael Power will be considered if the estate should come before the Commissioners.

    Male Students at the Marlborough Street Training College.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total number of male students applied and appointed respectively in Marlborough Street Training College in each of the sessions 1902–3, 1903–4, 1904–5.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In 1902–3, 113 applied and 84 were admitted; in 1903–4, 81 applied and 50 were admitted; and in 1904–5, 110 applied and 60 were admitted.

    English Teachers in Irish Schools.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names of the English teachers who are stated by the Board of National Education to have sought employment under that Board; and how many of them were Irishmen who for family or personal reasons wished to return to their own country.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners cannot say how many teachers from England have sought employment in Irish national schools, but there are at least nine teachers certificated in England who are now employed in Irish schools, and there are at least thirty-five holding Irish certificates who have been employed in England, but are now employed in Irish schools.

    Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Miss Colgan.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether the Estates
    398
    untenanted land in Kildare, Wicklow, or Meath; (2) whether they have received an application for reinstatement, or an equivalent farm, from Miss Colgan, who was evicted from her holding near Kildare; (3) and whether, in the event of the Estates Commissioners purchasing untenanted land in the said counties, they will take into favourable consideration Miss Colgan's application.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Answer to the first query is in the negative, and to the second and third in the affirmative.

    Carriage-Horse Breeding in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the horse-breeding schemes of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction do not include any provision for the encouragement of the breeding of carriage horses; and whether, in view of the fact that it is mainly this class of horse that is bred in Armagh and the adjoining counties, he will adopt measures to encourage the breeding of carriage horses by grants equivalent to those allotted to the breeders of hunters.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I assume that my hon. friend's Question refers to the breed known as hackneys. It has been decided by the Department, on the advice of their Special Advisory Committee on Horse-Breeding, that it would be injurious to the horse-breeding industry in Ireland to subsidise this breed from public funds.

    Tobacco-Growing in Ireland.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total amount expended on tobacco - growing experiments in Ireland by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, including the cost of those carried out at Glasnevin model farm; and whether it is the intention of the Department to spend any and, if so, what sum on the erection of tobacco barns with heating plant this year, and in what parts of Ireland will these experiments be pursued.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The net amount so expended, during the five years ended March 31st last, was £2,994. It is intended to erect two barns this year, one at Tagoat, county Wexford, and the other near Tullamore, King's County, at an estimated cost of about £900 each.

    Disappearance of Constable Masterton, Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state upon what date Constable Masterton, a fugitive from justice, disappeared from Maryborough; whether he was living in the police barrack; and whose duty it was to report his disappearance.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Constable Masterton disappeared from Maryborough where he was living in the police barracks, or June 30th. It was the duty of the district inspector to report his disappearance, and he did so.
    MR. SHEEHY: How soon after the man's disappearance?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say. I imagine immediately.
    MR. DELANY: The man disappeared on Friday. The assizes at which he should have surrendered were held on the following Wednesday. What steps were taken in the meantime to trace him?
    MR. WALTER LONG: He was on his own recognisance, and there was therefore no power to arrest him.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: But surely there was power to keep him under observation. In view of the fact that more than one officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary under a serious charge has recently absconded, what steps were taken in this matter?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Several officers have not absconded since I have been in this office.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: But several have within the last two or three years.
    A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Sheridan, for instance.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I will inquire.
    MR. CULLINAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman institute a sworn inquiry?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Into what?
    MR. CULLINAN: Into whether the police assisted this man to escape.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I very much doubt whether such an inquiry would be the best means of arriving at the information desired. I cannot answer the Question until I have heard from the Inspector-General what steps were taken. If anything has not been done which ought to have been done, the hon. Member may be sure it will be looked into.
    MR. HAVILAND BURKE: Is not a man under his own recognisances kept under observation?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not aware, but there are often cases in this country where accused persons fail to answer to their bail.

    Constable Cryan, Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Constable Cryan, lately stationed at Mountmellick, is still doing duty as a peace officer; and whether he can state if the damages and costs given against Constables Masterson and Cryan in the High Courts, amounting to £250, have been paid; and, if so, by whom.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

    Administration of the Irish Land Act— Confidential Instructions.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any of the instructions or regulations contained in the confidential correspondence addressed to the Estates Commissioners in connection with the administration of the Land

    401
    Act, 1903, are still in force, or have they all lapsed since the issue of the new regulations.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Any instructions which may have been contained in the confidential correspondence referred to are not now in force, but have been superseded by the regulations of the 4th instant.

    Irish Land Act, 1903,—Section 5.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the new regulations issued to the Estates Commissioners are complete; if so, or in any event, are the Commissioners, when interpreting Section 5 of the Land Act, 1903, now to inquire into the equity as between purchaser and vendor to arrive at a decision as to whether the agreed price is equitable.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The regulations do not in any way deal with the construction of Section 5 of the Act. The proper construction of that section was in effect decided by Mr. Justice Meredith in the case of King-Harman, landlord, and Eliza Hayes, tenant, on June 8th last.

    Kerry Evicted Tenants.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in consequence of the direct action of the Estates Commissioners, any evicted tenant has been reinstated in his old home of given a farm elsewhere out of the 411 cases of evicted tenants in the county of Kerry in which applications have been sent to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, can he give the names in such cases.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir.

    Dublin College of Science—Engineering School.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that Mr. Aston Webb, the English architect, when preparing the plans for the new College of Science in Dublin had overlooked the necessity of providing accommodation for the engineering school, for which school a sum of £25,000 had been ear-marked in connection with the
    402
    college; and whether he will undertake that this sum will be made available for requisition which may be made upon it in connection with the present engineering school and not diverted to any other purposes.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The engineering school is being erected on a separate and more convenient site, but the equipments of the school will be provided for in precisely the same manner as if it had been included in the main buildings of the new College of Science.
    MR. MOONEY: Have not the Department been requisitioned for the money already?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I am not aware of it.
    MR. MOONEY: It is so.

    Irish National School Building Plans.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the new plans for the building of national schools will be issued; and can he state whether it is proposed to make a grant of more than two-thirds of the cost.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I am expecting an early settlement of this matter, but as yet I have nothing to add to the several replies I have given earlier in the session.

    Irish Land Purchase Act.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the report of the Irish Law Incorporated Society, which states that more money is wanted for the satisfactory working of the Purchase Act; if he has considered the desirability of paying partly in bonds instead of wholly in cash such vendors as are willing to accept bonds; and if bonds can be issued for this purpose which would be redeemed at par by Government in from two to five years.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, ): I have received a copy of the resolution passed by the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland upon this subject, which is now engaging the serious attention of the Government. I cannot at present make any statement on the matter; but my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary will communicate the views of the Government to the House as soon as he is in a position to do so.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Will it be this session?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

    Foreign Consuls in Ireland.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the names of the foreign countries which are represented by Consuls in Ireland; and can he state how many Consuls have been appointed by the United States, France, Spain, and Germany to look after the trade interests of those countries respectively in Ireland.
    *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The following foreign countries are represented by Consular officers:—Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hayti, Honduras, Italy, Liberia, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Norway, Turkey, United States of America, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The United States of America have appointed ten Consular officers; France eight; Spain six; Germany seven.
    MR. BOLAND: If foreign countries think it desirable to appoint Consuls in Ireland why do not the Government collect statistics in the same way with regard to Irish trade?
    EARL PERCY: Our Consuls cannot supply statistics which foreign governments do not publish.

    Ireland and the Redistribution Scheme.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in
    404
    view of his forthcoming Redistribution Resolutions, if he will circulate as a Parliamentary Paper those clauses of the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland which deal with the Parliamentary representation of Ireland in the House of Commons.
    MR. COGHILL: And will the right hon. Gentleman circulate at the same time the 5th Article of the Act which provides for the preservation of the Established Church. Is not that also an essential part of the Act of Union?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see any reason for circulating this Paper. It is open for any Gentleman to make himself acquainted with the provisions of the Act of Union. If we were to circulate it with a commentary on the Act of Union, with or without the approval of hon. Gentlemen, it would become a controversial Paper.
    MR. O'KELLY: In view of the fact that the Act of Union will be almost continually referred to in the discussion of the Resolutions, will the right hon. Gentleman have the full text of the Act circulated?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am surprised to hear the hon. Member say the Act of Union will be constantly quoted. I do not think, taking all the circumstances into account, that it is very relevant to the Resolution.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the reply of the right hon. Gentleman mean that he has ceased to regard as of any importance this Act, which is spoken of in this country and by the right hon. Gentleman and his political friends as a treaty?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I take, perhaps, an even more favourable view of the Act of Union than the hon. Gentleman, who, with his friends, was an enthusiastic supporter of a breach of the most precise portion of the Act of Union relating to the Irish Church.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Really that statement must not be allowed to pass.

    405
    The Act of Union is regarded in this country as a treaty between two nations. One portion of that treaty has been varied with the consent of the two nations. It is not a question whether I or my political associates enthusiastically approved of that variation. The fact is that portion of the Act of Union was varied by the consent of the two parties to the treaty.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not agree with that version. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Of course not.] The portion of the Act of Union to which the hon. Gentleman refers was made with those who belonged to the religion of which the Established Irish Church was the recognised ecclesiastical organ. I do not think it would be proper on this occasion to argue the question, but I dissent from the hon. Gentleman's views.
    MR JOHN REDMOND: I recognise that this is not a possible or proper occasion for argument. But the right hon. Gentleman himself has introduced this question, and I must be allowed to point out that the treaty was not made with Protestants, or the representatives of Protestants in Ireland; it was a treaty made between the two nations on the authority of the representatives of the two nations, and the representatives of the two nations varied that portion of the Act of Union.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state what the Parliamentary representation of Ireland would be if determined on the basis of population at the time the Act of Union was carried.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I do not perfectly comprehend the meaning of the hon. Member's Question. If he asks me, as perhaps he does, what would be the representation of Ireland under this Resolution—[NATIONALIST cries of "No."] Does he want to ask me what the representation of Ireland would be under this Resolution if the population of Ireland now was what it was at the time of the Union? [NATIONALIST cries of "No,"] The Answer is that probably the
    406
    representation would be about the same. I understand that is not his meaning. Perhaps he will explain his meaning.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid he wished to know what the Parliamentary representation of Ireland would have been at the time of the Act of Union if it had been determined on the basis of population.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to put back—[NATIONALIST cries of "Answer the Question" and "You know what we want."] It is not at all clear. Does he want me to consider what would have been the representation in 1800 if the population of Ireland had been what it is now? [NATIONALIST cries of "No."]
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Without the slightest acrimony, may I respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman that a more clear and precise Question was never put to a Minister? He cannot pretend that he does not understand it. The Question of my hon. friend is this—"If population had been taken as the basis of representation at the time of the Union, what would have been the number of Members Ireland would have been entitled to at that time?"
    MR. A. J. BALFOURClearly she would have been entitled to a great many more Members than she actually received. In other words, Ireland was far worse treated by the Act of Union than she will be treated by the Resolution.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am precluded by the rules of order from entering into an argument; but I protest against the right hon. Gentleman's making an argument that I am powerless to answer.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He asked me a Question, and I was perfectly justified in the Answer that I made.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I submit that the right hon. Gentleman in answering a Question is not entitled to enter into

    407
    an argument unless we are entitled to answer that argument.
    Subsequently,
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked when the discussion of the Redistribution Resolution would be continued after its introduction. The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that the question raised was one of the gravest constitutional importance, and he respectfully submitted that a question of that character could not properly be discussed in what the right hon. Gentleman had himself once called the interstices of debate. When did the right hon. Gentleman propose to take up the serious discussion of the Resolution, and would it be continued day by day?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give a promise to take the Resolution from day to day. It is impossible to do so, because under the orders we have passed with regard to the Aliens Bill there are some stages of that measure to be interpolated. I propose to take the discussion of the Redistribution Resolution on Tuesday morning next and on Wednesday morning next. I quite recognise that there are disadvantages in any break of continuity; but these disadvantages have constantly to be undergone with regard to other discussions. I will make them as small as I can; but there are other interests which I have to consider.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the discussion will be resumed after the morning sitting on Wednesday? Will it be on the following Monday, and then from day to day? And is there any precedent for a matter of this constitutional importance being dealt with in this way?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that there is a precise parallel, nor could I come to any conclusion on that point without very laborious investigation. But the procedure I am suggesting to the House will not, I am convinced, be inconvenient, and I think the allocation of business which I shall propose is one which ought to meet with general approval. At any rate, as far as next week is concerned,
    408
    Tuesday and Wednesday mornings will be devoted to this Motion.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to inform the House beforehand how many hours he proposes to devote to the discussion of this constitutional question, and the; precise moment when the guillotine will fall?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should hope the House will have the self-control to deal with this question within reasonable limits. In that case, I trust the contingency which the hon. Gentleman contemplates will not come to pass.

    The Government's Fiscal Policy.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government's policy of fiscal reform includes the imposition of a general tariff upon imports from foreign countries.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to the statements I have made on this subject. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that the present Government do not intend to make any proposals on this subject dining the present Parliament.
    MR. BLACK: Does the hon. Gentleman, therefore, think it fitting that the Government policy—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! We have had our attention called to argumentative Answers, but if the hon. Gentleman insists on putting argumentative Questions he must expect argumentative Answers.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The Answers are so argumentative?
    MR. BLACK: And unsatisfactory.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Scottish Churches and Education Bills.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the trouble that is every day increasing in Scotland through the delay in passing

    409
    the measure for settling the Church difficulty, he will devote the first available day to the Committee stage.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to pass this Bill rapidly into law; and if it is passed, as I have no doubt it will be in the present session, I trust that all the good consequences which we hope will flow from it will be realised in time to prevent any serious inconvenience.
    MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether, in view of his statement that he would be guided by Scottish opinion with reference to proceeding with the Church Bill on Friday, and that a great majority of Scottish Members were keenly anxious that the Committee stage of the Bill should be taken that day in order to put an end to ever-increasing strife, the Prime Minister would reconsider his decision as to business on that day.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have taken much trouble to arrange business, and, on the whole, I adhere to the course, the knowledge of which I took some trouble to diffuse among hon. Gentlemen last night. I was not in a position to make the statement at the close of business.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman should take some steps to diffuse this information other than by the subterranean methods to which he alludes. As I am personally in favour of going on with the Churches Bill and not of wasting a day in entering upon a new stage of a Bill which has no chance of being passed this session, it cannot be said that I or those with whom I act have been consulted on this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman has in some subterranean way arrived at an opposite opinion the least he could do would be to state it to the House and not refer to it as if it were known generally among hon. Members.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking under some misapprehension. As soon as I realised that I should be unable, owing to the divisions going on after one o'clock, to make the statement at the close of the House last night which I had promised, I communicated with the Opposition Whip and all
    410
    the hon. Members interested whom I could reach, and asked them to diffuse the information as widely as they could.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman said he would be guided by Scottish opinion in this matter?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The, responsibility rests with me, and although the opinion of Scottish Members has to be taken into account, the idea that I should take a plebiscite never entered into my mind.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the reason the right hon. Gentleman has come to that conclusion that it has been communicated to him that he cannot keep his men here on Friday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: NO, Sir.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it, then, that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that fact without it having to be communicated to him?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is an argumentative Question.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: No, it is not.
    MR. PIRIE: May I ask whether it is to be concluded that the right hon. Gentleman means to carry the Scotch Education Bill this session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How can I answer that Question till I see what progress is made?
    MR. PIRIE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman absolute power to pass the measure if he chooses this session?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
    MR. PIRIE: I deny that.

    The Unemployed Workmen Bill.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that demonstrations calling for the passing of the Unemployed Workmen Bill, with Amendments, have been held in London, Manchester, and elsewhere; and whether,

    411
    in view of this expression of opinion, he will now give an undertaking that the Bill will be passed this session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman asks for.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he has the intention of passing the Bill this session?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I will give no pledge on the subject at all.
    MR. PIRIE: Then the right hon. Gentleman is playing with the House and with the nation.
    MR. CROOKS: May I ask whether, having regard to the general disinclination to take the Scotch Education Bill on Friday, the right hon. Gentleman will substitute the Unemployed Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there is the general disinclination to which the hon. Member refers.
    MR. CROOKS: May I follow my Question up with another? Are we only to have such legislation as there is sufficient disturbance in the country to demand? That is the excuse for taking the Churches Bill.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the refusal of the Government to give a definite undertaking of their intention to pass the Unemployed Workmen Bill this session.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, I think, fails for want of definiteness. The Government cannot give any undertaking to pass a Bill; it is the House that passes Bills; and the Government cannot have power to bind the House to pass a particular Bill. The Bill stands upon the Order Paper, and it may be reached and may be passed in due course.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I point out that my Motion refers to the refusal of the Government to give an undertaking of their intention to pass the Bill, and to give adequate time for that purpose. If they were prepared to give time for the purpose that would be evidence of their intention, but the Prime Minister has refused to give time.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I submit that the refusal of the Government to allocate time is a definite matter as well as urgent and important.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR, on a point of older, asked whether the fact that any Bill was not treated precisely as some-individual wished had ever been made a matter of public importance. He doubted whether it would be possible to carry on the business of the House if that were so.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is your own Bill.
    MR. CROOKS: I want to urge this upon you, Sir. Nothing could be of more importance for the House of Commons to discuss than the case of honest workmen desirous of finding means of getting a livelihood.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I put this point. Great demonstrations have been held, and if this Bill is not carried into law this session there is a good chance of riots and disturbances taking place throughout the country. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order!"] Well-fed beasts opposite may well shout "Order."
    *MR. SPEAKER: I have already said that, in my judgment, this matter does, not come within the rule.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: This is a Government Bill—["Order"]—it is public business of State, and I declare it to be the first business of the Government to legislate to prevent the breaking of the public peace. There is a danger of that, and that is what I hope will take place if this Bill does not become law.
    MR. FLAVIN: Bring them down here and clear out the House.

    The Colliery Explosion.
    SIR ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary for the Home Office whether steps will be immediately taken to initiate an inquiry into the sad disaster that has occurred in the Rhondda Valley.
    *THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,: I take the opportunity to express the regret of the Home Office at the disaster. The Answer is that the mines inspector for the Cardiff district, in which the colliery is, proceeded to the scene as soon as possible, and is now supervising the necessary work. He has sent the following telegram, in which he says that "considerable progress in the exploration of the working of the colliery has been made; seventy-seven bodies have been discovered, and twenty-seven have been brought to the surface. I fully expect the whole of the working will be explored by to-morrow. The loss of life is expected to be 119. The cause of the explosion has not yet been ascertained. (Signed) Gray, Mines Inspector." I may say that the Home Office will be represented by counsel at the inquest, when it is hoped that all the facts relating to the circumstances of the disaster will be ascertained.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: May I ask that on this occasion they will see that a legal gentleman who has had some experience in these inquiries will be sent down to South Wales? It would be better if a gentleman who could speak Welsh was selected, but I think it is essential that he should at least understand the Welsh language.
    *MR. COCHRANE: I have told the hon. Member that counsel will be sent down, and I will draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the further point he has made.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will agree to a Motion being passed by the House expressing their sympathy with the relatives of those who have suffered so greviously in this terrible disaster?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite sure no such Resolution is required in order to show how deeply the House feels this sudden tragedy which has overcome so many of our fellow-countrymen. I think the hon. Gentleman will feel not only that no such Resolution is required on the present occasion, but that if the precedent were set which he suggests, it would be impossible to distinguish between cases when such a Resolution was really fitting and those cases where it was at least doubtful whether this House should pass such a Resolution. Those doubtful cases would necessarily lead to debates which I would be essentially painful in their character; and I should therefore deprecate a precedent which might be inconvenient, and which would add nothing, I think, to the expression of deep emotion which we all feel.

    The South Wales Coalfield.
    MR. LLEWELLYN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether there is any foundation for the rumour that a foreign syndicate has been formed for acquiring possession of the South Wales coalfield, and thus for securing control of those sources of coal supply which are a prime necessity for the maintenance of the British Navy, and, if the statement be correct, what action His Majesty's Government propose to take under the circumstances.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have heard a rumour tending in the direction of which my hon. friend has spoken. Whether that rumour has any solid foundation I am not at present in a position to say; but that we could not remain indifferent spectators of any transaction which handed over to a foreign syndicate or foreign Government the unique source of our naval mobility must be, I think, plain to the House, and so unexampled a proceeding would unquestionably require exceptional treatment.
    MR. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that none of the collieries mentioned in connection with the proposed combine are supplying coal to the Navy?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not so fully acquainted as the hon. Gentleman with what is going on. If he will convey any information he possesses to me I shall be grateful.

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
    Second Report brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 240.]

  CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [4th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Which Amendment was—
    "To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'in the opinion of this House no approval should be given to any measure which has the effect of giving an Established Church this right to change or modify its creeds, or any formula of subscription thereto, without such change or modification being submitted to and specifically sanctioned by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    *MR. COMPTON RICKETT, who was speaking in support of the Amendment on the adjournment of the debate, resumed his speech in support of the Amendment. He said that objection was strongly felt by many in Scotland, and by many more Noncomformists in England, to the introduction of Clause 5 into this Bill. He was fully aware that the differences in Scotland between the Established Church and the Free Churches were not so marked as those in England; they were more largely those appertaining to the ecclesiastical rather than to the theological side, whereas between the Church of England and Nonconformity the differences were theological as well as ecclesiastical. At the same time the principle involved was the same. He was quite aware that the Established Church
    416
    in Scotland had claimed for a long time the right to modify or regulate its own creeds, but he supposed it was the judgment given in the case of the United Free Church that had startled her persuading her friends to introduce this clause into the present Bill. They had endangered their claim by the course they had pursued. They had thought it right to raise in that House the whole question of Establishment by asking the State to give them powers which they were supposed already to possess. The religious difficulties which had provoked the trouble in Scotland at the present time, and which had brought about the introduction of this Bill, were contained in the 5th Clause, because really at the bottom of the whole difficulty, as he was informed, was a question of doctrine rather than of money.
    The Bill had been introduced on the ground that it affected questions of property which required immediate solution, but, in fact, the movement which had been going on for a long time in the Church of Scotland had proved too much for the consistency of many of its ministers and some of its laity. Endeavouring to put themselves right, they had provoked a revolution, and had brought under the purview of this House the whole question of their position. The Bill had nothing to do with the Established Church except it were argued that if they were to give freedom to one Church it would be right to give it to all. He would like to point out that a great number of the English Nonconformist Churches had trust deeds similar to those which had given rise to this controversy in Scotland; that they were tied hard and fast by articles and formula from 1662 to 1690. Many of these Churches were already feeling the strain, and sooner or later would have to appeal to Parliament for relief. When that time came it would be pointed out that Scotland was willing to grant freedom to her spiritual brotherhood, and it would be argued that they ought to make the same concessions to the Church of England freeing her from bonds forged 250 years ago; bonds entirely contrary to the spirit of the age, practically ignored by the Free Churches and Established alike. On this account they

    417
    were bound closely to inquire into the reasons claimed for this relief to be granted to the Established Church of Scotland.
    On the part of those whom he represented he disclaimed the idea that their opposition was inspired by jealousy of the supremacy of one Church, or of resentment against certain concessions. Their feeling was much more serious and deep. It was with surprise he observed that many in Scotland who entertained the same views with regard to Establishment as the members of the Free Churches of England were prepared to allow the Second Reading of this Bill, when they must be aware, and were aware, that Clause 5 embodied a grave principle. They held that there were two spheres—the sphere of the Church and the sphere of the State. The Church had an undoubted right to regulate its formularies and maintain its own order and discipline. Any claim she made to influence the State should be through individuals rather than by national methods, atmospheric rather than legal. He acknowleged that it was the duty of Parliament to listen to any appeal made to it by the Church of Scotland to modify or regulate her formularies. But, as matters stood, Parliament had not been told whether the Church of Scotland really desired that this power should be exercised—entrusted to a chance majority, it might be a majority of one. Parliament was bound to see that the interest of the minority in the Church was protected; that it should not be possible for a small, and perhaps uncertain, majority to make it difficult for the minority, on a matter of conscience, to remain in the Church of their fathers. To his mind the clause did not seem to be seriously drawn.
    The freedom offered was either of no consequence, a matter of words, or it would go to the very foundation of the creed of the Church of Scotland. There were hundreds in the ministry who would never dare publicly to state their adherence to particular clauses in the Westminster Confession of Faith because they knew that whatever may have been the value of such a
    418
    declaration to a past age it would be outrageous to endeavour to give effect to such statements in the present. They were asked to recognise a revolutionary movement, the complement of the Reformation. That great deliverance was a moral reaction, from Catholicism, not an intellectual revival. The freedom desired affected not only the Protestant Churches, but all friends of liberty. He appealed to those who were indifferent to religion to secure for the Churches of this country the right to revise their creeds. Liberty was not a matter of compartments—freedom in Church life favoured democratic extension. But the State must effect this reform in the measured way, not by carelessly surrendering its control to the first indefinite appeal for revision.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid he had had some difficulty in following the argument of the hon. Member opposite. He had referred to this clause as being so abstruse that it could never be put into effective force. He thought that showed that the hon. Member opposite could not have studied the constitution of the Scotch Church, because what he had called an abstruse principle was but a well-known method adopted by the Scotch Church when it desired to take collective action.
    MR. COMPTON RICKETTsaid that his complaint was not that it was abstruse, but that it was so simple that it would be unworkable.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid this principle was at work every day, and had been at work for over 200 years, and it had been found not only to afford protection to the minority, but it had given fair weight to the views of the majority. He did not think it was possible to find a more effective system than that which had been worked out in the Church of Scotland. He wished to protest against introducing English difficulties and views on Church questions in a Scotch Bill. It ought to be realised that they were not dealing with one of those very bitter questions between Low Churchmen and Churchmen who held different views. They ought to put that entirely out of sight upon this occasion,

    419
    because it had nothing to do with the Scotch measure. The constitution of the Scotch Church was entirely different to the constitution of the English Church. The Scotch Church had liberty as regarded its Court for Church purposes, and this had always been denied to the Church of England. Surely English Members interested in the Church question ought not to seek under any guise to introduce into what had hitherto been a friendly feeling amongst all Presbyterian bodies those somewhat bitter troubles which, in his opinion, had done so much to endanger the true influence of religion in this country. He was somewhat astonished, the other day, to hear one of the hon. Members for Liverpool say that he could not imagine the idea of a National Church which had spiritual independence. There was no difficulty whatever in the Scotch Church in regard to this point. What was called the Disruption of the Free Church in the year 1843 took place on that very principle, which he thought was a very sound principle on all matters affecting Church government. In 1843 they disrupted because they thought they could have complete spiritual independence.
    Considering this question purely as a Scotch matter, what was really being asked for? The hon. Member who had just sat down must feel that a Church to be effective in the best form ought to have a power of adaptation in its spiritual life to the growing opinions of the country from time to time. What objection was there to this particular section. He was not cognisant of Scotch opinion, but he had had many opportunities of gathering some forms of Scotch opinion, and he supposed that everyone interested in the religious question was very cognisant of Scotch religious history, which he thought was a great honour to Scotland, because no religious history went more deeply into truth and sincerity than the religious history of Scotland. He did not know whether hon. Members remembered the proposal of his right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General upon this point, but it was thoroughly discussed and considered, and it was embodied in a measure which was known as Mr. Finlay's Bill. That measure was thoroughly, discussed and
    420
    it had everyone's approval who was interested in the true religious life of Scotland. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] At any rate it had a very large measure of approval. It was quite absurd to suggest that this clause which had been introduced in the Bill and the principle upon which it was founded had not been thoroughly considered in the religious life of Scotland. He appealed to members of his own Church and to opponents as well in this House not to send their Church troubles where they were not felt. He hoped they would for once forget their own friction and let them now look into the truth and sincerity of a proposal of this kind. If they did that he thought they would be almost unanimous in supporting Clause 5 of this Bill. As far as he was concerned he did not seek to make a precedent out of something which was done under different conditions in the Scotch Church. He rather looked at the constitution of the Scotch Church and at its history in order to see what had been done in the past and to get to know what the religious feeling of the country desired. He hoped they would not introduce their own little religious bitternesses and difficulties, but, on the contrary, do all they could to introduce the true religious reform which was embodied in Section 5 of this Bill.
    He understood that upon this particular Amendment they would be allowed to discuss a little more generally the principles of the Bill. In the first place he wished most heartily to congratulate the Lord-Advocate both upon his speech and upon the terms of this Bill. He wished to make one or two suggestions which perhaps the Government might see their way to carry out. If he thought that the Bill interfered with religious trusts or that it upset the decision of the House of Lords he would not be in favour of it. He agreed entirely with what had been said on that point. He agreed with almost every word of the admirable Report of the Commission to which this question was remitted. He would quote what the Report said in order that his opinion might be exactly understood. The word son page 17 of the Report were—
    "The Legislature cannot reverse or nullify the final decision of the Law Courts without a violation of constitutional principle much more mischievous than any consequence, however

    421
    harsh, which may follow from the legal decision in a particular case."
    He entirely agreed with that.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Do you agree that Parliament cannot upset a decision of the House of Lords?
    MR. CRIPPSsaid Parliament could, of course, do anything. They could pass a Bill of Attainder. They could pass a Bill to cut the right hon. Gentleman's head off. He never said they had not the power to do it. He was talking of whether it was right in principle.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not right in principle for Parliament to take legislative action against the judgment of the Supreme Court.
    ME. CRIPPSsaid he had quoted the words of the Commission itself. Of course, there might be cases where it would be absolutely essential for Parliament to interfere. Everyone could imagine that there were special instances in which Parliament might very properly and according to every principle of justice interfere with a decision. The question referred to the Commission was whether the Free Church of Scotland, in whose favour the decision was given, could adequately administer the trust funds which they would have to administer under the decision of the House of Lords. The answer given to that was a very important matter. On page 22 the Report said that where it appeared that the Free Church were unable adequately to execute the trusts the Commission—that was, the Commission to be created by this Bill—should be empowered to see that the property was administered in accordance with the trusts affecting it. Therefore, what the Commission reported was that the Free Church in whom the funds had been vested by the decision of the House of Lords was unable adequately to administer those trusts. In dealing with the surplus which the Free Church was unable to administer, of course in a case
    422
    of this kind everyone would admit that the persons to administer the funds were the United Free Church. In the preamble of the Bill the question of religious trusts was made a very important matter. The words were—
    "Whereas questions have arisen as to property between the Free Church and the United Free Church in Scotland, and judgments have been given by the Courts in favour of the Free Church. And whereas a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the matter have reported that the Free Church are unable adequately to carry out all the trusts of the property, and that it is desirable to provide for the allocation thereof, provision being made for the equipment of the Free Church—
    To his mind the principle laid down by the Royal Commission and the principle in the preamble of the Bill was the absolutely just and proper method of dealing with the undoubted difficulty which had arisen. It was to the honour of the Government that they appointed the Royal Commission and proposed this Bill. He had some heart-searchings when he first saw the Bill as to whether it adequately recognised the conditions brought about by the decision of the House of Lords. That was the question which he thought most people would ask themselves when they were considering whether the Bill was justly framed or not. It appeared to him that it did on the whole adequately recognise the position brought about by the decision of the House of Lords. If the Bill had gone the length of disregarding that altogether and merely bringing the funds into a hotchpotch and giving no powers to the Commission, then he thought it would have been wrong in principle. It would have come within the very evils pointed out by the Royal Commission and might have led to a bad precedent in future. It was obvious from what the Lord-Advocate said that in the provisions of the Bill itself he had recognised—he was not now going to say how far the recognition went—all the rights of the Free Church, having regard to the fact that in the litigation they had succeeded—whether rightly or not was a matter with which the House had nothing to do at the present moment. This was a matter of law, which had been decided once for all. It was upon these grounds, and realising the great necessity of dealing properly with a matter of this kind, that

    423
    he should strongly support the proposal of the Government.
    The Free Church was very desirous of effecting an arrangement with regard to the division of the property. He thought that was the right spirit in a matter of this kind. It ought to be made possible to settle by arrangement between the parties interested. He recognised that the only way outside of an arrangement between the parties themselves was the way suggested in the Bill. The fairest possible outside body must be got in order to settle the difficulty which, he thought, most people would have wished had been settled by the two parties themselves. With these reservations he hoped the Bill would go through without any introduction of what was threatened in regard to English sectarian questions in reference to Clause 5. If it did he thought a great act of justice would be done without any interference with what was the true principle in a case of this sort. He hoped the settlement might be final, and that these two great bodies, deeply permeated with the religious missionary spirit, deeply permeated with an earnest desire to carry out religious life in Scotland, would forget any friction which had arisen, concentrate their attention on what was their true vocation, and do what they could to encourage and keep alive the religious spirit of Scotland with as little animosity as they could.
    *MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid the speech to which they had just listened was interesting in two particulars. For a full half of it, it bore on the Bill only in respect of one clause; and as that clause appeared to have been an entirely unnecessary introduction of foreign matter alongside of the substantial remedy which was to be effected by the measure, he could only say that that speech was one of the many illustrations in the course of this debate, how, from the Parliamentary point of view, the Government had done the very best thing to complicate, to protract, and to harass the discussion of what would otherwise have been very simple. His hon. friend the Member for Shropshire had taken a true view of the Barrier Act. His hon. friend the Member
    424
    for Scarborough did not seem to be aware that for a couple of hundred years they had transacted their Presbyterian Government by the aid of the caution and the efficiency secured by the Barrier Act—a most excellent method under Presbyterian form of obtaining general and local agreement as to what should be the method of government for the Church. But, on the other-hand, the reference to the Barrier Act seemed to him entirely to condemn Clause 5. That clause was radically to effect a change in the sense of empowering the Church to alter its creed, but the Barrier Act, which was specifically made for the purpose of consulting the entire body of Church opinion in Scotland, and which would have secured the precautions and efficiency alluded to, was never put into effect before this Bill was Tabled in the House of Commons. In short, it was one of the most remarkable feats of Parliamentary dexterity that he remembered, that the Assembly passed a Resolution requesting a certain most important constitutional change to be made, and, within a week of this complaint, the Government embodied it in a Bill without the Church of Scotland through its organised machinery being consulted at all.
    His hon. friend said there had been great peace in Scotland—peace in the development of ecclesiastical and theological progress. How had it been achieved? It had been achieved in the only sound method of achieving freedom in the evolution of theological opinion, viz., by throwing off the trammels of State support and control. The noblest chapters in the history of Scotland were those which were allied with religious dissent from organised authority attempted to be imposed upon Church Courts and the freedom and self-government which they should represent. These chapters had had an influence on the history of England, and had gone largely to make up the strong foundation of that British liberty which they enjoyed to-day. But all that had not been done under the cover of Royal authority or of Established religion. It had been done apart from it, and very often in defiance of it. If they had achieved peace in Scotland to-day in.

    425
    religious matters it was because they had bought it with a price. Therefore, for those within the Establishment who now not unnaturally looked to this juncture of affairs as one which might be used with profit to their interests, they should have perforce in consequence of observations on these debates to be pointed to what he and his friends thought a worthier and better remedy, namely, that Presbyterian union, ecclesiastical peace, and ecclesiastical freedom were more likely to be achieved not within but outside the trammels of the Establishment.
    With regard to the observations in connection with Clause 5, the House would observe that so extremely dilatory were the tactics of the Government that it was almost impossible for any speech to be delivered without being largely occupied with substantially a Committee point. So introduced it was apt to confuse and harass the action of Members of Parliament who dealt with it as a matter of principle. He ventured to cross swords with his hon. and learned friend opposite who had dealt on a legal point which he had raised. He did not absent for one instant to the two lines cited from the Report of the Royal Commission. There was nothing de jure unconstitutional in a British Parliament reversing the decision of a judicial tribunal, however lofty. The whole question could be summed up in the old brocard which he employed, viz., Summum jus, summa injuria. To those who, like himself, had followed with deep and sympathetic interest the whole of those proceedings since the decision of the House of Lords on August 1st of last year, he should say that there never was a case more clearly made out of Summa injuria on a colossal, a national, and a religious scale. And if he had not been able to devise another method of getting all the remely really demanded, while paying formal deference to the judgment of the House to Lords—if he had not been able to excogitate that system for himself he should have had no hesitation whatever in taking the field as an advocate of the repeal of the judgment of the House of Lords. That was a strong thing for
    426
    anyone in his position to say; but he thought it was constitutionally defended by the maxim that you could not allow any permanent disturbance of social order and social peace to be effected on merely technical grounds, and apart from an inquiry into facts. But having said that with regard to his hon. and learned friend's argument, he rejoiced to learn from him—and he learned it with a shock of surprise—that the Free Church of Scotland was ready and willing to make an arrangement. That was a most admirable frame of mind; but he wished they had heard of it a little earlier.
    In the course of this discussion the hon. member for Dumbartonshire seemed to throw on the Table of the House something in the nature of a sealed tender from the Free Church of Scotland, and they were asked to put in a counter scaled tender. This was the situation they had now reached—that the body which, from the beginning to this very day, had insisted on the last ounce and pound of its legal rights, was now confronted with the manifest intention of Parliament not to permit this great wrong to be continued, and was now in a position to say that it was willing to make an arrangement. Well, it was not too late; but they must have their Commission. And before the Commission the Free Church might then renew the operations which were hoped for in a former case, and which Lord Elgin and his colleagues alluded to when they said that all prospects of peace were very soon clouded when the Free Church witnesses entered the witness-box. The general situation touched by the Bill was very strange. In the midst of a law-abiding people at least one-third of the entire population of Scotland—represented in the United Free Church, a Church of unbounded, almost fabulous, Christian liberality—had been stripped entirely of its property. They had in that Church many men and women still alive who cherished the memories of the Disruption. But the Disruption was greatly different from the present ease, because in the Disruption they were dissevered from the provision made for them and their families by the State; whereas now, under the decision of the House of Lords, they had been stripped of and dissevered from the

    427
    very work and contributions of their own hands. The Scotch Judges took the sensible view of the situation which had been universally approved, apart from technical rule, by the judgment of the people at large—yet they were to-day discussing a Bill the urgency for which could not be concealed, for men were being dispossessed of their churches, their homes, and their dearest associations, and this was all done in respect of an appeal to the judgment of the House of Lords!
    Certain misapprehensions existed as to the action of the United Free Church after the decision in Scotland, and before its reversal by the Lords. The Press of the country had been on the whole extremely just on this matter. He regretted for one that newspapers like The Times had, no doubt entirely unintentionally, been misled with regard to what they considered was some initial harshness on the part of the United Free Church. Let him state what was the position? Each minister of the Free Church who did not enter the Union was left in undisturbed possession of his manse. The congregations of each and all of those ministers were left in undisturbed possession of their churches. The congregations which did not wish to enter the Union were left in undisturbed possession of their church property: and no retired minister or evangelical agent of the Church who held office under the old regime, but who did not desire to enter the Union—not one of these men was deprived of his office or retiring allowance. Therefore, there was justice in every aspect of this treatment of the small minority by the United Free Church of Scotland. He could not understand how a delusion to an opposite effect, propagated from a quarter with regard to which he had his views, could have taken root so far, and spread even to The Times.
    As to the decision itself which they were now remedying, for, after all, it was a reversal which was needed, he might say that there were many false and ignorant expectations of what would be done when the House of Lords pronounced its judgment on August 1st. These expectations—false and ignorant as they were—did not arise so much in
    428
    English as in what he would call Anglified minds—those superior persons who, being in Scotland, had imbibed Prelatic notions and extraordinary ideas as to the majesty of the law and how people should crouch before it. That kind of mind was shocked at the idea that the Scottish people should stand up against this judgment of the House of Lords. In the first place, they said, "Go back on the Union and wipe it out." He had been connected with the Union movement ever since its inception. A finer movement never existed; less sordid in its motives, prompted more by commanding liberal views; and no more enlightened appreciation of that Union was ever delivered than by the Prime Minister himself on its consummation. The Prime Minister, however, spoke before the Lord Chancellor spoke. Therefore, when it was said that they ought to go back on the Union and undo it, all he could say was that those who urged that plea little knew either the trend or fibre of the Scottish character. When, again, it was said, "Now that the decision has been given and it is indicated in the Lords decision that you have not the spiritual independence which you claimed, you had better sacrifice spiritual independence for the sake of the properties,"—little did persons who said that know of Scottish history. They in Scotland had in the past been able fearlessly to scrutinise all the dicta of authority, and when they found any device under which it would be made easy for them to get property if only they conformed to the law, they had a very strong suspicion of the policy of what such conformity might mean. In the mind of a Scotsman who had been born and bred in the traditions of his country, he had to see, in the first place, before he would conform to the law, whether the law conformed to those rights of a free people and to those moral equities without which the law was rather akin to brute force than to the reasoned expression of a people's will. History over and over again in Scotland had put authority, legal or Royal, in its proper place; and the people who were accustomed to stand erect before the head that wore a crown were not likely to crouch before the head that wore a wig.

    429
    But in the next place, how false and ignorant were those expectations, when it was supposed that they who belonged to the United Free Church were about to allow the sacred work itself to suffer and the sacred trust itself to go derelict in the hands of those who were unable to administer it. He quite admitted, from his own point of view, that he had cut before the point in this matter. He was so well apprised as to how matters stood, that from his first deliverance made on the subject on September 17th he went straight and clear for an Executive Commission. After all, if they were to reach firm ground on this matter, the House must go back to the time when there was no prospect of or temptation in respect of property on either hand; that was to say to 1900, in order to see the true relative proportions and powers of the parties. The result of the decision was that property of 300,000 people was to be given to be administered by 4,000; that 1,159 ministers were to be stripped of all their ecclesiastical possessions, and that all their duties were to be performed by twenty-seven ministers; and that 1,104 congregations were to surrender to twenty-six. Such a situation outraged the sense of justice, interfered with the prospects of ordinary Christian duty, and imperilled social peace. This kind of legality was very provocative of disrespect for the law and of lawlessness; and it was only because the people were strong in the belief that this House would act justly that they had borne the ordeal with such dignity and patience. It was for that reason that he regretted the delay in the introduction of the Bill. The general property affected amounted, roughly, to £2,000,000; the congregational property affected amounted to £6,000,000. It was truly because the magic word "trust" ignored the distinction between the dead hand and the living organism that the present situation had arisen.
    The decision of the House of Lords might be good law—of that they had their own opinion—but it put Scotchmen in a hard case. The work would have to be carried on; and, therefore, he would revert to the situation before the Union. It was carried on then, not by accumulated funds, but by annual contributions—the work not
    430
    of the dead hand but of the living organism to which he had referred—the living Church. Out of £170,158 for home work, the Free Church—the successful litigant—only contributed £947. Thus far as to work at home. Then as regarded work abroad, missions had been, supported with the approval and admiration of all Christian men, and the United Free Church contributed £75,000 as against £320 by the other. It was from this point of view that the decision of the House of Lords should be regarded. For every £ required—absolutely required for home work—the successful litigants contributed only 4d., and for every £ required for foreign work the successful party only contributed 3d. The result was the serious prospect of a great dereliction of the trust accompanied by personal sufferings, religious loss, and sheer illegality. He rejoiced at the statement of the Prime Minister that the numerous litigations begun since the judgment of the House of Lords would not affect the judgment of the House of Commons in connection with this Bill. Yet, notwithstanding, what the Prime Minister and the Royal Commission said, the Free Church went on with litigation after litigation and had interdicted over a 100 congregations.
    He had suggested that there should be an Executive Commission right away. The Government not unnaturally hesitated: they required to be convinced as to the necessity; they instituted inquiry; the Royal Commission was appointed; and its Report confirmed entirely his original view. The Royal Commission stated—
    "It is not, we think, inconsistent with respect for the decision to say that while the legal title of the Free Church has been placed beyond question, it is still to be noted that for practical purposes it is only an inconsiderable minority of the original and undivided Free Church, apart from the single divergence from the original constitution which has deprived it of its claim to be identified with the Church of the Disruption, it does still, for all practical purposes, answer the description of the institution which the endowments obtained on Dr. Chalmer's circular were intended to maintain."
    Then as to whether the Free Church could adequately execute the trust, the Commissioners stated—
    "It appears to us that if they were to undertake to administer them according to their terms they must almost certainly fail."

    431
    Parliament was, therefore, apprised of the fact that unless measures were taken, there must be a dereliction of trust. The Commissioners were anxious to give effect to the views of the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division; but they could not. They stated—
    "But there is no evidence that anything of the kind is even probable. At the utmost it may gain a few congregations or even a few thousands of additional adherents at the expense of a deplorable amount of animosity and bad feeling."
    Therefore, from the date of that Report the way was as clear as day if the Government wished to be loyal to the Commission and not to mix the matter up with anything else. But the Free Church, intoxicated with the view taken by the House of Lords of their legal rights, had done many strong things. They hurried on their interdicts, obtaining over fifty of them after they saw that the Royal Commission was likely to decide or had decided against them. They worked on the principle of the penny-in-the-slot. They put in the House of Lords' judgment and pulled out a church. A splendid idea front the Scottish point of view, because they had all the advantage of the penny-in the-slot arrangement, without even contributing the penny. Throughout all this there was one man who held a firm and just view. That was Lord Dunedin. His conduct was beyond all praise. He had heard both sides before appointing the Commission; then he acted with firmness, promptitude and decision. And as regarded the Commissioners they had every reason to be satisfied with the fulness and accuracy of the inquiry. He regretted that they had not been given a freer hand. That would have given more simplicity with reference to the framing of the Bill; and greater elasticity, freedom, and justice in working out the scheme. As to the pooling of funds he had heard the speech which the Lord Advocate addressed to the House with a great feeling of relief. The Free Church agreed to the original proposal of this Bill because they could put their hands into the general pocket and scoop out anything they desired for undefined purposes. The Commission said—
    "It is manifest that they can make no proper use of churches and manses in districts where
    432
    they have few or no adherents, and to turn real property appropriated to special purposes into money which might be applied to the general purposes of their Church would, in our opinion, amount to a breach of trust."
    Would the House believe it? That was the very breach of trust which this Bill in its original shape was going to sanction! He was glad to know that the pooling scheme had been abandoned. Still he should like to have the exact alteration which the Government proposed; and he would suggest the committal of the Bill pro forma in order that they might have an opportunity of seeing the changes in type.
    The Bill spoke of "adequate" provision for the Free Churches. What did that mean? Adequate provision had meant in the past a provision, the main portion, of which consisted of annual free will offerings on the part of the people themselves. But this Bill abandoned, or appeared to abandon that; it was merely a scheme for the creation of perpetual endowments, and that was a system which even the successful litigants could scarcely have the confidence to claim because it was a system which was inconsistent with their best traditions. To all appearance this was a body which would have little-living force or progress in the country, and he did not say this in any hostile sense because they were entitled to their belief, but they really appeared to be little hope of that Church ever growing into a great progressive body in Scotland. They were perpetuating a cause with little real vitality, and in religious matters the worst policy that could be adopted was to give permanence to the external body regardless of the vital spirit within. All over Scotland would be seen the spectacle of "Tulchan" churches, imitation calves stuffed with hay which were put down in front of the cows in order to help to extract milk from the cow. If separate endowments were to be set up, where were they to come from? Out of the offering of the members of the Free Church community as capitalised. And these bodies were to be set up, and were to be lodged in buildings given to them for nothing, and were to be supported by endowments to which they had not contributed a farthing. They would have just enough appearance of

    433
    establishment as to enable them to extract the milk from that good cow the United Free Church. It was very necessary, therefore, to get at the mind of the Government and see what they meant by adequate provision.
    With regard to the congregational arrangements he did not think the Government fully realised that they had in their hands material for settling the arrangements for the ownership of the churches in the model trust deed of the Free Church itself. That deed was most ably drawn, and had stood the tests of sixty years, and was ingenious, simple, and perfectly equitable. It was sufficient to remember that the Free Church had in view the fact that a question might arise as to which was the true Free Church, and in such event it settled what the arrangement was to be. This was the language of the Act of Assembly in 1844—
    "That the congregational property which is ordinarily to be regulated by the majority of the Assembly should, in the event of a split in the Church, be determined by a majority of the congregation, whatever the Courts of law may determine as to which of the contending parties is to be held to be the Free Church."
    The congregation in each case was to be allowed to determine that matter for itself and to determine it by a majority. They had, he thought, with regard to this matter, hotter go back to the old practice of the majority ruling, and that all these proposals as to thirds and fourths should disappear forever. That something of this kind had been expected was perfectly clear from what had happened in the history of the Free Church. And Lord Davey, who delivered judgment in the House of Lords, made utterances in the same sense. In a letter published in The Times on the 26th September Lord Davey said—
    "If I had been asked (which I was not) I should have suggested that each congregation should retain its property and be at liberty, by vote of the members, to join either one party or the other."
    But what had been going on? Take one or two instances, say the case of Campbelltown. The property was worth £10,000, there was an endowment of £1,180, a membership of 700, and there was an adherence of 430. There were nearly 2,000 souls attached to that congregation. On the 30th of August last, at the end of
    434
    the month in which the House of Lords judgment was pronounced, the Campbell town congregation met and decided formally that they would adhere to the Union, but on the 17th September the following advertisement appeared in the Argyllshire Herald, a paper published in Campbelltown—
    "All friends in Campbeltown and neighbourhood who adhere to the whole doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Free Church at the Disruption will please send me without delay their names and addresses, with a view to forming a congregation in connection with the said church."
    He remembered the Attorney-General for Ireland telling the House a story about an artist who said that the subject of his picture was "Adam before he was created." Here was a Free church which was not created until the 16th of September, and the House, would scarcely credit it, but that church so formed was, as the result of law proceedings, in the possession of the whole of the property, and nearly 2,000 souls had been evicted, only forty of the former members being in the property now. I Let men go back to 1900, because membership since then was possibly tempted by property. When they went back to 1900 they got rid of this scandal and got upon firm ground, but when they got back to 1900 they should not do a bad thing, they should not give to one quarter of a church that which ought to belong to the whole, when the three-quarters who were to go out were to get no compensation of any kind or description. It was clear to those who knew the facts that when once the quarter which was left was installed in these hugh properties they would crush them to the ground, whilst the majority of the people were abandoned to find places of religious worship for themselves. The entire community were in dignant at the idea, because they knew that these large and suitable properties, now that the majority had been excluded, would by-and-by fall into decay.
    What happened in the case of Dumbarton only the other day while this Bill was being discussed? In that case 924 members and 300 adherents were excluded from the magnificent building, which had been largely added to since the Union. Fourteen members only

    435
    remained, and those fourteen members got all the property, on which £3,500 had been spent since the Union. All this was very much akin to legalised piracy. With regard to the difference between the one-third and the one-fourth, there were some serious cases he would like the Government to consider. The minister of Rogart wrote—
    "We rebuilt the church and added a new hall. The work was begun in June, 1899, and finished in 1902 (two years after the Union). I, personally, gathered between £1,300 and £1,400. Under £40 represents the contributions of the legal Free Church. The whole cost £1,700, and I got £550 since the Union. … To hand over the whole under the third rule would be a cruel wrong to our own people."
    He, therefore, again put forward the plea that the majority should be preferred. There were places, such as Strathaird in Skye and Knock in the Island of Lewis, where the congregations were excluded from the churches, many of which were standing empty, and the people had to worship on the hillside or in caves by the seashore in circumstances of gross and cruel hardship. If any consideration were had to the equities of the case, note must be taken of the sources from which the money and property had been derived. Ninety-nine per cent. of the property had been contributed by those who were now attached to the Union. He hoped he had said enough to show that the Bill in these cardinal points must be amended, and amended in so specific a way that the House of Commons was entitled to see exactly where it stood.
    He was disinclined to enter upon the fifth Clause. It was a great pity that it had been introduced into the Bill as it had nothing whatever to do with any of the wrongs he had been describing. The Lord-Advocate had said that the Act of 1693 was passed by a strange Parliament. Yes, and it had taken two centuries to get such another strange Parliament to do what was now proposed. Without a Barrier Act and without the people of Scotland being consulted, this clause was inserted into a Bill which had nothing to do with the subject. Out of the Dissenters' extremity the Church of Scotland was finding what one of its ministers unctuously called a providential opportunity. English Nonconformists were entirely mistaken if they thought that Scottish Nonconformists, who knew
    436
    what it was to go out and suffer and to pay their own way, were deserting them in this instance. Their feeling was that the Bill was worthy of a Second Reading, but that this clause should not be passed by the House of Commons. It was proposed by this Bill to take away the personal and individual test which the Act of 1693 set up. But the Act of 1690 still contained the confession of the Church of Scotland, embodied in an Act of Parliament; it was to be the "public and avowed Confession" of the Church of Scotland. It was too mysterious, too casuistical, for him to understand how, if a document was the public and avowed Confession of the Church, a person was allowed to sign under a signature which meant that he privately disavowed that Confession. It was the Church's public and avowed belief, but the ministers' private and disavowed belief. He did not pretend to know how that could be squared, or how it was possible to make a signature of that kind without more troubles of conscience than existed under the present system.
    The Lord-Advocate had raised the question of whether they believed that Parliament should regulate, tighten, or slacken that bond. Personally he was reluctant to enter upon such topics, but, since the challenge had been made, he must speak his mind. He held that Parliament had nothing whatever to do with this question. He did not think it was the duty of the State to go beyond the relations between man and man. All his thinking life he had held that the work of civil polity was quite enough for the State, and that it was a presumptuous act on the part of any Parliament to attempt to regulate the relations of man with the Unseen. That general principle was confirmed by the experience of Scotland where freedom from State alliance had produced in religious matters a vitality and liberality such as the world had seldom seen, and a learning and erudition of acknowledged excellence all over the English-speaking world. The living contact of the people with the responsibilities of self-support and religious freedom from State control had done no injury whatever to religion, but, on the contrary, had been its bulwark. The freedom here sought

    437
    could never be conferred by the State. It was no right of the State to confer upon any Church its freedom, and that freedom could never be obtained except by separation from the State, even at the cost of defiance of the State. All Scotch history confirmed the view that wherever religion was vital and sincere it could pay its own way. He therefore deplored the unctuous references to the "providential interposition" and the "providential juncture" which enabled the State at this time of day to attempt to slacken the bond. If the people wanted freedom let them dare to be free by coming out. He would put the matter from a Parliamentary point of view in such a way as would, he thought, convince every man in the House. If this clause had had to be a Bill, as it might well have been, it would never have seen the light. No Government would ever have brought it in—amongst other reasons because the Church of Scotland itself had made no uncertain pronouncement on the subject. The matter had been discussed in the Assembly of the Church of Scotland. One of the most distinguished leaders of that Assembly, Principal Story, said in 1902—
    "Whether in the present condition of the British Parliament it was hopeful to approach it with a proposal in favour of such a change in the formula as they would desire was a very doubtful question."
    DR. Marshall, also a well-known leader, said—
    "Had a case been made out of such urgency that they should, at this time, enter upon the matter which, if it was entered upon, would bring with it momentous issues, it would lead to long and bitter controversy."
    Why had that long and bitter controversy, foreseen by the Established Church itself, been dovetailed into this measure for the relief of a great trust and a patrimonial wrong? Then Dr. Scott spoke his mind very plainly, saying—
    "He could not conceive it probable in the state of political opinion now, and for years to come, to go to Parliament to get rid of this formula. Their own people would rise against them—"
    There had been nothing in the way of consultation with the Church of Scotland on the matter, and on the testimony of
    438
    Dr. Scott their own people would rise against them. Dr. Scott continued—
    "Certainly the Dissenters of Scotland would rise against them; the Nonconformists of England would oppose them; and even those members of the Cabinet who were favourable would oppose them; because they had to depend as a Unionist Government on the votes of Nonconformists. They would till them, 'You wish to get rid of the statute; well, let us drop the connection between Church and State.'"
    Then Dr. Mair, a distinguished man of blunt expression, said—
    "He did not want to go into Parliament to make a fool of himself. The present Parliament would not handle such a question."
    This was only two years ago, and yet within a week of the Established Church passing the proposal it was embodied by the Government in a clause of this Bill! Dr. Scott also said—
    "If they went to the State to get a modification of the Confession of Faith or their relation to it, they would be opposed by their own people; they would be opposed by the whole Dissenters of Scotland; they would be opposed by their very friends in the Government; there could not be a more insane proposal than to go to the State and ask that modification."
    It was this "insane proposal" which was embodied in Clause 5. He altogether objected to the political surrender by the State of its powers. Reference had been made to the Act of 1865 with regard to the clerical subscription in England. The Act of 1865 was clearly in favour of quite a different course, and it allowed the State to see upon the face of the Statute-book how things stood, and in three different sections that was specifically provided for.
    While they sympathised with the objections raised to Clause 5, the House might take it from him that they were extremely anxious that there should be no division of opinion with regard to the Second Reading of this Bill. He perfectly well understood the position of his hon. friend the Member for Morley Division who had moved this Amendment, and he largely shared his views, but speaking from a Parliamentary point of view he thought this Bill ought to go through its Second Reading, leaving them all a free hand when this objectionable clause was reached. This Bill had been too long delayed, and although cramped and restricted it would remove an intolerable

    439
    wrong. In this long trial Scotland had stood well. Her sufferings in the past for religion's sake had ennobled her character and had taught her to put authority at no more than its proper value. Even should this Bill fail to pass, even that would not shake the tenacity of the Scottish character. But with proper despatch and concessions of Amendments such as he had asked for, this Bill would not fail. It was not a constructive Bill in the ordinary sense. There should be no mistake. This Bill truly reformed, truly inaugurated, nothing, but it was perhaps none the less valuable because it proposed to undo a great wrong which, whatever might be its legal aspect, was a wrong morally undeserved, and a wrong on a national scale which Parliament would do well at once to remedy.
    MR. ELLIOTsaid it occurred to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been dealing at great length with a state of things which a decision of the House of Lords had brought about, and he had pointed out that it was necessary to take some step if they were not going to face greater wrongs, possibly leading to the disturbance of peace. He imagined that the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking rather as the representative of one of the interested parties. He wished to say a few words upon the main principle of the Bill. They were now legislating to redress the effects of a judgment of the House of Lords. They might call it reversing that judgment or reversing the state of things which existed between two litigants upon which the House of Lords had given a decision. That was a very serious step for Parliament to take, because it meant practically that they were enacting by State authority that property which had been declared by the highest Court of Appeal in litigation to be the property of A should now become the property of B. He could not imagine a much higher action of a State authority than that. He thought, however, that State action was justified by the present condition of ecclesiastial affairs in Scotland. They had heard some remarks about the House of Lords with which he could not agree. The function of Courts of law
    440
    was to decide as to the rights of property between individuals, and they had to look to the principle which they laid down. Courts of law had not merely to look at a particular case which they had in hand, but they had to consider that if they laid down a principle in a particular case it might be extended to other particular cases. Hon. Members of this House, and still more persons outside, had criticised the Courts of law as if it was the duty of those Courts to decide who could make the best use of curtain property and who was best fitted to use it in the most advantageous way to the State. As Lord Robertson said with great point it was the function of a Court of law to see that property went to those to whom it belonged, and not to those whom it might best happen to fit. The State had now been called in to remedy a state of things which would produce disaster and trouble, and would probably lead to a disturbance of the peace in considerable portions of the United Kingdom if some remedy was not found. The reason for the interference of the State through Parliament had been proved by all the evidence of the case, and he would deal with it from that point of view. The Free Church might have some grievances, but the United Church evidently had been most harshly treated, and in a manner which it was quite impossible for them to allow to proceed.
    With regard to Clause 5, which really was the only important matter, he should be extremely surprised if any considerable portion of the Liberal Party went into the lobby to maintain a closer restriction in regard to religious tests, and he felt sure they would do their best to lighten the burden of those tests, and stand on the side of maintaining liberty of conscience. It had not been denied that this formula would serve to exclude from the Church of Scotland those who might very likely become the most respected and admired of the ministers of the future. He could not conceive a Liberal who boasted of Liberal principles coming forward and doing his best to maintain the rigidity of the tests, which would keep out broad-minded men whose only fault was that they were in unison with the sentiments

    441
    of their own age rather than with the sentiments of their ancestors who lived 200 years ago. He was quite aware that it might be held by that removing this burden from the Established Church of Scotland they were to some extent trenching on the rigidity of the established system. As had been pointed out by his hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford, there had always been the greatest distinction between State Establishment as understood in England and State Establishment as understood in Scotland, because the latter was recognised as involving a very considerable amount of legislative power. They had legislative power within limits and they were limited by Acts of Parliament. To declare, however, that they would not allow any relaxation of tests was to his mind asking the House of Commons to take up a more retrograde position than Parliament had taken up for the list thirty years. Let those who wanted greater liberty for - their churches get it step by step and not take up the position that they would have no more liberty because they could not free themselves absolutely and entirely from the State.
    All those views about the connection between Church and State and Church endowments wore from year to year undergoing very considerable change. They were undergoing a change in this direction. There was an idea that as time went on the Established Church and the voluntary Churches were insensibly becoming more like each other in regard to property. There was a time when the property of the Church of Scotland was common to the State, and when the great bulk of the wealth came from the State. That state of things had long passed. It was certainly the case that far less than half of its wealth was derived from the State. All the rest of its wealth came from the sources which furnished the great endowments of the Free Church before the union with the United Presbyterian Church. In respect of property the two Churches were constantly assimilating. He ventured to say also that the two systems were assimilating from the constitutional point of view, because there was more and more a tendency, rightly or wrongly, to give to Established Churches much greater liberty of self-
    442
    government, almost approaching the self-government given in voluntary Churches. In both these respects the Churches were rapidly assimilating the condition of things which lay at the basis of voluntaryism and Establishment. They ought to be a little on their guard as to giving liberty to a Church. Giving liberty to a Church when worked out generally meant giving liberty to a Church council or assembly. That might be a very different thing from giving liberty to the members of the Church. He ventured to say that there were Churches in existence in respect of which the interference of the State by the strong hand of the law, and the position which the State held in regard to the law, were a great security for liberty within those Churches. As to the main question dealt with in the Bill, he hoped they were all at one in desiring a remedy for the terrible state of things brought about by the House of Lords' decision. He hoped also that when the House came to divide on Clause 5 there would be no considerable majority of the Liberal Party who would go into the lobby to support the rigidity of tests.
    MR. CHARLES DOUGLASsaid the Bill when amended in Committee, as they hoped it would be, gave the prospect of the settlement of the difficult and distressing question which had agitated Scotland during the past year. It was a matter of practical urgency that this difficulty should be brought to a conclusion soon. In Scotland there was not only a sense of hardship and inconvenience in connection with this question, but this condition of things was aggravated by the strong consciousness of practical injustice in the working of the Church system at present. That was a state of matters which they could not remedy too early. He did not speak of the danger of breaches of social order, but he said it was a very bad thing for religion to have the state of feeling which they had in Scotland at the present moment. It was because he believed this matter to be so urgent that he deprecated the introduction into the Bill of Clause 5 dealing with the formula of the Church of Scotland. He thought it would have been better if this Bill had dealt only with the simple question of

    443
    restoring a proper state of matters in expect of the judgment of the House of Lords. The responsibility for the course which had been taken rested with the Government. It was a very grave responsibility. They would find it very difficult indeed to answer to the people of Scotland if they pursued an end other than that immediately concerned, however good that end might be, and thereby imperilled the passing of a Bill which was so urgently demanded by the condition of the Free Churches. The Government must be aware of that responsibility. They must take it as entirely of their own doing if difficulty arose in connection with this matter, and they must take it as entirely of their own doing if they protracted the state of hardship and bitterness which was working so much havoc in the religious life of Scotland just now.
    Since this question had been raised they must deal with it on its merits. He perfectly understood the apprehension on the part of his hon. friends which led them to oppose Clause 5 dealing with the Established Church of Scotland. He would appeal to them not to do anything to aggravate the danger which might exist of losing so important a Bill. They had made, and were making, a fair protest on a matter of principle. Nobody could dispute their absolute right to do so, but he sincerely hoped that they would allow this most essential piece of legislation to proceed without any undue delay. He wished them to appreciate the urgency of the matter, and also the great distinction there was, as the hon. Member for Stretford had pointed out, between the ecclesiastical system of Scotland and that of England. He could not help thinking that their apprehensions would be removed if they realised the extent to which the State Church in Scotland was a self-governing and democratic Church. It was not a Church governed clerically. It was a Church governed by the people constituting it. Surely it was an entirely different proposition to give liberty to the people of a Church to decide their own affairs from giving liberty to a certain number of clergymen to decide those affairs for them.
    He would explain in a few words why on the merits of this case he was
    444
    in favour of the general policy of the proposal in the Bill without committing himself to any of the details. He supported Clause 5 because it embodied the traditional claim of the Scottish Church to be free to regulate its own spiritual affairs. That was a claim which had been made up to the time of what was called the Disruption in 1843. It was made not only by those who afterwards became the free Church of Scotland, but by the whole of the Church of Scotland, although they did not all take the same course when their claim was denied. If this House chose to admit sixty years afterwards what most of them in Scotland thought ought to have been admitted long ago, he did not see why those who had always held that it was a just claim should deny it now. He did not deny that it was a claim inconsistent with the bond between Church and State. It was inconsistent with that. He did not think it was a position in which they could permanently lest that a Church was to be specially recognised by the State and yet remain free to regulate all its own affairs. He thought the error lay not in the claim of freedom of doctrine but in the bond which brought that freedom into question at the hands of the State. He regarded this clause as in reality a step away from State connection—a loosening of the bond which existed between Church and State in Scotland. Whether that was so or not, he would ask those who wished to bring about a dissolution of the bond between Church and State by making the bond more galling to reconsider so dangerous and serious a view. He did not think they should seek disestablishment by that which would cause injury to religion.
    After all, these questions of government were questions of machinery—questions of ways and means to an end. But they ought not to injure or retard the religious life of the country merely in order to prove that their own theory of the proper relation between Church and State was the best. Do not let them sacrifice in any degree the end to the means, and do not let them destroy the result simply in order that they might make the machinery theoretically more perfect. For his part he

    445
    believed that the case for the absolute equality of all religions was unanswerably strong. Do not let them travesty it by trying to bind Churches by law in the name, above all things, of a religious freedom. Let them go past forms, past theoretical constructions, and consider the reality that was behind the desire to have a formula making the relation of the individual to the Confession more visible. Surely they ought to do everything they could to simplify the situation for a man entering on the ministry. They should ask themselves, if they thought of opposing Clause 5, whether it was necessary for them—and unless it was necessary they should not do it—to say that every man entering the Church should be able to conform to what was required in the seventeenth century, or whether it was not enough that he should be able as an honest man to satisfy the Church which he sought to serve that he was substantially at one with it in faith and purpose.
    There was another aspect of this question which was of very real importance, namely, that while the Church of Scotland derived certain material advantages from the State, these, as the hon. Member for Durham had pointed out, were not its only resources. As a matter of fact, the Church of Scotland had very large property which was derived from exactly those sources from which the property of the Free Church came. It had property in the shape of £4,500,000 worth of endowments which had been contributed voluntarily to the Church. They ought to remember that in view of the decision of the House of Lords—on which he did not wish to express any opinion—the whole position of this property was imperilled. Supposing that the Church of Scotland were to desire to enter into a union with another Church which did not take exactly the view which the Confession of Faith took. As things stood, without Clause 5 in the Bill, it would be open to any minority of that Church to take possession not merely of all those resources which that Church derived from its connection with the State, but of all the resources provided by private persons to forward the interests of religion in Scotland within that Church. When
    446
    that danger had been revealed for the first time by the decision of the House of Lords, surely it was not unreasonable that they should wish to protect the Church of Scotland against that which all recognised to have been inequitable and intolerable in the case of the United Free Church. What was unjust in the one case, should not be allowed to take place in the other. He desired to see greater freedom of conscience, greater power of development, and greater security for the trusts committed to them in the case of all the Scotch Churches; and on these grounds he felt bound to give his support to Clause 5 at every stage.
    But there were other matters which he wished the Government to take seriously into consideration. He was quite sure that the Government quite realised that they must make this Bill a reasonable and permanent settlement. They welcomed the changes which had been foreshadowed in the speech of the Lord - Advocate, for the maintenance of the purposes of the trusts, and the inclusion within the Bill of all the property which could possibly be dealt with in the future; and, above all, the assurance that the bona fides of members and adherents of the Free Church should be strictly regarded by the Commission to be appointed. He sincerely regretted the change which the been suggested as to the number of persons in the Free Church who were to be allowed to claim to be a congregation. It was a large enough order to allow one-third of the old congregation to claim the property without respect to the rights of the remaining two-thirds; but when the proportion was reduced to one-fourth a step was taken which made it very difficult for the majority of any such congregation in any degree to acquiesce in. The Lord-Advocate had been engaged lately in trying to arrange a compromise, and he did not for a moment wish to blame the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the time had come when the question of compromise must be left on one side and when they must really make a respected and enduring settlement. By all means let provision be made for all the personal rights and interests of those who took great risks when they entered

    447
    into the action which they had gained. They should receive full consideration at the hands of the Government; but, in regard to property, the facts and the substance of the case must also be considered. He did not for one moment wish to speak in a partisan spirit, but the public, moral, and religious interests of Scotland ought not to be sacrificed to any temporary convenience or bargain. From the point of view of the United Free Church he thought it would be a very serious calamity for the whole Presbyterian Church in Scotland if the United Free Church were to be impoverished; but it would be a far greater calamity if the Free Church were unduly and unnecessarily enriched. That would be a positive evil and danger to the religious life of Scotland, because after a time, he believed, the Free Church would grow weaker, and in many districts, especially in the Highlands, there would be nothing left of it except its endowments. They might call it the Free Church to the crack of doom, but it was not to be compared to a National Church and it was not willing to be free. It ought not to be treated as a large and growing factor in the religious life of Scotland. All this doctrine about its being the nucleus of a great Church was fraught with disaster to Scottish religious life; and he begged the Government to face the facts of the situation and endow the Royal Commission with full powers to make an enduring settlement.
    MR. PERKSsaid that the subject of this Bill was of deep interest to the whole of the English Nonconformists, and one portion of it would certainly receive their strongest opposition. They were engaged at the present moment in taking away, by the paramount force of Parliament, property from a small ecclesiastical section of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland which had been declared by the Courts of law to be the rightful owners thereof, and transferring it to another section of the religious community of that country. That was a position which had been absolutely justified by the relative position of the two Churches in Scotland and by the clear necessities of the religious and moral progress of Scotland. The Government had presented an alternative to the
    448
    United Free Church which he could not help thinking was a cruel alternative. The Government said, in effect, that the United Free Church must leave their religious brethren in Scotland in a state of friction and of religious persecution, or else accept a clause in this Bill which was repugnant—although it might be accepted by a few members of the United Free Church—to the greater portion of the members of Scottish Nonconformity. They had been told in the course of this debate that English Nonconformists ought not to intervene in this particular issue, even on Clause 5 of the Bill. But surely they were not to accept the doctrine that in ecclesiastical, educational, or social questions they were not to interfere with the local opinion of other portions of the United Kingdom. The Church to which he belonged had considerable interests, religious, educational, and otherwise, in Scotland, and it was their duty to inquire how Clause 5 of this Bill was going to affect these and the interests of other religious federations. The Methodist Church in Scotland was far more numerous than this little Highland Church with its twenty-seven ministers. It had more congregations and raised a great deal more money; but it had more rigid ecclesiastical tests than either the United Free Church or the Free Church. He did not suppose that the Prime Minister had had occasion to study the constitution of the Scottish Methodists; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that they were tied up by more rigid conditions than those contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith. No Methodist minister in Scotland, or in England for that matter, could preach any doctrine which was not supposed to be discovered inside the standards of Methodism—which were John Wesley's sermons and his notes on the New Testament. If he did not do that he could be evicted from his church and could no longer be recognised as a Methodist minister or preacher.
    They had to look at this Bill in view of certain union movements which were to take place in several of the Free Churches of this country. At the present moment there was a very strong movement for the union of three

    449
    of the minor Churches of Methodism which split away more than half a century ago for a variety of reasons. If the union of these Churches was effected they would have to come to Parliament for authority, and when they came with their scheme to Parliament would be told that they could not be allowed to vary their original constitution, that they could not reunite, and that they would have to remain under conditions of antagonism, rivalry, and isolation, unless they liked to give to the Church of England some freedom in connection with its formulas. That was what they were bound to consider, as English Dissenters, in looking at this Bill. Nothing had been more striking during the last twenty-five years than the way the Methodist Church had been drawing away from the Church of England and assuming and exercising absolutely independent rights of her own. And that movement was likely to continue. This Bill was, therefore, a dangerous precedent to set to the Church of England, and it was the duty of English Dissenters to oppose it.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have listened with interest to the brief, but very clear, statement which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has given of his views, but I frankly admit that, to my thinking, his argument was one, not against Clause 5, but in favour of Clause 5. What is the legislative future which the hon. Gentleman pictures for this House? He says, and, in my judgment, he says with perfect truth, that it will in the future be found that the assent and assistance of this House is required in order to enable some of the great Nonconformist Churches in England to develop, to unite, to obtain that measure of spiritual freedom which is not always attained by separation from the State; and I can assure him that, in the prospect which he thus holds out, I for one shall always be found upon the side of union and upon the side of freedom. But how he thinks that either the cause of union or the cause of freedom can be furthered by this parlous objection to the smallest alteration being made in the Act of 1693 in relation to the Scottish
    450
    Established Church altogether passes my comprehension. I do not wish to go into the niceties of argument which from time immemorial have been raised when questions of the relations between Church and State have come before either secular or ecclesiastical tribunals. In truth, the history, not merely of the Protestant Church, but of all Churches, is largely taken up with attempting to find some clear, logical, impeccable formula which shall, in unmistakable terms, determine the precise relation in which the civil power should stand to the spiritual. No such formula has ever yet been found; no such formula, in my opinion, ever will be found. And for a very plain and pregnant reason, which is that human society and the interests of various portions of human society are so intimately interwoven, and are so absolutely inseparable in practice, that, devise what theories you please, lay down what principles you like, you will always find the spiritual interfering with the secular, and you will never be able to avoid the secular interfering with the spiritual.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Oh.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think not. And could I have a better proof of it than the speech which has just been made? The hon. Gentleman has told us that in the interests of the spiritual welfare of the great religious community to which he belongs, he looks forward to coming to this House for assistance in dealing with property, no doubt, in the first case; but you cannot deal with charitable religious trusts without touching the doctrine; connected with them. It cannot be done; and, although there is not any mention in this Bill of any formulas of either of the two Churches to which the Bill primarily belongs, can anybody deny that, implicitly if not explicitly, this House is creating, aid cannot help but create, a religious trust? And directly you create a religious trust you must, explicitly or implicitly, settle on what religious terms that religious trust is to be held.
    MR. PERKS: May I say that the Methodist Church has been twice to Parliament, dealing with millions worth of property, and on neither occasion has

    451
    Parliament thought it desirable or necessary to interfere with the religious trusts by which such property is held.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood the hon. Gentleman looked forward to a period when he and his friends would have to apply to this House on a question on which their existing trusts, which are bound up with religion, with formulas, with doctrine, which are inseparable from doctrine—
    MR. PERKS: Not our doctrinal truses. On our constitutional union we should have to come to Parliament, but not for any variation of our doctrinal trusts.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know the precise terms on which the trusts of the Wesleyan Church are held; but if that great religious Church carries with it any doctrinal significance at all, and I presume it does, then if the doctrinal terms are to be altered, the Wesleyan Church will have to come to this House to enable it to retain the property while altering its formulas. And for my own part—I do not speak for anybody else; other people may, and do, take a stricter view of the nature of religious trusts than I do—I shall always be found on the side of union and on the side of freedom. But do not let anybody imagine that by any refinements of logic you will ever be able wholly to separate the interests of an ecclesiastical body from that great secular organisation of which, after all, it is a part, from which it derives its authority, and by whose support, and by whose support alone, it retains its property. After all, let it be remembered, when appeals have been made to us, as they have been made, not to destroy the utility of the United Free Church by depriving it of its property, or what is supposed to be its property, that, in itself, is an appeal to Cæsar, as was said by my hon. friend the Member for Durham.
    I myself think there is a good deal of confusion about this question of spiritual independence as it was conceived by our forefathers, and as it is conceived at the present time at any rate by large bodies of Christians. I feel confident that no student of ecclesiastical history will ever suppose
    452
    that those who struggled for spiritual independence struggled for the right to modify their creed. They never took it into their heads that their creed either could be modified, or ought to be modified, without serious spiritual danger to the whole religious body to which they belonged. Now when people talked of spiritual independence they did not mean the desire simply to keep as free as possible from State interference. They mean also the power not to modify the fundamental and essential doctrines which lay at the basis of their religions creeds, but to modify those formulas of subscription which time inevitably makes old, which the progress of knowledge, the changes that take place in the sphere of philosophy and the sphere of criticism, the changes which no formulas will guard you against, render somewhat inappropiate to the religious needs of any given time. These two meanings are quite distinct; and when I hear hon. Gentlemen talk as though they were now struggling, as though they now desired, to retain the sort of spiritual independence of which our forefathers spoke, I think they have not taken adequate account of the great change which has taken place, no in one body of Christians, but in all bodies of Christians, not in one Church, but in all Churches.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYmade an observation which was quite inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are not suggesting any change. It is historic fact. I think a change has taken place, and I think every Church is conscious of it, The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down told us that he had reason to believe that the great body of the United Free Church in Scotland were opposed to Clause 5 of the Bill. I believe he did that great body an injustice. He also talked as if we had deliberately tried to put a pistol to the head of the United Free Church and to say to them, "We know you strongly object on conscientious grounds to doing anything in regard to the Act of 1693, but unless you will do this violence to your beliefs you cannot

    453
    have that relief from Parliament which otherwise we should be ready to give you." Sir, just as I think the hon. Gentleman greatly misrepresented the views of the United Free Church when he said that they objected to this relaxation, so he certainly has greatly misrepresented the views of His Majesty's Government in introducing this clause into the Bill. We desire no corrupt bargain in the matter. It was no question of do ut des, no question of giving up on either side a cherished conviction.
    Mr. WHITLEY: Why not make it into two Bills?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, if it were in two Bills it would not pass. [Ironical cheers.] May I ask what there is in that perfectly plain and candid statement to provoke ironical cheers? Is that a discreditable motive, is that a Parliamentary intrigue, is that a course which any statesman need be ashamed to take? On the contrary, I think it is plainly justified and plainly consistent with common sense and common prudence.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: May I ask, as we were challenged for the reason for cheering, why would it not pass in two Bills, if it is so excellent and good a thing?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, now, did anybody ever hear anything like that? The right hon. Gentleman listens every day to a cross fire which I have to undergo at Question time with regard to measures as to which it is impossible for me to promise the smallest hope that we shall be able to pass them into law this session. They are all good Bills, all excellent measures; does that secure their passage? Does the right hon. Gentleman's experience of his own period of office suggest that all the good Bills which he and his friends contrived to devise, because they were good, were therefore likely to pass? We all know under what pressure legislation is carried on in this House, we all know the difficulties which beset
    454
    its path. We think that this clause is really relevant to the interests of Presbyterianism in Scotland; and in dealing with what will be a great settlement of a great Presbyterian difficulty we think that we are amply justified in taking the course we are taking. I defend that on general grounds as well as on particular grounds.
    I spoke just now of the interests of Presbyterianism in Scotland. I refuse to regard the interests of the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland except under the broader formula of the interests of Presbyterianism in Scotland. The hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs was good enough to praise some words which fell from me long before this unhappy controversy arose, on the occasion or the junction of the then United Presbyterian Church and the then Free Church. Sir, I withdraw nothing that I then said. I rejoiced in that union; I mourn over the separation which has since taken place. I regret it. I think it is melancholy. I look forward in the future, perhaps not in the near future, but in the future, to a union amongst all these bodies. All of them sprang from one fountain - head. The paths which they have severally pursued have never widely deviated so far as doctrine or theology is concerned; and though there have been controversies, bitter controversies, they have been connected, not, as I think, and not, I believe, as any impartial critic will think, with the essential doctrines of religion, but rather with the external relations of the Church and the State. Still, surely, it is not beyond the powers of Christian wisdom, and that which is the root of Christian wisdom, Christian charity, to do something in the future which will heal these most unnecessary wounds, self - inflicted, as I think, upon the great body of the Presbyterian Church in times gone by. That is a general reason why I think anything which is germane to one of the greatest of these bodies, the parent, after all, of all of them, is not out of place when we are dealing with the best interests of the United Free and the Free Church.
    But I think there is a more particular and even closer reason why you

    455
    should do this thing. I think that the judgment of the House of Lords, and especially some observations made by the Lord Chancellor in the course of that judgment have, rightly or wrongly, made many of the adherents of every Presbyterian Church in Scotland consider whether the precise formulas of subscription, which in the case of clergy of the Church of Scotland we owe to the Act of 1693, ought not to be modified. Let me remind those Members of the House who are not Scottish Members of a reason which affects the Church of Scotland in a manner in which it can affect no other religious body that I know of, certainly none on this side of the Tweed, and certainly not the Church of England The ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of Scotland are the absolute arbiters in all cases of heresy; that is to say, the test whether a man has or has not violated the ecclesiastical and theological principles of the Church goes, not to any civil tribunal or any tribunal with a civil admixture, but to ecclesiastical Courts with which the civil tribunals have no title whatever to interfere. And who constitute these tribunals? They are constituted, as everybody knows, of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; and in that General Assembly there is, if not a half, very nearly a half of lay elders. The lay elders, therefore, are a part of the spiritual organisation of the Church. They are not merely members, but a part of its spiritual organisation. They form an element in its Courts. They have power of deciding on the great questions on which the Church is the only arbiter. The Church has the power of deciding the formula of subscription of these office-bearers, and it has decided it, and decided in a very wise, sober, and conservative spirit, which makes it perfectly certain, I think, that no liberty that will be given to the Established Church is likely to be abused.
    But is there not an extraordinary inconsistency in giving the Church liberty to settle the terms of subscription of some of its office-bearers and denying any liberty of settling the terms of subscription of other office-bearers? Mind, it is bound in both cases by the Act of 1690. It is not
    456
    suggested in this Bill that any power should be given to the Church to depart from the Act of 1690, or to prove faithless to the sum and substance of the Reformed doctrine as set forth in the Westminster Confession. That is not proposed, and I do not believe that any power of that sort is even claimed by the United Free Church, although I believe that they arrogate to themselves, and perhaps rightly, a theoretical claim to alter their formulas and make themselves into Roman Catholics or members of the Orthodox Church, or of any Church which exists or ever has existed. Whether a liberty of that kind is of any value I do not know, but I am sure that it will never be exercised by the United Free Church. They will do in the future as they have done in the past; they will do in the future what I hope the Church of Scotland will be permitted to do—they will adhere to the sum and substance of the doctrine of the Reformed Church, and they will not put aside as a statement of useless historical doctrines the Westminster Confession, which has borne so marvellous a part in educating and developing the mind and the religious feeling of the people of Scotland.
    Now, Sir, the point I want to press on the House is that until the Lord Chancellor gave his judgment it was possible—I think it is still possible, but it was not only possible, but easy, before that—for the members of the Church of Scotland to say that the Ecclesiastical Courts were really the authority that determined the theology of the Scottish Church, and that doctrines which were never regarded as heretical by the Church Courts were doctrines which might be held and preached by the ministers of the Church. I do not myself individually dissent from that view now. Speaking for myself, I should be inclined to hold it still. But if you do not introduce this fifth Clause you will touch the consciences, perhaps the over-sensitive consciences, of many of those who are anxious to be ordained, who are ready to devote their lives to the spiritual interests of the Church, become its ministers, and preach its doctrines, but who examine, with perhaps over-scrupulous care, the terms of

    457
    subscription and do not take into account those broader considerations to which I individually should be inclined to give so much weight. Cannot we, ought not we to do something for these people? Is it not monstrous unfairness to say to them, "The theology of the Established Church does not differ from the theology of the United Free Church, but the way to the one is barred, and the way to the other is not barred." It is no question, of course, of competition for ability. The House will not suspect me of looking at it from so poor and mean a level. But I think it is a very great hardship that you should allow a man with conscientious views, such as I have described, to be an elder of the Church, to be a member of the General Assembly of the Church and to form part of the Court which judges cases of heresy, but should not allow him to be a minister of the Church. I think it is a great absurdity. I think it is worse than an absurdity. I think it is a great hardship.
    As to those who think we are uprooting the historical foundations of the Church of Scotland, may I remind them that the legislative Charter of the Scottish Church is not the Act of 1693, which Clause 5 does touch, but the Act of 1690, which Clause 5 does not touch. It may seem a paradox, but it is nevertheless a historical truth that the Act of 1693 was more or less forced upon the Scottish Church in the interest, strangely enough, of what would now be called liberal theology. The Act of 1693 was passed by William III. in order to compel the Scottish Church to admit certain ministers who had been Episcopalians and whom the Church was desirous of excluding from the ministry at the time of the Revolution. It is that stringent Act which was then passed, strangely enough, in the interest of so-called liberalism, and that Act alone, which we propose to alter. What was thought sufficient for the mother Church of all Scottish Presbyterians at the time of the great Reformation settlement surely is enough for the Established Church of Scotland in the year 1905? I venture to claim that, while doing an act of justice to the members of the Scottish Church and doing it in a Bill which, in my judgment, is strictly relevant to that object, we are doing it in
    458
    a manner so moderate, so constitutional, and so carefully observant of all the traditions and foundations of Presbyterianism in Scotland, that I do not believe even those who are most anxious to stand by the old ways, those who are most suspicious of all modern innovation, can, in truth, find any just reason to complain of our action.
    MR. FINDLAY, speaking from personal knowledge of the circumstances, said the desire for union which had gone on for many years matured during 1900. A small minority dissented, and the present troubles grew out of that dissent. The United Free Church represented one-fourth of the whole population of Scotland, while not 2 per cent. of the population was connected with what was known as the legal Free Church. It was believed that the union would open up a new era in the religious life of Scotland. As a member of the United Presbyterian Church, he had his own views on certain matters which had been introduced into the Bill. He respected the small minority of ministers who did not feel disposed to enter the union, but he could not fail to realise that they represented on this question a dying; cause, and one which could not in the spirit of the age make progress, whereas the United Free Church, notwithstanding the past year of great peril, had gone on progressing, and raised over a million of money, and had shown a spirit and heart which they should all rejoice to see in connection with Christian work.
    In regard to the judgment given in August last, he could not permit himself to express his opinion of it. He did not regard this Bill as an appeal to Cæsar. The United Free Church did not ask for liberties which it did not possess already. The judgment, which had been characterised by many as a monstrous injustice, had required the United Free Church to come to Parliament to get the wrong righted. The conscience of Scotland in regard to the equity of the situation had been aroused, and a demand had been raised for a speedy judgment and a free-handed Executive Commission to deal equitably with the matter at issue. He felt privileged at being in Parliament

    459
    when this great issue was before it, and it would be a great satisfaction if he were able to help in righting the wrong which had been done. He hoped the Bill would quickly pass, and that the result would be to restore harmony in Scotland and enable that Church which had shown such marvellous recuperative power to continue its great work not only for Scotland but for the nation and the Empire. He regarded the introduction of Clause 5 as a mistake, but he hoped the Bill would be pushed through and put an end to the litigation and heart-burning which they all regretted.
    *SIR WALTER THORBURNdeeply regretted that the old sore had to some extent been reintroduced into this debate. The desire of the House—at all events the object which he and many others had in view—was to bring back peace and concord to Scotland. No one was more sincerely anxious than he to see a just and equitable settlement of this question. He regretted it had not beef possible for the two parties to meet in conference and arrive at a settlement which Parliament would have been only too glad to confirm, as it would pass the wit of man to frame a measure which would be considered just by all parties, and he doubted whether even the Angel Gabriel could satisfactorily perform the task. Being a member of the Church itself he approached the question with an absolutely unbiassed mind. The Church of Scotland had admittedly endeavoured to steer an even keel between the parties. Whatever settlement was arrived at he was anxious to see just, and even generous, treatment given to the smaller body, the great majority of the congregations of which would be non-self-supporting. He wished most sincerely to see the United Free Church put in possession of ample means to carry out the great work which must fall upon it. A very large proportion of the congregations which would remain connected with the United Free Church were wealthy congregations; but at the same time he wished to see absolute justice meted out to them in connection with this matter. He was very glad indeed to notice that his right hon. friend the Lord-Advocate had deemed it fit and proper to make con-
    460
    cessions in connection with this Bill. The Lord-Advocate was in possession of all the facts, and knew exactly what means the Church had at its disposal, and he was therefore in a better position to judge than hon. Members of this House who were not so familiar with the facts. Consequently he was glad to find that the Lord-Advocate saw his way to provide for the Free Church, and at the same time to avoid what was considered objectionable by the members of the United Free Church, namely, the pooling of all the resources of the Church.
    He was in favour of giving large powers to the Executive Commission. The was upon that Commission a number of gentlemen of whom no one in Scotland could deny that they were high-minded and honourable, and he felt sure that they would give the most careful and independent consideration to everything that was put before them. They would hear all the evidence pro and con, and he was convinced that whatever judgment they propounded would be looked upon by the vast majority of the people of Scotland as being satisfactory and in the interests of justice. He felt that although their judgment might not be agreeable either to one or both of the bodies immediately concerned, at the same time he felt certain that their judgment would be founded on justice.
    With regard to the 5th Clause, only the same liberty was being asked for the Church of Scotland as was enjoyed by the two other bodies. He did not know anyone in Scotland who objected on principle to the passing of Clause 5. It was admitted on all hands that this clause was desirable, and, if it was desirable, surely the House should not object to puss it. He regretted very much that hon. Members connected with the Nonconformist bodies of England had seen fit to interfere in this debate, and to move a Resolution which, if passed, would prove fatal to this Bill. Personally, he felt that those hon. Members were more actuated by the deliberations of the Liberation Society than by any particular interest in the settlement of this question. He looked upon the passing of Clause 5 as the first and most important step towards that greater

    461
    union which he hoped was not very far distant. He believed it would pave the way for parties coming together, and the greatest aspiration of his life was to see all the Presbyterian bodies of Scotland united under one National Presbyterian Church. At the present time there was not the slightest doubt that both in the home field and in the mission field there was an enormous amount of overlapping, and this would be avoided by the union which he hoped to see brought about before very long. He trusted that if a division was pressed upon this question at any rate all hon. Members for Scotland would vote against this Resolution, and he hoped sincerely that when they divided upon the Second Reading of this measure it would be read a second time with very little difference of opinion between hon. Members representing Scotland.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid that his hon. friend appeared to have based his remarks almost entirely upon the speech which preceded his own, and which he confessed himself not able entirely to comprehend. Therefore, perhaps, he would be pardoned if he endeavoured to put what he believed to be the position of English Nonconformists in this matter. First of all, he felt confident that as long as the Church was established they had a right to take an interest in its proceedings and its methods, and, indeed, in both the creed and the formula of the Established Church. Otherwise why was the Church established and connected with the State. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared freely to admit that they had a right as Members of Parliament to take an interest in any Church that was by law established. So much for the justification of hon. Members taking an interest in a Bill which did not appear at first sight to affect their particular part of these islands. In his opinion there was a question of great importance brought in by Clause 5 of this Bill. They had been told over and over again that all Clause 5 did was to alter the formula of subscription for the Westminster Confession. Surely if the creed or Confession of the Church was out of date they ought to be able to alter it, and he entirely agreed with the Prime
    462
    Minister in the view that men ought not to be "cabined and confined" to the formula of bygone ages. He would like to see the utmost liberality and freedom in the revision of creeds which, after all, were not divine, but were merely the attempts of men putting into words what their conception for the time being was of the ideas they were trying to preach. To come forward with the proposal to relax the doctrinal requirements of a Church by means of retaining the creed as it was and altering the formula of subscription seemed to him not exactly a straightforward proceeding. They must look on this matter not merely as it affected the comfort of a particular Church. The chief thing was not the comfort of persons in a Church, but the effect on the Church as a mission to those outside the Church. His chief objection to the proposal lay in the fact that this was a step toward relaxation not by the courageous method of revising a creed out of date, but by inventing some formula of subscription which might ease tender consciences. The effect of this on the opinion of those outside the Church was not likely to lead to the effectual carrying out of the mission in which the Church was engaged. He believed the Prime Minister would agree with him entirely in that. He did not like to use the word dishonest, but it seemed to him a little evasive to alter the formula of subscription while retaining the creed unaltered.
    What kind of formula were they to have under Clause 5? It was not stated in the Bill. It might be altered, he presumed, from time to time. He would ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be possible to draw up a formula to enable a person to subscribe to the Westminster Confession in a frame of mind such as that which was shown in the right hon. Gentleman's most interesting book "Foundations of Belief." He had no doubt that such a formula could be invented. While he and his friends were certainly in favour of the utmost liberty in doctrinal matters, and ready to do all they could to enable not only this Church butall Churches to march with the progress of knowledge and of thought, they could not see that either by the device of Clause 5, or by retaining

    463
    State control over a Church, those ideals could ever be reached.
    With regard to the endowments of the legal Free Church—the smell minority which won the case in the House of Lords—he said as a Free Churchman that he believed there was no greater evil which they could do to a Church than to provide money which would remove the incentive to effort. The words "to provide adequately for the free Church" as they stood in the Bill meant that out of the moneys belonging to the United Free Church enough was to be taken to support the ministers and fabrics—in fact, to provide the money required in full and ample quantity for this tiny Church consisting of about twenty-six congregations. It was a proposal to endow that Church with an amplitude of money which would make them independent of any of their own efforts. As a Free Churchman he said there was no surer way to kill a Church than to do that. Although a particular Church might ask for, and wish to get, as much money as they could get the right hon. Gentleman would find, if be considered that aspect of the question, that the most cruel thing he could do to any Church was to endow them in such a way that no effort was required from their own supporters.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid the Bill was the result of litigation between the majority and the minority of the members of the Free Church in order to determine their rights as to the property of the Church at the time of the union with the United Presbyterian Church. The result of the litigation had been to deprive the majority of all property in the Church, the whole of it being given to the minority. The Royal Commission had reported that the minority was not in a position to carry out the trust which had been handed to them by the House of Lords, and in these circumstances Parliament was called upon to legislate in order that a trust which had practically lapsed or become inoperative might be made operative. It made no difference to Parliament what was the purpose of the trust. It might, as in this case, be a Church, or it might be an educational endowment, or it might be
    464
    a beneficiary scheme. In all cases Parliament dealt with the trust and endeavoured to legislate in such a manner as to make the trust operative, having regard to the changed circumstances, with the view of carrying out the intentions of the donor. He quite agreed that the decision of the House of Lords was a final judgment of a Court of law in this matter, and he also agreed that any action which this House might take must be based on principle. Therefore, as the Lord-Advocate had stated, the first consideration should be the adequate provision for the due performance of the purposes for which the funds were raised. Neither was he disposed to quarrel very much with the Lord-Advocate's second proposal that the-provision made for the equipment of the Free Church must be according to the standard in other Presbyterian Churches.
    Now, Churches did not exist for private profit; if that had been the case the House of Lords would have distributed the money at once to the parties legally entitled to it. There was this peculiarity about Church properties, that they were endowments gathered up for the purpose of carrying on the work of the Church and in order to aid the voluntary efforts and self-sacrifices of these who carried on the work of the Church. Therefore, in carrying out the trust it was not a question of giving money to this person or that, but of imposing on the Church which got the money a burden in order that she might carry out the trust by an equipment suitable to the number of its members. He quite recognised that the minority were entitled to some consideration. They were conscientiously opposed to the Church going into the Union, and they fought their case in the Courts of law, and succeeded in the end in vindicating their rights. On the other hand, he had considerable sympathy for the United Free Church, and for this reason; that that Church separated from the Established Church in 1843 on the ground that they desired the Church to have spiritual independence, and to have the right to legislate on Church matters free from State control. The Free Church was told at that time that they could not be a State Church and receive State endowments, and at the same time have

    465
    spiritual independence. On being told so, the ministers and members of the Free Church at once acquiesced in the situation, gave up their churches, manses, and all their other property, and formed themselves into a Church founded and supported entirely on the free-will offerings of the people. Having done that, they naturally thought that the Church had obtained her freedom. The very object of a constitution was to protect the rights of a minority, and to bind down the Church to a certain course of action. The effect of a constitution was to bind the Church as a whole, and it enabled the Law Courts to come in and interpret the contract. That was exactly what was done in this case. The Free Church founded itself on a purely voluntary principle, by which he meant the principle of self-sacrifice and of paying their own way. Many of the members stated that they still adhered to the Establishment principle, and that they would prefer to be an Established Church, but having been told that that was impossible so long as they maintained the principle of spiritual independence, they accepted the situation, and the Establishment principle then became a merely academic question, and the Free Church thereafter was carried on in every respect as a purely voluntary Church.
    What, then, was the position of the Free Church and of the United Presbyterian Church? They found that in Scotland there was a good deal of over-lapping in Church work, and they came to the conclusion that, as they were both voluntary Churches, they should unite on the basis of being supported by the free-will offerings of the people. They took the very highest legal opinion in Scotland on the subject, and that opinion was that a union would be perfectly lawful, and that it could be accomplished without any danger to their funds or their property. The Scotch Law Courts also unanimously decided in favour of the Union. What more could an association of persons for Church and religious purposes have done to protect themselves than to act according to the highest legal opinion in Scotland, corroborated by the unanimous opinion of the Scotch Bench? The
    466
    decision of the House of Lords had certainly caused the greatest surprise throughout the whole of Scotland, and the members and ministers of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church were in no way to blame for the result. Forty years ago he had to do with a similar matter when the Reformed Presbyterian Church united with the Free Church. He was in the position of advising the minority in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, who wanted to claim the property of that Church, and he took the view that the property must go with the majority. He was as satisfied then, as the House of Lords was now satisfied, that the minority had a good title to claim the property of the Reformed Presbyterian Church; but if they had got that property it would have been a trust which would have had to be carried out at great expense. What he advised, then, was that they should hold fast; and now, by virtue of the House of Lords decision, they had the whole property.
    Reference had been made to Clause 5. He considered that it ought not to have been introduced into the Bill at all. It had no relation to it. What Parliament was doing was practically settling a dispute between two private parties respecting private property. If the matter had been dealt with by a Committee upstairs it would have been held that the Church of Scotland had no locus standi. The Act of 1693 imposed certain formulas on the Church; but anyone who was a lawyer would know that in a Church there was not only spiritual jurisdiction, but civil rights. It was not sufficient to hold that a clergyman must be bound by the Confession of Faith; he got the living through the patron, and that was a civil right which the ecclesiastical Courts could not interfere with. In 1693 it Was necessary to bring in an Act of Parliament to make it obligatory on ministers to sign the Confession of Faith; and under that Act the Civil Courts were given jurisdiction. He thought it was a mistake that Clause 5 should have been introduced into the Bill at all. There was no use in saying that the Church of Scotland was supreme in these matters, because there was an appeal to the Courts as to whether any action of the

    467
    General Assembly was ultra vires or not. The House was asked on the ipse dixit of the General Assembly to give power to alter the formula, but the King's Commissioner who opened and closed the General Assembly declared that the Church was under the control of the State; and that its creed must be ratified by Act of Parliament. He thought, therefore, it was a pity that the Church of Scotland, taking advantage, apparently, of the necessity of the Free Church, should have interfered at all. Where were their interests affected? Whatever might be argued in this House there could be no doubt whatever about the feeling of the people of Scotland regarding what seemed to be a little sharp practice on the part of the Church of Scotland. No one would object to the Church of Scotland having freedom, if it did not have a State endowment. It was monstrous to say that a Church which had all the endowments of a State was to have the same freedom as those
    which paid their own way. In the voluntary Churches if the people were not satisfied they stopped the supplies, but in an Established Church where there was an endowment there could be no question of such a thing; the people simply left. Was the Church here to have the power of altering its formula and changing it by the vote of a majority. It was not reasonable. If there was a minority opposed to that change was there to be another split? Was the House of Lords to be once more applied to to say that the change in the formula was ultra vires, and that therefore the property must pass to the minority who protested against this change. If they once opened a door of that kind there would be no end to disagreements in the Church. Let them put their formula into an Act of Parliament and then the Church would have to obey it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 275.)

    AYES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, NE)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

    Finlay, Rt Hn Sir R.B (Inv'rn'ss)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A (Wore

    Fisher, William Hayes

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

    Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

    Fison, Frederick William

    Arrol, Sir William

    Chapman, Edward

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Forster, Henry William

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

    Fowler, Rt Hon. Sir Henry

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Coddington, Sir William

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin & Nairn

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

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

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

    Balfour, RtHnGeraldW(Leeds)

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Crombie, John William

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Heath, ArthurHoward (Hanley

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Davenport, William Bromley

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

    Bigwood, James

    Denny, Colonel

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Bond, Edward

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Hoult, Joseph

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Brassey, Albert

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hunt, Rowland

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Elibank, Master of

    Joicey, Sir James

    Bull, William James

    Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrw'sB'ghs

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

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

    Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn.Col W.

    Caldwell, James

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Campbell, Rt Hn J A.(Glasgow

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lamont, Norman

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ(Manc'r

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Stroyan, John

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Purvis, Robert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Pym, C. Guy

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

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S

    Rankin, Sir James

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Reid, James (Greencock)

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Lowe, Francis William

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Tuff, Charles

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Ure, Alexander

    M'Crae, George

    Round, Rt. Hn. James

    Wallace, Robert

    M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh, W

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H

    M'Kean, John

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Maxwell, RtHnSirH.E(Wigt'n)

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col Edw. J.

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton undLyne)

    Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Mitchell, William (Burnley)

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

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

    Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Wodehouse, Rt Hn E. R.(Bath)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Smith,Rt, Hn.J Parker (Lanarks

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Younger, William

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Spear, John Ward

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Stanley, Edward Jas(Somerset)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Percy, Earl

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Viscount Valentia.

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Stock, James Henry

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk

    Slack, John Bamford

    Austin, Sir John

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Jones, Wm, (Carnarvonshire)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Brigg, John

    Lambert, George

    Tillett, Louis John

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Tomkinson, James

    Broadhurst Henry

    Levy, Maurice

    Toulmin, George

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Burt, Thomas

    Lloyd-George, David

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Cameron, Robert

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)>

    Dunn, Sir William

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Edwards, Frank

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    O'Mara, James

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth).

    Fenwick, Charles

    Parrott, William

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Perks, Robert William

    Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Huddersf'd

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Robson, William Snowdon

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Russell, T. W.

    Alfred Hutton and Mr.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Shackleton, David James

    George White.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    And, there being no further Business set down for the Afternoon Sitting, Mr. Speaker left the Chair until the Evening Sitting.

  EVENING SITTING.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
    The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means from this Evening's Sitting.
    SUPPLY [JUNE 29TH].
    Resolutions reported.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,768,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st, 1906."

    2. "That a sum, not exceeding
    £4,816,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st, 1906."

    3. "That a sum, not exceeding
    £7,827,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st, 1906."

    Resolutions read a second time.
    First Resolution.
    MR. WHITLEYmoved to reduce the Vote by £100. He did so, he said, in order to renew the protest, which he had made on a previous occasion against the continued expenditure at Wei-hai-Wei. He thought the Government should now face the question of clearing off these items of expenditure in connection with this bathing station.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out '£2,768,300,' and insert '£2,768,200'—(Mr. Whitley)—instead thereof."
    Question proposed. "That, '£2,768,300, stand part of the Resolution."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said if the hon. Gentleman believed this expenditure was only made for the purpose of a bathing establishment he had a perfect right to object to it, but this Vote, as a matter of fact, went a little further than that. Wei-hai-Wei was necessary as a summer base for the Fleet on the China Station. It was rendered necessary by the fact that the climate of Hong-Kong was very bad in the summer months, and, therefore, it was essential to have a summer base in which the Fleet could carry out its necessary training exercises. This was not a large expenditure, and it was fully justified, in the opinion of the Admiralty, by the training advantages offered by Wei-hai-Wei in respect to climate and situation.
    MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite had asked his hon. friend the meaning of this increased expenditure at Wei-hai-Wei. That was a Question they were all entitled to ask, and he would repeat it because he happened to know something about the place and took an interest in this matter. A friend of his who had returned from South Africa was sent out to Wei-hai-Wei in a military capacity for the purpose of training troops. That gentleman had learned a good deal about the capacity and methods of the Boers, and had said it was extremely instructive to compare the capacity of the Chinese and the Boers, and he expressed his opinion that if we were going to retain this place for any length of time we should have a first-class Army composed of Chinese troops then in training which might be used to very great advantage to assist our forces in the Far East. But Wei-hai-Wei as a place of arms had come to a standstill, and he (Mr. Lucas) was rather curious to know what was the meaning of the increase of expenditure. The Secretary to the Admiralty had said that Wei-hai-Wei was a valuable adjunct to Hong-Kong, because Hong-Kong, as everybody who had been there knew, was not a very

    473
    salubrious place in the summer. Wei-hai-Wei, therefore, had its advantages. He, for one, did not complain that the hon. Member had thought proper to move a reduction of the Vote. He hoped the Admiralty would not go to unnecessary expenditure, but as long as money was not wasted he did not think anybody could wisely complain of the very moderate increase which appeared in the Estimates this year.
    Since the Vote came up on the last occasion several events had happened. Manœuvres had recently taken place, and it was of the first importance for us to know what had been the upshot of those manœuvres. He desired to explain to the Secretary of the Admiralty why he pressed him for as full an Answer as he felt justified in giving. Operations connected with the Navy were to a great extent concealed in mystery. To a large portion of the population the Navy was not only an unknown quantity, but an unseen quantity, and they had no means whatever of informing themselves as to what progress had been made with the Fleet in comparison with the fleets of other nations, or as to our naval requirements He did not ask what would be the result of putting to the test the preliminary operations which were decided on in time of peace; but he wished the Secretary to the Admiralty to satisfy, as far as he could, the questions which arose in the public mind, and solve the doubts which suggested themselves to the man who contemplated the possible result of a real contest with a great naval Power. Everybody knew something of what the Army was doing, and were inclined to form an opinion as to the capacity of the military forces. When the Army was put to the test it became a common saying that our military misfortunes were all learned in the Long Valley at Aldershot. What they wanted to be sure of was that in the event of our Navy being put to a similar trial there would be no danger of deficiencies being manifested which would imperil our position in a time of crisis. They wanted to know what reports had been received as to the naval manœuvres.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONcontended that the hon. Member
    474
    could not refer to the naval manœuvres on this Vote.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid if the hon. Member intended to lead up to the question of the construction of ships it might be in order; but the question of tactics would not be relevant to the Vote.
    MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he was coming to a definite point respecting the personnel of the squadrons in reserve.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsubmitted that only the personnel of the dockyards could be dealt with under the Vote.
    MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he had plenty to say on the personnel of the dockyards, but if he were told he was not allowed to allude to the personnel of the Fleet, he would not pursue that point.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not know what the hon. Member was going to say, but if he was going to discuss the quality of the men and the work they had done on the ships, that would not be relevant to the Vote, but if he proposed to discuss the construction of ships, he thought that might be in order.
    MR. REGINALD LUCASpresumed that when ships were sent to sea for the manœuvres, the dockyards were interested in the question of their efficiency; but he would leave that point. He wanted to know, however, whether the Government could tell the House what was their policy in the matter of salvage work, whether they intended to develop the capabilities of the Royal Navy for doing its own salvage operations when necessary? That was a matter to which he had called attention recently, but had not received a reply from the representative of the Admiralty. He also wanted to know what was the present intention of the Admiralty in the matter of boilers. He stated the other day, from the best information he could get, that the Belleville boilers had been proved and were said to be the best available, not only because they gave the best record of steam power

    475
    at sea, but because they could be better repaired at sea without sending the ship into harbour.
    *MR. SPEAKERobserved the Belleville boilers were not manufactured in the Royal dockyards, and, therefore, could not be referred to on this Vote.
    MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he would not press the question; and if he were not permitted to refer to the manœuvres he had no more to say.
    THE EARL OF DALKEITHsaid he was unfortunately not able to be present during the Committee stage of this Vote, and he had just one or two Questions to put. First of all he noticed the reduction of the Dockyard Votes for which a great deal of credit was taken. Although there had been a considerable decrease in wages there had been no corresponding decrease in salaries; on the contrary, there had been an increase. In the home dockyards there had been an increase of 2 per cent. in the salaries, and a decrease of 10 per cent. in the wages, while in the foreign dockyards the salaries were increased by 6 per cent., and the wages decreased by 20 per cent. The House should certainly have some explanation with regard to that. He also wished to know whether the reduction in wages was not to a large extent caused by the recent shipbuilding programme having been more or less completed, and the vessels to be kept in repair being of a newer type and therefore requiring fewer repairs. Since the Vote had been in Committee manœuvres had taken place which would perhaps give the Admiralty a better opportunity of saying how the new Admiralty scheme was working out. He did not wish to discuss those manœuvres at all, but he would like to know whether in consequence of manning the ships with what were termed nucleus crews for three and sometimes six months previous to the manœuvres, there had been a decrease in the work in the dockyards because of the ships being kept in better order, and whether, owing to their being kept in commission and being sent to sea, there had been fewer mishaps to them; because if that were so that would show that we had largely added to our
    476
    efficiency by the course pursued. He also wished to know whether the Admiralty were satisfied with what was being done to keep the older ships in repair, and he would like to have some information as to whether the Admiralty did not consider there was a great risk in leaving those ships in their present state, a state in which they were absolutely useless. In the fight between Japan and Russia there were certainly two older armed cruisers than any which we had in our Navy, and that showed that it was advisable for the Committee not to be too keen in their criticisms, but that they might allow a small expenditure to be made so as to keep the machinery of these old ships in order, in case they were required in time of emergency.
    With regard to the unfortunate accidents with the submarine, be wished to know what the Admiralty were doing or what they intended to do to prevent these accidents. There had been two very bad disasters with submarines, and they saw from the Press that the same unfortunate accidents occurred in foreign navies. He assumed that the boats which had suffered from these accidents were now in the hands of the dockyard authorities, and he would, therefore, like to know whether in the course of their investigations they had been able to find out if those accidents were due to faulty construction. He thought they ought to have some assurance that something was being done to prevent the occurrence of submarine accidents, and to secure the safety of the men who manned them. He understood that it was very difficult at the present time for the officers and men engaged on submarines to insure their lives at anything like the usual rates for men employed in the Navy. They had been told that the modern warships were going to be more heavily armed than in the past, and he wished to know whether it was due to the larger tonnage, or were they going to build them lighter and more in accordance with the "Swiftsure" design. He was inclined to think that the Admiralty bad been taking rather too much credit for having effected great economies. He could quite see that there would be large economy in the dockyards' expenses

    477
    and repairing if they were to have only comparatively new ships in the Navy. It was evident, however, that if a ship would get out of date quicker under the new system they would have to have a larger capital expenditure upon new ships. Although he admitted that a great deal had been done in this direction and great economy had been effected in regard to the dockyards, still they must not forget that there had been a sudden reversal of the policy which had been hitherto adopted, and, for all they knew, if another Government came into power they might make another change in the direction of adopting the policy of former years. Before making such very great changes and taking too much credit for the reductions which had been made in one year, the House should be allowed to form some judgment upon the question and see what chance there was of such a policy being continuous.
    MR. SPEARsaid he should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite because he considered that it was only due to those men who endangered their lives by manning our ships and fighting our battles when required, that every precaution should be taken to provide places where they could recuperate their health. That was the object of the Government in carrying out the present policy in regard to Wei-hai-Wei. It was of great importance that if they had the best possible ships they should also have the best possible men, and they could not achieve this unless they showed more solicitude for the health and welfare of the men as they were doing by making arrangements at Wei-hai-Wei, whereby men whose health suffered would have an opportunity of recuperating. He thought the Government would make a great mistake if they refrained from maintaining the present state of things at Wei-hai-Wei.
    He agreed with all that the noble Lord had said about submarines. They had recently had a very sad catastrophe, and he wished to impress upon the Government the importance of having in the dockyards the personnel and equipment necessary to grapple with such misfortunes when
    478
    they did occur. The greatest possible credit was due to the men, in the case of the submerging of the submarine at Plymouth, for their courage, and the manner in which they did their utmost to raise the submarine as quickly as possible. He urged upon the Government the importance of having at each dockyard implements, equipment, and material of the best possible and most effective description to deal with such disasters in order to raise as quickly as possible a submarine in case of accident. When they read of the dreadful suspense and considered what those brave fellows had suffered, they would see the necessity of doing what he had suggested. Ha knew that the Secretary to the Amiralty was fully alive to the importance of this question, and he trusted that at Devonport and other dockyards he would see that everything was done that could be done to afford speedy relief in case of accidents of this kind.
    With regard to the ships which were being withdrawn from the Navy, he agreed that it was unwise that ships of the second class should be kept in the first line of our naval defence, but if some of those vessels, instead of being sold at a small price to be broken up, were kept in reserve, the time might come when, pressed heavily by a severe naval engagement, those vessels might be of considerable service as supporters of the first line of defence. Having regard to the fact that our food supply depended upon the efficiency of the Navy, and the desirability of securing the best possible men to man our ships, it was important that they should not adopt a cheese-paring policy. He was sure that the taxpayer, although his burdens were very heavy at present, would rather pay a little more than see the Navy lacking the necessary funds to maintain it in a state of complete efficiency.
    *MR. CUMMING MACDONAsaid he had been to Wei-hai-Wei. He admired the surroundings of that beautiful spot and it was a splendid place for the Fleet as a health resort to recuperate strength during the fearfully hot weather along the Southern Chinese Coast—a chain of mountains if

    479
    linked together round the wide-stretching harbour of Wei-hai-Wei would form a magnificent harbour of refuge in the far Eastern Seas—and as a health resort was unequalled, for on the shores were wells bubbling with pristine medical waters of great curative power, well known to and appreciated by the Japanese when they held the place at the first capture of Port Arthur by them. Naval officers had informed him that in any weather ships of the largest tonnage could go into Wei-hai-Wei. Things had changed considerably in the Far East, and he thought that the Japanese had done a most marvellous deed in taking for the second time that wonderful fortress and harbour of Port Arthur. The present Prime Minister, as Foreign Minister in succession to Lord Salisbury, he thought, had shown wonderful prescience in obtaining a lease from China of Wei-hai-Wei. This was the act of a wise Government, and he thanked God that they had a Government in power which from past experience and knowledge—endorsed by the sentiment of the world had seen the wisdom of holding Wei-hai-Wei harbour as a base for future naval operations. Now that we had the Japanese as allies in possession once again of Port Arthur, he trusted that a renewed arrangement might be entered into with China and Japan by which we might have an extended lease for ever of this excellent harbour. It should not be forgotten that this country did 75 per cent. of the Chinese trade with foreigners, and China of her own free will was very pleased to give us the lease of Wei-hai-Wei for as long as Russia held Port Arthur. He would like to see the name of our Prime Minister for ever identified with the retention of this great harbour as one of his greatest masterpieces of foreign policy in the East. For the development of their trade and the prosperity of the Empire it was necessary to keep all the territory they had got. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] With regard to Newhaven he wished to point out that at this place there was a large valley which might easily be made into one of the finest dockyards in the world.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was sure the House had listened with great pleasure
    480
    to the personal reminiscences of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe. He wished to say a few words about the extraordinary proposition put forward by the Opposition upon this occasion. The hon. Member opposite had moved a reduction of this Vote without a speech, and that was somewhat extraordinary. He did not think it would be advisable to abandon Wei-hai-Wei at this moment, Had hon. Members opposite failed to see that one of the great disadvantages which Russia had been placed under in regard to her Navy during the present war had been that she had no ports convenient for her ships to go to. [OPPOSITION laughter and cries of "Oh, oh!"] That laughter proved that they read no other newspaper except the Daily News, which did not take up Imperial matters.
    MR. SHACKLETON: It is the best paper in London.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY, continuing, said that the failure of Russia was largely due to the fact that she had no places in the Far East for her ships to go to to refit and coal. Hon. Members opposite did not appear to realise that times had changed somewhat since the days of Nelson. He thought he had now shown the hollowness of the Motion which had been moved by the hon. Member for Halifax. The Government had often been told that they were disrespectful to the House of Commons, but what greater disrespect could be shown to the House of Commons than to move an important reduction upon questions like this, and then decline to say anything in support of such a proposal. As to the question of repairs, he said he was in favour of the policy of having repairs done in the Government dockyards instead of in the yards of private firms. When a contractor built a new ship he estimated for a fixed sum, but a contractor could not give a definite estimate for repairs. He did not wish to cast reflections on the honesty of contractors, but he thought that in the interests of economy it was advisable that repairs should be done in Government dockyards. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] This was a matter of finance, and he was quite certain that the right

    481
    policy was the one which the Government was now following. Contractors were human, and they were inclined to take advantage of the fact that it was impossible to say in advance how much repairing work would be absolutely necessary.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the Amendment had reference to Wei-hai-Wei. He asked whether the hon. Member's remarks were relevant.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid Wei-hai-Wei was one of the subjects, but the discussion had ranged over the whole of Section 1 of the Vote.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid if the hon. Member's Motion had related solely to Wei-hai-Wei he would have accepted it, but a great many other questions had been raised to which the Motion, if accepted, would also apply.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was glad to see that there was a decrease in the cost for "teams." He understood that there had been a considerable waste of public money in connection with that item in former years.
    SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he wished to draw the attention of the Admiralty to the subject of submarines. These vessels were only in the experimental stage, and he found that not only in our own experience but in that of foreign countries their use was attended with serious danger to those on board. He wished to ask whether the Government had under consideration the adoption of means to provide against that danger. He hoped the scientific resources of the dockyard authorities were not unequal to the task of devising some method of providing the safety which was desired.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid the amount stated in the Vote for Wei-hai-Wei in respect of salaries and allowances was very small, and it did not involve any great question of policy. If we held Port Arthur it
    482
    would be unnecessary to stick to Wei-hai-Wei, but he considered it desirable that we should have it, seeing that we had really no other place of our owl north of Hong-Kong. Hon. Members might say, "Why do you want Wei-hai-Wei when you have an alliance with Japan?" It should be remembered that we might be at war with another Power and that Japan might be a neutral. It was conceivable that we might be in hostility with Japan, and therefore it was perfectly clear that we should have no dockyard at all in the neighbourhood if we gave up Wei-hai-Wei, and also that we should have no coaling station. Recent events had made the northern portion of the China Seas infinitely more important than it was in former years.
    MR. CALDWELL: It is not a dockyard, it is a bathing establishment.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that was the contention of the hon. Member, but he did not think the House would accept that view.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: Has the hon. Gentleman been there?
    MR. CALDWELL: Yes, I have.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid if Wei-hai-Wei was only a bathing establishment he would not be in favour of retaining it, but he contended that under certain circumstances which might arise it would be of the greatest use to us. He called attention to the charge of £90 in the Vote for the Naval Store Depot at the West India Docks, and asked why so small a sum was allotted for that store. In the matter of expenditure on naval works he had always felt that more should be done for Ireland. One of the best places where ships could be built and repaired for the Royal Navy was Haulbowline, but it was in a position of distinct inferiority to almost all the other docks. He suggested that something should be done to improve its position.
    *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,)regretted that certain hon.

    483
    Members should have treated the question of the provision of a sanatorium for the China Fleet as a joke. He had served on the China Station through three summers, and the climate at that season was indeed no joke. It was of the utmost importance to the Fleet, that some healthy place should be chosen where the ships could go, and the men could carry out their shore exercises. The present expenditure on Wei-hai-Wei was only for the purpose of fitting the place as a sanatorium; it was moderate in amount, and it was money well spent. He would remind hon. Members that important events were taking place in the Far East, and surely it was only right that we should do everything in our power to make the best out of the lease of Wei-hai-Wei which we had obtained from China.
    The question of dockyard salvage plant in relation to submarines was a very difficult one. The public and the Press had perhaps naturally jumped to the conclusion that if such plant had been maintained the deplorable loss of life in connection with the Submarines A1 and A8 would have been obviated. The Admiralty, aware of the deep feeling excited in the country, had given anxious consideration to the matter, but there were many objections to keeping salvage plant to be used in the event of possible accidents to submarines. It was obvious that the expense could only be justified by the hope or assurance of increasing the chance of saving life. But these accidents did not necessarily take place close to a port or dockyard. The modern submarine had a very large radius of action, and it was merely a coincidence that the accidents in the case of the Submarines A1 and A8 took place at a short distance from port. In the case of the A1, the lives of the crew were destroyed with such rapidity that no salvage plant, however near, could have saved them. In regard to A8, again, according to the best information of the Admiralty, the crew could not have remained alive for more than forty minutes; and it would not have been possible for the most efficient salvage plant to get from the dockyard end raise the vessel in that short time.
    MR. DALZIELsaid they could have lived for more than forty minutes as was shown the other day in the case of the French submarine which sank.
    *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the information of the Admiralty was that the crew could not have lived for more than forty minutes. He was not in a position to speak of the French submarine, because the Admiralty were not yet in possession of definite information as to what had happened. If hon. Members consulted any one familiar with the operations of salvage companies they would find that there was no sort of stock-plant that could be applied to every type of vessel. Each case required almost special plant, and as far as salving the vessel itself was concerned there was no need for the Admiralty to keep its own plant. The important part of these salvage operations was the work done by specially trained divers, who must be constantly employed to be kept efficient. The Admiralty could not keep salvage divers constantly employed, and so they thought it was better to depend on private enterprise for salvage work.
    As to executing the repairs to the Fleet in the Royal dockyards, that question had been gone into very thoroughly at the Admiralty during the last few months, and the Admiralty had decided that the policy in the future would be to execute all the repairs of the Fleet in normal times in the dockyards. It was quite true that recently a good deal of the work had been given to private yards; but that was because the arrears had become so great. The Admiralty did not disguise the fact that the cost of repairs was greater in private yards than in the Royal dockyards.
    SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he had the very greatest doubt of that.
    *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he hoped he was not reflecting on any interest in which the hon. Member was concerned.
    SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he was not interested in any private yard for

    485
    repairing war ships, but he was satisfied that the cost of repairs in private yards was not greater than in the dockyards.
    *MR. ARTHUR LEE: The Admiralty had only one thing to consider in this matter and that was economy, and there was no doubt whatever that the cost of repairs in private yards had been considerably greater than it was in the Government yards. They had, therefore, decided that all repairs that it was possible to effect in the Government yards should be carried out there. With regard to a suggestion that had been made by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe that a new dockyard for repairs should be made at Newhaven, that scheme was apparently intended to include a harbour of shelter for merchant ships and fishing boats. He could only say that it was not the policy of the Admiralty to increase the number of dockyards indiscriminately, but rather to improve the efficiency of those in existence. He was afraid, therefore, he could not hold out any hope that this suggestion would be seriously considered.
    An important point had been raised as to the establishment of nucleus crews, and its effect on the amount of repairs done in the dockyards. He knew there had been apprehension in the dockyards as to the falling off of the amount of
    repairs that would ordinarily be done in them; but the keeping of nucleus crews on board the ships who could remedy small defects was not only proving a great economy in preventing deterioration, but had also given most useful employment to artificers and the nucleus crews. He had been asked a question with regard to Haul-bowline. He was afraid he could not hold out much hope that the amount of repairs there would be largely increased but there were certain works in progress, and when they were completed the opportunities for the employment of labour there would probably increase. The railwayfication of the dockyards, now in progress, would do away with much horse and man power in the transport of materials, and that would involve an enormous saving.
    MR. WOLFF, amid loud and continued cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide," rose to continue the debate
    MR. WHITLEYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That he Question be now put."
    The House divided:— Ayes. 157; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 2 6.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N.E)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

    Finlay, Rt. Hn. Sir R.B (Inv'rn's

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Chapman, Edward

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Forster, Henry William

    Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cremer, Wm. Randal

    Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Bigwood, James

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

    Boland, John

    Delany, William

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Harwood, George

    Brassey, Albert

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Brigg, John

    Doogan, P. C.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Edwards, Frank

    Hoult, Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Fellowes, Rt. Hn. AilwynEdwd.

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

    Caldwell, James

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

    Joicey, Sir James

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Sheehy, David

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Norman, Henry

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

    Spear, John Ward

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn Col. W.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R. (Northants

    Lamont, Norman

    O'Dowd, John

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    O'Malley, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

    O'Mara, James

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Parrott, William

    Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Percy, Earl

    Tillett, Louis John

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Tomkinson, James

    Lundon, W.

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Tuff, Charles

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Turnour, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Ure, Alexander

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Valentia, Viscount

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Walrond, Rt, Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    M'Crae, George

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    M'Kean, John

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Huddersf'd

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Murphy, John

    Shackleton, David James

    J. H. Whitley and Mr.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Dalziel.

    NOES.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords N.W.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir J. C.

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne

    Gordon, Hn. J.E (Elgin & Nairn

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

    Wolff and Mr. Purvis.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Question put accordingly, "That '£2,768,300' stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided:— Ayes, 115; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 277.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Finlay, Rt. Hn. Sir R.B(Inv'rn'ss

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

    Forster. Henry William

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Wore.

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

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

    Chapman, Edward

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredck.

    Arrol, Sir William

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

    Gordon, Hn. J.E(Elgin&Nairn

    Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hall, Edward Marshall

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

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

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

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hay, Hn. Claude George

    Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW

    Bigwood, James

    Fellowes, Rt. Hn AilwynEdwd.

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Brassey, Albert

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Hogg, Lindsay

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

    Spear, John Ward

    Hunt, Rowland

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Mount, William Arthur

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

    Percy, Earl

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Tuff, Charles

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Turnour, Viscount

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants Fareham

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Purvis, Robert

    Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund Lyne

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Lowe, Francis William

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Sadler, Col Samuel Alexander

    Viscount Valentia.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Joicey, Sir James

    Parrott, William

    Boland, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire

    Redmond, John E (Waterford)

    Brigg, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Buxton, N.E(York, NR, Whitby

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

    Shackleton, David James

    Caldwell, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sheehy, David

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Lundon, W.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

    Cremer, William Randal

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Crae, George

    Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.

    Delany, William

    M'Kean, John

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Dobbie, Joseph

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Tillett, Louis John

    Doogan, P. C.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Tomkinson, James

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    Murphy, John

    Ure, Alexander

    Edwards, Frank

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Norman, Henry

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Findlay, Alexander(Lanark NE

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

    Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.

    TELLBBS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

    O'Dowd, John

    J. H. Whitley and Mr.

    Harwood, George

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Dalziel.

    Harden, John Patrick

    O'Malley, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Mara, James

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. DALZIELsaid he regretted that the short time which was now available would prevent them from discussing some of the more important questions which they were anxious to get to earlier
    490
    in the evening, but from some unexplained cause the supporters of the Government preferred to occupy the time. He desired to obtain some information from the Secretary to the Admiralty upon various points. He wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman saw any reason for altering the decision of the Admiralty with reference

    491
    to the receiving of deputations of workmen at the Government dockyards. He did not see why the hon. Gentleman should not receive such deputations provided that they were thoroughly representative of the particular branch of labour which they were supposed to represent. The ordinary course was to send written representations, but that was unsatisfactory, and the men complained that they were not brought properly into touch with the Admiralty. With regard to discharges at the dockyards he should like to know the number who had, up to the present been discharged, and perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty would not mind telling them when he expected that these weekly discharges would stop. The Government had promised to do something for the unemployed, but he did not think discharging men in this way would carry out that promise. He also wished to know why the Admiralty had adopted the plan of doing more of their work in private dockyards, and whether anything had been done in reference to the payment of a living wage to some classes of the men employed. He noticed that whilst, something like £202,000 less was being paid in wages the salaries had gone up by £3,677. He thought this fact required some explanation.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEsaid that with regard to what had been said about receiving deputations at the Admiralty, his point was that they refused to receive the recognised leaders of trades unionists. Almost all the large employers of labour arranged trade disputes through the trades unions, but the Government still clung to the old tradition that matters in dispute between themselves and their workmen must be settled directly. This attitude was against the best interests of the public service, because the loss of time in dealing separately and directly with each section of the workpeople was very great. If such disputes were settled through the union officials and properly discussed, there would be greater peace and harmony amongst the workmen, and consequently better work in the various departments. The Postmaster-General had recently used very strong language because the Post Office employees had circularised Members of Parliament, but Government employees
    492
    had no option but to take this course when they were subjected to such treatment as he had described. In reference to contract work versus direct employment, he did not know whether hon. Members were aware of the great disparity which existed between the value of the work done in the Government yards and that which was given out to the contractors. It had been proved that the repairs were done more economically in the Government yards than outside, and the same argument should apply to construction. But even if construction done in Government dockyards did not show a saving over similar work done in private dockyards, it was admitted that it did not cost any more when done in the Government dockyards. Therefore, if there was any preference at all shown in regard to construction it ought to be in favour of the Government dockyards. The amount spent upon work in the Government dockyards was £2,750,000 as compared with £7,827,000 spent upon contract work. But that was only part of the statement, because in addition to that there was material to the extent of £4,816,000 which was also got from contractors. The bulk of this material might easily be produced inside the Government yards.
    With regard to the dismissals at the dockyards the number had been estimated at 3,000 who had either been dismissed or were under notice to leave, and this policy was being carried out at a time when the Government had refused to do anything for the unemployed. He assured the Government that this policy would require a good deal of defending to convince working men of the justice of this course. He wished to know how it was that whilst the amount paid in wages had been largely reduced, the amount paid in salaries had increased by £3,677. The rate of wages being paid in the dockyards was lower than the rate paid in private yards, and he contended that the Government should, instead of being a "sweater," set an example to the private employer in the payment of labour. The Secretary to the Admiralty had suggested that to increase the wages would mean an unnecessary addition to the national expenditure of £100,000, whereas the truth

    493
    of the matter was that the men were being robbed of that amount in wages. It was only when wages were in question that there was any difficulty in finding money. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the wages of the lower-paid workers would receive consideration this year with a view to their being brought up to a living standard. He called special attention to the condition of labour at Portsmouth and the near prospect of further dismissals from the dockyard. The position there was desperate, and local resources were almost exhausted. The fact that the men had been brought specially to the town to meet the convenience of a Government Department constituted a strong claim for considerate treatment. It should be possible to find employment in the Government yards there and to put an end to the prospect of swelling the ranks of the unemployed at Portsmouth. If that course were not taken he hoped that at any rate the Admiralty would use their influence with the Government to confer additional power upon the local authorities in the direction of finding work for the unemployed.
    MR. PRETYMANsaid that he would take the opportunity to reply to some of the points raised in the previous debate and which had not been answered at that time. As to the labour question, he pointed out that the Board of Admiralty not only received deputations of workmen but made it a practice to visit the dockyards themselves in order to give the men an opportunity of personally stating their grievances. Such grievances as existed were directly represented to the Admiralty and were considered by them. Moreover, it was the practice of the First Lord of the Admiralty to receive regularly every year a deputation of trade union representatives at the Admiralty, who laid before him and the Board all the points which they desired to raise on behalf of labour.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid his point was that if, when a dispute arose, the Department would see the trade union officials and discuss the points of disagreement they would avoid wasting the
    494
    time of the Department and secure more amicable settlements.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked whether it was the fact that the Committee at present perambulating the dockyards-had declined to take evidence with regard to labour grievances.
    MR. PRETYMANsaid that was the case, because the matter was outside the reference to the Committee. The grievances, where they existed, were represented directly to the Admiralty and considered by them. The position in the dockyards was somewhat different from that in ordinary employment, and it had been held that in view of the possible requirements of national defence it was not desirable that there should be a trade union embracing the whole of the employees in dockyards.
    MR. SHACKLETONasked why the Admiralty received a trade union secretary when he accompanied himself and his colleagues, but refused to receive him if he went alone to represent his own union.
    MR. PRETYMANsaid the Admiralty were perfectly prepared at certain times to receive a deputation and to hear representations on behalf of trade unions generally, but that the workmen who might be responsible for preparing the Navy for the instant action which was necessary in war should all be affiliated with a trade union, which might influence their action at a critical moment, was not a position that the Admiralty could accept.
    MR. SHACKLETON: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that workmen in the dockyards are not to be permitted to join a trade union?
    MR. PRETYMAN: No.
    MR. SHACKLETON: Then what is the object of the observation?
    MR. PRETYMANsaid the position was exactly as he had stated it. As to the discharges, he entirely shared the regret that had been expressed. But what was the alternative? Hon. Members opposite were continually urging upon them the necessity for economy, and with perfect justice; but he would ask them by what means it was possible to effect economies without reducing the amount of employment in the dockyards. It happened that the reductions had not arisen simply on the score of economy, but from the new system which had been put in force in the Navy. The system of nucleus crews and the getting rid of ships that were not fit for the first line of battle had greatly reduced the amount of repairs that were necessary. The whole of the repairing work went to the dockyards, but there was not sufficient to employ all the men. It would surely not be seriously suggested that the Admiralty should provide work not required for the Navy at the expense of the taxpayer in order to keep the men employed.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked how it was that while wages had been reduced salaries had increased.
    MR. PRETYMANsaid that that was not the case.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsuggested that five days a week should be worked until such time as the men could find employment elsewhere.
    MR. PRETYMANdid not think that such a proposal would meet with acceptance in the dockyards. Short time was an excellent system for an interregnum,
    496
    after which it was expected there would again be full employment. But these economies would be permanent, and there would not be the same amount of work in the dockyards in future. The Admiralty were trying to spread the discharges as far as possible over the summer months when, although doubtless difficult, it was less difficult than in the winter to find other employment. It was very regrettable, but if blame attached to the Admiralty in this matter it was for taking on so many men in the first instance rather than for discharging them now. It was frequently said that the dockyards should be run on business principles. But the custom of private firms was to take on men in accordance with the amount of work they had to do at a particular time, and only yesterday he heard that a firm on the Clyde had only 4,000 men employed at present whereas their normal number was 8,000.
    MR. DALZIEL: There are exceptional circumstances there.
    MR. PRETYMANdoubted whether any employer of labour would say so. But even so, the circumstances of the Admiralty were somewhat exceptional. Unless the House was prepared to vote money out of the Navy funds for work not required for the Navy there was no means of avoiding these discharges. There had been no reduction of wages, and the increase in salaries had been merely the automatic increase.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Has the official staff been reduced?
    MR. PRETYMANsaid there had been no reduction in the department at present.

    497
    It might be possible to reduce the salaried staff, but that could not be done until they received the Report on the question of organisation.
    The plan of carrying out repairs by the nucleus crews had been tested in the week of the manœuvres which had just taken place. Within the last few days 112 ships in commission in reserve, manned with nucleus crews, had been engaged in manœuvres with the Channel Fleet and two cruiser squadrons, and there had not been a single casualty and not a single breakdown. These ships had been constantly in repair. It was satisfactory to feel that these 112 ships in reserve had been able to go out in a condition to fight, with nucleus crews on board sufficient to man and fight them. There had been no preparation, because no preparation was necessary, and in the case of actual war there would be none of that preparation which called attention to what was being done. Two hundred modern ships, equipped for war, had been round the shores of these islands and nothing had been heard of them. That was a fact which proved the value of the system which had been introduced, and he thought the House would approve of the result.
    As to the question of the living wage, he believed that in the dockyards the rate of wages that was being paid was at least equal to the current rate for similar labour in the district. Owing to the congestion in Devonport and other districts rents had been extremely high, and it had been difficult for unskilled labourers receiving £1 or £1 1s. a week to find sufficient accommodation at a reasonable rate. He believed that one result of this reduction of labour, un-
    498
    fortunate as it was in itself, would be to set free a number of houses, relieve the congestion, and so reduce rents. With regard to repairs and construction, he had little to add to what he said in Committee. All repairs went to the dockyards. There was no intention to take construction from the dockyards, but only to maintain the present policy of a fair and reasonable division of the work of new construction as between the dockyards and the private yards.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid the hon. Gentleman had now admitted, he believed for the first time, that the rental conditions in some of those districts were exceptional, and to say that a reduction might be looked for as a result of the system of discharges now going on was a poor way of looking at the question. The duty of the Government was to ascertain what those exceptional conditions really were, and to pay such wages as would enable the men to cope with them. The example of the Home Office with reference to the Metropolitan Police was one to be followed in this respect. As to the reception of trade union deputations by the Admiralty, it did not take place every year; sometimes five years elapsed before such a deputation was received, so that it was hardly fair for the hon. Gentleman to represent that it was the regular practice of the Admiralty to receive trade union deputations. The proper course would be to have a trades council of the men who could come face to face with the Admiralty from time to time.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONrose to continue the debate.
    Mr. PRETYMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: After wasting two hours! This is what we get for coming to look after the workmen's interests!
    While the House was being cleared for a division,
    MR. KEIR HARDIE, seated, and with his hat on, submitted, as a point of order that he had at ten minutes past ten moved the closure on one item of this Vote, which had been refused. Now, after forty minutes' discussion on the entire Vote, the closure was moved and
    accepted. Was that in accordance with the usual custom under which the closure was granted?
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was incorrect in saying that he moved the closure on one item—the reduction moved had opened up all the subjects of the Vote. Upon the reduction which was moved, any of the matters that were relevant to this Vote could have been discussed, and a great number of them were discussed.
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 114; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 278.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers.

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

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

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

    Arrol, Sir William

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Finlay, Rt. Hn Sir R.B. (Inv'rn'ss

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

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

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)

    Foster, Philip S.(Warwick SW.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

    Bingham, Lord

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Brassey, Albert

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Heath, Sir James(Staffords, NW

    Morrell, (George Herbert

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Mount, William Arthur

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J.A. (Worc

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Chapman, Edward

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Percy, Earl

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

    Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

    Pryce—Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Hunt, Rowland

    Purvis, Robert

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Tuff, Charles

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    TELLERS FOB THE AYES—

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Turnour, Viscount

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

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

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Spear, John Ward

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Joicey, Sir James

    Reddy, M.

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Brigg, John

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

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

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Lamont, Norman

    Shackleton, David James

    Buxton, N.E (York, NR, Whitby

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Caldwell, James

    Levy, Maurice

    Sheehy, David

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Lundon, W.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Slack, John Bamford

    Cremer, William Randal

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Crae, George

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Kean, John

    Sullivan, Donal

    Delany, William

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Moss, Samuel

    Tomkinson, James

    Doogan, P. C.

    Murphy, John

    Ure, Alexander

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Edwards, Frank

    O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Dowd, John

    Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Malley, William

    Mr. Shackleton and Mr.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Mara, James

    Arthur Henderson.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 279.)

    AYES

    Agg-(Gardner, James Tynte

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Bingham, Lord

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

    Brassey, Albert

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Arrol, Sir William

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Egerton, Hon, A. de Tatton

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A. (Worc.

    Finlay, Rt Hn Sir RB (Inv'rn'ss

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Chapman, Edward

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Banner, John S. Harmood.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

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

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Lowe, Francis William

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth.

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Macdona, John Cumming

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Spear, John Ward

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Hill, Henry Staveley

    Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

    Tuff, Charles

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Turnour, Viscount

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Mount, William Arthur

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Howard, John (Kent Faversham

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Hunt, Rowland

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Whiteky, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Percy, Earl

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Purvis, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

    Reid, James Greenock)

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Malley, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    O'Mara, James

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Joicey, Sir James

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Boland, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brigg, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Kearley, Hudson, E.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Caldwell, James

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Levy, Maurice

    Sheehy, David

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lough, Thomas

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lundon, W.

    Slack, John Bamford

    Cullinan, J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scares, Ernest J.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R. (Northants

    Delany, William

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Dobbie, Joseph

    M'Crae, George

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Doogan, P. C.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Tomkinson, James

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Moss, Samuel

    Ure, Alexander

    Edwards, Frank

    Murphy, John

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Whitley, J. H. (Halfiax)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    TELLERS FOB THE NOES—

    Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

    O'Dowd, John

    Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Mr. William M'Arthur.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Second and Third Resolutions to be further considered to-morrow.

    TRADE MARKS (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
    Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again, to-morrow.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Adand-Hood.)
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury

    505
    whether, in the arrangement of public business, it was possible for him to influence the Prime Minister in the direction of pushing forward the Unemployed Bill. The representatives of organised labour had given and were prepared to give every possible assistance to secure the passage of the measure. They had not forgotten the acute suffering of last winter, and when the Government introduced their Bill they were exceedingly hopeful that it would be passed so that it might come into operation in the ensuing winter. It could not be said that Labour Members were responsible for any waste of time. The Gentlemen who obeyed the behests of the Prime Minister and the Government Whips had between them wasted more time during the present session than would have sufficed to carry this Bill through all its stages. The Bill passed its Second Reading by the largest majority any measure had secured during his three years of Parliamentary life; it was earnestly desired by the organised workers of the country; and he appealed to the Government not to allow matters to drift on to the end of the session without an effort being made to place the measure on the Statute-book.
    MR. SHACKLETONassured the House that this was no mere idle protest; it was serious business. What was the position? The present Secretary for Ireland, impressed by his experiences of last winter, persuaded the Government to bring in a Bill. Every Labour Member supported the Bill, not because they thought it went far enough, but because at any rate it settled the principle that the nation had some responsibility towards the unemployed of the country.
    506
    They were anxious that the measure should pass, but other proposals, certainly of less importance to the workmen, had been placed in front of it. The present protest was made with a deep sense of responsibility. The 12th of August was nothing to the Labour Members; they were prepared, if necessary, to sit to September 12th to carry the Bill; they feared to meet the coming winter unless some machinery were in force to deal with the suffering which would inevitably arise. Even now, in the summer-time, thousands of men, willing to work, were unable to find employment. Were the Government prepared to sit quietly down, and leave to labour leaders the responsibility of facing the situation? He wanted no riots of breaches of the peace; he would do all he could to dissuade the men from taking that course, as he had done in reference to marches to London; but he appealed to the Government not to put too much on them.
    MR. J. F. HOPE, while not endorsing all that had been said, cordially supported the main object of the appeal. Many supporters of the Government felt very strongly on the matter, and he hoped the Prime Minister would rind time, to carry the measure through.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDassociated his colleagues and himself with the appeal which had been made, His object in rising was to make a practical proposal, which would not in any way hinder the programme of the Government with regard to the Redistribution proposals. The Prime Minister had announced that Friday would be given to the Scotch Education Bill. Personally,

    507
    he was in favour of that measure, and would be glad to see it passed into law, but before a day was devoted to it an assurance should be given that it was intended to place it on the Statute-book, otherwise the day given would be a pure waste of time. Inasmuch as it was perfectly well known that the Government did not intend to carry that Bill, he thought that Labour Members had sound ground for complaint in the fact that there would be a day wasted which would be probably sufficient to dispose of the next stage of the Unemployed Bill. Further, if necessary, he thought the public spirit of the House should be called upon for a Saturday sitting. Personally, he was as constantly in attendance as the Chief Whip opposite himself, and his Saturdays were very precious, but he and his colleagues would gladly give up their Saturday's rest to see this Bill put through. It would be seen that these suggestions would not in any way affect the Redistribution proposals; they were made solely in the interests of the Unemployed Bill. Upon the merits of that measure he would say nothing; it seemed a very poor and inadequate attempt to deal with the question, but it was something, and in these matters he deferred to the opinion of the labour representatives. They considered the Bill of some value, and taking that view from them, he most earnestly joined in the appeal which had been made, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would convey to the Prime Minister the suggestions he had made.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEpointed out that the only obstruction to the Bill came from half-a-dozen Members on the Government side of the House. If the Patronage Secretary would use his
    508
    influence with those Gentlemen everything else would be easy, and the Bill would have a swift passage through its o various stages. He joined in the appeal, and cordially supported the suggestion of the hon. Member for Waterford.
    MR. AINSW0RTH (Argyllshire)hoped that in any re-arrangement of business the Government would bear in mind the absolute necessity of passing the Scotch Churches Bill, which was of infinitely more importance at present than the Education Bill. If necessary, he would suggest that the ecclesiastical measure should be taken on Friday.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,)said he could only promise to convey to the Prime Minister substance of what had been said. He was afraid that hon. Members overrated his influence with Gentlemen on his own side of the House. He much appreciated the temperate and earnest way in which hon. Members had spoken, and he would certainly acquaint the Prime Minister with what had passed, but it must be clearly understood that he could not undertake that there should be any departure from the programme of business already announced.
    MR. LOUGHsaid the Bill was not opposed on the Opposition side of the House at all, and if the right hon. Gentleman's influence prevailed with the supporters of the Government there would be no difficulty whatever in getting the Bill through.
    Adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.