Sitting of 19 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Littlehampton Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [Lords]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Central London Railway Bill (by Order); Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 2) Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
North East London Railway Bill. Ordered, That Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended and that the Bill be now taken into consideration.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly. Bill to be read the third time.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders 45 (No. 6) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 2) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
Sir ALEXANDER HARGREAVES BROWN reported from the Committe on Group L of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Friday, at half-past Eleven o'clock. Report to lie upon the Table.
Sandgate Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

LONDON BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Moved, That, in the case of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration (provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
MR. CUMMING MACDONA: I object.
MR. BAILEYappealed to his hon. friend to withdraw his objection. There had been a meeting with the agents on both sides that morning, with the result that a very satisfactory and liberal arrangement had been come to.
MR. JOHN BURNSalso trusted that the objection would be withdrawn.
MR. CUMMING MACDONApersisted, and the Motion stood over.

PETITIONS.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN HILL.
  Petition from Newport, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
  Return [presented 18th July]; to be printed. [No. 246.]

  UNIVERSITY COLLEGES.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 18th July, 1905, upon the recommendations of the University Colleges

  1171
  Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVAL WORKS.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum showing the Works upon which Expenditure is proposed to be provided for under the Naval Works Bill of the present Session [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 5, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Award of His Majesty the King of Italy respecting the Western Boundary of the Barotse Kingdom. With a Map [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  JAPAN (No. 1, 1905).
  Copy presented of Award of the Arbitration Tribunal appointed to pronounce on certain questions as to the Interpretation, of Treaties with Japan with regard to Leases held in Perpetuity [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3442 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Union of Benefices Act (Saint Michael, Cornhill, with Saint Peter le Poor and Saint Benet Fink). Copy of Scheme under The Union of Benefices Act, 1860, for effecting a Union of the Benefices of Saint Michael, Cornhill, with Saint Peter le Poor and Saint Benet Fink [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Compensation to Albert Blake for Wrong- ful Imprisonment.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what compensation it is proposed to grant to Albert Blake, of Wands-worth, who was recently wrongfully convicted on a charge of robbery, and
  1172
  sentenced to twenty-one days imprisonment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) In view of all the circumstances, this is not a case in which compensation could properly be granted from the Exchequer. The police have given Blake a small gratuity, in consideration of the loss of three days work which was caused by the mistaken identification, and Blake has expressed his satisfaction with it. He was convicted, not of robbery, but of larceny of a flower-pot.

  Chinese Coolies 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 imported into British North Borneo since the company's charter was granted.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Government are not in possession of the information desired by the hon. Member.

  Mürzsteg Programme—Exemption from One Year's Taxation of Christian Villages Burnt in 1903.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: To ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to enforce the Article of the Mürzsteg programme providing for exemption from one year's taxation for Christian villages burnt in 1903.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) According to the information received by His Majesty's Government it would appear that the inhabitants of villages destroyed during the insurrection have in general been exempted from one year's taxation or have received relief in some other form.

  Sheep Stolen from Michael O'Connor, at Gortfada.
  MB. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Michael O'Connor, of Gortfada, reported to the Sneem police, on 5th February, that nine sheep had been stolen from him; and can he state what steps were taken by the police to recover those sheep.

  1173
  (Answered by Mr. Waiter Long.) On 20th November last O'Connor reported to the police that ten of his sheep were missing, and that he thought the might have strayed. Four of the missing sheep were, a few days later, found straying on an adjacent mountain. The police from two neighbouring stations were out searching for the remaining sheep for many days, but without avail. The district is a mountainous one.

  Officials of Irish Agricultural Department.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the names of the officials engaged in the Irish Agricultural Department in the drafting and writing of correspondence, the conducting of registries, and interviewing callers on public business respectively; and whether he will state the amount of salary paid in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It would, in my opinion, serve no useful public purpose to give this information. The Answer to the Question is therefore in the negative.

  Allocation of Spirit Licence Duties in Ireland.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the statement of accounts showing the allocation of Spirit Licence Duties in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Irish share of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties for the year 1904–5 was £128,385 6s. 10d. The allocation of this amount, in pursuance of statute, was as follows:—£78,000 to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; and the balance, viz., £50,385 6s. 10d., to the Intermediate Education Board.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South African War—Salaries of Press Censors.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: On behalf of the hon.
    1174
    Member for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there was any salary attaching to the post of Press censor in South Africa during the Boer War; and, if so, will he state the amount, and say whether this was additional to the pay to which the officer holding this post was entitled on active service.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The chief censor was graded as an I assistant adjutant - general on head-quarters staff and received £800 a year. Other officers employed on censorship duties were graded as deputy assistant adjutant - generals, receiving £1 1s. a day, or as staff captains, receiving 15s. a day, according to the nature of the duties they performed. There was no special rate of pay for censors.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Was this in addition to their pay as officers?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to reply that those who were officers had also the pay of their rank.

    The Proposed Reduction of the Volunteer Force—Test of Efficiency.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the reports of general officers commanding districts as to the efficiency of Volunteer units will be based on the standard of fitness for service abroad; whether the proposed reduction in numbers will be determined by fitness for service abroad; and if the information requested in Army Council Circular of July 11th, 1905, as to fitness for service abroad, is a compulsory demand, and is in accordance with the Volunteer Regulations.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Answers to the first two Questions are in the negative. The circular letter is in the shape of an order and is worded in accordance with the custom in His Majesty's Army, and I have every confidence that commanding officers of

    1175
    Volunteer corps will do their utmost to comply with its conditions.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: Then may I take it that service abroad is not to be the test for the general body of Volunteers?
    MR. ARNOLD -FORSTER: I am unable to understand how that impression can have arisen. I have said the Answer is in the negative.

    War Office Finance Branch.
    MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, during the war, the finance branch of the Army had practically nothing to do, while the contracts branch was overwhelmed with work; and whether the finance branch gave its men to the contracts branch.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think the expression used by me in debate was calculated to create a wrong impression and to do an injustice to a very hardworking section of the personnel of the War Office. What I intended to indicate was that the work of examination and audit was of necessity for a time suspended, but not that those who were charged with this work were unoccupied. On the contrary, I believe that they shared the very heavy general burden which fell on the office. I was inexact in stating that transfers were made from the finance branch to the contracts branch; the contracts branch was largely reinforced from other sources; but there were important transfers in the finance branch itself. I am glad to have this opportunity of correcting a wrong impression, which I had no desire to create, and I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity.

    Indian Army Administration—The Viceroy's Speech.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the report of the speech, contained in The Times of to-day, delivered yesterday in the Viceregal Council by the Viceroy of India, in which the decision of His Majesty's Government with reference to the administration of
    1176
    the Indian Army, and the despatch of the Secretary of State conveying that decision to the Viceroy, are criticised, I might say severely, ii not offensively; secondly, what is the prerogative which the Viceroy says was conceded to the Government of India three-quarters of a century ago, and which Lord Curzon alleges it to be his bounden duty to sustain; thirdly, whether the Secretary of State will take the earliest opportunity of informing the House of the course which the Government proposes to take with reference to this extraordinary speech.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I have telegraphed to the Viceroy requesting him to telegraph, for the information of His Majesty's Government, the text of the speech which he delivered in the Legislative Council yesterday. Until I receive it I cannot make any statement of the views of His Majesty's Government upon the subject.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the third Question.
    MR. BRODRICK: I hope to be able to make some statement early next week.

    Spirit for Manufacturing Purposes— Regulations.
    MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the rules and regulations made by the Board of Inland Revenue for the sale and manufacture of spirits for manufacturing purposes are out of print; and when the new regulations proposed will be printed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): If the Revenue Bill which is now before the House passes, the instructions referred to in the Question will require considerable alteration. In that event the new regulations will be printed as early as possible. If the Bill does not pass, I will have the old regulations reprinted with any modifications that are required to bring them up to date.
    MR. EUGENE WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me have a copy of the old regulations?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid they are out of print.
    MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman furnish me with particulars as to chicory as promised? The absence of them may delay the Bill.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman will see me in my private room I will try to give him the information he requires, and will have samples ready.

    Customs Watchers.
    Ms. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what, if any, concessions he is prepared to make in answer to the petition of the Customs watchers.
    MR. CAUSTON: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now give an answer to the petition of the upper section non-pensioner watchers which was presented in November last.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): I regret to say that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on these questions. The matter is receiving very careful consideration.
    MR. CAUSTON: Shall I have an Answer to the Question before the Vote comes on in this House?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I will endeavour to give it by then.

    British Fruit Industry.
    *MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if it is the intention of the Board to take action in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which has recently inquired into and reported upon the fruit industry of Great Britain.
    MR. HIGHAM: I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware of the fact that many rating I authorities increase the assessments, in the case of land devoted to the growing of fruit, from the earliest years after the planting of the fruit trees; and if he will introduce early legislation to give effect to recommendation No. 15 of the Departmental Committee upon Fruit Industry, that the assessments should not be raised for a period of five years after the planting in the case of small fruit, of seven years in the case of mixed plantations, and twelve years in the case of orchards.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES, Huntingdonshire, Ramsey): The various recommendations of the Committee will receive my careful consideration, but I cannot as yet say to what extent it may be possible for me to give effect to them. The evidence upon which the recommendations are based is not as yet available, and it would not in any case be practicable for me to initiate legislation on the subject this session.

    Anthrax in Devonshire.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been directed to several outbreaks of anthrax in the county of Devon, and whether he has taken the necessary measures for spreading information amongst agriculturists and others to counteract the ravages of this disease.
    *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The prevalence of anthrax in the county of Devon has for some time past been receiving our special attention and we are in communication with the local authority with respect to it. A notice calling attention to the dangerous character of the disease and to the risk attending the cutting up of the carcases of affected animals was issued to every owner of stock in the county last autumn. In addition, a leaflet on the subject has been widely distributed throughout the county by the police, and our inspectors are instructed to

    1179
    give the matter their special attention when making inquiries in connection with outbreaks of the disease. I shall be happy to supply copies of the notice and leaflet to the hon. Member for his information.

    Pollution of the Thames Estuary.
    MR. COHEN: On behalf of the senior Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet received any replies from the local authorities of Faversham and Whitstable in regard to the discharge from those places of crude sewage into the Thames Estuary; and, if so, what is the nature of those replies.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUE, Leeds, Central): I have received replies from the local authorities referred to, who contend that in the circumstances of their districts they would not be justified in incurring the expenditure necessary for carrying out works for the treatment of the sewage. I shall be happy to forward copies of these communications to my right hon. friend if he desires to see them.

    Work for the Unemployed—Obsolete Acts.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that under the Act 42 Eliz., c. 2, and subsequent Acts, boards of guardians may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, acquire fifty acres of land in each parish upon which to set the able-bodied poor to work, and to pay them reasonable wages for their work, he will call the attention of boards of guardians to these enactments, and suggest their application as a method of relieving the rates from the burden of maintaining able-bodied men and women in idleness.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The enactments referred to have for many years been considered as obsolete, and have not been acted upon by boards of guardians since the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834. I could not undertake to comply with the suggestion of the hon. Member that the attention of
    1180
    boards of guardians should be called to them.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman says these enactments are obsolete, but could not any local authority put them into operation if it chose?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There would be nothing illegal in so doing; but if I were, as requested, to call attention to them it might be thought I was advising that they be enforced.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On what ground is an Act of Parliament considered obsolete? Is the Act of Edward III obsolete?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Holborn Borough Council Disclosures—Case of Mr. L. H. Isaacs.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of the Holborn Borough Council on the 12th inst., when the council declined to carry into effect the recommendation of its own special investigation committee that Mr. Lewis H. Isaacs be proceeded against under the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act of 1835; and, if so, what steps the Local Government Board intend to take in respect to this condonation of this official's conduct.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that the borough council have recorded their strong condemnation of Mr. Isaacs' conduct, but have not adopted the recommendation of the committee that proceedings should be taken against him. It was competent for the Council to determine whether they would take such proceedings or not, and the Local Government Board have no control over thorn in the matter.
    MR. FLYNN: May I ask if this man, by making restitution of a sum of money and by submitting to a large reduction of pension did not admit the fraud, and have not the Local Government Board condoned that fraud by assenting to the action of the local council?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is a question for the local board and not for the Local Government Board.
    MR. FLYNN: Cannot action be taken by the Public Prosecutor, as would have been done had it occurred in Ireland?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think it ought to be taken on this occasion.

    The Cornewall Statue
    SIR ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the drawings relating to the proposed removal of a national monument, erected by Parliament in Westminster Abbey to the memory of Captain Cornewall in 1744, which the First Commissioner suggested should be laid before the other House of Parliament, may be laid before this House also.
    LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner will be happy to ask the Dean of Westminster for another copy for the use of the House of Commons.
    SIR ELLIOTT LEESwas understood to ask that the plans should show the available floor space?
    LORD BALCARRES: I will convoy that wish to the First Commissioner. It is an outlined drawing and not a shaded drawing, I think.
    SIR ELLIOTT LEES: And will the wish be conveyed to the Dean of Westminster?
    LORD BALCARRESassented.

    Prosecutions of Scottish Anti-Vaccinationists.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the number of prosecutions of vaccination defaulters in Scotland during the current year, and for each year during the last five years.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The information which would enable me to
    1182
    answer the first part of the hon. Member's Question is not yet procurable. The prosecutions for the five years ended 30th June, 1904, are:—For 1900, 59; for 1901, 108; for 1902, 56; for 1903, 82; for 1904, 73.

    Sneem Steamer Service.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has received a memorial from the residents of Sneem district with reference to the withdrawal of the steamer service; and, if so, can he state what action the Board will take in the matter.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The memorial has been considered by the Board, who have decided that they can take no further steps in the matter.

    Netterville Estate, Galway.
    MR. REDDY: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the farm of Woodbrook, part of the Netterville Estate, in the county of Galway, has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, whether, in view of the number of uneconomic holdings surrounding this farm, it is the intention of the Board to convert them into economic ones by an increase of land from the Woodbrook Farm.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This farm has been purchased by the Board for the purpose of enlarging the small holdings of their tenants on the adjacent Fallon Estate. The Board do not intend to dispose of the land to others than their own tenants.

    Mr. O'Hara Trenche's Estate, Galway.
    MR. REDDY: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that upon last November the tenants on Mr. O'Hara Tranche's property at New Inn, county Galway, entered into negotiations with the owner for the purchase of their holdings, together with

    1183
    some untenanted land, that the price had been agreed to, and that in consequence of the tenants refusing to give up their game rights Mr. O'Hara Trenche sold portions of the estate, upon which seven tenants are living, to Lord Ash-town, and that Mr. Mahon, the agent, now threatens the remainder of the tenants that if they do not accept the landlord's terms they shall also be sold over to Lord Ashtown; and, if so, will he say what steps he intends to take to prevent tenants from being subjected to such compulsion.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No proceedings for the sale of this estate have come before the Estates Commissioners, who have therefore no means of knowing whether the facts are as stated.
    MR. REDDY: Will you prevent Lord Ashtown buying over the heads of these tenants?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have no power to do that.

    Crime in County Cork.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Kenny, at the opening of the County Cork Assizes on the 14th instant, in which he said that the calendar for a large county like Cork could not be considered heavy, but that other matters had been brought under his notice which showed that there had been a considerable increase in that kind of intimidation which takes the form of threatening letters and notices; whether he can say if information of this character was furnished to the Judge by the constabulary authorities; and, if so, what steps are taken to test the genuineness of these alleged intimidatory notices, and what opportunity can be afforded the House of testing the reliability of the figures furnished by the police.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir, I have seen a report in the Press, according to which the learned Judge made remarks to the effect mentioned. The information upon which these remarks were based was, as is perfectly well
    1184
    understood, supplied by the police. As compared with the corresponding assize period of last year, the number of cases of intimidation by threatening letters or notices and otherwise had risen from seven to twenty. As I informed the hon. Member on May 29th,† every possible care is taken that none but genuine cases of intimidation are included in the returns. It is obvious that no opportunity of checking the figures can be afforded to the House.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread belief in Ireland that these returns are manipulated officially?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am aware there are many beliefs prevalent in Ireland which have no foundation.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Have these letters resulted in injury to either person or property?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously I cannot answer that without notice.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Has the intimidation arisen since the right hon. Gentleman became Chief Secretary?
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir.
    MR. FLAVIN: If a policeman swears injury is malicious, and the County Court Judge holds it is not, is it returned as a malicious injury? Who is the judge? What is a malicious inquiry.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Irish National Education Commissioners' Report.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when presenting the Annual Report for 1904 of the Commissioners of National Education, he will arrange to lay upon the Table of the House at the same time a copy of the statement or protest which records on behalf of six of the Commissioners present at the Board meeting of the 4th instant their total dissent from the
    †See (4) Debates, exlvii., 86.

    1185
    portions of the draft Report for 1904 which deals with Rule 127 (b) and with the amalgamation of schools, and will he at the same time state by whom this protest was signed.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The reply to both Questions is in the affirmative.
    MR. BOLAND: Will the Report and the protest be laid separately?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say.

    Irish National Education Rules.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in connection with the volume of rules of the National Board for 1905, which the Commissioners state was adopted at the Board meeting of December 20th, 1904, he will ascertain from the Commissioners whether the new Rules 127 (b) and 186 were discussed in detail, or at all, at the said meeting of December 20th, 1904; and whether these rules as published were based on any official returns, previously made out, showing how the interests of the teaching staffs would be affected by the operation of these rules.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The rules mentioned were not discussed in detail at the meeting of December 20th, 1904, as they had already been discussed and adopted at the meeting of October 25th. The Commissioners do not consider it desirable to make public the returns or other documents considered by them when revising their rules.
    MR. BOLAND: Were the rules based on official returns?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot give as Answer to that without referring to the Commissioners.

    Irish Parliamentary Representation.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state if any official records are available as to the views held in 1884 by the late Marquess of Salisbury and the late Sir Stafford Northcote on the subject of the reduction of the Irish
    1186
    representation below the number fixed by the Act of Union.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I am not aware of any official record of this matter.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1885, when it was proposed to reduce the Irish representation by ten, it was opposed by Sir Stafford Northcote and the Tory Party?
    MB. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see that that has anything to do with the Question on the Paper.

    Use of Submarines for War.
    MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will communicate with foreign Governments with a view to abolish the use of submarine vessels for purposes of war.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, though made with. I am sure, the most humanitarian intentions, is really practicable.

    Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the majority by which the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill passed its Second Reading, of the fact that Irish Members of all political Parties voted for the Bill, and of the demand from Ireland that it should become law this session, he will provide time for passing the Bill through its remaining stages in this House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is a private Bill, and the rule in regard to private Bills is that no special privileges can be granted towards the end of the session unless they are of an uncontentious character. I have no ground for supposing that that is true of the Bill in which the hon. Gentleman takes a special interest.

    Lord Roberts and Army Efficiency.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if Lord Roberts has informed the Defence Committee that our armed forces as a body are as absolutely unfitted and unprepared for war as they were, in 1899–1900; and what steps are being taken to remedy the defects indicated by that officer.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should, in no circumstances, state to the House what a particular member of the Defence Committee said on any particular occasion. Quite apart from that general principle I may remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not the business of the Defence Committee to deal with Army reform, which is in the province of the Secretary of State for War.
    MR. LAMBERT: Is it not the business of the Government to see that our armed forces are in a state of efficiency?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the business of the Government as a whole, no doubt, but of the Secretary of State for War and the Army Council in particular.

    The Discussion of Supply.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, haying regard to the inroads that have been made this session on the days allotted to Supply by means of contentious Private Business and Motions for Adjournment, he will consider the advisability of moving that the usual extra three days shall be devoted to Supply; and, if not, will he state the reasons that induce him to depart from precedent in this matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only inroad made on the time of the House by way of Motion for Adjournment proceeding from the Government side of the House was, I think, the one made in connection with West Ham. Supply has been taken on sixteen days and parts of days, in addition to the counting days; and, in my opinion, the general state of public business quite justifies, I will not say the resolution at which I have arrived, but the plan which seems to me most convenient, that on this occasion the House
    1188
    should forego the extra three days commonly voted to Supply. I do not think we have been peculiarly unfortunate—my general impression is that we have been rather fortunate—in the number of contentious private Bills this session.
    MR. DALZIEL: More contentious Bills have, as a matter of fact, been put down this session than in almost any previous session. Is it not the fact that the extra three days were to be given in respect of the state of Supply and not of the particular arrangement of public business?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not accept the proposition of the hon. Member Still, I can inquire into the number of Bills. I do not think it was ever suggested that the three extra days should be given quite irrespective of the general condition of public business.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDWill the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to enable us, in addition to the three counting days for Irish Supply, to have at any rate some discussion on the Irish Development Grant Fund, the importance of discussing which I am sure he will admit?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURreminded the hon. Gentleman that they had had at least one important purely Irish discussion altogether outside the time devoted to Irish Supply, as the hon. Gentleman secured first place in the debate on the Motion for moving the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Have we not some special claim, seeing how we assisted the right hon. Gentleman to save several days debate on the Redistribution Resolution?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I admit our debt of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman, but he must not be too exacting.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it was not the fact that, under the Standing Order, any Member could put down a Motion for the extra three days, which must be divided upon

    1189
    without Amendment or debate, and that it was not restricted to a Minister.
    MR. LOUGHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that this was a question to be settled by the general opinion of the House rather than by himself absolutely.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURreplied that he did not think so. No doubt the House would like to have the three extra days, but he had to survey the general course of business, and in consequence of the survey he had made he had come to the conclusion he had already indicated. He thought it must be left to the Leader of the House, and to him alone, to give an opinion on this point. He might be mistaken in the decision he had come to, but he was bound to look to the broader considerations.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I conclude that, if a private Member puts down a Motion, the right hon. Gentleman would not give an opportunity for a vote upon it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: We must assume from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that there is such an intolerable quantity of legislation that there is no room for the usual discussion of Supply, which is in a worse position this year than we have ever known it. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what this great mass of legislation is which is crushing Supply almost out of existence, because we are not able to discern it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt unintentionally, misinterprets what I said. I presume that no one in the position of the right hon. I Gentleman opposite will deny that the general condition of public business, as well as the state of Supply, must be considered in determining this question. So far as I know, Supply has absorbed a quite abnormal amount of time during the present session [OPPOSITION cries of "No"], while the time available for the transaction of legislative business has been unusually small.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: May I point out that of the eleven classes of Votes six or seven have never been discussed at all. I believe I am within the mark when I say that less time has been given to Supply this session than in any previous session during the Prime Minister's tenure of office.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the I right hon. Gentleman has spoken somewhat hastily, but it might be useful if he would put a Question on the Paper asking for the number of counting days, and the number of days or parts of days which are not counting days, which have been occupied in the discussion of Supply in the present session.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: I will put a Question down.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The non-counting days really apply to the Supply of last year.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I want to impress on the House is that it is impossible within the limits of time at the disposal of the House to give so much time to Supply when it is required for legislation.
    MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman, in reckoning the time given to Supply, was counting the days devoted to Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly.
    MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid the Supplementary Estimates were really due to the defects of the Departments under the right hon. Gentleman's charge. Had the right hon. Gentleman deliberately come to the conclusion that twenty days were sufficient for the discussion of Supply, or was he refusing the three extra days simply because of the special circumstances of this session?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The time given to Supply outside the twenty days may, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, be due to the incompetence of the present Government, but it is not due to that in my opinion, and this question of dispute

    1191
    between us is one which I am afraid cannot be settled by any Return laid upon the Table of the House. The margin left by the rule, the difference between twenty and twenty-three days, exists in order that the general condition of business may be taken into account.

    The Vote of Censure.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask a point of business which is not perhaps unfamiliar to the Prime Minister, whether he will now, after the fortnight's delay which was not unreasonably claimed, name a day for the Motion standing in the name of my right hon. friend the Member for Berwick.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The delay has been a good deal more than a fort-night—
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman said it could not be any day within the next fortnight, and that fortnight is drawing to its close.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the last instalment of delay. But without going into that, I shall be delighted to give the right hon. Gentleman the earliest opportunity at my disposal, and I propose, therefore, that the vote of censure shall be taken on Monday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: What will be the business on Tuesday and Wednesday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Irish Supply will be taken on Tuesday, if that suits hon. Gentlemen opposite. As regards Wednesday, there have been negotiations with regard both to the Unemployed Bill and the Naval Works Bill. If the Second Reading of the Naval Works Bill is taken next Friday, I shall propose to take the Unemployed Bill on Wednesday. We have to get the Report of the Resolutions on the Naval Works Bill, and not till then can the Bill be printed, so that it cannot be in the hands of hon. Members till Friday morning. But the Bill deals with general principles, there is no new item in it, and I think
  1192
  all the information desired will probably be found in the Bill of last year. My hon. friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty will make a statement as to the Bill in order to facilitate matters, and I hope that, notice having been given, there will be no objection to the Bill being taken on Friday on the ground that it has been so short a time in the hands of Members.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has promised me Wednesday evening for the discussion on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, and as at present advised I propose to adhere to that arrangement.
  MR. BROADHURST: Could we not get copies of the Naval Works Bill tomorrow night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, that is impossible.
  MR. BRYCE: If the Committee on the Scottish Churches Bill finishes to-night when will the next stage be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to take the Report stage of the Churches (Scotland) Bill soon, but I cannot promise a particular day at present.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Frederick William Chance, esquire, for the Borough of Carlisle.

  POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
  Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No, 247.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 247.]

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 279.]
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]

  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEESasked for leave to introduce, under the ten minutes rule, a "Bill to prevent the removal without Parliamentary sanction of monuments which have been erected in cathedrals or churches out of public moneys in pursuance of a vote by Parliament." He said the Bill provided that any such proposal should lie on the Table of the House for forty days in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing disapproval if it so desired, and his object in introducing the Bill at that moment was to call the attention of the House before it was too late to a proposal of the Dean of Westminster, who had under his complete control the Abbey and all it contained, subject only to the Crown, to remove a monument erected by Parliament out of public funds, in the middle of the 18th century, to the memory of a gallant sailor, Captain Cornewall, who was killed at the battle of Toulon. Only some parts of the monument, the inscription and the medallions, were to be preserved, and they were to be placed high up in a very dark corner of the Abbey. In the place of the Cornewall monument a screen was to be erected, and behind it was to be placed a recumbent effigy of the late Lord Salisbury. A very delicate question was raised by this proposal of the Dean of Westminster. He yielded to no one in his veneration of the character and career of the late Lord Salisbury, whom he regarded as the greatest Englishman of his own time. He hoped it was possible to honour the memory of that great statesman without in any way slighting the memory of a bygone hero, and he thought the memory of a patriotic statesman could be more fittingly perpetuated than by the destruction of the monument to a patriotic sailor who died a splendid death for his country. He did not, however, desire to force upon the House the invidious task of voting for or against the proposal of the Dean of Westminster. His object was to
  1194
  ensure that monuments erected by Parliament to the memory of men who had deserved well of their country should not in future be removed; and therefore he would so frame his Bill that it should not come into operation until January 1st, 1906.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the removal, without Parliamentary sanction, of Monuments which have been erected in Cathedrals or Churches out of Public Moneys in pursuance of a Vote by Parliament."—(Sir Elliott Lees.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, (MR. A. J. BALFOUE, Manchester, E.): I am sorry I did not know that my hon. friend was going to bring in this Bill, and I desire to say but a few words which occur to me on the spur of the moment. I gather that the terms of the Bill are so framed that they do not touch the case which has occupied the whole of my hon. friend's speech—namely, the proposal of the Dean of Westminster with regard to the statue voted by the House to the late Lord Salisbury. The Dean of Westminster has come to the conclusion—a conclusion which I, at all events, share—that the north transept of the Abbey is now so crowded, if not overcrowded, with the statues of eminent statesmen which have been voted by this House, that to add the proposed statue to the late Lord Salisbury to the effigies already assembled there, Gladstone, Disraeli, and Peel, is impossible from an architectural point of view. Indeed, such is the condition of things in the Abbey that a much more drastic Bill than the Bill of my hon. friend will have to be introduced—a Bill declaring that no money voted by the country shall go to the making of a full-sized statue of any statesman, soldier, or sailor, however distinguished his services or however great his career.
  That being the state of things, the question arises, where is room to be found for the memorial which the House has voted to Lord Salisbury. My hon. friend objects to the site which has been chosen for it by the Dean and Chapter. I can only say, with regard to that, that I do

  1195
  not think any one can deny that it would greatly conduce to the beauty of the Abbey were that site chosen for the memorial and the plans of the Dean with regard to it carried into effect. The monument erected by Parliament to the memory of Captain Cornewall has already been altered by Dean Stanley. Pains were therefore taken to find out the opinions of the present representatives of Captain Cornewall's family, and of course there is no idea of excluding from the Abbey the monument to the memory of that gallant sailor. So far as I am able to offer an opinion on the subject, the suggestion of the Dean of Westminster appears to me to be a wise one in the interest of the architecture and beauty of the Abbey; but if it be objected to by public opinion, I venture to say, in the double capacity of Leader of the House and a near relative of the deceased statesman whom the House desires to honour, that, so far as the family at all events are concerned, there is no desire to see the statue to Lord Salisbury placed where the public do not desire to have it placed. But I am confident that if anyone will examine the facts for himself he will come to the conclusion that in this matter the Dean is right. The Bill of my hon. friend, however, does not apply to this particular case, and I therefore regret that he should have made his speech a hostile commentary and criticism upon the conduct of the Dean.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid that, as a matter of personal explanation, he desired to say that nothing could be further from his mind than to show discourtesy to his right hon. friend and leader. He had asked the Speaker whether he could put a Question to the Prime Minister on the subject, and it was in consequence of the ruling of the Speaker that he was precluded from asking a Question, and at the Speaker's suggestion as to the procedure of the House that he had raised the matter by means of bringing in a Bill.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think in this case I should exercise the discretion vested in me by Standing Order No. 11. The hon. Gentleman says he does not propose that the Bill should take effect until
  1196
  January 1st, 1907. Therefore there is no pressing necessity for going on with it. I propose, therefore, to put the Question that the debate be now adjourned.
  Question, "That the debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

  NAVAL WORKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to make further provision for the construction of works in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal Navy, and to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding £5,835,000, as may be required for those purposes, and to make provision for raising in the manner provided by Section 5 of The Naval Works Act, 1895, the sums so issued by Terminable Annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years from the dates of the borrowing."—[Mr. Arthur Lee.]
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he proposed to address a number of Questions to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty with a view to securing information which would enable them the better to discuss this Bill on the Motion for its Second Reading. The measure had been brought in very late in the session, and he would once more like to impress on the Government the desirability of enabling the Navy Estimates to be debated with a full knowledge of the proposed naval expenditure for the year. He also thought that the Resolution which was proposed on an occasion like this should be printed on the orders of the day. He trusted that this was to le the last Naval Works Bill. He desired to know what was the amount to be expended at Rosyth and on the Chatham Dockyard extension and also how much was to be set apart for the coastguard stations. He wished also to get at the entire committal of the country

  1197
  under the Naval Works Loan Bill, and to be informed whether there bad been or was to be any variation in the concluding estimates. He saw the Government were asking for £5,800,000 under this Bill, and he desired to know how that was to be apportioned between the next two years. Finally, could the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that this method of procedure by loan would be departed from and items be transferred from the schedule of this Bill to Vote 10 of the Navy Estimates?
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire, Fareham)said the list of items in the new Bill was closed, although it was not contended that there might not be small variations in the total estimates as given in the 1903 Bill. As to the Question whether the system of token sums which appeared in the 1903 Bill would now be brought to an end, the Answer was in the affirmative. There were no token sums in the Bill of this year, and the total estimates were given for the particular items which were shown under token sums in 1903. No doubt there were objections to the system of token sums; at the same time it was inevitable in 1903, when the details of the large schemes which were in progress had not been thoroughly worked out. The definite items then shown by token sums were Rosyth, the Chatham extension, and the coastguard stations. The total estimate for Rosyth, which was not the total estimate for all time, but the estimate for the present scheme of the Board of Admiralty, was £2,500,000. The whole of that amount was not inserted in the present Loan Bill, for a reason which he would shortly explain, but it was the total to which the Admiralty wished to commit the House of Commons as regards Rosyth. That included £200,000 already voted for preliminary works. With regard to Chatham, the total estimate was £70,000, including preliminary works already accomplished. There was a large question as to the relative advantages of Chatham and Rosyth which he should be glad to develop in the debate on the Second Reading on Friday. As to the coastguard, hon. Members had been led to expect the total estimate would be over £500,000, but the actual total estimate to which
  1198
  the Board of Admiralty now wished to commit the House was only £200,000. There would necessarily be some variation in the total estimates in respect of other items, because it was impossible to foresee two years beforehand exactly what expenditure would be incurred in the progress of the various works. There were a number of items in which the total estimates had been reduced, and others in which they had been exceeded.
  The hon. Member had asked what was the total expenditure to be asked for in the Bill in the current year. The total expenditure was £32,206,000, and that was only an increase of £566,000 on the Bill of 1903. The expenditure for the next two years, for the period of the 1905 Bill, was estimated at £7,704,000, but of that amount £1,869,000 was already in hand unexpended, so that £5,835,000 was the total asked for in the Resolution. He was asked how much of this total of £7,704,000 would be expended in each of the two succeeding years. He could not give the exact amounts, because it would obviously depend upon the progress of the works. Approximately it would be half in each year. Lastly, the hon. Member appealed to the Government as to whether they would be willing to bring the system of Loan Bills to an end at the earliest opportunity. He could assure him and the Committee that it was the desire and intention of the Government to close up this system at the earliest opportunity, and to bring any additional expenditure which might be necessary either in connection with works mentioned in the Bill, or works which might possibly be required in the future, as far as possible on the ordinary naval Vote, or, in other words, Vote 10. That policy would to a certain extent be followed with regard to certain items in the new Bill. Certain items, or the remaining portions of expenditure on certain items, would be transferred from loan to Votes, and in that way the policy so urgently desired by the hon. Gentleman and the Committee generally would be initiated. He thought he had now answered all the Questions.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman had indicated the nature of the Vote when he

  1199
  told them that His Majesty's Government wished to commit the House. It was indeed a committal. If the House granted this, it would authorise the expenditure of £5,800,000, and would completely part with all control over it. It was true the House would get accounts year by year, but it would not be able to prevent the expenditure of a single farthing of the money authorised by the Naval Works Loan Bill. It was quite true that in order to get in that position they had to pass the Bill, but this was the Resolution on which the Bill must be founded. They were now discussing an entirely different thing to what they would discuss on the Bill. They were now discussing whether on the whole it was expedient to authorise the provision of this £5,800,000 for the purposes named. When once the Resolution was passed and the issue was authorised, then they came to the Bill which said what was to be done with it. He was dealing with the question as it stood before them at present, whether it was expedient to authorise provision to the extent of £5,800,000 by way of naval works loan in order to provide for naval works, and he would distinctly say it was not expedient to make that provision. The country was already liable for works loans—naval, military, and civil—of no less than £41,664,000, and they were now to add £5,800,000, nearly £6,000,000. They must, in considering their present position with regard to naval and other loans, ask whether they were warranted in adding debt to debt. Their liability on March 31st, 1905, for naval works was £16,000,000 out of total liabilities of £41,000,000. That was an increase of £5,000,000 over the preceding year, and they were now asked to add another £5,800,000, so that the total naval liability would be at least £22,000,000. He could not help thinking whether the Committee ought to warrant that enormous increase of our national liability without considering what that national liability was.
  He would cite a few eloquent figures. The total funded debt, unfunded debt, terminable annuities, capital liabilities (of which this would be a part), guaranteed loans, and contingent liabilities
  1200
  amounted altogether to £738,000,000 in 1894, to £948,800,000 in 1904, and they now amounted to £973,000,000. Of course, he had not taken into account the liabilities of local authorities. Since 1894 the national liabilities, which he admitted were not all of the same character, but all of which might some day come upon them, had been increased by nearly one third, and they were now asked to increase them further by something like £5,800,000. He very much doubted, and always had doubted, the wisdom of this brick-and-mortar policy on the part of the Admiralty. His opinion was that the Admiralty ought to restrict itself to its proper sphere, the sea, and providing ships. It seemed to him to have failed in its misguided brick-and-mortar ambitions. He had seen that day a telegram in the paper which said that already Gibraltar had proved insufficient for the repairs required of it. He did not wonder at it; he always said it would be insufficient. There was, however, another point. If there had been a lesson which the present war had taught us, it was that it was not to arsenals ashore that we should look for repairs and the keeping up of our ships, but either to giving facilities of repairs to the ship herself in her own inside or by accompanying the Fleet with repairing vessels as the Japanese had done with such success that for two years their ships were kept going by their repairing ships and never had to go for repairs to an arsenal, although they had been fighting all the time. That was a very serious fact. It suggested the uselessness in time of war of our great arsenals and of the Admiralty's brick-and-mortar arrangements, and that their efforts should have been in another direction, that of giving their ships the power of making castings and making repairs themselves to a large extent; or of accompanying the Fleet, as the Japanese had done, with repairing ships.
  Assuming, however, for the sake of argument, that £5,800,000 was required for the Admiralty's brick-and-mortar policy, this was not the form in which it should come before them, nor should it be suggested that they should raise it

  1201
  by loan. It should appear in the Estimates. The Public Accounts Committee had made every effort to get items removed from the naval works loan into the Estimates, but the effort of the Admiralty was quite the contrary. Only recently it had turned out that they were constantly endeavouring to take items off the Estimates and put them on the loans account. If they wanted this £5,800,000, let them put it on the Estimates. Then the House would have control over the expenditure. Once let them authorise the sum and pass the Loans Bill which specified what was to be done with it, and the House had no control left over it whatever. That was the great vice of the naval works loan system. The right hon. Gentleman said they were going to stop it. Yes, but after they had been indulging in it for ten years, and raising loans of £40,000,000, they were going to stop it in order to prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite having that opportunity of spending money of which the present Government had so largely availed itself. He did not think that was fair. If the policy were a sound one, it was not now, on the death-bed of the Government, that they should give it up; they should hand it over intact to their successors. It was because they did not believe in it that they were giving it up, and he did not believe in it. It was unsound; it deprived the House of financial control; and it led to extravagance and carelessness on the part of the Admiralty. It was altogether a bad policy. But if it were a bad policy to raise money for naval expenditure by way of loan instead of putting it on the Estimates—and he was convinced it was—now, and now alone, was the time to stop it: now was the time to put the gag on their naval expenditure, on this Resolution and not on the Bill. Was the Committee prepared to authorise an addition of £5,800,000 to this bad, wicked, and mischievous system of naval loans? In other words, was the Committee conscious of the great need for economy, and, above all, for the reduction of debt? If it was, it would call a halt. For his own part he would do nothing towards taking the first step in adding £5,800,000 to the Debt, and when the division was
  1202
  taken he would deem it his duty, in the interests of economy, to vote against the proposal.
  MR. BUCHANANthought it would be much better to have the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill after the House had had an opportunity of considering the items involved. Considerable alterations had been made from the Bill of two years ago, and their effect could not be properly appreciated unless such an arrangement as he suggested were made. He doubted whether the Committee was aware of the great importance and the novel character of the large items in the Bill. There were a considerable number of them, into which from year to year charges of some magnitude were put, and paid for out of loan money. That was an important variation from previous Bills, and it was only by an inspection of the present measure that it could be seen whether a stop had been put to the practice. The Civil Lord had stated most frankly that the £2,500,000 put down for Rosyth did not represent the total estimated cost.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the hon. Member had misunderstood him. The total estimated cost of the scheme for Rosyth was £2,500,000. What he said was that the present Government could not bind their successors, who might wish to spend more money; but so far as the present Board was concerned £2,500,000 was the total estimated cost.
  MR. BUCHANANpassing from Rosyth, said the statement of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the Chatham Dockyard extension meant the abandonment of the work, which was the main feature of the 1903 Bill, and a most important factor in our naval works policy. There was another important point. The total cost came out at £32,206,000, which was an increase of a little over £500,000. Consequently, seeing there was an increase of £2,500,000 on the one item of Rosyth, there must have been considerable reductions in other items. In view of these facts it was impossible to judge of the general principle underlying the policy embodied in the Bill, or adequately to

  1203
  criticise the particular items in the schedule, until they had had an opportunity of examining the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: said that on this occasion he proposed to support the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Upon some of the items of the Bill his views differed entirely from those of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, but the question raised by the hon. Member on this occasion was not the particular items in the Bill, but whether the time had not come when this system of loans should be abandoned in favour of bearing these charges on the Votes. Two facts most material to that issue had considerably changed his opinion, as they had the opinion of many others within the last few years on this subject. One was that the Government of India, after the fullest consideration, had come to the conclusion that the system could not be justified in the case of India, where loans had been more resorted to than in this country, and they had placed on the Estimates the whole of the expenditure required by the Kitchener redistribution scheme. The other fact, pointing in the same direction, was that within the last year we had had a revelation of the extraordinary extent to which, by a loan system, the country might be committed to expenditure which, in a few years, by a reversal of policy, might be shown to be not only unnecessary but actually wasteful. In St. Lucia, Jamaica, Halifax, and a number of other places, money had been spent under Naval and Military Works Acts which were still running, and under which instalments of capital and interest were still being paid, and, owing to a change of policy, the country had been saddled with large expenditure which ought never to have been incurred at all. In view of these facts the case against the loan policy had been immensely strengthened, and as that was the question raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn he should support him in the division.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)said he would not deal with the general question, though he might say that it was a little
  1204
  ungrateful to oppose the Resolution considering that his hon. friend had announced on the part of the Government the intention to abandon the loan system for the normal method of placing sums on the Votes. The situation which had justified the loan system had come to an end, and, therefore, the Government proposed to revert to the system of dealing with the annual needs of the Navy on the annual Estimates. But he would not enter upon the question of policy; he rose to reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Perthshire, who had asked him to reverse an arrangement arrived at earlier as to the course of business. It would be very inconvenient to make that alteration after he had done his best to meet the wishes of Members interested in the Unemployed Bill, and who had gone away justified in the belief that that Bill would not be taken on Friday, and that the Naval Works Bill would be taken on that day. Nothing that had since passed appeared to justify the change, and the Naval Works Bill ought to meet the wishes of the critics of the system. There were one or two questions of interest to be discussed, but they would not require any lengthened study of the Bill, and he hoped the arrangement for Friday, arrived at by common consent, would not be interfered with.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked whether the schedule could be circulated apart from the Bill itself.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if it were in accordance with precedent he would be glad to see if that could be done.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It need not be called the schedule of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would be very glad to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman on that point. He understood that it would go to the printers that afternoon, and no exertions would be wanting on the part of the Admiralty to ensure its being in the hands of Members at the earliest opportunity.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he should vote with the hon. Member for King's Lynn on the ground that it had been made abundantly clear that these works loans had led to a large amount of expenditure which in a short time was shown to have been not only unnecessary but positively wasteful. There was also another ground on which he should vote against the present proposal. The Prime Minister had stated that it was not the intention of the Government to include any more of these loans in Works Bills, but that the burden would be placed on the ordinary Navy Estimates. That was a policy which he and many others on that side of the House had advocated for many years, and it was hardly satisfactory that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should at the eleventh hour make such a distinct change of policy and claim credit for having done it. He thought it was a wrong policy to continue these loan works which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty admitted were not going to be continued in the future. He had stated that next year they were going to transfer some of the smaller items such as the amounts for Rosyth and other places to the Estimate. If that was a right policy for the future it was right this year, and instead of asking for £6,000,000 in this way, some of the items ought to have been included in the Navy Estimates this year.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERregretted that the policy in regard to loans was not going to be reversed in toto. They were grateful for the statement which had been made upon this point by the Prime Minister, but he would remind the House that a similar statement was made in 1903 to the effect that this policy of loans would be abandoned, and that it was only adopted temporarily.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdissented.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): I promised not to take any new item.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the promise they had got now was the same as they got in 1903.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that strong objections were held against this loan policy, and he should vote for the proposal made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURappealed to hon. Members to allow the division to be taken, because there would be a full opportunity of discussing this Bill at a later stage.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the situation was worse than he expected, and he always took a gloomy view of Loan Bills. They had been led to expect some improvement and had been told that the way would be opened up for the House to escape from the situation they had got into. He was very glad that a distinct protest had been made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. There was no necessity, in his opinion, for this Bill at all, because the Government admitted that they had nearly £2,000,000 in hand and that ought to be quite enough for the requirements if the year. He was glad that a division was to be taken and he should vote against the Resolution.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 168. (Division List No. 297.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Kt. Hon. John

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Purvis, Robert

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Randles, John S.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred's.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bigwood, James

  Heaton, John H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bill, Charles

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bingham, Lord

  Hickman, Alfred

  Renwick, George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bond, Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropshire

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jeffrey's, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA(Wore.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew).

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Chapman, Edward

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks).

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

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Coddington, Sir William

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs).

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stroyan, John

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Denny, Colonel

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Tuff, Charles

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  H'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wigt'n.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriesshire

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Milvain, Thomas

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

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

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Wolff, Custav Wilhelm

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Myers, William Henry

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  1208

  1209

  NOES

  Abraham, William, (Cork, N. E

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Dowd, John

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Mara, James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Black, Alexander William

  Hardic, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Parrott, William

  Boland, John

  Harwood, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Brigg, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brainier, Sir John Tomlinson

  Higham, John Sharp

  Reddy, M.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Richards, Thomas

  Burns, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Money)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Buxton, NE (York, NR, Whitby

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Charles (Poplar

  Joicey, Sir James

  Russell, T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shackleton, David James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawink B.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Joyce, Michael

  Sheehy, David

  Chance, Frederick William

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Langley, Batty

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crombie, John William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cullinan, J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, David Alfred (Mertbyr

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Delany, William

  Lloyd-George David

  Ure Alexander

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

  Lough, Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lundon W.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  White, Patrick (Meatb, North)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Moorey, John J.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Elibank, Master of

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

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

  Ellice, Capt EC(S. AndrewsBghs

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Murnaghan, George

  Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Huddersf'd

  Emmott, Alfred

  Murphy, John

  Young, Samuel

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ferguson, K. C. Munro (Leith)

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

  Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Gibson Bowles.

  Field, William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Gibson Bowles.

  Findlay Alexander(Lanark, N.E

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  FitzMaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Clause 5:—
  MR. BRYCEmoved an Amendment to omit words requiring that the subscriptions to the Confession of Faith by persons appointed to chairs of theology in the Scottish Universities, and by the Principal of St. Mary's College, St. Andrews, shall be such as may be prescribed by Act of the General Assembly. Although Clause 5 was one

  1211
  of the most controversial character, he thought from the rapidity with which the Bill was dealt with yesterday that the particular Amendment which he now moved was not one which raised any Party issue, and it was one which he hoped might be discussed with perfect calmness and coolness. Indeed, he did not see why the Government should not accept the Amendment, and he ventured at least to hope that, even if they did not accept it, they would feel that it was a matter to be left to the judgment of the House, and not one which they should regard as a Party issue or in which they should endeavour to secure a particular determination of the House by employing the ordinary Party methods. Let him observe further that he had not gone out of his way to raise the question. It was a question which the Government had themselves raised by the provision in Clause 5 relating to the theological chairs in the Scottish Universities. That was a matter outside the general scope of the Bill, but it was impossible for them to ignore it, and he was obliged to move the Amendment because he hoped to show the Committee that if he did not do so they would allow a novel, and in some respects a revolutionary, change to be effected in the position of the Scottish Universities.
  The history of the Scottish University tests was a very long history. When the Universities of Scotland were dealt with at the Revolution Settlement they were not dealt with along with the question of the subscription to be made by ministers of the Church. The Universities were separately dealt with in 1690 by a separate statute. They were not included in the Act of 1690, nor in the Act of 1693, to which the Lord-Advocate had so often referred. They were again dealt with separately in 1707, and he wished to call the particular attention of the Committee to this fact, that whereas the Act of 1693 placed the enforcement of the test in regard to ministers in the hands of the General Assembly, the Act of 1690 did not bring in the General Assembly, but created a special Commission consisting of ministers, barons, Judges, and other persons, mainly laymen. The whole matter came up in the year 1889 when a Bill dealing with the Scottish Universities was passed.
  1212
  That Bill was introduced by the Conservative Government, and on that occasion he moved an Amendment directing the Commission, which was to be appointed under the Bill, to abolish tests and to open all the theological chairs to all comers. They were then the only chairs which remained subject to tests. The Conservative Government of the day met the proposal, not by denying the expediency of opening the chairs—they did not resist the proposal on its merits—but they proposed that it should be referred to the Parliamentary Commission which was appointed by the Bill to take evidence and to report on the question of what should be done in the case of the theological faculties. They had a long debate in which the present First Lord of the Treasury and the late Mr. Gladstone took part, and the result of that discussion was that the Amendment was rejected and it was referred to a Parliamentary Commission to investigate the matter and to report what should be done in regard to these chairs.
  The Commission took very full and important evidence and issued a very elaborate Report in the year 1892. If hon. Members referred to that Report they would find that few Reports dealt in a more fair manner with the relations which ought to subsist between the Universities and the national life and education of any country. In particular he would refer to the evidence of Principal Caird, who, as everybody knew, was one of the brightest ornaments of the Church to which he belonged and of Scottish theology. Principal Caird was in favour of the abolition of these tests so as to throw open those chairs to all Scottish Presbyterians. Professor Story, now Principal Story of Glasgow University, approved of the abolition of the tests; and Principal Cunninghame, of St. Andrews, also approved of the abolition of the tests. He did not think that they could have three names belonging to the Established Church more representative or more entitled to weight in this House than these distinguished gentlemen. The Commission itself, by a majority, reported in favour of the abolition of the tests. The Commission consisted of a number of eminent

  1213
  and distinguished men—Lord Kinnear, Chairman of the Commission, Lord Elgin, Mr. Macintosh, now Lord Kyllachry, the hon. Baronet the Member for Ipswich, Sir Arthur Mitchell, Mr. Crawford, Dr. Blackie, and Mr. Butcher, who was then professor of Greek in the University of Edinburgh. The Committee would be good enough to observe that five of these gentlemen—he was not sure if it was not even more than five—were members of the Conservative Party, and therefore the Commission had not a political character. These five gentlemen held Conservative principles, and they did not think that there was anything in these principles against the Report which they made.
  The Commission made use of the argument with which they were all familiar which showed that these tests were unfortunate. They pointed out that the tests created the impression that a theological professor could not be in a position of an independent inquirer; that tests pressed most severely and harshly on men of tender consciences, while they were no obstacle to those whose consciences were hard. They said that tests were of no value to the community; that they never ensured orthodoxy; and they added the material consideration that if they were to prevent students in the Universities from hearing opinions which might affect their theological views, they must not confine themselves to theological tests. They must impose tests on the occupants of such chairs as moral philosophy and natural science which existed at one time. Such tests had been abandoned in these latter faculties, and they were now perfectly free. How absurd it was to say that a man might be safely entrusted to hear teaching on ethics which might be opposed to the views of current theology, and that he was not to hear the views, of theological professors, especially considering that all student preparing for the Scotch ministry must attend the arts course before approaching their theological study. The Commission added also that the tests excluded a large number of distinguished men, whom tests ought not to exclude, men belonging to the other Presbyterian bodies who would be eminently fitted to adorn the chairs of theology in the
  1214
  Scottish Universities. He would refer to two sentences in the Report which he thought of great importance. In one place the Commission said—
  "We agree with the opinion that the proper test for a professor is to be found in the functions to which the professor is called; his acknowledged fitness for the place, and that the character and conscience of the man afford the only proof and security for the faithful performance of his duty."
  The Commission also said that—
  "We are of opinion that theological professors, like the professors in other faculties, ought to he relieved from the obligation to suscribe to any religious of ecclesiastical formula."
  The tribunal which the Government had invoked at that time had given its opinion, and it was fairly reasonable that the opinion so delivered should have the respect and confidence of this House. Surely the experience they had had of theological tests in many Universities, and under many conditions, established the doctrine that it was only freedom that was of any use for those who were set to teach. How could they say to a man—"Investigate the truth, study the Scriptures; study Ecclesiastical history, examine Biblical criticism, go to every source from which you can get light on ecclesiastical history and theological truth, but, whatever your investigation may be, remember you must come to only one conclusion." How could they say that to an investigator, or expect that the teaching the professor gave could have the confidence of the students and produce the impression that it ought to have on them, when he was bound, beforehand, to arrive at only one conclusion? That argument applied to any test whatever, but it would apply especially to any new test.
  He dared say that if the power was given to impose a new test, it would be somewhat less stringent in its terms than the present test; but it would have to go very far indeed if it was to meet all the sentiment and conscience of our times. Many large questions had been raised which were not so frequently raised in earlier times, and he thought it would be hard to apply any test now-a-days which would not exclude men of tender conscience who would be perfectly willing

  1215
  because they had not come to any adverse conclusion to give consideration on lines which were in general conformity with orthodoxy, but who would hesitate to subscribe to the propositions contained in the test itself. Those who had watched the current of theological thought knew that many new questions of this kind had arisen. And it must be remembered that a new test would be, of necessity, construed more strictly than an old test, with a more careful regard to every word and without any of that easy-going spirit in which old tests were regarded. He remembered that the late Mr. Jowett said that "Old fetters gall less than new ones." Of course that was true. A new test would be more severe than a test that had been worn down by the attrition of centuries. He knew that there was every reason to suppose that, if a new test were imposed, that new test would probably be much more lax than the old one. There was, however, no security for that. If they were to follow the current that now ran they might expect the test to be easier than the subscription to the Confession of Faith was at this moment; but in ecclesiastical and religious matters there were times when the current ran towards stringency, as well as tides which Tan towards laxity. They had seen revivals of that kind in other countries, and it could not be said that it was not possible that thirty, forty, or fifty years hence—he did not say through the whole Christian world—but that in particular Churches the current might run in a different direction, and that there might be a disposition on the part of the dominant party to impose a severer test than existed at the present time. They were asked to impose a legislative test, not for the present time, but for all future time. Therefore, they must carry their minds beyond the conditions of the moment in estimating the results of their present action.
  There was another objection. The decision of 1889, by the test then imposed, had the effect of sectarianising what ought to be a national institution. Their Universities were the pride of the whole people of Scotland, and the effect of that test was to narrow them. Now it was pro-
  1216
  posed by this Bill to take the test and formula of the subscription out of the hands of the State and away from the Legislature and to give it to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Surely that was giving it over to one particular denomination, whereas it was now in the hands of the nation. He could not conceive anything which was more calculated to denationalise the Universities of Scotland than to remove them from the position which they now held under the control of Parliament alone. In 1690 this power was not given over to the General Assembly, but given to a special commission consisting largely of laymen, and he would call attention to the fact that under the present law it was not the General Assemby that had the power to impose a test. It was the University in Court, subject to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It was not necessary that the holders of theological chairs, should be bound beforehand to curtain theological views. It had not been found necessary in other countries. The proper security was to leave the selection of professors to the electors, which was all the difference in the world from imposing a test and excluding everyone who did not belong to that particular body. There were other countries in which it was left to the electors. In the Universities of Germany and Holland there were no theological tests. Hon. Members would say that the Universities of Germany and Holland did not conform to the same standard of orthodoxy which was observed and desired by some people in this country; but he was told that a very large proportion of the students in the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland went to them. And it was not confined to Germany and Holland; it was the case in the United States also. He could give some instances. One was a very remarkable case, because the theological tests which existed were abolished two months ago by the governing body of the college in New York. All these things were considered by the Commissioners, and they came to the conclusion that it was quite sufficient for the purpose of keeping the Universities in harmony with the religious thought in Scotland to trust to the appointing authorities, those authorities being in some cases the Crown and in

  1217
  others the Courts. The upshot of the view of the Commissioners was summed up by the late Principal Caird, a man most generally respected for his abilities and character, when he said he was willing to leave the matter to the power of Christian truth and to the discretion of Christian men.
  Another objection that might be taken was that the Churches themselves would object. He believed that was not true. There might be some ministers and some of the laity of the Established Church who would object, but he was perfectly sure that the great majority desired it. There were many who desired a change in 1902, and he was sure great progress had been made since then. If he were asked whether the change would injure the Established Church, Scotland, or theology, he would unhesitatingly answer "No." He believed it would benefit them all, for it would immensely increase the area of choice. There was an eminent professor who died a few years ago, the late Dr. A. B. Davidson, and he did not suppose there was anybody who did so much for theological learning as he did; but he was a professor of the Free Church, and could not be a professor of the University, although, he believed, even in the Established Church there would have been a unanimous wish that he should have been, because it was felt that he was at the head of theological learning in Scotland. He believed there would be a further great benefit in the change proposed in the fact that it would bring together the students of the different Churches during their years of study. It would accustom them to know one another, and it would tend to diminish and reduce whatever little jealousy there might be. English Members, he was sure, realised how entirely at one was the theology of Scotland. Neither in doctrine, discipline, or ritual were there any differences which separated the Churches of Scotland. It was desirable, therefore, that the students of these various Churches should associate together in their student years. They were in the habit of forming aspirations for union of the Churches. No one expressed them more sincerely than the First Lord of the Treasury. Here they had an opportunity of taking a tangible
  1218
  step towards the union of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland—a step which he believed was generally approved, and if they were sincere in those aspirations for the unity of the Presbyterian Churches, let them take the step when the opportunity offered.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 20, to leave out from the word 'established,' to the word 'shall,' in line 22.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): There are many observations scattered through the interesting speech to which we have just listened with which I am in hearty agreement, but there are one or two matters which the right hon. Gentleman has brought before us and one or two arguments and one or two general views from which I very profoundly dissent. Nor do I think that he has made it quite clear, even to himself, exactly what it is he wants. The last part of his speech was aimed at a policy which should make the theological chairs of the Scottish Universities equally available to all Presbyterian Churches.
  MR. BRYCE: No. I desire to abolish all tests. I desire what was recommended by the Royal Commission—the abolition of all tests.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The last observation of the right hon. Gentleman was that the incidental result of his proposal—I put it in that way—was that the theological chairs of Scotland would be equally available and equally useful to all the Presbyterian Churches. I desire, I should desire, that the theological chairs in the Scottish Universities should be equally useful to all the Presbyterian Churches, but I do not think it would be obtained by the path which the right hon. Gentleman desires us to pursue. I think the result of carrying out his policy would be to prevent the theological chairs from being useful to the Established Church of Scotland, but

  1219
  not to make them useful to the other Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. And why does the right hon. Gentleman take the opposite view? He takes it partly upon general grounds, to which I shall advert presently, but partly on what he describes as the authority of the Commission appointed in 1889. Now I am bound to tell the Committee that, in my judgment, the right hon. Gentleman has totally misapprehended the purport of that document, and when he described, as he has described over and over again, the opinion of the majority of the Commission as recommending the total abolition of tests, and nothing more, he, unwittingly no doubt, but most completely, misrepresented the view of the body whose opinion he quoted. What he quoted was accurately quoted, but he forgot to mention to the Committee that the Report, not once, nor twice, but many times in its course, clearly laid down that if you are going to abolish tests, you would have to set up a body for appointing these professors, which would be the equivalent of a test, and which, in other words, would only appoint persons who held the theological opinions that, in its judgment, would make them useful teachers of those who were preparing for the work of the ministry in the Presbyterian Church.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did not think he had taken an incorrect view of the Report. The Commission suggested that, if necessary, other representatives might be added to the appointment board, but they recommended the abolition of tests in an unqualified way, and he did not think that the part to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was an essential portion of their proposal. For his part, he had intimated himself that if it was desired to add to the appointment authority there was no objection to that. Therefore he believed he was in accord with the recommendation of the Commission.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman is not in accord. If he will look at page 28 of the Report and the last paragraph but one, it runs as follows—
  "That the evidence appears to us to establish that the Churches are not likely to
  1220
  give their confidence to an untested theological faculty unless they have themselves a voice in the selection of the professors, and we are, therefore, of opinion that in any abolition of tests provision should at the same time be made for the constitution of boards of curators, on which the Churches may be represented."
  Mr. BRYCE: There is no objection to that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All the Churches are Presbyterian Churches. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that? One other extract. The Commissioners then discuss the kind of board it ought to be. It is to consist of four members. What are the four members to be? The Commission propose that the appointment body should consist of four members, to be appointed by the University Court. One of these four members is to be a member of the Faculty of Divinity; the other three are to be representatives of the Presbyterian Churches, one to be appointed by each. A little lower down is the sentence—
  "What we think essential for the purposes we have explained is that a special board shall be constituted, including the representative of the University Court and of the Presbyterian. Churches and of such of these Churches as may desire to have a voice in the appointment of the professors."
  I could multiply the quotations, but the policy of the Commissioners is perfectly obvious from the quotations I have made. They did desire to abolish tests, but they desired to substitute for formal subscription to any creed or formula a careful selection by persons belonging to the Presbyterian Churches in order that the confidence of those Churches might be secured in the persons of those who were to teach the future ministers of the Church. I do not believe that that can be attained unless you retain tests in some form, and, I hope, a modified form, as the Bill proposes, or unless you have such, a body as that which I have spoken of.
  MR. BRYCE: I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that they must read the whole of this Report if they are to arrive at a just estimate of what the Commission mean.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman's interruptions are so much longer than my speech that I do not know

  1221
  that I shall easily get to the end of it, though I listened with great silence and respect to the right hon. Gentleman. He now says that nobody can understand this Report unless he reads the whole of it, but he did not read the whole of it. He read misleading extracts from it, and it is to correct the extraordinarily misleading effect he produced that I am obliged to road others. The other sentence which he has quoted against me really confirms what I have said. It is exactly on all fours with the quotations which I have read, which indicate that the policy of this Commission was that tests should be removed, and that, in place of tests, we should take care that the views of the Presbyterian Churches, not Christians at large, still less religious persona at large, should be secured, for the very obvious reason that it was to the professors so selected that the education of the ministers was to be granted. I think that is undeniable. I do not deny that I have great sympathy with that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he pleaded for an absolutely unfettered school of theology. He quoted an American precedent, in which he said there was a school of theology absolutely unfettered, and in a moment of carelessness he said that all that was required of a professor there was that he was to be a Christian, though he corrected that immediately afterwards, and told us what was undoubtedly the fact—that there is no limitation in the particular educational institution to which he referred on the religious belief of the professors. I, for my part, think that such an absolutely unlimited school of theology might be extremely useful. I do not deny that. But then, probably, they would not be very desirable schools from the point of view of teaching young ministers for a particular Church.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Why?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Because I can quite imagine cases—and it would not be difficult to quote names—in which those who had contributed very largely both to the comparative history of all religions and to the actual discipline and development of the Christian religion, themselves relieved in no religion at all. That absolutely unlimited and dis-
  1222
  passionate consideration of religion is a mere phenomenon among other phenomena to be looked at from the outside, and to be regarded as one of the products of civilised humanity. I do not deny that that may be a very instructive subject of scientific investigation, but I do say that when your object is to educate those who desire to work in the ministry of a particular Church, you might have very curious results if that was one of the stages of education through which it was necessary for them to go. Whether it be a right or a wrong view, is it not the view of every Church? That is the point. It is not necessary for us to determine here whether this purely dispassionate, external, and scientific view of religion is the one on which a University chair may best be occupied or not. We need not determine that question. What we have to determine is whether, when the Church desires that there should be a school in which its ministry may be educated, it should not be allowed to make such arrangements as should give it confidence that the religion taught should be such as they desire. Of course, every Presbyterian Church in Scotland, when it comes to a practical issue, would agree with what I am saying. Have other chairs, if you like, to deal with the comparative history of all religions, or any other subject absolutely unconnected with Christianity, with one Christian Church rather than another, or with Christianity rather than Buddhism or Mohammedanism, or any other of the great religions which have influenced mankind, but do not mix that up with the other problem, which is that of providing education for a large body of the best of our young countrymen who desire to serve one or other of the great religious interests in one or other of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland.
  I hope, in the first place, we shall not by any Amendment to this Bill drag in this question of the reorganisation of the Universities, and I hope, in the second place, that we shall not prevent the relaxation of the test which the clause allows for professors. We are all agreed, I think, about the second proposition. It may not go far enough, but in the direction it goes every

  1223
  one is agreed. As regards the first, personally I think that this is not a very convenient time to deal with the reorganisation of University education. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I and my friends have been attacked for introducing Clause 5 at all, but to extend that clause from its present comparatively modest limits, so as to deal with the whole question of University tests in Scotland, would be really to give an extension to our discussions which would be deplorable on every ground, religious, educational, and academic.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reminding him that it was he, not I, who raised this question.
  MR. HALDANEagreed that it was extremely desirable to see that the Churches had theological schools where they could train their students with some sense of security. But that was not the point. The Bill made a great change. It proposed to transfer the testing of the professors from the hands of the State, where it was now, and to place it under a particular Church, viz., the Established Church of Scotland. It proposed to transfer national, not sectarian, institutions from the control of the State to the control of a particular Church. That was the source of the feeling there was on the Opposition side of the House. The present test was old fashioned, and had come to be regarded as a mere form, and people did not lay the same stress on it that they would on something that was comparatively new. What justification was there for what was now proposed to be done? They not only took away the test from the Government and put it into the hands of one of the Presbyterian Churches, but they put an obstacle in the way of the very thing they sought to accomplish—namely, to pave the way towards union among the Presbyterian Churches. If they made it more difficult for the students of the Free Church or the United Free Church to attend the lectures of the divinity professors, if the theological faculties of the Scottish Universities were to
  1224
  be faculties of one denomination, as they would be much more when this clause was passed than they were now, then certainly they would be putting a further obstacle in the way of Presbyterian reunion. He would like to see a state of things in which the students of each denomination would take their training where the best teaching was given.
  It was true that the Report pointed out that the policy of tests by itself created a certain difficulty, but it went on to say that the difficulty could be got over in several ways, one being that the appointment of theological professors should not rest simply with the University Court or whatever was the appointing body at present, but should be under the control of a specially chosen body of curators. Such an arrangement could easily be made, possibly by Ordinance, and without coming to Parliament. But what the supporters of the present Amendment were asking for was that these national institutions, for such they were, should not cease to be national by being placed under the dominion of any one Church. In Scotland the course of studies for the arts faculty had been much enlarged. Hebrew was one of the subjects which might now be taken, and under this proposal it was to be taught by a professor tested by a particular denomination. That, surely, was a very retrograde step. He had got sympathy with the desire of the Government to set free the ministers of the Established Church from the test now imposed upon them in somewhat rigid terms, but he believed the matter had been somewhat hastily dealt with, and that the draftsman had found it easy to slip in the matter of the Universities. But this question of the Universities stood on an entirely different footing, and it was because they felt it was putting back the hands of the clock that the supporters of the Amendment desired to omit the words referred to. When even King's College had been abolishing its tests it was unfortunate that the Government should propose to put the test for the theological chairs in the Scotch Universities in the hands of a particular denomination, and he hoped it was not too late for one who was very friendly to the Bill to appeal

  1225
  to the Government to consider between now and the Report stage the grave question of principle here involved.
  MR. PARKER SMITHentirely agreed with the proposer of the Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire in their desire to get rid of the tests in theological chairs, and in their ideal that there should be one course of theological training for all theological students in Scotland. At present there was great overlapping, and an altogether unscientific distribution of theological chairs. That was put forward in the Report by no one more emphatically than Dr. Fairbairn, his idea being to weld the forces and the professorships in the colleges of the United Free Church and the Universities, and to make a single theological faculty in which the students of the different Churches should take part. That, however, could not be done by the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to have forgotten that besides the question of subscription there was the test requiring the professors to be members of the Church of Scotland. Even if the Amendment were carried that requirement would remain. That being so, was it unreasonable that the General Assembly should have the power of drawing up the words of subscription? It was not a fresh limitation. It was not putting under the General Assembly chairs which now might be held by non-members of the Church of Scotland. It simply continued that part of the qualification which consisted in the requirement that professors should be members of the Church of Scotland, but relaxed that part which consisted in subscribing verbal and literal adherence to the Confession, and put the professors in the same position as ministers would be, of subscribing a general adhesion to the standards of the Church.
  He hoped the opportunity would be taken of reviving the movement for making one theological faculty in the different cities and Universities, and he believed the relaxation of the test would help the necessary negotiations between the Established and the Free Churches. What had
  1226
  to be done was to further the relaxation without rushing to such an extent that there might be a danger of the Churches declining to accept teaching without any test at all as a qualification for their students. Personally he did not believe in tests a bit. He agreed with the majority of the Commission that the professors should be chosen by a board containing members of the different Churches whose students were to be educated, who would consider it their duty not only to regard the scientific knowledge of candidates, but to look at them as men under whose charge future generations of ministers were to be trained. He hoped that would be the solution ultimately arrived at, and if he thought the Amendment would help forward such a solution he would support it. As, however, he did not think it would have that result, or that the problem could be satisfactorily dealt with in this Bill, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid he felt more in harmony with the Prime Minister than with the other speakers on this occasion. It seemed to him a reasonable thing that a Church in selecting the professors who would teach her ministers should require as much security from those professors as from the ministers themselves. As far as he could see, there was no distinction between doing away with tests for professors and taking a similar course with regard to ministers. Theological professors had much more to do with the doctrine afterwards taught than had the ministers themselves, because they practically formed the views of the students, and if the professors were Rationalists the whole ministry would probably become saturated with unbelief. For Scotland to get into the same condition as Germany in that respect would not make for advance. He did not advocate over-rigorous tests. He objected altogether to the extreme severity of the test now enacted in the Established Church, believing that it injured consciences and went beyond what they had a right to exact. But there was a great difference between

  1227
  requiring a man to subscribe to a thousand separate propositions, as was involved in the Confession of Faith, and saying that there should be absolutely no test at all. He believed that the Christian religion rested on a basis of solid truth. He did not desire to see human interpretations put too mulch to the front. In the past the Church had suffered from a far too minute and verbal theology, but he believed there were great fundamental truths at the foundation of the Christian religion, and unless a man believed those truths he was utterly unfit to be a minister of the Gospel. In every Church there must be some security that those who taught the future ministers believed those truths, and their belief must be in accordance with the main lines of Christian tradition. It was quite clear that there must be some guidance and direction in the matter and the whole thing must not be left to chance, or they would be preparing sad days for the Church of Scotland. So, balancing one thing against another, he was in favour of the clause as it now stood unless something better could be provided which would give more solid security in the future.
  MR. CHARLES DOUGLASthought the discussion must convince the Government of the very large question they had raised in this part of their Bill. He was bound to say that of all the remarkable parts of the Prime Minister's speech, perhaps the most remarkable part was that in which he complained that the subject introduced was not cognate with the Bill itself. It was not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen who had introduced this topic and it was not his Amendment. The topic had been forced upon them by the Government, and, as a friend not only of this Bill bat also of this special clause, he urged the Government to reconsider the step they were taking. He quite admitted what had been said by the Government and by the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire, that it was difficult within the limits of a Bill such as this to abolish tests because they had to provide some practical way of carrying on a school of theology
  1228
  which would ensure that it would not be left high and dry without pupils. That was an additional reason for not introducing so controversial a topic, raising and prejudicing as it inevitably did the whole question of tests and the way they were to be imposed.
  He understood that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen did not wish to press his Amendment for the abolition of tests if the Government would agree not to prejudice the question of the imposition of tests by persisting in this part of the clause. There were many inconveniences in dealing with a question like the abolition of tests, and it was very difficult to deal with. He thought they had a right to insist that this question should not be prejudiced. He did not hesitate to say that this question was being prejudiced by this particular part of the clause, because it was a very much more serious matter to have a test authorised in a new Act of Parliament at this period. A new right was being given by this part of the Bill to the Church of Scotland which it had not hitherto enjoyed, which it was most inexpedient that it should have, and which would give it a claim to resist any improvement in the future towards making the occupancy of these chairs in Universities more open to all the men who were most competent to fill them. Surely it was not reasonable at this time of day to suggest that national institutions such as the Scottish Universities should be closely bound to any particular denomination, however much respected it might be, or whatever might be its hold upon the community. That was a sort of thing which ought not to be contemplated by any Government in this House. Many hon. Members on the opposite side sincerely sympathised with the desire to relax tests for professors of theology just as much as they desired to give all reasonable liberty to the Church of Scotland. Was it reasonable that a chair subsidised by this House should be made, so far as tests were concerned, the property of a single denomination. He hoped the Government would drop this part of the scheme.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton)wished the committee to note the position in which

  1229
  the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen placed them. He proposed to leave the Bill standing in so far as it was designed to deal with the test for ministers, but to take out of it the words making it apply to professors. The result would be that whereas they would have a relaxation of tests for ministers they would have no such relaxation for professors. He confessed he did not quite follow the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddington when he recalled his very recent observations, because he now said that the test was of no effect, because the Scottish professors taught theology of the widest description. That did not altogether meet the difficulty, because he remembered that on the last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddington addressed the House on this matter he said something different. Speaking then upon University tests, he said—
  "We all know the test imposed upon Scottish professors. We all know it is a test to which hardly any honest man can subscribe his name. It is a test which implies all kinds of mental reservation and puts people in a position which certainly no one occupying the honourable and elevated position of professor of theology ought to be placed in."
  With a great deal of that he agreed—
  MR. HALDANE: I have seen so much since then of professors of theology in Scotland that I am convinced that I misjudged them. In the latitude and liberality of their view there is nothing to complain of.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid it was not the latitude and liberality of their view; it was the honesty. The right hon. Gentleman said it put men in a position which no one who occupied the honourable position of a professor ought to be placed in. There was a great deal of force in that view, and he thought there should be some relaxation. He could mot understand the position where they were dealing, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Partick reminded them, with a class of professors who must be ministers of the Church for Scotland. If they took this out of the Bill, the result would be that they would have power to relax the
  1230
  formula for ministers of the Church and they would retain that rigid and severe form of subscription which the right Gentleman the Member for Haddington had referred to in the quotation he had read. If the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen was carried out and they had a scientific and non-religious faculty in the colleges—
  MR. BRYCE: No; not non-religious.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Then scientific, which need not be Christian.
  MR. BEYCE: I said it was not to be subject to tests.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Of course they might be Agnostic or Socinian or Buddhist or non-Christian. The result would be that if they had that kind of scientific teaching in the University the Established Church would set up its own form of schools and they would not have a school for the ministry of any of the Churches just for the very reasons that induced the United Presbyterian Church and the Free Church to set up their halls. Other students could attend there and there was no distinction between the theology of the Presbyterian Churches, which were all of the same character. He was confident that the Divinity students of the Established Church would go to their halls and they would find these faculties attended only by scientific students and not by those who intended to become practical ministers of the Church. He submitted to the House that the position suggested by this Amendment was not one which would conduce to harmony in Scotland, and by adopting it they would be taking the wrong step to bring about reorganisation. He urged the House to allow this relaxation to be applied not only to ministers but also to professors.
  MR. CROMBIEwas entirely in favour of the relaxation of tests, and he was also in favour of the clause. His difficulty was that it was not a question of relaxation of tests but a question of transferring authority from the Universities to the Established Church. The Amendment of

  1231
  the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen was intended to meet this difficulty and what the Amendment proposed was the course he would like to see taken. The Lord-Advocate had said that if they took out the words suggested they would leave a very inconvenient state of matters, because while ministers would have their test relaxed, professors would not. That would be inconvenient, but how long would it remain so? No longer
  than till the Government could find some means of a lowing the Established Church some voice in the selection of professors. That could be done by an ordinance, but if it required legislation he thought there would be no difficulty on either side of the House in obtaining it
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 298.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lowe, Francis William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Arrol, Sir William

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Baird, John George Alexander

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fielden, Edward Brockleburst

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fitzroy, Hon, Edward Algernon

  Malcolm, Ian

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Flower, Sir Ernest

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

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gorst, Kt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Bigwood, James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bingham, Lord

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hain, Edward

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hardy, Laurence(Ken t, Ashford

  Murray, Charles G. (Coventry)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Myers, William Henry

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Bull, William James

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hoult, Joseph

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, John (Kent, Faveraham

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Worc.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pym, C. Guy

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bandies, John S.

  Chapman, Edward

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Coddington, Sir William

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Renwick, George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North.)

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow

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

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

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

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Tuff, Charles

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

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanark

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Wards, Colonel C. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

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

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Stroyan, John

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.)

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Partington, Oswald

  Allen, Charles P.

  Findlay, Alexauder(Lanark,NE

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ambrose, Robert

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rea, Russell

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Grant, Corrie

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Barlow, John Emmott

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Benn, John Williams

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Black, Alexander William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Robertson Edmund (Dundee)

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Harwood, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Helm, Norval Watson

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Shackleton, David James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Burns, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Sheehy, David

  Burt, Thomas

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Hutton, Alfred E. Morley

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cameron, Robert

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Spencer, Rt Hn C.R.(Northants

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Tennant, Harold John

  Chance, Frederick William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Toulmin, George

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kitson, Sir James

  Ure, Alexander

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Wallace, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lamont, Norman

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Crombie, John William

  Langley, Batty

  Walton Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Whileley, George (York. W.R-

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lloyd-George, David

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lough, Thomas

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  Edwards, Frank

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ellice, Capt EC(S. Andrw's Bghs

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Huddersf'd

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John(Montrose

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Ellis, John Edward Notts

  Muldoon, John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Newnes, Sir George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Fenwick, Charles

  Parrott, William

  Mr. Causton.

  MR. CALDWELLI that the effect of the Amendment standing in his name was that in order to make any change in the doctrine or discipline of the Established Church of Scotland, the consent of two-thirds
  1234
  of the presbyteries in Scotland would be necessary. He quite admitted that, at present, any Act of the General Assembly must have the consent of a majority of presbyteries if that Act dealt with a change of formula. At present the State

  1235
  prescribed the formula by Act of Parliament, and that made the contract between the clergymen of the Established Church and the State. That contract affected not only the ecclesiastical but the civil rights of the clergymen. It was altogether different dealing with a State Church and a voluntary Church; because in the former there were State endowments and in the latter none. In the Church of Scotland the presbyteries consisted equally of clergymen and elders or laymen. But some of the presbyteries were large and many small. Obviously, therefore, a majority of the presbyteries might not really represent the opinion of the whole Church in a matter of such great importance as a change in the formula. He did not know of any question which might give rise to more dispute in the Church as a whole than a change of formula, and he doubted the wisdom of giving to the Church the right of throwing this bone of contention, into the presbyteries where, though there were not High Church and Low Church parties, as in England, the evangelical party might object to any change in the formula and so cause dispute in the Church. Where parties were pretty evenly divided, the question in dispute might be reopened over and over again and the interests of the Church would suffer. If any question of a change of formula could only be decided by a majority of two-thirds of the presbyteries, then the chances of a final settlement would be secured. The present formula was being signed by most ministers of the Church of Scotland without much "boggle," and so far as he could see there was no great hankering for any change. Everyone knew that the Confession of Faith was a very old formula and was only understood in a very general sense; and that old Acts of Parliament were never construed in accordance with the strict language of the Act, but in accordance with the opinions of the present time. In cases of heresy, in which a clergyman was charged with not conforming to the Confession of Faith, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was the ultimate Court of Appeal; and no disadvantage was found in that now. There was, therefore, no hardship in
  1236
  asking that when any change was proposed to be made in the formularies that that should be decided by the vote of two-thirds of the presbyteries. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 24, to leave out the words 'the majority,' and insert the words 'not less than two thirds.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'majority' stand part of the clause."
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. The clause had been framed on the analogy of the Barrier Act, which was passed in 1697 for the regulation of serious changes in the constitution of the Church of Scotland, which had regulated its procedure ever since, and which had been adopted by the Free Church—he could not speak positively as to the United Presbyterian Church—as sufficient to safeguard the interests of that Church. According to the Barrier Act it was provided that for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation or other prejudice of the Church doctrine, worship, discipline, or government thereof, it was appointed and enacted that before any General Assembly of the Church should pass any Act to be binding according to the rules and constitution of the Church, the same must be made by overture to the General Assembly, and then, having been passed by the General Assembly, be sent down to the presbyteries and come back to the General Assembly for final decision. So that the change had to be before the General Assembly once, with an interval to go to the presbyteries to be passed by the majority of the presbyteries, and then come to the General Assembly to be finally disposed of. The presbyteries numbered eighty-four and they were made up of the number of parishes in the district. He agreed that some of them were small, with only five parishes; but some ran up to as many as 100 parishes.
  The constitution of a presbytery was made up in this way: every minister within the bounds was a member, and he was accompanied by an elder

  1237
  from his own session, so that the presbytery was composed equally of clergymen and laymen corresponding to the number of parishes. The Bill secured that any proposed change of formula should be first passed by the majority of the General Assembly, that that proposed change should be sent down to the presbyteries, that it must be passed by a majority of the eighty-four presbyteries, composed equally of clergy and laity, and that it must then come back to the General Assembly to be approved by a majority of its members. He, therefore, submitted that the terms of the Barrier Act, which was passed to prevent any sudden alteration or innovation or other prejudice to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of Scotland, and which had had that effect for more than 200 years, was sufficient guarantee against serious change in the constitution or doctrine of the Church of Scotland. The precautions which already existed were sufficient to meet every case, and he asked the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he felt perfectly certain that, if this power were given to the Church of Scotland, they would find as much variety of opinion in that Church as ever there was in the Free Church, and he felt certain that in that way they were throwing an apple of discord into the Church which had not existed before. He had suggested a remedy. If the State were to hand over the power to alter the formularies, they should at least take care that the decision was not left to a snap division. Everybody knew that every few of the elders attended the presbyteries at all. [Cries of "No, no!"] He had been to the presbytery of Glasgow many times, and he knew what he was talking about. The lay element was really not very much concerned in what went on in the presbytery, and he thought they would find that experience would show he was right in wishing to prescribe that two-thirds should be in favour of any change.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said they had to scrutinise the matter very carefully, because it would probably form an important precedent for
  1238
  England and Wales. It was with some I difficulty that he had been able to follow the discussion about presbyteries and elders, and he was much obliged to the Lord-Advocate for explaining the composition of the Established Church. As he understood it, it would be quite possible for the minority of the Church of Scotland to alter the doctrine of the Church. He candidly confessed he might be wrong, but that was how he understood it. The Lord-Advocate said there was great disparity between these presbyteries. In one they might have 100 parishes and in another four parishes. If, therefore, they were going to leave it to be decided by the majority of the presbyteries, they might have about a dozen presbyteries containing a majority of population overruled by seventy-two presbyteries containing a minority of population. He knew it was subject to reference from the General Assembly, but he was not sure that the majority of the General Assembly might not represent the minority of the Church as well. As he understood it, the General Assembly consisted, roughly speaking, of the ministers of the Established Church and of an elder from each presbytery; and a bare majority of the General Assembly, representing a small minority of the adherents and members of the Church, might alter the formula of the Church in the teeth of the majority of the Church itself.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid the representation of presbyteries in the General Assembly depended upon their size.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the original point he was about to make still held good, because they might have one church with 150 members with the same representation in the General Assembly as a church with 1,000 members. That was not one vote, one value. It was just like the Redistribution scheme of the Government. Therefore, a bare majority in the General Assembly, with a bare majority of the presbyteries, might carry a very important change of doctrine in the teeth of the vast majority of the people of Scotland. That seemed to him grossly unfair; and, if it were a precedent, and of course it was, it was a

  1239
  very serious one, as people in this country were beginning to realise. If that were the basis on which it was to be done, they might find in the Church of England a number of clergy, representing the minority, changing the doctrine in a particular fashion. He did not mind that so long as they were Free Churches and had their own property, created by the devotion of their own members; but when they were dealing with national property it was a different matter, and he thought it behoved the House of Commons to temper the sweeping proposal of the Government. It was very remarkable that the Government should introduce a proposal of that kind when they considered that by the judgment of the House of Lords, which the Bill was introduced to amend, a small minority was able to give its veto to a vast majority of a Church. Yet they were prepared to leave it to a bare majority to alter the formula. He should have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid he did not think the hon. Member for Mid.-Lanarkshire had correctly represented the attendance at the presbyteries.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he would make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to insist on these trifling Amendments. Really, after the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who confessed that his knowledge might not be correct, he felt that the time of the Committee was being wasted at the expense of action which he should have thought would have commended itself to ninety-nine out of every 100 Liberals.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not allow the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down to pass. He had made a thoroughly irrelevant speech. He talked about wasting time, and of his knowledge of the General Assembly. He took his information from the Lord-Advocate, and he accepted the correction he gave him.
  MR. ELLIOT: I did not say it was not correct.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Gentleman said that it was a trifling Amendment. Would he regard it as a trifling matter if the documents of the Church of England were altered by a mere chance majority. ["Question."] It was the question, surely. If it were not the question, then the speech of the hon. Member was completely out of order. If his speech were in order, then his (Mr. Lloyd-George's) speech must also be in order. Did he mean to say he would regard it as a trifling matter to allow he Convocation of the clergy, representing the minority, to alter the formula of the Church of England? If he did not, then it was no trifling matter in this case. Was it because he regarded Presbyterians as beneath his notice? If it were important in the case of one Church it must be important in the case of another, and, therefore, the observations of the hon. Member were without justification.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 115. (Division List No. 290.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bull, William James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Butcher, John George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Buxton, NE (York. NR, Whitby

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

  Beach, RtHnSir Michael Hicks

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

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Carson, Ht. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Bigwood, James

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bingham, Lord

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bowles, Gibson (King's Lynn

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J.(Birm.

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

  Brassey, Albeit

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

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Chapman, Edward

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Renwick, George

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lamont, Norman

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Crombie, John William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Denny, Colonel

  Lookwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

  Sannderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lowe, Frames William

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Smith, RtHnJ. Parker(Lanarks

  Ellice, Capt KC(S.Andrw's Bghs

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Doulgas

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leirh)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Stroyan, John

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maxwell, RtHn Sir HE.(Wigt'n

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Maxwell, W. J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tennant, Harold John

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

  Tuff, Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Warde, C'olonel C. E.

  Hain, Edward

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Myers, William Henry

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wilson-Todd, Sir WH.(Yorks.)

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Percy, Earl

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Howard, John (Kent Faversham

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Randles, John S.

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pankin, Sir James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Allen Charles P.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Chance, Frederick William

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Barlow, John Emmot

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Benn, John Williams

  Burns, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Burt, Thomas

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Brigg, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh-

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  1242

  1243

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lambert, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Edwards, Frank

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw, Charles Kdw. (Stafford)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts).

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Slack, John Bamford

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Levy, Maurice

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

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

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tomkinson, James

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Toulmin, George

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ure, Alexander

  Grant, Corrie

  Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

  Wallace, Robert

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

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Newnes, Sir George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Harwood, George

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Parrott, William

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon, Charles H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Richards, Thomas

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E.(Morley)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Hunter Craig.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Russell, T. W.

  Tones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  *MR. AUSTIN TAYLORmoved in line 24, after "thereof," to insert "any formula so prescribed shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament within the next forty days resolves that the formula ought to be annulled it shall, after the date of that Resolution, be of no effect." He said that this Amendment would, to a certain extent, meet the two points which had already been discussed, viz., that of the professorial tests, because it would retain a certain measure of Parliamentary control, and that of the majority of the presbyteries, because it would add to those already existing another presbytery in the shape of the House of Commons which would approach these questions from a more detached point of view than the existing presbyteries, and could be relied upon to give a more impartial and unbiassed opinion. But it should be clearly recognised that the Amendment raised also the much larger question of whether an Established Church was to be allowed to have a blank cheque in the matter of its formula of Subscription. He knew that this description of a "blank cheque" would be contested; but he was certain that they were giving to the Church of Scotland a blank cheque in
  1244
  respect of its formula of subscription, and if it was a blank cheque in the matter of the formula of subscription it was a blank cheque in the mutter of the doctrines and the standards of the Church. The point, therefore, to consider was whether it was possible to give that liberty in the case of an Established Church and still to consider it as having any special relationship with the State.
  On the Second Reading of the Bill the Prime Minister said that religious bodies would always find in him an advocate of freedom and of union. They could all subscribe to those words, but after all it was rather a cryptic utterance, which depended on the formula of subscription. The immediate problem before the Committee was not the general question of freedom and union in religious bodies, but the question of reconciling the freedom of an Established Church with its union to the civil power. That was a very difficult problem, and, as the Prime Minister had said, no formula had ever been found or probably over would be to fit all Churches or all countries. He was perfectly clear, however, that the principle of an Established Church is we knew it in England and Scotland was that there should be some relation between Church

  1245
  and State, not only in regard to temporalities, but in regard to doctrine and creed professed. The only question the Committee had to consider, having regard to the condition and constitution of the Church of Scotland, was as to the degree and rigour with which that principle should be applied, and he submitted with confidence that the words he proposed were the very mildest application of the principle of union between Church and State. In the matter of the Church of England the circumstances were entirely diff rent, and it was impossible to argue from the one Church to the other. At the same time, the principle was the same, and they had to consider the precedents from the point of view of the Church of England, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Carnarvon that when Parliament came to deal with the Church of England from a constructive point of view, if ever that day arrived, they would have to deal with the precedent the Government were creating by this Bill. He was sometimes charged with being an Erastian. He did not know anybody who was not an Erastian; certainly the Prime Minister was one, because only the other day the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was impossible to separate the relations of Church and State, or to prevent the spiritual from perplexing the temporal power or the temporal power from interfering with the spiritual.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In all Churches.
  *MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Yes; and I say that that is Erast anism.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I merely want my hon. friend to quote me accurately, and I am not sure that he was doing so. He seemed to think that the doctrine I laid down referred only to the Established Church, whereas it is of universal application to all Churches.
  *MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he quite recognised that, and it was merely an extension of the principle. If it was true of non-Established Churches it was certainly true of Established Churches, and it was because of the impossibility of divorcing the relations of Church and State in regard to Established Churches
  1246
  that he submitted that they were all, whether they liked it or not, Erastians. The Church of Scotland itself was Erastian. He would not trouble the Committee with the Confession of Faith in detail, but he held in his hand a statement prepared—
  "On behalf of the Church Interests Committee of the Church of Scotland with a view to explain the legal and historical position of the Confession of Faith and the formula in the Church of Scotland, and the scope of the proposed legislation in regard to the formula."
  And, while he did not accept their line of argument, he would quote as an illustration what that Committee said on the question of Parliamentary interference—
  "The objection is urged against the proposal to leave the formula to the Church that the formula may be so conceived as to abrogate important parts of the Confession, and that Parliament could not interfere if the Church took that course. This can only mean that Parliament could not consistently or in fairness interfere. But this criticism proceeds upon a misapprehension. The Confession remains ratified by Parliament as the public and avowed Confession of the Church, and Parliament gives no licence to the Church to frame a formula which is inconsistent with that enactment. The liberty given to the Church under the proposed measure must fall to be construed under reference to the Act of 1690, and if the Church were to take any action in relation to the formula inconsistent with that Act, there would clearly be ground for Parliamentary interference."
  He submitted, therefore, that there should be an end to all talk about complete spiritual independence as regarded the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland did not take up any such position in the latest memorandum upon the subject. The Church of Scotland accepted the principle, and declared that even if a formula were proposed without consent of Parliament it must still be on the lines of the Act of 1690 or Parliament would have the right to interfere. Therefore, he thought his argument held good that the Church of Scotland accepted the principle of State interference in certain contingencies even in matters spiritual.
  He wished to develop that argument further, and to point out that there appeared to be some misapprehension as to what would really be the effect of this clause. This clause would give a blank cheque to the General Assembly to make whatever formula, it liked from time to time. They

  1247
  knew that, a formula made to-day by the General Assembly would be in the direction of relaxation, but fifty years hence it might be in quite another direction. Therefore, they were leaving to the General Assembly power to make a formula which might be changed from time to time and about which Parliament would know nothing whatever. No doubt it would be argued that the formula would be governed by the Confession of Faith. So far from that being the case, he thought the formula would govern the Confession. How had the demand for this formula arisen? It had arisen because of the extreme precision and definite doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It was so precise and clear, so rigorous, and so hopelessly unflinching in all its definitions that this demand for relaxation had naturally arisen in the Church of Scotland. That being so, it was quite clear that it was the formula of subscription which was going to govern the Westminster Confession, and not the Westminster Confession which was going to govern the formula. It was not by altering the Westminster Confession that the Church of Scotland was going to modify its position, but by the more easy and practical way of substituting a relaxed formula which placed a different interpretation upon that Confession.
  He thought the Committee would recognise that what they were dealing with now was that they were being asked to give to the Church of Scotland full liberty to vary its doctrines and standards by the direct application of a modified formula of subscription to its ministers, and therefore they were making an entirely new departure in the relation between Church and State. He objected to that on two grounds. In the first place, as regarded the Church of Scotland, it seemed to him that while it was eminently desirable to give the Church liberty, it was not desirable to carry that to the point of depriving the State of all connection with the spiritual development of the Church of Scotland. It was desirable that the Church and State should be kept at least in contact as regarded the development of the Church, and he submitted that the words which
  1248
  he now proposed were eminently fitted to keep the State really cognisant of what was happening in the Church. He fully recognised the difference between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England, but he objected to this clause from the point of view of the Church of England. He was aware that a great many of his Scotch friends thought that he was needlessly alarmed, and that no precedent would ever be applied from the Church of Scotland to the Church of England. But while it was quite possible that no direct precedent could be quoted because the circumstances were different, the principle between Church and State was identical although its application might be different. Therefore he viewed a clause which was a breach of that principle with the greatest apprehension from the point of view of the Church of England.
  He would probably be told that the constitution of the Church of England was entirely different from that of the Church of Scotland. Of course that was evident to anyone who knew anything of the history of the two Churches. But while that was perfectly true, they were bound to recognise that not only was the Church of Scotland in a state of transition, but the Church of England was also in a state of transition, not only as regarded its doctrines, but in regard to a movement which in some directions was of the most reactionary character; and it was also in a state of transition as regarded its form of government. There was in the Church of England to-day a distinct movement in the direction of self-government, and therefore they had to consider in the future whether or not what was now being done was going to be a precedent in dealing with the Church of England. In the case of the Church of England he freely admitted all the difference alluded to in regard to its constitution, but, as he had already said, the Church of England was in a state of transition, and he wished to protect, in advance, this Church against the application of a principle which he believed was wholly unsuited to its present condition. Therefore, while the relations between Church and State were what they were at present in England, those who thought with him, that it was

  1249
  of supreme importance that the spiritual connection between Church and State should be maintained in England as well as in Scotland, were bound to protest against a proposal which they thought would be dangerous if applied to the Church of England.
  The words which he suggested were, he thought, the very mildest form that could be used if anything whatever was to be inserted in modification of the clause. He was sure that hon. Members from Scotland on both sides of the House would not accuse him of a desire to be provocative in regard to the Church of Scotland or the non-Established Churches, but he felt that if this clause were allowed to go through they were parting with something which they should never recover—something which might be a loss in the national life of Scotland, and which might lead to a loss in the national life of England. Therefore he felt bound to do all that he could to prevent the loss taking place. The words of the Amendment had been carefully considered. It might be fairly contended that the contingency which he suggested would never arise. He thought it was extremely improbable that in the case of the Church of Scotland any necessity for Parliamentary action would or could ever arise. The constitution of the Church of Scotland was so democratic that he did not believe that, except under most exceptional circumstances, a case for Parliamentary interference under the Amendment could possibly arise. But he did not think that ought to be an argument to any Member of the Committee who sympathised with the views he was now expressing for not inserting the words. These words were, after all, an assertion of the principle of the connection between Church and State in matters spiritual which he thought most important, and the importance of which would be more and more realised. The members of the Established Church who desired to maintain it as an Established Church would surely do well to recognise the desirability of having the changes in their spiritual development registered. The High Commissioner was part and parcel of the ecclesiastical machinery in Scotland, and it was surely desirable that whatever
  1250
  they did in the region of their doctrinal development should be laid before Parliament in some shape or other. He trusted the Amendment would receive the careful and favourable consideration of the Government. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 24, after the word 'thereof,' to insert the words 'any formula so prescribed shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament within the next forty days resolves that the formula ought to be annulled, it shall, after the date of that Resolution, be of no effect.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure the House is very anxious to come to a decision on this point, and I shall therefore abstain from yielding to the temptation of dealing with that part of my hon. friend's speech in which he criticised something which fell from me some days ago. The hon. Gentleman asks us to refuse to give to the Scottish Church a boon which he does not deny that Church desires, and which he does not deny would be a benefit to the Church, because the time may some day come when somebody in this House or the other House will point to this clause as a precedent. I do not think that is a sufficient ground for rejecting or modifying the clause. The danger, if it be a danger, is remote and uncertain, and the fact of quoting a precedent of this kind from a Church which in history and tradition is quite different from the English Church will not strengthen the case for change in regard to the English Church. If changes are made in the relation of that Church to the State or in its internal constitution, they will be made upon the intrinsic merits of the question then before the House and the country, and they will not be modified one way or another by any policy we may adopt in favour of a Church which by its history and tradition is so widely separated from its sister Established Church in this country.
  My hon. friend appears to think that there is a principle, a single principle, of establishment. But the

  1251
  smallest consideration of the constitution of the Scottish Church and its relation to the State will show that that is historically inaccurate and that can he proved by a mere appeal to history. The appeal to history is equally conclusive with regard to this particular case. My hon. friend has said over and over again that we are now taking a new departure. The new departure is a reversion to the Act of 1690, which first established the Church in Scotland. How can that be called a new departure? It is a reversion to the old original constitution of the Established Church, It is true that is modified by the Act of 1693, as the House is aware, but it was not modified with the view of drawing tighter the bonds between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Church. It was not intended to carry out those Erastian doctrines which my hon. friend very inaccurately ascribed to me. It was carried out for a perfectly different object, and in reverting to the condition of things after the Act of 1690 we are not starting a new question. We are not embarking on some unknown voyage. We are not travelling over unmapped continents. We are only giving the Church liberty in one department which it has enjoyed absolutely in another department with regard to the subscription to the Confession of Faith. As my hon. friend is probably aware from this debate, if not from a study of the question, the Scottish Church has had freedom to determine what are to be the terms of subscription for lay elders who have as integral and as inevitable a share in Church government as the clergy. The Church has exercised that power from time immemorial. It has exercised it with wisdom, discretion, and moderation, and all that this clause asks—all that my hon. friend desires to take away from it—is that the Church should be allowed to revert to its original constitution and allowed to exercise over the whole field of subscription a liberty which it has enjoyed, and never abused, with regard to a large portion of that field. I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I have always thought it a great pity when the House of Commons is asked
  1252
  to express its opinion on religious matters. The hon. Gentleman has put forward his Amendment practically on the ground of the ultimate possible effect of the Bill on the Church of England. I entirely decline to take the view that the ultimate possible effect of the Bill upon the Church of England or the clergy of the Church of England ought to have any relation whatever to the discussion and the decision of this House on any question relating to the Church of Scotland. No one who knows the history of the two countries-and of the two Churches can fail to know that in their origin, constitution, traditions, and attitude towards the State they are totally different. That is one of the reasons why I cannot follow my hon. friend. Another reason is that my hon. friend proposed that any formula which might be here-after adopted by the Church of Scotland might be annulled by the vote of one or other of the Houses of Parliament. Supposing that there was a universal wish in Scotland to vary the formula of the Church of Scotland, is a vote of the House of Lords to annul that formula? I object to that as a Scotchman entirely on principle; and, quite apart from the theological question,, on which I have no intention to enter, I think it will be a great misfortune if the Amendment of my hon. friend is carried.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he was sorry to intervene on this subject, especially as it was a Scottish one; but really the English worm must turn at last. He thought that English Members had a perfect right to intervene in this matter when they believed that a principle was involved which was wider than Scotland. The Prime Minister had said that his hon friend's Amendment would deprive the Scottish Church of a boon. His hon. friend did not propose to do anything of the kind. The Church had a perfect liberty to draw up its own formula, but what the Amendment proposed was that the change should he laid on the Table of the House, and that it might be annulled within forty days. But did anyone suppose that that would ever happen in practice? It was

  1253
  said that the Amendment would be a restriction on the freedom of the Church. They were all in favour of freedom, but they were also in favour of order. The time might come when there would be another temper in the public mind which was not in favour of freedom. The question was, was the House once and for all to part company with the principle involved in establishment, so far as the Church of Scotland was concerned? The Prime Minister had said something about different principles of establishment. Now, he contended, that there were different degrees of establishment, but there were not different principles of establishment. They all knew that the degree of establishment in the Church of Scotland was very different from the degree, of establishment in the Church of England. He was old enough to remember that the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Free Church of Scotland were divided on the question of establishment, and it was that question which divided the Wee Frees and the United Frees.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was not in order in pursuing that line of argument.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he only wanted to reply to the Prime Minister. The one thing which had brought this Bill into existence was the very principle which the Prime Minister had tried to make light of. He himself was in favour of the principle of establishment, but this was not a question of whether they held with Established Churches or not. It was a question whether if a Church was established and continued to be established, it was to stand in a proper relation to the nation. The established Church had duties to perform to the State, and the State had duties to perform to the Church. The nation through Parliament was bound to see that an Established Church did not offer a religion of which the nation could not approve. Let them do away with the Established Church if they liked, but so long as they had such an institution the principles of the establishment must be maintained. He asked the House seriously to consider before parting with the great principle of establishment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 86; Noes, 219. (Division List No. 300.)
  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman Left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  EVENING SITTING.

    ALIENS BILL.
    [THIRD READING.]
    Older for Third Reading read.
    *The SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)referred to some of the criticisms which had been made upon the measure and to changes which had been effected in its provisions. He said the whole object of the Bill was to deal with immigrants who came here in bulk at certain ports. It was only one class of passengers which came in this way and so came under the operation of this Bill. But after all, it was this class of passenger which supplied the undesirable population in this country and caused a great expense to be thrown on the rate-payers. The Government had no desire to exclude those who could maintain themselves and their dependents decently, but they did desire to prevent the rate-payers being put to the expense of maintaining those who came to this country in a destitute condition, and to keep out those who were not desirable on account of their being lunatics, or idiots, or convicted criminals. Complaint had been made that an undue charge was being placed on the shipowners in making them responsible during a certain period for the maintenance of the persons they brought over to this country and liable to take back immigrants who were found to be undesirable. He did not, however, think shipowners had any great grievance. The House must remember that the profit of bringing over aliens went to them, and
    1258
    if anyone ought to bear some liability in the matter it was surely the shipowners themselves. The complaint had come chiefly from the other side of the House; whereas the majority of the shipowners in the House sat, he believed, on the Ministerial aide, and they had expressed satisfaction at the way in which the Government had endeavoured to meet them.
    Amendments had been made in the Bill to enable transmigrants to dispense with examination, the shipowners giving security that they were passed through this country. It had been said that it was a hardship to the shipowner that he should have to provide accommodation for inspection at the quayside or elsewhere in the neighbourhood of the ship. But it must be remembered that had not a concession been made the examination would have taken place on board ship, and that if shipowners desired to avoid expense the examination could still be held on board. He had made inquiry on the subject from shipowners, and he could not ascertain that any great cost, if any cost at all, would be cast upon them. In the case of nearly all the big lines the shipowners themselves possessed buildings in which the examination could be held. It had been said that it would be a hardship if the shipowners were compelled to take back an alien who had arrived in this country before the passing of the Bill or who had passed through the machinery at the port. He thought the Member for Liverpool had proved his case, and the Bill had been modified in this respet, without, he believed, impairing the principle of the measure.
    A desire had been expressed on both sides of the House that no political or religious refugee should be turned back from these shores for want of means. It had never been the desire of the Government to exclude such refugees. The difficulty had been to find suitable words which would not offer facilities for evading the Bill. He thought that the Amendment originally proposed by the

    1259
    Prime Minister really met all the genuine cases, and that though it did not go so fax as the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean desired, the larger proportion of Members on both sides felt that it was a perfectly fair proposal. The point had been made that the Bill made destitution a ground for exclusion; but in reply to that he would urge that the class which unfortunately was generally destitute was the class which had caused a great deal of inconvenience and suffering to the working classes in certain portions of London and the country, and it would have been impossible to bring forward an effective Bill if they had not dealt with this class.
    It had been argued that it might be possible for criminals who could pay a higher fare for their sea route to come to this country in spite of the Bill. That was perfectly true; but in the third clause there were provisions for expelling them from these shores, and there were also provisions in Clause 1 which dealt with those who had been convicted under an extradition treaty. A number of these men were well known at the short seaports, and there would be no difficulty in dealing with them. The expulsion clauses would rid us of a large number of foreign criminals who had been convicted in this country and to a large extent populated our prisons, occasioning a great deal of expenditure to the taxpayers. Quite apart from the preventive clauses of the Bill, he expected that it would have a very considerable deterrent effect in preventing the class of aliens aimed at from entering the country. That had certainly been the case in America. He thought the House would be well advised to pass the Third Reading. The Government had sought to make concessions to the House and to meet certain hardships, but the principle of the Bill remained what it was when the measure was introduced, and he felt certain that if it became law proper administration of its provisions would secure the object which the promoters had in view.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MAJOR SEELY, in moving that the Bill be read a third time this day three months, acknowledged the courteous spirit in which the Home Secretary had conducted the measure through the House and Committee. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill remained the same in principle in spite of the changes made in it, and for that reason he would continue to oppose it. He did so on three grounds. First, the Bill was a sham Bill in regard to the exclusion of criminals. Secondly, it was introduced with a double purpose, and though the Prime Minister and many of his colleagues had no intention by its means of keeping out efficient and competing workmen, their supporters went up and down the country declaring that that was their object. Thirdly, it was an infraction of a high and great principle on the most flimsy grounds and for the most trifling consideration.
    It was a sham to say that the criminal could be kept out by this Bill, and the Home Secretary had practically admitted it in his speech. In order to come face to face with the immigration officer the well-known criminal would have to commit two acts of incredible folly. He would have to select an immigrant ship going to an immigrant port and get nineteen other malefactors to accompany him, and then he would have to take a steerage passage, although he need only spend a few extra shillings in order to become a cabin passenger, Supposing the foreign criminal had committed these two great acts of folly, and had at last met the immigration officer face to face, there were still several easy loopholes of escape for him. After his offence had been proved he could plead that it had a political significance, or that he was fleeing from religious persecution. If he came from a country where there was any persecution whatever going on, he would probably be able to convince the immigration authorities that he was entitled to come in. It had been computed that the odds against being killed on an English railway were 200 millions to one, and he believed the odds against catching a criminal under this Bill would be at least as great. All the authorities who had been consulted—

    1261
    including the Home Office itself, in the person of Sir Keiselm Digby—had agreed that while the powers of expulsion might be valuable, those of exclusion would be nugatory.
    Another ground of objection was that the Bill was proposed with a double purpose. It would not include a single efficient competing alien workman; that was not the intention of the Bill, nor was there the machinery to do it. The measure could not possibly have any protective effect in that direction. But he objected to the Bill also because it marked the abandonment of a great and high principle which, if not immemorial, had been slowly and laboriously built up—the principle that to keep out people because they were miserable and without means was neither wise nor right. He was glad to note that the Members who specifically represented labour in the House had refused to be seduced by the suspicious pretensions of keeping out competing labour, and they had found an unexpected ally in the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who had probably done more to amend the Bill than any other Member of the House. The noble Lord had held up the ideal of a Christian Church, all-embracing, and including all races and all colours, and contended that, however poor, persons should be admitted if they were in any way damaged or damnified by holding their creed. That was only a part of the still higher doctrine of the great commonwealth of humanity, held by hon. Members on that side of the House, and it was because they believed that humanity could be regarded as a great commonwealth that they opposed the policy of the exclusion of the poor and miserable.
    The Prime Minister had asked whether this country was to extend the Act of Elizabeth to the destitute all over the world. To that question there was a crushing reply. What was the extent of the burden imposed? According to the latest returns £13,000,000 was spent by this country in poor relief; and of that sum only £29,000 was spent in relief to aliens. For the sake of saving such a sum the Government were prepared to abandon a great and high principle. Whether it were popular or unpopular, he at any rate would continue to oppose
    1262
    so fatuous a policy. It was not as though the Government had a clean record in this matter. The very Government who proposed to exclude these people from the United Kingdom had deliberately imported into South Africa a mass of people who, according to the latest statistics, were far more criminal than any aliens who had ever come to this country. That, surely, was the height of cynicism, and then from that height they descended to the lowest depth by proposing for the sake of 29,000 paltry sovereigns to abandon a great, high, and generous principle. He begged to move.
    MR. TREVELYAN, as another unrepentant opponent of the Bill, seconded the Amendment. Recent elections had shown that there was not that enthusiasm for the Bill which hon. Members opposite had alleged, the truth of the matter being that the outside public had observed that the Opposition had been able to make good their main propositions that the Bill was trivial and that it infringed a high principle of national policy. Such popularity as it had really enjoyed had arisen from the belief that from 75,000 to 80,000 aliens came and settled in this country every year, and that the Bill would put a stop to the influx. The glamour of that protective idea had, however, largely evaporated. The spokesmen of the Government had steadily set their faces against the idea that this was a great protective measure. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had claimed it as the beginning of his protective policy, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had consistently adopted a different line of argument, and recommended the Bill as a measure of sanitary regulation, for the exclusion of criminals, and for the relief of the rates. But the Government had been unable to do anything with the argument from figures. No doubt it was impossible to give within two or three hundred the actual number of aliens who came and settled in the country, but according to the Census Returns the alien population increased on the average by 7,000 or 8,000 a year, and that number was doubtless approximately correct. What, then, became of the alleged 75,000 or 80,000? Moreover, in

    1263
    America only one in 100 aliens was excluded, and, as they excluded many classes who would not be touched by this Bill, it was only reasonable to suppose that the proportion would not reach even that figure in this country. One-fifth of the aliens excluded from America were contract labourers, and no allowance was made for religious persecution. Therefore the number excluded here would probably be very small indeed, and for this pitiful result there was to be set up a great machinery in eleven of our ports, and £24,000 of national money expended in order to save, as the Government themselves had admitted, £29,000 of local money, a large part of which was paid by aliens themselves, who in certain districts were large ratepayers.
    In one respect only had the Bill been successful—it had enabled the Government to pass another session. It was the supreme effort of legislation for this year. The Government had the magnificent record of having passed a Bill which would keep out five dinghy-loads of tatterdemalions. The Bill would set up a machinery which some future and more powerful protectionist Government, if ever there was such a one, would be able to use and extend, and he was opposed to this class of legislation and feared its extension. He gladly admitted that the right of asylum had to some extent been reserved by the Amendment that had been forced on the Government by the action of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, but the Bill still contained the detestable poverty test to which he objected. This Bill did not provide a proper method for dealing with sweaters. The sweater in this country was of British make; he was allowed to exist by our laws. If we had proper laws there would be no sweating. The British landowner who would not part with his land was responsible for overcrowding. The Opposition were only too anxious to deal with overcrowding and sweating, but they would not find salvation by excluding a shipload of aliens. We should make laws to control our monopolists, and not bully aliens in order to conceal our own neglect, indifference, and bad laws.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three mouths."—[Major Seely.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDON, referring to the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight that the Bill would not exclude foreign criminals from landing in this country, insisted that the measure would carry out what had always been the intention of the Government, namely, that the magistrates and Judges should have the power of expelling those who misbehaved themselves after they came here and put themselves in reach of the law. With regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's charge that the Bill was brought forward for electioneering purposes, he must ask him to settle accounts with his colleagues on the benches opposite and with those Liberal candidates in East-End constituencies who had, over and over again, supported the policy embodied in the Bill, and who had petitioned the leaders of the Party to allow the Bill to pass. [OPPOSITION cries of dissent.]
    *MR. CREMER: There was not one of the candidates or Members who, in asking our Front Bench not to oppose the Second Reading, expressed approval of the Bill.
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDONinformed the hon. Gentleman opposite that one candidate, after milking inquiries for himself in the constituency of Stepney, came to the conclusion that this very legislation was urgently necessary, and expressed approval of every principle contained in the Bill.
    *MR. CREMER: How many more?
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid there was also Mr. Stopford Brooke, the candidate for Bow and Bromley, who had appeared on a platform in the East End which was adorned with several hon. Members opposite, and expressed himself

    1265
    very strongly in favour of the Bill. He would also quote from his own speeches the views of the hon. Member for Poplar with regard to this legislation.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman and some of his friends are perpetually mentioning my name. I expressed my views with regard to the Bill in the Second Reading debate, and it does not seem necessary to repeat them on every occasion, especially as hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to get this Bill through. If I am silent it is not because I have altered my views.
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid he had not accused the hon. Gentleman of altering his views.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Then leave me alone.
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid he had not the slightest intention of leaving the hon. Gentleman alone. Declarations of a clear and emphatic character on this question from the Front Bench opposite were so rare that he should quote, and quote on every possible occasion, the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar. He was glad that the hon. Gentleman had not changed his views; but he could wish that he had supported them, both in the lobby and by speech, more firmly and stoutly than he had seen fit to do.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: And so obstruct the Bill.
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid they had heard in the course of this debate all sorts of charges against this Bill. They had been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that it had been introduced in consequence of a spurious agitation, that the Bill would keep out nobody, that it would inflict a great hardship upon aliens and ruin the shipping trade, and that there was absolutely no demand for it amongst the working classes or the trades unions. Let any Member who suspected it was a spurious agitation enter any of the few remaining houses in his constituency occupied by English families and hear proofs of the reality of the alien grievance.
    1266
    Every candidate, every clergyman, labour leaders such as Mr. Steadman, all believed in the necessity for such legislation, and before the Royal Commission representatives of the trades affected strongly pleaded for a Bill such as this. He yielded to no man in sympathy for the persecuted, but he could not ignore the sufferings of our own unemployed workmen displaced in their occupations and in their homes by these alien immigrants. It had been said that this Bill only dealt with a local grievance, but witness after witness before the Royal Commission urged them to report in favour of a Bill of this kind. In Yorkshire the Stockton Trades Council recently passed the following resolution to send to the Labour Representation Conference which was to be held in January next—
    "That the Labour Representation Committee be instructed to promote legislation to stop the landing of pauper aliens in this country, as being detrimental to the best interest of the workmen of this country."
    That resolution was carried by nine to five. Evidence of a similar kind was given in favour of this Bill by trades union witnesses from Lancashire, Leeds, Sheffield, and other places. Petitions had been presented from many of the leading trades unions urging the Government to legislate in the direction in which they were now doing under this Bill. The representative of the gasworkers in London said that in one large works alone there were 800 aliens employed. In face of these facts what nonsense it was to talk of the unemployed when so much employment which Englishmen were ready and willing to undertake was being taken from them by aliens. They had heard a great deal of sympathy expressed for the aliens by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but not one word of sympathy in these debates had been spoken by members of the Opposition in regard to the sufferings of our own people, who had been completely ignored by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In his own small Division of Stepney 425 houses in the past twelve months had become occupied by foreign aliens. Of these houses 379 had been occupied by English families. On a moderate estimate the 425 houses were now occupied by at least eight aliens each, so that in twelve months there had been an influx of 3,400 aliens

    1267
    into the Parliamentary Division of Stepney alone. And yet they were told no aliens were coming in and that they were a diminishing quantity. In February, 1903, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar urged the Government to introduce this legislation, and he said—
    "He did not care whether the alien immigrant were Jew, Turk, or infidel, or what nationality he belonged to; what he objected to was the refuse of Europe being dumped down on these shores."
    He further said—
    "It was stated that he trades unions could look after the working hours of these people, but destitute aliens were ready to accept very low wages and long hours, and this made it impossible in some trades for trades unions to be formed at all."
    Dealing with the housing problem the hon. Member for Poplar said—
    "It was impossible to expect that they could improve the housing of the poor so long as the refuse of the rest of Europe was permitted to come into this country. In the present condition of the working classes of this country it was not right that they should allow these destitute aliens to come in unchecked to reduce the rate of wages and lengthen the hours of work, and seriously affect the proper conditions under which labour ought to be carried out."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Does the hon. and gallant Member say that I made that statement outside of this House?
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDON: No, in this House in February, 1903.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Why do you say I have changed my mind?
    MAJOR SEELY: Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in referring to speeches made this session in the House of Commons?
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member said he was quoting from a speech made in the year 1903.
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid he would be perfectly plain with the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Poplar had made a statement in this House strongly supporting this measure which he voted for last year, but in this House this year since the Bill had been intro-
    1268
    duced the hon. Gentleman had maintained a discreet silence and had done little by vote or speech to forward the measure which he declared last year was so urgently necessary.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he could not understand why the hon. Gentleman persisted in making these violent and unprovoked attacks upon him. He had never disguised his opinion in favour of the Bill. He spoke on the Second Reading, and if he had taken no part in the subsequent debates it was because he understood the Government wanted to get on with the Bill. [OPPOSITION cries of "Withdraw, withdraw!"]
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid there was nothing to withdraw. He adhered to the opinion which he had already expressed that the hon. Member had declared himself last year strongly in favour of this Bill, and, as far as he was aware, he had done nothing this year, either by vote or speech, to support this measure. Further, his object was to show how strong the feeling was in the East End of London upon this question, and how unjust it was of hon. Gentlemen opposite to accuse the supporters of the Government of getting up an agitation of this kind, and declaring that there was realty no grievance at all. The hon. Member for Poplar said in 1903—
    "What could be simpler than to put the obligation in this matter upon the steamship companies? Quite 80 per cent. of these destitute aliens came to London; and practically the whole of them came to three ports in this conntry, and came from four Continental ports only, and there would be no difficulty about it. The administrative difficulties had been greatly exaggerated, and if the Board of Trade made up its mind to deal with this question and put the responsibility upon the steamship companies they would prevent these destitute aliens coming here."
    Those were the very things the Government had done, and would the hon. Member rise in his place and express his approval of this Bill?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Certainly; I am going to vote for the Third Reading.
    *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid he was glad to hear that. The hon. Member

    1269
    For the Elland Division appeared to argue that because they had at present crime, sweating, and overcrowding in this country they should add to those evils by importing additional evils of the same kind. He had never contended that all these evils were caused by alien immigration, but what he did say was that they were seriously increased by the great influx of poor people from Eastern Europe.
    As regarded what the Bill would accomplish it was difficult for anybody to say, until we had experience of its actual administration. He wished to be perfectly frank with the House. He did not say that the Bill contained all that he wished it to contain. He thought the clause which was proposed to exclude contract labour would have been an advantage to the Bill. He should have liked to see a clause to expel fraudulent and professional bankrupts. He thought also the limitation of twenty in the definition of an immigrant ship was too high. It should be reduced to ten, or, in certain cases, to a lower figure. But in his judgment a great step in advance had been made, and he believed firmly that the Bill, if wisely administered, would be productive of great good without inflicting any hardship on people to whom it was desirable to give domicile in this country. They would watch the results with close attention, and if it should appear, as hon. Gentlemen opposite desired that it should appear, that the Bill failed, he for one would not hesitate to press to have it strengthened. He thanked the Government for bringing forward the Bill. Any small effort which he had put forward in promoting the measure had been done wholly and solely for the benefit of the people he represented in particular, and of the country at large.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the hon. and gallant Member closed his speech by expressing his gratitude to the Government for this Bill. Might he himself express the hope that the Government would afford an early opportunity to the country of expressing its thanks. While listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member he wondered whether he really
    1270
    regarded himself as a typical and legitimate representative of English trades unions. There were a good many representatives of English trades unions and English working men in that House, and from every legitimate source or channel, working-class opinion had been one of undivided hostility to the Bill, and, therefore, he would ask the Prime Minister, when winding up the debate to-night, to tell the House from what source he got his mandate for the measure. From what source had he derived information that this measure was required by the country? The ostensible grounds on which the Bill was brought before the House were that in the present state of the law diseased, criminal, and pauper immigrants were admitted into this country.
    "Therefore," said the Prime Minister in a highly anti-protective speech, "this is not a measure associated with protective policy at all. It is a Bill to relieve the people of London especially, and the people of the country at large, from the incubus of pauper immigration."
    But the Bill was supposed to be founded on the Report of the Royal Commission. He invited the attention of hon. Members opposite to statistics with relation to pauperism among the alien population. He would take the case of the Metropolis, because it was conceded that alien immigration was objectionable in the Metropolis in a pre-eminent degree. The general percentage of pauper population in London was 7·9, whereas the percentage of pauper alien population was 2·4. Therefore, there was really no serious reason for the Bill on the ground of paupers being introduced. The Report of the Commission said that the alien immigrants who came into this Metropolis, though very poor, were sober, law-abiding, and industrious citizens. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, the protagonist of this crusade against aliens, gave the whole case away, because he said they did not really think they could prevent the landing of criminals, but they could expel them. As far as criminals were concerned, they would come in through other channels than the ordinary immigrant ship, and indeed the supporters of the measure relied not on the preventive but on the expulsive clauses. Then, in regard to overcrowding, there could be no question that even

    1271
    there were no alien immigration over-crowding would exist. In the North of London, where there were avowedly no aliens, and in Lambeth, there was a greater percentage of overcrowding than in the districts where the aliens lived.
    What was the real reason for this Bill? It had been avowed in the most candid manner by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that the reason why he supported the Bill was that it was going to stop a competing factor with British labour. He was not at all sure but that, if he believed there was serious competition with British labour from the alien population, he should be disposed to assist in the passing of some measure for the purpose of protecting our working classes.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Why do you not make up your mind?
    MR. ATHERLEY - JONESsaid his mind was convinced. What were the facts disclosed by the Commission? These facts showed that this form of competition with British labour was practically non-existent in the Metropolis. No more dishonest measure had ever been introduced in an expiring Parliament. It was intended to dupe the working classes of this country into the belief that the right hon. Gentleman was the champion and protector of British against alien labour. He objected to the Bill also because he believed that there was a serious chance of individual refugees who were fleeing from religious and political persecution being prevented from landing on what had hitherto been the free shores of England. Did the right hon. Gentleman reflect that the chief ground of the esteem and admiration felt on the Continent for Great Britain was on account of the liberty of our institutions and the right of asylum we had afforded to foreigners. Every Continental politician who had Liberal tendencies pointed with admiration to these shores as the great free commonwealth; and that right of asylum was being taken away by the Bill. There was no demand for this measure. The Labour Members were silent; the great trades unions were silent, or, if they
    1272
    had taken official action at all, it was to protest against the Bill. As a Radical and an Englishman he objected to the Bill; he believed it would receive the condemnation of the country; and he was fully convinced, and firmly hoped, that it would be struck off the Statute-book.
    *MR. STUART SAMUELventured to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had never added to the knowledge of the House on this question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman only offered his own impressions, but did not give the figures on which a Bill of this kind should rest, and he really never attempted to make out a case for the measure. The hon. and gallant Member for Stepney had indeed said that 425 houses in that borough had changed ownership since last year, but he omitted to say that the town clerk of Stepney had reported that there were 1,500 houses vacant there, and that the absence of ratepayers was becoming a serious matter for the borough. One would think from what hon. Members opposite argued that in the East End of London hordes of aliens were driving the British workman away, and putting him upon the rates, but the town clerk also reported that very day that there were no aliens in Whitechapel in receipt of Poor Law relief, whereas in Poplar, where there were no aliens, 6,000 people were receiving out-relief.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that the hon. Member, when he was giving the statistics of Whitechapel, omitted to say that in that district it had been the policy of the boards of guardians for years past not to give out-relief, while in Poplar it had been the policy to extend out - relief. Besides this, the Jewish Board of Guardians in Whitechapel had contributed enormously to the relief of the foreign population.
    *MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not improved his position by his interruption. The Jewish inhabitants paid their rates just the same as the British inhabitants, but they got no benefit from them. The Jews cared for their own poor.
    MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that the amount of out-relief given in Whitechapel was no indication of what the alien population was.
    *MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that the aliens did not receive any outdoor relief from the rates. There were a few sober facts which he wished to bring out. The total cost to the whole country for the relief of aliens last year was £29,000; and he asked how many aliens could be supported for a whole year on that sum?
    SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked if the hon. Gentleman would state what the expenditure of the Jewish Board of Guardians was?
    *MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that what the Jewish Board of Guardians expended was not a charge on the ratepayers of this country. His point was that the alien did not drive the British working man on to the rates. They must come back to the fact that the total cost of the aliens throughout the country last year was £29,000. He knew that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not like these figures and studiously avoided them. When the Secretary to the Board of Trade, relying on the Board of Trade Returns, said that 75,000 aliens came to this country it was not a fair statement, as the Board of Trade Returns did not give the number of aliens who went out to other countries. From his own personal knowledge, and as a member of the Jewish Board of Guardians, he was aware that large numbers went to other countries, assisted by charitable means, and large numbers on their own initiative. The Secretary to the Board of Trade might just as well say that the Bank of England was bankrupt because it passed out so many sovereigns, if no account were taken of the sovereigns that came in. The charge of the Prime Minister that the aliens reduced the standard of living here was a difficult one to meet, and if substantiated would be a just reproach. But in St. George's-in-the-East, which had a large alien population, the birth rate was recently 52 per 1,000, or nearly double that of London, while the deaths were at the rate of 12·3 per 1,000, the lowest ever
    1274
    known in the district. It was not likely that such figures would be found among people living in conditions likely to reduce the standard of life. Dr. Thomas, medical officer of health for Stepney, stated in his annual report that in Stepney nearly 20 per cent. of the population were not legally married. But that estimate was only arrived at after excluding the Jews. That did not suggest that the aliens reduced the standard of living, nor did the fact that 98 per cent. was frequently the figure of school attendance, or that forty two public-houses were recently closed in his district. He could point to street after street in Whitechapel and Stepney which were formerly dens of thieves and down which in his experience policemen had been afraid to go, but which were now perfectly safe owing to the settlement of aliens there. If the Government did anything to interfere with the trade brought there by aliens they would regret it, for many British workpeople who were employed in these trades would suffer. The Bill had been announced as for the benefit of the working classes and also in relief of the Jews from burdens thrown upon them. But as the Labour Members had denounced the Bill on behalf of the working men, so he denounced it on behalf of the Jews, who desired no protection from the congenial task of succouring those not so fortunate us themselves and who did not limit their succour to people of their own race or religion. This country had a great reputation for its generosity to oppressed peoples throughout the world without regard to their religious beliefs. He suggested to the Government that this country had not altered in that respect.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that every one recognised the claim of the last speaker to be heard on this question, and he wished every Member had shown such moderation of tone, and assured him that the Bill was in no way directed against the ancient religion which he professed. It was in no sense an anti-Semitic Bill. He entirely dissented from the view of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Durham that there was no demand for a Bill regulating the immigration of aliens.

    1275
    No subject had been more constantly before the House; and a Select Committee in 1889 called attention to the evils which existed from the non-regulation of alien immigration, and said that it was the bounden duty of the Government to take the question up. He confessed his admiration at the way the Bill had been handled by the Home Secretary. His complaint was that the Bill had been too long delayed, but he congratulated the Home Secretary for his cautious and able handling of it, and thanked the Government for persevering with it, and the First Lord of the Treasury for the energetic way in which he had brought it forward this session. A great deal had been made of the comparatively small number of aliens that came upon the rates; but the fact that a large number of our own people were deprived of their homes and means of livelihood owing to this uncontrolled foreign immigration was not taken into account.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that the Committee distinctly stated that there was no proof of that.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Nothing of the kind. The Select Committee, of which he was a member, in their Report of 1889 distinctly called attention to the considerable number of our own people who were deprived of their homes and their livelihood by aliens. That was the real cause of the rise of the rates in this country. Then it was said that the Bill was imperfect, but no Bill that ever passed the House was an absolutely perfect Bill. There must be some imperfections, and to his mind one imperfection in this Bill was that it would throw a considerable cost on the people of this country, which the aliens themselves who came to this country ought to bear. In the United States every alien who gained admission had to pay a fee of two dollars to meet the expenses of the immigration department. Unfortunately there was nothing of that sort in this Bill. We could not keep out all the undesirables, but he was perfectly certain that a very great preventive measure had been passed which would make aliens hesitate before
    1276
    coming into this country. He thanked, the Government for bringing forward the Bill, and he hoped it would soon become, law.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not grudge the hon. and gallant Gentleman the tone of jubilation which he is able to show to the House to-night; and I only hope that a few years hence it will appear that this Bill has been as perfectly ineffective as the Prison Goods Bill, and less dangerous, and injurious to the trade of this country than the Trade Marks Bill—the great measures with which his name will always be associated. The Bill before the House is one which has been greatly talked about in the country, and two great efforts have been made, last year and this, to pass some Bill of this kind into law. On the Second Reading of the Bill I was unable, with a great many others, to vote for it, although quite willing to take part in any reasonable proposal for the exclusion of those who were literally and unmistakably undesirable aliens. But I could not vote for the Bill until I saw what shape it would finally take under the manipulation of the Government and the supporters of the Government. Now, at the end of the career of the Bill, I find that there is one great fault in it, which is of itself enough to make me vote against it, as I shall. It is that the Bill is one which draws a distinction between the poor and the rich, or rather between the destitute and those who have a little money to produce when they come among us. I cannot imagine anything less in accordance with the general spirit and characteristic of our countrymen than that that should be the particular ground upon which a man is to be excluded. The hardest-working man, the most laborious and intelligent man, the man the most likely to make a good citizen, if he settles here, and to do his duty by those belonging to him and those who live around him, has no chance to come into this country unless he has money in his pocket. But the worthless man, the scamp, the lazy man, the man who is not likely to add either to the prosperity of other people or his own, can come in if he has money in

    1277
    his pocket. That is a plain statement of the fact, and it is quite enough to condemn this Bill.
    I have no intention of detaining the House more than two or three minutes. ["Hear, hear!" from an hon. MEMBER on the GOVERNMENT Benches.] I am obliged to the hon. Member for the extremely courteous interruption. If he does not agree with me in opinion, perhaps he will get up and state his opinions, if he is in a condition to do so. Besides this cardinal sin, on account of which, if nothing else, I would condemn the Bill, there is that which has been demonstrated again and again through the course of these debates—the impracticability of the provisions of the Bill, the ridiculous results to which we are reduced when we attempt to follow out what will happen when the provisions of the Bill are brought into force. There is one thing to which my attention has been called to-day which I will mention as an instance of what I mean. Shipowners before taking a transmigrant on board ship to go to the United States or our Colonies will now in self-defence be obliged to refuse to take him on board unless he stays six months in this country, lest they should be under the necessity of maintaining him for the rest of his natural lite; so that the Bill sets a premium upon constituting in this country the residence for six months at least of the very class from foreign communities whom the measure professes to exclude. The Bill is full of absurdities of that kind. I admit that it has been improved in one important respect—namely, the treatment of the refugee. It is better, although not so complete or so clear or effective as we should have liked. Still, it is vastly improved from what it was originally. But the whole of this legislation from first to last has been faulty legislation, because it was insincere legislation, because it was known to be a mere pandering to a strong prejudice in certain limited localities in this country; and it would have been much better to have allowed the small number of real undesirables to come in rather than to create all the expense and the turmoil and the elaborate machinery, and, as I think, the contradiction to the whole tenor of the policy and the sympathies of this country
    1278
    throughout generations which have been created by this Bill.
    The Bill will, of course, become law; that has been evident from the first. The one thing which reconciles us to it is that it will do, after all, but little harm. The very absurdity of many of its provisions and the unworkable nature of the machinery will defeat to a large extent the purpose of those who have been anxious to see it passed into law. We have not yet been made quite sure whether it is intended to be the first step in a long process of active protection. It has been claimed on that ground—[An HON. MEMBER on the GOVERNMENT Benches: "No."]—it has been claimed on that ground by the hon. Member for West Birmingham—claimed by him as the first step in the glorious progress towards the shutting out not only of the foreigner, but of his goods. I do not think that the Government have quite openly accepted that view of their work, but so far as it tends in that direction that is an additional reason for our opposing it. But I can only express my regret that the session has been mainly devoted to such a Bill, for this is the great work of the session for which we have to curtail the opportunities of considering Supply, and for which we have to sacrifice other much more useful measures. I regret that the great work of the session has been one of such a character as not only to be likely to be of little use for the purpose for which it was intended, but also to impose upon this country a new character in the eyes of the world, a character which our fathers before us were always most anxious and careful to avoid.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The right hon. Gentleman who has just denounced the Bill tells us that his chief motive for opposing it now is to be found in the obvious insincerity and the obvious inadequacy of the clauses which it contains. Well, so far as I am aware nothing has occurred since the Second Reading either to make the clauses less efficacious or to make the character of the Bill less sincere. But on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman did not

    1279
    take this heroic line. He did not indulge in this vein of eloquent patriotism or appeal to the shades of our forefathers-Unless my memory greatly deceives me, he and his friends took the safer course of walking out of the House, and with a great effort of self-control avoided expressing the feelings doubtless boiling in their breasts, at a time when according to the practice of the House it is most appropriate to show them. Who can tell what might have happened had the right hon. Gentleman and his friends taken this stand on the Second Reading, and, speaking for a united Party, expressed the emotions to which he had referred at half-past eleven on the last night of the Bill, when, as he truly observes, it is quite obvious that the Bill must pass into law?
    There was one other, I thought very unnecessary, taunt which the right hon. Gentleman levelled against those who sit on this side of the House. He said that this Bill was protective in its character. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in any of the clauses of the Bill which is open to that objection, or that praise, whichever it be, according to the view of the particular individuals who express their opinions on the measure. As far as I know, there was only one attempt, to make this a protective measure and that was a strenuous, and an explicit attempt, and the whole of the Opposition marched into the lobby as one man to support it. I do not know, but my personal belief is that the right hon. Gentleman, who takes this rather belated occasion to denounce the Bill as a protective measure, did vote in favour of an Amendment to that Bill that was distinctly, obviously, and avowedly designed to prevent the com-
    1280
    petition of the foreign with the British working man.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing those of us who voted for that Amendment an unwarrantable injustice, because there was not a single attempt in the direct of protection. We simply tried to guard the introduction of foreign workmen in the case of disputes between employers and employed.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is that free trade?
    MR. JOHN WILSON: That is entirely free trade and, in our opinion, as free-traders, we were acting in accordance with the principles of free trade and not in favour of protection.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I voted for the Amendment because I thought it was protective.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think my hon. and gallant friend was quite consistent. I do not complain of the Amendment; but the hon. Member will see on reflection that if the word protection is used in connection with this Bill it can only mean the exclusion of foreign labourers when they come in to compete with British labour. The Amendment was to exclude foreign labourers coming into this country in certain circumstances to compete with British labour, and it was for no other purpose whatever that the Amendment was moved.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: In times of strikes only.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is competition. No one who dispassionately considers the question—great as is the confusion that appears to affect controversy on the subject—can doubt that whatever protection may mean in connection with the migration of human beings, the effect of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman opposite introduced, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite voted for, is protective and nothing but protective.
    But I should be sorry that the last words spoken on this Bill should be spoken in a controversial vein; and nothing that I have to say will be of a kind really to raise personal controversy on either side of the House, however little my views may be agreed with. We have been accused on this side of the House of having unduly desired to restrict that hospitality which has for generations been extended by us to all and sundry who desire to come to our shores, whatever be their race, whatever be their religion, whatever be their politics, and whatever be their social status. For my own part, I altogether repudiate that view. It must be remembered that hospitality, though a virtue, is not obligatory either upon individuals or upon nations; and if you want it to be practised, either by an individual or by a nation, it is really in the highest degree desirable that it should not be abused; because the inevitable effect of its abuse is to induce restrictions, probably excessive, to be placed on the exercise of that hospitality, and to prevent what is in him who offers it a virtue and to him who receives it a great blessing and advantage. If I am any judge of the failings of nations, not only in Europe, but all over the world, one of the great
    1282
    and growing difficulties arises either from their excessive restrictions on hospitality to other nations or from the harsh treatment which a people like the Jews too often receive among some of the Eastern peoples of Europe. If it be, as I think it is, a genuine danger, lest we should be as restricted as, for instance some of our Colonies are, or even lest we should put as severe limitations as the United States of America put upon immigration, or lest we should do as many Continental nations do, who, from geographical conditions, do not attempt to stay immigration, but who treat in the most abominable fashion many of those who are born, within their borders—if we are to do that it is plain and, I think, expedient in the interests both of the original inhabitants of these islands and of those who desire to come to us, that we should not permit any abuses in connection with that immigration, any abuses that we can help—and that those abuses should be diminished to the utmost so that the hospitality which we shall extend in the future will be like that of the past, so that those who come among us will be accepted gladly and gratefully, and will become, as we are, citizens of a free country, and like ourselves will enjoy every advantage which that free country can give.
    One hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite me, the Member for Whitechapel, made, as I think, a very undeserved attack upon me the other night in connection with the great body of coreligionists to which he belongs. I think he will admit that there is, no doubt, a danger, not, I hope, at present a great danger, but a real danger, that some of the difficulties from which the Continental nations now suffer might arise

    1283
    if we left this question untouched. We owe an enormous debt to the manner in which the Jewish community in Great Britain has striven to prevent anything of the kind happening. They have, with magnificent and organised generosity, done an immense amount to prevent the evils of which I speak. I do not think they are behaving with wisdom in ranging themselves in opposition to this Bill, as if we had wholly different aims from those which they have. I do not think we have. Of course, it is impossible by any system at the disposal of the Government to exercise the judicious and generous selection which they can exercise and do exercise. They, I think, repatriate large numbers. They do not welcome all of their religion who come over. They are able to say to this man, "You should return," and to another man, "We will provide for you," and to discriminate between the cases, so that the burden of the Jewish immigrant, at all events, is made as small as possible to the country into which he immigrates, and of which he ultimately becomes, no doubt, a valuable citizen. I will make a further suggestion, if they will allow me to do so. We have heard a great deal of the possibility of Jews and others—for the moment I confine myself to the Jews—coming to this country in an absolutely destitute condition, and being rejected, wider this Bill, from our shores, although they were flying from religious or political persecution. Nobody desires that such a contingency should occur; and I cannot believe, and do not believe, that while the number of such immigrants is at all upon the same plane that it is at present there will ever be any difficulty in that regard. The great Jewish community, without the smallest difficulty,
    1284
    can see to it that no man seeking the hospitality of this country should ever be rejected from these shores. I do not know whether any change in the actual machinery which they use would be required to attain that purpose; but that it could be attained by that great organisation without difficulty I do not question at all. Whether it would be possible to deal with other nationalities in the same way it is a matter of difficulty to ascertain; but that it could be done with regard to every Jewish immigrant is, I think, plain on the face of it, and will hardly be denied by anybody.
    The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down complained of this Bill because he said it was founded upon a distinction never before admitted in our legislation, a distinction between the poor and the rich, or, as he corrected himself, between those who are just above the extreme limits of poverty, and those who are not above those limits. I do not think he put it accurately. It is not the possession of wealth that is required in the immigrant, it is the possession of some means by which he can support himself and his family in this country. Now, is that either an unreasonable or a sordid distinction? Remember that every man who comes to this country immediately obtains a privilege which, so far as I know, is not enjoyed by right by the citizens of any other country in the world—namely, the right of going, upon the public rates for his support. It may be true, and it is true with regard to one great community, that they take care of their own people. But, of course, we cannot, and we ought not to, deal simply with one community in this consideration; and I think it is not

    1285
    merely carrying sentimentality to excess, but it really is a most unstatesman like view to take to say that the distinction between a man who can support himself, and a man who would have to be supported by the rates is one that is either mean, or sordid, or negligent. It is not negligent and ought not to be negligent.
    MR. EMMOTT: Seven and sixpence makes all the difference between a cabin passage and steerage.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Bill will not keep out anybody, so far as I can gather, who ought not to be kept out. But that is a different proposition, and no Bill could be framed to keep out everybody. Let us be content if it keeps out a great many who ought to be kept out and does not keep out anybody who ought to be admitted; and I believe this Bill will attain that object. To what countries is it that the oppressed, whether they be the Roman Catholic of Poland or the Jew of Russia, look for happier circumstances in which to live their lives? It is to the English-speaking countries, and without any exception at present, save this country, without any exception at all after this Bill is passed, they put some restriction on immigration, and they largely base that restriction on the very consideration which is described as so mean and so contemptible by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The United States, doubtless, is not a perfect community. It has its faults like any other community. But will anybody assert that it is an ungrateful recipient of the oppressed of other nations? Will anybody assert that it is indifferent
    1286
    to freedom, that it looks with an unmoved eye upon the sufferings of the oppressed and the unhappy in any nation? I do not think that anybody who knows the United States, I do not think anybody who knows any community sprung from British stock and enjoying institutions derived from British sources, will allege that that is the fact. But all these nations, the homes of the oppressed by the admission of the entire civilised world, put, so far as I know restriction on immigration; and in every case the restriction is far severer than that which in imposed by this Bill. In there circumstances, in the interests not merely of those for whom my hon. friends on this side of the House have spoken, and spoken in not too excessive terms, but in the interests of those who desire to find a home in this country, and in the interests, above all, of that spirit of equal consideration for all citizens of this land which we at present possess, and which is the heritage of so few other nations—in all these interests I would beg the House to pass this Bill. There are in this House many able representatives of the people who, either themselves, or their fathers, or their ancestors, came over and have received hospitality among us, and whom we regard, I need hardly say, as our equals in every respect, as supporters in common with us of the institutions of the country which they serve and which we serve. If ever we lose that precious heritage of an equal charity to all citizens of this country, we shall lose one of the most precious things that we now possess; and it is because I believe that a Bill like this, moderate, reasonable, and practical, will conduce to that great end that I shall certainly vote for its Third Reading.
    MR. FENWICKsaid there was some language which fell from the hon. Member for Sheffield a short time ago which, he thought, ought not to be allowed to go unchallenged. He told them that the great opposition to the Bill, as judged by the Amendments on the Paper, came from that side of the House. If he would take the trouble to look at the Order Paper for the first day on which they went into Committee on the Bill—and that, he took it, was the true test as to the source from which the opposition came with reference to any Bill—he would find there were 149 Amendments, ninety-five of which stood in the name either of the Government or their supporters, and only fifty-four in the name of the Opposition, showing that there was twice as much opposition to the Bill from the Government side of the House as from his.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: How many were moved?
    MR. FENWICKsaid his object in intervening in the debate was simply to state the grounds, in a few words, on which he should vote against the Bill. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and also with the Leader of the Opposition that there was no sincerity whatever about the Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield maintained that there was a popular demand outside the House for it, and he agreed with him that, if that did exist, the Bill was overdue. Ten years ago the Prime Minister and every Unionist candidate put the question in the forefront of his
    1288
    political programme, but till now there had been no attempt to deal with it. If they were sincere in dealing with the question and if it were not merely an electioneering dodge [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Perhaps he ought not to say "Dodge' and he would withdraw the term [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"] and take one of the Prime Minister's, which was better. If it were anything more than a Parliamentary manœuvre for electioneering purposes, then, he thought, they should have had the measure before now. They could not plead that they had been too busy with other things, they had had abundance of time. He maintained that it was no more urgent to-day than it was in 1895. In all those years they had been subsidising special classes and interests; and here was a question which was of urgent public importance and in which every member of the industrial classes of the country was interested—he referred to the Workmen's Compensation Bill—to be crowded out this session in order that they might pass a measure of this kind which interested a few localities from which the Government chiefly drew their own supporters. Under these circumstances he thought they were justly entitled to enter their protest against a measure which was certainly not demanded by the working classes, and which was occupying valuable time which, in his judgment, might have been devoted to the promotion of legislation anxiously and urgently demanded on behalf of the whole of the working classes throughout the United Kingdom.
    Question put.
    The House divided:— Ayes, 214; Noes, 136 (Division List No. 301.)

    AYES

    Allen, Charles P.

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Price, Robert John

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Hayter, Kt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Bean, John Williams

    Higham, John Sharp

    Russell, T. W.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Shackleton, David James

    Brigg, John

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Burns, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Slack, John Bamford

    Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants.

    Caldwell, James

    Lambert, George

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Chance, Frederick William

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Tomkinson, James

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Toulmin, George.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Levy, Maurice

    Ure, Alexander

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lloyd-George, David

    Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.

    Delany, William

    Lough, Thomas

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

    Fenwick, Charles

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Fiudlay, Alexander(Lanark,NE

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh. N.)

    Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Partington, Oswald

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Paulton, James Mellor

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Grant, Corrie

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Mr. Austin Taylor and Mr. Harwood.

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Ellice, Capt E C(S. Andr's Bghs

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants-

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John(Montrose

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Arrol, Sir William

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Myers, William Henry

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Newnes, Sir George

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Flannery, Sir Forteseue

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Baldwin, Alfred

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Parrott, William

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Percy, Earl

    Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Ham, Edward

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bhownaggree, Sir W. M.

    Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bigwood, James

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Purvis, Robert

    Bingham, Lord

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Randles, John S.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords. NW

    Rankin, Sir James

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Brassey, Albert

    Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Renwick, George

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Richards, Thomas

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hoult, Joseph

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Bull, William James

    Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Butcher, John George

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Buxton, N. E.(York, NR Whitby

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Joicey, Sir James

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

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

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A(Worc.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

    Chapman, Edward

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Lamont, Norman

    Smith, Rt. Hn J Parker(Lanarks

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

    Langley, Batty

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Stroyan, John

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Long, Col. Charles. (Evesham)

    Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

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

    Crombie, John William

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Tennant, Harold John

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm, Edw. M.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Tuff, Charles

    Denny, Colonel

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Wallace, Robert

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Malcolm, Ian

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wigt'n

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Maxwell, W JH.(Dumfriesshire

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

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Loyd

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und, Lyne

    1256

    1257

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Wolff, Guatav Wilhelm

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

    and Viscount Valentia.

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

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

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

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehnrst

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Malcolm, Ian

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Balcarres. Lord

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Marks, Harry Hananel

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Foster, Philip S.(Warwick S,W)

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wignt

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Melville, Bereaford Valentine

    Balfour. Kenneth R. (Christch.)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rHm'lets

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants

    Beaumont. Wentworth C. R.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Bigwood, James

    Hain, Edward

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Bingham, Lord

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham, (Bath

    Bond, Edward

    Hamilton, Marq.of (L'nd 'ndery

    Newnes, Sir George

    Brassey, Albert

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashford)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bull, William James

    Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW

    Peel. Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Butcher, John George

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Percy, Earl

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick N.

    Carton, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Howard, John (Kent Faversham

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Purvis, Robert

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A.(Wore

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Pym, C. Guy

    Chapman, Edward

    Hunt, Rowland

    Randles, John S.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Rankin, Sir James

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Jebb, Sir Richard Glaverhouse

    Reid, James (Greenock)

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

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

    Renwick, George

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lamont, Norman

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

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

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

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

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lowe, Francis William

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Smith, Rt Hn J Parker(Lanarks

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

    1290

    1291

    Spear, John Ward

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

    Tuff, Charles

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Stroyan, John

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

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

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Whiteley, H. (Aston und Lyne)

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Parrott, William

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Power Patrick Joseph

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Rea, Russell

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hammond, John

    Reddy, M.

    Benn, John Williams

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richards, Thomas

    Black, Alexander William

    Harwood, George

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Boland, John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Brigg, John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rose, Charles Day

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Russell, T. W.

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Joicey, Sir James

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Burns, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Hurt, Thomas

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Buxton, N.E. (York, NR Whitby

    Joyce, Michael

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Caldwell, James

    Kennedy, Vincent P,(Cavan, W)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

    Slack, John Bamford

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Levy, Maurice

    Sullivan, Donal

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lough, Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cullinan, J.

    Lundon, W.

    Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

    Delany, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

    M'Fadden, Edward

    Tomkinson, James

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    M'Kean, John

    Toulmin, George

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Kiliop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Ure, Alexander

    Dobbie, Joseph

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Weir, James Galloway

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Muldoon, John

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Murnaghan, George

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ellice, Capt EC(S. Andrw'sBghs)

    Murphy, John

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Ellis, John Eaward (Notts.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Emmott, Alfred

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

    Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

    Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

    Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Huddersf'd

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Young, Samuel

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, W.)

    Field, William

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fmdlay,Alexander(Lanark N.E

    O'Dowd, John

    Major Seely and Mr.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Trevelyan

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Malley, William

    Main Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 302.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir HE.(Wig'tn

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Balcarres Lord

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

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

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Forster, Henry William

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds)

    Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, SW.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Murray, Charles B. Coventry

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Newnes, Sir George

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Groves, James Grimble

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bigwood, James

    Hain, Edward

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Bingham, Lord

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

    Percy, Earl

    Bond, Edward

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Brassey, Albert

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Brotherton, Edward Alien

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Purvis, Robert

    Bull, William James

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Randles, John S.

    Butcher, John George

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Rankin, Sir James

    Buxton, Sydney Charles (Poplar)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Carlile, William Walter

    Howard, John(Kent Faversham

    Renwick, George

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Cavendish, V.C. W.(Derbyshire)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Wore.

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Chapman, Edward

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Colston, Chas, Edw. H. Athole

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Laurie, Lieut-General

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants Fareham

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Smith. Abel H.(Hertford, East)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanarks

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

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

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

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Spear, John Ward

    Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon

    Lowe, Francis William

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

    Tuff, Charles

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    and Viscount Valentia.

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

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

    Reddy, M.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Richards, Thomas

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Barry, E. (Cork. S,)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Black, Alexander William

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Boland, John

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Rose, Charles Day

    Brigg, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Russell T. W.

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

    Joyce, Michael

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Kennedy, Vincent P(Cavan, W.)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Burt, Thomas

    Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

    Sheehy, David

    Buxton, NE.(York, NR, Whitby

    Lawosn, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Caldwell, James

    Levy, Maurice

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Lough, Thomas

    Slack, John Bamford

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Lundon, W.

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR.(Northants

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    M'Fadden, Edward

    Sullivan, Donal

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Delany, William

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

    Murnaghan, (George

    Tomkinson, James

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Murphy, John

    Toulmin, George

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Doogan, P. C.

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

    Weir, James Galloway

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    O'Brien- Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    O'Connor John (Kildare W.)

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

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

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    O'Dowd, John

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, K.)

    Young, Samuel

    Field, William

    O'Malley, William

    Findlay, Alexander(LanarkNE

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Parrott, William,

    Major Seely and Mr.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Trevelyan.

    Hammond, John

    Rea, Russell

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    TRADE UNIONS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    PUBLIC MEETINGS (FACILITIES) BILL [LORDS].
    Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
    Order for Second Beading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
    Adjourned at twenty-four minutes after Twelve o'clock.