Sitting of 17 July 1905

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which

  849
  are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:— Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  CANALS (NO. 2) BILL (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the 10th July, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Canals (No. 2) Bill.

  PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT (1868) AMENDMENT (VINCENT SQUARE) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th July, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have not been complied with, viz.:—Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment (Vincent Square) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords], As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Thames Conservancy Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [Lords]; Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [Lords]; Rhymney and Aber Valley Gas and Water Company Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill;
  850
  Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Worcestershire County Council (Bridges) Bill, without Amendment.
  Skegness Water Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—Tees Valley Water Board Bill [Lords]; Whitby Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for granting the use of Schoolrooms for Public Meetings." [Public Meetings (Facilities) Bill [Lords.]

PETITION.
  CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkealdy, for alterations; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC,
  EAST INDIA (ARMY ADMINISTRATION).
  Copy presented, of Further Papers regarding the Administration of the Army in India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th July; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 242.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 11th July, 1905, constituting Burntisland a Port of Registry for British Sea Fishing Boats [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
  Copy presented, of Seven Orders in Council of 11th July, 1905, relating to the ensuing Winter Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1876, AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 11th July. 1905, varying the Order in Council of 25th March, 1877, relating to

  851
  Day Industrial Schools [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 11th July, 1905, applying The Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1884, to the East Africa Protectorate [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-seventh Annual Report of the Begistrar-General, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of Supplement to the Sixty-fifth Annual Report of the Registrar-General, Part I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of Supplement to the Sixty-fifth Annual Report of the Registrar-General, Part II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Local Government Board for Scotland on the Sanitary Condition of the Island of Lewis [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GROSS DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th May; Mr. Gibson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular. Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3437 to 3439 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The Liverpool Dock Strike—Smoking by Workmen.
  MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green): To ask the Secretary to the Board
  852
  of Trade, is he aware that the regulations to prevent the use of naked lights and the use of matches and prohibition of tobacco smoking, for the prevention of fire and the protection of property from fire on the Liverpool Dock Estate, are being broken with the knowledge of the local police and other authorities by the workmen imported to take the place of local workmen in the Toxteth Dock; and, seeing that the imported workmen under the protection of the local police are daily and nightly allowed to smoke in the sheds where cargo of an inflammable nature is being stored and handled by the imported workmen, will he take the necessary measures in the interest of property and public safety to prevent an outbreak of fire.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I have been in communication with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, who inform me that the workmen in question were taken to the Harrington, not the Toxteth, Dock, and that the firm to whom that dock is appropriated were duly informed by the harbour master that the ordinary regulations as regards smoking must be observed, although he had given permission for the use of two small cooking stoves which have been placed in approved positions and are properly watched. There is no inflammable or other cargo in the shed where the men are located. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board state that it is very difficult to prevent all smoking when bodies of men are temporarily located on their estate, but that the sheds occupied by them are not on such occasions used as either transit sheds or warehouses, smoking amongst men when handling cargo being absolutely unheard of. They assure me that they and the police are fully alive to the necessity of protecting property on their estate from fire, and that they are doing, and will do, all that is necessary with this object.

  Steam and Compressed Air Syrens round the Coast of the United Kingdom.
  MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether any of the syrens on the coast are worked by means of steam; and, if not, will he furnish a statement showing the relative cost of the machinery

  853
  necessary for producing sound from a syren by means of steam or compressed air.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The sirens round the coast of the United Kingdom are sounded by compressed air. At the electric light stations, where steam power is available, it is utilised for compressing the air for the fog signals, and steam is also used for the same purpose on board eight of the Trinity House light vessels. At all other fog signal stations caloric or oil engines are the motive power. In a Report by a special Committee of the Trinity House, which carried out certain experiments with sound-producing instruments in 1901, it is stated that "although many large steam whistles are in operation on the American coasts, there are none in use in the British lighthouse service, they having been regarded as wasteful and inefficient instruments, requiring a high pressure of steam, and radiating the sound equally in all directions vertically as well as horizontally." I am unable to furnish the comparison of cost referred to in the latter part of the Question.

  Hyde Park Demonstration on 9th July— Delay to Traffic.
  MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.): To ask I the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the holding up of the traffic at Hyde Park Corner on Sunday July 9th, in order to give passage to the demonstrators in favour of the Unemployed Workmen's Bill, was of consider- ably longer duration than usual on such occasions; and whether steps can be taken in the future to prevent such an interference with the convenience of the general public for the benefit of one particular section of it.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The passage through the streets of so large a body of demonstrators must of necessity obstruct general traffic. The police took the measures which they considered would be most effective in mitigating inconvenience to the public, and I am informed that the time during which traffic was stopped at Hyde Park Corner was not much longer than is usually the case in such circumstances.

  Pottery Manufacture—Leadless Glaze.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of manufacturers are now using a glaze conforming to the standard laid down in Rule 2, as fixed by Lord James's Award; and how these numbers compare with those of the four previous years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) There are fifty-six factories, out of the 476 coming under the special rules, which use glazes conforming to the standard laid down by Rule 2. Thirteen of these use leadless glazes only, nine use leadless glazes in part, two use only glazes containing 2 per cent. of lead or under, twenty-six use only glaze3 containing 5 per cent. or under, and six use galena. The only figures available as to the use of such glazes before the new rules came into operation in March, 1904, are the numbers of occupiers who applied for and obtained exemptions, as provided by the 1901 rules, from certain provisions on the ground of using giazes which were leadless or contained only a limited amount of lead. The number of occupiers to whom such exemptions were granted during the two years 1902 and 1903 were as follows: in respect of the use of leadless glazes, nineteen and twenty-two; in respect of the use of glazes containing 2 per cent, of lead or under, one and one; in respect of the use of 5 per cent. of lead or under, fourteen and thirteen.

  Deaths from Accidents in Mines.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any instruction of the Home Office to inspectors of mines not to take official cognisance of fatal accidents if an interval of a year and a day has elapsed between the date of the accident and the date of death; if so, whether such a rule prevents the attendance of the inspectors, unless specially summoned, at the inquests in cases of this kind, besides introducing in-accuracy into the statistics of mortality in mines; and whether he will instruct the inspectors of mines, and, if necessary, the inspectors of factories and workshops also, that the interval of a year and a day

  855
  should affect their action only where a criminal charge is involved.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) For the purposes of the mining statistics the inspectors are instructed to include as fatal all accidents which result in death within a year and a day. Some limit of time is required, and the limit adopted corresponds with that under the criminal law in regard to murder. The rule has been in force for many years, and the number of cases that would be excluded by it would be too few to affect the statistics appreciably. The rule does not apply to the attendance of the inspector at the inquest, or prevent him taking official cognisance of the matter. In most cases, however, the accident will already have been reported to, and dealt with by, him as a non-fatal accident.

  Fees of Public Vaccinators.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to issue an Order giving effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which sat to consider the fees payable to public vaccinators; and, if so, when the Order is to be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Local Government Board have not at present arrived at a decision upon the recommendations of the Committee. Effect could only be partially given to them by means of an order.

  Parliamentary Constituencies.
  MR. TOULMIN (Bury, Lancashire): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will present a Return of the Parliamentary constituencies of the United Kingdom, showing the whole of the constituencies arranged in counties, each borough being placed next in order to the county or division of a county in which it is included; showing the population and Members of each constituency and of each county, including together borough and county division, or each section of a county where a county has been treated as more than one unit, as in North and North-East Lancashire and the Ridings of Yorkshire, and indicating by appropriate marks or type those con-
  856
  stituencies affected, and how, by the Redistribution Resolutions of the Government; and, also, a complete list of the individual constituencies of the United Kingdom, with the population of each, arranged in order of number of the population, indicating by an appropriate sign or special type each constituency where the number of Members is reduced, or, in the case of counties, where the constituency is part of a county the number of Members of which is reduced by the Government proposals, and also by another appropriate sign or type where the number of Members is increased.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I propose to lay on the Table a statement which will in substance include the particulars to which the hon. Member refers in the earlier part of the Question. As regards the latter part, viz., that which relates to a complete list of individual constituencies, if the hon. Member thinks fit to move for this as a Return the matter will receive consideration.

  Lisburn Postal Service—Promotion of Local Men.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a postman from Sligo postal district was lately brought to fill a vacancy at Lambeg in Lisburn district, although there were fully qualified men in Lisburn district; and whether, seeing that a local man carried out temporarily the duties of postman in the district for six months prior to the appointment of the Sligo postman to the satisfaction of the residents in the district, steps will be taken to insure that local men will be selected in preference to strangers.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware of the transfer referred to in the hon. Member's Question. The man transferred from the Sligo district to the Lisburn district is an established postman, and it is considered that men already holding established positions have a prior claim to temporary men or outsiders.

  Reinstatement of Orphans of late Thomas Durkan on the O'Conor (Floghena) Estate, County Mayo.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

  857
  of Ireland whether he is aware that the O'Conor (Floghena) Estate, situated near Charlestown, county Mayo, has recently been sold to the tenants under the Act of 1903; and whether, as no provision has been made for the reinstatement of the orphans of the late Thomas Durkan, evicted tenant, the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board will, in view of the circumstances surrounding this case, be instructed to provide for these orphans a farm equivalent in value to that from which their parents were evicted.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Proceedings for the sale of this estate have recently been instituted before the Estates Commissioners, who will, in due course, consider an application for reinstatement which they have received from Thomas Durkan's representative. If reinstatement is found impossible, the question of providing another holding will be considered.

  Untenanted Land on the Armstrong Estate, County Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Armstrong Estate, in Achenry, county Sligo, recently purchased by the Congested Districts Board, includes some 400 acres of untenanted land; that the tenants of this estate agreed to the terms of sale giving 24¾ years purchase to the landlord in the belief that these waste lands would be utilised for the enlargement of their uneconomic holdings; and will he say whether the Congested Districts Board contemplate bringing in persons from other counties and giving them these lands; and, if so, whether, as this course would mean the perpetuation of congestion in Achenry, inquirie, will be instituted with the view of first satisfying local wants and requirements before carrying out any scheme of migration.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The tenants on this estate have not at any time agreed to a price for their holdings, either with or without the untenanted land. The Board intend to enlarge the small holdings, and to utilise the remainder of the land for the benefit
  858
  of the small landowners in the adjacent congested districts. If any land remains, the claims of other land holders in the locality will be considered.

  Irish Transit Bate for Coal.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that it costs 25s. 4d. perton to load Irish coal from Castlecomer at Kingsbridge, Dublin, whilst Wigan can be delivered at 16s. per ton, this disadvantage to trade caused entirely by the transit rates in Ireland will receive the consideration of the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department will make inquiry into this matter, which had not previously been brought to their notice.

  Arterial Drainage in Ireland.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieuterant of Ireland if he has yet settled the terms of reference to the Commissioners who are to investigate the defects and necessities of arterial drainage in Ireland; and will he state the names of the Commissioners and the terms of reference.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I do not expect to be in a position to make any statement in this matter for some time. The terms of reference cannot be announced until the Commission has been constituted.

  Imprisonment for Debt in Ceylon.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the inconvenience attending the existing practice of imprisonment for debt in Ceylon; and whether he will consider the expediency of causing the law to be amended in this respect, especially as regards its application to the estate population of that colony, in view of the fact that such an alteration of the law would afford these Indian immigrants more adequate protection from the exactions of the chetty, or native moneylender.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have no information as to the working

  859
  of the system, but I will ask the Governor of Ceylon for a report.

  Canadian Preferential Tariff for South African Wine.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Canada proposes to give South Africa a preference on wine of 1s. per gallon; and if he will urge upon this Government to grant a similar preference.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Canadian Government agreed in February last to submit to Parliament legislation remitting the ad valorem duty on all Cape wines not exceeding 40 per cent. of proof spirit. A communication on the subject has been received from the Ministers of the Cape Colony, but the subject is not one with which the Government can deal during the present Parliament.

  Assistant Clerks in the Government Service.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there are many assistant clerks (new class) with an average of nine years established service, and in some cases with a total service of fourteen years, who are now in receipt of salaries of between £83 and £85 per annum only, whereas new entrants to the class after similar service will receive £100 per annum; and whether he proposes to take steps to remedy this inequality by giving partial retrospective effect to the recent scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I am not prepared to give any retrospective effect to the new scheme.

  Salary and Overtime of Assistant Clerks in Government Service.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of his statement that assistant clerks of six years service receive an increased rate of overtime, and of the Treasury regulations providing that only such clerks as are in receipt of £85 or over receive this increased rate, it is understood that all assistant clerks are entitled to a salary
  860
  of £85 after six years of approved service; and, if so, will the regulations be amended to include this provision.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I fear that the statement, to which the hon. Member refers, may have been misleading. The assistant clerks I had in mind were new entrants on the scale lately introduced. The reply to the two points now raised is in the negative.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what advantage assistant clerks of over six and less than nine years service derive from the new scheme in offices where overtime is not required.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The terms of the Treasury circular are quite clear, and I cannot undertake to explain how particular sections of the assistant clerks are affected by its provisions.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there are at present assistant clerks (new class) of nine years permanent service on salaries of £85 a year and under who are married; and whether, in view of the fact that a number of these officers obtained no benefit whatever from the new regulations, he will, following the precedent of the special age pay granted to postal officials, consider the question of granting similar advantages to assistant clerks who are married, or have reached a marriageable age.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Newington on the 13th instant†.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take steps to remove the disadvantage placed upon certain assistant clerks who, in consequence of the adjustment of incremental dates entailed by the Treasury reply to their petition, will be in receipt of a lower rate of pay for overtime than they would have been in receipt of had their incremental date remained unaltered, the proportionate
  † See page 555.

  861
  increment of salary received under that reply leaving their salaries for part o a year slightly less than the amount (£85 or £100, as the case may be) to be reached before the higher rate of overtime become payable.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Treasury circular benefited the class of assistant clerks as a whole; and if any disadvantage such as that mentioned accrues to a few, it must b infinitesimal, and I am not prepared to reopen the question.

  France and Germany and the Conference relative to Morocco — Anglo-French Convention.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as one of the principles on which France and Germany have agreed to take part in the conference relative to Morocco is economic liberty without any inequality, this is understood to imply the open door for foreign trade; and whether His Majesty's Government will, in conformity with that principle, suggest the revision of the Convention between France and Britain, so far as it arranges for the monopoly of the trade of Morocco by France at the end of thirty years.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) There can be no question of revising the Anglo-French Declaration, and if the hon. Member will refer to the text of that document he will see that it makes no arrangement such as he describes.

  Chinese Labour in British North Borneo.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the number of Chinese coolies engaged by the British North Borneo Company's coolie contractor each year since the company's charter was granted; the terms of their engagement; the annual rate of mortality; and the number sent back each year to their own country under the terms of the contract.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Government understand that no coolie contractor is employed by the company.

  Tax in Quebec on Commercial Travellers and Agents for Firms outside Canada.
  MR. TREVELYAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Government of Quebec have recently imposed a tax of 300 dollars on all commercial travellers and advertising agents for firms not having a place of business in Canada; and, if so, whether representations will be made by our Government to have the disadvantage removed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have not yet seen the Act of the Quebec Legislature referred to by the hon. Member, but I have asked the Governor-General of Canada to send me a copy of the Act, together with a report of the circumstances in which it was passed.

  Pay of Southampton Telegraph Clerks and Sorters.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the question of raising the maximum salary of the telegraph clerks at Southampton, in accordance with the regulations governing the classification of telegraphic offices.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have received a petition from the overseers (formerly designated "clerks") at Southampton for higher pay, and I informed them about four months ago that I am unable to comply with their request. I am considering a memorial from the sorting clerks and telegraphists at Southampton for a higher scale, and my decision will be announced to the staff in due course.

  Leicestershire Schools—Exclusion of Children under Five Years of Age.
  SIR CHARLES McLAREN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Leicestershire Education Committee to exclude from the public elementary schools in the county from 1st January next all children under five years of age in rural districts and all children under five years of age in such urban districts as the general purposes committee may

  863
  deem to come within the category of unfitness on physical grounds to attend school under that age; and whether, until the new Education Code takes legal effect, it will authorise the payment to the Leicestershire Education Committee of grants for infants at 22s. a head (as in the case of older children) in place of the payment of 17s. per head, the present rate, in order to compensate the county to some extent for the financial loss involved by raising the school age from three to five years.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board have been informed of the resolution referred to in the Question. The Board have no power under the present code to pay grant for infants at 22s. instead of 17s., beyond the power given by Article 31a (ii) to do so in cases where the average attendance of the infant division does not exceed twenty. The hon. Baronet is under a misapprehension in supposing that the new Code will give any increased power in this direction. The Article will remain exactly as before.

  Temporary Alteration of School Time-Table.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in the event of the organisation of a school being temporarily disturbed by the illness of teachers, visit of inspector, or similar causes, the time-table of the school may be departed from, providing that an entry of the change be made in the log book, notwithstanding the provision contained in Article 7 (b) of the Education Code, 1905–6.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) In such cases as are referred to by the hon. Member, where it is not possible to obtain previous sanction, the inspector should be at once informed of the alteration, and the departure from the arrangements of the time-table should not be continued without approval.

  Watford Grammar School.
  MR. SLACK: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Hertfordshire County Council propose to add to the Watford Grammar School, which is a denominational foundation,
  864
  a building for the girls department at a cost of £15,000 to the rates; and whether, seeing that the income of the existing school not being sufficient to maintain it without a county council grant, the whole cost of maintenance of the girls' department, as well as the building, will be defrayed out of public money, the Board of Education have taken any steps to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants of Watford; and whether the Board have sanctioned the proposal of the county council.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I have received deputations from the Watford and District Free Church Council and from a public meeting which was convened in Watford, and the Board are now in communication with the governors and the local education authority on the subject. The matter is still under consideration.

  Motor Boat "Pioneer"—Suggested Call at Wick.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he will give instructions that the experimental motor boat "Pioneer" shall call at Wick as soon as possible, with the object of showing to the fishermen there the I advantages of the motor-driven boat.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Secretary for Scotland has arranged for the motor fishing boat "Pioneer" to follow the herring fishing, and she will visit Wick in due course.

  Issue of Midwifery Orders by Believing Officers.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in some cases difficulty has arisen from poor women being unable to obtain assistance in their confinements in consequence of unregistered mid wives having been warned not to attend such cases, and no others being available; and whether, under these circumstances, he will issue an Order pointing out to the boards of guardians the duty of the relieving officers to grant midwifery orders to women destitute of the means of procuring medical attendance.

  865
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour) No case of the kind referred to has been brought to my notice. If the hon. Member is aware of any such cases, and will furnish me with particulars of them, I will cause inquiry to be made and will consider what action should be taken.

  Motor-Cars on the Continent.
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barn-staple): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Papers showing the laws, rules, and regulations in force with regard to motorcars in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Switzerland, together with any available official information as to the number of motor-cars in those countries, and the number of accidents which have happened within the past twelve months.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I contemplate that the Royal Commission will make inquiry as to the law and practice in relation to motor-cars in the principal foreign countries, and obtain any available information as to the experience of those countries. I think it will be best to leave the matter to them.

  Presence of British Admiral at a Spanish Bull Fight.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the Admiralty has been drawn to the presence on the 9th instant of the Admiral in command of the Mediterranean Fleet, with his officers, at a bull fight in Spain, at which the first bull is stated to have been killed in honour of the Admiral, who thereupon shook hands with the matador and presented him with a sum of £20; and whether these proceedings had or have the approval of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Admiralty have no information on this subject beyond what has appeared in the public Press. The £20, if paid as stated, would not be a charge upon the public funds.

  Station Sergeants of the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange that station sergeants in the Dublin Metropolitan Police shall wear numbers on their collars when on duty, as is done by the ordinary members of the force.
  Answered by Mr. Waller Long.) Station sergeants, who are few in number, wear a distinctive uniform, and can be easily identified at any time. There appears to be no reason why they should wear numbers as suggested.

  Length of Service of Chief Inspector of Gymnasia.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the present length of service of the Chief Inspector of Gymnasia; and whether his service has been extended beyond the age limit.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Colonel Hon. J. S. Napier joined the service on the 14th August, 1867. His service in his appointment expires in August next, and he reaches the age limit in November.

  East Ham Education Difficulty.
  MR. MCKENNA: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he wrote or caused to be written at some time a letter declaring his intention to introduce legislation or by some other means to give financial assistance to the education authority of East Ham; and, if so, what steps he now proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 5th June, † I have made no promise of legislation. I duly received the deputation of which I spoke in my Answer of that date. The deputation laid before me a very elaborate scheme of relief, and that scheme, in accordance with my promise to the deputation, is being carefully considered by the Departments concerned.
  † See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 722.

  867
  I am very anxious to find some means of meeting the difficulty; but great care is required for so delicate and difficult a problem, and time must be allowed before a detailed or final Answer can be given.

  Irish Act of Union and the Redistribution Proposals.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the Redistribution Resolutions contemplated by the Government amount to a violation of the Treaty of Union under which Ireland is guaranteed a certain number of seats, he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill for the repeal of the Act of Union on an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J Balfour.) No, Sir, I cannot consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

  The Unemployed Bill.
  MR. CREMER: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is willing to meet in conference the Labour Members of the House with a view to an understanding in regard to the conditions upon which he believes there is a possibility of passing the Unemployed Bill during the present session.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour,) The hon. Member's Question was in substance answered by me to-day in the House in reply to a Question of similar import.

  The Unemployed Bill—Suggested Autumn Session.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, if it should be found impossible to proceed with the Unemployed Bill this session, he will consider the advisability of calling Parliament together in the autumn, so that the relief provided in the Bill may be available during next winter.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I have every reason to hope that negotiations which are proceeding for a modification of the Bill will prove successful. I cannot concur in the proposal which he hon. Member recommends.

  Trawling in Scotch Waters.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: TO ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the evidence recently laid before the Departmental Committee on the Sea Fisheries of Sutherland and Caithness, as to the injury and damage caused by trawling to the white fishing and the herring fishing in the Moray Firth and the Pentland Firth, the Government will appoint a special Commission to inquire into the whole question of trawling.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am advised that while the International Inquiry into the whole question of fish supply in the North Sea is proceeding there would seem to be no sufficient reason for the appointment of a special Commission to inquire into the question, of trawling.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Seamen's Debts.
    MR. MCFADDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he received some time ago a request from Mr. Bernard C. M'Elhinnery, Rathmullan, county Donegal, asking for the address of a man named John Thomas Bell, employed in His Majesty's service, on the ground that he was indebted to the said Mr. M'Elhinnery for the rent of a house due whilst stationed at Rathmullan, in order that he might sue Bell for his debt; whether the request was refused on the ground that there was a rule prohibiting the supplying of such information; and whether steps will be taken to alter this rule, so that facilities may be given to creditors in the position of Mr. M'Elhinnery to ascertain the address of persons in His Majesty's service who evade payment of their just debts.
    *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LEE, Fareham, Hants): This application was refused as it is contrary to Admiralty practice to furnish information respecting the whereabouts of men serving in the Royal Navy, except for the satisfaction of relatives, or for the furtherance of some public object. This practice is based on

    869
    the provision in the Naval Discipline Act which protects seamen against arrest for debts incurred whilst in the service.

    Proposed Reduction of the Volunteers.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the number of efficient Volunteers, as stated in the annual Return, is 244,537, he can state by what method and within what time it is proposed to eliminate the 64,537 efficients so as to reduce the total force to 180,000.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): In the absence of my right hon. friend I will read his Answers to the Questions addressed to him. Until reports have been received from the general officers commanding as to the condition of the Volunteer corps in their commands, it is impossible to say whether there will be any, and if so, what reductions in the numbers of the Volunteers. I have already explained to the House that the figure named is that which will allow of the additional grants which I think necessary being made to the Volunteers. I do not anticipate any considerable diminution of the Volunteer force until the incidence of the capitation grant has been altered in such a way as to enable commanding officers to get rid of unfit men, without thereby impairing the financial condition of the corps under their command.
    MAJOR SEELY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us at what time it is proposed to reduce the Volunteers to 180,000 men? Will he give us a date?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The information which has been asked for in the circular recently issued will, presumably, be in the War Office by October 31st, the date named in the circular. When that circular has been replied to my right hon. friend will be in a position to judge what further action is required.
    MR. MCCRAE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the information there asked for, being for
    870
    active service abroad, is to be taken as the standard of efficiency?
    No Answer being forthcoming.
    MR. MCCRAEsaid: It is most important, Sir, that we should have an Answer.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The Question is one of which notice should be given.

    Volunteer Musketry Efficiency.
    MR. M'CRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state which standard of musketry efficiency in the Volunteer Regulations, 1901, will be taken as equivalent to first-class shot in order to comply with paragraph 4, Army Council Circular Letter of July 11th, 1905.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: In the case of Volunteers who have not carried out the present course as laid down in Musketry Regulations of 1903, but have fired that contained in Appendix VIII. Volunteer Regulations, 1901, the equivalent to a first-class shot will be held to be the obtaining of not less than fifty-five points in the last course performed (individual practices).

    The Conference with Volunteer Officers.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War by whom the commanding officers invited to confer with him on questions relating to the Volunteer force are being selected; and if he will consider the expediency of leaving the nomination of the delegation to the Institute of the Commanding Officers of Volunteers.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The general officers commanding in chief have been requested to make arrangements for the attendance of representative officers commanding Volunteer battalions. It is not proposed to interfere with their discretion in the selection of those officers.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: How is a general officer to select them?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: That is left entirely to his discretion.

    The Medical Examination of Volunteers
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the amount of time that would be required for the medical and dental examination of the Volunteer force for active service demanded by his recent circular, and to the paucity of medical officers and the calls upon their professional time, he will authorise a fee of 5s. to be paid for such examination or the equivalent honorarium for the examination of a recruit for the Army by a civil practitioner; and, further, if the Volunteers themselves will be reimbursed their expenses in travelling to and from the medical and dental centre.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: As the Secretary of State stated in reply to a Question put last Wednesday†, there is no reason to suppose that the service will appreciably add to the expenditure of Volunteer corps, and it is not proposed to grant any special allowance. The matter, however, is receiving consideration.
    MR. MCCRAE: Seeing that this examination is for service abroad is it to be compulsory on all Volunteer battalions?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: It is compulsory in so far as supplying the information is concerned.
    MR. MCCRAE: AS the Volunteers are enrolled for home service alone, I would ask whether that is in accordance with the Volunteer Regulations?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

    Indian Army Administration.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask if the Government are in a position to make any statement as to the decision of the Government of India on the question of military administration which recently arose?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The Viceroy has communicated to me by telegraph certain points in connection with the despatch of May 31st
    †See page 390.
    872
    on Army administration, on which the Government of India think it necessary to make representations, in order, as they submit, to render the working of the new scheme practicable. I have explained in return that these recommendations do not contravene the provisions of the despatch, and have expressed the satisfaction of His Majesty's Government that Lord Kitchener is now in accord with the Viceroy and his Council as to the course to be adopted with regard to them. The points on which the Viceroy requested assurances were as follows:— (1) That the Member of Council in charge of the Military Supply Department should always be a soldier. His Majesty's Government are prepared to appoint a soldier to the impending vacancy, but they cannot fetter the discretion of the Crown as to future vacancies. (2) That the Military Supply Member should be available for official consultation by the Viceroy on all military questions without distinction. The reply of His Majesty's Government is that there is no desire to fetter the constitutional right of the Viceroy to consult any member of his Council officially or unofficially on any subject, but that the existing system, by which all the Commander-in-Chief's proposals pass to the Viceroy through the channel of the Military Member having been done away with, it follows that no special claim can exist for the Military Supply Member to be consulted or vote on the proposals of the Commander-in-Chief or vice versa. (3) That the Secretary to the Government of India in the Army Department (to be in future presided over by the Commander-in-Chief) should be given the local rank of major-general. To this there is no objection. (4) That important changes in military organisation, especially in the native Army, should be discussed by a Mobilisation Committee, of which the Commander-in-Chief and Military Supply Member should be essential members, and that a schedule of cases should be drawn up which the Secretary in the Army Department should submit to the Viceroy before orders are passed on them. These provisions are entirely in accord with the despatch; and His Majesty's Government are glad to find that on this, as on the preceding points,

    873
    they can meet the views of the Government of India without affecting the principle of the new system which it has been deemed necessary to establish. The telegrams are being laid on the Table.

    Morocco Conference.
    *MR. DISRAELI: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have yet received a proposal to enter into a conference with other foreign Governments in regard to the affairs of Morocco; and, if so, whether he can state if such proposal has been accepted, and upon what conditions.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): His Majesty's Government have been asked by the Moorish Government to join in a conference, and we have intimated that, subject to a satisfactory settlement of the programme, and of the time and place of meeting, we shall be prepared to take part in the proceedings.
    *MR. DISRAELI: What other foreign Governments besides France and Germany have consented to join and upon what conditions?
    EARL PERCYsaid he was afraid he could not answer at present.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When will the correspondence be laid?
    EARL PERCY: I cannot make any pledge. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It will be laid I take it?
    EARL PERCY: I cannot make any promise.

    Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cayan, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Report for May of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, in which it is
    874
    stated that the comfort and welfare of some 11,036 children were affected, involving 5,091 offenders, that sentences aggregating forty-two years one month and two days imprisonment were inflicted, and £61 9s. paid in fines, and will he state the nature of the cruelty alleged; and whether the figures include 2,979 children who were insured for £15,348, forty-four of whom met their death.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I have seen the Report referred to by the hon. Member. Particulars of the complaints are given in the Report; and it will be seen from them that the great majority were cases of neglect, starvation, ill-treatment, or assaults. I have ascertained that, of the children known to be insured, fourteen died. The figure forty-four represents the total number, amongall the cases inquired into by the society, which resulted in death.

    Ireland and the Aliens Bill.
    MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to the Aliens Bill, whether he can now stats at what ports in Ireland it is proposed to establish immigration officers or boards set up for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The immigration machinery will probably have to be established at Queeenstown or Londonderry. Which of these should be made an immigration port, or whether both should be made immigration ports, must defend on the results of further inquiry, and actual experience of the working of the Act.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: If there is any doubt about Londonderry, I presume there can be none about Queenstown?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Accidents to Children in London Streets.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the number of children

    875
    run over or injured by motor-cars or other vehicles in London; whether he has any official information showing that these accidents often arise from children following street cars and suddenly darting across narrow streets from behind the cars; and, if so, whether he will direct the police authorities to forbid children running after or clinging to street cars, and put up notices to this effect; and whether he can state how many children were killed or injured by street accidents in London last year.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I find that, in the Metropolitan Police district during the year 1904, seventy-one children were killed and 3,500 were injured, out of a total of 155 killed and 10,387 injured among persons of all ages. I fear it is impossible for the police altogether to prevent children from running after or clinging to street cars. They do their best to stop the practice, and frequently intervene, in the exercise of their discretion, to forbid children doing it; but the hon. Member will readily understand that there is often much danger in suddenly warning a child away from a street car to which it is holding. I can only add that everything possible is done to keep down the number of accidents.

    Cruelty to Dogs at Lambeth Stairs.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give orders to the police to prevent cruelty to dogs when they are repeatedly thrown into the water, until exhausted, from Lambeth Stairs.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, Sir, I am to-day sending instructions to the police to give their attention to this matter, and to be ready to intervene whenever any instance of cruelty at Lambeth Stairs comes under their notice.

    Dover and the Immigration Bill.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds he has not included Dover in the list of immigrant ports under the Aliens Bill.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Dover has not been included in the list of immigra-
    876
    tion ports mentioned in the discussions on the Bill, because hitherto the wholesale immigration traffic, against which the Bill is directed, has not come to that port. If circumstances should alter, and show the necessity for so doing, Dover will be made an immigration port. The ports selected in the first instance are those to which this traffic chiefly comes, as shown by the Board of Trade Return. Alien Immigration from Europe, page 39.
    MR. RUNCIMANfurther asked as to the views of the Dover Harbour Board, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am not a member of that Board. I have, however, received their views, and I do not think there is any necessity to alter my decision.
    MR. EMMOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted with the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, of whose opinion he should know something?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have before me the returns of aliens and I will give the hon. Gentleman the figures. Taking the average of 1903–4, two years, the following are the number of aliens returned as arriving—at Hull, 67,600; London, 45,000; Grimsby, 37,500; New-haven, 14,600; Tyne ports, 10,300; Harwich, 8,600; Leith and Grangemouth, 6,500; Southampton, 4,100; against 1,900 at Dover, and as against 3,700 at all the remaining twenty-eight ports at which returns are taken.
    MR. RUNCIMANasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that during the last few months, and especially the last few weeks, there had been a great increase in the number of passengers landed at Dover.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have not seen that, but I will inquire.

    Hollesley Bay Labour Colony.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the fact that the Government have abandoned the Unemployed Bill, he will state the practical results of the

    877
    experiment carried out at the labour colony at Hollesley Bay; whether it has been satisfactory; and if it is intended to extend the principle to other localities.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that the Government have abandoned the Unemployed Workmen Bill. They have not given up hope of its being proceeded with. I may, however point out that information with respect to the labour colony at Hollesley Bay will be found at pages 34 to o7 of the Preliminary Statement prepared by the Central Executive Committee of the London Unemployed Fund, which has been presented to Parliament, and I presume that additional information on the subject will be given in the further Report of the Committee. I understand that the general experience of the colony is regarded as decidedly hopeful.
    Mr. FLYNN: If the right hon. Gentleman has not abandoned his bantling, will he say to what foundling hospital he has sent his progeny, and where it is to be found.
    SIR JOHN GORST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if Mr. Rider Haggard is to be employed by the Government to inquire into the labour problem or some part of it?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not in a position to answer that.

    Secret Commissions Paid by Parliamentary Agents—Action of the Holborn Borough Council.
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been railed to a letter dated July 8th, 1905, from the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Holborn Borough Council, in reference to the secret commission of 33⅓ per cent. paid by Messrs. Bircham and Co., Parliamentary Agents, to Mr. H. C. Jones, late town clerk of Holborn, stating that the money in question was paid as secret commission and not as agency fees; whether he is aware that in consequence of this payment the Holborn Town Council have
    878
    removed their Parliamentary business from this firm; will he say whether Messrs. Bircham and Co. still retain their appointment as Parliamentary Agents to the Board of Trade; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a letter from the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Holborn Borough Council containing a statement to the effect referred to. I have also received an extract from a report by a committee, which was adopted by the borough council, which contains a recommendation to the effect that in future the council should employ for their Parliamentary work outside their offices some firm which has a rule prohibiting its members from making any allowance of the kind in question. The last part of the Question should be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

    Motor-Car Act Inquiry.
    MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the inquiry into the working of the Motor-Car Act, 1903, will be open to the publi; and whether its scope will enable the Royal Commissioners to consider the position of cottagers and others who, from their dwellings being on the roadside, suffer from the dust occasioned by the present motor-car traffic.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It will be for the Royal Commission to decide whether their proceedings shall be open to the public or not. The Answer to the latter part of the Question is in the affirmative.

    Alien Paupers in England and Wales.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what was the ratio of alien paupers to the total number of paupers in England and Wales in the latest year for which the figures are available; what was the total cost of Poor Law relief in that year: and what was the cost of Poor Law relief to aliens calculated at that ratio.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The latest figures in my possession as to alien paupers relate to the 1st July, 1903, The ratio of alien paupers to the total number of paupers in England and Wales on that date was about 0·22 par cent. The total cost of Poor Law relief in the year 1903–4 was in round numbers £13,369,500, and the cost of relief to alien paupers calculated on the above ratio would be about £29,000.
    SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON: Has any estimate been made of the rate of pauperism in those districts which are crowded by aliens?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not in a position to give the figures.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand the alien pauper represents one in 500?

    Govan and the Redistribution Scheme.
    MR. HUNTER CRAIG: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board why the municipal borough of Govan, with a population of over 90,000 inhabitants, is not provided with a Member to itself in the Government Redistribution scheme, which provides that all municipal boroughs with a population of 65,000 are entitled to a Member.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention hag been called to the case of Govan and I have made inquiry about it. I agree that it should receive separate representation as coming under Paragraph 1 (b) (i) of the Redistribution Resolution. The result will be that the number of Members for the county of Lanark will remain at six as at present.

    The Redistribution Scheme.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that by changing 18,500 to 25,000, as the proposed population limit for the disfranchisement of boroughs, and 75,000 to 65,000, as the population limit for the disfranchisement of double Member constituencies, and by providing that no county or borough with more than two
    880
    Members shall have less Members than the integer obtained by dividing its population by 50,000, the number of the Members of the House will be left unaltered at 670, whilst the English counties of Cornwall, Devon, Lincoln, Norfolk, Somerset, and Wilts would not be deprived of one Member each; and whether, in view of the advantage thus obtained, he would be prepared to amend the Redistribution scheme on the lines indicated.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that the proposal of the hon. Member would have the result which he supposes. Its effect would be largely to increase the number of the Members of the House, while, as regards the counties of Lincoln and Norfolk which he mentions, the number of Members in each case would still be diminished by one. The hon. Member's plan would, moreover, involve applying a different minimum to counties and boroughs. I could not undertake to amend the Redistribution scheme on the lines indicated.
    MR. CROOKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider one man in King's Lynn equal to six and a-half men at Lewisham?
    MR. COGHILL: Does the Government propose to "jerry -Balfour" the constituencies.
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that if the Redistribution scheme is passed as proposed, the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Lincoln, Norfolk, and Wilts, with a present population of about 50,000 to every Parliamentary constituency, will be deprived of one Member each, and six small boroughs, with populations averaging about 20,000 each, will retain the privilege of sending a Member to Parliament; and whether such inequalities are intended to be remedied before the Resolution is passed.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware that the effect of the schem

    881
    would be substantially as stated in the Question, but perhaps I may be allowed to refer the hon. Member to the observations contained in the last paragraph of my Memorandum of July 10th which has been presented to Parliament.

    Redistribution—Cost of the Boundary Commissioners.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether provision has been made in the Estimates of the current year for the payment of the Boundary Commissioners proposed to be authorised by the Resolution now before the House.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No specific provision has been made in the Estimates for this purpose. The expenses of the Commission would be defrayed out of the Vote for Temporary Commissions.

    Alien Population.
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can give the figures for 1904 of the total emigration of aliens, not being transmigrants, but who have resided in this country; and can state whether the figure of 75,000 immigrants appearing in the Board of Trade Return represents the increase to the alien population in that year, or whether any deduction should be made from it in respect of such emigration.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Black-friars): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The figure of 75,000 represents the number of aliens recorded as arriving in the United Kingdom from European countries in 1904, after deducting seamen and known transmigrants. The number does not purport to represent the increase in the alien population in the year, since it takes no account of aliens arriving from non-European countries, or of aliens (other than known transmigrants) departing from the United Kingdom, or of deaths among the alien population during the year.

    Passenger Bates from the Continent.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state approximately what is the usual difference between the cost of cabin and the cost of steerage passages from the port of Antwerp or Hamburg to Hull or London.
    MR. BONAR LAW: The Board of Trade are informed that in the case of passages to London, the approximate difference between the cost of cabin and steerage passages from Antwerp is 11s., and from Hamburg 11s. 9d. In the case of passages to Hull, the difference in the rates from Antwerp is stated to be 7s. 6d., and from Hamburg 12s.

    The United States and Aliens.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state what was the total number of aliens debarred from landing in the United State, on the ground that they were criminals, in the last five years for which the figures are available; and what was the total number of aliens in the prisons and penitentiaries of the United States at the end of those years.
    MR. BONAR LAW: All the information on this subject that the Board of Trade are in a position to give, was given in answer to a Question by the hon. Member on February 22nd†.

    Hyde Park, Cleansing of the Carriage Drive.
    *MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state what amount of filth and nuisance was removed from the carriage drive in Hyde Park for the months of April, May, and June; what staff is required to attend to this department; what is done with the refuse, and, if sold, what does it realise; and whether if this nuisance can be diminished, it will add to the comfort and health of those using the park.
    LORD BALCARRES: Five hundred and forty-six cubic yards of scavenging refuse were removed
    †See (4) Debates, cxli., 896.

    883
    from the drives in Hyde Park in the three months named. The Office of Works has a staff of sweepers (averaging about twelve), but the actual removal of the refuse is carried out by a contractor, and the Office of Works is not concerned with his disposal of it. Nothing is received for the refuse from the contractor. The First Commissioner does not see what more effective measures can be taken for the carrying out of this service.

    Churches (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether under the Churches (Scotland) Bill the Free Church and the United Free Church will be able to hold the property allocated to them respectively, notwithstanding any alteration that may be made in their constitution or doctrines.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The Answer to the Question of the hon. and learned Member must obviously depend on the precise alteration and on whether it is permitted by the constitution of the Church making it.

    Use of the Truncheon by Irish Policemen.
    MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to an action brought by one Edward Carroll against Dominick Masterson and Michael Cryan, two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in which these defendants were mulcted in £100 damages for striking the plaintiff on the head with their truncheons; and whether his attention has been drawn to the charge to the jury of the learned Judge who tried the case, in which his lordship laid down that a policeman was not justified, except in case of extreme emergency (such as the case of a man rushing at the police with a knife), in using his truncheon on the head of a civilian; and whether, considering the number of occasions upon which the law thus explained has been broken he will communicate the learned Judge's charge to the constabulary officers and officials in Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I have read a newspaper report of the charge. It appears to be greatly condensed, and I cannot say whether it is accurate. The learned Judge does not appear to lay down any general rule embracing all cases in which a policeman would be justified in striking a person on the head with his truncheon, but confined himself to one case as an example. The force are fully instructed in the law on the point, and it would not appear to be necessary to further instruct them, even if a full and authentic report of the Judge's remarks were available, which it is not.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if the report is correct?
    MR. DELANY: Have the damages been paid in this case?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say.
    MR. CULLINAN: As the right hon. Gentleman declines to communicate the learned Judge's decision to the police, will he say under what law they assault the people?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I did not decline. What I said was that the police had explicit instructions in this matter, and I saw no reason to add to them.
    MR. HAVILAND BURKE: In future cases will the right hon. Gentleman take care to ascertain if statements published as to Judges' charges are correct?
    MR. WALTER LONG: It seems to me that question does not now arise.

    Irish Lord Chancellor's Salary.
    MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in reference to the provision in the Bill to augment the Ireland Development Grant to reduce the salary attached to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland by £2,000 a year, he could see his way, with the assent of the present Irish Lord Chancellor, to

    885
    secure that the provision might come into operation on the passing of the Act instead of at the next vacancy in the office, so as to secure the money at once for the object contemplated; and whether he will favourably consider Amendments designed to carry out this object.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot undertake to entertain an Amendment of this character.

    Assistant Law Adviser of the Irish Local Government Board.
    MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any person, and, if so, who, has been appointed as assistant to the law adviser of the Local Government Board for Ireland, and the date of such appointment, if any, and the salary attached to such appointment.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No such appointment has been made.

    Constable Masterson, Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps were taken to secure the apprehension of Constable Masterson between the date of his disappearance, on the 30th June, and the assizes, on the 5th July, on which date he failed to surrender to his bail; and can he say on what date, and to whom, did the district inspector at Maryborough report Masterson's disappearance.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The constable was out on his own recognisances to appear at the assizes and there was no power to apprehend him until he had failed to appear. The fact of his disappearance on 30th June was at once reported by the district inspector to the Inspector-General, and information was circulated to the police at important centres throughout the country. At the assizes a Bench warrant for the constable's arrest was obtained at the first possible moment, and is now in the hands of the police, who have made every effort to arrest the constable, but so far without effect. I have most carefully investigated the whole circum-
    886
    stances, and am satisfied that the suggestion of connivance on the part of the police is absolutely without foundation.
    MR. HAVILAND BURKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in future members of the Royal Irish Constabulary on bail against whom a serious charge is pending are no longer permitted to retain their quarters in the police barracks?
    MR. WALTER LONG: They will be treated in the future as in the past.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Will you grant a sworn inquiry into this case?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly not.
    MR. SHEEHY: Did the man go away in uniform or in plain clothes?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say.
    MR. DELANY: Why did the County Court Judge accept this man's personal security?
    A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Because he wanted him to bolt.

    Promotion in the Irish Agricultural Department.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the increases of salary that have been granted to certain officials of the Irish Agricultural Department, some of whom had not been two years in the Department's service, will he state what was the latest recommendation made to the Treasury on behalf of the clerks transferred from the Veterinary Department to the new Department who have now eleven years service and only £97 10s. a year, and who will have served twenty-six years before they become entitled to 15s. a week pension.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Any recommendations which may have been made to the Treasury are of a confidential character, and I can give no information on the subject.

    Lisnemaine, County Cavan, Evicted Tenant.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Patrick McConnell, the evicted tenant of a farm in Lisnemaine, county Cavan; whether, as the landlord alleges, the Estates Commissioners are responsible for causing unnecessary delay in reinstating the said tenant; if not, who is; and, further, when will possession likely be given.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Proceedings for the sale of the estate concerned were only instituted in December. The agreements for purchase include one signed by Patrick McConnell. The state will be inspected in order of priority, and in the meantime McConnell's purchase cannot be completed. There has been no unnecessory delay.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants in County Cavan.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of evicted tenants in county Cavan; the number of applications filed for reinstatement; and how many evicted tenants have been actually reinstated, distinguishing between those who were restored to their old homes and those for whom new farms were procured.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Estates Commissioners are unable to answer the first inquiry. Applications for reinstatement have been made by 158 evicted tenants from the county; of these five have been restored to their former holdings, and one has been provided with a farm elsewhere.

    Amalgamation of Boys' and Girls' Schools in Ireland.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have taken into their consideration the statement and resolution which the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, with the Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh in
    888
    the chair, adopted on the 14th ult., in opposition to the policy of amalgamating boys' and girls' schools; and, if so, whether the Commissioners propose to make any modification of the rules to which the Catholic hierarchy have taken objection.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am in communication with the Commissioners in this matter, and will ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to repeat the Question on Wednesday.

    Dublin Police Report.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain the reason for the delay in publishing the annual report of the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and state when it will be published.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am inquiring into the reasons for the delay. The report, I understand, will be circulated at once.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants by the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of evicted tenants reinstated by the direct action of the Estates Commissioners, and give the names and numbers for each county where such reinstatements have been effected, and the assistance granted to each evicted tenant by the Commissioners.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This information is being prepared, and will be communicated to the hon. Member.

    The Irish Land Judge's Court.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return in reference to the Land Judge's Court on the Paper for this day.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir, the Return will be granted.

    889
    Appended is the Return referred to—
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Land Judge's Court (Ireland).—Return, by counties, of the Estates in the Land Judge's Court over which Receivers have been appointed (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 182, of Session 1904).

    Land Purchase at Abbeyfeale, County Limerick.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of tenants in the parish of Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, who have purchased their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts previous to the Land Act, 1903; how many have purchased, or arranged to purchase, under the latter Act; can he say whether there are any tenant farmers in that parish who have not purchased their holdings; and, if so, how many.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The records of the Land Commission are kept according to counties, and not according to parishes. Information as to county Limerick under the first two heads of the Question will be found in the last Annual Report of the Land Commission. The third inquiry cannot be answered.

    Crime in County Limerick.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state in how many cases within the past two years white gloves have been presented to the County Court Judge of Limerick; and whether he is aware that at the last criminal sessions His Honour stated that the county was in a most peaceable condition.
    MR. WALTER LONG: On six occasions within the past two years. The Judge is reported in the Press to have used language to the effect mentioned. His remarks would appear to have had reference to the county as a whole, and not to any particular district of it.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Judge Kenny, in his address to the grand
    890
    jury at Limerick Assizes, on the information of the county inspector or constabulary, that in certain districts in the county of Limerick comprising portions of Abbeyfeale and Newcastle. West agrarian outrages were on the increase, and that since last assizes five additional persons had to be placed under police protection; if he will state the names and number of such persons, and the reason for their protection, having regard to the fact that newly all the land in the parish of Abbeyfeale has been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts, aid that there was no crime of an agrarian character before the Judge.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the Rev. Father Casey, parish priest of Abbeyfeale, at a meeting of the United Irish League there, in referring to Judge Kenny's charge to the grind jury at Limerick Assizes, in which he associated that district with crime, that he did not know of any man within ten miles of Abbeyfeale under police protection, and that his parishioners conducted their business without recourse to violence of any kind; and whether, under these circumstances, he will say if any statistics were supplied by the constabulary authorities to the Judge; and, if so, whether he will supply them to the House.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Judge of Assize and the Rev. Mr. Casey are reported in the Press to have used language to the effect mentioned in these two Questions respectively. The Judge's statement was entirely accurate. Of the fire persons referred to in that statement, some were examined as witnesses for the Crown in a moonlighting case in which criminals were brought to justice, others are relatives of those witnesses, and one is suspected of having given information. These persons do not reside in the parish of Abbeyfeale. They are under police protection because it is believed that their connection with this prosecution has placed their lives and property in danger. To give their names or fuller information with regard to them might

    891
    increase that danger, and I must respectfully decline to give it.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What was the nature of the moonlighting case?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I think that was an attack on a house.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Can you answer the last part of my Question as to statistics?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I imagine the statistic s were supplied in the ordinary way.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will you give me further information as to this matter? I think I am entitled to it as a Member for the county.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have said that if I were to give further information it might increase the danger in which these people are, and I am not inclined to do that.

    North of Ireland Postal Service.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has recently received copies of resolutions passed by the urban councils of Dungannon, Omagh, Cookstown, Strabane, and Armagh in favour of an evening postal service via Greenore and Holyhead, whereby an extension of two hours would be given to all towns lying between Londonderry and Greenore for posting their English letters; and whether, in the interests of Ulster generally, he will consider the desirability of establishing such service.
    THE POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): Many of the local authorities in the North of Ireland have applied to me for a service to England by way of Greenore, and only last week I received an influential deputation on the subject. I am now making further inquiry as to the possibility of meeting their wishes, and I will in due course communicate my decision to the hon. Member.

    Cookstown Telephone Arrangements.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General has he received a
    892
    copy of a resolution, passed unanimously on the 3rd instant by the Cookstown Urban District Council, expressing disappointment that no step has yet been taken to construct the line of telephone between Cookstown, Dungannon, Omagh, and Belfast, notwithstanding that a line is being constructed to connect certain towns in the counties of Deny and Antrim with Belfast, which line will be longer, more expensive, and for fewer subscribers than the line proposed for the Tyrone towns; and, having regard to this resolution and previous correspondence with the Postmaster-General, and in view of the fact that it would be only fair that the people of Tyrone should receive equal treatment to that accorded to their neighbours in Derry and Antrim, can he now say when steps will be taken to have the line constructed.
    LORD STANLEY: I have received the resolution referred to and am giving the subject careful consideration. I should be quite willing at once to extend the telephone system to the Tyrone towns in question, if there were as many persons in them willing to rent telephones as there are telephone subscribers in Derry and Antrim.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But did not a return sent to the noble Lord last year show more prospective subscribers?
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is the case, though.

    Late Letters for the Limerick Night Mail.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that persons desiring to post late letters it the night mail leaving Limerick have been refused entrance to the railway station by the officials of the railway company, although showing the letters; and whether he will have representations made to the company to facilitate the posting of late letters at the station.
    LORD STANLEY: My attention has been called to this matter. I should

    893
    perhaps explain that the public are only allowed to go on railway platforms to post letters by favour of the railway company, and that it is of course always open to a company to refuse that favour. As only passengers are now allowed on the platform at Limerick Station, I have given instructions for the letter box in front of the booking office which is accessible to the public at all times to be cleared a few minutes before the time of despatch of the mail trains in order that it may be used for late-fee letters for the mail.

    Wiltshire and the Redistribution Scheme.
    MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that there are at present in the county of Wilts fire county constituencies with an average population of over 50,000 each; that there is in the same county a borough with a population of 19,421, as returned by the census of 1901; and that the proposals of the President of the Local Government Board entail the disfranchisement of one county seat, representing an average population of over 50,000, and the retention of the borough as a Parliamentary constituency with its population of 19,421; and, if, under these circumstances, he will reconsider the Redistribution proposals of the Government in so far as they affect the county of Wilts.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): As I think the hon. Gentleman will see, there is no possible principle to be laid down, short of equal electoral areas, which will not produce, or rather I ought to say leave, in a diminished form some anomalies. The Government are clearly averse from the principle of equal electoral districts, which as far as I know has never found any favour with responsible statesmen on either side of the House, and the hon. Gentleman, therefore, must not make it a matter of reproach that anomalies exist under the scheme we have submitted.

    Ireland and the Redistribution Bill.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to
    894
    the fact that at the passing of the Reform Act of 1832 the population of Ireland entitled that country to 261 Members, and that a demand for an increase in the Irish, representation to that figure was rejected by the British Parliament on the ground that the Act of Union fixed the Irish representation for ever at the present figure; whether he is aware that the Ministers of the time and both English Parties insisted that the Act of Union was a treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, and could not be altered unless by consent of both parties; and whether he can state on what grounds it is proposed to make population the test when the population has declined, seeing that this Parliament refused to accept that test when the Irish population had largely increased.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Such information as I have in my possession does not lead me to believe that the hon. Gentleman is accurate in his statement in the first portion of his Question, but he may have been able to give a more detailed examination to the debates of 1831–32 than I have been able. I have not come across the statement to which he refers. As regards the original arrangement in the Act of Union, the representation of Ireland appears, as far as it can be made out, to have been fixed upon the double consideration of taxable value and population. ["Oh."] I may be wrong.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: You are.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood that view was common property. I do not know how that would work out on the present occasion. It is not my business to make the necessary inquiries, and it is not the plan on which the Government propose to proceed.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that Mr. Stanley, in dealing with this subject in reference to the Reform Act of 1832, refused to increase the number of Irish Members, or to take into consideration the increase of population, because he argued that Ireland was stopped from asking more having accepted the figure of 100 in the Act of Union.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is possible; if the hon. Gentleman has seen that reference, I have no doubt it is accurate. I have come across some obiter dicta of independent Members of that time, but not any authoritative statement of the then Government which bears out the contention in the Question. But I do not wish to assert a negative; if the hon. Gentleman knows it, I quite accept his statement.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Might I most respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that before he seriously proposes to interfere with the representation of Ireland he ought to make himself acquainted with the facts?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman does me, quite unconsciously, some injustice. I have made myself acquainted with the fact that all the provisions of the Act of Union relating to the representation of Ireland's counties and boroughs, or almost all, have been violated, chiefly by those with whom he acts.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I made a respectful suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to have made himself acquainted with the facts: is he entitled in answer to that suggestion to make an argumentative statement?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the point of order, Sir, may I ask whether, when I am reproached with ignorance—
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: You admitted it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With ignorance of the fundamental considerations that ought to govern the conduct of the House in this matter, I am to be debarred from stating and proving that I had adequate knowledge as regards the matter in hand.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the difference of opinion which exists on this question, he will not consider the propriety of publishing, as a Parliamentary Paper, first, the Act of Union, and secondly, the brief
    896
    debate, for such it was, which took place in 1832 on the question of the Irish representation.
    *MR. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of this.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Stanley, who made this declaration, was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and subsequently became Lord Derby? As it was an official declaration on the part of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman circulate that speech?
    *MR. SPEAKER: That also does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
    SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Is it not the fact that the result of the Union with Ireland for the first thirty years of the last century was largely to increase the population of Ireland?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Unemployed Bill.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, having regard to the number of unemployed in Sheffield and the district in the winter and to the increasing importation of staple goods they used formerly to make, he will indicate, in view of the exigencies of next winter, what portions of the Unemployed Bill can be regarded as uncontentious, and drop the remainder.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board is, I believe, in communication with Gentlemen on both sides of the House; and I have great hopes that there may be a common desire to agree upon a Bill which should be, if not universally approved, at all events sufficiently in conformity with the general view of the House as to be practically uncontentious.

    The Redistribution Resolutions.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask you whether you are now in a position to give a ruling with reference to the point of procedure to which I took the liberty of calling your attention last Thursday—namely, whether it would be

    897
    in accordance with the rules of procedure and of precedent to take the Redistribution Resolution as one Resolution, or whether it ought not, as has been done in similar cases, to be submitted to a Committee of the House?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I also ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give your ruling us to my point of order—namely, whether, when a Resolution contains various different propositions, it should not be divided, and each proposition put separately?
    *MR. SPEAKER: I have had an opportunity of taking into consideration all the points that were raised on Thursday last; and I have come to the conclusion that to offer the Resolution which stands in the name of the President of the Local Government Board and to take it in the ordinary way—that is, en bloc—after the first Amendment has been disposed of, would not afford to the House a sufficient and adequate opportunity for discussing the various matters and principles which are contained in that Resolution. I think, therefore, the Resolution ought to be divided into at least eight, and probably nine, Resolutions. When that point is reached I have further to consider whether, in taking a series of Resolutions like these, eight or nine in number, the proper procedure is that they should be taken seriatim by the House with myself in the Chair, or whether they should be referred to a Committee. It may be said that the old system of referring these Resolutions to a Committee of the Whole House is obsolete. The last time in which it was employed, I think, was about the rear 1868. But I cannot undertake myself to say that a system of that kind has become obsolete in the course of less than forty years. The question then arises—How are these Resolutions to be dealt with? The form of proposing theses Resolutions, although not obsolete, is antiquated; but I feel I am driven back when this form is adopted to follow former precedents; and, looking at almost the last precedent—the year 1867, when Mr. Disraeli introduced his Reform Resolutions, which were somewhat of this character, partly for the extension of the franchise, and partly for redistribution of seats, which numbered some thirteen, I find that the
    898
    procedure then adopted was to set up a Committee of the Whole House and to refer these Resolutions to that Committee, where they would, in the ordinary course, have been discussed. It so happened that on that particular occasion they were not discussed, because another method of procedure was adopted, and the principles set out in the Resolution were embodied in a Bill. But that does not concern the House on the present occasion. What really does concern the House is, what the procedure then adopted was; and the procedure was as I say, to set up a Committee and refer these Resolutions to it. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: A Committee of the Whole House?] Yes, certainly, a Committee of the Whole House, That was the same procedure as was adopted in 1858 upon the Resolutions relating to the Government of India; and those two precedents seem to me to be strictly in force, and I cannot take upon myself to set aside those precedents on this occasion. I can only repeat what I said on Thursday as to the precedent of the Irish Church Resolutions, which I do not think is for our guidance, and so need not be considered on this occasion; for, by reason of a certain Standing Order then in existence, all matters dealing with religion were, by that Order, referred to a Committed. But, following the precedents of 1858 and 1867, my opinion is that these Resolutions ought to be divided, and, when divided, that they ought to be considered by a Committee of the Whole House.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I. Sir, after that statement, ask the Prime Minister what course he proposes to ask the House to adopt to-morrow, or on subsequent days, in reference to this matter?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It must be perfectly evident to every Member of the House who has listened to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that unless the two sides of the House come to some agreement as to the length of time to be occupied in these discussions, an agreement which, of course, in view of the pressure of other business upon us, would not involve a very large expenditure of Parliamentary

    899
    time, I cannot go on with them; and as no suggestion has reached me that any such agreement is likely to be considered, as, indeed, it was openly derided by the hon. Gentleman who has put the Question to me, I propose to found my course upon the same precedent as you, Mr. Speaker, have founded your ruling; and, as Mr. Disraeli in 1867 withdrew his Resolutions and proceeded with his Bill, I mean to withdraw my Resolution and proceed with my Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to proceed by Bill during the present session?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, no!
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what, then, will be the course of business this week?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to proceed with the Committee on the Scottish Churches Bill to-morrow and until that stage of the Bill is finished. I hope to be able to take the preliminary stages of the Naval Works Bill during the next few days, so as to take the Second Reading of that Bill on Friday.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What Supply will be taken on Thursday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Irish Supply.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Colonial Vote is greatly in arrears, and the right hon. Gentleman promised a day for the discussion of the new Constitution of the Transvaal.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said that the proper time for the discussion of the Transvaal Constitution was on the Colonial Vote, and if the right hon. Gentleman desires I will put that Vote down for Thursday week.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the usual three extra days for Supply?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that is a very unlikely contingency.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask whether, as the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the Redistribution Resolution, he will consider the advisability of giving some of the available time to the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill.
    SIR H. CAMEBELL-BANNERMAN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not propose to give the usual three extra days to Supply?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said it was an improbable contingency; and I am sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman has listened to the passionate appeals which have been made to me with regard to the legislative projects of the Government, he would not press me for them.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Surely the Resolution upon Redistribution being out of the way makes a difference in the prospects of Supply?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The withdrawal of that Resolution may facilitate the progress of various important Bills; but I do not think it makes it easier to find time for all the things about which I am pressed by both sides of the House.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman now proceed with the Sale of Butter Bill?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Motions for Adjournment for Holidays.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury can he now say when he proposes to make the Motion whereof notice was given by him three months ago, and which now stands in his name on the Order-book, with reference to adjournments; and can he state whether he intends to make it this session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have on several occasions indicated to the House that if the proposal were to be treated as uncontentious I would move it, but I have received no assurance from hon. Gentlemen opposite that it would be so treated.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On the last occasion I raised this question the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider if my Amendment were not uncontentious.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the substance of the Resolution is generally approved. We say it ought to be carried a good deal further.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: And therefore it becomes a question of the acceptance of my Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly cannot accept my hon. friend's Amendment nor do I understand it would be treated as non-contentious. I may be mistaken, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say that whether the Motion be in the form in which it appears on the Paper or whether in the form my hon. friend desires to see it voted, it would not meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who hold that a much more extensive change is required.

    Business of the House—Suggested Autumn Session.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange to prolong the session until at least the Unemployed Bill and the Workmen's Compensation Bill are carried into law; and whether, in the event of this being impracticable, he will call together Parliament early in the autumn to secure the passing of the Unemployed Bill in time to enable local authorities to take any necessary action under it before the winter.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg also to Ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware of, and has considered, the repeated declarations of Judges and magistrates, that changes of the law in the sense of the proposals of the Prevention of Corruption Bill and the Betting Bill are urgently necessary to check grave commercial and social evils; whether he is aware that the organised temptations to betting, offered to women and children as well as to men, and leading
    902
    to habitual gambling and frequently to crime, are greatly on the increase in populous centres, and that sporting mid - day editions of newspapers are now being circulated gratuitously to all employees at certain large works in towns like Manchester; and whether he will consider the advisability of devoting part of the remainder of the session to useful and urgent legislation of this type.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very anxious that the Workmen's Compensation Bill should pass. I am not aware that it will require much discussion. It is another matter, however, to ask that there should be an autumn session to discuss that Bill, the Prevention of Corruption Bill, and the Betting Bill. That is a self-denying proposal which will not meet with universal approval even on the hon. Member's own side of the House, and certainly not of the House generally.
    MR. CHANNING: Does the right hon. Gentleman prefer to pass his Redistribution Bill to measures of great social importance—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is an argumentative question.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Henry Liddell, esquire, for the County of Down (West Down Division).
    ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 273.]
    PUBLIC MEETINGS (FACILITIES) BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 274.]
    DOGS (PROTECTION) BILL.
    Second Reading upon Monday, 31st July.
    CARTS (IRELAND) BILL.
    "To provide for the use of Irish characters in the names of owners painted on carts," presented by Mr. Boland; supported by Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. Lundon, and Mr. O'Malley; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 275.]
    RELIEF OF RELEASED PRISONERS BILL.
    "To make better provision as to the relief of Persons released from Prison," presented by Major Seely; supported by Sir Barrington Simeon; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 276.]

    ALIENS BILL.
    As amended, considered.
    MR. EMMOTTmoved to emit Clause 1. He thought the House might very well consider at this stage whether it was wise to put on the Statute-book of this country a provision which obviously was not meant to be adequately carried out by the Government and which cast upon shippers and shipping companies the expense of an operation which was intended for the benefit of the nation. That was, he submitted, an unfair principle to go upon. This clause was meant, they were told, for the purpose of keeping out what were described as undesirable aliens, but the opposition to it was on the ground that it set up a poverty test. In his opinion no case had been made out for the exclusion of the aliens. Conditions might arise in which it would be necessary to protect ourselves against a huge immigration, but those conditions had not arisen yet. The number of pauper aliens in comparison with the total alien population was only one-fourth the number of British paupers as compared with the British population, and, therefore, so far from alien paupers being supported by the Britisher, the alien ratepayer made a grant in aid towards the support of British paupers. They had been informed during Questions that day that the total cost of alien paupers to this country was £29,000 per annum, and the
    904
    Home Secretary estimated that his Bill would involve an annual outlay of £24,000. He feared, however, it would cost the taxpayer far more than it would save him. Though he admitted the Bill had been altered for the better, it still did not protect the victims of religious persecution, and he argued that it was not right to cast on shipowners a charge which, if borne at all, should, be borne by the nation.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 6, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Emmott.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'elsewhere,' in line 11, stand part of the Bill."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)said he could not accept the Amendment. He maintained the necessity of excluding undesirable aliens, and, in so far as a certain onus was thrown on the shipowners, said he was assured by the shipowners themselves, including the hon. Member for Grimsby, who had a practical acquaintance with the matter that the cost would be infinitesimal. It must be remembered that the provision allowing the examination to be made on shore at the scheduled ports was a concession to the shipowners, who undertook, if it were granted, to rai e no difficulty with regard to the cost, while the burden, such as it was, would make them more careful in regard to the kind of immigrants whom they brought to these shores. He could net admit that the hon. Member in his sympathy for the shipowner had shown any good reason for the omission of the clause. It was not unfair to ask the shipowner, who presumably made a profit by bringing aliens to this country, to pay any extra cost which might be incurred. He hoped that under these circumstances the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary desired to postpone what he had to submit on the religious question he would say nothing about it now. But he

    905
    must observe that when the Home Secretary told them that buildings already existed, were they to understand that they existed in such a way as to be capable of being used as practicable places of public detention. There might be places in which immigrants could be put up for the night, but it must be remembered that it was part of the plan of the Government that they should be kept as prisoners, and that it should be an offence for which they could be punished and brought back for them to try to escape. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell them whether these places were what they called "lock-ups;" that they were to be under police supervision and where immigrants could be kept as prisoners in such a way as to prevent them trying to escape? He wished to have some information upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman said that the view of the Opposition was that they ought not to exclude entry, but that they ought to exclude persons who were proved to be criminals, and that the view of the Government was that they ought not only to expel the criminal but that they ought to prevent the criminal and every other person considered undesirable from coming in.
    He would recall the points on which the right hon. Gentleman had entirely failed to give any satisfaction in answer to the criticisms they had made. First of all they had had no evidence of the gravity of the evil, no statistics entitled to any credence had been given to them with regard to the number of aliens who came here to stay. In the next place, the right hon. Gentleman had never met their argument that they could not exclude aliens without doing wrong to a large number of innocent people. It had never been shown that the aliens who would be excluded under this Bill would be those who were guilty of the two offences charged under the Bill, viz., that they injured British trade
    or that they became chargeable on the rates. What had been shown was that the Jews provided for the poor members of their own community, and that the bringing in of a great deal of Jewish labour enabled a number of trades to be established which could not flourish without cheap labour in their initial stages. That was a point on which they had repeatedly asked for information which they had never had. Further, the Home Secretary had been obliged to admit that he could not exclude aliens coming in in batches of under twenty and that the steamboat companies would practically be able to bring about all the evils of which he complained. Again, the right hon. Gentleman had never attempted to show that there were any means whatever by which the Bill would reduce the number of criminal aliens who entered. The Bill applied only to steerage passengers, and it would not exclude the most dangerous classes—the expert pick-pocket and the women whom they all desired to exclude, but who did not come in as steerage passengers. Therefore, as far as they were concerned, the Bill was a mere sham. Consequently, he was obliged to ask the Home Secretary whether he would at this stage, or on some of the Amendments, endeavour to give some Answer to the criticisms they had repeatedly made on the Bill, and whether he would endeavour to show in the first place that the evils were real; and in the second place, if they were proved to be real, whether the Bill would do anything to reduce them. Until that were done, they would be compelled to regard the Bill as one merely brought in to meet a political cry to which the Party opposite had lent themselves.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 132. (Division List No. 285.)

    AYES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Arrol, Sir William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Battley, Sir George C. T.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bigwood, James

    Hoult, Joseph

    Purvis, Robert

    Bill, Charles

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pym C. Guy

    Bingbam, Lord

    Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

    Rankin, Sir James

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Howard, J. (Midd, Tottenham)

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Bond, Edward

    Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

    Ratcliff, R. F.

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

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

    Hunt, Rowland

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Brassey, Albert

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Ritchie, Rt. HonChas Thomson.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Roberts, Herbert (Hackney)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

    Robinson, Brooke

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kerr, John

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Coates, Edward Feetham

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

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

    Lee, ArthurH.(Hants., Fareham

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

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Liddell, Henry

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Liewllyn, Evan Henry

    Smith, HC.(North'mb, Tyneside

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanarks

    Dairymple, Sir Charles

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Spear, John Ward

    Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

    Denny, Colonel

    Lowe, Francis William

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Stroyan, John

    Dimsdale, Rt, Hon. Sir Joseph C.

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Doughty, Sir George

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Mr Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

    Tuff, Charles

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Tuke, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Turnour, Viscount

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

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. AH.(Sheffield

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Fison, Frederick William

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Milner, Rt.Hon.Str Frederick G.

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

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Mil vain, Thomas

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Mitchell, William (Burnley)

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

    Gardner, Ernest

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

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

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

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Morrison, James Archibald

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

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Hamilton, RtHnLordG (Midd'x

    Myers, William Henry

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Sir Alexander Acland Hood

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords NW.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Percy, Earl

    908

    909

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Fowler, Rt, Hon. Sir Henry

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    O'Malley, William

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

    O'Mara, James

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

    Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

    Parrott, William

    Bell, Richard

    Harwood, George

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Benn, John Williams

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Black, Alexander William

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Boland, John

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Reddy, M.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Runciman, Walter

    Burt, Thomas

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Russell, T. W.

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Cameron, Robert

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

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

    Campbell- Bannerman, Sir H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kearley, Hudson, E.

    Sheehy, David

    Cawley, Frederick

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lambert, George

    Slack, John Bamford

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R.(Northants

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Levy, Maurice

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Lough, Thomas

    Sullivan, Donal

    Cramer, William Randal

    Lundon, W.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Crombic, John William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Toulmin, George

    Crooks, William

    M'Crae, George

    Wallace, Robert

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Delany, William

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Weir, James, (Galloway)

    Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

    Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Muldoon, John

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Murphy, John

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Dunn, Sir William

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

    Young, Samuel

    Elibank, Master of

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Ellice, Capt EC S.Andrw'sBghs

    O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMld

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Mr. Emmott and Mr. Noel

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

    Buxton

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Dowd, John

    MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid that recently he had had an opportunity of conferring with the Cunard Company and other companies in Liverpool upon whom the burden of carrying out this Act would largely fall. He wished to state that these companies fully appreciated the conciliatory spirit which the Home Secretary had displayed in reference to this Bill as regarded the difficulties of the shipping interest, and recognised that he had largely met their wishes and endeavoured to remedy the practical difficulties they had raised. There were, however, one or two points in which the Bill would press very hardly upon them. One of those points was as
    910
    to providing a place ashore where the immigrants were to be inspected. As this was a matter for the public convenience it should be defrayed at the cost of the public. The offence of importing an undesirable alien was an offence entirely created by this Bill. Where an Act was passed which threw upon a particular industry the burden of carrying out a certain service in the public interest, it was the duty of the State to make it as little burdensome as possible, and the State ought to bear the expense. That was the object of the Amendment he desired to move.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. Member's speech is relevant.
    *MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid his Amendment was to insert the words "and provide."
    *MR. SPEAKER: That would be casting an additional burden upon the State, and it cannot be done upon the Report stage.
    *MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid the expense of carrying out the Act was thrown upon the State, and he wished to know whether he was wrong in arguing that the providing of accommodation ought to be made a part of the expense of carrying out the Act.
    *MR. SPEAKER: That would be placing a greater charge upon the public funds than has been imposed by the Committee. The House cannot now add to the charges imposed by the Committee.
    *MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid he would omit the words "and provide," and move, in line 11, to omit the word "elsewhere" and substitute "at such other convenient place in the discretion of the immigration officer as he may appoint." As the clause stood at present inspection might take place elsewhere than on the ship, but it was not stated who was to appoint this place. According to the view of the Home Secretary each shipping company would have to arrange its own place. The Cunard Company might have one place, the White Star Line another, and the Allan Line another, and each company would have to provide under the Act a place of inspection for immigrants. He thought that such places ought to be provided by the authorities entrusted with the administration of the Act. He begged to move.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLORseconded.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, Hue 11, to leave out the word 'elsewhere' and insert the words 'at such other convenient place in the discretion of the immigration officer as he may appoint.'"—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)—instead thereof:—
    Question proposed, "That the word 'elsewhere' stand part of the Bill.'"
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEthought it was desirable that these inquiries should be made in some public place or Court where the public had access, so that there would be no hole-and - corner proceedings. These proceedings would partake of the nature of a trial upon matters which might affect a man's fortune, and he wished to ask either the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General whether it would not be desirable on Sub-section 1 of Clause 2 to provide that these inquiries should be held in a public Court or place. What he wanted to suggest was whether they would not consider whether it would not be desirable to put in some words whereby the friends of the immigrants and the public Press could have access in order that the proceedings should not be of a hole-and-corner description.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the word "elsewhere" should be left out. It wanted some definition or explanation. The Bill, as originally drafted, provided that the examination should take place on the ship. The word "elsewhere" was an extraordinary one, and he should be glad if the Home Secretary would explain where the Government actually meant that the examination should take place. There was no particular reason why they should be enamoured of the Amendment, for it was moved by a shipowner, and they were very suspicious that shipowners wanted to throw the expense on the State; but it was a little better than the. Bill itself, because it provided that the first duty was to fix the place of examination, in which case the point of the noble Lord would be secured, for everybody would then know that the examination would take place at that particular place. The Government must have some plan in their mind, and he would be glad if they would tell them, in order that they might understand how the Bill would act, and where, when, and under what circumstances the examination would take place. As the Bill stood, nobody knew.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he did not think there was any doubt about

    913
    the word "elsewhere," and, if he remembered rightly, it was accepted at the instance of the shipowners. It was perfectly clear that the original intention was that the inspection should take place on the ship, but, as a concession, they agreed that it should be held elsewhere, in buildings to be provided at the cost not of the State but of the shipowners. It was welcomed by the shipowners as preferable to examination where it might interfere with the discharge of the cargo. Now the hon. Member for Liverpool asked them to delete the word "elsewhere" and insert "at such other convenient place in the discretion of the immigration officer as he may appoint," and he was going on when it was pointed out that it would involve additional cost to the State. The concession of inspection on land was asked for by the shipowners, and, surely, if the shipowner made a profit, as he undoubtedly did, it was not unreasonable that he should be asked to pay something in the event of incoming aliens being a charge. At all events, if there were a charge, they could not expect it to fall upon the State. The noble Lord was very anxious that the inquiries should be hold in a public Court or in some place to which the public could obtain access and hear the whole inquiry. That was entirely a different view to that held in America, where the inquiry was private; and he ventured to think that it would be very undesirable for the aliens to have the whole world there to publish their affairs, and that they would themselves desire that the inquiry should be held without reporters present. He therefore hoped that as his hon. friend had found that he could not obtain his desire and cast the extra cost upon the State he would not press his Amendment, because he was sure the words in the Bill were fully calculated to carry out the whole desire of the promoters.
    MR. DALZIELsaid he had listened to the extraordinary speech of the Home Secretary, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman who moved would go to a division. He was quite surprised to hear that the Home Secretary thought it might be in
    914
    the interest of the shipowners that the reporters should be present.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he did not say that. He said the alien, coming into this country and having to disclose his past history and his means, would probably prefer that the reporters should not be present.
    MR. DALZIELsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not in any previous period of the progress of the Bill shown any anxiety for the alien, and he would suggest that this was a late stage at which to take up his ease. It was not the interest of the alien they had to consider in this matter; when the right hon. Gentleman said that no reporters should be present, he must remember that the whole of the interest of the public was at stake. He therefore thought it was a most extraordinary position for the Government to take up, to say that one reason why the Amendment should be rejected was that reporters might be present and that that would be against the interest of the parties associated in the matter. That showed more than anything what really was the mind of the Government as to the working of the measure. Their idea was that it would be an entirely hole-and-corner matter. The public would not be admitted, the representatives of the Press would not be admitted, and it would be quite impossible for them to have any authentic details as to the proceedings. The whole thing would undoubtedly be secret, and they would simply have to take the Returns of the Home Secretary as to what took place. He knew the right hon. Gentleman did not want to make any Party capital out of carrying a matter of this kind, and he would really suggest to him whether he was not going a little further than the promoters intended, and appeal to him whether he would not reconsider the statement he had made and provide for the inquiries being public. If the Amendment were accepted, it did not go nearly as far as he wished, but he thought, from the shipping point of view, it was an important Amendment, because otherwise the inspection might be at a place which was inconvenient both to the passenger and the

    915
    shipping company. If, however, it were a convenient place and the public or the representatives of the public were not going to be admitted and the matter was to be one of secrecy, he did not think it would be to the credit of the
    Government or that it would add to the prestige of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 227; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 286.)

    AYES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Lowe, Francis William

    Arrol, Sir William

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

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Bigot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    MacIver, David (Liverpool

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Fison, Frederick William

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds)

    Forster, Henry William

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Foster, Philip S.(Warwrick, S.W

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Barry, Sir Francis T. (Wirdscr)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Hartley, Sir George C. T.

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

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

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(TrH'mleta

    Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Bigwood, James

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Pill, Charles

    Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

    Milvain, Thomas

    Bingham, Lord

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Mitchell, William (Burnley

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lard G.(Mdd'x

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

    Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Brassey, Albert

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Butcher, John George

    Heath, Sir James(Staffords, NW

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Hermor-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

    Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

    Myers, William Henry

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

    Pemberton, John S. G.

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

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

    Percy, Earl

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athele-

    Hunt, Rowland

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Purvis, Robert

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Pym, C. Guy

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

    Rankin, Sir James

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. Denbigh

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Kerr, John

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Reid, James (Greeneck

    Dairymple, Sir Charles

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Davenport, William Bromby

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Denny, Colonel

    Lawrence, Wm, F. (Liverpool

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead

    Robinson, Brooke

    Disraeli, Coningaby Ralph

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Liddell, Henry

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Doughty, Sir George

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Thornton Percy M.

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

    Sharps, William Edward T.

    Tuff, Charles

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Tumour, Viscount

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Smith, H.C(North'mb, Tyneside

    Vincent, Col. Sir C.EH(Sheffield

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

    Smith, Rt. Hn. J Parker (Lanarks

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Spear, John Ward

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

    Sir Alexander Ac land-Hood

    Stroyan, John

    Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

    and Viscount Valentia.

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    O'Malley, William

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

    O'Mara, James

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Harcourt, Lewis

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

    Parrott, William

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Harwood, George

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Bell, Richard

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Benn, John William

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Reddy, M.

    Black, Alexander William

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Boland, John

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Runciman, Walter

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Russell, T. W.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Samuel, S. M (Whitechapel)-

    Burt, Thomas

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

    Schwann, Charles E.

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

    Coldwell, James

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Cameron, Robert

    Joyce, Michael

    Sheehy, David

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

    Slack, John Bamford

    Cuwley, Frederick

    Kitson, Sir James

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lambert, George

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

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

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Levy, Maurice

    Sullivan, Donal

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

    Lough, Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lundon, W.

    Toulmin, George

    Crombie, John William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Ure, Alexander

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    M'Crae, George

    Wallace, Robert

    Dalany, William

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny,N.)

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Wagon, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Mooney, John J.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Doogan, P. C.

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John(Montrese

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Muldoon, John

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Dann, Sir William

    Murphy, John

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

    Edwards, Frank

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Ellice, Capt EC(S Andrw's Bghs.

    Nolan, Col. John P(Galway, N.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Emmott, Alfred

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Young, Samuel

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Norman, Henry

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Evans, Samuel, T (Glamorgan

    O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

    Field, William

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

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

    Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Bright.

    Flayin, Michael Joseph

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 20, to leave out from the word 'that' to the word 'give' in line 21, and insert the words 'leave to land should not be
    918
    withheld under this Act.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. HBEBERT SAMUELmoved, on behalf of the on. Member for Halifax Mr. (Whitley), to exempt from the definition of an undesirable alien any person who could show that he would be supported by relatives. There was, he said, no inconsistency in this Amendment with the purposes of the Bill, and it was one which he thought the Government could and ought to accept. As the Bill stood an alien would be excluded if he could not show that he had in his possession or was in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents, if any. He instanced the case of aliens who had settled in this country either before or after the passing of this Bill, who were permanently established here, and wished to bring over their parents from the country in which they lived. The aged parents might come to the shores of this country but would be met on arrival with the question, "Are you in a position to support yourselves or to obtain the means of decently supporting yourselves?" In all probability they would not be able to work, and would be unable satisfactorily to answer the question. In that case, as he read the Bill, the immigration officer would have no alternative but to exclude them. He could not conceive that the Government desired to inflict such a hardship, and he therefore hoped they would accept the Amendment. It had already been laid down by the Government that a person in receipt of Poor Law relief was not supporting himself within the meaning of the Bill, and the same might possibly be said with regard to persons subsisting on the charity of relatives. To prevent the hardship that might arise from such an interpretation some such words as he proposed should be inserted.
    MR. DALZIELformally seconded.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 28' after the word 'any,' to insert the words 'or that he will be supported by relatives.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
    Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said he hoped the House would not accept this
    920
    Amendment. The words, he submitted, were not necessary because if an immigrant was able to show that he would be able to obtain the money from his relatives he obviously showed that he was able to obtain the means of decently supporting himself. The position was covered by those words.
    MR. DALZIELurged that it was the duty of the House to incorporate in this Bill some such words as those suggested by the Amendment. A question of this kind should not be left to the discretion of the immigration officer, because there was no guarantee as to what the capacity of the officer would be, and therefore it was necessary to put something in the Bill as a direction. He submitted that the Amendment was a useful one and would help the operation of the Bill, and therefore it ought to be accepted.
    MR. EMMOTTasked if this was one of the questions covered by the rules which were to be made, by the Home Secretary. It was a small point but an important one, and therefore he thought the House should have some information upon that point.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASwas understood to say that for the reasons stated by the hon. and learned Attorney-General these words were unnecessary.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he understood the refusal of the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept this Amendment was due to his belief that the introduction of the words would do more harm than good. It was a question of the strict interpretation of the words of the Bill. It was a most important matter, because it raised the question whether under the wording of the Bill as it now stood it would be competent for an immigrant to say that because he had relations able to support him therefore he was in a position to support himself.
    MAJOR SEELYexpressed the opinion that it would be better to put in some words of this kind in order to avoid confusion in the future. The wording of the Bill had just been interpreted in two different ways, and it was fair to assume that the immigration

    921
    officers when appointed would not be less wise or more intelligent than the Members of that House. Therefore, in order to prevent the immigration officers interpreting the words differently, it was desirable that some such words should be incorporated in the Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the reason for the Amendment which he now moved must be obvious to every Member of the House. Every alien who came into this country with a contract in his pocket guaranteeing him work would be able to satisfy the immigration officer that he was in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself out of the contract under which he was brought in. A contract which was intended to endanger and damage the British workman was a passport to every alien, no matter how they came into this country. That was a very serious matter. Let them take the American experience. The first American Bill contained no provision against aliens coming in under contract, and the result was that in Italy, Spain, and other countries agencies were formed, and contractors organised a regular system of sending in batches of people to America under contract, and because they were under contract these men were able to enter America free and unchallenged. The American Senate, therefore, had to amend the aliens law by introducing a contract clause to keep out otherwise desirable people who came in under contract. He contended that some such Amendment as this must be inserted. If it went abroad that the Government, having introduced this Bill, were not prepared to strengthen it so as to prevent it being used for the purpose of defeating British workmen in the case of a strike or lock-out the feeling, already strong, against this Bill on the part of the British workmen, would be very much accentuated. Individually, he was against the Bill, because he did not think it was workable in its present form. If it was desired that it should be operative the Government must amend it on the lines indicated by the Amendment.
    922
    Working men when striking for better conditions of employment found it was already sufficiently difficult in competing with the surplus labour of the unemployed at home, but if in addition they were to be threatened with the importation of foreigners their position would be very much worsened. He remembered two cases where this power had already been used. One was in connection with a dispute which occurred at Glengarnock Ironworks in Ayrshire. Some years ago when the labourers who were receiving 14s. a week asked for an increase of 1s., the manager asked for time to consider their request, and a fortnight subsequently fourteen or fifteen Poles put in an appearance, having come under contract at the old rate of 14s., and when the deputation again approached the manager to ask for his reply he pointed to these foreigners and said, "If you don't take the 14s. there are plenty more of these men who would only be too glad to come." If this was the sort of thing they were going to set up under this Bill it was time to stop it. The argument on a former occasion was that the position of workmen in this country would not, in the matter of foreign labour, be worsened under this Bill. But he would respectfully suggest that their position must be worsened under the Bill. All sorts of evasions would be attempted to circumvent the clauses of the Bill, and one of these would certainly be some organisation for bringing workmen into this country under some form of contract which would carry the immigrant beyond the immigration officer. He trusted that in order to protect British workmen who were seeking to improve their condition against undue and unfair competition, the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. He begged to move.
    MR. BELLseconded the Amendment. He could hardly conceive that any hon. or right hon. Gentleman, in the House would object to the acceptance of the Amendment because the chief reason for the introduction of this Bill was that foreign labour was being imported into this country to replace that of British workmen. If that was the real reason which had influenced the Government in introducing the Bill he

    923
    was unable to see how they could object to the acceptance of this clause. The workers of this country would very rightly come to the conclusion that if the Bill was introduced with that object it was only reasonable that a clause of this kind should appear in it. He was quite unable to see how the position of the British workmen would be improved if in cases of dispute it was possible to import 100 or 500 aliens. It was a matter of indifference so far as figures were concerned, beyond the fact that the greater the number imported the worse it would be. In regard to the aliens imported at the present time he had not heard a great deal of objection in any part of the country with the exception of one or two constituencies in London. If 100 or 500 foreigners were imported to replace those engaged in a dispute there would be thrown on the labour market here many men who were defending their own position. He could hardly conceive that the Government desired to do that. If the Amendment were not accepted it would create a good deal of bitter feeling against the Bill, the seriousness of which had not yet been recognised by the working men of this country.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert the words '(e) If he is being brought into this country under contract to take the place of workmen during a trade dispute.'"(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
    Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he could not accept the Amendment. Nothing in connection with the aliens question had received more careful consideration than the matter which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had brought forward in an exceedingly able and courteous way. The object of the Amendment was to exclude aliens who were "being brought into this country to take the place of workmen during a trade dispute." He had not heard that such a practice prevailed in this country, but the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had instanced a case where some Poles had been brought here for such a purpose.
    924
    It certainly had never come to his knowledge.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid there was another case.
    MR. AKERS - DOUGLASsaid the Amendment was opposed to the principle of the Bill. The Bill as it stood was intended to exclude aliens who owing to their low standard of living made it likely that they would fall readily into the hands of sweaters. The object of the Bill was also to keep out the alien who was destitute and likely to become a charge on the rates. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had said that it would be easier under the Bill to obtain foreign indentured labour than at the present moment. He did not think that would be so, because at present employers had absolute freedom to bring in aliens by giving any promise they liked. Certainly, in future an employer would be limited in his action, because he would only be able to bring in those who could pass the tests provided by the Bill as desirable aliens.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept the Amendment. Apart from the evil which the mover of it had described, it was not unlikely that shipowners, who were subject to certain penalties under the Bill, would find in the possibility of importing contract labour a source of profit which they hoped would make up for the loss of some of the traffic which the Bill would stop. He thought they ought to be guided in this matter in some measure by the experience of the United States of America. He believed that of the immigrants who were refused admission last year something like 20 per cent. desired to enter for the purpose of undertaking contract labour. If that was so, it showed that the restriction upon immigration did have some direct bearing on the question of foreign labour imported under contract. A man might come to this country under a contract made for five months, and at the end of that period he might become a charge on the public rates.
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that he and other hon. Members who were present when this subject was discussed before had hoped that the Home Secretary would at this stage of the Bill have drawn a form of words to show that there was some real desire on the part of the Government to strengthen the position of the working classes of this country. But the non possumus attitude which the right hon. Gentleman had taken up seemed to have closed the door in that direction. The Home Secretary had made a great deal of the argument that this Bill was for the benefit of the working classes; but, for his own part, he had never been able to see anything in the Bill at all which, tended in that direction. If that had been the case there would not have been so much apposition to the Bill on the part of the working classes in the country. There had not been a single demand from the representatives of the working classes, inside or outside the House, for this Bill; and there had been no tendency on the part of the working classes themselves in that direction.
    To take the Bill as it stood, and the interpretation of it by the Home Secretary, its principle was to keep out undesirable aliens. But would the word "undesirable" include a man who was brought to this country to take the place of a man on strike? He knew that long ago workmen used to strike without much thought. But now they negotiated with their employers and tried to arrange matters; and if they were forced to strike the sure inference was that they wanted to better their condition. That was the economic truth as to the existing relations between employer and employed. But this Bill left open the opportunity of workmen being brought from the Continent to take the place of men on strike. He was not charging the employers of this country as a whole that they would use this Bill, if it became law, for that purpose, or that they would use alien labour for the purpose of sweating and reducing the wages of the workmen here; but there were men who would use this Bill for the purpose of bringing in pauper labour to supplant the British workmen.
    In Sub-section 3, Clause 1, a man was to be considered an undesirable alien who
    926
    had not in his possession or was not in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents; and he was therefore to be excluded. But who was to judge the standard of decency in which a man and his family could live? He maintained that a man and his wife and family could be brought up in decency on a wage that was small compared with what hon. Gentlemen, who had a very much larger income, could conceive. But if the man had in his pocket a letter from an employer in this country that he would find employment, according to the Home Secretary, that would be enough to cover the proviso in the sub-section. It would be possible for an employer here to send over to the Continent hundreds of such letters, and when the recipients of these letters came over here and were asked by the immigration officers if they could show that they were in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting themselves and their dependents, all they had got to do was to produce such a letter from any employer in some part of Great Britain. It might be said that that had never been done; but they all knew that, human nature being what it was, advantage would be taken by a certain class of employers of the avenues which were opened, to them. This Bill opened up such an avenue.
    He could have wished that before this Bill was introduced some sort of consensus of opinion on the part of the people had been taken in favour of it. They had had quite a number of measures introduced by this Government of which the public had had no idea beforehand. This Bill would disturb the whole economic relations between employers and workmen in this country. It would exclude men who came over here, impelled by honest poverty, to seek employment; while it would be an inducement to employers to bring over contract labour from abroad. He asked the Attorney-General to show the House in clear, plain, and obvious terms how the prohibition contained in the Amendment would conflict with the principles of the Bill. The ostensible reason for the Bill was that it was for the benefit of the working classes of this country; but they who claimed to speak for the working

    927
    classes, held that if this prohibition was not put in the Bill, no matter how large its provisions were to keep out criminals and undesirables, it would not be for the benefit of the working classes.
    *MR. MAEKSsaid that it must be admitted that the practice of importing foreign labour into this country under contract had not in the past been pursued to any large extent. But the conditions with regard to foreign labour were about to undergo a change. Up to the present time alien immigration into this country had been unchecked, unrestricted, and unregulated, with the result that we had always a mass of unemployed foreign labour ready at hand and prepared to take work at any kind of starvation wage. But they expected great results from this Bill and that a large amount of alien immigration would be stopped by it. If the object of the Bill was to be attained—viz., of arresting the importation of foreign cheap labour, that would not be accomplished unless the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were adopted. All that the employer who wanted to avail himself of the very cheapest labour available had to do would be to supply a pauper alien with a contract of employment thereby removing his disqualification, and thus defeat one of the chief objects of the Bill. If, like the hon. Member for Merthyr; Tydvil, he thought the whole Bill a great mistake, he would not, like the hon. Member, seek to strengthen it. He did not believe in strengthening measures that were a mistake. But that was not his view. He believed that this Bill would be greatly for the benefit of the working classes of this country, and that that benefit would be largely extended by the adoption of the Amendment. It was for that reason that he supported the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
    *MR. CREMERthought that the Government had made a mistake in introducing this Bill and foisting it on the country. The ostensible object of the Bill was to prevent the undue competition of aliens with British workmen, and in the constituency which he had represented in that House for many years a small section
    928
    of the people had been deluded by a bogus organisation, which had been started for that purpose, into the belief that they were seriously affected by pauper alien labour; and that they would be relieved from the difficult position in which they had been placed through want of employment, by the passage of this Bill, a Bill which it was f aid would prevent employers in the East End of London or any other part of the kingdom from engaging alien workmen. But, supposing a strike or lock-out took place here, any number of shoemakers, tailors, cabinetmakers or other artisans could be introduced from abroad into this country. He might be told that the immigration board would take care that every man who came into this country would be scrutinised very closely and unless he could produce the evidence required by the Bill, that he possessed or was in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents, he would be returned to the country from which he came. But the sweating class who employed these pauper aliens could easily get over that difficulty. They could get just as many as they pleased, and at any time they pleased, of these poor wretched people from all parts of the Continent of Europe. AH they would have to do would be to provide each man or woman with a contract which would be produced to the immigration officer, a contract entered into between the immigrant and the sweating employer who had guaranteed him employment for six, eight, or twelve months.
    How were they going, under this Bill, to prevent any such sweating employer from engaging as many pauper aliens as he pleased? There was, however, a body supposed to have a bona fide existence, the Free Labourers' Association, and that association, he supposed, might have something to say if there were any attempt on the part of the Government to prevent employers or workmen from entering into a free contract, whether the workmen came from the Continent of Europe or from any part of the United Kingdom. Let them devise whatever they please, it was practically impossible to prevent sweating employers

    929
    from engaging just as many foreign workmen or women as they pleased, and bringing them over to this country under a contract, the production of which would be sufficient warrant for the immigration board to allow them to pass into any port of the United Kingdom. He believed the Bill was going to prove an absolute and ghastly failure.
    He should have thought the Government would by this time have seen the serious mistake they had made in attempting to deal with this evil. It was quite true that there had not been very many instances during a strike when men had been imported from the Continent, but there had been attempts on the part of employers, though fortunately they had failed, the workmen of this country, having friendly relations with the workmen of the Continent, were able to prevent masons, builders, tailors and shoemakers from being imported during labour struggles in this country. It was not for want of will but for want of power that employers had not brought foreign labourers into this country to supplant the British workman when he was endeavouring to better his position. He did not mind that so much, he supposed it was regarded as fair play; they had fought employers in the past and had defeated them. But during a normal condition of things, when there was no struggle, Jock-out, or strike, it would be practically impossible, through the agency of the Bill and the machinery it set up, to prevent sweating employers or employers of any kind importing into this country just as many poor people as they pleased to carry on the work in which they were engaged. He believed the Government by this time must have seen the lamentable failure that was likely to be the result of the Bill, and even at this eleventh hour he would advise them to withdraw it.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that if he remembered rightly the hon. Member who had just sat down was one of those who signed a petition to the leader of the Opposition not to oppose the Bill, and another hon. Member on the other side had spoken of the evil
    930
    with which the Bill was to deal. He was glad to hear that they recognised there was an evil.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: What I said was that after the explanation of the Home Secretary it would be competent for the sweating employer to send over 100 letters and bring over alien labourers.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER, continuing, said he understood, and he was not disagreeing with the Amendment. He was in agreement with it. It helped to strengthen the Bill, and it seems to him that they had had very strong arguments that afternoon in favour of the measure. If the foundations of the Bill were so wrong, then the only right thing was the Amendment. Even then, if it were carried, the Government would have done such a work that the right hon. Baronet would be obliged to give it his sanction.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I said, if the subject is to be dealt with at all then this and the seamen who have not been touched are the two branches of it I should be content to deal with.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that they came back to the conclusion that there were evils, and they believed they were dealt with to some extent by the Bill. They had had that afternoon the clearest and strongest proof of it, for every Member who had spoken had admitted this evil of sweating, and the hon. Member who had just sat down said that his constituents were deeply concerned that a section of the Bill should be carried.
    MR. CREMER: What I said was that a section of them had been deluded into the belief that the Bill would benefit them.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the hon. Member was so deluded himself that he petitioned his leader not to oppose the Bill. It was difficult to ride two horses at once, unless one were very expert. He only rose, however, to

    931
    say that he wished to support the Amendment. He believed it would strengthen the Bill, and he should be as strongly opposed as any Labour Member to employers taking advantage of industrial crises to import alien labour.
    *MR. TREVELYANsaid he agreed that the speech of the hon. Member for Haggerston had some elements of interest in it, and the hon. Member for Gravesend said he was riding two horses at once, but he (Mr. Trevelyan) should say he was beginning to find out that he was putting his money on the wrong horse.
    *MR. CREMER: The hon. Member is misrepresenting me. I never favoured this Bill from the first; I wanted it discussed so that we might show the hollow mockery of the whole thing.
    *MR. TREVELYANsaid he and those opposed to the Bill were very much pleased to hear that that was the only motive which actuated the hon. Member for Haggerston, the hon. Member for Poplar, and some others on that side of the House. There was another speech that ought to interest the Member for Gravesend as a strong supporter of the hon. Member for West Birmingham. The main, and, in fact, the only reason given by the Home Secretary for his opposition to the Amendment was that it was a protective Amendment. He repudiated anything protective in the motive which had induced the Government to bring the Bill forward. It was a curious contradiction of the view of the hon. Member for West Birmingham. But if, in his view, the Amendment had been in any sense protective, he should certainly have refused to support it. He did not like the necessity for any Amendment of the kind, for he thought it would be very much better if they had a system of State arbitration to prevent trade disputes occurring. When a lock out or strike occurred a state of war ensued between the two parties concerned, and it was the business of the nation as far as possible to keep the field clear. What happened when a number of aliens or free labourers of any kind were introduced was that the employers had the unfair advantage of
    932
    bringing in what really amounted to contraband of war. It was in order to prevent such an advantage being given to one of the parties that many Members of the House supported this Amendment. He and those who thought with him opposed this Bill because in their opinion it was not necessary to keep out, as a class, aliens, most of whom were a benefit rather than otherwise to this country. But labourers brought in during a strike were not brought in in any sense as permanent citizens. When they had served the turn of the employers in defeating British labour and had cheapened wages they were sent back to the country from whence they came, or turned loose in the slums of our great cities. There was, therefore, a particular reason for the interference of the State in this way. It was to his mind a curious thing that the Government should oppose the one Amendment moved in the interest of labour by the Labour Members.
    MR. HUNTsaid the principles of the Bill were perfectly good. The object of the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite was to stop the introduction of cheap labour into this country, but so far as he could see it was of no use to try and stop labour entering this country unless the production of that cheap labour was also stopped.
    *MR. CHARLES WILSONasked why the Government could not see their way to accept the Amendment. In his twenty years experience as an employer of labour he had never known a case where employers of labour had ever wished to employ foreigners. They had always recognised in the first place that they were of little use, and in the second that their importation always necessitated a further expenditure, because after the strike was over they had to be sent home. He had had some experience of strikes, and in the case of the strike against his own firm twelve years ago it was fought out fairly and squarely, and there had been no strike since. He did not think there had ever been a wish on the part of the employers to import foreign labour, and so far as his experience went no such thing had ever

    933
    been attempted. The employers of labour did not object to this Amendment, and that being so he could not see why the Home Secretary should not accept it.
    MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid it was not often he found himself in entire accord with the hon. Member who had just sat down. In the whole of his business experience no such case had ever come under his notice, and he did not believe that such a case would ever arise. His objection to the Amendment was that it was a dishonest Amendment in the first place, and further that it was outside the scope of the Bill. He urged hon. Gentlemen opposite to take a broader view of this question.
    *MR. LEVY (Leicestershire,)said the observations of the hon. Member appeared to him to cast some reflection upon those who supported this Amendment. Apart from the objection of the Home Secretary that this Amendment was in the nature of a protective Amendment, he also appeared to object to it because he thought it would lower the standard of living. The hon. Member supported the Amendment in the belief it would prevent the standard of living being lowered, and contended that there was no greater method of lowering the standard of living in this country than by allowing large bodies of workpeople to come to this country under contract at the time of a trade dispute. The chief effect would be to drive down wages, and when wages were driven down the standard of living was lowered. It was argued that if these people were brought over at such times that they would ultimately be returned to their own country, but it was equally probable that they would be retained here. Another objection raised by the Home Secretary to the Amendment was that there had been no case where people had been brought into this country under contract during the existence of a strike, but the answer to that was that hitherto it was not necessary for them to have a contract, but under this Bill there were inducements to accept contracts. Workers had in the past come over of their own free will and were taken on in the
    934
    ordinary course of employment as required. He appealed to the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment, more especially as many on his side of the House who had supported the Bill up to the present supported the Amendment. In his opinion, if the Bill was passed in its present form without this Amendment it would do considerable harm to the workpeople of this country.
    Mr. JOHN WILSONsaid he should support the Amendment, not in any spirit of antagonism to the Bill, but because he thought the Amendment was necessary. He hoped the Government would accept it.
    MR. DALZIELthought the Government would do well to give a favourable consideration to the debate which had taken place. The hon. Member for Liverpool had characterised the Amendment as a dishonest one, and had reflected on Mr. Speaker by stating that it was not within the scope of this Bill. He thought it was a great piece of assumption on the part of the hon. Member to have spoken in the way he had done. In his (Mr. Dalziel's) opinion this was as important and as honest an Amendment as had been moved to the Bill. There was an absolutely unanimous opinion in favour of the Amendment; every Labour Member who had spoken had urged the Government to accept the principle of it in order to meet the case they had been dealing with, and speakers on the Unionist side of the House—enthusiastic supporters of the Government—had urged its acceptance. Why did they not accept it? It was the Government who ought to have proposed the Amendment, because it was they who said that this Bill was going to benefit the working men of this country. The right hon. Member for Birmingham had said this Bill was going to keep out cheap labour, and it was because this Amendment was calculated to have that effect that it had been moved. He hoped the working classes, especially in the East End, would note the attitude the Government were adopting. It would be interesting to know the views of the hon. Member for Stepney on the point. What the Amendment

    935
    desired to guard against had happened several times in the past, one instance being that of the Dowlais Colliery dispute eighteen months ago, when fifty Spaniards were brought in. But if the view of the Government was that such an event was not likely to happen, why were they wasting time in opposing the Amendment? It had also to be remembered that after the passage of this Bill, if the expectations of the promoters were realised, the conditions would be entirely altered. The present supply of cheap labour would be practically stopped, so that the Free Labour Association would have to go abroad and bring the cheap labour in under contract. From the Party point of view nothing could be better, so far as the Opposition were concerned, than that the Government should refuse the Amendment, but, believing that the alteration ought in justice to be made, he appealed to the Government to accept it.
    *MR. DUKEhad a difficulty in understanding why the Government were so punctilious about accepting this Amendment. One of the objects of the Bill was to protect the pockets of the ratepayers generally from the burdens cast upon them by the undue access of undesirable aliens. The object of the Amendment was to protect British labour from unnatural and unwholesome competition; and he failed to see how the introduction of cheap unskilled labour during a strike could be described as a natural process. What was to become of those labourers when the purpose for which they had been introduced was accomplished. Either they or the labourers they had displaced would probably have to be maintained by the community. He was not very enthusiastic about legislation to exclude anybody from this country, but he would regard the importation of such competitors in any industry in which he was interested as being as undesirable as the introduction of persons with no means of livelihood. The object of the Amendment being to prevent an unnatural competition of alien labour which would probably cause pauperism, the proposal was not inconsistent with the general scheme of the Bill, and, as he was strongly in favour of preserving
    936
    England as far as possible for Englishmen, he could not vote against the Amendment.
    *MR. EMMOTTagreed that from the Party point of view the Opposition could not have a better cry than would be provided by the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment, but, because of its inherent justice and reasonableness, he hoped some concession would be made. It was said this Amendment was protectionist—that if we were to forbid cheap labour we must tax the products of that labour. The effect of foreign protection was to make goods neither cheap nor excellent. We did not fear the goods therefore. Under our free trade system, however, wages in this country were higher than on the Continent, so that there was a perpetual inducement to bring labour over from Europe to compete with the workers here at a lower rate. All the Amendment proposed was to prevent such labour from taking the place of English labour during a trade dispute. Surely that was a very reasonable proposal. The Home Secretary had said that one of the reasons this Bill was introduced was to prevent these poor aliens that came in from falling quickly into the hands of sweaters. It was assuredly an equally good reason to keep aliens from coming into lower the trades union conditions and take the place of British workmen engaged in a trade dispute. The second argument of the Home Secretary was that there had been no instances in which labourers had been brought from abroad on contract to take the place of men on strike. Several such instances had been given by hon. Members in that debate. In addition to the instances already given he might mention the case of Silvertown, where Belgians were brought in to take the place of the bottle-blowers on strike. Through their agency the British workers were defeated, but the Belgians themselves, he was told, were for the most part now on the rates. He did not in the least abate his hostility to the clause, but if it was to be passed it ought certainly to apply to this class of aliens as well as to those already included.
    MR. J. F. HOPEsaid it was possible that the Amendment might be unnecessary, but, on the other hand, it might be very necessary, and he suggested to the Home Secretary that if he could not actually adopt the Amendment he should agree to the ordinary Party machinery not being brought into play.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONreminded the House that the general feeling in Committee was that something in the nature of this Amendment ought to be accepted. He had supported the general principle of the Bill, but he thought that if the measure were passed without this proviso the evil of the introduction of foreign "blackleg" labour would be accentuated, because the ordinary immigrant, who to a large extent was used for "blackleg" purposes, would be excluded, and the men, instead of coming in casually, would be brought in under contract for this specific purpose. He submitted that to oppose an Amendment the object of which was to prevent such transactions was not a consistent attitude for supporters of the Bill to adopt, and he hoped the Government would endeavour to meet the point.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid there was absolutely nothing in the Bill which would facilitate the introduction of foreign labour to compete with British workmen in case of a strike. The Bill left that problem exactly where it now stood, and was directed to an altogether different object. It proposed to exclude alien immigrants who were undesirable from any of the points of view enumerated in the Bill, and this new element would be inconsistent with the general principle of the measure in the sense that it would introduce something absolutely novel and alien thereto. He quite admitted that the question was one on which much might be said. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had suggested that it was closely connected with the employment of foreign labour on British ships. Matters such as that were of enormous importance, but he protested against their being introduced into a measure of this kind. The ob-
    938
    jections, in his opinion, were insuperable. He hoped the House would not listen to the appeal which had been made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
    MR. DALZIEL: All the speakers on your own side gave the same advice
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the very anxiety of the hon. Member in giving that advice seemed to him to be somewhat suspicious. He hoped he was not considered to be unduly credulous or suspicious, but the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had said frankly that he was no friend of the Bill, and he hoped hon. Members on the Government side would bear in mind that by introducing an element of this kind they would be doing much to wreck a measure which would be likely to do a great deal of good, but which would not bear the introduction of this alien element. He hoped none of his hon. friends would act upon the advice which had been given them by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were the avowed enemies of this Bill and who desired its destruction.
    MR. HARWOODsaid the somewhat passionate eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman was entirely beside the mark. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this Amendment was alien to the Bill, but that was not so at all. The Bill was intended to keep out aliens who were not likely to be able to earn their own living. This Amendment laid down that they should not accept as proof or probability a contract from an employer where a strike was going on. If ever there was a case proved up to the hilt it was this case, and for the right hon. Gentleman to talk of this being an alien matter was simply nonsense. He had stated that those who supported this Amendment were opposed to the Bill and wanted a free influx of aliens into this country. Now the Government were trying to place a net to catch certain people, and they were going to catch those who might be an advantage to the country and let through those who did most harm and who were certain to throw British workmen out of employment. The

    939
    people who would be kept out would be those who very often introduced into this country new trades and found employment for others.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 230. (Division List No. 287.)

    AYES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

    Parrott, William

    Allen, Charles P.

    Grant, Corrie

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Ambrose, Robert

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Perks, Robert William

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Harwood, George

    Price, Robert John

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Rea, Russell

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Reddy, M.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Benn, John Williams

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Black, Alexander William

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Boland, John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Rose, Charles Day

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

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Runciman, Walter

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Russell, T. W.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Hunt, Rowland

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Burt, Thomas

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

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

    Joicey, Sir James

    Shaw, Charles Kdw. (Stafford)

    Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

    Sheehy, David

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cameron, Robert

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

    Smith,H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

    Spencer, Rt.Hn.C.R.(N'thants

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lambert, George

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

    Sullivan, Donal

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Levy, Maurice

    Tennant, Harold John

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

    Lough, Thomas

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lundon, W.

    Toulmin, George

    Crombie, John William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Crooks, William

    M'Crae, George

    Ure, Alexander

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Vincent, Col.SirC.E.H(Sheffield

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Wallace, Robert

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley

    Delany, William

    Mooney, John J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Morley,Rt.Hon.John(Montrose

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Donelan, Capt. A.

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Weir, James Galloway

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Muldoon, John

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Edwards, Frank

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

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

    Elibank, Master of

    O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Ellice, CaptEC(S.Andrw'sBghs

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W,

    Emmott, Alfred

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    O'Connor, James

    Wilson, John (Glagsow)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Young, Samuel

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Dowd, John

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Field, William

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Mara, James

    Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bell.

    Gilhooly, James

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Balfour, Rt. Hon.AJ(Manch'r

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Bailey, James (Walworth

    Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW.(Leeds

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

    Balcarres, Lord

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Arrol, Sir William

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

    Myers, William Henry

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Bigwood, James

    Heath,SirJames(Staffords.NW

    Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

    Bill, Charles

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Percy, Earl

    Bingham, Lord

    Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.

    Picrpoint, Robert

    Bond, Edward

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Brassey, Albert

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Brodrick, Rt, Hon. St. John

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Purvis, Robert

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Pym, C. Guy

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Rankin, Sir James

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Carlile, William Walter

    Howard,John(Kent.Faversham

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Chamberlain, Rt.HnJ.A. (Wore

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

    Ritchie, Rt.Hon.Chas.Thomson

    Clive, Captain Perry A.

    Kerr, John

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Keswick, William

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Robinson, Brooke

    Coddington, Sir William

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lambton, Hon. FrederickWm.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.Fareham

    Scott, Sir S. (Marleybone, W.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lees, Sir Elliot(Birkenhead

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

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

    Dairymple, Sir Charles

    Liddell, Henry

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Smith, RtHnJ.Parker(Lanarks

    Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

    Spear, John Ward

    Dickson, Charles Scott

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

    Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lowe, Francis William

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Dixon-Hartland,SirFred.Dixon

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Dorington,Rt. Hon.Sir John E.

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

    Stroyan, John

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A- Akers-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliam Hart

    Macdona, John Cumming

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

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fellowes, RtHn.AilwynEdward

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Tollinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

    M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh, W.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Malcolm, Ian

    Tuff, Charles

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Finlay,RtHn SirR.B.(Inverness

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Turnour, Viscount

    Fison, Frederick William

    Maxwell, Rt.HnSirHE. (Wigton

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon

    Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Welby, Sir CharlesGE(Notts.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Milner, Rt.Hon.SirFrederickG.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.

    Milvain, Thomas

    Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Mitchell, William (Burnley)

    Whitmore, Chares Algernon

    Gardner, Ernest

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Montagu, Hon.J.Scott(Hants.)

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

    Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

    Gordon,MajEvans-(T'rHaml'ts

    Morgan,DavidJ. (Walthamstow

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Gore, Hon, S. F. Ormsby-

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnEldon

    Morrell, George Herbert

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

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Halsey, Rt. Hon, Thomas F.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    and Viscount Valentia.

    *SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved to insert the words "for political reasons," with the object of exempting political refugees from the scope of the Bill. He said the Amendment in regard to political refugees had not been before the House, having been shut out by the closure when the Bill was in Committee. This was a matter which was probably more prominent in the minds of a large number of the people of this country than any other matter connected with the Bill. All that had been said with regard to the principle of asylum in cases of religious persecution applied with greater force to the subject of political persecution. The words which the Government had introduced in order to meet this point were obviously unsatisfactory and insufficient. He had not heard any Member of the House confess publicly or privately that the Government words were sufficient to meet what was admitted to be a grievance that should be met. It was, he admitted, very difficult to find words to meet the case. The Government Amendment was confined to those who sought refuge in this country for the purpose of avoiding prosecution for an offence. It was admitted that that could be shown in the case of very few political refugees. Cases, for instance, must be present to their minds of distinguished refugees who had come from Russia at various times. In those cases actual avoidance of a definite prosecution for a political offence could hardly ever be shown.
    Of course, in Russia there was an enormous amount of arbitrary arrest for the holding of political ideals—for mere suspicion of holding certain political opinions. In 1896 it was supposed that arbitrary arrest for political offences had ceased. A Ukase was published at that time which was received throughout the civilised world as meaning that arbitrary arrest had been discontinued, but that Ukase was so worded that it did not give effect to the meaning ascribed to it by the European Press. There had been a larger number of arrests since the issue of that Ukase than ever at any time before except in connection with the Polish insurrections of 1830 and 1801. Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, the most sound and least sensational writer about Russia, in discussing the
    944
    Ukase in the new edition of his book-stated that arbitrary arrest and imprisonment had really increased. Sir Donald gave the figures for 1903, which he had every reason to suppose came from the very highest source. There were 4,867 persons sent into the various forms of exile in different parts of Siberia without any form of trial. That number, in a single year, showed the extent to which political persecution had been carried in the Russian Empire. It was perfectly certain that none of the persons who escaped from detention in Russia, or who fled from Russia, when they had a warning of arbitrary arrest, would come under the words of exemption proposed by the Government. It would be necessary to prove the existence of a charge to show that the words were applicable, and that could not be shown in any of those cases. Of course, the House knew how terrible was the life to which persons who held certain political opinions were condemned. Friends of his own, men of the highest repute in the scientific and literary world, had been exiled to remote Governments for holding opinions which in any other country would have passed unnoticed. There were some of the settlements where men were sent for holding political opinions and where they invariably became mad in two or three years. It would be difficult to find words which would not be thought by the Government dangerously vague, yet he ventured to suggest that the form of words which the Government proposed were wholly insufficient.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 2, line 12, to leave out from the word 'country,' to the word 'leave,' in line 13, and insert the words 'for political reasons'"—(Sir Charles Dilke)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'solely to avoid prosecution.' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SPEAKERrose to put the Question.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEasked whether the Government had no reply to give to the convincing speech of his right hon. friend on a question which, he should have thought, would have appealed to every Englishman irrespective of Party. It would indeed be the

    945
    most extraordinary part of the course which had been pursued by the Government in regard to this matter if they treated with contempt the arguments of the right hon. Baronet, and did not vouchsafe a reply on this vital question. The Prime Minister was a man who had occupied a seat in this House for many years, and who had had the privilege—
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I rise to apologise. I own that to describe the noble Lord's interpretation of our silence as nonsense is an undesirable form of interjection, though not un-Parliamentary. But I must say that the noble Lord's interpretation of the silence of the Attorney-General and myself, when we were actually considering the point, as a contempt of the right hon. Baronet was so absurd that I cannot conceive the noble Lord really means it.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEasked how could he obtain a knowledge of what was going on on the Treasury Bench. He waited and thought that his right hon. friend would be followed by someone on behalf of the Government, but he observed no intention on the part of either the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister to rise, and it was only when the Speaker was about to put the Question that he interposed. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman's interjection was not intended to reach him, and that it was far from the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to be discourteous to him. But he wished to urge upon the House that this was a very vital question, and that they should not let it go without further discussion This was a point on which previous Foreign Secretaries, both Liberal and Conservative, had fought hard and long. The House surely could not have forgotten the efforts that were made repeatedly last century by foreign Governments to get something of this kind into English legislation, and that their efforts were met by the firm and determined opposition of our own Foreign Ministers. After the Polish and Hungarian insurrections the foreign Ambassadors pressed on Lord Palmerston and Lord Granville, almost
    946
    to discourtesy, for a change in the English law, and it led to something like an unfriendly feeling between the two Courts. There was a Foreign Office despatch by Lord Granville, which was very carefully revised by Lord John Russell, in which it was very firmly stated that under no circumstances would this country yield one inch on this question. It was pointed out in that despatch that what ought to be remembered by all English Parties and by the Governments abroad was that any Government or any person who might be asking for the exclusion of certain foreign aliens might the day after have to come to this country and seek the benefit of the asylum that we had always given to foreign refugees from either religious or political persecution. That had been the case in regard to France, according to whether the Royalist or Republican movement was triumphant. After the lamentable assassination of the Emper of Russia an attempt was made to indu us to alter our alien laws, and so also in regard to movements in Greece and Turkey, but Lord Granville put his foot down and said there should be no alteration at all.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the noble Lord had made a most uncalled-for attack upon the Attorney-General and himself which he should have thought the long Parliamentary experience of the noble Lord would have guarded him from making.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I made no attack.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The noble Lord made a violent and unjustifiable attack. He assumed that we were going to take not the smallest notice of the right hon. Baronet and his Amendment. That was a most preposterous charge.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I did not rise until I saw that the Speaker was about to put the Question, and I rose only to avert the danger of the Question being disposed of without any reply being made by the Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the noble Lord was amply justified in rising, but

    947
    he was not justified in the remarks which he had made. The right hon. Baronet had rightly stated that there was no difference of opinion in the House as to the desirability of admitting aliens into this country who were genuinely driven out of their own country on the grounds of their being accused of political crime or involved in political agitation. The right hon. Baronet had stated that there was no difference between either side of the House as to the desirability of giving persons entry into this country who were driven out of their own country on the ground of being involved in political agitation, or in consequence of being accused of political crimes, or of being in danger of political punishment. There was really no difference of opinion between them, and the passionate appeal made by the noble Lord was really on this occasion thrown away.
    The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean admitted that to carry out this common object was by no means an easy matter, and he did not think the right hon. Baronet's own words would really meet the case. He thought he would recognise that they were far too wide. The question was how could they so word the clause as to let in those they desired to let in, and keep out those they desired to keep out. They had reached the point at which they must agree that it was legitimate to keep out the immigrant coming under the various categories described in the clause, but the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would not keep them out at all. A man had only to say he disliked the political conditions of the country he lived in to be able to come in. He might have been slighted by his fellow-citizens when standing for some office, or think his merits were not sufficiently appreciated by the Party to which he belonged, and he would be able to come in under the right hon. Baronet's Amendment by saying really the political controversy was raging in his own country in a manner which caused him very much inconvenience and made life intolerable. The man who was destitute and who, therefore, was of the class they desired to exclude might turn their intentions to nought by saying the
    948
    political conditions of the country in which he lived were so utterly repulsive to him that he preferred the calmer atmosphere of British institutions. That was not the class they desired to admit even if they were destitute; the class they did desire to admit, even though they were destitute, were those who, in peril of their lives or in peril of their liberty, were really flying their country to avoid a hard fate which, in less happily situated communities than our own, too often overcome those who opposed the Government of the day.
    The right hon. Baronet recommended words to their notice, but in the course of his speech he very nearly suggested that the difficulty was so great that he feared his words were too wide. He (Mr. Balfour) thought they were too wide, and he did not think it would be possible, therefore, for the Government to accept them. He had consulted with his learned friend as to whether it was not possible to find words not open to the objection to which those of the right hon. Baronet were open, and which would yet carry out that object which both sides had in view, and he thought it might be done if the clause were made to read "Solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds or for an offense of a political character." He thought if the House would accept those words they would meet the case of the right hon. Baronet; and he ventured to suggest that he should withdraw his Amendment and allow his learned friend to substitute the words he had just read.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid he agreed that they ought to discuss the proper form of words to be inserted to carry out what was the common purpose on both sides of the House, but they on that side of the House took strong exception to the exclusion of aliens on the ground of poverty alone, and, if the choice were between words which seemed too wide and words which were certainly too narrow, he thought the House ought to err on the side of generosity. There were two competing forms of words from which they had to make their choice. First of all, there were the words of the right hon. Member for the Forest

    949
    of Dean, which were very wide indeed and which would, cover almost every conceivable case of a refugee coming to this country, although that need rot trouble the mind of the House at all, because it was perfectly certain that any tribunal, whether immigration officers or a Court of law, which had to interpret the words would interpret them in the best sense, that the person came here not out of caprice but because the conditions of his own country made it unsafe for him to stay there. He did not think it would be the policy of this country to exclude anyone who came to this country under those conditions. Then there were the words of the right hon. Gentleman, which included only the two cases where a refugee was seeking to avoid either prosecution or punishment. There were a great many cases in which a man came here as a political refugee and yet could not be said to be seeking to avoid either prosecution or punishment. Prosecution meant a criminal proceeding in a Court of law for some offence against the law; punishment meant what the proceeding, when carried to its conclusion, resulted in. ["No."] He would be glad to know if punishment had any other meaning.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he should have thought that imprisonment without form of law was punishment, although there was no prosecution.
    MR. ASQUITHsuggested the case of a man who was subjected to arbitrary confiscation of property without prosecution. Was that punishment?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should have thought so.
    MR. ASQUITHthought that this should be made perfectly clear. The right hon. Gentleman let fall one expression which he heard with great satisfaction, because it seemed to embody the true principle, and that was when he spoke of men leaving their country from peril to life or liberty. If the words were adopted—"to avoid danger to life, limb, or liberty on political or religious grounds," he believed they would not be one whit too wide to meet the circumstances of the case, and he imagined would give general satisfaction.
    LORD HUGH CECILdid not think the Amendment of the hon. Baronet could possibly be accepted. The Amendment would cover the not unlikely case of a man who fled to avoid conscription. That might be a very large class indeed. They might all be said to come over as political refugees. It had occurred to him that if the words "affecting life, limb, or liberty," were put in after the word "punishment," the Amendment would be one which would carry out the intention of the hon. Baronet.
    MR. CRIPPSasked whether the Prime Minister would adopt words to cover political cases similar to those which he had adopted with regard to religious refugees. If the right hon. Gentleman gave the same protection to political as he had given to religious refugees that would cover everything.
    MAJOR SEELYexpressed the opinion that the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, if adopted, would meet with universal agreement, especially if in addition they were made to apply, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stretford suggested, to religious and political belief.
    MR. FORDE RIDLEYpointed out that the words of the Amendment were wider than they need be, and he suggested that the word "imminent" should be put in in front of "danger."
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsuggested to the House that it was not desirable to insert the word "imminent," at all events in the place proposed. There was an Amendment lower down on the Paper which would more properly deal with that.
    LORD HUGH CECILsaid the accepttance of such an Amendment would be altogether a departure from the arrangement come to in Committee.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that it was not desirable at that moment to complicate the clause further by saying "punishment involving

    951
    danger to life, limb, or liberty." All punishment must affect person or liberty, and therefore it was quite enough to say "to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds." It would be difficult to find words that would satisfy everyone, but he submitted they would come nearest to covering the whole point by the formula he had suggested, viz., "solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds or for an offence of a political character."
    MR. RUFUS ISAACSsuggested that the views of the House might be met by the provision being made to read as follows—"Solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds or prosecution for an offence of a political character, or to avoid persecution involving danger to life or limb on account of religious or political belief." The Amendment as it stood was
    too narrow in that it would not touch persecution involving danger.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDONrose to move an Amendment, the object of which was to limit the application of the proposed exemptions to cases of actual and immediate persecution or danger,
    *MR. SPEAKERintimated that that raised a separate and distinct issue which would be reached in due time.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that as no satisfactory arrangement had been, come to he should be obliged to take the sense of the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 244; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 288.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Fison, Frederick William

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

    Flannery, Sir Fortsecue

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Forster, Henry William

    Arrol, Sir William

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.A(Wore

    Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick,S.W.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Baird, John George Alexander

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

    Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

    Balcarres, Lord

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gordon, Maj.Evans-(T'rH'mlts

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Cohen, Benjan in Louis

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

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

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Balfour, Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Balfour, Kenneth, R.(Christch.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Denny, Colonel

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

    Bigwood, James

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Heath,SirJames(Staffords,N. W

    Bill, Charles

    Dimsdale, Rt.Hon. SirJosephC.

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Bingham, Lord

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Dixon-Hartland,SirFred.Dixon

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Bond, Edward

    Dorington, Rt.Hon.SirJohnE.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Bowles, T. Gibson (Kings Lynn

    Dyke, Rt.Hon.Sir WilliamHart

    Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

    Brassey, Albert

    Egerton, Hon.A. de Tatton

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Fellowes, RtHn.AilwynEdward

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Brown, Sir Alex.H.(Shropsh.)

    Fergusson, RtHn.SirJ.(Manc'r

    Hoult, Joseph

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Butcher, John George

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

    Campbell, RtHn.J. A. (Glasgow

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

    Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham

    Carlile, William Walter

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

    Shaw-Stewart, SirH.(Renfrew

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

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Smith,HC(Northumb,Tyneside

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

    Morrison, James Archibald

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

    Kerr, John

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Spear, John Ward

    Keswick, William

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stanley, Hn.Arthur-(Ormskirk

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Stanley, Rt. Hon.Lord (Lancs.

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Myers, William Henry

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Peel, Hn. Wm.RobertWellesley

    Talbot, RtHnJ.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

    Lee, ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham)

    Pemborton, John S. G.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

    Percy, Earl

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Hencage

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Liddell, Henry

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Tuff, Charles

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

    Purvis, Robert

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Pym, C. Guy

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Lowe, Francis William

    Randles, John S.

    Turnour, Viscount

    Loyd, Archie, Kirkman

    Rankin, Sir James

    Vincent, Col.SirCEH.(Sheffield

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Welby, SirCharlesG.E.(Notts.)

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Ridley, Sir Forde

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

    M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn.Chas. Thomson

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Robinson, Brooke

    Wilson-Todd, SirW.H.(Yorks.)

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE(Wigt'n

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Milner, Rt. Hn. SirFrederickG.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Milvain, Thomas

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Montagu, Hon. J.Scott(Hants.)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marleybone, W.)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Cameron, Robert

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Allen, Charles P.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Field, William

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Findlay, Alexander(Lanark,N.

    Asquith, Rt. Hn.HerbertHenry

    Cawley, Frederick

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Gladstone, RtHn.HerbertJohn

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Condon, Thomas Josepn

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

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

    Bell, Richard

    Cremer, William Randal

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Benn, John Williams

    Crombie, John William

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Black, Alexander William

    Cullinan, J.

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Boland, John

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Brigg, John

    Delany, William

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Doogan, P. C.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Edwards, Frank

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Burt, Thomas

    Elibank, Master of

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Buxton, N.E. (York,NRWhitby

    Ellice, Capt EC(S Andr'wsBghs

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar

    Emmott, Alfred

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Caldwell, James

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Joicey, Sir James

    954

    955

    Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Spencer, RtHn C.R.(Northants

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Dowd, John

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Sullivan, Donal

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    O'Mara, James

    Tennant, Harold John

    Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan, W.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

    Lambert, George

    Parrott, William

    Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Partington, Oswald

    Toulmin, George

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Ure, Alexander

    Levy, Maurice

    Perks, Robert William

    Wallace, Robert

    Lough, Thomas

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds,S.

    Lundon, W.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Price, Robert John

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Rea, Russell

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    M'Crae, George

    Reddy, M.

    Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Redmond, JohnE.(Waterford)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Mooney, John J.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Morley, Rt. Hn.John(Montrose

    Rose, Charles Day

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Runciman, Walter

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Muldoon, John

    Russell, T. W.

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

    Murphy, John

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Young, Samuel

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

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

    Norman, Henry

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

    Sheehy, David

    Sir Charles Dilke and Mr.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Harwood.

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

    Slack, John Bamford

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint

    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 2, line 12, after the word 'prosecution,' to insert the words 'or punishment on religious grounds or.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 2, line 13, after the word 'character,' to insert the words 'or persecution, involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb, on account of religious belief.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASmoved another Amendment in the same sub-section relating to an immigrant who wished to enter the country so as to avoid "persecution, involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb, on account of religious belief."
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDONmoved to amend the Home Secretary's Amendment by inserting words with the object of providing that the exemption should be limited to actual and immediate cases of hardship personal to the individual who pleaded them. No one recognised more
    956
    cordially and fully than he did that asylum should be granted to people who were in imminent danger of this kind, as, for instance, those flying from such outrages as recently occurred at Kishineff, but he thought there was great difficulty in framing words which, while exempting such persons, would not at the same time open the door to all immigrants from Eastern Europe, however undesirable, on a general plea of misgovernment in their own country. He was doubtful whether, even if the words he suggested were accepted, this difficulty would be entirely overcome. He begged the House to realise exactly what the effect of the original Amendment would be. On page 1 of the Bill they were setting up elaborate machinery to exclude certain classes admittedly undesirable. That was the main object of the Bill, and gave effect to the principle of the Bill. This principle had been affirmed on two occasions by large majorities in that House. On page 2 it was now proposed to introduce words by which fully nine-tenths of these people could claim exemption, not on the ground that they were in any immediate danger, or that they were religious or political refugees in the sense in which the people of this country really understood the term, but because of the general

    957
    misgovernment in Eastern Europe. While, therefore, they affirmed in one place that the economically unfit ought to be excluded in the interests of the people of this country, in another they gave every wastrel and mendicant a new statutory right to come in, provided he took the very slight trouble of rendering himself liable to punishment on religious or political grounds in Russia, Roumania, or Armenia. He was afraid that the proposed exemptions would provide shipowners and masters with very easy means of evading the Act, and that they would have little difficulty in educating the immigrants up to the requisite degree of persecution. He recognised that there were those in that House who disbelieved in the policy of excluding anybody, and where desire was, therefore, to render this Bill useless. There were others who, while supporting the Bill in principle, desired to provide a refuge for the genuine victims of persecution.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

    EVENING SITTING

      ALIENS BILL.
      Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [17th July] proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended.
      Which Amendment was—
      "In page 2, line 13, after the word 'character,' to insert the words 'or persecution, involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb, on account of religious belief'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
      Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      *MAJOR EVANS GORDON,continuing his speech, said that when the House adjourned he was saying there were some who, while supporting the Bill in principle, desired to provide a refuge for the genuine victims of persecution. Among those they had to count the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. There was no one in this House or outside of it for
      958
      whose capacity and fair-mindedness he had a more profound respect, and he could assure the noble Lord if anything should shake his convictions it would be his noble friend's attitude on this matter. But had his noble friend thought this matter out, and did he realise where his opinion was leading him? The noble Lord had said that he over-estimated the scope of the Bill—but he thought the noble Lord had under-estimated the effect of the exemptions which he desired to see introduced into it. The Amendment said that we could not exclude persons who came here solely to avoid prosecution or punishment for an offence of a political character. The word "solely" might leave some room for discrimination—but who could decide upon a man's motive in such a case, otherwise than upon the evidence which he himself chose to give with regard to it? Apart from that it was unquestionable that an indefinite risk of punishment or prosecution hung over the head of a large majority of all the subjects of the Czar. Two influences would therefore be set in operation. On the one hand the Russian Government and its officials would only have to threaten punishment in order to compel us to receive anyone of whom they wished to be rid—and on the other hand anyone, however unemployable and undeserving, who was desirous of leaving Russia and settling in this country would only have to qualify as a political offender to gain the right to come here. Nothing was easier than to obtain that qualification. He might become a member of any unauthorised society, and then, as all such societies were prohibited, say that he was in fear of punishment for an offence of a political character—or he had only to possess himself of a revolutionary leaflet, or even to be seen in suspected company, in order to place himself within the four corners of this exemption. Was it the intention of the advocates of this Amendment that all such persons, whether desirable or not, should be admitted here as of right?
      Then as to punishment or persecution on the ground of religion. In order to qualify for admission under this head, it would only be necessary for persons to transgress one of the numberless rules in the tomes of special laws applicable to Jews

      959
      and other non-orthodox sects m Russia, They need only leave the village or town in which they were registered as domiciled without permission, or bathe in the sea at some prohibited place, for instance, at Libau, where there was a regulation forbidding Jews to bathe in the sea, in order to say that they were liable to punishment because they held certain religious belief. Was one sea-bath to entitle the economically unfit to enter and obtain citizenship in this country. Was it intended that we should, not by indulgence as hitherto, but by statutory provision, admit in future all such persons who had transgressed Russian regulations, possibly of set purpose, and had thus rendered themselves liable to trifling punishments? He was entirely at one with the noble Lord in desiring to give refuge and asylum to people who were in danger of serious punishment or injury, but while allowing such to come we must safeguard ourselves against the wider effects of a general plea. There did exist, in fact, a perfectly clear distinction between those persons who were genuine refugees fleeing from outrage and personal danger and those who wished to use the general political and religious regime in Eastern Europe to get them into this country, where they would, under the Bill, be otherwise inadmissible, and we ought in our legislation to recognise that absolutely actual and vital distinction. Let them take the Armenians' case. There were signs that an exodus of these people was already commencing. Shipping agents were recruiting them among the emigrants to America, and of course there were rejections of them in New York. Were we to admit an Armenian immigration wholesale, irrespective of individual character or fitness and of the effect on our own industrial conditions?
      The Amendment as it stood made no provision as to the imminence of the punishment to which it referred. An offence of some kind might have been committed years before which rendered the offender liable to punishment of some kind in his country of origin, and we should be powerless to exclude such a person, however undesirable. The words which he proposed to insert were intended to meet that contingency.
      960
      Might he again point out the anomalous position we were in with regard to expulsion and repatriation as distinct from exclusion. As far as he could discern there were numbers of Members on both side who regarded exclusion of undesirables who gave themselves the description of refugees at the put of arrival as barbarous, while expulsion or repatriation of these same persons after arrival was legitimate. In the debate of Wednesday last he said that the Jewish Board of Guardians and other Jewish organisations had no hesitation in repatriating their undesirable co-religionists who, for one reason or another, had become a burden here. The hon. Member for Cleveland thereupon stated that all these people were sent back at their own request, and that none of them were victims of religious persecution. He had had no opportunity of contradicting that statement at the time, but as the matter was of great importance he hoped the House would allow him to do so now. The hon. Gentleman must have spoken in ignorance of the evidence given before the Royal Commission on this subject by such important members of the Jewish Community as Mr. Leonard Cohen, the chairman of the Jewish Board of Guardians, Mr. N. S. Josephs, of the Russo-Jewish Committee, and other witnesses. He would beg hon. Members to refer to this evidence. It showed in the most unmistakable manner that the persons sent back did not go of their own accord. If hon. Members would refer to the evidence they would see at Question 16,233 that Mr. N. S. Josephs, when asked whether these people returned home willingly, made the following reply—
      "Perhaps they will at first be very unwilling and they will ask for help in the meantime, which we always refuse. Eventually they will come and say, 'We are prepared to go home'"
      On this Lord James, the Chairman, remarked—
      "The fact is you starve them out of the country" and the witness replied, "Yes."
      And further he again repeated that it was simply a case of starving them out. Not one word was said with regard to any exception being made in favour of persons who were the victims of persecution in their own country This aspect of the

      961
      matter was never taken into consideration at all when repatriation cases were being considered, and at Question 15,511, when Mr. Leonard Cohen was asked whether he would object to the State attempting to do what the Jewish community themselves considered it advisable to do, he replied—
      "I should consider it most desirable to keep out undesirable aliens."
      and in reply to the Colonial S cretary he said that it had always been the policy of the Jewish Board of Guardians to restrict the influx as far as possible. And this policy was steadily pursued quite irrespective of the treatment meted out to these people in Russia or Roumania. In this connection he would remind the House that in the year 1900 there was a sudden influx of refugses from Roumania. The reason for their coming was the malicious misgovernment they had been subjected to by the Roumanian Government. Did this fact prevent the Jewish authorities from sending them back to their homes? Not at all. A very large percentage was sent, and the Jewish Board of Guardians protested in the strongest terms against these refugees having ever been allowed to come here.
      He therefore hoped that he had said enough to show that the hon. Member for Cleveland entirely mis-stated the facts when he said that persons repatriated returned voluntarily, and that none of such persons were the victims of persecution. In the opinion of Mr. Leonard Cohen it would be far more humane to prevent these people arriving here than to starve them out of this country after their arrival. But what he desired to point out especially was this—the responsible Jewish authorities here, large-minded and generous as they were, saw quite well that it would be disastrous to them and their struggling co-religionists if the general conditions of misgovernment in Eastern Europe were to be held to constitute a reason why every wastrel and destitute wanderer should claim and find asylum here as a religious refugee. They recognised no such right; they themselves knew that we must either open the floodgates of Eastern Europe unconditionally upon this country and take the consequence without palliation, or else decline to put a premium on the
      962
      general misgovernment in those regions by receiving under the general amnesty of a religious refugee clause persons whom, for the specific reason of their character or condition, it was desirable, as the principle of the Bill affirmed, to keep out.
      If hon. Members opposite, and some hon. Members on these benches, really meant to bring in every Russian who was potentially an object of oppression in that country, despite the consequence to our own people, they ought to do much more than oppose this clause and this whole Bill; they ought to bring in a measure compulsorily to stop the Jewish Board of Guardians from, repatriating their own co-religionists, as they habitually did. He thought the House should clearly realise to what we were committing ourselves. In any case he wished to make his own position perfectly clear. He desired above all things not to be a party to any deception from which the East of London might suffer in this matter, and not to claim that this Bill would produce results which he did not believe it would produce. Much, of course, depended upon its administration and upon the interpretation of the words they were now discussing. All he could say was that after very careful consideration they appeared to him, even perhaps with the additional words he had put down, to be too wide, and to jeopardise much that he considered in the Bill to be of the highest importance. He begged to move.
      MR. FORDE RIDLEYin seconding, the Amendment, said the words proposed by the Home Secretary did not go far enough to guard against the danger of opening wide the door to all who chose to say they were subjected in the country from which they fled to religious or political disabilities. Any man of the Hebrew faith might say he did not enjoy liberty in certain Continental States, and he might say it with perfect truth, but the admission upon this general allegation would defeat the object of the Bill—
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
      "In line 2, after the first word 'or,' to insert the word "imminent.'" (Major Evans Gordon.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'imminent' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
      LORD HUGH CECILhoped the Government would adhere to the Amendment as it stood. He had listened with attention to his hon. and gallant friend, and, not suspecting him of any want of sympathy with those it was the object of the Amendment to protect, he could not understand how from his hon. friend's point of view the Amendment would improve the Government proposal. There was no difference, whether the punishment was imminent or remote, and the imminence had nothing to do with its severity. At what particular joint did the danger become imminent? Were they to wait until the police were actually on the track of the refugee or would the issue of a warrant be sufficient, or the fact that accusation had been made or suspicion aroused? It seemed to him the word added nothing but confusion to the Amendment as it stood. He was much more apprehensive that the genuine refugee would not be able to get through than that the safeguards were not sufficient. No one would make a journey to a foreign country on a trivial ground. The immigration beard might take his hon. friend's point of view, and might say, "Is it credible that a person would have made this long journey solely on the ground that he was subjected to a trifling danger?" The immigration board would interpret the Bill in a natural way, and would say that the immigrant was exposed to such a degree of persecution as induced him to make a long journey.
      The question of danger to life and limb went far beyond that of civil disability. The Amendment would cover cases where the persecution was not conducted under legal methods, but where there was some sort of lawless violence, as for instance by the Cossacks, countenanced by the Government. That sort of persecution was of a most oppressive character, and it was very difficult to define in words. Was it to be supposed that persons who suffered from that sort of oppression were to be excluded from this country, or that they were
      964
      to be required to show that the danger they were in was an imminent danger? The Huguenots came into this country precisely en these terms, and a whole range of persons could be found who had been driven to emigration by religious persecution.
      He was very glad that this Government Amendment had been put down, and he hoped that it would be maintained. The only objection that could be reasonably made to it was that it might appear to leave too large a discretion to the immigration officer and immigration board. He did not himself admire the part of the Bill which lift so wide a discretion to the immigration officer, but the discretion left in the case of refugees was not so difficult to exercise as that in regard to persons who had the difficult task of proving that they could make a decent livelihood in this country. Nothing was so difficult as to show that one could make a decent livelihood, and differences of interpretation were left open to the immigration officer. The words of the Government Amendment were far more precise, and he was very glad indeed that the Government had decided to submit it to the House. He would have been sorry if, on a plea of excluding criminals, lunatics, or other undesirable persons, they had done an act so uncharitable as to shut our doors in the face of those suffering from oppression. He was sure his hon. friend and his supporters did not wish to do that, and he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that his noble friend had referred to what passed in the Committee stage when the House practically came to the conclusion that the words in the Amendment proposed from these benches should be adopted. He was disposed to agree with his noble friend; and he thought the House would be well advised in adhering to the words proposed by the Government, and in regarding them as embodying what was, he did not say a formal compact between both sides of the House excluding proposals of emendation, but what was almost regarded in Committee as a settled question. He was very reluctant to accept either from one side

      965
      of the House or the other any Amendment to the form of words on which they had been practically agreed. He did not think the words the hon. Member proposed would make the duty of the immigration commissioners more clear than it was made by the words proposed by the Government. He did not think that his hon. friend had really sufficiently considered the value of the word "solely" which was at the beginning of the Government Amendment. He would ask the House to resist any change in the words on which there had been a common agreement in Committee, and he suggested to his hon. friend that he should withdraw his Amendment.
      MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that in view of the statement of the Prime Minister he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment to the Bill, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. NORMANbegged to move that after the word "imprisonment" there should be inserted "or of confiscation of property, or of penal exile." He submitted that these words did not in any way alter the sense of the clause, while, at the same time, they extended the Bill in a direction in conformity with the views of the Government and of every Member of the House. Penal exile was one of the most common forms of persecution in Russia at the present time.
      *SIR CHARLES DILKEappealed to his hon. friend to separate the word "property" from "liberty."
      MR. NORMANsaid he would be very glad to divide the two and would simply move "or confiscation of property."
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
      "In line 2, after the word 'imprisonment' to insert the words 'or of confiscation of property.'"—(Mr. Norman.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
      SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the House would not accept this Amendment, not merely on the ground that it was opposed to the words already arrived at in Committee, but that the Amendment was unnecessary.
      Question, put, and negatived
      *SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved to insert the word "liberty." He said that he did this on behalf of his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife. If the word were inserted the Home Secretary's Amendment would read "or to avoid persecution involving danger of imprisonment, or danger to liberty, life, or limb, on account of religious
      belief."
      MR. EMMOTTseconded the Amendment.
      Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
      "In line 2, after the word 'to' to insert the word 'liberty.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'liberty' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
      SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped that the House would adhere to the form of words on the Paper. He was of opinion that the use of the word "imprisonment" would meet the necessities of the case; and he ventured to think that in the word "liberty" or the phrase "penal exile" there lurked a certain ambiguity. Mere exile did not necessarily mean imprisonment. He assumed that the case meant to be dealt with was that of banishment to Siberia or Archangel.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONconfessed he was in agreement with the Attorney-General that in the majority of cases exile did not mean imprisonment. A man who was exiled might be permitted to wander over a very large area, and in that sense he would not be in imprisonment. He hoped the Prime Minister would accept the Amendment, and that the right hon. Gentleman would consider that this question of exile was almost as great a danger as imprisonment,

      967
      because the men were taken from their homes and sent elsewhere to a great distance. He did not agree that the words proposed by the Government were accepted in the Committee. Great importance was then attached to the word "liberty."
      MR. NORMANsaid that the Attorney-General was very ill-informed as to the subject of exile in Russia. A man might be exiled to a district with which there were no means of communication, and turned entirely loose in an Arctic wilderness hundreds of miles from civilisation. To speak of that as imprisonment was ridiculous. Then the people were interned in different towns in Russia, and that was why they wanted to have these words inserted in the Bill. He did not see why the words of the Home Secretary's Amendment should be regarded as sacrosanct.
      MR. BONDsaid that some hon. Members on his side of the House sympathised to a considerable extent with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he suggested to insert after "danger to life or limb," the words 'or of deportation."
      MAJOR SEELYsaid that, although a particular form of words was more or less agreed upon in Committee, this particular word "liberty" was the one on which they were not entirely agreed. He himself thought that "liberty" was too wide, and had suggested "freedom." However, "liberty" was a word which was so thoroughly understood by the people, and by any possible immigration commissioners, that he thought the Prime Minister would be well advised to accept the Amendment. Could not the Prime Minister trust his own countrymen to understand what danger to "life, limb, or liberty" really meant? The word "liberty" was better than the word 'deportation."
      COHENsaid he joined in the appeal to his right hon. friend to accept the Amendment. He would not do so if he thought it would be in any way a departure from the understanding arrived at the other day. So far as he was concerned, he wished to pay a tribute to the way in which the
      968
      Home Secretary had met the objections which had been urged against the Bill, and, therefore, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to include this word "liberty" in his Amendment.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he did not suggest that any of those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the Amendment were desirous of departing from the agreement arrived at in Committee. He made no such charge or suggestion. He was still of the opinion that the word "freedom" was ambiguous. It added nothing to the security or advantage of the persons whom they desired to aid and protect, and it opened a very wide field of qualifications to any undesirable alien who wished to break through the provisions and safeguards of the Act. It had been said that it was absurd to say that it was imprisonment to send a person to Siberia, because he really had an enormous tract to wander over, and that nobody in that condition could be discribed as a prisoner. He did not agree with that at all, but, if it were so, he ventured to say that he could not be described as having been deprived of his freedom. If he were not imprisoned when he was sent to Siberia, then he did not lose his liberty. In both cases he was at liberty to wander over thousands of square miles, for his prison was EG doubt very large.
      MAJOR SEELY: A prison must be a small thing.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he was sure the hon. Gentleman who interrupted him was as great a lover of personal freedom as anybody. If he were told be must go to South America and not leave, would he or would he not say that that was interfering with his liberty?
      MAJOR SEELY: Certainly, but I should not be imprisoned.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think he would. Imprisoned he certainly would be. Then he thinks there would be no interference with his liberty?
      MAJOR SEELY: Oh yes, there would be interference with my liberty, but there would not be imprisonment. A prison must by law be a small place.
      MR. J. BALFOURsaid that another phrase used in the debate was really not only ambiguous but absolutely misleading. It had been described as being exiled to be sent to Siberia. "Exiled," strictly, was being sent from one's own country to some other country.
      MR. NORMAN: What would the right hon. Gentleman call deportation to Siberia?
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he should call it "deportation to Siberia." But seriously, did anybody describe it as being exiled to have to go to some place within the limits of his own country. He ventured to think that all the House desired to obtain in the way of protec-
      tion for those unfortunate victims of persecution was to use the words they had put in the Bill, and if in their interest they chose to stretch them, they would put in terms which would do a good deal to destroy the efficacy of a Bill which, by a large majority, the House had accepted in principle. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would be well advised if they adhered to the words which, though not agreed to, he freely admitted, the other night did, he
      believed, substantially carry out the common object of both sides of the House.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes, 147; Noes, 203. (Division List No. 289.)

      AYES.

      Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.

      Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

      Newnes, Sir George

      Allen, Charles P.

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Nolan, Joseph (Louth,South)

      Baker, Joseph Allen

      Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

      Norman, Henry

      Barlow, John Emmott

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

      Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

      Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Bell, Richard

      Harcourt, Lewis

      O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W,

      Been, John Williams

      Hardic, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N,)

      Black, Alexander William

      Harwood, George

      O'Dowd, John

      Boland, John

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Bolton, Thomas Dolling

      Helme, Norval Watson

      O'Malley, William

      Brigg, John

      Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

      O'Mara, James

      Bright, Allan Heywood

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Parrot, William

      Burke, E. Haviland

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

      Burt, Thomas

      Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

      Perks, Robert William

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

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Philipps, John Wynford

      Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar

      Jacoby, James Alfred

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Caldwell, James

      Joicey, Sir James

      Price, Robert John

      Cameron, Robert

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Priestly, Arthur

      Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

      Jones William (Carnarvonshire

      Rea, Russell

      Causton, Richard Knight

      Joyce, Michael

      Reddy, M.

      Cawley, Frederick

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Redmond, John K.(Waterford)

      Channing, Francis Allston

      Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

      Richards, Thomas

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Kitson, Sir James

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Lambert, George

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

      Rose, Charles Day

      Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Runciman, Walter

      Cremer, William Randal

      Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

      Russell, T. W.

      Cullinan, J.

      Levy, Maurice

      Samuel, HerbertL.(Cleveland)

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Lloyd-George, David

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel

      Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

      Lough, Thomas

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

      Delany, William

      Lundon, W.

      Shackleton, David James

      Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

      Macveagh, Jeremiah

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

      M'Crae, George

      Sheehy, David

      Donelan, Captain A.

      M'Kean, John

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Doogan, P. C.

      M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

      Slack, John Bamford

      Duncan, J. Hastings

      Mansfield, Horace Rendall

      Smith, Samuel (Flint)

      Edwards, Frank

      Markham, Arthur Basil

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

      Ellice, CaptEC(S.Andrw'sBghs

      Mooney, John J.

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Emmott, Alfred

      Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen

      Sullivan, Donal

      Eve, Harry Trelawney

      Muldoon, John

      Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

      Fenwick, Charles

      Murphy, John

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

      Findlay, Alexander(LanarkNE

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Tomkinson, James

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      White, Patrick (Heath, North)

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Ure, Alexander

      Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)

      Wallace, Robert

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

      Wilson, Fred.W.(Norfolk,Mid.)

      Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

      Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Mr. William M'Arthur

      Weir, James Galloway

      Woodhonse,SirJ.T(Huddersf'ld

      White, George (Norfolk)

      Young, Samuel

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

      M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh W

      Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

      Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

      M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Finch, Rt. Hon. GeorgeH.

      Majendie, James A. H.

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

      Marks, Harry Hananel

      Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Martin, Richard Biddulph

      Arrol, Sir William

      Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

      Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Flannery, Sir Fortescue

      Milvain, Thomas

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH

      Flower, Sir Ernest

      Montagu, Hon. J.Scott(Hants-

      Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

      Forster, Henry William

      Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

      Bailey, James (Walworth)

      Galloway, William Johnson

      Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

      Baird, John George Alexander

      Gardner, Ernest

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Balcarres, Lord

      Garfit, William

      Morrell, George Herbert

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

      Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

      Morrison, James Archibald

      Balfour, Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds

      Gordon,Maj.Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

      Mount, Will am Arthur

      Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

      Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

      Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

      Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

      Bartley, Sir George C. T.

      Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

      Myers, William Henry

      Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

      Grenfell, William Henry

      Nicholson, William Graham

      Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

      Hall, Edward Marshall

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Hardy,Laurenec(Kent, Ashford

      Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

      Bigwood, James

      Hare, Thomas Leigh

      Pemberton, John S. G.

      Bill, Charles

      Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

      Percy, Earl

      Bingham, Lord

      Heath, SirJames(Staffords,NW

      Pierpoint, Robert

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Pilkington, Colonel Richard

      Bond, Edward

      Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Brassey, Albert

      Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

      Hoare, Sir Samuel

      Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

      Bull, William James

      Hogg, Lindsay

      Purkis, Robert

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

      Pym, C. Guy

      Butcher, John George

      Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

      Randles, John S.

      Carlile, William Walter

      Hoult, Joseph

      Rankin, Sir James

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

      Houston, Robert Pacerson

      Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

      Ratcliff, R. F.

      Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

      Hudson, George Bickersteth

      Reid, James (Greenock)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hunt, Rowland.

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

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

      Ridley, S. Forde

      Chapman, Edward

      Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

      Roberts, Samuel, (Sheffield)

      Clare, Octavius Leigh

      Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

      Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

      Clive, Captain Percy A.

      Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh.

      Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

      Coates, Edward Feetham

      Kerr, John

      Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

      Keswick, William

      Royds, Clement Molyneux

      Coghill, Douglas Harry

      King, Sir Henry Seymour

      Rutherford, W. W (Liverpool)

      Colston, Chas Edw. H. Athole

      Knowles, Sir Lees

      Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

      Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

      Laurie, Lieut.-General

      Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

      Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

      Sharpe, William Edward T.,

      Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

      Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool

      Skewes-Cox, Thomas

      Cubitt, Hon. Henry

      Lee, ArthurH. (Hants,Fareham

      Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

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

      Dairymple, Sir Charles

      Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

      Spear, John Ward

      Davenport, William Bromley

      Leveson-Gower,Frederick N. S

      Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

      Davies, SirHoratio D.(Chatham

      Liddell, Henry

      Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

      Denny, Colonel

      Llewellyn, Evan Henry

      Stewart, SirMarkJ.M'Taggart

      Dickinson, Robert Edmond

      Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      Dickson, Charles Scott

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

      Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Talqot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

      Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

      Doxford, Sir William Theodore

      Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

      Tollemache, Henry James

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

      Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

      Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

      Macdona, John Cumming

      Tritton, Charles Ernest

      Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

      MacIver, David (Liverpool)

      Tuff, Charles

      Fellowes, RtHnAilwynEdward

      M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      972

      973

      Turnour, Viscount

      Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

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

      Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield)

      Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter

      Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund.Lyne

      Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

      Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH.

      Whitmore, Charles Algernon

      Warde, Colonel C. E.

      Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

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

      Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

      Welby, SirCharlesG.E.(Notts.)

      Wilson, John (Glasgow)

      and Viscount Valentia.

      MR. RUFUS ISAACSmoved to add the words "or political opinions." He said that would make the words read "or persecution involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life and limb on account of religious belief or political opinions." In spite of what had fallen from the Prime Minister during the discussion on the last Amendment, he ventured to hope that he would see his way to assent to the Amendment, because he believed it only gave effect to the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and those who sat on his side of the House. He took it that it was an accepted principle that the Prime Minister and others on that side of the House were desirous with them of giving protection to those who sought our shores in consequence of persecution on account of their political opinions. They had already almost arrived at an agreement, he thought, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, with reference to religious opinions, and he was asking the House to give the same protection and freedom to those seeking the asylum of these shores from persecution on account of political opinions. He did not think the House would desire in any way to curtail that freedom, and he did not suppose the House would desire that there should be less freedom given to those who came here on account of political persecution than was given to those who came on account of religious persecution.
      LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEseconded.
      Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
      "At the end, to add the words 'or political opinions.'"—(Mr. Rufus Isaacs.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
      SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the House would not think it necessary to adopt the Amendment. They some time ago passed words which provided for the case of "danger of punishment on political grounds," and wherever a Government interfered with a man's liberty, or his property, and with his person on account of political opinions that was a case of "punishment on political grounds." Punishment was not confined to punishment following legal process; it would also refer to arbitrary punishment without any legal process whatever. With reference to religious views, it was necessary to guard against another case, because one real danger with regard to religious views was that of persecution taking a form of violence, but he did not think the same danger existed with regard to political opinions. That was not a danger to which they were particularly exposed. The real danger of persecution was with reference to religious views. They had specifically provided for "punishment on political grounds," and he submitted that the Amendment, therefore, was not required.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes, 152; Noes, 214. (Division List No. 290.)

      AYES.

      Abraham, William(Cork,N. E.)

      Barlow, John Emmott

      Black, Alexander William

      Allen, Charles P.

      Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

      Boland, John

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Bell, Richard

      Bolton, Thomas Dolling

      Baker, Joseph Allen

      Benn, John Williams

      Brigg, John

      Bright, Allan Heywood

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Price, Robert John

      Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

      Jacoby, James Alfred

      Priestly, Arthur

      Burke, K. Haviland-

      Joicey, Sir James

      Rea, Russell,

      Burt, Thomas

      Jones David Brynmor(Swansea)

      Reddy, M.

      Buxton,N.E(York,NR Whitby)

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Redmond,John E. (Waterford)

      Buxton, Sydney Charles (Poplar)

      Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

      Richards, Thomas

      Caldwell, James

      Joyce, Michael

      Rickett, J. Compton.

      Cameron, Robert

      Kearley, Hudson, E.

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

      Kennedy,VincentP.(Cavan, W)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Causton, Richard Knight

      Kitson, Sir James

      Rose, Charles Day

      Cawley, Frederick

      Lambert, George

      Runciman, Walter

      Channing, Francis Allston

      Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

      Russell, T.W.

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Leese,Sir Joseph F(Accrington)

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

      Levy, Maurice

      Schwann, Charles E.

      Cremer, William Randal

      Lewis, John Herbert

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

      Cullinan, J.

      Lloyd-George, David

      Shackleton, David James

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Lough, Thomas

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

      Lundon, W.

      Sheehy, David

      Delany, William

      Macveagh, Jeremiah

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

      M'Crae, George

      Slack, John Bamford

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      M'Kean, John

      Smith, Samuel (Flint)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

      Spencer,Rt HnC.R.(Northants)

      Doogan, P. C.

      Mansfield, Horace Rendall

      Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

      Duncan, J. Hastings

      Markham, Arthur Basil

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Edwards, Frank

      Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

      Sullivan, Donal

      Ellice,Capt EC(SAndrw'sBghs)

      Muldoon, John

      Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

      Emmott, Alfred

      Murphy, John

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

      Evans,SirFrancisH(Maidstone)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Tomkinson, James

      Eve, Harry Trelawney

      Newnes, Sir George

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Fenwick, Charles

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

      Ure, Alexander

      Findlay, Alexander(LanarkNE)

      Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

      Wallace, Robert

      Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

      Norman, Henry

      Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Flynn, James Christopher

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      White, George (Norfolk)

      Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

      O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

      White, Patrick (Meath North.)

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Whlteley, George (York, W. R)

      Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

      O'Dowd, John

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

      Harcourt, Lewis

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Wilson,Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.)

      Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

      O'Malley, William

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

      Harwood, George

      O'Mara, James

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Woodhouse,Sir J.T.(Huddersf')

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Parrott, William

      Young, Samuel

      Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

      Partington, Oswald

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Higham, John Sharp

      Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Perks, Robert William

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

      Philipps, John Wynford

      Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

      Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Mr. William M 'Arthur.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Bartley, Sir George C. T.

      Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

      Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

      Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

      Cayzer, Sir Charles William

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Bhownaggree, SirM. M

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

      Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO.

      Bigwood, James

      Chapman, Edward

      Arrol, Sir William

      Bill, Charles

      Clive, Captain Percy A.

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Bingham, Lord

      Coates, Edward Feetham

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn. SirH.

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

      Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

      Bond, Edward

      Coghill, Douglas Harry

      Bailey, James (Walworth)

      Brassey, Albert

      Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

      Baird, John George Alexander

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St.

      Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

      Balcarres, Lord

      Bull, William James

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

      Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

      Butcher, John George

      Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

      Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

      Carlile, William Walter

      Cubitt, Hon. Henry

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Daiymple, Sir Charles

      976

      977

      Davenport, William Bromley

      Keswick, William

      Ratcliff, R. F.

      Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Reid, James (Greenock)

      Denny, Colonel

      King, Sir Henry Seymour

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Dickinson, Robert Edmond

      Knowles, Sir Lees

      Ridley, S. Forde

      Dickson, Charles Scott

      Laurie, Lieut.-General

      Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

      Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

      Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

      Doughty, Sir George

      Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool

      Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham

      Round, Rt. Hon. James

      Doxford, Sir William Theodore

      Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

      Royds, Clement Molyneux

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

      Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S

      Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

      Fellowes, Rt. Hn.Ailwyn Edw.

      Liddell, Henry

      Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

      Llewellyn, Evan Henry

      Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

      Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

      Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

      Lowe, Francis William

      Skewes-Cox, Thomas

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Smith, H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

      Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

      Flannery, Sir Fortescue

      Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

      Spear, John Ward

      Flower, Sir Ernest

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

      Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset

      Forster, Henry William

      Macdona, John Cumming

      Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord (Lancs.

      Galloway, William Johnson

      MacIver, David (Liverpool

      Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Tggart

      Gardner, Ernest

      M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

      Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

      Garfit, William

      M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW.

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      Godson,Sir Augustus Frederick

      M'Killop, Jamss (Stirlingshire

      Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

      Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rHm'lets

      Manners, Lord Cecil

      Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

      Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

      Marks, Harry Hananel

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

      Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

      Martin, Richard Biddulph

      Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

      Goulding' Edward Alfred

      Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfrieshire

      Tollemache, Henry James

      Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

      Grenfell, William Henry

      Milvain, Thomas

      Tritton, Charles Ernest

      Greville, Hon. Ronald

      Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Hall, Edward Marshall

      Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

      Turnour, Viscount

      Hambro, Charles Eric

      Morgan.David J.(Walthamstow

      Vincent,Col.SirC.E.H(Sheffield

      Hardy, Laurence (KentAshford

      Morpeth, Viscount

      Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

      Hare, Thomas Leigh

      Morrell, George Herbert

      Walrond, Ht.Hn.SirWilliam H.

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Morrison, James Archibald

      Warde, Colonel C. E.

      Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

      Mount, William Arthur

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

      Heath, SirJames(StaffordsNW.

      Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

      Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

      Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

      Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

      Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

      Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

      Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

      Myers, William Harry

      Whiteley, H.(Ashton and.Lyne

      Hoare, Sir Samuel

      Nicholson, William Graham

      Whitmore, Charles Algernon

      Hogg, Lindsay

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Willoughby, de Eresby Lord

      Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

      Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

      Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

      Pemberton, John S. G.

      Wilson, John (Glasgow)

      Hoult, Joseph

      Percy, Earl

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

      Howard, John(Kent,Faversh'm

      Pierpoint, Robert

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Hudson, George Bickersteth

      Pilkington, Colonel Richard

      Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

      Hunt, Rowland

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-

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

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Jameson, Major J. Eustace

      Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

      Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

      Purvis, Robert

      Alexander Acland-Hood and

      Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

      Randles, John S.

      Viscount Valentia.

      Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T. (Denbigh

      Rankin, Sir James

      Kerr, John

      Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

      Proposed words inserted in the Bill.
      MR. AUSTIN TAYLORmoved to omit the words "immediately after a period of residence in the United Kingdom of not less than six months." The proposal, he said, dealt with the case of the alien who had been alternately described as the "Flying Dutchman" and the Wandering Jew." Under the
      978
      clause, an alien who left Liverpool for New York and was there refused admission ran the risk of not being allowed to land again at Liverpool, with the result that he would have to remain in perpetual custody on the steamer. The words in the Bill amounted to this—that if an alien had resided for six months in the United Kingdom he was to be allowed to go to New York, and, if he was rejected there

      979
      to come back and enter this country without further trouble. He failed to understand the reason for imposing this residential test, and the object of the Amendment was to delete it. If it was the wish of the promoters of the Bill to get rid of the alien he saw no reason why they should make it difficult for him to leave the country. He could understand the Government's desiring to prevent the entry of aliens, but once the entry had been effected there was surly no reason for putting impediments in the way of shipowners taking them away again. The object should be to get them out again as soon as possible, and he hoped the Government, if they could not abolish it altogether, would at any rate modify the provision.
      MR. CHARLES McARTHURformally seconded the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed to the Bill—
      "In page 2, line 19, to leave out from the word, 'country,' to the word 'he,' in line 21."—(Mr Austin Taylor.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid these words were introduced by way of a concession, to the shipowning interest and in consequence of an Amendment moved in Committee by his hon. friend the Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool. It was felt that it was not desirable that this country should be made the dumping ground of persons who entered it for a short time, took ticket to New York, were rejected there, and then brought back to be left on our hands. These words were introduced to meet that case. It was necessary to take some period as a test of residence which would qualify an alien to possess a right, as it were, to return to the United
      Kingdom, and he thought the House would be of opinion that in taking six month the Government had selected a reasonable test.
      MR. RUNCIMANsaid the Government had whittled down the Amendment which they promised to meet in Committee in a perfectly foolish way. It left the immigrant who had resided in the country for any period less than six months—it might be that he had lived here for five months—under the disability of having to be perpetually carried to and fro between New York and Liverpool, which the Government themselves had declared to be foolish. What was to happen to such a man if the vessel came to an end? Was he to be laid up for ever in port? Or what was to be done with him if the vessel were broken up? What was wanted was to get him back to his country of origin, and this Amendment, so far from assisting in that direction, actually prevented its being done. The "Lucania" or the "Campania" could not be compelled to go to Hamburg by way of a change simply to get rid of an undesirable? passenger.
      SIR ROBERT FINLAY: He could be put on board a ship going to Hamburg.
      MR. RUNCIMANasked how that, could be done if the company had no ship going to Hamburg. The man could not be put on another vessel by force. The six months limit made the Amendment which the Attorney-General himself inserted in Committee perfectly ridiculous, and, unless the Government cut it out, the Amendment was really no concession at all.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes, 220; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 291.)

      AYES.

      Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

      Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

      Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Arrol, Sir William

      Bailey, James (Walworth)

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Baird, John George Alexander

      Arkwright, John Stanhope

      Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH

      Balcarres, Lord

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

      Gray, Ernest (Weat Ham)

      Palmer Sir Walter (Salisbury)

      Balfour,RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds)

      Grenfell, Willam Henry

      Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

      Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

      Greville, Hon. Ronald

      Pemberton, John S. G.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Hall, Edward Marshall

      Percy, Earl

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Hambro, Charles Eric

      Pierpoint, Robert

      Bartley, Sir George C. T.

      Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

      Pilkington, Colonel Richard

      Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

      Hare, Thomas Leigh

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

      Hay, Hon. Claude George

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Bignold, Sir Arthur

      Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley)

      Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

      Bigwood, James

      Heath, Sir.James(Staffords,NW

      Purvis, Robert

      Bill, Charles

      Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.)

      Pym, C Guy

      Bingham, Lord

      Hoare, Sir Samuel

      Randles, John S.

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

      Hogg, Lindsay

      Rankin, Sir James

      Brassey, Albert

      Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside)

      Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

      Hoult, Joseph

      Ratcliff, R. F.

      Bull, William James

      Howard, John(Kent Faversham

      Reid, James (Greenock)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hudson, George Bickersteth

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Butcher, John George

      Hunt, Rowland

      Renwick, George

      Carlile, William Walter

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

      Ridley, S. Forde

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

      Jameson, Major J. Eustace

      Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

      Roberston, Herbert (Hackney)

      Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

      Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

      Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

      Cayzer, Sir Charles William

      Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

      Round, Rt. Hon. James

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kerr, John

      Royds, Clement Molyneux

      Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.)

      Keswick, William

      Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

      Chamberlain, Rt.HnJA.(Worc.)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

      Chapman, Edward

      King, Sir Henry Seymour

      Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

      Clive, Captain Percy A.

      Knowles, Sir Lees

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Coates, Edward Feetham

      Laurie, Lieut.-General

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

      Skewes-Cox, Thomas

      Coghill, Douglas Harry

      Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

      Smith,HC(North'mb.Tyneside)

      Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

      Smith, Samuel (Flint)

      Compton, Lord Alwyne

      Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

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

      Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

      Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

      Spear, John Ward

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

      Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk)

      Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

      Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

      Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset)

      Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

      Liddell, Henry

      Stanley, Rt.Hon.Lord (Lancs.)

      Cubitt, Hon. Henry

      Llewellyn, Evan Henry

      Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

      Dalkeith, Earl of

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

      Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

      Dairymple, Sir Charles

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Stone, Sir Benjamin

      Davenport, W. Bromley-

      Lowe, Francis William

      Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

      Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)

      Denny, Colonel

      Lucas Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

      Talbot, RtHnJ.G.(Oxf'dUniv.)

      Dickinson, Robert Edmond

      Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth)

      Tollemache, Henry James

      Dickson, Charles Scott

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

      Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

      Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

      Macdona, John Cumming

      Tritton, Charles Ernest

      Doughty, Sir George

      MacIver, David (Liverpool)

      Tuff, Charles

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Maconochie, A. W.

      Tuke, Sir John Batty

      Doxford, Sir William Theodore

      M'Iver, SirLewis (EdinburghW.

      Turnour, Viscount

      Duke, Henry Edward

      M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

      Vincent, Col SirCEH(Sheffield)

      Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart

      Manners, Lord Cecil

      Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

      Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton.

      Marks, Harry Hananel

      Walrond, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamH

      Fellowes,RtHn Ailwyn Edward

      Martin, Richard Biddulph

      Warde, Colonel C. E.

      Fergusson, Rt.HnSirJ.(Manc'r.)

      Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

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

      Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

      Melville, Beresford Valentine

      Welby, SirCharlesG.E. (Notts.)

      Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

      Finlay, RtHnSirRB.(Inv'rn'ss)

      Milvain, Thomas

      Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.)

      Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne>

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

      Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

      Whitmore, Charles Algernon

      Flannery, Sir Fortescue

      Morgan, Dovid,J.(Wathamstow

      Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

      Flower, Sir Ernest

      Morpeth, Viscount

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

      Forster, Henry William

      Morrell, George Herbert

      Wilson, John (Glasgow)

      Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.

      Morrison, James Archibald

      Wilson-Todd, SirW.H.(Yorks.)

      Galloway, William Johnson

      Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

      Gardner, Ernest

      Mount, William Arthur

      Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

      Garfit, William

      Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

      Godson, SirAugustus Frederick

      Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

      Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

      Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

      Myers, William Henry

      Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

      Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

      Nicholson, William Graham

      and Viscount Valentia.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      O'Neil, Hon. Robert Torrens

      982

      983

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

      Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

      Pease, J. A. (Safiron Walden)

      Allen, Charles P.

      Harcourt, Lewis

      Perks, Robert William

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

      Philipps, John Wynford

      Baker, Joseph Allen

      Harwood, George

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Barlow, John Emmott

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Price, Robert John

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

      Helme, Norval Watson

      Priestly, Arthur

      Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

      Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

      Rea, Russell

      Bell, Richard

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Reddy, M.

      Benn, John Williams

      Higham, John Sharp

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Black, Alexander William

      Holland, Sir William Henry

      Richards, Thomas

      Boland, John

      Hope, John Deans(Fife, West

      Rickett, J. Compton

      Bolton, Thomas Dolling

      Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Bond, Edward

      Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Brige, John

      Jacoby, James Alfred

      Rose, Charles Day

      Bright, Allan Hoywood

      Joicey, Sir James

      Russell, T. W.

      Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

      Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

      Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

      Burke, E. Haviland

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

      Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

      Burt, Thomas

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

      Schwann, Charles E.

      Buxton,N.E(York,NR,Whitby

      Joyce, Michael

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

      Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar

      Kearley, Hudson, E.

      Shackleton, David James

      Caldwell, James

      Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W.

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Cameron, Robert

      Kitson, Sir James

      Sheehy, David

      Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

      Lambert, George

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Causton, Richard Knight

      Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal.W.

      Slack, John Bamford

      Cawley, Frederick

      Layland Barratt, Francis

      Spencer, RtHnC.R.(Northants)

      Channing, Francis Allston

      Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

      Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

      Cheetham, John Frederick

      Levy, Maurice

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Sullivan, Donal

      Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

      Lloyd-George, David

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

      Cremer, William Randal

      Lough, Thomas

      Thomas DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

      Crooks, William

      Lundon, W.

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

      Cullinan, J.

      M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

      Tomkinson, James

      Dalziel, James Henry

      M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

      Toulmin, George

      Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

      M'Crac, George

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Delany, William

      M'Kean, John

      Ure, Alexander

      Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

      M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

      Wallace, Robert

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Mansfield, Horace Rendall

      Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Markham, Arthur Basil

      Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

      Doogan, P. C.

      Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Duncan, J. Hastings

      Muldoon, John

      White, George (Norfolk)

      Edwards, Frank

      Murphy, John.

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Elibank, Master of

      Nannetti Joseph P.

      Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

      Ellice,CaptEC(S.Andrw'sBghs)

      Newnes, Sir George

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

      Emmott, Alfred

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

      Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk.Mid)

      Evans, SirFrancisH.(Maidstone

      Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

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

      Eve, Harry Trelawney

      Norman, Henry

      Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)

      Fenwick, Charles

      O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Field, William

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Woodhouse, SirJT.(Hudd'rsf'd

      Findlay, Alexander(LanarkNE

      O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.

      Young, Samuel

      Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

      O'Dowd, John

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Flynn, James Christopher

      O'Malley, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

      O'Mara, James

      Mr. Austin Taylor and Mr.

      Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Runciman.

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      Parrott, William

      Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

      Partington, Oswald

      MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland,)said he did not intend to raise points which had already been decided, but in moving to omit certain words inserted by the Attorney-General he did not think that the Prime Minister could plead that this was a case in which there was anything like common agreement Take the case of poor people who had emigrated from this country, and, having
      984
      failed abroad, returned to their native land as steerage passengers. Imagine a ship coming into this country with a number of native-born Englishmen on board who had been naturalised abroad. Some of them would, no doubt, desire to settle down in the land of their birth, but those who happened to have been naturalised in America, although Englishmen, would be classed as aliens. He

      985
      should like to know exactly what was meant by "a temporary stay." This Bill was never intended to deal with British subjects who had been naturalised abroad. The Attorney-General had told them that there might be criminal amongst them, but he protested against the insinuation that the class o Englishmen of whom he was speaking were likely to contain any undue proportion of criminals. The criminal alluded to by the Attorney-General was a man who had already been punished in a foreign country, and why should he be punished again upon coming to this country? I would be said that he might be an habitual criminal, but even then the ordinary laws were sufficient to deal with him. The man must live somewhere, and he was not so sure that the land which had given birth to a criminal ought to shift its responsibility to the country which had given him hospitality. In the past it had always been their policy to encourage naturalisation in foreign countries, and nothing could encourage good feeling between nations more than making it easy for foreigners to naturalise here and encouraging at the same time our citizens to naturalise abroad. It was not desirable that naturalisation in another country should carry with it penalties or disabilities, or that we should weaken the tie which bound this country to all her children, no matter how far they might have wandered or however much they might have failed.
      MAJOR SEELY, in seconding the Amendment, said he could not see what objection he Government could have to the elimination of those words. Lord Bacon laid it down in one of his essay that a man had an inalienable right to return to the country of his birth, and he appealed to the hon. Member for Gravesend to agree with the principle which had been laid down by Lord Bacon. He wished also to again enter his protest against the absurd way in which this Bill had been forced through the House by the closure. Not only hon. Members from Ireland, but hon. Members on both sides of the House were agreed that when a man returned poor and penniless to the land of his birth he should be admitted.
      Amendment proposed to the Bill—
      "In page 2, line 26, to leave out from the word 'subject,' to the end of Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. Leif Jones.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left Out stand part of the Bill."
      MR. FLYNNsaid that upon this point they had not been met in a satisfactory manner. He wished to give an instance of the number of Irish-born Americans who wished, even after naturalisation, to return to their native land. One of the steamships which had arrived this week from America at an Irish port brought sixty-six saloon, fifty-nine second, cabin, and 273 steerage passengers, the bulk of the latter being Irish-born. He trusted the Government would allow Irishmen to return freely to the land of their birth.
      SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that it was owing to the previous discussion raised by the hon. Member as to the hardship inflicted upon Irish-born immigrants who were anxious to return to their old homes that the clause had been altered. But the present Amendment proposed to go one step further. The other night he assured the hon. Member for Rhondda that nothing was further from the wish of the Government than to exclude the honest working man. The resent Amendment was absolutely different from that rejected the other night. The latter would have admitted criminals, those previously rejected, lunatics, and idiots. The present Amendment, although the hon. Member delivered an impassioned appeal on behalf of repentant criminals desiring to return, would only apply to the British-born person only debarred otherwise by want of means. Having regard to the very mall number of such cases, and to the sentiment involved, he thought the House would do well to accept the Amendment.
      MR. SHACKLETONthanked the Government for the concession, which met what was regarded as a very serious matter in the country. Whatever might have been in

      987
      the mind of the Attorney-General when this matter was discussed upon a former occasion, the only thing he had in mine was a man being left out through poverty. He was glad that the Government had met the claims of the workmen whose case had been voiced by himself and other Labour Members last week.
      MR. BUTCHERwas very glad the Government had seen their way to meet the case in question, which was one of real hardship. He hoped the House would now accept the Amendment without further discussion.
      Question put, and negatived.
      MR. DALZIELmoved the omission of Clause 2 for the purpose of obtaining some further information as to the immigration board and the qualifications of its Members. What guarantee could the Home Secretary give that the three persons appointed to the board would be suitable persons so far as the working of the Act was concerned? Of course the right hon. Gentleman would make an effort to obtain the most suitable persons, but, as the Press would not be admitted to their proceedings, which would practically be carried on in secret, it was all the more important that the greatest care should be taken that the persons appointed were likely to act in conformity with the general desires of the promoters of the Bill. He asked also whether the members of the board were to be paid. As there was to be no appeal against the decisions of the immigration board, he would ask whether the legal profession was to be represented.
      MR. RUNCIMANseconded the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed to the Bill—
      "In page 3, line 1, to leave out Clause 2."—(Mr. Dalziel.)—
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
      MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the greatest care would be taken in the selection of members for the boards, and the panel would include a certain number of magistrates. One member of the board would be a magistrate, and of the other two one might be selected for his administrative experience and knowledge of the work of a Poor Law guardian, and the third might be a man of business experience. They had very great hopes of securing the co-operation of the Jewish Board of Guardians, whose experience in this matter would be of invaluable assistance. It was proposed that the members should receive payment for their services at the rate of two or three guineas for each meeting. He had made careful inquiry, and he was sure he would get men who would be generally acceptable, and who would have a thorough knowledge of the work. As to the question whether the Courts would be held in public or private, it would rest with the boards themselves to say whether their Courts should be open or in camera. They could not lay down any definite rule in the Bill on that matter. The boards were the proper persons to decide as to how the proceedings should be conducted in their own Courts. He was sure that the boards would consist of excellent and capable men who would see that justice was done not only to the people of this country but also to the immigrants.
      MR. GUESTsaid this Amendment raised a very important joint. The Home Secretary had given a great deal of information as to the kind of executive he proposed to set up, but

      989
      he had not stated what was to be the size of the panel to be appointed in connection with each Court, who would submit that panel to him, and upon what grounds he would select certain gentlemen to serve. It would be very important to know whether, when a panel was once selected, the members would be taken in rotation, whether it would be possible for the immigration officer to select a few gentlemen who happened to agree with him on the question of the exclusion of immigrants, or whether it would be essential for him to take the gentlemen in rotation. It was felt by some Members on his side of the House that an exceedingly zealous immigration officer, feeling that the importation of aliens was on the whole undesirable, might show a tendency to select for the panel certain gentlemen with whom he could get on, and who would be prepared to proceed easily and comfortably in the exclusion of aliens. Would the remuneration which was to be given to the members of the board be sufficient to tempt gentlemen on the panel whose impartiality would be absolutely above question?
      MR. PEELsaid it appeared from the Home Secretary's Answer that the word "business" had a wider signification than he might have attributed to it. He asked whether a wide interpretation would be put on the word "business" in the provision that the board should consist of "fit persons having magisterial, business, or administrative experience." On the Committee stage of the Bill he had an Amendment down to substitute "industrial" for "business," because he thought that word had a wider meaning. It was important to have
      990
      gentlemen on the boards who were familiar with certain classes of occupation. If immigrants came here as skilled labourers they might be men we should be glad to have. They would be in a position to maintain themselves and not come upon the rates. It was quite obvious, however, that an unskilled labourer might be inclined to say, "I am a cotton spinner," or something of that Sort. If there was a man with definite personal knowledge of actual manufactures on the board he would be able by asking the immigrant half-a-dozen questions to see whether he was a skilled labourer or not. If the meaning of "business" did not include "industrial" he should be inclined to move the substitution of the latter word.
      MR. CHURCHILLsaid he took it that persons of business experience would include gentlemen who were engaged in industrial enterprises, such as managers of mills. There were other Questions which he should like the Homo Secretary to answer. It was very important the House should know what was to be the exact composition and character of these immigration boards, seeing that they were to interpret the Act. The Home Secretary said that members of the boards were to be paid two or three guineas each time they sat. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind on that point. Surely a board which disposed of 300 aliens at a sitting should be remunerated at a higher rate than one which dealt with only two or three cases. With regard also to procedure, he submitted that the sittings of these boards should take place in public if aliens attending before them should so desire it. It was perfectly true that the board

      991
      might have to examine into delicate matters which the alien would desire to keep secret. That ought to be a matter to be settled in each particular case. Could the right hon. Gentleman secure to the alien the right to have his case investigated in public at his own initiative? When the practical working at the ports of entry was contemplated one was drawn more and more to the conclusion that this measure would never play a real and substantial part in the life of the country, and that it would speedily fall into what was called in the United States a "condition of innocuous desuetude."
      DR. HUTCHINSONasked when the boards were to meet.
      MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid it must depend on circumstances how often the boards would meet. It was perfectly true that at the port of London there would be three or four sittings of the board in a week at certain times of the year, while at certain other ports the board would not meet more than once a fortnight or three weeks. The boards would meet as required. The proposed boards could be called together at any time. It was the desire of the Government that there should be no delay in dealing with immigrants after their arrival. In appointing members of the panel it would be his intention that labour should be represented as well as capital. The size of the panel must depend on circumstances. He did not propose that the panel should be a merely nominal one, but intended that the members should be taken as far as possible in rotation.
      992
      And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

      NAVAL PRIZE BILL [LORDS].
      Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
      CROWN LANDS BILL.
      Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
      LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRANSFER OF TREASURY POWERS) BILL.
      Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
      ACCIDENTS (MINES AND FACTORIES) BILL.
      Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
      TRADE MARKS (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
      Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
      PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS (EXTENSION) BILL.
      Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
      CANALS (No. 2) BILL.
      Older for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
      LAND JUDGE'S COURT (IRELAND).
      Return ordered, "by counties, of the Estates in the Land Judge's Court over which Receivers have been appointed in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 182, of Session 1904.)"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

      ADJOURNMENT.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
      MR. DALZIELasked the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury whether he could give any denial of the alarming rumours which had been afloat to-night about dissension in the Cabinet. He asked whether it was true that the Lord Chancellor had threatened resignation on account of the Redistribution proposals; whether a special meeting of the Party opposite had been called for to-morrow, and whether the calling of that Party had anything to do with the difficulties of the Government. He thought they had got into a state of things with regard to public business which made it desirable that the House, as well as the Party opposite, should be taken into the confidence of the Government. It was obvious they could not go on wasting their time simply because the supporters of the Government would not come to the House between nine and ten and forego their cigar and coffee after dinner. Therefore, he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give them any information that the Government would make a strong appeal to their Party to enable them to go on with public business, and he would press him
      994
      particularly with regard to the announcement to be made on the morrow, and also as to the threatened resignation of the Lord Chancellor.
      MR. CHURCHILLsaid he would like the Patronage-Secretary at the Executive meeting on the morrow to call the attention of the Party to the great ignorance displayed by the Prime Minister on several occasions with reference to matters which came under his own special authority and responsibility. Everybody knew of the case when the Prime Minister informed an astonished and amazed country that we were much more likely to be at war with Switzerland than with the Orange Free State. Then there were the cases, earlier in that session, when debates were held in the House, and when the Leader of the House stated the next day that he was not aware the debates were held or that the fiscal Resolutions were passed by the House over which he presided. They thought that ignorance the more remarkable, because the Patronage Secretary had given the Prime Minister a full account of all the transactions. Then there was the extraordinary ignorance of the Prime Minister with reference to the Colonial Conference. The right hon. Gentleman, choosing that inspiring theme for the subject of a hurried address at Edinburgh, never seemed to have taken the trouble to have made himself acquainted with the fact that an automatic conference would in the ordinary course meet. It struck him with an air of a new revelation that under the Government of which he was Leader Resolutions had been passed which made it desirable and necessary that such a conference should meet in automatic course. He ventured to say that no Prime Minister, certainly

      995
      not in recorded time, had ever before, in regard to matters of which he should be better informed than anybody, shown such lamentable and extraordinary ignorance, and he thought that was a matter which the right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary should lose no time in bringing before the notice of his supporter and friends at the Foreign Office on the morrow.
      But he should not venture to stand between the House and adjournment on this particular point of the ignorance of the Prime Minister on matters of which he ought to be well informed, were it not for the most extraordinary instance which had occurred in regard to the Redistribution Resolutions. It was eminently characteristic of what he might call the "Balfourian" method of discharging public business. He did not use the phrase in any offensive sense, but it seem to cover the two right hon. Gentlemen Par nobile fratrum. This was the latest family dodge of prolonging their period of office, and as it was a subject about which they felt so intensely he wondered that they did not take the trouble to acquaint themselves with the ordinary and inevitable procedure of the House in respect to the Resolution they had placed upon the Paper. If it had been an ordinary matter of mere public importance affecting the welfare of the country, or some legislation affecting the working classes, one could easily see how it might have been forgotten; but when it was a Bill involving the continuance of the Government's profligate and incapable reign, it was indeed remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman and his right honourable brother did not take the trouble to look up the precedents.
      996
      He had submitted to the House full specific cases of the gross, unpardonable, and flagrant ignorance exhibited by the Prime Minister on matters for which he was responsible. These were things which came before them, but they could not tell in how many innumerable instances the public might suffer obscurely through the same kind of slip-shod, slap-dash, haphazard manner of doing business. He hoped the Patronage Secretary would draw the Prime Minister's attention to the remarks he had made. It would have given him the greatest satisfaction to have said them to his face, and, fortunately, he hoped to have the opportunity of saying them, if not to his face, at any rate in close proximity to him, at Manchester, during the general election.
      THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said he could only express very great regret on the part of his leader, his Party, and himself that owing to the action taken by the junior Member for Oldham he would not be able to attend the Party meeting on the morrow and make his speech. He could only assure the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs that there was no dissension in the Government. He would not be in order in discussing the Party meeting, but it did seem rather strange that in a House largely composed of Liberal Members it should be thought an unusual thing for a leader to consult his Party.
      Question put, and and agreed put.
      Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions); London Government Scheme (London and Middlesex); Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3).
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—London County Council (Tramways).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No.2) Bill [H.L.] (Aberavon Tramways Order). The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Aberavon Tramways Order. Ordered, That the Order be not further proceeded with.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
South Barracas (Buenos Ayres) Gas and Coke Company Bill [H.L.]. Committee to meet to-morrow.
North Eastern Railway Bill; North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ellenborough be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Ravensworth; read, and agreed to.
Dover Harbour Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a(according to order).
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill; Dublin United Tramways Bill; London and North Western Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill. Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill. Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill. Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 1) Bill. Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Friday next.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 72, 82, and 85 be suspended for the remainder of the session.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Andover Lighting and Power Bill; Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. (NO. 141.) A Bill

803
to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Edinburgh Corporation. And
Stonehaven Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. (No. 142.) A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Stonehaven Harbour. Were presented by the Marquess of Linlithgow; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a; and reported from the Committee.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 143.)
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to. Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill. Bead 3a (according to order), and passed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I desire to make an application to my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. I observe that to-morrow there is down for Second Reading the Bill promoted by the London County Council for bringing the tramways across the bridges and along the Embankment. This has always been a highly contentious question. There have been frequent discussions in both Houses of Parliament with regard to this particular Bill, and I would ask my noble friend whether he could see his
804
way to postpone the Second Reading from to-morrow until, say, Thursday next. I understand there is a prospect of the rejection of the measure being proposed, and as it has only just come up to your Lordships' House and we have not really had an opportunity of considering it, I hope the noble Earl will agree to its postponement.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords. I hope my noble friend will not press his desire tha this Bill should be put off. This Bill has been before Parliament for a considerable time, and has been in y ur Lordships' House for five or six days; and, as noble Lords are aware, at this period of the session, when Bills of a contentious character come up from the other House, it is not always possible to secure the best material for Committees of your Lordships' House. I have arranged for the constitution of the Committee which is to consider this Bill, for I hope your Lordships will see your way to send it to a Select Committee, and unless that Committee gets to work at the earliest possible date, I fear it will be impossible for the noble Lords who have consented to serve upon it to take their places on the Committee. I therefore sincerely hope my noble friend will not press his desire that the Bill should be postponed. It is not in the public interest that the matter should be delayed any longer than is necessary.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC,
  INDIA (ARMY ADMINISTRATION).
  Further Papers regarding the administration of the Army in India (in continuation of [Cd. 2572]).
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND).
  Report to the Local Government Board for Scotland on the sanitary condition of the Island of Lewis.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3437. Turkey (Damascus).

  No. 3438. Italy (Ancona).

  No. 3439. Portugal (Lourengo Marques).

  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.
  1. Sixty-seventh Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales (1904).

  2. Supplement to Sixty-fifth Annual Report. Part I.

  3. Supplement to Sixty-fifth Annual Report. Part II.

  Presenter (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WINTER ASSIZES ACT, 1876.
  Seven Orders in Council of the 11th July, 1905, relating to the ensuing Winter Assizes.
  Order in Council of 11th July, 1905, applying the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1884, to the East Africa Protectorate.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1876, AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACTS.
  Order in Council of 11th July, 1905, varying the Order in Council of 25th March, 1877, relating to day industrial schools.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council of 11th July, 1905, constituting Burntisland a port of registry for British sea-fishing boats.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (ARMY ADMINISTRATION).
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Marquess the Under-Secretary of State for India a Question of which I have given him private notice. I am anxious to learn whether any further arrangements have been arrived at in respect to the recent proposals for the reorganisation of Army administration in India; and, if so, whether the noble Marquess will state the nature of those proposals and lay Papers on the Table as soon as possible.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Marquess of BATH): My Lords, the Viceroy has communicated to the Secretary of State
  806
  by telegraph certain points in connection with the despatch of May 31st on Army administration, on which the Government of India think it necessary to make representations, in order, as they submit, to render the working of the new scheme practicable. The Secretary of State has explained in return that these recommendations do not contravene the provisions of the despatch and he has expressed the satisfaction of His Majesty's Government that Lord Kitchener is now in accord with the Viceroy and his Council as to the course to be adopted with regard to them. The points on which the Viceroy requested assurances were as follows. First, that the member of Council in charge of the Military Supply Department should always be a soldier. His Majesty's Government are prepared to appoint a solider to the impending vacancy, but they cannot fetter the discretion of the Crown as to future vacancies. Secondly, that the Military Supply Member should be available for official consultations by the Viceroy on all military questions without distinction. The reply of His Majesty's Government is that there is no desire to fetter the constitutional right of the Viceroy to consult any member of his Council officially or unofficially on any subject, but that the existing system, by which all the Commander-in-Chief's proposals pass to the Viceroy through the channel of the Military Member having been done away with, it follows that no special claim can exist for the Military Supply Member to be consulted or note on the proposals of the Commander-in-Chief or vice versâ. Thirdly, he asked that the Secretary to the Government of India in the Army Department (to be in future presided over by the Commander-in-Chief) should be given the local rank of major-general. To this there is no objection. Fourthly, that important changes in military organisation, especially in the native Army, should be discussed by a Mobilisation Committee, of which the Commander-in-Chief and Millitary Supply Member should be essential members, and that a schedule of cases should be drawn up which the Secretary in the Army Department should submit to the Viceroy before orders are passed on them. These provisions are entirely

  807
  in accord with the despatch; and His Majesty's Government are glad to find that on this, as on the preceding points, they can meet the views of the Government of India without affecting the principle of the new system which it has been deemed necessary to establish. The telegrams to which I have alluded have, I believe, already been laid on the Table, and will very shortly, I trust, be in the possession of your Lordships.

  THE ADMIRALTY AND STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.
  *LORD BRASSEYrose, "To call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Steamship Subsidies and to the Reserves of the Navy in ships and in men." The noble Lord said: My Lords, all will regret the absence of Lord Cawdor when Admiralty matters are under discussion. The wish is universal for his early restoration to perfect health. In introducing the subject to which I desire to call attention, it is not necessary to insist on its importance. "Frigates, more frigates!" was the cry of Lord Nelson. In giving evidence before the Committee on Subsidies, Lord Charles Beresford said that success or defeat in the initial stages of a war might turn on speedy information and the maintenance of long lines of communication. Where shall we obtain at the least cost the most efficient vessels? Lord Charles Beresford told the Committee that no ships could do the duty of scouts better than the ocean greyhounds of the mercantile marine, built for speed in any weather.
  Can the mercantile marine, unaided by the State, supply the ships we require? In the ocean carrying trade British shipowners more than hold their own. Our share is steadily increasing in the entrances and clearances at British and foreign ports, and notably in the traffic through the Suez Canal. In first-class ships—the pride and glory of a maritime nation—we are falling behind. Taking vessels of 4,000 tons and upwards, our British tonnage has increased in five years from 211,000 tons to 975,000 tons, while German tonnage has gone up from 480,000 tons to 1,230,000 tons. Of the nine ships built since 1895 exceeding
  808
  10,000 tons displacement and twenty knots speed, one only, the "Oceanic," of the White Star Line, is under the British flag. We are third on the list of speedy vessels, and we should be first.
  The explanation is not far to seek. The trade of the North Atlantic is the only trade in which the fast vessels required for the Navy can be run without loss; and foreign shipowners have advantages not shared by their British competitors. The ocean services of Germany have an advantage in the geographical position of Bremen and Hamburg, in communication by railway, by canals, and canalised rivers, with all the industrial centres. In the port of Hamburg the largest barges and the largest ocean steamships lie side by side. German ocean shipping is concentrated in two powerful combines, under able management, aided and assisted in every way by the Government. They are practically a department of the State. The Hamburg-American Company is continually growing by the absorption of smaller companies. The process is extending to services under the Austrian, Danish, and Italian flags, as well as under that of Germany. The Atlantic services under the flag of the United States, though not directly aided by the Government, have the powerful support of the great railway companies. The French ocean steamships are liberally subsidised.
  When the Atlantic combine was formed His Majesty's Government took steps to secure that a service should be maintained under the British flag and under British management. They desired that the ships should be second to none. These considerations led to the agreement with the Cunard Company. The policy of the Government has commanded general approval. From a naval point of view we have not gone far enough as regards numbers; we have been, perhaps too exacting as to speed. It is not necessary to dwell on the objections to subsidies paid for the encouragement of trade. The failure of that enervating system is conspicuous wherever it has been tried. It has been well that our shipowners have had to depend on their own unaided efforts and the skilful management of their

  809
  business. When we come to deal with the requirements of the public service other considerations must be brought into view. Under existing conditions, without subsidies we shall not obtain from the British mercantile marine the vessels of exceptional speed required for the Navy.
  If subsidies are given, in what service shall the ships be employed? A fast direct mail service has long been desired in Canada. The Government has made offers. The commercial community would wish that they should be more liberal. Senator Sir George Drummond appeared in their name before the Committee on Subsidies. He believed that an annual subsidy of £400,000 would be required to open a line. In a short time it would become self-supporting. He hoped for a contribution from the mother country in aid of an enterprise which would open up Canada and greatly promote the Imperial work of closer union. In the same year in which the Committee on Subsidies reported, a congress of chambers of commerce met at Montreal. It was attended by hundreds of delegates from all parts of the Empire. After full debate the following resolution was unanimously passed—
  "This Congress considers it of the utmost importance, in thy interests of the Empire, that the United Kingdom and her Colonies should adopt a policy under which lines of steamships will be secured and retained, (1) for fast mail services on the several routes; (2) for the development of trade between the mother country and her possessions, and between the Colonies themselves."
  Coming from a representative body that resolution should have weight with your Lordships. At a time when, without distinction of Party, we are seeking by every practical means to strengthen Imperial unity, a fast service to Canada should merit consideration.
  Lord Charles Beresford proposed an alternative to the payment of subsidies. He suggested that the Government might pay the expense of building ships, and might hand them over to one of the great companies to be worked for profit. The ships might yield a fair return on their cost. A share of the profits might
  810
  be paid to the Government. Being constantly at sea, the ships would at all times be absolutely fit for service. If such a plan were considered feasible, an opportunity now offers which may never recur. The Admiralty have at their disposal numerous cruisers, protected but not armoured, as to the retention of which in the Navy list the Board has been in I doubt. A Return obtained by Mr. Robertson included nine ships of 11,000 tons, with speeds exceeding twenty knots. Is it impracticable to employ some of these ships in opening a mail service to Canada? The cost of alterations would be inconsiderable in comparison with the cost of building a fleet of fast ships. The Admiralty would be relieved of the cost of upkeep, and the ships would be always ready.
  The Australian mail services are maintained by joint contributions from the Imperial and local Governments. In the interest of Imperial unity it is desirable, that the mails should be accelerated. In future contracts it should be insisted that some at least of the ships of the contracting companies should fulfil Admiralty requirements as to speed and other essentials. The result would be to secure a well distributed and adequate number of mercantile auxiliaries and at the least cost. Fast steamships can run in conjunction with large fleets of vessels of lower speed, such as those of the Hamburg-American, North German Lloyd, and P. and O. companies, with commercial advantage to the fleets as a whole, though, individually, the fast vessels might not pay.
  The policy of subsidies has not been in all respects satisfactory in the past. Many vessels to which subsidies have been paid, under agreements of recent date, have not been equal in speed to the ships formerly obtained. Nor have the engagements for preventing transfers to foreign flags been sufficiently strict. The Committee over which Lord Camper-down presided recommended that transfers should be prevented by registering the Admiralty as part owners. The Return moved for by Lord Spencer showed that expenditure on subsidies had been relatively inconsiderable. Though spread over many years it had

  811
  been less than the cost of a single armoured cruiser, and far less than the cost of the eight scouts now completing. Objections have been urged to subsidies on the ground that the Navy should not depend on auxiliaries. On this it may be remarked that no increase can be proposed in the Shipbuilding Votes. In amount, and in the rate of increase, they far exceed those of France and Germany. Increased expenditure on any type must be met by reductions. In battleships completed we are in a stronger position than we have ever held before. In ships building we are below the two-Power standard. We seem to be building too many cruisers in proportion to battleships. Scouts are cruisers without protection. We shall not strengthen the Navy by cutting down battleships and laying down scouts.
  It may be urged as a further objection to subsidies that they are not necessary to secure ships required in an emergency. I was a member of the Board of Admiralty which in 1885 stood face to face with a possible outbreak of war within a few days with a first-class European Power. A vote of £10,000,000 for warlike preparations had been suddenly called for by Mr. Gladstone, and granted by the House of Commons without debate. We were not prepared. It had not been the policy of Parliament or of any administration to keep the Navy fully prepared for war. It was imperative to reinforce the Navy in cruisers, and to prevent our fast merchant steamers from passing under foreign flags. A Government in difficulties cannot negotiate on favourable terms. Our experiences were not lost upon our successors. In 1887, when contracts for the conveyance of the mails to New York were being renewed, they addressed a letter to the Treasury, an extract from which I will read—
  "My Lords would desire to state that the experience derived from the events of 1885 has led them to believe that true economy and real efficiency would be best promoted by securing the use to the Admiralty in time of peace of the fastest and moat serviceable mercantile vessels. It will be remembered that in 1885 a sum approximating to £600,000 was expended in retaining the services of several fast merchant steamers, so as to prevent their being available for the service of any Power inimical to the
  812
  interests of the United Kingdom. Had arrangements existed similar to those now contemplated, their Lordships believe that a very considerable portion of this expenditure would I have been averted, and a degree of confidence felt by the nation on which it is very difficult to place a money value."
  Turning from reserves of ships to the I reserve forces for manning the Navy, new and important branches of the Reserve have been recently enrolled in the Colonies and at home. It is satisfactory to learn from the First Lord's statement that these reserves have made a good start. It would be of interest to Parliament and the country to have the latest information as to recruiting, the provision of drill-sheds, the numbers embarked in His Majesty's ships and their discipline and efficiency. Nor should the training of the officers of the Naval Reserve be neglected. Nothing has been done for the professional training of the cadets and the midshipmen entered in large numbers in the Reserve. The mail services to our Colonies should be organised as a national service, and the vessels utilised as training ships for officers of the Reserve, and for the training of those British seamen and firemen who are so much needed to man our mercantile marine. Subsidised mail steamers should be utilised for the training of junior engineers and newly-entered stokers of the Navy.
  In conclusion, the charge for subsidies, limited to those special services for which they seem to be required, would be inconsiderable. We do not want many ships to do scouting for the Fleet. Lord Charles Beresford asked for eight. Shall we say twelve ships? Take the annual subsidy at £500,000. Assume a contribution from Canada of £200,000 a year. Let us hope for some aid from the Australasian dependencies. Let us assume a contribution from the Post Office. The balance chargeable on Navy Votes would be a small payment for the reinforcement of the Fleet in a class of ships indispensable for efficiency in time of war, and which in peace would be the training squadron for our Reserves. As mail steamers they would be a link with the Colonies. In naval administration nothing can be done well which is done hastily. I ask the Government to give consideration to the subject which I have, I fear.

  813
  imperfectly dealt with, and to act when opportunities offer.
  THE SECRETARY FOE SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LINLITHGOW): My Lords, I wish in the first place to acknowledge on behalf of the First Lord of the Admiralty the kind words spoken by the noble Lord with reference to his enforced absence from this House. I am sure your Lordships will understand that no one regrets more than the noble Earl himself his inability to reply in person to the remarks of the noble Lord opposite, whose long connection and close acquaintance with the question of naval reserve in all its branches is well known to your Lordships, and whose views on these subjects are always entitled to the greatest respect both from the Admiralty and from your Lordships' House.
  The noble Lord has in his speech dealt with two subjects—the question of subsidies to merchant cruisers and the state of the Reserve personnel for the Fleet. Now with regard to subsidies, from the point of view of the Admiralty the question of the advantages to be gained by various Colonies or by the mercantile marine from the subsidising from public funds of fast merchant ships, however desirable in themselves, is one which must be kept quite distinct from that of securing the assistance for the Fleet in time of war of fast merchant ships to be used as scouts or armed cruisers. It is for the latter urpose only that money from naval funds can be expended. Before embarking on any proposal to spend money in subsidising merchant ships, the Admiralty have carefully to consider whether such a plan is in the end more economical and efficient than that of building warships to do the work. It must be remembered that when the policy of subsidising merchant steamers to be used as auxiliaries to the Fleet in war was inaugurated, the best merchant ships of the day excelled in sea speed the fastest warships. Since then the speed of merchant ships has increased, but the increase is but slight when compared with the corresponding increase in the speed of warships. Speed is the essential quality, whether these ships are used as scouts or as armed cruisers, and the cost of building
  814
  a merchant vessel of such speed as to be of much service for these purposes is becoming almost prohibitive.
  The noble Lord alluded to the small amount of money paid in subsidies for merchant cruisers relatively to the cost of building a scout. But in this connection I would point out that the subvention paid for one of these merchant vessels is in the nature of a retaining fee, and the cost of hiring them in time of war would be very large. For instance, let me take the first ship on the Admiralty list of such ships at the beginning of 1905—the "Oceanic." Her annual subvention is £10,000 a year. The cost of her armament excluding that of fitting it on board, would be about £26,000; and her surrender value, which would be claimed if she were lost while in the Government service, is £705,617; so that if the "Oceanic" were lost in war she would have cost the country a sum approaching a million of money. On the other hand, the estimated cost of one of the new scouts, some of which have been recently put in commission, is £294,204 when complete and ready for commission. Without controverting in any way the noble Lord's view of the useful part which ships of the merchant service could play in war, I have said enough to show that the financial side of the question is one which the Admiralty have very steadily to keep in view.
  Turning to the second part of the noble Lord's speech, I am able to say that the composition and training of the Naval Reserve forces is receiving the attention of the Admiralty at the present time. The work of the personnel of the Navy is constantly undergoing change and improvement, and the problem of the means of keeping the men who do not belong to the active service of the Navy in peace time fully acquainted with the duties which will be demanded of them in war is one which they must always have before their minds. It is difficult to impart to men of the Naval Reserve adequate training in drill batteries on shore, and the expense of keeping the ordnance in these batteries, always up to date is very great. Far more can be learnt by a course of service

  815
  on board sea-going warships of the Fleet, where the actual conditions of service afloat are present.
  With regard to the recruiting of Royal Naval Reserve men, the full number estimated for was reached long before the end of the last financial year, the figures of the entries in the various branches being—1,595 seamen, 1,062 firemen (ordinary), 788 firemen (special) and 488 engine-room artificers. Good reports as to the efficiency of the men engaged in the Colonial Reserves continue to be received from Australia and Newfoundland. At Malta the Reserve has been formed so recently (about twelve months ago) that sufficient data as to its usefulness are not yet forthcoming. There is a special difficulty, i.e., the slight knowledge of the English language possessed by a number of the men enlisted.
  The work of the new Naval Volunteer Reserve is steadily progressing. Two new divisions for the Mersey and Sussex were formed during 1904, and another has recently been created on the Tyne. Besides drill-sheds, some of the divisions have been provided with naval vessels. In addition to the "Buzzard," which was taken over by the London Division last year and moored in the Thames, the "Rose" cutter has been lent to the Clyde Division, and the "Melita" is being similarly prepared for the Mersey Division. As the noble Lord is no doubt aware, a branch of the Reserve from which the Admiralty have great expectations is the Royal Fleet Reserve, composed entirely of men who have served as active service ratings in the Fleet. The numbers of this Reserve, apart from the "A" or pensioner class, has now reached over 7,000—namely, 4,982 seamen and stokers and 2,152 marines—and the new system of engaging special or non-continuous service seamen on the condition that they will enter the Fleet Reserve on discharge should add materially to its strength later on.

  ARMY (YEOMANRY).
  LORD WENLOCKrose "To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what
  816
  were the intentions of His Majesty's Government as to the mobilization and training of the Imperial Yeomanry." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have placed this notice on the Paper for the purpose of eliciting such information as my noble friend can give as to the intentions of the Government with regard to organising the Yeomanry and putting it on a proper and sound footing in case it should be called up for any sudden military purpose; and I think I am encouraged in calling attention to this particular subject by the fact that since my Question was put down the Secretary of State for War in another place, when referring to the Imperial Yeomanry, said—
  "I believe there is no force in His Majesty's Service from which we obtain better value for money expended than the Imperial Yeomanry."
  It is thirty-five years since I first joined the Yeomanry, and I am sure there are many noble Lords in this House who also remember the old days, when a great deal of trouble was taken to place the Yeomanry on a proper footing and to train it on sound principles. They will remember how in those earlier days we were subjected to a certain amount of derision and were neglected, and I am sure they will be glad now to hear, on the authority of the Secretary of State for War, that this force is at the present time most satisfactory, and that there is no force from which His Majesty's Government obtain better value for money expended.
  I think it is not unreasonable that those of us who take an active part in this work should ask His Majesty's Government how far they are prepared to place the force on a still more satisfactory footing. I am, of course, alluding to what might happen in the event of the force being mobilised and called upon to undertake serious work in an emergency. All of us who are in the position of commanding officers of Yeomanry regiments must feel that at present we are rather acting as independent units and that we have no cohesion at all. There is nobody to place us in brigades or divisions, nor do we know exactly where to turn on mobilisation. I feel that this is hardly a satisfactory position, and hope His

  817
  Majesty's Government will embrace the present opportunity, when we are at peace, and there is leisure, of bringing up some scheme that will in this respect place the Yeomanry in a much better position than they occupy at the present moment. The Yeomanry should know what their position will be. Their stores should be in perfect order, and their transport and other matters so arranged that they could fall into line without delay.
  Another point upon which desire information is as to the intention of the government with regard to horsing regiments if they should be suddenly called upon for action. I understand that this duty is to be entrusted to the Remount Department. I would ask my noble friend the Under-Secretary whether he thinks the Remount Department can possibly horse all the Yeomanry in under seven days, even if they can do it so quickly. I believe I could re-horse the whole of my regiment in a couple of days, and if this matter were left in the hands of commanding officers I am sure it would be very much more satisfactorily arranged, while the Remount Department could devote their attention to making arrangements for filling up any casualties that might occur at future stages of the operations. Again, it would be a very valuable thing if senior officers in this force had an opportunity of attending classes and lectures for instruction in the higher branches of their work. I have myself attended the only school at the disposal of the Yeomanry at Aldershot, but I found, as a senior officer, that the information imparted was hardly of a nature to be satisfactory to myself. I should be glad if a school of the kind I have mentioned could be instituted which senior officers could attend, and also if facilities could be given to those officers to attend manœuvres.
  We have reached a certain stage in regard to the Yeomanry movement, and I do not think we ought to stand still. I hope I shall obtain from the noble Earl an assurance that the Government are looking into this matter, and will be able to do more for the force than they have done up to the present. At the same time I must say the Yeomanry are ex-
  818
  tremely grateful to the Government for what they have done in the past, and I am glad to see that the Government, on their side, recognise that for what they have done for the Yeomanry they have had ample return. I should also like to ask the noble Earl whether it is not possible for us to have our own drill-book. Legislation by reference is very unsatisfactory, but drill by reference is more unsatisfactory. We are given a small drill-book, and are told that we shall find other information in the cavalry drill-book. I certainly think that a force which numbers some 25,000 officers and men might be allowed to have their own drill-book entirely to themselves. This is rather a small matter, but it is one which I should like, while we are on the subject, to bring to the notice of my noble friend. I beg to move for Papers.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the mobilisation and training of the Imperial Yeomanry."—(Lord Wenlock.)
  *LORD HARRIS: My Lords, if I might add a few remarks to what my noble friend has said, they would be in the direction of asking for something definite as to orders on mobilisation. I have been living for some years under certain orders as regards where my regiment is to mobilise in the event of England being threatened, and, of course, I have made all my dispositions accordingly. But apparently within the last year or so the system of command in the part of the country where my regiment is quartered and recruited has entirely changed, and all the correspondence which I have had over a period of, I should think, at least five years, has, I suppose, been transferred to some other officer, because the office with which I have been corresponding tell me now that they have nothing whatever to do with the regiment. I understand that the general officer who has been commanding at Dover has now nothing whatever to do with the Yeomanry. All my correspondence for five years or more has been with that officer, and I suppose that by some arrangement made at the War Office all that correspondence will be handed

  819
  over to the officer who is entrusted now with Yeomanry matters.
  When a change of officers takes place it frequently happens that a change of views takes place. I have been under orders all these years that on the word "mobilise" being circulated I was to be mobilised at a certain place. Last year I received an order that one squadron was to mobilise at some other place, so I naturally asked where the other three squadrons were to mobilise, and I was told they were not to mobilise at all. That is a remarkable change in orders, and it is curious that the one squadron specially selected was to mobilise inside a fortress. Naturally a horse regiment cannot do very much inside a fortress, However, I think I am justified in asking who is going to supply the horses, because hitherto no arrangements whatever have been made as regards the horses for Yeomanry regiments on mobilisation, The men are bound to bring their horses to the annual training, for which they are paid £5, but there is nothing in the terms of their enlistment which compels them to bring horses if the regiment is mobilised; and I ask, who is going to undertake to find the horses—whether the men had better bring their own and the country compensate them afterwards, or whether the Government propose to find them. I was told that the Government were going to find them. I think it is a legitimate question to ask whether any arrangements have been made to supply Yeomen with horses when they get the word to mobilise. If we may gather anything definite from the speech made in another place by the Prime Minister, it is that if this country is to be attacked in earnest the attack is going to be very sudden, and, therefore, that Auxiliary regiments that have to mobilise will have I to do so very suddenly. Obviously the horses will be wanted in a hurry. Are we to depend on centralised organisation for sending horses down to parts of the country most immediately threatened, or is there any existing arrangement by which the local authorities might—I hardly like to use the word commandeer— engage horses, or be able to obtain them, on an occasion of that kind?
  I hope the noble Lord will also look into the question of mobilisation stores.
  820
  Some years ago, during the war, the War Office issued a very remarkable order— that Yeomanry commanding officers were to make arrangements with local tradesmen for the supply of a very large number of articles. I should think quite three pages of small print were occupied in detailing these articles, which were to be kept in stock by the local tradesmen for an indefinite time without any remuneration whatever, except that at the end of the time, whatever that might be —it might be fifty years—the tradesmen were to have, I think, 5 per cent, increase on the Government price. There was not, therefore, very much profit to the local tradesmen in it, and your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that on making inquiries of every local tradesman of sufficient capacity to supply a large number of articles of this kind, I found no one in the least inclined to embark in the venture, and for three years I have been arguing with the local military authorities and endeavouring to prove to them that this was not a commercial transaction which appealed to local tradesmen.
  My efforts had been without avail until the other day, when the Government amended their previous order and allowed that the articles need not be of Army pattern, but I was still to make arrangements with the local tradesmen to keep them in stock. What I eventually succeeded in doing was this. I informed the military authorities that there were certain tradesmen who kept certain articles of approximately similar character in stock, and I hoped they would be forthcoming when wanted, but I could not give any guarantee that some other regiment would not get in before me and take all the things I was depending on. That is not a practical scheme. I think that the large majority of these articles would be forthcoming upon the initiative of the Yeoman himself as soon as the word to mobilise went round, and that the Yeomanry regiment would be found where it was wanted without these voluminous prearrangements. But, at the same time, I suggest it is not a practical way of dealing with the matter to give orders which in themselves are absolutely impossible of being carried out.

  821
  There are two other subjects besides mobilisation stores and horses which require attention — namely, musketry schools for officers and non-commissioned officers, and a signalling school. Yeomanry officers may be able to give one particular month in the year at Hythe, but it is almost certain that on that month the school is already full. There are parts of the musketry course which are not absolutely essential for Yeomanry officers, and it might be possible to work out a shortened course and allow it to take place elsewhere than at Hythe. In that way I am sure we should be able to supply a very much larger number of officers capable of giving good instructions to their men in musketry. Signal ling is a most important subject, and one which many officers and men are very willing to take up. At present in my regiment there is a great deal of signalling done, because there are prizes given and the men are ready to take it up. But it is absolutely impossible for a regiment to earn anything for the corps unless an officer has attended a signalling class and obtained a certificate. It is necessary for him to go to a class for two months. It is really impossible for a great majority of Yeomanry officers to find two consecutive months to give to this voluntary military work, and I cannot help thinking that it would be possible for a scheme to be worked out involving some less time than the rather long period of two months. If an officer could get a certificate for signalling more easily than he can at present, I am quite sure that the War Office would find that signalling in the Yeomanry, which apparently is neglected, though, as I have said, many officers and men have taken it up, would be even more extensively learnt.
  I do not want to be thought for one moment as saying that the Yeomanry have any reason to grumble at the attitude of the Government towards that force. In my opinion the Yeomanry have every reason to be most grateful to the Government for the assistance which they have received. That assistance has instilled absolutely new life into the whole force, and has enabled everything to be done in a much more
  822
  business - like way; and we are doing what I believe to be more useful than anything else — we are turning out annually into the country a large number of young men who have been taught how to ride and shoot. I am certain that the next time any serious war threatens this country a much larger number of healthy young men will volunteer for service at home or abroad than hitherto; and that result will have been achieved by the very kindly and liberal treatment which this Government have afforded to the Yeomanry forces.
  *THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am very glad to see that officers in your Lordships' House, representing the Imperial Yeomanry, so thoroughly reciprocate the efforts we have been able to make in the direction of helping that force. I can assure your Lordships that nothing gives livelier satisfaction to my colleagues on the Army Council than to note the improvement that has been made in the force, and the enthusiasm of its officers to keep on improving it. Your Lordships will have noticed that there is a complete absence of carping criticism on the part of the speakers this afternoon, and I can assure them, in the few remarks which it will be necessary for me to make, that we intend to try and do our utmost to help them in the direction that I know they wish to go.
  Your Lordships will remember the debates we had on this subject last year. I am glad to say that we have already been able to meet Yeomanry officers on many of the points then, raised. A debate was initiated last year by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Lovat, in which he laid great stress on the need in the Yeomanry of another weapon. We recognised the justice of the views put forward on that occasion and we did, during the winter, supply the Yeomanry with a second weapon. We were also glad to meet a suggestion made by the noble Marquess, Lord Winchester, that we should allow men to re-engage in future from year to year. We have also, partly in deference to criticisms that were made last year,

  823
  initiated a new scheme of inspection, and, though it has not been referred to this evening, I may perhaps be allowed to say that we have found the new system of inspection, tried this year, work most satisfactorily; the inspections have been most useful and practical as regards the corps concerned, and we certainly intend to continue the system.
  As to the question just raised by Lord Harris — that of signalling — we recognised last year that it was a grievance that no grant could be earned by any corp unless it had eight men efficient, and we were able to lighten the terms for earning this grant. We have made arrangements by which four efficient men in a corps can earn a grant—a certain amount, but not the whole £12 which the eight men could earn. But when we try to go the whole extent advocated by the noble Lord, and permit of a shorter course of instruction for officers to enable them to qualify for this grant we run our head, if I may use the phrase, against a brick wall of considerable thickness. The reason is this. It is the opinion of those who are concerned in these matters at the War Office that a signaller is no use to the Army unless he is absolutely efficient. Signalling is, in itself, most important, and it is also most important that an officer's knowledge of signalling should be efficient. The evil consequences that might follow from mistakes in signalling are so serious that we object most strongly to any suggestion of lowering the standard, I am sorry not to be able to meet the wishes of the noble Lord on this point, but I am afraid we shall never be able to make the course of signalling easier than it is at the present time.
  I now come to a Question asked by Lord Wenlock with regard to a class for senior officers. The first difficulty we have had to deal with in this matter has been that of accommodation at our cavalry school, but I hope that difficulty will soon be removed. It has not been found practicable hitherto to have more than four courses a year for Yeomanry officers, and it has not, therefore, been possible to squeeze in a course for senior officers.
  824
  I daresay your Lordships are aware that it is our intention to considerably increase the size of the cavalry school, and it may then be found practicable— I cannot give any pledge, because I have not gone into the question with the proper authorities—to have a course for senior officers. But information rather tends in the direction of showing that if we did have a course for senior officers there would not be many senior officers who would attend it. In England, at any rate, a great many of the senior officers are ex-cavalry officers, and I doubt very much whether an officer who has been some time in the cavalry could get very much instruction out of a course for senior officers held at the cavalry school. I will, however, undertake that the point shall not be lost sight of when the accommodation is increased. As regards manœuvres, we are at present considering whether, if we have manœuvres next year, we can attach senior Yeomanry officers to those manœuvres for instruction, and in that way meet one of the points raised by the noble Lord opposite.
  LORD WENLOCK: Does the noble Earl say definitely that we are to be attached to manœuvres?
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No, I say the matter is being considered. It is all a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, but I have every hope that we shall be able to do it. I now come to another point raised by Lord Harris, as to the possibility of our having local courses for musketry instruction. We are very much opposed at present to allowing these courses. Assuming that they were to be considered in the same way as courses at Hythe, and were to earn the Hythe certificate, the effect of such courses would be to depreciate the value of the Hythe certificate itself. I know that that Answer will be very unsatisfactory to my noble friend Lord Lovat, but I think his corps supply a very special case. I believe that a local course held in Scotland for the purpose of training the two Scottish regiments might possibly be attended with success; for this reason, that we should be working at once upon material of a special character. We should be

  825
  training men already skilled in the use of the rifle and the telescope, and I believe that a short course might be arranged with advantage in my noble friend's special case, but I cannot admit that a course held away from Hythe for the Yeomanry in general, or any regiment of Yeomanry, could possibly compare in value with a course at Hythe.
  I know it may be objected that Hythe is a long way from certain parts of the United Kingdom, and that it is inconvenient for officers from a distance to attend. I should think there was greater force in that objection if experience showed that officers residing near Hythe were better attendants at the course than officers living at a distance, but that is not the case. I have received a letter from the Commandant of the Hythe School of Musketry, who says that officers living at a distance find that they are quite as able to attend the classes as officers living close by. I am afraid that I can hold out no hope that we shall be able to organise classes for musketry instruction for officers in different parts of the country, at any rate at the present moment.
  I now come to the question of organisation, touched on by Lord Wenlock and by Lord Harris. I stated about a fortnight ago that resulting OH the recent decision of the Defence Committee a new scheme of organisation was being worked out for the United Kingdom. Of course, the Imperial Yeomanry have a full appearance in that scheme, but we have not yet finally decided upon it; and, therefore, I must ask noble Lords not to press me to give any details of it at present. Indeed, I should think that it would be very improper that minute details should ever be published, owing to the obvious un-wisdom of making known your mobilisation arrangements before you put them in force. They will, of course, have to be confidentially communicated to commanders of regiments and of troops, but the details of any scheme of mobilisation for home defence would obviously be of the greatest possible interest to foreign Powers, and it would not be wise, therefore, for us to publish them. I can assure
  826
  the noble Lord that real and substantial progress has been made in the direction which he rightly considers so important.
  As regards the supply of horses, the present arrangement is that the Remount Department shall horse Yeomanry regiments on mobilisation. WV believe that in time of war, when the Remount Department would have its hands, so to speak, on almost every horse in the kingdom, and would have already made very considerable demands on the horse supply, they would be able with more certainty to provide the horses requisite for the Imperial Yeomanry regiments than would be the case if this were left to the colonels of regiments. On mobilisation the Remount Department would at once make very great demands upon the country, and there would be nothing to protect a colonel of a regiment losing all or a very large part of the horses which he had been counting on by their being bought by the Remount Department without his knowing anything about it. We think it is safer to have one buyer only in the field at a time of great stress, and when great demands are suddenly made on the market. That is the reason why it is thought better that the Remount Department should be entrusted with the horsing of the Imperial Yeomanry when war breaks out.
  As to making contracts for mobilisation stores, I am sorry to hear of Lord Harris's want of success in this matter. I think he a little under-estimated the amount that the contractor is to get. I think the price is to be 16 per cent, over cost price; but that is a small detail after all. I note that the noble Lord is not very much impressed with the necessity of making these arrangements at all, and I am sure he would agree with me that most of the articles required are articles in common use, which it is practically certain could be bought at very short notice if required. However, I believe that some regiments have been lately more fortunate than Lord Harris.
  *LORD HARRIS: I have heard of one that was able to make the contract for one year.
  THE EARLOF DONOUGHMORE: I have not got the particulars with me, but I believe a certain number of regiments have been able to make verbal contracts, and one or two have been more fortunate and have made written ones; but I admit there has not been that great success under this particular head that I should like to have seen. With regard to the final matter referred to by Lord Wenlock, I believe there was a new Yeomanry training book issued, but I understand from the noble Lord that there is too much instruction by reference in it, and that he would like a more complete manual. This, of course, is only a matter of printing, and I shall be very glad to inquire if such a book as the noble Lord asks for could be conveniently issued. I am glad to note the turn the debate has taken, and I can assure your Lordships that we hope we shall be able during the forthcoming winter to meet some of the points that have been raised by noble Lords representing the Imperial Yeomanry in the same way as we were able to meet points raised last session.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, if we could have heard the Answer of the noble Earl before the criticisms were made, I do not think the remarks of noble Lords this evening would have been of quite so friendly a spirit. The very same points were brought up by myself last session, and practically, with two exceptions, we are in exactly the same position as we were then. We are given the same old reason, that there is a mobilisation scheme being prepared. I have been in His Majesty's service for sixteen years, and I can remember no year when it was not stated that there was going to be a mobilisation scheme in force the following year, but we have never yet had one published—I do not mean published in the ordinary sense, but commanding officers should know its general details as regards themselves. The question of training was brought up last year, and once more we are met with a statement that it will be considered.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The question of training has not been raised this afternoon at all.
  LORD LOVAT: The question of short courses of musketry instruction, a school for senior officers, and other matters in connection with training have been referred to. The question of the training of junior officers in musketry was raised last year, and the views then expressed were supported by Lord Roberts. The number of officers who have been to Hythe to attend the Yeomanry course has not very considerably increased from last year, and in consequence the training of the Yeomanry in musketry is not by any means what could be desired. The noble Earl has referred to mine as a special case. I fail to see how in any way I constitute a special case for a short course in musketry. As a matter of fact, the Commander-in-Chief for Scotland has been particularly keen on this question. He paid a visit to London to try to get this question of short courses considered, seeing the necessity for having them, and he had a class ready to take up of fifty-seven officers, had he been authorised by the War Office. That was one class alone. If this were done generally, the musketry of the Yeomanry, which is not in a satisfactory condition, might be raised to a very much higher standard.
  With regard to senior officers, that question was brought up last year, and we were told that if we waited something might be done. We are again given no definite promise that we are to have a class for senior Yeomanry officers. Is it not absurd that Yeomanry officers should have to go through exactly the same course of training as majors as they go through as subalterns? I wonder what would happen if the Education Department were run by the War Office, and they abandoned standards and put everyone through the junior forms. I do not think educationalists would stand that method of training very long. If that method would be bad in regard to ordinary instruction, why should it be adopted for military instruction? The noble Earl says that ex-cavalry officers would not attend the class. I happen to have been a cavalry officer and I certainly would like to go to a senior class. As far as I remember, three of the Yeomanry regiments in the North of Scotland are commanded by officers who were in the cavalry, and

  829
  they all wish to go to a senior class. An officer trained as a captain or a subaltern in a cavalry regiment has not to write brigade orders and regimental orders in the same way that he does when he commands a regiment. The ex-cavalry officer does not necessarily know the whole duties of a Yeomanry commanding officer. The seniors, as we note from the report, are not so well reported on as some of the junior officers, and it is not reasonable that they should be. The seniors have so much more to learn. On mobilisation they will have to compete against the best cavalry officers of whatever force might land on our shores, and, therefore, it is essential that they should be fully up to their work. Surely we are entitled to ask for at least one class a year in which these officers can be trained. I can imagine no more reasonable request than that your senior officers should be given an opportunity to make themselves efficient for their position.
  As to the general question of mobilisation, we had that subject brought up last year, and we were then told that in the future some mobilisation scheme was to be put before us. We do not wish, naturally, to have the details published, but we do wish to know certain general principles. We would like to know if we are to be brigaded, and, if we are, who is to staff those brigades. At a Yeomanry meeting the other day the opinion was expressed that not one single regiment could spare senior officers to go on the staff. Of Staff College officers there are only two cavalry men in England at the present time who are unemployed. Where are the staff to come from to look after the brigades of Imperial Yeomanry? We should like to have a definite statement on the subject. We asked for it last year. Time goes on, and we are still in the same position. Surely it would be an advantage if we were told where our mobilisation stations were, and where we should have to go. It is not necessary to elaborate that. If Yeomanry colonels knew exactly what portion of the country they were going to, they could study it, make their arrangements about transport and horses, and have maps ready which would enable them to be a fighting force at once.
  830
  Then, on the question of horses, we have had a most unsatisfactory Answer. We are told that a central body is to arrange for the provision of horses for the whole Yeomanry—some 25,000 Horses. Surely it would be better for the Yeomanry colonels to provide them themselves. It is an easy matter for Yeomanry colonels to ear-mark certain horses and notify the fact that they have so ear-marked them at headquarters. The Commander in-Chief in Scotland gave instructions that all the horses attached to his command were to have a price put on them, and that price is reported, so that if the whole of the Yeomanry were mobilised to-morrow, he would not only know where his horses are, but the price that would have to be paid for them. What is the use of having this central command? If there is an invasion the wires will no doubt be cut, and orders for horses will be delayed in transmission. This is a question which I hope the noble Earl will consider. I do not think any of our Questions to-day on the subject of training, or with regard to mobilisation, are at all unfair. The statements which have been made in both Houses of Parliament have shown that Yeomanry officers have done their best as far as their units go to become as efficient as possible, that hard and good work has been put in; and I think it is a fair request that we should ask the War Office to so far help us that we may not only be efficient in ourselves but become an efficient engine in war, and that we certainly cannot be until our staff is put in a proper position, until our senior officers are trained, until our men are given full opportunity of being able to shoot well, and until our horses, equipment, and stores are put on such a footing as to be on hand at once.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I should like to support the views of the noble Lord who has just sat down on two points. The first point is with regard to a school of musketry. I appreciate very much the importance of the school at Hythe. That school, even if others were established, would always be the most important school; but I do not see

  831
  that the value of Hythe would be depreciated if other schools were formed in different parts of the country. I feel very strongly on this subject, for if these schools were established they would give facilities for Yeomanry officers to go through a musketry course. No doubt, as the noble Earl said, those who live near Hythe do not attend more than those who live at a distance, but I do not think that is a solid argument. Common sense indicates that if there were more schools of musketry in various parts of the country it would be a very great advantage to the Auxiliary Forces generally. This is a very important matter. We all know that attention has been called to the necessity of greater efficiency in rifle-shooting, and if these additional schools of musketry are not established I think it will be a very great mistake.
  I heartily agree with Lord Lovat as to the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the Answer given by the noble Earl with regard to the horsing of the Yeomanry. If you leave the getting of horses for the Yeomanry in an emergency to the Remount Department, it will be doing the same thing which the Duke of Bedford spoke of with regard to the Militia—destroying the local interest in the force. I feel convinced that the colonels of these regiments would be very much more able to find the horses than a central authority. The noble Earl said that when mobilisation was about to take place the Government would practically have their hand on nearly every horse. I do not exactly understand that. I am quite aware that in old days certain horses were at the call of the Government, but I do not know in what way they have a hold on private property. I feel that it would be very much better to use the local knowledge of the Yeomanry officers and those interested rather than leave this entirely, as is proposed, to the central Remount Department.
  LORD WENLOCK: Has the noble Earl the Under-Secretary any objection to acceding to my Motion for Papers.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: What Papers do you want? I have no Papers.
  LORD WENLOCK: I heard with astonishment that in the event of sudden emergency remount agents were to go about the country buying horses. I do not think it would be possible for any one regiment to be horsed by remount agents under a week or ten days; and, judging by what happened when the remount agents went round my part of Yorkshire during the South African War, all I can say is, "God help us if we are to have that class of animal landed on us." It was commonly stated by the farmers in the neighbourhood that after the remount agents had been there, there was not a bad horse left in the whole county. With regard to this question of providing horses, I should be very glad if the noble Earl could produce any Papers on the subject to show how it has been dealt with.
  *LORD HARRIS: I am under an obligation at this moment to mobilise on the second day after receiving orders. Perhaps the noble Earl will explain how the horses are to arrive by then?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The point I attempted to make clear was this. Long before war breaks out it is perfectly obvious that the Remount Department will set to work buying horses, and we shall have large depôts all over the country. That is under the present remount scheme, which has been published. I think your Lordships would find that we should have probably bought all the Yeomanry horses long before the Yeomanry were called out, and therefore we should have enormous stocks of horses on hand and should be able to horse these regiments more quickly than the colonels themselves.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): Do I understand the noble Earl to agree to produce the Papers moved for?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I do not know that there are any to produce.
  On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

  ARMY ORGANISATION.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise "To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the presentdistrictor divisional organisation of the Army, Militia, and Volunteers in the matter of commands, transport, and armaments, including big moveable guns of position, and as regards their readiness in all ways to take the field and be transported at shortest notice, and within what time, to the point on the east coast nearest to their district or divisional headquarters."
  A very few words will explain the reason why I have placed this notice on the Paper. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that a week ago to-day a Resolution which I had the privilege of submitting to the House was accepted by the Government and adopted unanimously by your Lordships. The latter part of that Resolution declared that—
  "It is needful that our land defences should at all times be such that no nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile lauding on our shores."
  The Question I am asking follows, as a matter of course, from the adoption of that Resolution. "At all times" naturally includes the present time, and I think your Lordships must feel, especially after the speech of Lord Lovat, that we ought to know exactly the present state of matters as regards home defence. That is my reason for putting down this notice. I have no doubt that the Answer which I shall receive will not be satisfactory, and as the Question is so important I reserve to myself the right, in that event, of bringing the subject again before your Lordships at a later date.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I confess at once that I have had some difficulty in understanding this Question, but I gather that the noble Earl wishes a great deal of detailed information as to our present mobilisation
  834
  scheme. It is obvious that it would not be in the public interest that we should give details of our mobilisation scheme. All the information concerning the organisation of the military forces at home and abroad which it is considered desirable to make public is contained in the monthly Army List. There are six main commands in the United Kingdom and five in India, including the Burmah command. In peace, eight field Army divisions are organised at home and ten in India. Four cavalry brigades are formed in the United Kingdom. There are, in addition, in the United Kingdom ten coast defence commands and thirteen territorial districts, whose commanders and staffs are additional to the divisional and brigade commands. Details regarding the mobilisation of the field army and of defences are confidential, and no information can be published regarding the arrangements for organising in war at home or abroad bodies of troops other than those which are shown in the Army List. Questions of armament are also treated as confidential.
  *LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I did not gather that the Question addressed to the noble Earl referred only to mobilisation, and I would suggest that information should be given as to the altered conditions of the various commands. Under the old arrangement the general officer commanding a district commanded all branches of the Army—Regular, Auxiliary, cavalry, artillery, engineers, infantry, and supply. I am told that all that has been changed, and that the general officer commanding a district may have nothing whatever to do with cavalry quartered in his district, nothing whatever to do with artillery quartered in his district, and nothing whatever to do, I suppose, with engineers, but certainly nothing whatever to do with Yeomanry or Militia artillery. I can understand that the divisional commander may have a good deal to do with all these, but the officer who used to be the general officer commanding a district may now be only an officer commanding an infantry division. This appears to me to be a very remarkable change. I do not suggest for a moment that it is not an advisable one. I have the

  835
  greatest confidence in the military authorities devising a good scheme; but it seemed to me that the noble Earl's reply was not very complete, and referred only to mobilisation, and not to the subject of organisation.
  I am told that in one divisional command there is a fortress, and the general officer who has been commanding in the local military area, having at one time had command of cavalry and artillery as well as other branches, has now no control in that fortress over certain garrison batteries that are there. For instance, the canteen is under his command, but if the garrison gunners kick up a row in the canteen he has no control over them. If a Militia artillery regiment is assembled in the neighbourhood for its month's training, and if some of the men are arrested by his picket he has no authority over them. There is now, I suppose, a fortress commander, a special commander of engineers, a special commander of Yeomanry, and all those will be responsible, I take it, to a divisional commander. But the officer who was commanding in the local military area has now nothing like the combined command he once had. It seems that the number of general officers who are now exercising command over several branches of the service must be very limited indeed. I have only ventured to interpose these few remarks because it seemed to me that the reply of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary did not deal with the whole of the Question placed on the Paper by the noble Earl.
  The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am afraid I do not recognise in the Question addressed to me any request that I should enter into the details of reorganisation of command. If the noble Lord will put the Questions on the Paper to which he desires an Answer I shall be happy to look into the matter and give him the information.
  The EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I consider the Answer I have received unsatisfactory, because it evaded altogether the direct Question which I put to the noble Earl, who rode off on the question of secrecy. I do not desire in-
  836
  formation as to secret arrangements. His Majesty's Government have undertaken to be always and at all times in that state of home defence that no nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile landing on our shores. I only desire to be assured that the arrangements are such as would fulfil those conditions. Does the noble Earl imagine that the Military Attachés do not know all the War Office secrets, and how many guns and men they have got? Of course they do; and it is nothing but throwing dust in the eyes of the nation to give an Answer such as the noble Earl has given to-day. I shall take an early opportunity of recurring to the question.

  EPIZOOTIC LYMPHANGITIS.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I rise "To ask His Majesty's Government how many cases of epizootic lymphangitis in military depots had occurred in Great Britain before the issue of the Board of Agriculture's Circular to local authorities of January 26th, 1904; how many cases have been reported from the same sources since that date up to the present month; whether any cases of the disease have occurred amongst horse-owners or others in Great Britain; and whether the Government will issue a Return of the number of horses shipped from South Africa which were affected by the disease, and died or were destroyed on the journey home."
  Those of your Lordships who were present on a previous occasion when a discussion arose with regard to this particular horse disease, will not be surprised that further inquiry should be addressed to the Government on the subject, especially with regard to its existence in Great Britain and the measures that have been taken by the Government to protect horseowners and others from any danger of their horses cont acting the disease. We have learnt that this disease is a highly contagious one, which was imported, I believe, from South Africa amongst the Army horses that were sent from that country after the war. It is a disease the contagion of which is not only immediate, but what is called co-mediate—that is to say, a

  837
  groom or a person in contact with s horse suffering from this disease might convey it on his person or in some other way to other horses just in the same manner as certain, cattle diseases can be conveyed.
  It is also a disease the period of ncubation of which is in some cases very lengthy. It may be from three weeks to three months, but there are cases which have extended as far as a year and even thirteen months, though I believe that is exceptional. I mention this fact in order to show your Lordships the danger there is of this disease being conveyed if horses are not either slaughtered or quarantined. The Questions on the Paper also refer to the military depôts, and I am glad to see my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War here, as possibly he will be able to give us some information on this question which may not be in the possession of the noble Lord who represents the Board of Agriculture.
  I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two subsidiary Questions which arise out of those which I have ventured to put on the Paper. I should like to ask my noble friend, in the first place, what precautions were taken in South Africa to prevent horses being sent over here when it was known to the authorities there that such a disease as this existed; and secondly, whether—I do not put this forward on any information of my own, but merely as a matter of inquiry—there is any truth in the report that the authorities were warned that this disease might be introduced into this country by the shipment of horses and that that warning was disregarded. I should also like to ask my noble friend what precautions have been taken in this country with regard to Army horses to prevent officers and others sending them for sale or otherwise whilst they might be in a dangerous state. It was for that reason that I ventured to point out to your Lordships the length of the time of incubation of this disease, because it is quite obvious that if carelessness was shown by the military authorities horses might be sold to other people with the germs of the disease in them, which might be spread over the country. I
  838
  should like, therefore, to receive an assurance that every care was taken that these horses were not carelessly sent about the country, but were carefully; looked after and quarantined for a time.
  Lastly, I should like to ask my noble friend to define to us exactly what the relations of the military authorities and the Board of Agriculture have been on this subject, because I consider that to be a very important matter. Those of your Lordships who have had anything to do with the administration of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act are well aware of the difficulties that often arise in enforcing the precautions necessary to carry out that Act amongst private persons, and if there is one body which ought to assist the Board of Agriculture in this particular duty surely it is a Government Department; and I should like to be assured that that was so, and that the military authorities reported at once any case of this new disease occurring in the military depôts. I hope I shall receive a satisfactory Answer, which will put a stop to the anxiety felt on the subject and afford a feeling of safety and security to horse-owners and others interested in horses. I beg to put the Questions standing in my name, and to ask whether the Government will give a Return comprising the information asked for.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, it may perhaps be more convenient that I should first deal with the specific Questions on the Paper. The noble Lord asks, in the first place, how many cases of epizootic lymphangitis in military depôts had occurred before the issue of the circular of the Board of Agriculture to local authorities of January 26th, 1904. The Answer is 111–98 in Great Britain and 13 in Ireland. The noble Lord next asked how many cases have been reported from the same source since that date up to the present month. The number of cases reported since that date is 415. The total works out as follows:—Ireland, 37 cases, of which 2 were cured and the remainder destroyed; Great Britain, 489, of which 99 were cured,382 destroyed, and 8 remaining. Those eight are recoveries remaining under observation,

  839
  and therefore we can say that practically the disease has been stamped out as far as the Army is concerned. With regard to the Return asked for, we do not know of any horses that were shipped from South Africa while suffering from the disease; that is to say, we do not know of any horses being shipped from South Africa that were known to be diseased.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Does my noble friend say that this disease is not admitted to have been imported from South Africa?
  *THF EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I understand the noble Lord to ask for a Return of the number of horses shipped from South Africa which were affected by the disease. I shall be glad to give him the total number of horses brought home, but I am told that no horses known to be suffering from this disease were shipped.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: It would be satisfactory to have a Return of the horses shipped with any kind of disease. I should also like to know whether the Government were aware that this particular disease existed in South Africa before the horses were shipped.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am informed that it did exist in South Africa, but that everybody did not know that it was epizootic lymphangitis. It was confounded with farcy.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Were any horses shipped from South Africa in a state of disease which might eventually have developed into epizootic lymphangitis?
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am told that all the horses brought home were shipped with a clean bill of health.
  EARL SPENCER: And were none thrown overboard?
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Some horses — forty-two in number, I think—did die on the way home. But that does not prove that they were
  840
  apparently diseased when they were shipped, the authorities certainly did not ship any horses knowing them to be infected.
  I now come to the subsidiary Questions put to me by the noble Lord. As soon as the existence of the disease at home became known the War Office telegraphed an order to South Africa to stop all horses being sent home. I can, however, find no trace of any warning being sent from South Africa as to the existence of the disease; nor can any of the officers now in the Veterinary Department or the Remount Department remember any such warning being received. Indeed, they go further and say that the discovery of the disease here was largely instrumental in bringing to people's minds what was not clear before—its existence in South Africa. As to precautions to prevent the removal or sale of horses brought into contact with the disease, all such horses were most jealously shut up. They were not allowed to go out of the stable, or to be sold, or to associate with other horses within six months of the occurrence of the last case. As to our relations with the Board of Agriculture, we have kept that Department informed of the facts as they have occurred, and in the Report of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the year 1904 the noble Lord will find ample evidence of the fact that the chief of the Army Veterinary Department was working in consultation with the Board of Agriculture in the course of the action necessary in view of this outbreak.
  *LORD WOLVERTON: The Question put down by my noble friend Lord Burghclere concerns primarily the Army Department, but I may possibly be able to clear up a few points in regard to the Board of Agriculture itself before the noble Earl opposite speaks. The purely civilian part of the Question, with which my noble friend did not deal, is as follows—"Whether any cases of the disease have occurred amongst horseowners or others in Great Britain. "I have in my hand a statement on that point which I think will be perfectly satisfactory to my noble friend. There have been nineteen outbreaks of this

  841
  disease in civilian stables reported to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries from April 18th, 1904, the date when the Order came into operation, to July 15th, 1905. The number of horses reported affected by the disease has been twenty-three, and the following table shows the number of outbreaks and the number of horses affected in each quarter since April, 1904. From April 18th to June 25th, 1904, there were seven outbreaks, and ten horses affected; from June to October in the same year, five outbreaks and five animals affected; from October, 1904, to January, 1905, two outbreaks and two animals affected; from January to April, 1905, two outbreaks and two animals affected; from April to June, 1905, two outbreaks and two animals affected; and from June to the present date, one outbreak and two animals affected. I think your Lordships will agree that these figures are satisfactory from the point of view of England. I have had a conversation with the President of the Board of Agriculture, and I may say that the Department are quite aware that there are two dangers in regard to this question: one the danger of the Army, with which my noble friend has dealt so ably, and the other the danger of infection being imported from Ireland. I am happy to be able to announce to your Lordships that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has arranged for a conference to take place between the authorities of the Board of Agriculture in London and the authorities of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland, and I feel confident that the precautions they will take will have the effect of stamping out the disease, both in England, where it is almost stamped out, and in Ireland, where it has been more prevalent.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Can the noble Lord tell me whether any horses in England were destroyed?
  *LORD WOLVERTON: I am afraid I have not the figures with me, but I can ascertain.
  EARL SPENCER: I should like to ask whether the Board of Agriculture have made any attempt to trace the civilian
  842
  cases of this disease to the centres from which they came. I was responsible for one of the rumours to which the noble Earl referred. In the few remarks that I made the other day, I said that I was aware of a distinguished officer who had come back from Africa, who knew the state of the depots there, and who himself had gone to the authorities and warned them. I quite admit that he did not name this disease, and I did not say that he did; but he warned them that mange, glanders, farcy, and other diseases were very prevalent in Africa, and asked whether they could get the horses they required in England without taking those back from Africa. The authorities replied that they could, and he implored them not to have any of these horses back. That was the rumour to which I referred. The noble Earl says that no such information or statement was known at the War Office. I have a private letter which I can show him, and then if he likes he can make inquiries and ascertain whether or not the information is accurate. Then we should like to know what are the military centres where this disease existed. Returns are constantly made with reference to diseases in the country, and the centres are given in order that the people in the district may be more on their guard. I gather that the noble Lord is prepared to grant the Return which my noble friend desires, and, if it is not too late, I should like to ask whether he has any objection to giving the names of the military centres where the disease has broken out. That is really very important from the point of view of securing that proper attention should be given to this serious disease in the country. I am glad my noble friend opposite has given us an assurance that the Board of Agriculture are taking up this matter vigorously, because the disease has certainly not been confined to military centres. I know the Board of Agriculture deal vigorously with matters of this sort, but, although the number of civilian cases is diminishing—
  LORD WOLVERTON: There is one case at present.
  EARL SPENCER: Still, in view of what my noble friend has said with

  843
  reference to the uncertainty which, prevails as to the incubation of the disease, the danger yet exists amongst us. I, therefore, hope the Board of Agriculture and the military authorities will continue their efforts to exterminate the disease.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): Your Lordships will remember that on two previous occasions, on Questions put by noble Lords opposite, we have discussed the existence of this very serious disease which undoubtedly exists, chiefly in Ireland, and to a certain extent in England. I do not for one moment deprecate such discussions, because they show beyond all doubt a great apprehension that unless it is coped with there is a danger of the disease spreading and doing irreparable damage to our horses in England and in Ireland. But, if I may venture to say so, with all due respect to noble Lords opposite, on each occasion when the matter has been discussed Questions have been put which were not on the Paper, and which consequently it was difficult for the representatives of the Departments concerned to answer off-hand. My noble friend the Under-secretary of State for War did his utmost to answer the Questions put by the noble Lord opposite, and my noble friend who represents the Board of Agriculture on this occasion proved to your Lordships that the care which has been taken and the endeavours which have been made to repress and exterminate the disease have not been altogether ineffectual. I do not for one moment complain of Questions which arise on the spur of the moment being put; I can only say on behalf of my colleagues that the Board of Agriculture will not relax their efforts either in this country or in Ireland to stamp out this disease, which we all agree is of a most serious character. With regard to the Return asked for, my noble friend who represents the War Office desires me to say that he will communicate with his colleagues and endeavour to place the required information at the disposal of your Lordships.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I do not know whether the noble Marquess thoroughly apprehended the Question of my noble friend Earl Spencer. My noble friend wanted to know whether there would be given the names of the military centres from which the disease spread. He thought it very desirable that that information should be given in order that it might be known whence there was a danger of the disease arising.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Perhaps I did not make myself very clear, I meant to say that in the Return would be included the information which I understood my noble friend opposite to ask for.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: We can certainly give a Return showing the depots at which the cases occurred, but I do not know whether we can say where the disease spread from.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Will the representative of the Board of Agriculture inform me whether the inspectors of the Department traced the civilian outbreaks, and to whom they traced them? What I want to arrive at is how the disease spread.
  LORD WOLVERTON: I shall be happy to reply if my noble friend will put a Question down to that effect.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Certainly.

  DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 1 to 3, to leave out the words 'or anyone holding the commission of the peace of the borough or county in which the

  845
  alleged habitual drunkard resides.'"—(The Lord Chancellor).
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 21 to 23, to lease out the words, or 'anyone holding the commission of the peace of the borough or county in which the alleged habitual drunkard resides.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 39, after the word 'month' to insert the words 'Provided that no person shall be liable to conviction under this section unless the Court is satisfied that he knew, or ought to have known, the drunken condition of the person in respect of whom the charge is brought.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clase 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12, agreed to.
  Clause 13:—
  LORD LUDLOWmoved to omit the words, "and, save when a defendant, a compellable." He pointed out that Clause 13 made husband and wife not only competent, but compellable witnesses in the cases dealt with by the Bill, but he hardly knew what exactly was meant by the words he proposed to omit.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 8, to leave out the words, 'and, save when a defendant, a compellable.'"—(Lord Ludlow.)
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid the promoters of the Bill thought that unless the wife was compelled to attend as a witness it would be impossible to get evidence that the husband had done away with the goods and chattels in the house. There was no doubt a feeling against the proposal, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had expressed the opinion that it might break up the home.
  LORD LUDLOWsaid the noble Earl had not explained the words "save when a defendant."
  THE EARL OP MAYOsaid that, to speak frankly, he did not know what the words, "save when a defendant" meant, but he knew that the meaning of the clause was that the promoters wished the wife to be compelled to give evidence against her husband, and he was aware that there was an objection to that. As to the words referred to, the noble Lord, being a lawyer, probably understood their meaning much better than he did.
  LORD LUDLOWsaid that, although a lawyer, he did not know what was meant by the words "save where a defendant"; they were absolutely unintelligible to his mind. As regarded the clause generally, he objected to make husband and wife compellable witnesses, especially for some of the offences under the Bill. Undoubtedly if the wife were called, a conviction might be secured if she spoke the truth, but it was not a pleasant position for the wife to be placed in. On the other hand, if she did not speak the truth, she might be indicted for perjury and sent to prison. That also was very undesirable in connection with such cases. There were very few offences under English law in connection with which husband and wife were compellable witnesses. In the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, it was particularly stated that although husband and wife were competent witnesses, the Judge could not compel them to give evidence of any communication which had taken place between them. Again, only last year, in the Cruelty to Children Act, husband and wife were made competent, but not compellable, witnesses. In cases under

  847
  that Act it might be most important that the wife should be compelled to give evidence, but the Lord Chief Justice, who introduced the Bill, evidently thought it undesirable to include such a provision. He strongly objected to the precedent which such an enactment would set up.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)entirely supported what the noble Lord had said. Such a provision would be contrary to a generally recognised principle of English criminal law, and he thought it would be extremely undesirable to introduce it in the measure under consideration. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that after the statement of the noble and learned Lord he could not do otherwise than accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 144.)

  SHIPOWNERS' NEGLIGENCE (REMEDIES) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  LORD LUDLOWsaid he desired to move an Amendment to meet the views expressed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Heneage) on a previous occasion in reference to Sub-section (4) of Clause 1. The object, of the Bill was to give the employee a remedy against the ship owner; it did not change the law, but simply gave effect to the law by preventing the shipmaster sailing away and leaving the employee without anybody against whom he could bring an action. Under the present Act the employee could bring an action against
  848
  either his immediate employer or the shipowner. The Amendment provided that if the employee brought the action against his employer, the employer should have the same remedies against the shipowner as the employee would have had; he would be able to arrest the ship. The Amendment was practically agreed, and he would simply move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 16 to 25, to leave out Sub-section (4), and to insert '(4) the words "person applying" in this section shall include I an employer who has paid compensation or against whom a claim for compensation has been made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, as amended by any subsequent enactment, if he shows the Judge that he probably is or will become entitled to be indemnified under that Act, and in such case this section shall apply as if the employer were the person claiming damages in respect of personal injuries.'"—(Lord Ludlow.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 145.)
  House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.