Sitting of 25 July 1905

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  174
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill (by Order); Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill (by Order); Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill (by Order); London and North Western Railway Bill (by Order); Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill (by Order); Dublin United Tramways Bill (by Order); Midland Railway Bill (by Order); Skegness Water Bill (by Order); Woolwich Borough Council Bill (by Order). Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till To-morrow.
  Formby Township Bill [Lords] (by Order); Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order); Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order); Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [Lords] (by Order); Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [Lords] (by Order); Sheffield University Bill [Lords] (by Order); South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords] (by Order). Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [Lords] (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next (Evening Sitting).
  Littlehampton Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order); Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting) Bdl [Lords] (by Order); Bristol Blind A sylum Bill [Lords] (by Order); Corbett Estate Bill [Lords] (by Order); County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order); Humber Conservancy Bill [Lords] (by Order); Southport, Birk-dale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords] (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
  Earl of Stamford's Cheshire Estate Bill [Lords] (by Order); Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Thursday (Evening Sitting).
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill [Lords]. Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  175
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday (Evening Sitting).
  South Barracas (Buenos Ayres) Gas and Coke Company, Limited, Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
  That they have agreed to—Shipowners' Negligence (Remedies) Bill; Rotherham, Maltby, and Laughton Rail-way Bill; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill; Caledonian Railway Bill; North British Railway (General Powers) Bill; Rhondda Urban District Council Bill; Liverpool Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Paisley District Tramways." [Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation Tramways. [Glasgow Corporation (Tramways Consolidation) Order Confirmation Bill [lord.]
  Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and ordered, under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 282.]
  MR. JOHN ELLIS(Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe) asked if it were not the duty of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under the Standing Order, when objection was taken to a Bill to put it down for an evening sitting.
  MR. SPEAKER: The duty of the Chairman of Ways and Means is to fix a time—not necessarily an evening sitting. It might be that a Bill objected to to-day would m not be objected to to-morrow.
  176
  But Bills opposed on the merits must eventually go to an evening sitting.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): Cannot a discussion be taken on an opposed Bill at two o'clock, and the Bill be passed if the opposition is disposed of by 2.15.
  MR. SPEAKER: I believe that strictly according to Standing Orders it could be done, but it is obvious if one Bill is thus dealt with others on the Paper subsequent to it and unopposed would be endangered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): Could a division be taken after 2.15?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think not.
  Glasgow Corporation (Tramways Consolidation) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and ordered, under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
  Copy presented, of Charter of Incorporation of the Borough of Wimbledon, dated July 24th, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHIPPING CASUALTIES (1903–4)
  Copy presented, of Abstract of the Returns of Shipping Casualties which occurred on or near the Coasts or in Rivers and Harbours of the United Kingdom from July 1st, 1903. to June 30th, 1904, and of the Returns of Sniping Casualties to British Vessels elsewhere than on the Coasts of the United Kingdom, and to Foreign Vessels on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of British Possessions Abroad, etc., with Charts and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
  Copy presented, of Report on Strikes and Lock-outs of 1904, and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POWER BRAKES ON RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered April 10th; Mr. Bell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 256.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3454 to 3456 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "giving the number of Arrests for Drunkenness within the Metropolitan Police District of Dublin and the cities of Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Watorford, from the hour of 8 a. m. on Sunday till 2 p. m., from 2 p. m. to 7 p. m., from 7 p. m. to 9 p. m., from 9 p. m. to 12 midnight, from 12 midnight to 8 a. m. on Monday, between May 1st, 1904, and April 30th, 1905, both days inclusive, the arrests being given from 8 a. m. on Sundays till 8 a. m. on Mondays."
  "And, similar Returns for the rest of Ireland from May 1st, 1904, to April 30th, 1905."—(Mr. Sloan.)

  CYPRUS
  Return ordered, "of all sums paid in the years 1903–4 and 1904–5 respectively, out of the moneys arising from the revenues of Cyprus, in discharge of the interest upon the Turkish Loan guaranteed by this country and France in 1855; of all sums voted by Parliament during the same period in aid of the administration of Cyprus; and of the surplus remaining in each year over and above the payments made, with interest thereon (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 360, of Session 1904).—(Mr. Pierpoint.)
  TRINITY COLLEGE (INTERMEDIATE SCHOLARSHIPS)
  Return ordered, "of Copy of Correspondence between Trinity College, Dublin, and the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland, on the subject of Intermediate Scholarships in Trinity College, together with the Board's Resolutions in the matter."—(Mr. Walter Long.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Charity Commissioners' Scheme for Shrewsbury Municipal Charities.
  MR. H. D. GREENE (Shrewsbury): To ask the hon. Member for the Tun-bridge Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether their scheme for the Shrewsbury municipal charities is out of the hands of the King's printers; and when it may be expected to come into operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Griffith Boscawen.) Printed copies ot the draft of the scheme, framed by the Charity Commissioners, for the Shrewsbury municipal charities have been sent for the consideration of the trustees, and will shortly be published. An Order establishing the scheme cannot be made before the expiration of one month from the date of publication.

  Boards of Guardians and Midwifery Relieving Orders.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the difficulty which poor women may experience in getting assistance in their confinements in corsequence of unregistered midwives being afraid to attend, as in the Smallburgh Union; and whether he can take steps to point out to boards of guardians the duty of the relieving officer to grant midwifery orders to women destitut of the means of procuring medical attendance.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) At present I am not aware that boards of guardians and relieving officers generally do not realise their duty in this matter, but I am making some inquiry on the subject, and particularly as regards the Smallburgh Union.

  Payment of Overdue Salaries of Teachers in Montgomeryshire Voluntary Schools.
  LIEUT-COLONELPRYCE-JONES (Montgomery Boroughs): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the Board's letter of 15th July, the Montgomeryshire Local Education Authority are still refusing to pay the salaries of teachers

  179
  in voluntary schools within their area which have for some time past been due for the quarter ending 30th June last; and, in view of this refusal, what steps the Board are taking to prevent continued hardship to the teachers concerned.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board are in communication with managers of voluntary schools on the subject. In four cases the Board have today repaid to managers sums properly expended by them in paying the salaries in question, and others will probably be paid very shortly.

  Issue of Notes of Less Value than £5.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAE (Tower Hamlets, St. Georgo's): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the desirability of appointing a Committee to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting the issue of currency notes of a less value than £5, especially taking into consideration that a paper currency of so low a denomination as that common to Scotland and Ireland may constitute a medium for the dissemination of disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am not aware of any necessity for the appointment of a Committee on this subject.

  Assaults and Murders Committed by Indian Natives on White People.
  COLONEL LONG (Worcestershiie, Evesham): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the number of assaults and murders committed in India on white people by natives, as shown in the police reports, during each year of the last five years; and what has been done to identify and punish the native offenders.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There are no statistics at my disposal from which the figures asked for by my hon. and gallant friend could be supplied. The class of cases to which the Question refers are not separately recorded, but I will ascertain if any more general statistics can be supplied.

  Travelling Allowances to Biding Masters and Quartermasters in India.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING (Hull, Central): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that, since 1st October, 1904, riding masters and quartermasters of the British services doing duty in India receive a travelling allowance of 2½ annas per mile irrespective of the number of their families, and that, previously to the date mentioned, they and their families travelled wholly on a warrant; and, seeing that where the family of the riding master or quartermaster consists of more than two the allowance of 2½ annas per mile entails a loss on them, whether he will take steps to have this grievance remedied; and what reply, if any, the Indian Government made to his promised inquiry on the subject of their Indian pay and allowances.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am drawing the attention of the Government of India to the matter of the grant of travelling allowance for the families of riding masters and quartermasters of the British service. The Government of India have still under consideration the question of the rates of pay admissible to these officers.

  Assaults and Murders Committed on Natives of India by Foreigners.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE (Bethnal Green, N. E.): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the number of assaults and murders committed in India on the people of that country by foreigners, as shown in the police reports, during each year of the last five years; and what has been done to identify and punish the foreign offenders.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There are no statistics at my disposal from which the figures asked for by my hon. friend could be supplied. The class of cases to which the Question refers are not separately recorded, but I will ascertain if any more general statistics can be supplied

  Epizootic Lymphangitis and Glanders amongst Horses in Ireland—Compensation for Compulsory Slaughter.
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the disease of epizootic lymphangitis was introduced into Ireland by I troop horses which had returned from South Africa, and that the Government promised to provide safeguards to prevent its introduction; whether he can state what measures were taken, and also how many cases have occurred in Ireland, and with what result; whether he is aware that more recently the disease of glanders has also been introduced into Ireland by troop horses; and whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of asking the Treasury to recoup to borough and county councils, and, through them, to relieve the Irish ratepayers from the expense attending the compulsory slaughter of horses suffering from contagious diseases imported into Ireland by troop horses.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This Question is partly answered by my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for South Glamorgan on the 5th instant†.There have been nine outbreaks of epizootic lymphangitis on civilian premises in Ireland, and twenty-five affected animals have been slaughtered, including four horses "in contact." In addition, forty-two affected horses have been destroyed in military stables. It is not the case that glanders has been recently introduced into Ireland by troop horses, for the country has never been wholly free from that disease for the last twenty-five years. With regard to the last inquiry, I have already stated that the question there raised is under consideration.

  Redistribution Scheme — Representation of the City of Bath.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY (Bath): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the proposal of the Redistribution scheme as affecting the county of Somerset that Taunton with a population of about 20,000 shall be represented by a
  † See (4) Debates, cxlviii., 1134.
  182
  Member, he will arrange that the city of Bath, with already about 50,000 inhabitants, shall have its Parliamentary boundaries extended if required to enable it to continue to return two Members, if necessary in separate Divisions, to Parliament, as has been the case by charter since the thirteenth century.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The population in 1901 of the municipal -borough of Taunton was 21,087. It includes the Parliamentary borough, the population of which in 1901 was 19,723, and hence, under Rule 7, the Parliamentary borough would be extended so as to be made co-extensive with the municipal borough. As the scheme stands it would not be disfranchised. The population of the Parliamentary borough of Bath in 1901 was 52,773. It has two Members, and consequently, under Rule 5, it would lose one. To enable it to retain two Members it must under the rule have had in 1901 a population of 75,000. The Parliamentary borough includes, and is larger than, the municipal borough, the population of which in 1901 was 49,839. The Government scheme does not contemplate that a Parliamentary borough should be extended except where it is necessary to make it co-extensive with the municipal borough. It will be observed that in order to prevent its losing a Member under Rule 5, an area with a population of 75,000,52,773, or 22,227 would have to be added.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Theatres at Royal Marine Barracks.
    MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that the theatre within the barrack walls at Deal was built at the public expense, at a cost of £3,622, will he state at what cost the theatres situated in other Royal Marine barracks were erected, and the average annual expenditure for the maintenance of each theatre.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): Apart from Deal, theatres have been erected at the public expense at the following Marine barracks, the cost of erection being as follows:—

    £

    Chatham

    904

    Eastney

    2,921

    Forton

    1,182

    Plymouth (about)

    2,000

    The average annual expenditure for maintenance, including structural repairs, is £16 per theatre.

    Receipts and Expenditure of Theatres at Royal Marine Barracks.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, seeing that the public are freely admitted on payment at the doors to theatres specially provided and maintained by the Government for the use of the Royal Marines, will he state under what Vote the receipts and expenditure of these theatres appear.
    MR. PRETYMAN: It is incorrect to say that the public are freely admitted on payment at the doors; only such of the public are so admitted as are allowed to enter the barracks at certain gates. The receipts and expenditure resulting from entertainments are in no sense Government monies, and consequently do not appear under any Vote. They are dealt with by the committee chosen to manage the establishment, and the receipts are devoted to the necessary expenses of the entertainments

    Ullapool and the Royal Naval Reserve.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state when the construction of a Royal Naval Reserve Battery at Ullapool, Ross-shire, will be proceeded with.
    MR. PRETYMAN: I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar Question put by the hon. Member on June 1st†last.
    MR. WEIR: Twelve months ago I was told that tenders had been invited.
    † See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 430.
    MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, but the matter has been reconsidered since then.

    The Franchise in the Transvaal.
    MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the instructions to registration officers in the Transvaal provide that the franchise is to be conferred upon military officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, irrespective of whether they are qualified under the Constitution; whether he is aware that their pay as soldiers is thus their only qualification; and whether he will cause these instructions to be modified, having regard to the fact that soldiers as regards residence are subject to their superior officers, that they have no permanent interest or boná fide residence in the country, that they may be sufficiently numerous in some districts to swamp a majority vote of the people, and that their pay is found by the home Government.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): The Letters Patent were not designed to admit soldiers residing in official quarters or in receipt of pay provided by this country to the franchise, and the Transvaal Government have been advised that under the Letters Patent III., 2, C, soldiers are not qualified to be registered as voters, as their pay is not bona fide earned within the colony, and that those who are compelled to reside in official quarters cannot be regarded as occupiers within the meaning of that instrument. Instructions have, with my approval, been issued to the registering officers accordingly.

    Alleged Illegal Flogging of Chinese in the Transvaal.
    DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the evidence, at the inquest, on June 22nd, on the body of a white miner named Bradley, of Mr. Stewart, late compound manager to the Croesus Mine, to the effect that he had in many cases flogged Chinese coolies, that he knew it was against the

    185
    law, but that he, Stewart, had done it; and whether, seeing that the pledge of the Colonial Secretary to the Chinese Minister, of February 15th, 1904, that corporal punishment should not be inflicted upon Chinese coolies by any employer or his servant, has not been respected, he will say what steps he proposes to take to secure the fulfilment of this pledge.
    MR. LYTTELTON: In my Answer to the hon. Member on Tuesday† last, I referred to this evidence, but I attach even more weight to the information given to me by the hon. Member for Morpeth. I have only to make the following addition to my Answer of Tuesday last—Lord Selborne has from the first given close personal attention to the labour conditions on the Rand. He is fully seised of the facts to which I have adverted and to which I have drawn his special attention, and I am satisfied that he will take all necessary measures to prevent their recurrence.

    Proposed Partition of Bengal Province.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any minutes or opinions of dissent were recorded, under Sections 23, 24, and 25 of the Government of India Act, 1858, by any members of the Council of the Secretary of State for India regarding the proposed partition of the Bengal Province; and, if so, whether he will include these minutes and opinions, together with others that may have been recorded, among the Papers which will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): No such minutes or opinions of dissent were recorded.
    In reply to a further Question, Mr. BRODRICK said Papers now on their way home from India would be laid as soon as possible.

    Press Censorship in India.
    MR. O'DOWD (Sligo, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India
    186
    whether, under the system of Press censorship established in India, the names of all newspaper correspondents are registered with the object of punishing any correspondent transmitting to this country any item of news which might be considered as unfavourable to the Government of that country.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on the 11th inst† If the hon. Member can give me any reliable information that such a system is in force I will make inquiry.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Why not telegraph to Lord Curzon?

    The Kuklitch Outrages.
    MR. NOEL BUXTON (Yorkshire, N. R., Whitby): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what punishment has been inflicted on the Turkish officers and men responsible for the crimes committed at Kuklitch, according to the report furnished by the Russian officer who witnessed them.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): As the result of the Inspector-General's investigation of the outrages committed at Kuklitch four Bashi-bazouks were condemned to one year's imprisonment each and three others to six months. The Turkish Commission appointed to inquire into the guilt of the officers implicated have only just presented their report to the Minister for War. It will be submitted to the Supreme Court-martial at Constantinople, and some days must elapse before the final decision can be known.

    Macedonian Finance.
    MR. YERBURGH (Chester): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the delegates to be appointed by the Powers to control the finances of Macedonia are to have equal powers with the Russian and Austro-Hungarian agents over other matters than finance; and, if so, what are the other matters.
    † See (4) Debates, cxlix., 261.
    EARL PERCY: The Note presented by the Powers makes it clear that the delegates to be appointed by them will be empowered to deal with all matters which involve considerations of finance.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Eegis) asked the noble Lord when further Papers would be laid on the Table of the House.
    EARL PERCY: As soon as possible, but I am afraid some time must elapse before they can be presented.

    Housing in the Island of Lewis.
    MR WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether, in view of the fact that for some time past numerous cottar fishermen and their families have been evicted from houses built by themselves in the Island of Lewis, Ross-shire, and are now living under sails and old fishing boats, can he state if the Local Government Board for Scotland are making any provision for the housing of these homeless families during the coming winter, seeing that the local authorities have already imposed the maximum rate, and are consequently without means to make the necessary provision.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The information I have received does not bear out the assertions on which the hon. Member's Question is based. Several of the families evicted have been reinstated; in other cases the proprietor has offered accommodation at his own expense in Stornoway. In no instance is there any reason why the evicted tenants should be living under sails and old fishing boats if they have elected to do so. There does not seem at present to be any necessity for any special action by the Local Government Board.
    MR. WEIR: I hope an inspector will be sent to verify the statements in my Question. I can vouch for their accuracy.

    Public Fishing Bights in the Poolewe (Ross-shire) River.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the public have recently been prohibited from fishing with rod and
    188
    line in the tidal waters of the river at Poolewe, Ross-shire; and will he state whether any public fishing rights at Poolewe have recently been sold by the Office of Woods and Forests.
    MR SCOTT DICKSON: No information has reached me in regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question. I am informed by the Commissioners of Woods that no fishing rights at Poolewe have recently been sold by them.

    Untenanted Lands in Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether untenanted grass farms situate in the baronies of Cavan and Ligny, in the county of Sligo, have, with the sanction of the Estates Commissioners, been sold to non-residential graziers and others since the passing of the Act of 1903; and, if so, whether he can give the number of such sales, the names of the purchasers, and the amounts of public money advanced for the purchase of these farms.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The Commissioners are unable to identify these farms upon the information before them. If the hon. Member will furnish me with the names of the owners, further inquiry will be made.
    MR. O'DOWD: I will send the right hon. Gentleman the information.

    Gore Booth Estate, Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the purchase agreements entered into by the landlord and tenants of the Gore-Booth Estate, situate at Lavagh, Tubbercurry, county Sligo, have yet been submitted to the Estates Commissioners for ratification; and, if so, will he state what arrangements, if any, are being made for the reinstatement of John Quinn, an evicted tenant on the estate.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The estate has been inspected, but advances have not yet been sanctioned by the Commissioners. No arrangements for the

    189
    reinstatement of John Quinn have been made, for, as I have already informed the hon. Member, Quinn has refused the terms offered to him.

    Irish Trade with Great Britain.
    MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction is in a position to obtain the necessary information in order to compile complete statistics as to the trade between Ireland and Great Britain; and, if not, will he make such representations to the Treasury as will secure the removal of any difficulties that may exist.
    MR. WALTER LONG: As the result of negotiations with the harbour and port authorities, the Department are now preparing statistics of Irish imports and exports. The first publication of these statistics will take place about the end of this year.
    MR. BOLAND: Will it cover the whole trade?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I think so.
    MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): Is there any secrecy about this matter? As a member of a harbour board I have been informed there is.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No. No doubt in the collection of financial statistics certain information is regarded as confidential, but the results will be included in the Return.
    MR. JOYCE (Limerick): Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to carry out the request of the hon. Member for South Kerry?
    MR. WALTER LONG: That has been done.

    Derryquin (Sneem) Police Force.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that no police patrols are now required at Derryquin, Sneem, he will arrange that a reduction be made in the police force in this village.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The strength of the force at this station is normal, and it is not intended to make any reduction.

    Irish Valuation Appeals—The Law Officers' Fees.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Attorney-General for Ireland and the Solicitor-General for Ireland, who were engaged by the Valuation Department in the Court of Appeal, in the case of Armstrong v. The Commissioners in Ireland, were paid in, fees for their services by the appellant; and, if so, will he state what was the amount paid to each of them, and whether the salaries of both these officials include remuneration for such services; and whether, in view of the fact that this was the first opportunity afforded for having the law on the subject expounded, and that the result of the decision in the case has been to increase the amount of revenue derived from Ireland, he will consider the advisability of having the fees paid to the two officials refunded to the appellant.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In this case each of the Law Officers received £48 6s. 0d. in fees, which eventually fell upon the appellant, costs having been awarded against him by the Court. The salaries of the Law Officers do not include remuneration for such services. The reply to the last inquiry is in the negative.

    Irish Education Rules.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the new rules, 127 (b) and 186, 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, or were they based on unofficial documents.
    MR. WALTER LONG: If the hon. Member will refer to the Parliamentary Return (No. 184 of this year) which was recently issued, he will find an Answer to this Question.

    Rockfield Grass Farm, County Westmeath.
    MR. SULLIVAN (Westmeath, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Estates Commissioners or the Land Commission have sold a grass farm called Rockfield, near Streamstown, county Westmeath; if so, who is the purchaser; and was any effort made by the Commissioners to have the land divided among the small under-tenants on the property and occupiers of uneconomic holdings in the immediate locality.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This farm was sold by direct sale, under the Act of 1903, by the owner to the occupying tenant, Mr. W. H. Stuart. No question, therefore, arose as to the division of the farm amongst other tenants.
    MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.): Was the man to whom the farm was sold an eleven months tenant or one entitled to have a judicial rent fixed?
    MR. WALTER LONG: He must have been a tenant in order to come under the Act.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Was he entitled to have a judicial rent fixed?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Untenanted Lands in County Cavan.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what the Estates Commissioners are doing with regard to the tract of untenanted land known as Lissanover, containing some 274 acres, near Bawnboy, county Cavan.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are unable to identify this case upon the information before them. If the hon. Member will communicate to me the name of the owner further inquiry will be made.

    Rates of Freight on Seed Oats and Seed Potatoes from Dublin to Bawnboy Road (Cavan).
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the rates of -freight charged for the
    192
    conveyance of seed oats and seed potatoes from Dublin to Bawnboy Road Railway Station, in county Cavan.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The rate per ton by both the Great Northern and the Midland Great Western Railways is 13s. 7d. For six ton lots an exceptional rate of 11s. 7d, at owner's risk, is in force.

    Irish Mounted Police Stations.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state in how many cases the horse police stations have been discontinued in Ireland; and whether the stables are now used for any purpose; and, if so, by whom.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Mounted police have been withdrawn from twenty county headquarter stations. The stabling at these stations is now used for the Judges' escorts at Assizes, and for other public purposes.

    Royal Irish Constabulary—Disciplinary Inquiries.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many inquiries were held into charges of alleged misconduct, gambling and otherwise, affecting the Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland for the last three years, distinguishing the numbers for the four provinces.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Sixty-six Courts of inquiry into various disciplinary offences, namely, fourteen in Ulster, eleven in Leinster, twenty-eight in Munster, and thirteen in Connaught. There were also 213 unsworn investigations, namely, fifty-one in Ulster, fifty-six in Leinster, eighty-three in Munster, and twenty-three in Connaught.

    Over-bridge Trams.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on London Traffic to the effect that immediate attention should be given to the

    193
    provision of trams running over the Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges and along the Victoria Embankment: and whether he can suggest any means whereby the conferment of this boon upon the working people of London may be facilitated.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I believe that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Commissioners' Report is substantially correct. The Government have not yet had time to consider the practicability of their suggestions, but, if Parliament were in favour of this or any other scheme, it would, no doubt, give effect to them in the usual way.

    The Government's Fiscal Policy.
    MR. BLACK (Banffshire): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state whether, at the general election, the Government is to ask a mandate to support or to oppose the protective or preferential taxation in this country of wheat and flour, and of certain raw materials.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I have had occasion before to reply to the hon. Gentleman on this subject. He shows an almost morbid curiosity about the contents of my election address, which will, no doubt, appear in due time.
    MR. BLACK: Does taxation of this character still occupy the first place in the Ministerial programme?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon Gentleman by that, of course, means the Ministerial programme for the next Parliament. I do not know what the Ministerial programme for the next Parliament will be.
    MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton): Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to issue his election address?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In due time.
    MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham): It is overdue now.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state whether, at the general election, the Government is to ask a mandate to support or to oppose a general tariff on imports from foreign countries.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the reply, which I hope was satisfactory, to the last Question will be found equally sufficient to this Question.
    MR. BLACK: Has a general tariff been added to the half-sheet of note-paper?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The half-sheet of notepaper remains a half-sheet of note-paper.

    Redistribution—Plural Voters.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to his proposal for Redistribution, whether the Government will grant the Return as to non-resident electors in the constituencies of the United Kingdom standing on the Paper for to-day; and, if the Government declines, can he state the reason for such declination.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The object of the Government, in the Resolutions in which their scheme was embodied, was to bring in a Redistribution Bill, not a Reform Bill. The Return which the hon. Gentleman asks for might be a very proper preliminary to a Reform Bill, but it is extremely costly and extremely difficult to make, and I do not think it would be worth while either going through the labour or incurring the expense for a measure which this Government has no intention of introducing. The Return referred to is as follows—Parliamentary Constituencies (Non-Resident Electors, etc., United Kingdom). Return showing (1) the number of Voters in each Constituency in Great Britain and Ireland who appear in the last adjusted Voters Roll as residing beyond the bounds of the Constituency; and (2) the number of Ownership Voters in each of the Boroughs in England and Wales who vote in respect of their ownership in the adjoining county (supplementary to Return relative to Parliamentary Constituencies, etc., presented 21st February.)

    The Irish Land Commission Vote.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to set up afresh the Vote for the Irish Land Commission; if not, does he propose to maintain the regulations indicated to the House on Thursday; and is it intended to introduce a Bill during the present session to give effect to the Chief Secretary's financial proposals for removing the block in the Land Judge's Court.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is the intention of the Government to maintain the regulations sketched out by my right hon. friend, and it is my right hon. friend's intention to introduce a Bill, the contents of which he described in general terms on Thursday last. With regard to the first Question of the hon. Gentleman, I have examined the condition of public business this week, and at all events this week no steps will be taken.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford): When will the Irish Land Amendment Bill be introduced?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be introduced either to-morrow or in a very few days.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Under the ten minutes rule?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think so. [Loud OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] Well, I will consider whether it ought to be presented in the ordinary manner or under the ten minutes rule.
    MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): May I ask whether, having regard to the very deep feeling existing among landlords and tenants as to the proposal to pay the landlords in depreciated stock, the Government will take that feeling into account before the Irish Secretary introduces the Bill?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is manifest that if the classes in Ireland affected by this Bill do not desire to obtain the relief which the Bill affords the Bill has no chance of passing, and it would be improper to ask the House of Commons to spend any great amount of time on it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposals amount simply to the addition of 10 per cent, to the price of Irish land for the tenant?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have heard two versions.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the proposal to make payment in stock on the price of to-day?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That matter has been considered by the Government. I think, however, that Questions as to the details of the measure might with more propriety be addressed to my right hon. friend.

    Unanswered Questions.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)said that on Thursday last he had a starred Question on the Order Paper, addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury, which was not reached by five minutes to three o'clock. He desired to hand it in to the Clerks at the Table for the following day, but was informed that this was not necessary, as it was customary to circulate the replies to the starred Questions which were not reached. No reply to the Question had reached him, however, either privately or with the Parliamentary Papers, and he desired to ask Mr. Speaker whether, under the Standing Order, such replies ought to be circulated.
    MR. SPEAKER: It certainly is the duty of any Minister whose Question is not reached to hand in his reply at the Table, so that it may be circulated with the Votes, if possible, the next morning, or, if not, the morning after.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: And in the event of a Minister failing to do that, what remedy have we?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was sometimes difficult for him to comply, as the Answers to Questions addressed to him were not written out. He therefore could not simply hand them in in the ordinary course to the newspapers. [An HON. MEMBER: To the clerk.] He

    197
    believed it was the practice, and in some respects he dared say it was a very good one, to make a double copy of the answers to Questions, one for the Press or the Clerks at the Table and the other for Members. But occasionally slips would occur, especially when Questions were exhausted, and the serious catechism began which he had to deal with from day to day, certainly with cheerfulness, and he hoped with patience. While he was not personally conscious of any lapse in the matter, he entirely admitted—providing the hon. Member's statement of fact was correct, and he did not doubt it for one moment—that he was in the wrong.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he would put the Question to-morrow.

    Report of Naval Works Resolution.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the Prime Minister intend to take the Report of the Committee on the Naval Works Resolution to-night after twelve o'clock?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUE: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.): Can the Leader of the House make any statement as to the business for this week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report of the Churches (Scotland) Bill will be taken to-morrow, and on Thursday the Supply put down will be the Colonial Office Vote first and the Home Office Vote second. As at present advised, the Second Reading of the Naval Works Bill will be taken on Friday, the Money Resolution being taken after midnight today. To-morrow evening is promised for the consideration of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.

DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 284.]
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Fourth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
REGISTRATION OF NURSES.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 257.]
NEW BILLS.
  METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (No. 2) BILL.
  "To authorise expenditure by Metropolitan Borough Councils in connection with certain associations," presented by Captain Jessel; supported by Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Remnant, and Mr. Crooks; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 285.]
  NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL.
  "To establish a Board of Trustees to manage the National Galleries of Scotland, and for other purposes connected with the promotion of the Fine Arts in Scotland," presented by The Lord-Advocate; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]

  SUPPLY [16TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

  CLASS IV.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £631,721, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including a Grant in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."
  MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham): I desire, Sir, to move that you do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept I such a Motion. This is an allotted day, and it will remain an allotted day, and I think it would be an abuse of the forms of the House which might be used very much against the Opposition of the day if I were to accede to it.
  MR. CHURCHILL: On a point of order, I trust I may be permitted. [At this juncture an hon. Member on the GOVERNMENT side audibly mimicked Mr. CHURCHILL'S halting manner of speaking, and this at once evoked a storm of indignant shouts from the NATIONALIST and OPPOSITION Benches. Comparative calm having at last been restored.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I trust the Committee will allow the hon. Member to state his point of order.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I desire to submit that the circumstances under which we met together to-day, having regard not merely to the general political situation, but also to the nature of the Supply to be taken, are wholly exceptional.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I desire to point out reasons against the ruling you have given, and to show for the general convenience how the exceptional circumstances which have arisen supersede it. In the first place I would draw your attention to the fact that the hostile vote which was carried against the Government has not been rescinded, and the Government have no intention of asking that it be rescinded. In the second place, no Motion of confidence in the Government has yet been carried, and thirdly, the Chief Secretary is in charge of this Vote, and although his conduct has been specifically condemned by a vote of this House he, departing from precedent, has not offered to resign——
  THE CHAIRMANrose again.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am finishing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious I ought not to allow the hon. Member on a point of order to make the
  200
  speech he would have made on the Motion which I refused. I have given my decision to the best of my ability, and I mean to abide by it.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have practically finished stating my point of order. I only wish to submit the position in which the Committee is placed by having to conduct a debate, the result of which will be treated by the Government with contempt, seeing that any adverse vote is sure to be ignored while any Minister who may be censured will be sure to stick to his office.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)said his object in interposing was that there should be no misapprehension as to the effect of the Chairman's ruling. If he understood it correctly, it was a very wide one, and one that might have a very important effect in the future, because it amounted to this—that no special circumstances would justify a Motion for reporting Progress if it happened to be made on a day allotted to Supply. He would urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, because it went much further than was required by the necessities of this case. Might he add that the situation would be eased at once if the Chief Secretary would rise and make a statement as to his position and responsibilities on the question of Irish administration? At any rate he would like to understand the full effect of the present ruling,
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am extremely reluctant to set up a precedent, but I have never known such a Motion before. I do not say that no special circumstances would justify such a Motion; but I do say that in the present circumstances the Motion would be an abuse of the rules of the House, and I must adhere to my ruling.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said he was about to deal with the dull, prosaic, and unimportant question of Irish education, and as that was a subject in which the gentlemen of England took no interest, perhaps they would kindly withdraw. He would give hon. Gentlemen opposite a few minutes to withdraw to the smoking-room, as he thought it would

  201
  be more courteous for them; to go out before he began his speech. [Some Unionist Members here left the House, and others were doing so as the hon. Member proceeded with his speech, there being considerablenoise and interruption.]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that hon. Members who did not desire to wait to hear the hon. Member for East Mayo should withdraw at once, and should not interrupt the hon. Gentleman's remarks by going out singly.
  MR. DILLONcomplained that they never had an opportunity of considering the question of Irish education as a whole, for there was no harmonious and all-embracing system of administration. To debate the question of primary education without considering in connection with it the question of secondary and University education was very much of a farce, and there could be no greater misfortune than to have a shallow and inefficient system of technical education forced upon a people where there was no broad and good foundation of general education. [Here Mr. DILLON, referring to the growing stream of Members leaving the House, expressed a hops that hon. Gentlemen would act upon the suggestion of the Chairman.] He desired to survey the whole field of education in Ireland, for unless that were done the discussion would be fruitless. [The hon. Member was again interrupted by the cheers of the NATIONALISTS as MINISTERIALISTS left the House.] He should move to report Progress so as to allow an interval in which hon. Members opposite might withdraw.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has a very large audience, and a large audience is apt to be restive. I have already suggested that hon. Members who do not wish to listen to the hon. Gentleman should withdraw.
  MR. DILLON: And come back to vote.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster): I desire to ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether it is not in accordance with the traditions of this House
  202
  and its universal practice that Members should leave exactly when they please.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is so, but Members must as far as possible leave in an orderly manner.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): What about the traditions of the House?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)likewise sought to raise a point of order, but, until the intervention of the Chairman, he was shouted down, and then he was inaudible.
  MR. DILLON, continuing, said the usual course when Irish Nationalists were discussing their affairs was to leave them with empty benches. That did not show very keen interest in the welfare of Ireland. For his part, if English Members on the other side would only go away and not return till the vote he should be glad. On the present occasion hon. Members appeared to have elected to remain in the House and refuse them a hearing. [MINISTEEIAL cries of "No."] The hon. Member proceeded to call attention to the last Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, and protested against the belated character of the document, the Report being for 1903, and issued only in April, 1905, although received by Sir Antony MacDonnell in August, 1901. Why was it thus suppressed? It was nothing short of a scandal and disgrace that year after year they should have to discuss this question of national education with nothing before them later than two years old. The House ought not to be treated in that way.
  Now he would turn to the Report itself. It was exceptional in its nature, because the Commissioners in their own defence prefaced it with an historical review of the progress of national education in Ireland—a review which was absolutely misleading and false. Let him take one point, the question of co-ordination. He had before expressed the opinion that no administration of primary education in Ireland could be of any value which ignored the whole system of education in the country. The Report on page 14 dealt with the question of co-ordination,

  203
  and the Commissioners there expressed their desire to see provision made by which clever pupils of national schools should be afforded facilities for a wider education, and added that in their opinion the best results from any system of primary education could only be obtained if it were coordinate with secondary and technical education, made introductory so far as possible to University and professional education. They went on to suggest that the teachers of the advanced departments in higher-grade schools should possess University degrees. Incidentally he might remind the House that the Catholics had no University which could confer degrees. The Commissioners continually complained that their proposals for co-ordination had been negatived by the Treasury, which had refused the necessary money. About two years ago the Government brought over from this country Mr. Dale, an inspector of English schools, to report on the national system of education in Ireland, and he wished to know from the Chief Secretary, who appeared to be asleep, on what grounds the Government in Ireland refused to let them see the observations of the National Commissioners on Mr. Dale's Report. That Report was comprehensive and extremely able; it was intolerable they should have to discuss it without knowing the views of the Commissioners on it, and his second Question to the Chief Secretary was on what grounds were the Commissioners' observations on it withheld.
  The next question he desired to touch upon was the scandalous condition of the schoolhouses in many parts of Ireland. With regard to that question the Commissioners admitted and deplored that scandalous condition which no doubt was largely responsible for the low average attendance of scholars. It appeared, however, that in 1902 a proposal was made that a loan at 5 per cent., repayable in thirty-five years, should be advanced for building grants, which would have removed the difficulty, but the Treasury refused to accept the proposal. The Commissioners complained that for many years they had been urging on successive Governments to make adequate provision, and an Interdepartmental Committee investigated
  204
  the whole question in 1902, but neither the Report nor the decision of the Government had been communicated to them, with the result that the work of providing suitable schoolhouses had actually been brought to a standstill because of the desire of the managers to ascertain the outcome of the inquiry. It was a monstrous thing that the Treasury, which was asleep when millions were being wasted on fraudulent contracts in South Africa, should become educational experts and display such infernal activity when it was a question of saving a few pounds by starving Irish school buildings. They were in fact starving the Irish school children. The hon. Member then noted that the Chief Secretary had withdrawn, and, asking abruptly where he was, he moved to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMANrefused the Motion, and said that no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be back shortly. It was perfectly obvious that the right hon. Gentleman must go out sometimes.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OFTHE TREASURY(Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.) The right hon. Gentleman will be back again in a moment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Progress, progress.
  MR. DILLON: I decline to argue this question with the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Who represents the Government? Where is the Attorney-General?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): And where is the Prime Minister?
  MR. DILLON: The Chief Secretary is paid £5,000 a year for maladministering and muddling Irish affairs, and now it turns out that he cannot sit here for five minutes while we discuss Irish education.
  Mr. WALTER LONGhere returned to his seat.
  MR. DILLON, continuing, cited the Government's refusal to do anything in

  205
  the matter of instruction in domestic subjects, such as cooking and laundry-work, as an example of the manner in which Irish education was starved, and, passing from a general complaint of three days only being allotted for the discussion of the administration of Ireland, he declared that it would be exceedingly difficult to imagine anything worse than the state of Irish education. There was confusion, overlapping, waste, starvation of schools, and want of any sound guiding principle. There was a total absence of conference between the various boards and managers; new schemes, crude and undigested, were hatched and launched on the country without previous consultation with the owners and managers of schools, with the result that at present Ireland had the worst system of education of any country in the whole of Western Europe.
  There were four special points he intended to dwell upon. First, the effect of the new grading system on the position and salaries of the national teachers; second, the controversy about Rule 127 (b), which had during the last six months torn the whole educational system of Ireland to tatters; third, the treatment of the Irish language in Irish schools; and, fourth, the continued withholding of the Development Grant from the service of the Irish schools to which it properly belonged. He might assert without fear of contradiction that the new grading system had affected the position and salaries of the national teachers by introducing an element of uncertainty and contusion in the highest degree detrimental to the prospects of the teachers. The Education Board had not kept their pledge of regarding vested interests when they deprived pupils of the training colleges and the younger teachers of the prospects of promotion which would have come to them under the old system. No doubt the National Board were contending that they fulfilled their pledge not to injure vested interests when they secured that no teacher should be deprived of the salary he already enjoyed. But the fact remained that numberless teachers had lost their prospect of immediate promotion and
  206
  large increases of salary which were almost within their grasp, and it was an extraordinary contention that there had not been an interference with vested interests. He complained that the initial salaries were absurdly small, and reminded the Committee that under the old system clever young men could rise to the highest grade in a few years after leaving the training college. If he had a fairly large school he could rise in about ten years to the highest salary and he could get the immediate reward of his skill in teaching. The result was that a young man who might have got as much as £150 a year under the old system found that under the new system he had to go up the ladder step by step, and although the latter might appear the more logical system it took away from him the incentive that formerly existed. A young man who joined the service would under the new system have to encounter so many obstacles and disabilities artificially created that he was discouraged, as the result of a system which conveyed to him no sense of justice and which must he absolutely fatal to the efficiency of the teaching staffs in Ireland.
  The consequence was a state of things which was indicated to him by one to whom he had been talking and who had said to him that whereas five or six years ago there were three times the number of candidates necessary for every vacancy in. the King's scholarships, now they were almost obliged to take anyone who offered, and he warned the House that the result would be that the personnel of the teachers must rapidly deteriorate, and that under the system as it would exist an exceptionally clever and brilliant man would find himself blocked by the new conditions, and would be placed in such a position that if he could get an appointment in England he would leave Ireland and come here; so that the best men would be drawn off from the teaching staffs in that country. He would read a couple of extracts to show the general sentiment of the country upon this question. The first was a letter which ought to have some effect on the mind of the Chief Secretary. It was

  207
  written by Cardinal Logue to a great meeting in Dublin last February—
  "The result of this will be that we shall have no candidates for the office of teacher except persons who are eithar physically or mentally unfit for anything else."
  That was the result of years of administration by this enlightened Government under which they lived. Here was an extract from the Irish Times, the chief organ of Unionist opinion in Ireland—
  "If we seek to inquire as to the manner in which the sum now withheld from education might be advantageously expended, we have only to compare the position and prospects of Irish teachers with those of Great Britain. As far as the great majority of the teachers here are concerned, it is practically impossible for most of them to secure a maximum salary in excess of £86 per annum for males and £72 for females. These are far below the average salaries in Great Britain, where the position of the teacher during the past twenty years has been materially improved. In Ireland, on the contrary, the recent changes introduced by the National Board all tend towards the lowering of the status and remuneration of the teacher. The limitation of the number of teachers eligible for the highest grades under which not more than 10 per cent of them can qualify for that distinction tends to discourage effort and to paralyse energy."
  Here were some of the results of the system as described in another Dublin newspaper—
  "Only a few years ago the announcement of a vacancy on the staff of any school brought a crowd of teachers jostling each other to get in; and if the position was fairly desirable, say assistantship in a city school, there was special anxiety to secure it. All that is changed. During the past month two large schools in the city of Dublin have repeatedly advertised for assistants without receiving a single application…. A vacancy recently occurred in a southern school. A young teacher trained last year was about to accept the appointment, but before closing with the manager he was offered an assistantship in the North of England, and thither he has gone. In Durham his income is £90 a year, rising by increments to £150. In Munster he would start with £56, never to exceed £77."
  He mentioned a case which had been brought under his notice the other day. He cross-examined the man himself with regard to it. He would not give his name. He took the opportunity of protesting against the system of blackguard intimidation set up by the National Board of Education. He could not give the name because the teacher would be a marked man by the National Board, but he
  208
  warned the Board that if they carried on this system they would find that they had stirred up a nest of hornets about their ears in Ireland. This was the case of a young man who was classed in the first division before the introduction of the new rules. The result of the new rules was to degrade him. The reports concerning his school and his work had been excellent, and one of the inspectors had told him that he might expect an increase of salary. He had won much distinction, but a vigilant Treasury pounced upon this poor schoolmaster and cut off £25 a year. He had heard of another case of a schoolmaster which gave a further illustration of how a man could be deprived of his genuine vested interest. This was a case in the city of Dublin which he knew about himself. The teacher was a most distinguished man in his profession. He had a salary of something over £100 a year, and since the new rules came into operation he had moved into one of the large schools in Dublin where the average attendance was 250. Under the old system he would have had about £180 a year, but now under the new system he got only £135, being deprived of £45 a year. He held that a case of that sort was calculated to knock the heart out of these men and to cause them to seek their fortunes in some other land. He would say no more upon that matter, not because it was not very important, but because there were so many other subjects to be dealt with.
  Now he came to another illustration of the business methods of this Board. The whole of Ireland had been ringing about Rule 127 (b). Amongst those interested in primary education little else was talked about. He turned to Section 2 of the appendix to the Report of the National Commissioners issued two months ago, and he found that it contained the rules and regulations of the Commissioners. He asked the House to note that the Report was issued two months ago, and then to note that in the rules there was nothing about 127 (b). That was an example of the up-to-date methods of the Board. The Board palmed off on them a copy of the regulations that were in force two and a-half years ago. That was the latest information they had. Rule 127 (b) was a rule

  209
  requiring that all boys under eight years of age should be sent to a girls' school where a suitable girls' school was to be found in the neighbourhood. There were certain limitations and qualifications in regard to the rule. The first thing he had to say as to the regulation was that he did not think it would be possible to imagine a more fatuous proceeding on the part of a public board in Ireland than to launch on the country such a regulation without consulting the managers of the schools throughout the country. If they wanted to kick up a row they could not have hit on a happier plan. This rule had very far-reaching results. It had been considered for months in secret and behind the scenes by the Chief Secretary, the Irish Government, and the Board of Education, but it never occurred to those wise and learned men that they should consult the managers of the schools and the Irish public before it was issued. The result had been that the whole body of the managers in Ireland—Protestant and Catholic—were in revolt against the rule, and the Board had been reduced to a condition of absolute contempt. He warned the Chief Secretary that he would have to withdraw it because, otherwise, he would reduce education in Ireland to a condition of absolute chaos.
  In a Return made to that House the other day there was a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the National Board of Education at which this rule was agreed to. First of all he would ask the Chairman, on a point of order, whether it was correct to insert in this Parliamentary Return extracts from the draft of a letter from the Board to the Under-Secretary and, at the end of the Return, an extract from the draft of a letter from the Treasury dated March 14th, 1903. Were they not entitled by the rules of the House to have the whole of these letters?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that on the point of order he thought that the hon. Gentleman was thinking of the rule by which if a Minister quoted from an official document he must give the whole of it. He did not think that that applied to a Return granted by a Minister.
  MR. DILLONsaid that then he must fall back on fair play. He thought the Government ought to give the House the whole of these letters. They were very important and extraordinary, because if the Chief Secretary would direct his attention to this Return he would see that it was one of the most extraordinary documents ever laid before the House of Commons in more respects than one. It commenced with the statement—
  "That it was proposed by the Bishop of Killaloe and unanimously adopted by the Board 'that the Resident Commissioner be hereby requested at his earliest convenience to bring before the Board a report on the excessive expenditure incurred by the multiplication of small schools, and to prepare a resolution on this question.'"
  Then there was an extract from the draft letter of April 27th, 1904, to the Under-Secretary explaining what the Board proposed to do in pursuance of this policy to cut down extravagant expenditure. They said they insisted on the transfer of all boys between three and seven years of age to girls' schools. On 25th October, 1904, when the scheme came to be considered, the age was extended so that all boys under eight years of age would be ineligible for enrolment in the boys' schools. On whose suggestion was the boys' age raised from seven years to eight years? Here he came to the extracts from the minutes of the Board where the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin gave notice of a motion that—
  "All schools upon which the effect of Rule 127 (b) would be to impair the strength of the teaching staff, to reduce the salaries of existing teachers, or to turn 'separate' into 'mixed' schools, shall be exempt from its operation, until the Commissioners can provide some means of obviating those objectionable results."
  The Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin moved that resolution on April 11th, but he was defeated by thirteen votes to two. Here was a proposal to moderate the effect of the rule so as to protect the teachers from injury and to prevent the children from being swept into unsuitable schools. Certainly he could warn the Chief Secretary that although that resolution had been negatived by that large majority this rule would have to be withdrawn. He laid special stress that

  211
  the whole proceedings started with the resolution moved by the Bishop of Killaloe, that this. measure was to be taken to reduce excessive expenditure; and the Treasury wrote a letter headed "Superfluous Schools" in which they said—
  "The Lords of the Treasury are glad to observe—(the Lords of the Treasury had turned into educational experts)—that the Commissioners are taking up the question of amalgamating small schools and separate departments of schools where the attendance is insufficient."
  and they went on to say—
  "My Lords in particular express a strong hope that the Commissioners will take steps for substituting mixed schools for separate schools for boys and girls"—
  No reference was made in that letter to the public opinion of Ireland—
  "It appeared to their Lordships that the remarks of Mr. Dale upon the gross extravagance should strengthen the Commissioners in taking this part of the subject vigorously in band."
  This was what the Commissioners had done. They got their head inspector, Mr. Naish, to report that—
  "The financial effect of amalgamating the existing schools, which are at present separate and have small attendances, must be to increase the expenditure."
  And Mr. Naish went on to say that—
  "The aggregate financial effect of amalgamating the small schools must, therefore, be to increase expenditure considerably."
  That was to say that the Board turned round and said that their policy was not a policy of economy, but that it must increase expenditure. Was there ever a more dishonest document placed before Parliament? His conviction was that the policy was one of mean economy, and that the second thought of the Board was an attempt to disarm the storm of disapproval that they had to face in Ireland.
  What was the next stage? The Catholic managers and the public throughout Ireland rose up in arms against Rule 127 (b) and against this interference with the managers to handle their own schools in their own way. Here he might say that if the object of the Board had really been to improve the conditions surrounding the education of infant boys, they would have taken the public of Ireland into their confidence; and had they done so and produced any well thought-out
  212
  scheme to improve the education of infant boys they would have met with fair consideration from all Parties in Ireland. That was not their object. Their object was to carry out the orders of the Treasury and starve Irish education. And the pretext that this Rule 127 (b) was for the advantage of infant boys was a mere afterthought, in order to give some semblance of plausibility to this revolution in Irish education. The body of clerical managers in the county of Wicklow sent a memorial to the Commissioners that they would not administer the new rule; and this was the letter addressed by the secretary of the Board to the school managers in county Wicklow—
  "Dublin, 2nd June, 1905. Reverend Sir, Referring to the memorial of school managers, teachers, and representative persons of the county of Wicklow, forwarded to the Commissioners on the 30th ult., to which your name is attached, I am directed to call your attention to the terms of the last paragraph of the memorial in which the unconditional withdrawal of Rule 127 (b) is demanded, and in which the memorialists say, 'we pledge ourselves to resist the enforcement of the rule by every legitimate means in our power.' In view of your undertaking as a manager of national schools to have the Commissioners' rules and regulations complied with, I am further directed to inquire whether you signed the memorial or authorised the attachment of your name to it, and, if so, to request an explanation on the subject."
  The Chief Secretary was not content with turning the Land Commissioners' Court into a Criminal Court, but he must turn the Board of Education into a Criminal Court which could cite Bishops, priests, and managers to appear before it. Was there ever a piece of greater audacity on the part of the Board in Ireland? The Board got an explanation the following week. A representative body, speaking for the whole Catholic clerical managers of Ireland, passed the following resolution—
  "That we consider the modification of Rule 127 (b), recently sanctioned by the Commissioners and published on May 4th, 1905, as altogether unsatisfactory, and we refuse to accept this rule, even as modified, on the grounds that it still works injustice to the teachers, both principal and assistants; it is retrograde from an educational standpoint; it ignores the natural rights of parents; and has been insidiously introduced to pave the way for the utterly inadmissible system of indiscriminate amalgamation."

  213
  He advised the Chief Secretary that he had better dismiss the whole of the clerical managers in Ireland and send over to Ireland a set of English inspectors to take their place. But there was another resolution passed by the same representative body which stated—
  "We demand the immediate reform of the Irish Board of National Education, on the grounds that, as at present constituted, it is unrepresentative, irresponsible, unprogressive, and, to a large extent, antagonistic to the national and religious feelings of the majority of the Irish people."
  The Bishops met a few days later and heartily endorsed the opinion of the clerical managers. He should hear with great curiosity what the Chief Secretary proposed to do with reference to the rule.
  He came now to the question of Irish in the schools. In spite of concessions obtained by persistent agitation the present state of affairs was entirely unsatisfactory. Irish could not be taught as an extra subject by a teacher except in a school which was satisfactory in English, according to the report of the inspector, and which showed merit all round. That threw the school on the mercy of the inspector, whom he could not blame if, disliking Irish, he naturally discouraged it as much as he could. The next provision was a most objectionable one. The fees would not be paid if Irish were taught to pupils of a lower standard than the fourth. It cut out the power and right of the teacher to gain the special fee of 10s. for Irish language in all grades below the fourth, and, as the Irish schools were mostly composed of grades lower than the fourth, it cut off a large part of his income. These two provisions ought to be withdrawn. Then it was the custom of the Board to send inspectors who did not understand Irish, and who were absolutely incapable of making a proper and intelligent report on Erse. He would further like to have the declaration of the Chief Secretary as to the following extraordinary statement. At a meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian body in Belfast, Dr. Wilson, one of the Presbyterian members of the National Board of Education, said he was opposed to the payment of 10s. for the teaching of Irish, and he could
  214
  inform them that the Treasury, after April, 1906, would pay nothing on that subject. He should very much like to know whether Mr. Wilson had any authority for making that statement.
  He now came to the last point on which he proposed to take up the time of the Committee, and that was the question of the development grant and the Marlborough Street Training College. Up to two years ago a sum of £185,000 was set aside as the grant for Ireland, corresponding to the English education grant, and under the old practice that sum belonged by right to Irish education. But then a new system was set up, and under it that money was captured by a series of Bills and devoted to all kinds of purposes except education, with the result that the schools had been starved, teachers had been denied what they were justly entitled to, and all kinds of objects in connection with Irish education had been left unattended. In the name of the whole of the Irish Party and of the Irish people, he protested against the withholding any further of the equivalent grant. The time had come when the almost ananimous opinion was in favour of giving without further delay all that remained of the development or equivalent grant for the improvement of Irish education. There had been a proposal to set aside from the equivalent grant a sum of £50,000 for the provision of a residence in connection with the Marlborough Street Training College. He asked the Chief Secretary when he spoke to make a full and frank statement as to the present position and as to what were the plans of the Government with regard to the college. He was not prepared to take up the position that the college should not get a fair and proportionate sum; but he challenged the granting of this enormously disproportionate sum. The Bill passed for the Marlborough Street College was based on an entirely different scale to those for other colleges in Ireland. There ought to be fair play and reasonable proportion. Was it true that £15,500 had been paid already to the landlord in the case of the Marlborough Street College? If it were true it was an

  215
  extravagant and an extreme sum. They knew from Answers already given in the House that all that it was proposed to build was a residence for the college; and in his opinion the sum of £50,000 was entirely out of proportion to the number of students and the importance of the system which they represented. After all, the college represented that small section of the population—at the outside only one-tenth—which desired a mixed education, and to grant them £50,000 for the residence of a college would not be fair. He had no desire to be unfair. All that he asked was that the Government should make a statement showing that from these slender sources, already depleted most unfairly and outrageously, there should not be given to any section any sum which would be greatly in excess of what they deserved.
  He had succeeded in pretty well emptying the House. The subject was one on which, frankly speaking, it was impossible to interest Englishmen and Scotchmen, though for some inscrutable reason they persisted in keeping the matter in their hands. They had produced the most indefensible, most confused, ineffective, and wasteful system known in any country in the world; and, if he thought his words would have the least effect, he would make one last appeal to the House to leave them to work out their own destiny and see whether they could not make something better of the education of Ireland than the miserable mess made of it under the English Government.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That item A (salaries and wages) be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)said he thought there was a matter of vital constitutional importance regarding the position in which they found themselves. It must not be forgotten that they were debating an Estimate on which last year the House by a solemn vote condemned the administration of the Government. Last year, before any of the excitement of the present situation, before the right hon. Gentleman who was now Chief Secretary took office, the House
  216
  did what was practically unparalleled, viz., carried the "classical" reduction of £100 upon a Vote for National Education in Ireland. Therefore they were dealing with a system which the House of Commons in Supply had already condemned. More than a year—he believed fifteen months—had passed since that solemn condemnation by Irish, and English opinion assisting, was made. What had the Government done since? They had made a change in the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman was very vigorous in upholding law and order. What had the right hon. Gentleman done in regard to education that affected not 100 landlords or scores of peasants, but millions of people —Protestants and Catholics —throughout the country? Instead of applying themselves to the betterment of that condition of affairs the Government had entered upon a scheme which would increase tenfold the indignation and exasperation already prevailing as to the system of Irish national education. He ventured to say that, serious as was the indignation which had previously existed, that feeling to-day was ten times intensified.
  The Chief Secretary might say that he had nothing to do with the National Education Board in Ireland, and that he would wash his hands of the whole matter. Thus there had been reached, after all the years of the Union, this extraordinary position—that it did not matter how Irish Members voted or spake—the system still went on. Talk about reducing Irish representation, 103 Gentlemen were brought across th3 channel, by the magnetism, he supposed, and the surroundings of the British Houses of Parliament, they got even the English Members to join them in condemnation of a certain Irish policy, a ad yet that policy was going strong still—worse, indeed, than ever. Another "classic" reduction of £100 was carried the other day on the land question, and the Leader of the Government said, in effect, that he did not care a brass farthing; things would go on as they had been going. This, therefore, was the situation—that if Irish Nationalists wished to do anything which would disturb the Government they must ally themselves with some English Members on some questions for which they did not care a

  217
  farthing—the fiscal question, for instance, as to which he personally did not care one way or the other, and for which anybody might have his vote if it would help the cause of Ireland. The First Lord in effect said, "Bring forward China, Madagascar, the Cape, or the North Pole, and on that move a vote of censure, and then the great Tory Ministry will take it into consideration." Was there ever such a broken-backed Government, or was there ever such an absurd proceeding as that the Irish Members, who for the most part cared nothing for any English question or any foreign question—nothing about China or Gibraltar or all the rest of the places in the Archipelago—should have to join with English Members on some question in which they had no interest—and then, forsooth, if they won only to change the Government for the perpetuation of the old system? That was the naked position of affairs. On divisions last session and this session on the two great questions of Irish land and Irish education, the Nationalists had twice been able to condemn the policy of the Government, but the Nationalists might as well talk to the reporters in the lobby, or, for that matter, to those they might meet on a bus while coming to the House. Their words, and even the defeats they were able to inflict in the division lobbies, were ignored, the Government's only reply being, "Oh, you did not attack us on a vote of censure." Practically speaking, the only way in which the Nationalist Members could deal with Irish questions was in Committee of Supply, but, in spite of what had happened in Supply on the education and the land questions, instead of any benefit being achieved new grievances had arisen, and he could not help wondering how reform could ever be secured in Irish matters. It apparently could not be obtained by legislation; almost as certainly it could not be obtained on the Estimates since the Prime Minister had practically said that divisions on the Estimates on Irish questions were of no account. What, then, were the Nationalists to do? It was in a practically bankrupt condition, so to speak, as to Parliamentary devices that they were obliged to attend the House. He did not see
  218
  why the Prime Minister should attend the House at all when Committee of Supply was on. It was actually supposed by some people in Ireland, not in lunatic asylums, that debates in that House had really some effect on the Ministry of the day. He had rarely known it to happen, but the Nationalist Members were sent there to do their duty to their constituents, and he would therefore put a few considerations before Ministers as to the education question, though they would not care one groat for what he might say.
  Of every injury which was inflicted upon Ireland the Treasury was practically at the bottom, and it was so in the present case. It was pretended that a change was being made in the interests of education, but if the Government would guarantee. a that Mr. Starkie's salary should not be increased if he effected an economy of £20,000 or £30,000 a year nothing more, probably, would be heard of any change. What was it the miserable Treasury were doing—he could not think of them without hatred? They were constantly practising a system of bribery on the higher officials of Departments to make so called economies by the prospect of increased salaries to the individual. They wanted to deprive Ireland of some little grants. Starkie had already, it was true, probably become a C. B., but, though he might have wanted the Bath very much, it was doubtful whether that would satisfy him—he would probably also want something in cash. He wished to ask the Government for an estimate of the sum Starkie would save and what was the amount of commission they proposed to give him—was it 2½ per cent, on a saving of £20,000 or £30,000 per year? Because that was what was at the root of the first proposal.
  He further suggested that the Board of Irish Education should have its proceedings open to the Press, a course which would let the public know from day to day what was going on, and would, perhaps, by the force of public opinion, prevent some of the worst of the Board's proposals from being carried into effect. Ireland, of course, was an idolatrous country. The people there worshipped idols, as was well known and the system

  219
  of education provided for them was this—that the Board chosen to administer that education should be largely non-idol worshippers and should have every interest they could in warping the minds, harassing the consciences, and annoying the feelings of the idolaters. The Government had great respect for idolaters in India. He believed at that moment there was in Burmah a British soldier, paid by that House, marching up and down before one idol in order to prevent that idol being awakened. The Burmese, he understood, believed that if any noise were made near the idol the whole of Burmah would be submerged by an earthquake. Accordingly British prowess with a fixed bayonet marched up and down in front of it by day and night. Then, too, a college had been provided for Mahommedans at Khartoum. In fact, the only subject-people who got any consideration from England were idolaters, and therefore he put in a humble claim that Irish idolaters should be allowed to get their proportion of this money unaffected by the views of the so-called Christians. Surely it was not a strong demand to ask that Irish children should be allowed to have their education settled for them by people of their own persuasion, and, as the Government insisted on one-half of the National Board being composed of Christians and the other half of idolaters, he asked that at all events the proceedings of the Christians should be open to the Press. What a splendid thing it would be for evangelical religion in Ireland and the spread of the Gospel if the people could know what these Christians persons were devising for the benefit of the benighted classes whom they had to educate.
  Nearly £1,400,000 was placed in the hands of this Board every year, and it took them two years to make a Report to that House. There must be some weighty reasons for so great a delay on the part of a Board representing all the wealth, intelligence, education, and Christianity of the country. And let the House consider the time that would be saved if every week one could read in the newspaper what the Board were doing. He would never dream of troubling the House of Commons at all with debates on their published pro-
  220
  ceedings. If anything objectionable were then proposed, a crowd could go to Marlborough Street and break the windows, which might have some effect. But under existing circumstances two years elapsed before the public knew what the Board were doing; by that time two or three of the members had died, others had become Judges, and an entirely new set of men had been appointed, so that if the public went and threw stones they would probably break the windows of the wrong persons. The sum of £1,400,000 was sufficiently large to justify the demand that it should not be passed in the dark. The Committee had absolutely no information about the matter, and the only means by which public opinion could be brought to bear was by opening the proceedings to the Press. Such a reform did not need any Bill or Resolution of that House; it could easily be effected by the Chief Secretary. The defects of the system and the absence of control had been admitted by successive Chief Secretaries.
  The opportunities of life in Ireland were small. The only two Government institutions by which the sons of the peasantry were afforded a chance of earning a decent livelihood were the Royal Irish Constabulary and the teaching profession. Probably four times as much was spent on arms and oppression as upon education. In every village could be seen on the one side the frowning barracks with ten well-paid policemen, and on the other side the little schoolhouse where a starved schoolmaster and his wife were attempting to instil British civilisation into a reluctant population. At the instance of the Treasury, without any regard whatever to Irish desires or interests, the stimulus which the prospect of entering the teaching profession gave humble people to become trained had been destroyed, and neither Catholics nor Protestants —he was most anxious the Protestants should be educated; he thought they needed it—had any longer any inducement to become national teachers. He really did not know why anybody should remain in Ireland. England had made it the saddest and the most miserable country in the world. One might as well live in a tomb as in some Irish

  221
  villages. And now this one little avenue to decency and respectability which had been still open to poor men was closed, and, at the instance of some wretched Treasury clerk, the whole scheme of education had been degraded. This was the common avowal and confession of everybody connected with the system. First the teachers were robbed by being invited to subscribe to a pension fund for their old age, and then being told that the fund was bankrupt; and now, the old men having been defrauded and their hopes withered, the hearts of the young men and women were to be crushed, and they were to be left with neither hope nor outlook.
  This was strictly in accordance with the English system of education and government in Ireland. He defied the Chief Secretary to get any independent Irishman on his own side of the House who had studied the subject and was not in the receipt or the expectation of a salary to defend the Board of Education or its administration. Like Job on his dunghill, Irishmen had a right to protest. But whereas Job addressed the Almighty they were addressing the English, and they knew that just as it was in the beginning of the century so it was now and ever would be so long as that House attempted to govern the country. If Englishmen were making anything out of this he could understand it. But they were not. Not a single Englishman would be the better, the wiser, or the richer for the system; it simply bred irritation. It was not like grabbing Africa; the irritation of Ireland put nothing in their pockets, and yet they perpetuated this unholy and unhappy system simply because it was in existence, and they would not take the trouble to reform it. None of the plans he had suggested would involve the expenditure of any Parliamentary time. All he asked the Chief Secretary to do was to let in a little light on the National Board. Since he came into office the Chief Secretary had in less than four months sent a good number of men to jail. It had been a good time for Irish lawyers. The lawyers were saying, "Long live the Chief Secretary for Ireland," as the owls blessed the Sultan Mahmoud for creating
  222
  ruins, because there would always be plenty of prosecutions so long as the right hon. Gentleman remained in office.
  This was a matter which affected the Protestant and Unionist teachers as well as the Catholic teachers. Were the Protestant teachers satisfied with the system and their treatment, and were they satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's proposals? Were they satisfied with Mr. Starkie? Was the Member for Belfast satisfied with Mr. Starkie? Their efforts were almost useless, and they could do nothing for unfortunate Ireland because they had to deal with a House and with a Ministry who would do nothing. Year after year they were getting grey exposing grievances, and yet they saw nothing done except Ministers drawing their salaries. Why did the Chief Secretary not express his opinion freely about the Treasury? He was the Irish Minister and he was supposed to defend Irish interests. The right hon. Gentleman would get his salary all the same whether he condemned the Treasury or not. Why should he not give the Committee his view upon these Treasury proposals?
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)said this was not a question of Roman Catholic or Protestant but a question of efficiency and how they could best deal with the misdoings and the grievous wrongs which were continually imposed upon Ireland by the present system. Of course the Chief Secretary had no control over the Commissioners of Education, and therefore he was not responsible for the charges brought against the system of education in Ireland. But that was no reason why the grievances should remain unredressed, and it was the duty of the House to honestly try to remove grievances which were admitted as much on the Government side as upon the Opposition side of the House.
  MR. FLAVIN (Kerry N.): Why do not you support us with your votes?
  MR. SLOANsaid he had sufficient independence to vote either for or against proposals as he thought fit in the best interests of his constituents, and that independence had not only led him into the thorny paths of misrepresentation

  223
  and misunderstanding, but in his desire to serve all classes and all creeds in matters into which no sectarianism ought to enter he was in the proud position that day of being repudiated by both political Parties. That, however, did not alter his view, and he was so thoroughly convinced of the necessity of representing not a section only of Ireland or a section of his own constituents that he did not hesitate to associate himself with a protest which was universally believed in against a system which did no good to the education of Ireland and which could not under any circumstances receive the approval of right-thinking men.
  It was a most unfortunate thing that there existed the system of confidential documents under which the character and reputation of an Irish teacher was at the mercy of any individual manager, whether Protestant or Catholic, and the teacher in this way could be villified, ruined, and dismissed without any chance of defending himself. A system under which the victim of a confidential circular could not defend himself was a disgrace to the Irish administration of national education, and the House of Commons ought to take steps to immediately remedy that state of things. Even a criminal in the dock was allowed to defend himself, but every national school teacher was within the power, and often became the victim, of a particular school manager. It might be that a national school teacher would not go to a certain Sunday school or play a certain musical instrument in connection with a certain church, and because of these things the manager, who was responsible to nobody, could by means of a confidential circular make certain charges against that teacher which the teacher would have no chance whatever of refuting. Why was the national school teacher not paid by the National Board? He got his salary through the manager. The manager came on quarter-day, or whenever it might be, and you might think he was paying the teacher a compliment, or giving him some bonus he was not entitled to, from the manner in which he handed him his salary, Why was not the national school teacher paid direct by the National Board?
  224
  As the hon. Member for Louth had said? what was the reason the proceedings of this marvellous Board, of which he had the courage to believe and the grace to state that it had perhaps done good work in its day, were not published? At present its work, whether good or bad, was unknown to the country, and he thought it would do no harm, but really be a blessing or a boon in disguise if they had some account of the business transacted at the meetings of the Board. The Board comprised, he understood, an equal number of Protestants and Catholics. Why should there not be a Minister of Education such as Scotland had?
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): We should have one under Home Rule.
  MR. SLOANsaid if the hon. Member addressed the House in a Home Rule debate they would all listen to him with pleasure. He agreed with the hon. Member for Louth that if the Board was serving a public interest, and was for the good of education in Ireland, there ought to be no secret about the transactions which took place when it met. Instead of having Reports, much belated, he admitted, though hardly so much belated as the hon. and learned Member stated, they should be such as would enable them to understand how the business was being carried on. He objected to the Board because it was not a representative Board. It was co-opted, or it was appointed by the Crown. The House of Commons had no control over it. The Government had no control over it. And if they put a Question on the Paper, the Answer, like many other replies given in that debate, would be handed by the First Commissioner to the Chief Secretary, who was compelled by the force of circumstances to tell the House exactly what he had been told to say. That was a state of things with which all Irishmen who desired the common good of their country must be dissatisfied—and because Members on the other side demanded Home Rule, while he believed that the Unionist policy was. the better one for Ireland, that was no reason why a wall of partition should be

  225
  built up against joining hands for what was good for Ireland, and he did not know what should have the first place in their heart if not education.
  Take the case of the small schools. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, asked the total saving under the new system, stated that instead of a total saving there was an additional expenditure of £50,000. He asked as a supplementary Question whether that £50,000 included the £28,000 given out of the equivalent grant christened the dev document grant. The Chief Secretary replied to him that he could not tell. They got by Question and Answer in the House only broad statements and the rules of the House prevented them from so interrogating the Chief Secretary as to get the Question on the Paper answered. He thought the Chief Secretary ought really to take into serious account the united and unanimous desire of the Irish representatives to put the education of the country on a basis which would be acceptable not to one class only, but to all classes, and to give the teachers of Ireland the same opportunities, the same privileges, and the same rights as his fellow school teacher in England or in Scotland.
  He quite agreed with the Member for Mayo in asking why the equivalent grant was applied to other purposes than those to which it should be applied. Ireland got as its share of the equivalent grant £185,000, which was accumulating every year. Out of it there had been paid £10,000 to the Tralee and Dingle Railway, and £75,000 to carry out the administration of land purchase. That money ought to be applied for the education of the children and for the maintenance of the schools in a proper condition. There were instances where children had to go to school with pieces of turf in their arms in order to heat themselves. He submitted to the Chief Secretary that these were questions that ought to engage the attention of the Irish Administration. The right lion. Gentleman the Member for Dover indicated in the House of Commons some time before his resignation that it was his intention to bring in a Bill to deal with the question of Irish education.
  MR. DILLON: I asked the Chief Secretary, just after the Address, whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill this session, and he said "No."
  MR. SLOANsaid that was very unfortunate. One thing that ought to be remedied was that the £185,000 should be applied to education. This amount went on accumulating, and it would only go as doles to particular interests—he did not care whether they belonged to the North, South, East or West. This was education money and it ought to be applied for educational purposes. He knew the difficulties under the present system in country schools, and he had known a national school where a teacher getting only a salary of £50 or £60 had to repair the floor of the school in order that the children might not get their legs broken. What was being done with the £185,000 as regards education in Ireland? Nothing. Only £28,000 had been devoted out of that sum and that was the result of an agitationgot upon both sides of the House. It was not a question of Protestant or Roman Catholic. It was not a question of sectarian bitterness on one side or the other. It was a question of whether Ireland was being educated or not, and whether an Irishman's child was to have facilities for meeting the hardships of life and going forth to the world with an education capable of enabling him to obtain a position of honour in the industrial world that would be a credit to his country. There was no Irishman, whatever constituency he represented, who would get up and justify the present antiquated administration so far as education in Ireland was concerned, and the fault must lie not with the Chief Secretary, but with the present Government. He did not know if it would require a stroke of the pen or instructions from the Chief Secretary. He thought under an Act of Parliament the National Commissioners had the power they now exercised.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: They sit by charter.
  MR. SLOANsaid in that case it would require an Act of Parliament to put

  227
  education on a more popular system. Why had local authorities no hand in this education? He thought that, so far as Belfast was concerned, if the local authority had to do with education matters it would be able to take a better and deeper interest in them. Those were his convictions, and if hon. Members did not like them he could not help it.
  While he agreed with all that had been said regarding the importance of education in Ireland, he was entitled to dissociate himself from hon. Members opposite as to whether the mode they would apply for improving it was the right one. They should all be interested in applying a system which would give no offence to any person and give a monopoly to no person. So long as he was in that House he would associate himself with any reasonable reform for Ireland, no matter who proposed it, but he claimed the right to dissociate himself from any reform which he considered undesirable. He associated himself with the denunciation of the present system of national education in Ireland, and he trusted that the Chief Secretary would use his position and, if it was possible, his influence over his colleagues, so that that influence would be used to put a stop to a system which never could be popular with any class of Irish national school teachers, and never could do any real good to education in Ireland. He hoped for the best things from that debate, and he trusted that in the near future, instead of having red tape and stereotyped replies in regard to the grievances which occurred, they would have changes introduced which would place education on a more satisfactory footing. They had to bring these matters up continually at Question time in the House, and that was a way which was not satisfactory to the persons aggrieved, and did not enable them to bring home blame to the Administration. He asked the Chief Secretary if there was no possibility of an open door in regard to the difficulty on the education question, and whether they could not have some system whereby the children of Ireland should have the same rights as those in Scotland or England, whereby there might be a conference of the general public, and
  228
  whereby the national school teachers might have redress against the managers in regard to the charges brought against them. He trusted that the Chief Secretary's reply would not be the annual reply to which they were accustomed, but that they would get something more than they had ever got before, which would tend to the progress of education in Ireland and merit the goodwill of all persons concerned.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid they had been discussing that day perhaps the most important of Irish questions. It lay at the root of almost everything in Ireland, and yet he felt that they had been beating the air and wasting time. He said that because the National Board of Education in Ireland was so constituted that that House had absolutely no power or authority over it. It was established by charter. The Chief Secretary had no power to demand anything from it. The right hon. Gentleman might send a Question to be answered, and the Board could withhold the Answer if it chose. They were dealing with an institution which had done good work in bygone days, but was now completely out of date. What was the use of their sitting there and talking about education when those in charge of it, who were spending the money voted by the House, were not morally or legally bound to take the slightest notice of anything they did in the House? There was another reason why it was useless to debate education in that House. What did they do last year? The House of Commons was so conscious of the mischief of this system that it took the extraordinary step of deducting £100 from the Vote, which was the only condemnation the House could pronounce upon it. What happened? He did not know whether anybody was a penny the worse or not. He did not know whether the Chief Secretary made it up out of his salary or not. That was very unlikely.
  He had listened to the hon. Member for South Belfast with interest. If this were a question of land they would see the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh in his place. He was the Leader of what was called the Unionist Party in Ulster. They had a right to

  229
  have his advice and assistance in a matter like this. But where was he that night? If it was a matter of the Irish landlords or the Irish land system he would be in his place hurling defiance at those benches. There were only. two members of the Ulster Unionist Party in the House now, when they were discussing a question of the most momentous importance to the people of Ireland. He hoped that fact would be noted by the Belfast newspapers. He did not suppose it would be noted by those newspapers, but it was a fact, and a very significant fact. When they reduced the Vote by £100 last year nothing came of it. They were not likely to repeat that tonight. The gentlemen of England would take care of that. They had got one fright and they would not be found wanting on that occasion. But any way, they did the only thing that was possible for them to do to show their condemnation of this system. If the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo were carried the Board would go on as gaily as before, doing as they liked. All that the House had to do was to vote the money which they spent perhaps in the worst possible way.
  The whole education system in Ireland was a sham. There were thousands of Irish children being taught in schools which hon. Gentlemen opposite would not use for their spaniels. They were not fitted to be used as schools, but the managers could not get a penny from the Board to putan end to that shameful state of affairs. The whole system was rotten from top to bottom. He agreed with the hon. Member for Belfast that the local authorities ought to have some say in this matter—he did not care whether it was in the North or the South; they should have a legitimate position in those matters. There was not at present a particle of the representative character about it which there ought to be. At all events, they were now only beating the air. If the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo were carried —which it would not be—the National Board of Education would take no notice of it: the Government would take no notice of it. They would go on as they had gone on before—destroying every chance which the Irish child had of being educated.
  COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)said that he agreed with much that had been said by the hon. Member for Belfast and the hon. Member for South Tyrone, but he wished to point out that an indirect attack had been made on the managerial system of education in Ireland. Now, he wanted the Committee to understand that the whole character of education in Ireland depended on the managerial system, and that they could not without danger risk a change of that system. He had been for many years a school manager himself, and he understood the question. As to the so-called confidential reports which were sent to the Board, he did not think they were the formidable documents which the hon. Member for Belfast made them out to be. These were a printed form which dealt with many subjects. One of these subjects was the character of the school teachers. It had been said that the teachers would have no security about those reports; but he should have thought that they were an advantage rather than otherwise to the teachers.
  MR. SLOANsaid that his argument was that confidential circulars were sent to the Board, making charges against teachers without the teachers having an opportunity of replying to those charges.
  COLONEL NOLANrepeated that his experience was that the reports were only sent up on printed forms on which the manager marked "Good" or "Bad." It must be recollected that the national system was originally instituted as a proselytising agency by Protestant managers, especially in the West of Ireland, and that one result of it was that the great Dr. MacHule, then Archbishop of Tuam, shut up the whole of the - schools in his diocese and would have nothing to do with the system. But, as at present worked, the system, on the whole, was a tolerable system; and it would not do to have an immediate total change. Besides, he did not think they could get a sufficient number of Catholic squires and laymen to manage all the schools. The hon. Member for South Tyrone spoke in favour of some system of local representative management.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that all he had advocated was that the local authorities should be recognised.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid he was very glad to have got that qualification from the hon. Member for South Tyrone; but his contention was that, on the whole, the present managers had worked well. People were not going to vote money for schools if they had not some control over the schools. The present managerial system had, he insisted, worked well on the whole, and it was suited to the wants of Ireland. In the large majority of cases the clerical managers of the schools had proved efficient. He agreed with the hon. Member for Belfast that they were all shocked at the way the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses had been treated by the Treasury, and the Chief Secretary should see that these deserving public servants were treated as well as the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses of Scotland and England were.
  As to Rule 127 (b), he did not think that English Members understood what was being done under that rule. As a general rule, in Ireland boys and girls were separated; but under Rule 127 (b) the balance was changed and all children between three and eight years of age were put into girls' schools. The right hon. Gentleman said that that change was made for the sake of the children; but the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in Ireland were paid chiefly by the number attending the school, and when there was a transfer of boys made to a girls' school that interfered with the prospects of the schoolmaster. He understood that a promise had been made that no schoolmaster or schoolmistress should suffer from the change, but that change ruined their prospects of promotion, which was practically a breach of faith with the schoolmasters. This was a point to which the Chief Secretary might be fairly called upon to give some attention. If schoolmasters were put permanently in a small school, with no chance of promotion, they stagnated. As to school buildings, the inspectors had marched with the times and insisted that the children should have more room and more air, and called upon the managers,
  232
  who were not rich men, to carry out improvements; but the managers did not like to bleed the parish for that purpose. In some cases the proposed improvements were fads; and he suggested that where a certain amount of money had been spent on enlargement or improvement of the schools the Government should contribute a proportion of the expenditure, the past expenditure of the managers being taken into account. Some now thought the carrying of sods of turf for fuel a great hardship. In old times it was not so bad, but now the children were a little better clothed, and they did not like it. He thought it would not be fair to ask the managers to provide fuel, but he considered a fuel allowance—£2 per school would go a long way—might be made, and he hoped the Chief Secretary, as a good administrator, would look into the question and see if some such allowance could not be made. He hoped that before the end of the year they might have some better rule than Rule 127 (b).
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid that the only possible solution for an effective and useful change was Home Rule. On that side of the House they were all agreed that education was a most important and vital question, and if it were to be carried on for many years longer in the same unbusinesslike manner in which it had been carried on for the past seventy years, the country was bound to suffer most severely. The education of the country was entrusted to some twenty men sitting at Dublin. They had been described in very effective and eloquent terms by the hon. Member for North Louth, [who had shown the House how the country suffered from their work. He asked that if they were to continue to live under the National Board, the Press should be allowed to attend its meetings, this being one of the best ways of letting the country know what they were doing. He trusted the Chief Secretary would take seriously into consideration that reasonable and just demand.
  The question of the payment of teachers in order to get good men was a very important one. In the

  233
  last Estimates England was voted a sum of £12,500,000 for education, Scotland £1,817,000, and Ireland £1,391,000. In England and Scotland. where education had been conducted certainly on very much better lines than in Ireland, there were increases of £416,000 and £63,000 respectively, but in Ireland, where education was admittedly starved by the Treasury, there was a decrease of £1,900, even in the face of the reports submitted by the inspectors and by the English gentleman, Mr. Dale, who said that the teachers were badly paid, and that the schools were a disgrace to civilisation. That was a scandal and a thing which ought to be remedied. It had been said in previous debates that England and Scotland did not get more proportionately from the State for education than Ireland, and that England and Scotland contributed towards education from the rates. The first statement was inaccurate. England and Scotland got considerably more for primary and ever so much more for secondary and University education than Ireland. The average amount voted from the State per head of population for primary education in England was 8s., in Scotland a little over 8s., and in Ireland only 6s. Those were facts which could not be denied. They could not get away from the fact that Ireland was getting from the Imperial taxes a smaller amount for primary education than she was entitled to. If she were to get her proportion per head of population—the only logical and just basis—she would get £1,800,000 instead of £1,390,000. On that score alone, and apart altogether from the equivalent grant, Ireland was denied £100,000 per annum for primary education. Then, when they asked for more money to improve their schools, and to give decent salaries to their teachers, they were told they must contribute out of their rates, and that they were already getting more out of the State than England and Scotland. That was false, and it was treating Ireland in a manner shabby and mean.
  Not only was the amount they got proportionately lower than was given to England and Scotland, but the administration was at least twice as
  234
  expensive as in England and Scotland, being about 3 per cent, in England, 2½ per cent, in Scotland, and 5½ per cent, in Ireland of the respective grants, thus showing that the National Board, however bad it was, was twice as competent to spend money in administration as the English and Scotch Boards. What salaries were the Irish teachers getting? The best educated men of the country were being enticed, induced, and coaxed to come within the service of the National Board, which offered them the magnificent starting salary of £56 a year. Could it be imagined that the men entrusted with a great work, fraught with so much importance to the welfare of the country, and upon which depended the future progress of the children of the nation, were to begin with the miserable and wretched salary of a little over £1 per week? It was a shame to expect men to come to the service with such miserable inducements, and it was equally a shame to expect that good men would remain in it. There was no field for their energy and no certainty as to what might occur to them in after years.
  He complained of the manner in which the teachers had been treated in regard to their pensions. The Treasury suddenly found out that the fund was bankrupt, that the pensions promised must be reduced from £88 to £60 a year, and that the teachers' contributions must be trebled. How was it to be expected, with the miserable salaries given, with the uncertainty increasing every year, and with the pensions reduced, that the proper class of men would enter the service or remain in it if they did enter? It was absolutely impossible. In England and Scotland it was found advantageous to give twice as much salary to the teachers as was given in Ireland. They demanded—and before long he thought they might insist upon it—a salary for the Irish teacher equal to that given to the English and Scotch teacher. He was as well trained for his work, and he was performing the same service for his nation. The question of pensions was one vitally connected with the question of salaries, and he wished to ask the Chief Secretary one or two Questions.

  235
  In 1900 the old system of education was changed and a broad new system substituted. The old teachers were regarded as not being up to date. In every other branch of the Civil Service, if, for the benefit of the nation, a change were found necessary, a man, often of ten, twenty, or twenty-five years service, would not be suddenly discarded without consideration, but when it was found that a change in the educational system was necessary, the national teacher was declared inefficient, cast aside, and dismissed without a pension. It was a shame and a scandal that men who had been in the service for thirty years should be dismissed in order that new men could be taken on at half the salary. Rule 127 (b) particularly affected the teachers in this way. One effect of the rule must be to lessen the number of teachers, and another would be to replace male by female teachers, with the result that the work would be less efficient. He, therefore, wished to ask the Chief Secretary whether he could definitely state that under this scheme no teacher at present in the service should suffer loss in his salary and that no teacher who was degraded to the position of an assistant should suffer any loss on his pension rights. Those were Questions to which, up to the present, they had been unable to obtain a definite reply.
  In the Report of the Commissioners of National Education it stated that in the. first standard in the national schools of Ireland there were 45 per cent, of the whole of the children attending the schools, whilst the first three standards contained 71 per cent, of the children attending the schools. That meant that the education given at the present time to 71 per cent, of the children of Ireland was of the most meagre description, and that a radical change must be made if there was to be any improvement in Irish education. He was proud to recognise that the Commissioners had stated that they had made demands on the Treasury for the building of schools and for setting up higher-grade schools. If Ireland had a proper system of education passing from the national through the higher-grade schools to the University, and if they could persuade those who had passed through
  236
  the Universities to come back and give the benefit of the training they had received to the children of the peasants, there was no people who would more quickly benefit than the Irish. Higher -grade schools should be established all over the country, because there were thousands and thousands of young Irish boys whose minds were starved and who were denied opportunities of bettering their condition because their education had commenced and ended in the national schools. Were a system of higher-grade schools established they would soon show in commercial, industrial, and other walks of life that they were at least the equals of those who governed their country against their will.
  Coming to the most important part of the question, namely, the influence which the teaching of the Irish language had had in arousing greater interest in the work of Irish education, he took leave to point out that while the Commissioners acknowledged the beneficial effect of teaching the national language in the schools, they were told by one of the Commissioners that next year, in 1906, the one subject which had stirred the whole life of Ireland and had engendered this greatly increased interest in the education of the country was to be abandoned by the Treasury and that no more money would be given for its teaching. Was it conceivable that now, when Ireland was making a start and had found the means of making up for the drawbacks of the National Board and improving the education of the country, the Treasury were going to block their efforts and were going to refuse the miserable sum which was given for teaching the Irish language. He could assure whoever was responsible for such a thing that if the Treasury insisted upon withdrawing the money at present given for that purpose they would raise such a storm about their ears that they would be prevented from carrying their intentions into effect. In Ireland they had training colleges supposed to train teachers to educate the children. The people of Ireland had emphatically declared by every form open to them that they desired to have the national language of the country taught to their children, yet in the face of that fact.

  237
  the Treasury had done nothing to compel these training colleges to train the teachers in the Irish language. He appealed to the Chief Secretary, and through him to Dr. Starkie, to meet the unanimous demand of the Irish people by insisting in future that no young man or woman should be allowed to remain in a training college without being taught the Irish language, and that they should not be allowed to teach in the schools until they had acquired a knowledge of the national tongue. The Irish people had a right to insist that their own language should be taught in the schools; they were a bi-lingual people, and he hoped that something would be done in this matter to meet the wishes of the people.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)expressed the opinion, after a close examination of the systems in vogue, that the Irish educational system was fifty years behind that of England and Wales, and 150 years behind that of Scotland. That was entirely due to the superiniposition of a system from outside superimposed by ignorance, with the result that a people loving education were driven to the necessity of detesting the means by which it was offered to them. As a result a great crime had been committed against the people of Ireland, and this country had been robbed of the services of a brilliant and intellectual people. The cost of the official administration of Ireland was £120,000 a year; that of Scotland, with an infinitely better system, was £60,000 a year. In England and Wales for every 20s. raised for education 3s. went in official administration; in Scotland 3s. 10d., but in Ireland out of every 20s. paid for education 6s. 6d. went in official administration, and a very bad administration it was. The Intermediate Board consisted of twelve Commissioners, two assistant Commissioners, and a host of paid officials, and they encouraged education in Ireland simply by paying result fees on examinations. That was a thoroughly rotten system of administering any form of education. Last year this egregious institution spent £98,550, of which £6,633 went in permanent salaries, temporary inspectors' remuneration, and locomotive
  238
  expenses, and £10,843 in examiners' remuneration, examination superintendence, and locomotive expenses. The Board simply examined 7,909 pupils, without educating or assisting them in any way, at a cost of £2 4s 2d. per head, whereas the whole education of a child in the popular schools of Ireland cost only £2 7s. 6d. Then the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction had an income of £350,000 a year, and, as described to him by a witty Irishman, its whole function was to teach hens how to lay eggs. These were the central Departments which had to deal with education.
  How were the teachers treated in Ireland as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? The average salary, from all sources, of certificated headmasters in public elementary schools in Scotland was £176 14s. 3d., in England and Wales £151 9s. 11d., and in Ireland £105 4s. 9d. As to assistant masters, the average salary last year in Scotland was £120 11s. 8d., in England and Wales £110 3s. Id., and in Ireland £73 13s. 10d. To put it in another way, where an Irish headmaster received 20s., an English headmaster received 30s., and a Scotch headmaster 35s., while even an assistant teacher in England received 24s. against an Irish headmaster's 20s. With regard to superannuation, he knew of no more scandalous piece of maladministration or more scandalous breach of faith than was involved in the revision of the pension scheme. That scheme was set up by diverting £1,300,000 from the Irish Church surplus, and an Act of Parliament was passed, the schedule of which laid it down on the faith of the British Government that the teachers should receive certain benefits. The system was in operation until 1897, when a mysterious Departmental Committee came to the extraordinary conclusion that the scheme was in a financially unsound condition, though where the money had gone Heaven only knew. Then, without any consultation of Parliament, a new set of rules was put into operation, the premiums were trebled, the benefits reduced, and the teacher compelled to adhere to the new scheme. That was a monstrous injustice, and he believed it was absolutely illegal, an

  239
  opinion which, when briefed by the Irish teachers, the Irish Solicitor-General also held, though he was not of the same opinion now.
  THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, Dublin University): I have not said so.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was surprised Irish teachers took it so quietly. If he had paid premiums for twenty years in order to secure certain benefits under an Act of Parliament, he would have had those benefits or known the reason why. He did not think the House at all understood what was being perpetrated when the scheme was revolutionised. The premium was trebled, gratuities were abolished, the retiring age was increased by five years, and the maximum pensions obtainable were reduced, in the case of men, from £88 to £60, and, in the case of women, from £63 to £47. When the subject was discussed on April 11th last, he expressed the view that these alterations were illegal, and the Financial Secretary of the Treasury then said that the rules were framed in 1897 in accordance with the recommendation of a Departmental Committee, and had remained in force until the present time, though he candidly admitted there had been cases of hardship. Then, prompted by the Solicitor-General, he said—
  "It is only fair to point out that the teachers who were in the service on January 1st, 1898, had the option of remaining under the old rules or of coming under the new rules."
  If that had been true all the teachers would have remained under the old rules because they were much more favourable, but, as he himself pointed out to the Financial Secretary, the teachers were compelled to accept the new rules. The Solicitor-General himself stated—
  The hon. Member for Camberwell made a complete mistake in supposing that these rules of 1897 deprived existing; teachers of any right whatever ii respect of their pensions."
  That was wrong, and the Solicitor-General ought to have known it. It was true that teachers who had reached the first class retained the right to get the £88 maximum, but what about those teachers who were second of the first class, second class, and third class, who previously had a prospective right to the £88 maxi-
  240
  mum? The alteration in the rules robbed them of that right; and he was surprised that a legal gentleman with the training of the Solicitor-General should have endeavoured so seriously to mislead the House.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that was a serious charge. On the occasion referred to the hon. Member asserted that all existing rights in all classes of teachers had been summarily interfered with. He then rose to correct that misrepresentation, and to say that the rights of the class he named had not been interfered with, and the hon. Member had to admit that he was right.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid his recollection was not the same as the Solicitor-General's, but he would not pursue the point. He was not now referring to any interruption, but to the body of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech where he said the rules did not deprive existing teachers of any right whatever. They did, and the Solicitor-General knew it. It was true that they did not take away any right from a teacher who was then first in the first class, but they did take away the prospective right to the £88 maximum from teachers who had a reasonable expectation of arriving at that stage.
  But this was not merely a question of salaries or pensions. The whole treatment of Irish teachers was absolutely wrong, and willing service, which was the only thing worth having, would never be obtained under such a system. Under the rules of the Commissioners, teachers were not allowed to go to fairs or to political meetings—although a few years ago Lord Londonderry made a violent political speech at a teachers' banquet, and if the teachers had acted according to the rules they would have repudiated the Lord President, in which case they would probably have been dismissed. Then they were expected to provide at their own expense prizes and treats for the pupils, and to make good wear and tear of buildings. With regard to school buildings—
  "The Commissioners expect that all teachers shall have done at their own expense the following, viz.:—Lime-washing, cleaning and

  241
  repairing glass; cleaning privies and ash-pits; gravelling yards and walks, and keeping surface channels in order; sweeping chimneys; making good any damage arising from carelessness or neglect; maintaining fences and gates, except damages from lapse of time; and, in cases of residences built by grants for teachers of national schools vested in the Board of National Education or in trustees, the Commissioners will inflict such penalty as they may deem adequate if the teacher fails to fulfil these conditions."
  In fact, on nearly every page of these rules there appeared the words—
  "The Commissioners will inflict such penalties as they may deem adequate."
  One alteration he was very glad to see. In the old edition of the rule it was provided that—
  "The national teachers shall be persons of Christian sentiment, of calm temper and discretion, and imbued with a spirit of peace; they must show obedience to the law and loyalty to their Sovereign."
  What distressed him was that this rule had now completely disappeared, with the exception of the words, "they must show obedience to the law and loyalty to their Sovereign." Therefore they did not now need to be persons of Christian sentiment, calm temper, or discretion, for all that had gone, and he did not wonder at it. No doubt the Chief Secretary said to himself, "It cannot be done at the price." He hoped that the Chief Secretary, who could bring to bear upon this question real practical experience as to what was being done for the English, Scotch, and Welsh child, would contrast that experience with what was being done for the Irish child.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)congratulated the hon. Member for North Camberwell upon his speech. Of the eight speakers who had addressed the House upon this question not one of them had said a good word for the system under which the school teachers of Ireland were maintained by the Government, and they all united in one common chorus of condemnation of the system. The present system was making the life of the Irish school teacher intolerable. He really believed that the Government were afraid to intellectually equip the Irish people. The teaching of the Irish language was discouraged in order to lessen the enthusiasm of the people for it. The whole system of education embodied
  242
  in the rules was calculated to depress and degrade the teaching class, destroy individuality, disturb independence, and to work detrimentally to the education and culture of the children. There were many illiterates in his constituency, but they had been rendered illiterate by the English Government, who were afraid of cultivating their intellects, and he would sooner represent them than the selfishness of Trinity College. Did the Chief Secretary realise his position? Three months ago he knew nothing about Irish education, and what he knew now was only in consequence of the "coaching" he had received from Irish officials. The right hon. Gentleman was simply the mouthpiece of a system which kept Irish education depressed and which degraded Irish teachers. The Chief Secretary appeared before them as the most discredited member of a discredited Government. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] It was against him upon an Irish subject that the Government were defeated. The policy pursued by the Government was a fraud upon all Parliamentary institutions.
  MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.)said the hon. Member for North Camberwell had shown how the Irish teacher had been treated in regard to his salary. The National Board did not appear alive to the danger the teachers of Ireland would undergo if these new rules were brought into effect. Did the Treasury intend to effect some economy by this new rule? At the present time he was more concerned with the question of the teachers' salaries, and he thought it due to the House and the country that the action of the Treasury should be made clear. Only that day a Paper had been circulated by the Treasury asking the House of Commons to vote £100,000 more for higher education in England. With regard to the teaching of the Irish language it had already been pointed out that the training colleges of Ireland offered no facilities for the training of teachers in one of the most important educational movements now going on in Ireland, namely, the teaching of the Irish language. The Irish people, out of their own funds, had elected to provide what ought to be provided by the national training colleges. Two voluntary training colleges

  243
  had been started which were attended by sixty or seventy teachers from the national schools, so that tinder the present system Irish teachers were obliged to go to voluntary institutions to obtain facilities for learning the language of their own country. He asked the Chief Secretary to secure for the national teachers attending those schools the right to stay for the whole six weeks course without having to provide a substitute at their own expense.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)sympathised with a great deal that had been said by Nationalist Members as to the deplorable state of education in Ireland. The most valuable asset of any nation was the brains of its people, and he believed that in intelligence the Irish nation came short of no nation in the world. All they wanted, in order to keep their place in the race that all the nations were engaged in, was fair play, and the national system of education as it now existed did not give fair play to the Irish people. The teachers ought to be given the independence which they asked for and better pay, and it would be the cheapest money ever spent in the country.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)said it was quite unnecessary for one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest as they did, that he had taken no interest in the work of Irish education. He desired to say in his own defence that there was no subject in which he took a deeper interest and no work which would be more congenial to him and in which he should be so glad to labour successfully than that of the improvement of the general system of education in Ireland. But the question was extremely difficult and complicated- one of the most difficult they could be called upon to consider. It- was, therefore, unnecessary to make it worse by personal charges and statements about the Minister who happened at the moment to be responsible.
  He thought the first conviction forced on the mind of anybody who had listened to the debate had been that, whilst everybody had been prepared to criticise the National Board and to find
  244
  fault with the system of national education in Ireland, there had been very few practical suggestions of remedy. The suggestions that had been made had invariably encountered very vigorous opposition in other parts of the House. In the earlier stages of the debate he heard that there was a feeling in support of some system of local control; and the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had dealt with the question of absolute power of managers over their teachers. He thought anybody who had looked even superficially at the question would realise that an attempt to alter that part of the national education in Ireland would be to provoke very wide and deep-seated controversy and would be very unlikely to be successful. Changes which involved such controversy as to be at present impossible, could hardly be regarded as practicable, or, if adopted, as likely to effect the desired reform. As far as he was concerned, the greater part of the indictment delivered that day was concerned with that period of the educational year during which he had no direct knowledge of what was going on; but he was bound to say that he had found no indication in the numerous conversations he had had with the Resident Commissioner and other members of the National Board to support the charge that the Board had proceeded with disregard for Irish education, and with a desire to scamp and to starve it. On the contrary, though their methods might not have met with the results they all desired, it was owing very largely, he thought, to the difficulties with which they had to deal rather than with weakness or bad policy on their part.
  There had been a variety of charges made against the National Board, but they had chiefly centred round four great questions, viz., the teachers and their salaries, the building and improvement of schools, Rule 127 (b), and the development grant. With regard to the question of the salaries of teachers, the figures he had been supplied with practically agreed with those of the hon. Member for Camberwell, who, however, ought to have remembered that the salaries had to some extent to be measured by the numbers the teachers

  245
  had to teach. The average salary of a headmaster in Ireland was about £100, in Scotland £178, and in England £159, but in Ireland these teachers were only called upon to teach fifty-five children, whereas in Scotland they were called upon to teach, on the average, 200, and in England, on the average, 250. He was not saying that the salaries were sufficient, because he was one of those who had always believed that the labourer was worthy of his hire, and if they wanted to get good men they must pay them sufficient salaries. But, in this branch of their work the National Board was justified, when a comparison was made in favour of Scotland and England, in taking into account the numbers that the teachers were called upon to teach. This difference in the comparison must be an element in considering what the salaries should be.
  As to the position of the teachers and the effect of the change on their pensions, he stated that the effect of the change brought into force in 1900, by which payment by results was abolished and a fixed scale of salaries substituted, had been confused with the ultimate effects of the application of Rule 127 (b) and the consequent alteration in teaching.
  MR. DILLON: No, no !
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that there had been some confusion, and so far as he was informed, he believed that in all probability no teacher now in the service of the Board would suffer under the existing regulations.
  MR. DILLON: You are speaking now of the change from payment by results to graded salaries. I challenge that; and I gave cases in which they do suffer.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that there might be some cases where it was impossible to prevent some hardship, but he believed that as a general rule there would be no such hardship. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was confusing the issue with promotion. That was a different question.
  MR. DILLON: Will no teacher suffer in regard to pension rights?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the National Board were now in communication with the Treasury, making suggestions towards the preservation of the pension rights of the teachers. Many of the allegations made against the Treasury by the hon. Member for Louth were unfounded. The hon. Member had said that because the Department was in negotiation with the Treasury on the pension question it was bound to be swindled.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Hear, hear!
  MR. WALTER LONG: That was not a correct phrase to apply to the Treasury in the exercise of its rights as guardian of the public purse. At all events, he could show that in one material respect the Treasury had not behaved as the lion. Member suggested, but that it had met claims fairly and squarely.
  MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.): Do I understand that no existing teacher will suffer from the operation of Rule 127 (b).
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he was speaking of salaries. But reference had been made to the Departmental Committee which sat in 1902 on the question of school buildings. The grants from the Imperial Exchequer for building purposes in England had long ago ceased, and the Treasury proposed, several years back, to give £100,000 towards school buildings in Ireland. The Department had approached the Treasury on that subject and, so far from desiring to swindle the Irish Government, it had made an increased grant of £140,000, while the Irish Government had met that proposal by a supplemental grant out of the development grant to the extent of £70,000.
  MR. DILLON: Is that to take the place of the annual grant?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the Treasury had given the grant to run for a certain period of years.
  MR. DILLON: Is it additional to the annual grants given for many years?
  COLONEL NOLAN: Is it to be a free gift or is it money advanced by way of loan?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the contribution was made by the Treasury in aid of school buildings in Ireland to run during a period of years, and the money would be available for the purpose of building new schools and rebuilding and improving existing buildings.
  MR. DILLONsaid they ought to be clear on the subject. This Committee on the building question sat three years ago. In the Report of the Commissioners complaint was made that they could get no information as to what the result of the inquiry had been. The Irish Members wanted to know what the proposal of the Chief Secretary was. Were they to understand that this grant was a final grant or a grant to take the place of the regular annual grant which used to be given towards the building of Irish schools? Were, the Government now going to offer this grant as a substitute for the old grant and to throw over a large portion of the charge on the development grant? If that was true then a more grotesque and outrageous swindle had never been perpetrated.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that if the Exchequer made a contribution to the Irish schools in respect of buildings which it did not give to the schools in the United Kingdom, surely hon. Members were not justified in preferring a charge of swindling when in reality an effort was being made to help. He appealed to the Committee to say what chance anyone had to give satisfaction when money was applied to Irish educational purposes and hon. Members turned round and de nounced the Government. It was hopelessly unreasonable.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered my Question. Is this an additional new grant or is it by way of substitution for the old annual grant?
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is a substituted grant, certainly, for this particular purpose of buildings.
  MR. DILLON: It is a gross and outrageous statement.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The position is this: there has heretofore been an annual grant of varying amount. That grant will be continued until the expenditure of £140,000 plus £70,000 has been reached.
  MR. DILLON: But is the £30,000 annual grant to be continued and the £110,000 to be added to it?
  MR. WALTER LONG: To the extent I have stated. He was glad to find that this was only a misunderstanding. He might at this stage deal with another point of finance raised by the hon. Member for South Belfast. He had asked the other day whether the grant of £28,000 was included in the £50,000. That was not so.
  Passing from this point he declared that no representations had been made to him that the teachers in Ireland had suffered in the way described by hon. Gentlemen opposite—that they were being driven out of the profession and that they were not getting the right class of applicant. But there was no doubt that there had been distinct discouragement felt amongst them. He thought, however, that that was not due so much to the amount of salary paid as to the slowness of promotion. The National Board were in communication with the Treasury trying to evolve a system under which that difficulty of promotion would be lessened. He had dealt with the question of buildings, and he did not hesitate to say that no money could be better spent or was more seriously needed than that which it was proposed to spend upon the improvement of school buildings. Several other suggestions had been made in regard to buildings. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway suggested that the State should deal with the question fairly and another suggestion was that some system should be devised by which children in widely scattered districts should be brought to school in conveyances so that they could arrive at school dry instead of in the unfortunate condition in which they now sometimes

  249
  came. These were all practical suggestions of a minor character which would be considered by the National Board of Education for Ireland and by the Irish Government.
  With regard to the adoption of Rule 127 (b) they had been told that that rule would never work but would have to be withdrawn for the reason that it would be impossible to work it He could not help doubting that. He believed that when the reasons which led the National Board of Education to adopt the rule and the grounds on which it was based were known to hon. Gentlemen opposite they would be fully accepted by them. It was said that this rule was introduced in the interests of the Treasury and was prompted by motives of economy and not for the betterment of education.
  MR. DILLON: The Treasury said so.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not think the hon. Gentleman could prove that by anything which had been said by the Treasury or by the National Board of Education. It was historically impossible also, because the Treasury letter upon which so much reliance was placed for the contention that this rule had its origin in the Treasury did not come until several months after the National Board had adopted the rule. So there was no justification whatever for the charge that this rule had its origin in motives of economy. As hon. Gentlemen opposite would seefrom Mr. Dale's Report, one of the greatest difficulties in connection with Irish education was the number of small schools. The Report pointed out that the proportion of small schools to the whole number was much larger in Ireland than elsewhere, and, whether the question was looked at from the point of view of the efficiency of the teaching class or the teaching of the children, the multiplication of these small schools must be detrimental to the best interests of education. Rule 127 (b) might be unpopular, but whatever its merits or demerits might be, it was not founded on economic grounds, but on the ground that it would tend to the general improvement of education. After all, what did it do? He would take the case of two schools
  250
  where there were thirty or forty children. If those two schools were amalgamated they would get instead of a single teacher in each school a principal teacher and an assistant, and they would be able to divide the teaching between the two. Surely such an arrangement would appeal to common sense. By dividing the children in that way they were more likely to give them a permanently beneficial education than in adhering to a system which entailed the multiplication of schools under the single teacher regime. He did not venture to lay down whether this new rule would be wise or unwise, but he thought it would be agreed that the Irish National Board had behind them a great mass of evidence in justification for the course which they were taking. It was almost universally acknowledged that the multiplication of small schools must tend to deteriorate the character of education. All experience showed that where a teacher had to deal with a school of all ages the work was more laborious; it dissipated the energy of the teacher, and in all probability the result was far less satisfactory. Having that experience, and having the Report of Mr. Dale before them, the National Board had no possible course open to them but to adopt some rule of this kind.
  MR. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that no existing teacher will suffer from the operation of Rule 127 (b)?
  MR. WALTER LONGreplied that certainly in the great majority of cases there would be no injury to existing teachers, because where they had at present two teachers in two small schools one would become a principal and the other an assistant. But while the new principal had opened to him a higher grade and became the recipient of a better salary with a much higher maximum, the assistant would retain her existing salary and therefore would suffer no loss.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)recalled the Chief Secretary's attention to a promise which the right hon. Gentleman made before Whitsuntide that he would consult the managers and even the

  251
  Bishops upon the efEect of the rule, and that he would take care that no teacher suffered by the operation of this rule. Had he modified that position or not?
  MR. WALTER LONGdid not think the hon. Gentleman had correctly reported him.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I am absolutely correct according to my memory.
  MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): I heard the statement made.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that what he did say was that all he could do in the matter was to communicate with the National Board of Education and take care that the matter was fully considered. In addition to that he had discussed the matter certainly with one Bishop and with other representative men who were good enough to come and see him on the subject. He had represented to the National Board—and he believed they fully accepted the view he had put forward—that while in their judgment the adoption of the rule was essential for the improvement of the general system of national education, they should do their utmost so to apply it that no injustice should be done to any teacher either, now or in the future. Thai; he thought, was all that could reasonably be asked of the National Board or of the Irish Government, since it was obviously very difficult to introduce a system abolishing that now in existence without running the risk of injuring in some way a person here or there. He could only repeat that he would take advantage of any opportunity of discussing the questions with the representative gentlemen to whom the hon. Member had referred, and he had no doubt the National Board would do the same.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked whether a principal teacher who under this rule was made an assistant would get the pension of a principal or of an assistant.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he would have to look into that point as it raised the whole question of pensions, which was not yet finally settled.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked whether, before a final decision was come to, the House would have an opportunity of discussing the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he could not promise that. Then he had been asked why the development grant should not be applied to educational purpose The purposes to which it was now applied I were approved by all the parties concerned. It was an agreed policy at the time [Cries of "No, no !"], and if it was to be altered now it would involve much consideration, and to ask that it should be devoted solely to educational purposes was making a very large demand.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It was nothing of the kind. It was not agreed.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid there was a general agreement between the two sides of the House at the time [Cries of "No, no !"].
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: There was no decision between the two sides at all. The Liberal Party took absolutely no part in the discussion.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was afraid that the information of the hon. and learned Member was not strictly accurate in respect to the two great Parties in the House, though it was no doubt true that the Irish Party did not agree. Many demands were now being made upon the development grant by Irish Members, who expected that the money would be spent upon local works in their own districts. [NATIONALIST cries of "No, no!" and "Name."] They certainly did come to him and ask for this money and they expected to get it. He was not, therefore, describing them unfairly when he said that many of the Irish Members looked upon this money as a fund to be used for the development of local industries, and if the change was to be made it would involve a reconsideration of the whole financial system.
  MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Partv

  253
  have passed a resolution calling upon the Government to devote all the balance of the development grant to Irish education?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, but I am awar that a great many Members of the Irish Party have come to me and assured me the development grant ought to be spent on industries in their districts.
  MR. DILLON: Of course if the Government refuses to spend it on education, Members will ask you to spend it in their districts rather than that it should be hung up.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I will not wrangle about it. The development grant has been used largely for purposes of development, and it is impossible to change the system at his moment, unless the educational finances can be so rearranged as to fill up the gap by providing money for the development of industries from other sources.
  MR. DILLON: What about the teaching of Irish?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the National Board had decided, not merely with regard to Irish but all extra subjects, that they were prepared to abolish these fees, provided the money was given to other educational purposes, such as manual instruction. The money was not withdrawn by the Treasury, but it was a suggestion of the National Board that if this money, amounting to £14,000, coald be made applicable to other purposes the extra fees should be abolished.
  MR. DILLONclaimed the right to reply to the extraordinary and unsatisfactory speech of the Chief Secretary. He understood that it was the intention of the National Board to reverse the policy which they had adopted with the approval of the Resident Commissioner and with the consent of the great majority of the Irish people of making a
  254
  grant of 10s. for the teaching of Irish. The extra grant was to be withdrawn and the teaching of Irish practically abolished in the national schools. He had never heard a more absurd or idiotic proposal. He was commissioned by the Gaelic League, which had exercised a most beneficent influence upon Irish education, to protest against the insufficiency of the encouragement given to the teaching of the Irish language, and the answer to that protest was an announcement that the small amount of encouragement which they had succeeded in wringing from the National Board was to be swept away. He told the Government they could not do it. If they attempted to do it they would bring the whole Board about the ears of the Government in a very short time. He defied the Chief Secretary. By Rule 127 (b) and by other steps taken by this misguided and unrepresentative and irresponsible Board they had produced confusion in. Irish education, and if this further retrograde step was taken the whole system would fall into ruin, because the whole population would rise in rebellion against the Board and the stupid English Minister who did not understand the wishes and wants of the Irish people. [NATIONALIST cheers.] He warned the House that they little knew what they were doing in supporting a Minister who had been defeated and discredited in the course of a very brief administration. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No" and "Divide."] They would not divide. The Chief Secretary had practically admitted the whole indictment brought against the regulations of 1900 in so far as they affected the salaries and prospects of the teachers, but he had not said anything a to the intentions of the Government to deal with the matter. If nothing were done they would be left in the position indicated by Cardinal Logue. Nobody would become a national teacher except the man who was intellectually unfitted for any other occupation.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [16TH: ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
Bagot, Capt. JoscehneFitzRoy

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gordon, Maj. Evans(TrH'mlets

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Baird, John George Alexander

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morgan, D. J. Walthamstow)

Balcarres, Lord

Graham, Henry Robert

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Morrell, George Herbert

Balfour, Capt. G. B. (Hornsey)

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Morrison, James Archibald

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

Grenfell, William Henry

Mount, William Arthur

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christeh.

Gretton, John

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Groves, Janies Grimble

Murray, Chas. J. Coventry)

Binner, John S. Harmood-

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

[Nicholson, William Graham

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hambro, Charles Eric

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bigwood, James

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashfo'd

Percy, Earl

Bingham, Lord

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Brassey, Albert

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Brodriek, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Heath, SirJames(Staffords. N. W

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brymer, William Ernest

Helder, Augustus

Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Purvis, Robert

Butcher, John George

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Rankin, Sir James

Campbell, J H. M(Dublin Univ.

Hill, Henry Staveley

Ratcliff, R. F.

Carlile, William Walter

Hornby, Sir William Henn

Reid, James (Greenock)

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. II.

Hoult, Joseph

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Cautley, Henry Strother

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Ridley, S. Fonle

Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hunt, Rowland

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Robinson, Brooke

Chapman, Edward

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H A. E.

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stanford-

Collings, Rt. HOP. Jesse

Kerr, John

Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Keswick, William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kiinber, Sir Henry

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Secly, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Crossley Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lawson Hn H. LW. (Mile End)

Sha William Edw T

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Legge, Col. Hon. Hcneago

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Skowes-Cox, Sir Thomas

Davies, SirHoratioD. (Chatham

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East

Denny, Colonel

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Smith, H. C(North'mbTyneside

Diekson, Charles Scott

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

Smith, Rt. HnJParker(Lanarks

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. SirJoseph C.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lowe, Francis William

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Doughty, Sir George

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Tat, gart

Doxford, Sir WilliamTheodore

Lyttelton, Rt Hon. Alfred

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Duke, Henry Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

Dyke. Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Maconochie, A. W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Egerton, Hon. A. do Tatton

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

M'lver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Tollemache, Henry James

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

Majendie, James A. H.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Malcolm, Ian

Tuff, Charles

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

Manners, Lord Cecil

Turnour, Viscount

Fisher, William Hayes

Marks, Harry Hananel

Walker, Col. William Hall

FitzGerald. Sir Robert Penrose-

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Win. H.

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Waide, Colonel C. E.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maxwcll, Rt. HnSirH. E(Wigt'n)

Wclby, Lt. -Col. A. CE(Taunton)

Flower, Sir Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Whitelcy, H. (Ashton undLyne)

Forster, Henry William

Middlemorc, JohnThrogmorton

Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Gardner, Ernest

Milvain, Thomas

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gribbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

320

321

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

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Wyndham-Quin, G'ol. W. H.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

NOES.

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

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Dowd, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gilhooly, James

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Allen, Charles P.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

Ambrose, Robert

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Malley, William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbcrt Henry

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Mara, James

Baker, Joseph Allen

Hammond, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harcourt, Lewis

O'Shee, James John

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Partington, Oswald

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Harrington, Timothy

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Black, Alexander William

Hayden, John Patrick

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boland, John

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Priestley, Arthur

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Helme, Norval Watson

Rea, Russell

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Reddy, M.

Buchanan, Thomas Rybnrn

Higham, John Sharp

Redmond, John B. (Watcrford)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Richards, Thomas

Buxtoi', Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

Joicey, Sir James

Riokett, J. Compton

Caldwell, James

Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Campbell-Banncrman, Sir H.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Rose, Charles Day

Causton, Richard Knight

Kennedy, Vincent P(Cavan, W.

Russell, T. W.

Cawlcy, Frederick

Kilbride, Denis

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

Chance, Frederick William

Lambert, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Chanuing, Francis Allston

Lamont, Norman

Sccly, Maj. J. Eli (Isle of Wight

Cheetham, John Frederick

Laugloy, Batty

Shackleton, David James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Sheehy, David

Cogan, Denis J.

Levy, Maurice

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lough, Thomas

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Crean, Eugene

Lundon, W.

Slack, John Bamford

Cremer, William Randal

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants

Cullman, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

M'Fadden, Edward

Tennant, Harold John

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

ftfKean, John

Thomas, J. A(Glamorgan, Gowcr

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Tomkinson, James

Dillon, John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Toulmin, George

Doogan, P. 0.

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Tully, Jasper

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mooney, John J.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Duffy, William J.

Moss, Samuel

j Wallace, Robert

Elibank, Master of

Muldoon, John

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkm J

Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

Murnagh'an, George

Weir, James Galloway

Esmondo, Sir Thomas

Murphy, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Naunetti, Joseph P.

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White Patrick (Meath, North)

Farrell, James Patrick

Norman, Henry

Whiteley, George (York. W. R.)

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Ffrench, Peter

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Field, William

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Wood, James

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S).

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Soares and Mr. Duncan

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

  CLASS III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £32,416, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which, will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1906, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.)said that he recognised to the full the limitations under which he laboured in rising to move a reduction of this Vote, because it was merely a continuation of the farce to which his hon. and learned friend referred yesterday. It was a farce to move a reduction of an Estimate and find when the Motion was carried that either the Minister who represented the distinctive Office or the Government itself persisted in deriding the decision of that House. However, he supposed that so long as Irish representatives were in that House and compelled to take part in its deliberations they would have to obey its ordinary rules. This was the first time that a discussion had been taken upon this Vote for three years. No doubt there were good reasons for not discussing the charges for the Irish Law Officers, but whatever those reasons might be the Irish Parliamentary Party had nothing but the most complete and profound contempt for the legal administration of the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. No matter how irresistible might be the case which Irishmen put against that administration or how powerful might be their exposition of it, the Ministers opposite, who seemed to have lost all sense of decency, much less dignity, would, if defeated upon it, come to the House and say that its vote counted for
  256
  nothing in the Constitution of the Empire, and that the Minister, who sat on the Treasury Bench, and who by so doing had been guilty of an outrage against all the canons of decency would continue in office. The Chief Secretary had not yet declared what his intention was with regard to the office he held; he had not stated whether he was prepared to resign his office and give up his seals. Members of the Opposition were naturally irritated and indignant when they found that the Government did not resign when beaten in a division by a majority of the House, and by continuing in office were violating a great constitutional principle. But what was to be said of the individual Minister, the mouthpiece of the Irish Government, whose policy was the one condemned, who still sat on the Treasury Bench and was determined to remain there? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had justified his retention of power by saying that it was necessary that he should continue in the interests of the Empire, but the Chief Secretary surely would never say that his retention of office was necessary for the government of Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman must come a little nearer to the Vote.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid he was coming perfectly near to the point, not that he felt that he ought to obey the rules of the House, because he was of an entirely opposite opinion if he were to follow the lead of the Prime Minister, but because of his respect for the Chairman he would endeavour to follow the advice tendered. He thought this was the time when the Committee should have some explanation from the Chief Secretary as to why he clung like a leech to office and declined to submit to the decision of the Committee, which denounced his policy, and resign. They did not expect honour or dignity or anything beyond an ignoble clinging to office by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench; least of all did they expect it from the hungry gang of lawyers who had fattened and battened on the impoverishment of the people of Ireland, and who were at the end of their wretched existence prepared to pile scandal upon

  257
  scandal upon their administration of justice, a word which had only to be mentioned in Ireland to be despised.
  The Attorney-General for Ireland received a salary of £5,000 a year and the Solicitor-General £2,000, in addition to which each of those Gentlemen last year received £500. What had been their administrative legal functions during that period? The Attorney-General had been guilty of the treason of denouncing his colleague in the Administration. 'There was honour among thieves, but there was no honour among the Gentlemen who guided the fortunes and destinies of Ireland. Sir Antony MacDonnell was brought over to Ireland at the request of the late Chief Secretary, the principles upon which he consented to accept office being stated in documents in the possession of the Chief Secretary, and that legal luminary the Attorney-General for Ireland proceeded to denounce Sir Antony MacDonnell, the permanent Government official in Ireland, the honourable Gentle man's own colleague, a man called in specially to administer the law as well as the affairs of Dublin Castle, until loyalty had become a by-word in the Administration as it hid been derided in the Cabinet from which had been driven the most honourable and loyal colleague the Administration of Ireland possessed. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General went down to his own constituency in North Tyrone and de nounced Sir Antony MacDonnell, the man who was responsible for the Land Act which the hon. and learned Gentleman had now to administer. He was not there to defend Sir Antony Mac Donnell or to denounce the hon. And learned Gentleman for his disloyalty to his colleagues, because they could not apply the ordinary moral code to this Government. The spirit of comradeship and honour did not exist among Gentle men on the Treasury Bench. There could be nothing worse than a mean Government except the Irish members of that mean Government.
  His main purpose in rising was to bring before the House the recent instances in Galway, in which the Right hon. Gentleman had called into operation once more the operation of the Coercion Act, the suspension of
  258
  which was to be the forerunner of the great policy of conciliation, the Land Act, which they accepted in that House and which the Irish people accepted in the hope that it would end for ever this seemingly insoluble coercion problem in that country. They believed that the policy of coercion would terminate. Honeyed words and soft phrases were used for the purpose of coaxing them. They believed that until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover was driven out of office. Then the Chief Secretary was brought into the position he now occupied and he went to Belfast and endeavoured to show that he was no mere weakling like the right hon. Member for Dover. He went to the city of Belfast under the aegis of Lord Londonderry, and preached impartial, fearless, and honest administration of the law. That meant the crushing of the weak in the interests of the strong. It meant the application of special powers to deride the Constitution of Ireland as it had been derided in the House of Commons. It meant placing as criminals in the dock people who had committed no crime. It meant, in other words, that for Ireland there was to be no law but the law of the policeman's baton and the prostitution of justice. He credited the right hon. Member for Dover with having retired like a man, although he was not defeated. But these Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench had been defeated in the House and still they clung to office, and at the very moment when they were carrying out infamous prosecutions of people who were longing to remain on the soil of their native land, so that their children might grow up to be respectable citizens.
  What had been the policy pursued in Galway? Certain respectable men had been indicted and impeached. They were brought before a perjured and packed jury, and sentenced by a Judge, about whom the rules of order in the House prevented him speaking freely. When the rules and regulations were before the House the other night, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford asked how intimidation was to be proved. The Chief Secretary did not answer, but he (the hon. Member), had answered the Question. It was to be proved

  259
  by getting up prosecutions at any price, and making it appear there was intimidation when there was none. That was exactly and precisely what had been done in the case he had mentioned. No doubt there were public meetings, but public meetings were not a crime in Ireland unless they were made a crime for the purposes of the Government policy. The whole thing was a gross and outrageous scandal. They might as well bring cattle before a jury of butchers as bring these honest respectable people of Galway who were contending for the true operation of the Land Act before the jury of graziers who tried them. These men were simply fighting for the proper operation of the Land Act, and simply asking the Government to do that which they had laid down as one of the principles of the Act, namely, that the untenanted grazing lands should be taken over and divided amongst the uneconomic holdings. He himself had never believed that the mere transference of the land from the landlord to the tenant was the crux of the land question. It was no doubt primarily important, but what was wanted in Ireland was not so much cheaper land as more land, that the people living in these wretched cabins and five-acre bog farms should be able to take advantage of the Act of 1903, for the purpose of enlarging their holdings. He was not a Member at the time, but he remembered reading with tears in his eyes of the manner in which the hon. Member for Dover and the Prime Minister pictured the misery of these people, great in virtue and strong in physical power, who could not live unless more land was given to them. Yet in Ireland they saw cattle grazing on vast tracts of untenanted land which were designed by God for the use of the people. These people had by the ordinary methods of agitation tried to get the Land Act properly administered and the old and hateful policy of coercion had once more been resurrected. The reinstatement of the evicted tenants to the holdings from which they had been evicted was part and parcel of the arrangement which had been entered into a few years ago.
  Referring to the case of the ten men who had just been prosecuted at Galway
  260
  Assizes for unlawful assembly, the hon. Member said it might have been expected that even the discredited instruments of a discredited Administration would have proceeded on the indictment placed before the Court. But they did not proceed on the question of unlawful assembly. What did the minions of the law do in that Coercion Court in the West of Ireland, where the land policy had impoverished the people and rendered them desolate? The prosecution proceeded to bring forward a threatening letter which. the Judge allowed to be read in Court, although he stated that it would not be accepted as evidence. That threatening letter was not written by any member of the United Irish League. All this was in regard to an alleged attempt to intimidate a man called Richard Power Eyrecourt. That man was the occupier of grazing land on the eleven months system, and the people asked him to give up the land so that it might be divided among the persons on the estate He stated that there was no intimidation, and in the whole course of the evidence there was nothing to show that he had been intimidated in any way. Notwithstanding that, the jury found a number of the accused guilty, and they received sentences ranging from nine months imprisonment with hard labour down to one month's imprisonment. That case had created a memory of wrong of which that House would hear, and of which the people of Ireland and America would hear, so long as the Irish representatives were able to protest against the system of packing juries and convicting men of crimes of which they had not been guilty. Why did not the Government move in the matter of obtaining the grazing lands for distribution among the people as was intended by the Land Act? The Government were not in favour of that policy. What they were in favour of was the bonus of £12,000,000, and if their friends could collar that money from rich estates in Ireland, the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench did not care a snap of one's fingers for the poor people who had uneconomic holdings in the West of Ireland. He was told that the law must be upheld if the heavens should fall.

  261
  While all this maladministration of the Land Act had been going on, and while the peasants of Galway were being prosecuted for what were called breaches of the law by the Attorney-General, his colleague, the Solicitor-General, was preaching boycotting and intimidation in the Courts of Justice in the North of Ireland. He would recite to the House the circumstances of the case of Rose Sweeney, a school teacher in the county of Tyrone. In March last year she was appointed instructress in a school in that county. The appointment was made by the Rev. William Baillie, the Presbyterian manager of the school, and it created great hostility in the district—the kind of hostility for which he would be imprisoned if he were to practice it in Galway. The school had been closed up on account of the terrorism of three men, one of whom was William Coote, justice of the peace. The salary of Rose Sweeney was the munificent sum of £14 a year. She was not appointed to teach the catechism or theology; she was appointed to teach sewing and knitting. Not a word could be said against her character. After the appointment was made, Mr., Coote started a propaganda against this young girl which, he thought, was unparalleled in the history of personal persecution. On the following day four crosses were painted—two on the church and two on the school. He wanted to know what had been done to find out the perpetrators of that outrage. He knew that the Attorney-General knew nothing about it because, this being an Orange outrage, it was not to his interest to inquire into it, but the Solicitor-General would be able to tell the Committee all about it, and what had been his own part in the transaction. When the Rev. Mr. Baillie asked Mr. Coote what was meant by the crosses, the answer was, "You will soon know all about it. All Ulster is up in arms."
  He did not propose to trouble the House with the threatening letters written by Mr. Coote. He wrote letters in which he called upon fathers and mothers not to send their children to the school. Twenty-three children were withdrawn from the school, and finally the girl lost her position altogether. The
  262
  hon. Member reminded the House of the action taken in connection with the case of Miss Cass, who was the victim of wrongful arrest in London some years ago. On that occasion, he believed the policeman who arrested her for something or other had something to say for himself. But here was a case of an organised conspiracy against a young I girl headed by a justice of the peace in the North of Ireland, and when this humble woman took action against him for this outrage he was defended by the Solicitor-General—the eminent upholder of law and order whose salary they were discussing that night. He could not in the time at his disposal get a file of the paper containing a report of the Solicitor-General's speech, but if he remembered aright the hon. and learned Gentleman distinctly declared that the people were perfectly justified in what they had done. He was not a lawyer. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Thank God for that.] He did not know what was the moral code that guided lawyers, but he was not aware that the etiquette of the Bar enabled a lawyer to preach intimidation in one Court and to denounca it in another. It might be all right to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke according to his brief, but what were they to think in that House, and what were the people of Ireland to think, of the conduct of the Solicitor-General? He was not a hungry lawyer. He was not a lawyer accepting briefs in order to get a livelihood. He was comfortably squatted on the Treasury Beach with £2,500 a year. A grosser; outrage could not be committed before the people of Ireland to whom the: Government wished to teach lessons I in law. They found that the Solicitor General was engaged preaching boycotting and intimidation in Tyrone, while the Attorney-General was prosecuting peasants in Galway. The Solicitor General had no right to take advantage of his great position and to go into a Court in the North of Ireland to defend a ruffian and then come to England and stand on platforms as the representative of law and order. The sooner this farce was ended the better. Thank God the time was coming when, after fifteen years of "resolute government" in Ireland, a brighter era would open for

  263
  the people, and when it would be recognised that all men were equal before the law.
  The House of Commons and the people of Ireland were waiting for an explanation of the legal scandal to which he had called attention. He wished to know why Mr. Coote was retained as a justice of the peace. This man was the legal adviser of Mr. Coote. Let the Chief Secretary tell them why it was stated in this House that the matter was to be taken to the Court of Appeal. This was not a matter for the Attorney-General, but for the Chief Secretary, and now that the right hon. Gentleman intended to cling to office they would cling to him until he gave an honest and straightforward Answer to the Question—What was to be done to this man? He did not believe in the application of coercion laws, but he wanted to know whether this man was still on the Bench, and whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to retain him there. If there was to be equal administration of the law in Ireland this man should be prosecuted, in the same way as Mr. Ball had been at Belfast, when that gentleman went up to preach and the windows of the Catholic church were broken. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum. not exceeding £31,416, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Joseph Devlin.)
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said he thought that the House would readily recognise that something more than a mere stereotyped reply was demanded from the Law Officers of the Crown in answer to the impeachment of his hon. friend the Member for Kilkenny. He trusted that that reply would not be clogged with figures as to jury-packing as in former years, and that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General would defend their conduct in regard to. the Galway prosecutions. His hon. friend had referred to the fact that it was three years since this Vote had been discussed on Irish Supply. That had never been from want of material, for time after time, and session
  264
  after session, they had brought forward the sad tale of jury-packing, and always the same Answer had been given—that someone else did it years ago, and that the end justified the means. The rule Ireland was the converse of on old legal phrase expressed by a great Judge: "Acquit if you can, convict if you must." The motto of the right hon. Gentleman was, "Convict if you can, acquit the-prisoner only if you must." That had been going on all over the country. It had always been said that it was better that a guilty man should escape rather than an innocent man should be punished but the opposite was the case in most parts of Ireland. There were fifty odd Connaught peasants imprisoned with hard labour for from one to nine months, who would never have been convicted but for the artifices of the Crown Law Officers in selecting the juries. That would not be done in any county in England, or in any shire in Scotland In Ireland the Government had loaded the dice and revived the Coercion Act; in order to pack the juries.
  In Galway six men were charged with, unlawful assembly, that was, with attending a political meeting at which speeches-were made which the Attorney-General did not like. Twenty-two jurors were asked. to stand by and ordered to attend the Court again on Monday. When a protest was made, the Judge said they must, all come back on the Monday, and that if any remained away it would be on their own responsibility, and they would be liable to a fine. It followed, as night followed the day, that under such a system conviction followed prosecution. At the Cork Summer Assizes, at which Judge Kenny sat, the cases were not-very important, but when a man named Calvert was charged with a slight offence, thirty-nine jurors were asked to stand side, and of these thirty-six were Roman Catholics. The Attorney-General said he knew nothing about the men's religion, but everyone acquainted with the facts knew that the Crown Solicitor was informed by a Government agent that all these men were Roman Catholics At the same assizes on another charge thirty-three jurors were ordered to stand aside. When a protest was made the Attorney-General ordered a report from

  265
  the Crown Solicitor and afterwards declared that he entirely agreed with that report, and took the responsibility on himself The Crown Solicitor said that he was unable to give any information as to the religion of the jurors, and that he had made no inquiry in that regard. If it were within the rules of order he would characterise the statement of the Crown Solicitor as a lie. Every man in the Court knew that the Crown Solicitor received information from his underlings as to the religion of the jurors. What were the grounds on which the Crown Solicitor said he acted? They were that in his belief, and in the belief of the other representatives of the Crown, these jurors would not abide by their oaths, and that they would not give a fair verdict. That was to brand in advance the greater part of the population of Ireland as perjurers If the dice were loaded against the people in this manner, how could they expect law and order to be maintained?
  He would connect this jury-packing with the abominable crime committed by Sergeant Sheridan. Dan McGowan was charged with the mutilating of cattle. Sixty Catholic jurors were ordered to stand aside. He was tried by a packed jury, and sentenced on the perjured evidence of Sergeant Sheridan to two years penal servitude. As the Attorney General knew, McGowan was an absolutely guiltless man. When other things came cut about Sergeant Sheridan the Crown compensated McGowan with £100, but Sheridan was allowed to escape, just as a policeman was kindly allowed to get away the other day by his district inspector. There was another case of a man who was tried for setting fire to hay, and was tried by a packed jury and sentenced to three years penal servitude. That man was also innocent, and died in prison, and his mother had since been compensated with 10s. per week. He had in his locker sheets and sheets of cases, but he would not delay the Committee by reciting them. He contended that it would be far more decent for the Attorney-General to get up at that Table and propose to abolish jury trial altogether, than to try the Irish people accused of offences having the slightest tinge of politics or agrarianism
  266
  by this abominable system of jury-packing, which was a prostitution of justice and a disgrace to the country.
  MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S,)said that at the late Galway Assizes there were several cases of unlawful assembly, none of which were tried by the Crown by an ordinary jury. For the purpose of securing convictions the Crown put into operation certain sections of the Coercion Act by which they could summon for the trial of these poor Galway peasants a special jury. On this particular occasion a panel of 293 special jurors was summoned, mainly consisting of men differing in politics and religion from the accused, and most of whom were in occupation of lands which the right hon. Member for Dover had said it was the intention of the Land Act to divide up. In the first case, fourteen men were accused of interfering with a process-server in the discharge of his duty. Eight special jurors were ordered to stand by, the accused were found guilty, two were let out on their own recognisances, while the others were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment with hard labour. There was one law for the unlettered peasant of the West, and another for the well-do-do, fat grand master of an Orange lodge in county Tyrone. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite laughed, but he could not deny the fact that every statement made in connection with Mr. Coote's cass was strictly accurate.
  There was another case at the Galway Assizes when ten men were accused of unlawful assembly. Thirty-eight special jurors were ordered to stand by, these men were known to be either Nationalists or Liberals in politics, not one was a supporter of the Government; and it was because they were known to be out of sympathy with His Majesty's Government that they were ordered to stand by. The ten accused men were found guilty and sentenced to three months hard labour. A third case was where ten men were accused of unlawful and tumultuous assembly, and they were found guilty and sentenced to three months hard labour. That took him back to something which had occurred in this country four or five years ago

  267
  when the hon. Member for Carnarvon went to Birmingham. On that occasion the hon. Member, in the exercise of his rights, made a speech on the Boer War, when the Birmingham mob created a riot, and not only were the police attacked but many were injured. If ever there was a case of unlawful assembly it was on that occasion. One men lost his life, and ninety policemen were injured. Was there any prosecution, or was any special Act of Parliament or special law put into operation to try the rioters? Did the right hon. Gentleman opposite move to have the rioters tried by special jury? Nothing of the kind; and the reason was that the mob was acting in the supposed interest of the Government. Coming back to Galway, it was because these poor peasants were acting in their own interests that they were tried and condemned. It was because there was one law for the opponents of the Government, and another law for those who were acting in the interest of the Prime Minister and his Government.
  There was a fourth case at the Galway Assizes, where four men were accused of conspiracy and twenty-eight jurors were ordered to stand aside, but the jury disagreed. He wished to direct attention to what was said by a juror when he was ordered to stand aside. This juror was a particular friend of his own, was known to every hon. Member for Connaught, was vice-chairman of the Galway County Council, and a member of several public boards in his own county and different parts of his province. His name was John C. McDonnell. When he was ordered to stand by he protested that it was not only ridiculous and absurd, but an outrage to himself to have him summoned to attend for eight days during the continuance of the assizes when he knew, and everybody knew, that he would be ordered to stand by. The learned Judge said he had no power to relieve him. Why did the Crown order him to stand by? He was vice-chairman of the Galway County Council, a member of almost every public board in the province of Connaught. Was there any man in the House, in Connaught, or in any part of Ireland who knew John C. McDonnell by
  268
  character, who would get up and allege that he was a man who would refuse on the evidence to bring in an honest and true verdict against the accused? Not a man would attempt to do so. He was ordered to stand by because of the well-known fact that he was a Nationalist and opposed in politics to His Majesty's Government.
  There were six cases of unlawful assembly, and forty-six jurors were ordered to stand by. Apparently as the Crown got on, reliable man became fewer, and, as the panel of 293 became exhausted, they were obliged to order a larger number to stand by. There was another reason why the number was increased. The evidence was not strong; and the Crown was doubtful of their case. Therefore, they required a jury of more than an ordinary tint. Curious to relate, the jury disagreed. The charge was intimidation. They had often said in that House that the road to the Bench was not merit; it depended whether one was a Crown Prosecutor or not. He hoped the Attorney-General would tell them how many Judges were never Party or political hacks, how many were never politicians, and how many got on the Bench from sheer merit and ability. Of course, they all knew he could not mention a single man who had not got on the Bench for other than political service. There was the notorious case of the late Mr. McDermott, the acknowledged leader of the Irish Bar. No man got the same sum endorsed on his brief as he did, and yet he died, as he lived, a loyal member of the Bar. He had no more chance of getting on the Bench than any man who knew no law at all. Leahy and his wife both swore that they were not intimidated. His grass land had been bought by the Estates Commissioners for distribution among the smaller tenants in the neighbourhood. That was a notorious fact, well known to the local branch of the United Irish League. It would, therefore, have been ridiculous for that League to have tried to intimidate Leahy to do what he had already done. When Leahy and his wife were giving evidence, they were cross-examined by the Judge more severely than by the Crown Prosecutor. That showed how the Judge stood impartially between

  269
  the Crown and the accused, and ho, v the law was impartially carried out.
  In the sixth case, Costello, secretary of a local branch of the league, was charged with inditing a letter to a person who had land on the eleven months system urging him to give it up. There were twenty-two ordered to stand by. He was found guilty and sentenced to one month's hard labour. Every man, no matter whether he was the chairman or a member of the county council, whether he was the chairman or member of a district council, got hard labour, because, under a special provision of the Local Government Act, he was thus disqualified from acting in any public body in the county for, he thought, five years. It was because Michael Hobbs, one of the accused, was the chairman of a district council that the Judge gave him hard labour. He would not say he was prompted to do that by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but there were ways of intimating to learned Judges what the opinion of His Majesty's Government was. In the case of Michael Keane, the local secretary of the United Irish League, the accused was indicted for writing a letter requesting a person to give up land. About thirty-four were ordered to stand by, and he was found guilty and sentenced to one month's imprisonment. He wished to draw attention to the Banbridge stabbing case. A body of Orangemen, having got into some row with a number of Catholics, stabbed a Catholic. The man was very nearly losing his life. His lion, friend the Member for South Down asked a Question in connection with the matter. He asked if, when the Orangemen were brought before the assizes, any of the jurors would be ordered to stand by. The answer of the Chief Secretary was "Certainly not."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not recognise a word of what was attributed to him. If the hon. Gentleman were giving the Answer he made to a Question, he should be glad if he would quote his words.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid his hon. friend informed him that the Answer he received was "Certainly not."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he had not got the Question and Answer by him, but he reeollested being asked a Question with reference to this particular case, and he imagined, speaking from memory, his Answer would be in the negative. It was ridiculous to suppose that he would say no jurors would be challenged because he had no control in the matter. Therefore, to the best of his recollection no such Question was asked, and no such Answer given.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid he did not want to put an Answer into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman which he did not give. He was asked whether the same procedure would be adopted as in other parts of Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he could not possibly have answered what the hon. Gentlemen said. As far as he remembered, the Question had absolutely no regard to special jurors. The hon. Gentleman himself knew it would have been quite impossible for him to have said that the jurors would not be challenged.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid he accepted the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman, but would the House believe that the man was tried by an exclusively Protestant jury?
  MR. GORDON(Londonderry, S.) rose to a point of order, but the hon. Member was inaudible.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid he could have understood the hon. Member intervening on any date previous to the appointment of Mr. T. O'Shaughnessy as Recorder of the city of Dublin, and whose shoes he got, but now that he had got all that he was likely to get, he did not see what object he had in intervening If any of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench would deny that that Orangeman was not tried by an exclusively Protestant jury, he would not only apologise to him but to the House for having made a false statement. Until they did so, he was not going to give way to the Crown Prosecutor of Belfast or to an inquisitive Englishman who kuew nothing of Irish affairs.

  271
  What did the three right hon. Gentlemen hope to accomplish by these proceedings in Galway? How did they arise, and who was responsible for all the trouble in the West of Ireland? "Hope deferred makes the heart grow sick." The statements made by the Member or Dover two years ago were responsible for it. Over and over again he stated that the Land Act would get rid of the wretched and rotten condition of affairs in Connaught and that the people would be raided out of their slough of despond, and the peasants believed him. They believed they had a right to the grass lands and that legislation had conferred that right upon them. They believed they were acting within their rights and in conformity with the Land Act of 1903 in trying to bring pressure to bear upon land speculators who were in no sense farmers, but who were often either successful publicans or pawnbrokers. It had become a speculation, and amongst the graziers of the West of Ireland there was not one genuine resident farmer in any sense of the word. He had never believed that the residential farmer should be interfered with; God knew that there was enough land in the West of Ireland where there was no residential occupier, and if it were thought that by putting the Coercion Act into force the peasants of the West and those who believed in their moral right would be prevented from insisting upon the speculators being made to stand aside to allow the peasants to live on the land, the Government was mistaken.
  MR. DUFFY (Galway, S.)said it was impossible to imagine that the grave and serious scandals recently committed in the name of British law in the city of Galway, would be allowed to pass over without strong and bitter comment. The Chief Secretary might, and he had no doubt would, say that the Irish Government was administering the existing laws according to the usual practice. Even so, it was a proceeding so base and discreditable as to render it almost impossible to conceive that a scandal of such magnitude was possible at this time of the day in any part of the King's realms. Fair and impartial administration of the laws in Ireland won respect and even confidence amongst those who most distrusted it,
  272
  but the mean. contemptible, and degrading, spectacle of jury-packing which Thomas A. Loeky and the paid hirelings of Dublin Castle practised in Galway, excited no feeling other than that of contempt and derision and a desire to make ribbons of; the law. In view of what took place in Galway last week, how could they expect anyone to have the slightest respect for the law? They saw that most respectable and honourable men from all parts of the county, district and urban councillors, county councillors, and even magistrates of the county, who had been summoned from. all parts to serve on the long panel, told to "stand aside"—that they were unfit to-take the oath and deliver a true verdict according to the evidence submitted to them. The Crown exercised the arbitrary and unlimited right of challenge, in some-cases humiliating from thirty to forty jurors by directing them to "stand aside, and it only ceased this almost incredible and disgraceful practice when twelve bigoted, prejudiced, and hostile jurors had been placed in the box to try the prisoners. What cant and hypocrisy it was for some hon. Gentlemen in that House, and well-paid hirelings out of it, to accuse them of having no respect for the law. Such law and the way it was administered stank in their nostrils, and anything and everything they could do both in that House, as well as at home in Ireland, to bring it into contempt and loathing would be done.
  As to the "crimes" or offences with which those young men were charged, let the House just listen for a moment to the henious criminal offences which some of them were alleged to have committed. All the cases were practically the same, the object aimed at was identical, namely, to bring into possession of the Irish Government blocks of grazing or untenanted lands for the purpose of dividing them among people anxious to stay at home and devote their undoubted physical and intellectual energies to building up the shattered and torn fortunes of their country. Surely an object so laudable and praiseworthy was not going to be stigmatised in that House as a criminal offence And yet it was for that purpose that the Crown at Galway exercised its. unlimited power of challenge, and packed

  273
  jury after jury into the box for the purpose, not of trying the issues fairly and justly or of holding the scales of justice evenly and impartially as between the traversers and the Crown; out for the deliberate purpose of finding the prisoners guilty and thereby consigning them to gaol for varying terms of imprisonment. The Crown by this disgraceful strategy, by playing the game with loaded dice, had succeeded in sending large numbers of young men to break stones, to pick oakum, to stitch sacks, and live upon the frugal and appetizing "skilly" and "shadow soup" of prison fare for comparatively long terms of imprisonment. He did not complain. The poor prisoners would be the first to resent his interference if he uttered one word which implied that they were sorry, or regretted, or would withdraw by one hair's-breadth from the position which they had taken up. He spoke from practical experience when he said that they felt far happier and more at home in prison than the officials, the graziers, and the landowners who were instrumental in sending them there.
  What was the crime with which these men were charged? The Leitrim prisoners were charged with trying to bring about the sale of some farms belonging to Sir Henry Burke to the Estates Commissioners. A number of people living in the district had very small holdings, and the people pressed, on the landlord and the Government the advisability of purchasing these lands in theinterests of the smaller tenants around. For doing this the prisoners were charged with having committed a crime. The strangest part of the business was that whilst the Crown sought to establish a case against the prisoners for trying to bring this land into the market, another Government Department—the Estates Commissioners—should have been placed in the dock also. If it was Criminal for these young men to make certain representations to the landlord and the Government to buy up these untenanted lands for the people, under what head would they place the offence committed by the Estates Commissioners, who, yielding to the wishes of the people, actually purchased those lands, and now had them in their possession to carry out later on the beneficent intentions of the
  274
  Act of 1903. Yet such was the law, and the administration of the law, in Ireland, that these young Leitrim peasants were sought to be branded as criminals for daring to ask for that which the Government subsequently were obliged to give effect to? If the whole thing was not: so serious for the prisoners it might be considered fit matter for a comic opera. The action of the Government in acquiring the lands and then prosecuting the men who helped to make the deal possible was ludicrous and absurd in the extreme. What the Government expected to get out of the proceedings he failed to see. Were they foolish enough to think that the imprisonment of fifty or sixtv men in Galway would frighten and terrify the rest of the population into an acquiescence in the existing order of things? That would certainly not be the result. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman what would take place. Every man in Galway outside of some graziers, and storeen shopkeepers, and creatures who liked to hang on to the coat-tails of officialdom, would stand up manfully beside the prisoners, would take up the struggle for the land where they had left it, and, in spite of everything the Government could do to the contrary, with coercion, jury-packing, and imprisonment, would carry it on till success crowned their efforts.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)said that the greater part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion was an offensive and scurrilous tirade. [NATIONALIST cries of "Withdraw."]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcalled the attention of the Chairman to the fact that it had been ruled on previous occasions that the word "scurrilous" was not a Parliamentary expression.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that if that were so the expression was not in order.
  MR. ATKINSON: If it is against the rules of the House I withdraw.
  MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham): What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying

  275
  that he withdraws if it is against the rules of the House? Is that a proper withdrawal?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman withdraws it because it is against the rules of the House, as I pointed out.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Do I understand that the Attorney-General explicitly and specifically withdraws?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he had withdrawn the expression. He did not know what was the proper adjective by which to describe the language used. The hon. Gentleman called the Judge a perjured Judge and the jury a perjured jury.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid he did not call the jury perjured; he said they were packed.
  MR. CHURCHILLsubmitted as a point of order that, inasmuch as all reflections on a Judge were out of order in that House, if the hon. Gentleman had made reflections of an improper or un-parliamentary character on a Judge he would have been called to order by the Chair. Therefore the Attorney-General has no right to cite such expressions as an excuse for grosslyoffensive and un-Parliamentary language.
  THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member did use such an expression, but I did not know he was referring to a Judge of the High Court. It was my mistake. I am perfectly certain that if I had then stopped him the hon. Member would have withdrawn the expression.
  MR. CHURCHILL: But I do not understand that you rule the expression "scurrilous" as used by the Attorney-General to be a Parliamentary expression?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; and the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn it.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that such charges, when made without proof and repeated without proof were less disreditable to the men against whom they were made
  276
  than to the men who made them. He would therefore pass by language of that character, as further referenee would only dignify it.
  The hon. Member had referred to two matters of a personal character with which perhaps he ought to deal. The first was as to his fees. It was true the Estimate was for £500, but they did not amount to that.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid he had not mentioned £500, nor did he know what it was for.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that the other matter was with reference to a speech which he delivered to his constituents. At that time he did not know that Sir Antony MacDonnell had had anything whatever to do with the Dunraven scheme. He criticised that scheme as severely as he was able, as he considered it was futile and absurd in itself, and a base betrayal of the Unionist cause. To that view he adhered, and he was glad to have had the opportunity of so describing the scheme.
  Passing to the other questions which had been raised, he understood the accusations to be that they had had prosecutions in Galway that ought not to have been held, and that the methods adopted were improper and unjust. He would not refer to the Sheridan case further than to say that he thought the hon. Member who opened the discussion had really taken some of the wardrobe of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, who, he thought, had a special property in that incident and had already trotted it out before the House three or four times.
  MR. T. P, O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland): It is not my special incident; it is the special guilt of the right hon. Gentleman, and he will hear of it again.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that he had dealt with the matter before, and that would be his reason for not dealing with it again. The hon. Member for Kildare and the hon. Member who had last spoken each let drop a significant remark. They said that the people of the country thought this land belonged to them, and that they ought to get it. He did not

  277
  know who had put that idea into the minds of the people. It was the policy of the Government to give facilities for acquiring untenanted land and dividing it among the people to enlarge uneconomic holdings, but no Government could permit the acquisition of this land even for a good purpose by criminal methods. They could no more justify the exercise of intimidation to procure that land for laudable objects than the murder of a miser to divide his property for the relief of distress. Those who had urged the people to that action had much to answer for. Everybody knew there was the most anxious desire on the part of the Government to work the Land Act. [NATIONALIST cries of "Not at all."]
  MR. DILLON: It is absolutely untrue.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he would not stop to argue whether crimes had been committed, though he thought he could prove that many of the cases came within the criminal law. But the cases had been tried by a Judge and a jury, and that House was not a suitable tribunal for retrying those cases. Two of the cases were still pending, and it would be unbecoming in him to discuss the merits or demerits of those cases. The Government were accused in the first place of getting a special jury. Why should it be iniquitous to get a special jury?
  MR. DILLON: Under the Crimes Act.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid a litigant in a civil action could get a special jury if he desired it, and even in a case of misdemeanour the defendant could get a special jury under the old practice. Did the fact that it was asked for under the Crimes Act make it iniquitous?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford): Certainly, because you get it as a right under the Crimes Act.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid a litigant could get it as a right in a civil case.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: We are speaking of criminal cases.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be allowed to proceed without interruption.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it was open to-either party, and not merely to the Attorney-General, to come in under Section 3 of the Crimes Act and get a special jury. He understood, however, that the process of trying by special jury was vitiated and contaminated by the fact that it was asked for under the Crimes Act. He did not think that was a rational argument.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The Judge cannot refuse to give it to you.
  MR. ATKINSON: And the getting of a special jury did not seem to be a very tyrannical or unjust thing.
  MR. DILLON: It is both.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not agree and the reason why he did not agree was that it was precisely the same procedure that might obtain in any civil action. The hon. Gentlemen who cried out most about the iniquity of asking twenty-three or thirty-three jurors to stand aside were the very people, or the representatives of the very people, who, right and left, at meeting after meeting, denounced this procedure and made strictures upon the jurors who were about to serve, and the endeavour to counteract that procedure and to get out of the way the jurors who were intimidated and terrorised by these methods in order to prejudice the tribunal before which the accused were about to be tried, was described as an. iniquity. This was what the hon. Member for East Galway said at a meeting called for the purpose of arranging for the defence of these men—
  "He would read over the list of special jurors who had been selected to try them, and he hoped the men of each parish would take note of how these men acted in the coming; assizes, so that they might know them in the future."
  That was a fine preparation and discipline for the impartial and honest discharge of their duty in the jury-box
  MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): I stand by every word I said on that occasion.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it was because these methods were resorted to that it was necessary to resort to the setting aside of jurors in order to counteract them. He had often been asked in that House—Why were jurors not ordered to stand aside in this country? The power to set jurors aside existed in this country, bat, happily, it was not necessary to exercise it. It would be difficult to find in this country an hon. Member going down to his constituency and making an address of the kind he had quoted in reference to jurors who were about to be called to serve on a trial, and then coming to this House and glorying in it afterwards. But that was an illustration of the kind of dissipline to which these jurors were subjected by league meeting after league meeting, reported in the public Press all over the county, and the Government were denounced because they endeavoured to take out of the jury-box the men who were intimidated by such a method as that. When a man who had openly taken part in the agitation in favour of the very men who were going to be tried was asked to stand aside Members opposite considered that that was an insult to the Catholic Church and to the Catholic religion. He could multiply instances, because he had a bundle of reports before him showing the existence all over Galway of a system of intimidation and terrorism. The very moment that the order was obtained that these men should be tried by a special jury intimidation commenced and resolutions of the kind he had quoted were passed at meetings of the United Irish League. He submitted that it would be perfectly ludicrous if the Crown Solicitor did not endeavour to the best of his ability to order to stand aside men who had been taking part in this system of intimidation in order that other jurors might be obtained to try an issue upon which those who were asked to stand aside had pronounced an opinion beforehand. As a well-known canon said in the year 1902, coercion was the weapon of the United Irish League, and unsparingly and ruthlessly did the branches use it in
  280
  defiance and violation of all the laws of charity, of justice, of and truth.
  The real cause of the quarrel between the Crown and hon. Gentlemen was that their methods of intimidation had not succeeded and that they had been checked and defeated. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: We will try again.] It was said that the order to stand aside was an insult to the faith of the man so ordered to stand aside. He did not know why. The accusation was made against every Government. Every Government had been obliged to resort to this weapon, and every Government had been assailed for so doing and the vilest motives attributed to them. The right hon. Member for Montrose had been assailed as savagely as he or his right hon. friend had even been; but why should any Government have a desire for any such purpose? Almost every Crown Solicitor who was serving now served under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose and his friends. The Crown Solicitor of Galway was a most worthy and excellent gentleman of long experience, and a Roman Catholic of the Roman Catholics. He had never given any command to that gentleman to set any man aside. On the contrary, he had never given any direction to any Crown Solicitor serving under him except loyally to carry out the rules laid down, which expressly directed the Crown Solicitor not to order to stand aside any man on the ground of his religion or politics or for any reason but that he had a reasonable belief that the man would not give an impartial verdict. Why should the Crown Solicitor make himself objectionable to the community when he would not serve his office by so doing? [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: To please Dublin Castle.] He was a permanent official; and no Crown Solicitor had been discharged for fifty years. He pledged himself that there was not a shadow of foundation for the accusations of hon. Members. Why should it be an insult to jurors to be set aside? The law in Ireland enabled six jurors to be challenged in a civil case, though there was no such right in England. Why? Not because the men were deliberate perjurers, but because, from fear or favour, they were not likely to give impartial consideration

  281
  to the case. [Cries of "Tell us something of Coote."] That was a matter with which he was not personally concerned. [Cries of "Oh," and interruption.] It was a civil action brought in the Court of Chancery. There was no criminal action.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Why did you not take criminal action?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that only in the course of the civil trial did it appear that there had been any intimidation. No complaint or communication had been made to the police.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that what had actually happened in the case which had been so much referred to was that a number of peasants in the county of Galway combined together for the purpose of getting the Land Act to work and of endeavouring to realise the promises, hopes, and desires of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. Their sole object was that the uneconomic holdings should be made into economic holdings. Could any men have a worthier object in view? What was the Coote case? It was the case of a poor girl who was employed to teach sewing and embroidery in a school controlled by a Presbyterian clergyman in the county of Tyrone. She happened to be a Catholic, and Mr. Coote, who was a magistrate, got up an agitation of a violent character, held public meetings, organised processions with hands, boycotted the school, and caused twenty-three children to be removed, and all this in order to prevent a poor Catholic girl being "employed to teach sewing and embroidery; and the man who came forward to defend this
  case of disgusting bigotry and persecution was the Attorney-General for reland, who put the law into operation against these poor peasants. That was what was called equal justice between Ireland and England. He had not been left time to go into the merits of the case of these poor men who had been sent to gaol, but could any comparison be made between the object of these poor peasants and the object of this religious bigot. The Government sent to gaol the peasants who wanted to make Ireland habitable by Irishmen, and allowed to go free the miserable bigot who wanted to make starvation the lot of every Catholic employed by Protestants, and who desired to starve this poor Catholic girl by persecution and boycotting? He maintained that it was quite proper to raise the Sheridan case. The question was one of methods. Sheridan was able to get men wrongly convicted; but how was it he was able to do so? Was it Sheridan who was able to do all this? Was it this miserable perjured villain? No! The villain sat on the Front bench opposite. That was whv Sheridan was able to get these men convicted. One of these poor innocent men was actually advised by his counsel to plead guilty because the Attorney-General had packed the jury. And yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman with this crime upon his conscience had thought fit to attack them for venturing to denounce a system of government which made such things possible in Ireland.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 260. (Division List No. 304.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Boland, John

  Chance, Frederick William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brigg, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Allen, Charles P.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ambrose, Robert

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Asquith, Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Burt, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Buxton, N.E(York, NR, Whitby

  Crean, Eugene

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar

  Cremer, William Randal

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Caldwell, James

  Crombie, John William

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Bell, Richard

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Benn, John Williams

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Delany, William

  Black, Alexander William

  Cawley, Frederick

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Dewar, John A (Inverness-sh.)

  Langley, Batty

  Richards, Thomas

  Diike, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Riokett, J. Compton

  Dillon, John

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbigh

  Doogan, P. C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark).

  Leese, Sir JosephF(Accrington)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Duffy, William J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Levy, Maurice

  Rose, Charles Day

  Edwards, Frank

  Lough, Thomas

  Russell, T. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

  Ellice, CaptEC(S.Andrw'sBghs

  Lyell Charles Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isle ofWigh

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shackleton, David James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sheehy, David

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Field, William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)]

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Slack, Jolm Bamford

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Moss, Samuel

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Muldoon, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan. E

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan Gowe

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tomkinson, James

  Hammond, John

  Norman, Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Ure, Alexander

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien, Patrick, (Kilkenny)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Hayter, Rt, Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney

  Hemphill, Rt, Hon. Charles H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Malley, William

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Mara, James

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

  Jones, DavidBrynmor (Swansea

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'SLee, James John

  Wood, James

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Partington, Oswald

  Woodhouse. Sir JT(Huddersf'd

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Young, Samuel

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan, W.)

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Dcnelan.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Russell

  Lambert, George

  Reddy, M.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balcarres, Lord

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Bond, Edward

  Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Brassey, Albert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Arkwright, Jolm Stanhope

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shrophs

  Arrol, Sir William

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Beach, Rt. Hn. SirMichaelHicko

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Butcher, John George

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Carlile, William Walter

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Laird, John George Alexander

  Bingham, Lord

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  284

  285

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Parker, Ebenezer

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A. (Worc.

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Percy, Earl

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Heath, SirJames(StaffordsNW.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Chapman, Edward

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Plummet Sir Walter R.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Purvis, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Horner, FrederickWilliam

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Compt n, Lord Alwyne

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ratcliff R. F.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Howard, John(KentFaversham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Robinson, Brooke

  Davies, SirHoratioD. (Chatham

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Denny, Colonel

  Kerr, John

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Keswick, William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFred. Dixon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Samuel, SirHarryS. (Limehouse

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. SirJohn E.

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants. Fareham

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

  Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliamHart

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Fellowes, RtHnAilwynEdward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

  Finlay, Rt HnSirRB. (Inv'rn'ss)

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Shear, John Ward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  FitzGerald, SirRobertPenrose-

  Macdona, John, dimming

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset)

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Rt, Hon Lord (Lancs.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Forster, Henry William

  M'lver, Sir ewis(EdinburghW)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  M'Kiliop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Talbot, [Rt. Hn. JG. (Oxf'dUniv)

  Garfit, William

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H-

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Maxwell, Rt HnSirHE. (Wigt'n

  Tritton, Sir Charles Ernest

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tuff, Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorten

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Turnour, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.

  Green, WalfordD. (Wednesbury

  Mcon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

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

  Greene, W- Raymond-(Cambs.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Whiteley, H (Ashtonund Lynn

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gretton, John

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mowbrav, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wilson, A Stanley(York E. R.)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Batn)

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

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

  Myers, William Henry

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

  286

  287

  Wolff, Gustar Wilhelm

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Original Question again proposed.
  And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  NAVAL WORKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND.]
  Resolution reported, "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 sams so issued by Terminable Annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years from the dates of the borrowing."
  Resolution read a second time.
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said that on a point of order he wished to know whether he could now move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that if there was any Amendment to be moved, now was the time to move it.
  MR. SOARESsaid he would move as an Amendment in the second line of the Motion after the word "works," to insert the words "already commenced." If his Amendment were adopted the Resolution would read that "it is expedient to make provision for the construction of works already commenced in the United Kingdom and elsewhere." He was quite aware that the Government had made a representation to the effect that there would be no more Naval Works Bills introduced in future, and that the expenditure on these works would henceforth be paid for out of revenue and dealt with on the
  288
  Estimates But it was possible that it might be convenient for a Government in time to come to introduce a Naval Works Bill, and, therefore, he thought the Amendment he now proposed was necessary, because he saw that according to the Resolution the Government proposed to spend part of the £5,835,000 on new works which had not yet been commenced. He did not intend to go into all the particulars in detail, but he should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the items, "for coaling facilities and fuel storage." In a note with regard to that, it was stated that considerable difficulty had been experienced in obtaining sites in connection with the coaling schemes, and that it was not anticipated that the work provided for in the estimate could be finished till 1907–8. If that meant anything, it meant that the Admiralty were actually proposing to purchase new sites. Surely that was beginning new work with a vengeance- There were many other items. For instance, there was "the Gibraltar dockyard extension," in which case they were told that the "reservoirs, provision for the dockyard employees, etc.," would not be completed till after 1905–6. All those works had yet to be begun, and he did not think they ought to be asked to vote money for them alter the representations made to them by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. There were minor matters, such as the finishing of roads, and paving at Chatham, but he did not object to that, for he thought it reasonable. He thought, however, that they ought to have new works in the Estimates as promised. In his opinion the present was a totally unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. It undoubtedly led to extravagance, and it deprived the House of control. He therefore begged to move.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)seconded. He said that everybody understood the pledge given in 1903 to mean that no new matter would be introduced into the

  289
  Works Bill, and that no new works, not already begun, were to have any money spent upon them under the Bill. The whole transactions with regard to the Works Bill, however, had been so obscure that the House had been led to look upon it as coming to an end year after year, but they still had it produced before them, and there was the same demand for money under it. It was only in a death-bed repentance—when the Government knew that they could not carry on much longer—that they said that next year they would not have a Bill. Such a promise was a perfect farce. The original promise also was a farce. It was a mere farce to tell them that the Works Bill would not be increased in any way and at the same time to increase it by adding new items instead of paying for them out of the revenue of the country. When the pledge was made there was a general feeling, even on the Treasury Bench, that the Works Bills were bad policy and that they were to be curtailed, but the Government had gone on increasing the expenditure under the Bill year by year. He considered the Amendment should be accepted, and that, as the pledge given had been evaded, they ought to have something definite inserted to show that the Government was in earnest and would do something to curtail this ridiculous expenditure, which confused accounts and the money market without providing anything which could not be provided out of income if the business of the country were properly carried on.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after the word 'works' to insert the words 'already commenced'"—(Mr. Soares.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire, Fareham)said he did not think it was possible for the Government to accept the Amendment which was of a ambiguous character. There were no new items in the present Bill, and all the items in the schedule had already been commenced. It was impossible to distinguish between new
  290
  items and individual portions of those items. The works under the headings of "coaling facilities," "electric lighting and power" and "coastguard buildings," were all necessary and were made up of a large number of separate items.
  MR. SOARES: Is not buying sites new works?
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid there was a sum provided for new facilities for the coaling of the Fleet in different ports of the Empire, but it was impossible to take out one particular portion of a scheme in order to fall in with the hon. Member's view, It was a complete scheme for the coaling of the Fleet, and it was not possible, because one item might not have been commenced in a particular district, to drop it out. "Electric lighting and power" included a large number of small works in different ports and harbours, and it would be quite impossible to break a piece out of the middle or off the edges of schemes which had been thoroughly considered by the Admiralty and which had been in progress now for some years. If the Amendment were carried, it would have the effect of leaving gaps in complete schemes, and would in that way by detrimental to the best interests of the Navy.
  MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there were no new works and that all the money asked for was in respect of works already begun. Could he reconcile that with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on July 25th, 1904, when he said, speaking in reply to a debate in Committee on the Finance Bill, that he gathered that the hon. Gentlemen were rather anxious that the growth of small borrowings should be closely watched and not made a permanent part of their financial system. He was very much in accord with hon. Gentleman opposite, but he was bound to point out that works already sanctioned by Parliament and begun were coming to an end. They had overtaken arrears out of which they arose, and it would not be necessary to ask Parliament to make provision for them again. Of course it was true that in 1904 the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think his Government

  291
  would be in office a year later, and he was very well able to promise that he and his Party would not be responsible again for asking the House to make up arrears in respect of works already authorised. But in face of that statement they were now asked to authorise an expenditure of nearly £6,000,000 in respect of old works. Was it consistent with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that part of the works consisted of coaling facilities, but were they new or old? If they were old, he was met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if they were new he was met by the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would not again ask the House to vote new works by this method. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to ask them to authorise these works by Bill; he ought frankly to ask them to vote them on the Estimates.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)thought that even if the Amendment were not accepted something ought to be done to meet the view of his hon. friend. A pledge had been given that no new expenditure should be provided for by this system of loans, and what his hon. friend desired was a definite undertaking that that pledge would be carried out. The reply of the representative of the Admiralty was most unsatisfactory. £1,000,000 was to be taken for electric lighting, a work for which provision ought never to be made by way of loan, and its inclusion n the Bill would be a flagrant violation of the understanding which had been arrived at. The Amendment was extremely reasonable; it would allow works already commenced to be provided for, and it simply asked the Government to give effect to its promise that no new works should be undertaken under this system.
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)as an Irish representative protested against this system of raising money. Ireland would get no share of this expenditure, although her people had to bear more than their fair share of taxation. Everyone who took an interest in financial affairs must be aware that the financial business of the country was conducted on very unbusinesslike lines.
  292
  In addition to the ordinary Estimates, there were Supplementary Estimates and Bills for raising loans. The existing financial system was altogether against the commercial interests of the country, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to go into the money market for loans, [thereby raising the price of money, and withdrawing it from the use of the commercial community. The commercial aspect of the question ought to be considered altogether apart from Party politics. He protested against the whole financial system of the Government; they were spending money recklessly in all directions. He hoped the hon. Member would go to a division, as he thought it was time fresh financial management was instituted. No explanation whatever had been given of the purposes for which this money was required. One of the principle functions of that House was to exercise the power of the purse, but that power was largely passing out of their hands into the hands of the Treasury officials.
  MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)said it was extremely unsatisfactory that the House should be asked to take up the consideration of a matter of such great importance atone o'clock in the morning. The Resolution involved £6,000.000, and the Bill to be founded upon it would be brought in at the fag-end of the session by a sham Government and a sham Prime Minister who had fortified themselves by a sham vote of confidence. The hon. Member for Exeter had repeatedly drawn attention to the odious and improper practice of pretending to pay off the National Debt by the Sinking Fund and neutralising the effects of those payments by the passing of Naval Works and similar Acts. No practice more injuriously affected national finance or the public service than the bringing in of numerous Loans Bills in the course of a session. After ten years of this malpractice, during which the amount involved in these Acts had mounted up by millions, the Prime Minister and his friends in what might be their last year of office had developed good resolutions, and for the future, such works were to be charged on the annual Estimates. It was really a death-bed repentance. The hon. Member for Fare-ham had characterised the Amendment

  293
  as ambiguous. It was nothing of the sort. When they were complaining of the great and growing expenditure under these Acts nothing could be more simple than that they should ask for a line to be drawn so that the works already commenced might be finished, and an undertaking given that there should be no further extensions of the system.
  The Amendment was justified by the extraordinary changes in naval strength which had resulted from the war in the Far East. For years enormous Estimates had been voted on the basis of the two-Power standard, and now the navy of one of those Powers had been as completely wiped off the slate as though it had never existed. Was no modification to be introduced as a result of the war between Russia and Japan? Was there to be no modification on account of the Anglo-French Agreement? The time had come£when these great questions of naval policy must be considered from a new point of view. The Amendment would at least enable the House to terminate the liabilities which were now being contracted with the life of the present Government.
  He asked the House to consider some of the details of the Memorandum which had been supplied to them, and which dealt with all sorts of matters. When they remembered the wasteful expenditure which had taken place at Gibraltar they were not encouraged to commit themselves to new enterprises beyond those which they had already undertaken at Gibraltar. When the defences at Gibraltar were first undertaken they fell back upon the naval experts, who stated that Gibraltar was impregnable. When those great military and naval works were nearly completed the same experts said that Gibraltar was indefen-
  sible on account of improvements in modern guns. He had himself taken a very keen amateur interest in this question, and he had visited Gibraltar for the purpose of examining into the truth of all the statements which had been made, and which were the subject of an inquiry by a Commission. When mistakes of this kind were made by experts and by the Government it was not unnatural that hon. Members should be ready and willing to associate themselves with an Amendment such as that which was now before the House, in order to limit such undertakings which would commit them to the expenditure of a large sum of money in the future. Then there was the item for the dockyard extension at Hong-Kong, a matter which it did not appear to him had been properly thought out by the naval authorities in view of the alteration and changes in the naval power of the Far East. There were a good many other points to which he would like to refer, but, as they were aware, a vote in the House of Commons had apparently no meaning, and the Prime Minister had very little public respect—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh !"]—and so he would reserve what he had to say until the main Question was put.
  MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)rose to continue the debate.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes,230; Noes, 181. (Division List No. 305.)

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bingham, Lord

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus B. Eden

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Brodrick, Bt. Hon. St. John

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Arrol, Sir Wil liam

  Banbury, Sir Fredk. George

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Butcher, John George

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Campbell. J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Carlile, Wliliam Walter

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords. NW

  Percy, Earl

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysbire

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Henderson, SirA. (Stafford, W.)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Chamberain. Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chapman, Edward

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pryce-. Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyor, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Robinson, Brooke

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kerr, John

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Denny, Colonel

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex,

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  LawsonHn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Smith, A. H (Hereford, East)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam Hart

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tynes'e

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, RtHnJParker (Lanarks)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. AilwynEdw.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Finlay, Rt. Hn. SirRB (Inv'rn'ss

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Maconochie. A. W.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  MIver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Forster, Henry William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  Malcolm, Ian.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tuff, Charles

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Marks, Harry Hananer

  Tumour, Viscount.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'r H'mrts

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. SirHE (Wigt'n

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W- H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whiteley. H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Moleswortli, Sir Lewis

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Grenfell, William. 'Henry

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Groves, James Grim ble

  Morgan, B. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hamilton, RtHnLord G. Middx

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Lindndery

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H-

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hare, Tborras Leigh

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath),

  Harris, F. Leverten (Tynen'th

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland — Hood and Viscount Valentia

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

  braham, William (Cork, N. E)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Bell, Richard

  Allen, Charles P.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Black, Alexander William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Boland, John

  296

  297

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Partington, Oswald

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Highara, John Sharp

  Peale, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chaa. Fredk.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Buxton, NE(York, NR, Whitby

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Priestley, Arthur

  Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond. Jolin E. (Waterford)

  Campbell-Bamierman, Sir H.

  Jones, William (Camarvonsh.

  Richards, Thomas

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lambert, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Langley, Batty

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Cullinan, J.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Delany, William

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Dewar. JohnA. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Slack, John Bamford

  Dillon, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Doogan, P C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR(Northants.)

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kean, John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ellice, CaptEC(S Andrw's Bghs

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N)

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mooney, John J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Moss, Samuel

  Toulmin. George

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Muldoon, John

  Trevelvan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murnaghan, George

  Tully, jasper

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Murphy, John

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wallace, Robert

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Norman, Henry

  Wason, J. Cathcart(Orkney)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whiteley, Geo (York, W. R.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Wood, James

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Woodhouse, SirJT (Huddersf'd

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Harrington. Timothy

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Sayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Shauglmessy, P. J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shee, James John

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes 229. (Division List No. 306.)

  AYES.

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

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bell, Richard

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Buxton, N. E(York, NRWhitby

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Boland, John

  Buxton, S. Charles (Poplar)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Caldwell, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Rea, Russell

  Chance, Frederick William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Langley, Batty

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Crean, Eugene

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cullinan, J.

  Layla. nd-Barratt, Francis

  Russall, T. W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Delany, William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway

  Levy, Maurice

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lundon, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Dillon, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Kean, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ellice, CaptE. C(S. Andrw'sBghs

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Spencer, RtHn. C. R. (Northants

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sullivan, Donal

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Fenwick, Chnrles

  Moss, Samuel

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Muldoon, John

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murnaghan, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Field, William

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Findlay, AlexandervLinark, NE

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tully, Jasper

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norman, Henry

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Wallace, Robert

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Dannell, T. (Kerry, W.

  Whiteley, George (York. W. R.

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Wood, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Malley, William

  Woodhouse, SirJ. T. (Hudd'rsf'd

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Mara, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Soaies and Mr. Charles Allen.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  O'Shee, James John

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Partington, Oswald

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Brotherton, Edward Alien

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.

  Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

  Balfour, RtHn. GeraldW. (Leeds

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Chriscth.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Butcher, John George

  Arnold-Foreter, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

  Bigwood, James

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bingham, Lord

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brassey, Albert

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A. (Wore

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Chapman, Edward

  300

  301

  Clare, Octavins Leigh

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hope, JF. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Purvis, Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Rankin, Sir James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Kerr, John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Denny, Colonel

  Keswick, William

  Robinson, Brooke

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lambton, Hon. Fredck. Wm.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

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

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Long, Col, Chas. W. (Evesham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

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

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Fellowes, RtHn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, H. C(North'mb, Tyneside

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, RtHnJ. Parker(Lanarks

  Finlay, Rt. Hn. SirRB(Inv'rn'ss

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Forster, Henry William

  M'lver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

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

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'rH'mlt's

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tuff, Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. SirHE. (Wigt'n

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Walrond, RtHn. Sir William H.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Gretton, John

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Whiteley. H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Groves, James Grimble

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Hamilton, RtHn. Lord G. (Midx

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hamilton. Marq. of (L'donderry

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynemouth

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

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

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—SirAlexander Acland Hood and Viscount Valentia

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Percy, Earl

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  platt-Higgins, Frederick

  MR. REA (Gloucester)moved in line 4 to leave out "£5,835,000" and insert "£3,835,000." He said he moved that considerable reduction not because he disputed the necessity of any item in the schedule, and not because, as a layman, he ventured to assert that any single item was excessive; but because he strongly maintained that this was not the right way to pay for the expenditure. It was bad finance to distribute the expenditure for a great many of these items over thirty years. They ought to have been included in the Estimates. For instance, possibly some of the £500,000 for coaling facilities was for land, but the greater portion was for machinery. Then there was over £1,000,000 for electric lighting and power. It seemed to him an indefensible financial policy to put that item into a Naval Works Rill at all. He was perfectly aware it would be said that local authorities were permitted to borrow money for precisely the same period for the same purpose, but hon. Members on the other side never ceased to criticise them for it; and they were imitating the local authorities in the worst and most unsound particular of their finance. It was all very well for the Government to say they would borrow no more, but they were leaving as a legacy to their successors a permanent charge of £5,000,000 per annum in respect of a debt amounting to £40,000,000 sterling for expenditure, all of which ought to have been found year by year.
  He wished to ask the Government one Question with regard to Dover Harbour. Was the expenditure in respect of that harbour altogether naval expenditure, or were they not providing out of the taxes for a com-
  304
  mercial port at Dover? Was it not a fact that local pressure had been brought to bear upon the Department so that they were providing a commercial free port at Dover? Free ports conduced to the commercial prosperity of a country, but the poit of Dover was of a peculiar character. It appeared to be too small to be of any use for any English shipping firm, but it was used now as a free port by the German steamers who called there and gathered up passengers for America without paying those ordinary dues which English firms had to pay at Southampton Liverpool, and elsewhere. That appeared to him to have been the peculiar result of their first experiment in establishing free commercial ports. He would like an Answer to that particular Question. He did not blame the Department because he believed it had brought its expenditure on the item down to the smallest point; but other interests had prevailed and made it imperative that the provision should be made.
  MR. AINSWORTHseconded. He said he would give one item to show how the columns were prepared, and, if the others were at all of the same character, he thought the House would come to the conclusion that before they voted £6,000,000 they had better know a little more as to how the estimates were made up. They were asked to authorise an expenditure of £49,320 in the next three years at Rosyth. The total cost of the preliminary works was £200,000, and up to March 31st, 1904, £147,000 odd had been expended. That expenditure was practically for the acquisition of a site, obtained with the idea of establishing a naval base; but they had always been

  305
  told that the character of the base was still under consideration, and it was quite probable they were going on surveying to see what the resources of the site were with a view to deciding as to the future of the base. Why had the estimate for survey charges jumped from £3,000 to £50,000? He would give the reason. The original Estimate was for £200,000, and as only £150,000 had been spent the Department held the view that they must get rid of the balance of £50,000. There were several railway directors present. They knew tnat they could put into their half-yearly statements any estimated expenditure they liked, but the shareholders would so m have something to say if they were told that £100,000 had been spent simply because the expenditure was authorised. Some further explanation of these items was necessary, and he thought that when so large an expenditure was involved the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be in his place.
  Amendment proposed —
  "In line 4, to leave out '£3,835,000,' to insert '£3,835,000.'"—(Mr. Rea.)
  Question proposed, "That '£5,835,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that if the hon. Member for Argyllshire had been present when this matter was last discussed he would have heard certain facts which would have relieved him of the necessity of making the speech he had just delivered about theRosyth expenditure. It was then stated that the total estimate for Rosyth was £2,500,000, the balance of which would be provided in the ordinary Navy Estimates, in accord-
  306
  ance with the generally expressed wish of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. AINSWORTHasked why the proposed expenditure under this Resolution was exactly the amount of the difference between the sum already spent and the £200,000 originally talked about.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid it was obvious that the unexpended balance of the £200,000 remained available for carrying on the preliminary works, and it would be so used until it was exhausted. It was not provided altogether for surveying, but for preliminary works.
  MR. CHURCHILLasked what were the preliminary works.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid they included the purchase of land, the erection of offices, the surveying of the site, the expenses of the staff, the preparation of plans, arrangements for making a railway connection and for water supply, and other items of that character. Ihe proposed reduction could not be accepted; it would practically destroy the Bill, and make it impossible to proceed with works already sanctioned for which contracts had been made, thus placing the Government in the uneviable position of defaulters in connection with their contracts. The hon. Member had not shown how he proposed to effect the reduction, but had based his case mainly upon objections to the general principle of borrowing, particularly referring to electric lighting, thereby disregarding the precedents set by almost every municipal authority in the Kingdom. When this particular item was introduced in the

  307
  Bill of 1903 it was received without a single word of dissent, and it was a little late in the day to come forward now with these fundamental objections. As to the legacy of debt which the hon. Member said the Government would leave to their successors, he did not know whence the hon. Member got his figures.
  MR. REAsaid he gave the amount of terminable annuities for works altogether, naval, military, and civil.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he understood the hon. Member to be referring to naval works alone. This system of borrowing was originated by a Liberal Government it had been sanctioned on many occasions, and it would be quite impossible for the Government to agree to the proposed reduction.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON(Tower Hamlets, Poplar) said the hon. Member really missed the point of their objections to the Bill. The Amendment afforded a real test of the sincerity of the Government in their declaration that there should be no more of these loans in the future.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I did not say that I the Government would not borrow any further by Loans Bills. It is obvious that there are certain amounts still unprovided for.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that while he and his friends did not say there should not be any loans under any conditions, they adhered generally to the view that these works should be paid for out of revenue and not by loan. The
  308
  Government had included in the schedule certain items which ought never to have been met out of loan at all. If the Government were really desirous that these expenses should be met out of revenue in future they ought to show their sincerity by placing them in their annual expenditure for the current year instead of borrowing. Such matters as electric lighting ought clearly to come out of revenue and not loans. He did not quite understand the explanation which had been given in regard to Eosyth. His hon. friend said that £200,000 was the preliminary Estimate, and the additional expenditure of £2,300,000 would be borne out of revenue. At present the Government did not know what they were going to spend this money upon. With regard to the item for Chatham and Portsmouth he noticed certain items for additional works and supplementary buildings which he did not think ought to be placed in a Loans Bill. Why should those who might succeed the present Government be saddled with this heavy expenditure upon Rosyth? The Government should have met this expenditure out of revenue instead of reducing taxation, and they ought not to pass on liabilities amounting to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 to their successors. He thought they were quite justified in raising the whole principle of these Loan Bills whenever they got an opportunity.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Government excused himself and the Government on the ground that the present Opposition introduced the system of Loans Bills, and he said that the last Liberal Government raised £800,000 in that way. Was the

  309
  House aware that the present Govern-had raised £68,000,000 in this way? The hon. Member for Argyllshire had asked why the representative of the Treasury was not present. He thought it was little less than a scandal that the Treasury was not represented whilst this question was under discussion. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill the Secretary to the Treasury said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech clearly and distinctly intimated that he would discourage the idea of adding to the National Debt by naval, military, or public works, and he stated that the House might rest assured that any assistance they could give in that direction would be welcomed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was a pledge which was given this year, and yet not one word was said about the intentions of the Government in regard to such a measure as this. At that time the Chancellor of the Exche-
  quer distinctly stated that all the outstanding arrears had been paid off, and in face of that statement this Bill was brought forward and no representative of the Treasury was present to support the emphatic statements which had been made on the subject. The hon. Member for Fareham had now made a proposal to the House, in direct contradiction of the express statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as a protest against the absence of any representative of the Treasury he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in hisplace, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 218; Noes, 170. (Division List, No. 307.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC.

  Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Butcher, John George

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. HughO.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Arrol, Sir William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliamHart

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. HnJ. A. (Worc.

  Fellowes, RtHn. AilwynEdward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chapman, Edward

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

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

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

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

  Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose-

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bhownagree, Sir M. M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Forster, Henry William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W.

  Bigwood, James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bingham, Lord

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davies, SirHoratioD. (Chatham

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  Brassey, Albert

  Denny, Colonel

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Green, WalfordD. (Wednesbury

  Macdona, John dimming

  Rutherford, W- W. (Liverpool)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Grenfell, William Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Gretton, John

  M'lver, SirLewis(EdinburghW.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Groves, James Grimble

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'donderry

  Marks, Hairy Hananel

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hardy, Laurence (KentAshford

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Skews-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. E.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Maxwell, Rt. HnSirHE. (Wigt'n

  Smith, HC(Northumb. Tyneside

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Smith, Rt. HnJ. Parker(Lanarks

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

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

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords, N. W

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford. W.

  Mo]e=worth, Sir Lewis

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lanes.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M Taggart)

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  luff, Charles

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tumour, Viscount

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Nicholson. William Graham

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Wallond, Rt. Hor. Sir WilliamH

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Kerr, John

  Percy, Earl

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

  Keswick, William

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Platt-Higgins. Frederick

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Purvis, Robert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Reid, James Greenock

  Wyndham-Quir, Col. W. H.

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

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

  Loyd, Archie, Kirkman

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth;

  Robinson, Brooke

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

  Dillon, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Campbell, Bannerman, Sir H.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Chance, Frederick William

  Duffy, William J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Elibank, Master of

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Ellice, CaptE. C. S(Andrw'sBghs

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Black, Alexander William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Boland, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cullman, J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Delany, William

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Devlin, CliarlesRamsay(Galway

  Field, William

  Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N)

  Caldwell, James

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  312

  313

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derbj, Co.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Seely, MajJ. E. B. (Isle ofWight)

  Gilhooly, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Moss, Samuel

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Muldoon, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Hammond, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Sheehy, David

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Harrington. Timothy

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norman Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid)

  Spencer, RtHnC. R. (Northants.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stanhope, Hon, Philip James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thomas, SirA. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thomas, J. A(Glamorgan, Gower

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  O'Dowd, John

  Toulmin, George

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kennedy, VincentP. (Cavan, W.)

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Tully, Jasper

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Malley, William

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Lambert, George

  O'Mara, James

  Wallace, Robert

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Langley, Batty

  O'Shee, James John

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Weir. James (Galloway)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Priestley, Arthur

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R)

  Lough, Thomas

  Reddy, M.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth.

  Lundor, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richards, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wood. James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Huddersfd

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  M'Hugh, Patrick F.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

  M'Kean, John

  Rose, Charles Day

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Russell, T W.

  Question put accordingly, "That '£5,835,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
  Tee House divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 168. (Division List No. 308.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA. (Worc.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chapman, Edward

  Allhusen, AugustusHenry Eden

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bigwood, James

  Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bingham, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arrold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brassey, Albert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H-

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Bailey, James i Walworth)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Butcher, John George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balcarres, Lord

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. vManch'r.)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Davies, SirHoratioD. (Chatham)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Gautley, Henry Strother

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJoseph C.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Ritchie. Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam Hart

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Finlay, Rt. HnSirRB. (Inv'rn'ss)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)

  Seely, Chas Hilton (Lincoln)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, A H (Hertford, East)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  M'lver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  : Smith, Rt. Hon. J. P. (Lanark)

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Marks, Harrv Hananel

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M-Taggart

  Grenfell, William Henry.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Gretton, John

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. SirH.E(Wigt'n

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Groves, James Grimble

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  J Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Guthrie, Walter

  Murray Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Turnour, Viscount

  Harris. F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walrond. Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne)

  Henderson, SirA. (Stafford, W.)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hill, Henry Staveley.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside;

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Percy, Earl

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred,

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Purvis, Robert

  Kerr, John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Keswick, William

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  NOES

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Allen, Charles P.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Chance, Frederick William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Baker, Joseph Allen

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

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Caldwell, James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Black, Alexander William

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Crean, Eugene

  Boland, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Cremer, William Randal

  316

  317

  Cullman, J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Oardigan

  Lambeit, George

  Richards, Thomas

  Delany, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Rose, Charles Day

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Russell, T. W.

  Douglas Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Elibank, Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shackleton, David James

  Ellice, CaptE. C. (SAndrw'sBghs

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Eadden, Edward

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sheehy, David

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamfirgan)

  M'Kean, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Slack, John Bamford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mooney, John J.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Ffrench, Peter

  Moss, Samuel

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Field, William

  Muldoon, John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Mumaghan, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tliomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thomas, J. A(Clamorgan, Gower

  Fuller, J. M, F.

  Norman, Henry

  Tomkinson, James

  Oilhooly, James

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperarj, Mid.)

  Toulmin, George

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tully, Jasper

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, James (VVieklow. W.

  Wallace, Robert

  Hammond, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Harrington, Timothy

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

  I White, George (Norfolk)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Whitcley, George (York, W. R.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Mara, James

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

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Joicey, Sii James

  OnShee, James John

  Wood, James

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Partington, Oswald

  Woodhouse. Sir JT(Huddersfd

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Waldcn)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Russell Rea and Mr. Ains- worth.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Priestley, Arthur

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.)

  Reddy, M.

  MR. SOARESasked whether, the Amendment having been disposed of, the main Question could be debated.
  MR. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of anything that occurred before or during the. division.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 219; Noea. 159. (Division List No. 309.)

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. HughO.

  Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt, Hn. Sir H

  Mr. A. J. BALFOURclaimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  "To make further piovision for the construction of works in the

  323
  United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal Navy," presented according and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 287.]

  COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT (DENTISTS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT (PHYSICIANS) ETC., BILL
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
NEW BILLS.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS
  Bill to amend the law relating to Factories and Workshops, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tennant, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir Charles Dilke, Sir John Stirling Maxwell, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Talbot, Mr. McKenna, and Mr. Haldane.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to Factories and Workshops," presented, and
  read the first time; to be re-d a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 288.]

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (CHILDREN) (No. 2.)
  Bill to amend the law relating to the Trial and Detention of Children, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tennant, Sir Howard Vincent. Mr. Mildmay, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Melville, Sir John Gorst, and Mr. Toulmin.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (CHILDREN) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to the Trial and Detention of Children," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 289.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Motion made, and Question put, "That three additional days be allotted to the Business of Supply."—(Sir H. Camp-bell-Bannerman.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 169; Noes, 216. (Division List No. 310.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lough, Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Elibank, Master of

  Lundon, W.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ellice, CaptEC(S Andrw's Bghs

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Evans, Samuel T (Glamorgan)

  M'Fadden, Edward

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

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Shackleton, David James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sheehy, David

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Field, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

  Moss, Samuel

  Slack, John Bamford

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Muldoon, John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. G'. R. (Northants

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Murphy, John

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norman, Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gowe

  Harcourt, Lewis

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Toulmin, George

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Dowd, John

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Malley, William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Mara, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  O'Shee, James John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wood, James

  Lambert, George

  Priestley, Arthur

  Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd

  Lamont, Norman

  Rea, Russell

  Langley, Batty

  Reddy, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Richards, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A(Worc.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chapman, Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bigwood, James

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

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn.Hugh O

  Bingham, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arrol, Sir William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brassey, Albert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn, SirH

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Butcher, John George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balcarres, Lord

  Campbell. J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Carlile, William Walter

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Denny, Colonel

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C.

  326

  327

  Disraeli, Coningsby

  Ralph Kimber, Sir Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Lanjbton, Hn. Frederick W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Doughty, Sir George

  Law, Andrew Ronar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers

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

  Ritchie. Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dyke. Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Levcson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Robinson, Brooke

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Fellowes, Rt, Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkmftn

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John dimming

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Maconochie. A. W.

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford. East)

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

  M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgb. W)

  Rmith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside)

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Killop. James (Stirlingshire)

  Smith. RtHnJ. Parker (Lanark

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. 1). (Strand)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'rH'mlets)

  Manners. Lord Cecil

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Stanley, "Rt, Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Green, W. D. (Wedncsbury)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Massey Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Johu M.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Maxwell. RtHnSirH E. (Wigt'n.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gretton, John

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tollemacbe, Henry James

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. SI.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'dondcrry

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tumour, Viscount

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Walker, Col. Wm. Hall

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Welby. Lt. -Col. A. C. E. (Taimt'n

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords. NW)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton mid. Lyne

  Holder, Sir Augustus

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsidc)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Wodchouse. Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Parkes, Ebenezcr

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Percy, Earl

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Purvis, Robert

  Kerr, John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Keswich, William

  Ratclift, R. F.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) (RATES)
  Order [18th July] for a Return relative
  thereto, read, and discharged.—(Mr. John Dewar.)
  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three O'clock

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Stand-in. Orders are applicable to the following Bill; — Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 2).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Wigan Corporation Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed. Read, and agreed to.
  Ealing Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
  Wemyss Dock Bill [H. L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to He on the Table.
  Thames Conservancy Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  London County Council (Money) Bill. Read 3 (according to order), and passed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with,
  126
  and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H. L.]. Commons Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.
  Glasgow University Order Confirmation Bill [H. L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3450. Sweden (Gothenburg).
  No. 3451. Germany (Dantzig).
  No. 3452. China Kiukiang).
  No. 3453. Brazil (Porto Alegre).
  No. 3454. Italy (Lombardy).
  No. 3455. China (Swatow).
  No. 3456. Germany (Finances of the German Empire).

  STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS (BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT).
  Report on strikes and lock-outs in the United Kingdom in 1904, and on conciliation and arbitration boards.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL, ETC.
  Account showing the receipts and expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal during the year ended March 31st, 1905.
  Account of receipts and payments in respect of the land registry, for the year ended March 31st, 1905.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (INCORPORATION OF WIMBLEDON).
  Charter of Incorporation of the borough of Wimbledon, dated July 24th, 1905.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee {with the Proceedings of the Committee and Appendix), made, and to be printed. (No. 154.) Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. Bill reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 153.)
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment; and recommitted to the Standing Committee.
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order.) Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  COAL MINES (WEIGHING OF MINERALS) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

GERMANY ANDTHE WELSH COAL FIELD.
LORD MUSKERRY:My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have seen the statement in the public Press of July 20th and 21st, that a coalfield in Wales has been purchased by a German firm; and if this is true, whether, in view of the great importance to our Navy of possessing an adequate supply of Welsh smokeless coal, and also in view of the said coal being declared as contraband of war by Russia, the Government intend to take any steps in the matter either now or later on.
THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, our attention has been called to the statement
128
to which the noble Lord refers, and we have made inquiries in regard to the facts. So far as we have been able to ascertain, the particular coalfield to which the statement has reference is outside the area in which steam coal available for naval purposes has hitherto been found. We also learn that the property in question has been for sale for the last twenty years, and that the quality of the coal believed to be found within it is inferior. I should say upon the whole that the transaction does not seem to be one affecting the adequate supply of Welsh smokeless coal for the Navy.

PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.
Clause 1.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY):My Lords, I have, on behalf of the Government, to move several Amendments in Clause 1 of this Bill. They are of a purely drafting character, and are merely put down to give effect to an Amendment which was carried through the other House by Major Griffith Boscawen. That Amendment provided that for the purpose of determining extraordinary expenses for repairing a road there should be a comparison with the average cost of maintaining the particular road damaged, and not with that of the whole of the roads in the area. The Irish Government in the other House accepted this Amendment, but they realise that it would be ineffective if the Amendments standing in my name are not agreed to. I therefore beg to move the Amendments.
On Question, drafting Amendments agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

ARMY.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHrose "To call attention to the continued deficiency in the number of officers in the British Army; to ask if any, and what, steps have been taken to mitigate this grave source of weakness to the efficiency of our land forces; and to move to resolve "That this House is of opinion that the supply, training, and conditions of service of officers in all branches of the King's Army require the instant attention of His Majesty's Government."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that it is rather presumptuous of me, whose military experience does not extend further than a few years in a school rifle corps and afterwards eight or nine years in a Yeomanry regiment, to venture in this House, where there are so many noble Lords who have served in the Regular forces of His Majesty, and so many distinguished soldiers, to raise a question which is primarily of military importance. But it is something more than that. This is a question which interests all of us, whether civilians or soldiers, being a very important point of military policy, and it is not, I think, a controversial one, but one on which men of all Parties may agree. It does not raise any of the knotty points as to compulsory service or as to a big Army or a small Army.
For my own part I frankly answer that I am against compulsory service, and am in favour of a moderate-sized Regular Army, thoroughly efficient and sufficient to meet any reasonable calls upon it in our Colonies, in India, or in our other dependencies beyond the seas. I believe that for the defence of these islands we should depend upon our Auxiliary Forces; that those forces should be as efficient as possible, and that the measure of their efficiency should be the efficiency they can obtain without individuals being prevented from doing their full civil duties and fulfilling their civil employment. Holding that view, I think it is necessary that the Regular Army should be properly and sufficiently officered, that there should be a large reserve of officers, and that there should be a strong staff and an Intelligence Department thoroughly informed and efficient and able to form plans of campaigns in the
130
different parts of the world in which our Army may be called upon to act. It is especially necessary that we should have officers trained to lead our Auxiliary Forces when they are called into action, for above all is it necessary for men who are partially trained to have officers to lead them who are fully trained and thoroughly acquainted with the arts of war.
I am particularly anxious that our officers should be many, should be able, should be contented, and should be sufficient for all the duties thatare thrown upon them. What is the shortage now to be found among the ranks of officers? It is rather remarkable. The figures I shall quote are all absolutely official, and have been given by Ministers in one House or the other. In the cavalry there is a shortage of sixty-five officers, in the Guards a shortage of twenty-nine officers, and in the infantry of the Line a shortage of 148 officers; in all, a shortage of 242 officers in the Regular Army. It must be remembered, so far as the Guards are concerned, that a considerable addition has been made in the last month or two by the admission to both the Horse Guards and the Foot Guards of officers who have passed no examination, and who are admitted as probationers, having to fulfil certain conditions after two years service. That is a new departure. I do not think, of recent years at any rate, that officers have been admitted to His Majesty's Army without examination, and this new departure has helped up the number of officers in the Guards.
To give your Lordships an idea of what this shortage means in individual regiments, I will take the case of seven cavalry regiments as given in the Army List of this month. Each of these cavalry regiments has an establishment of six second lieutenants. The 1st King's Dragoon Guards has one sub-lieutenant, the 3rd Dragoon Guards has two sub-lieutenants, the 4th Dragoon Guards has two sub-lieutenants, the 5th Lancers has one sub-lieutenant, the 8th Hussars has three sub-lieutenants, the 11th Hussars two sub-lieutenants, and the 18th Hussars three sub-lieutenants; that is to say, in those seven regiments, instead of forty-two sub-lieutenants, you have at this moment only fourteen. That

131
seems to me to speak for itself. Leaving the Regular Army, let me come to the Auxiliary Forces. The shortage of officers there is more remarkable. In the Militia you have a shortage of 1,010 officers, in the Yeomanry a shortage of 344, in the Volunteers a shortage of 2,799; in all, a shortage of 4,153 officers. That, I admit, is perhaps a little overstating the case, because from this total should be deducted certain supernumerary and seconded officers who are included in the deficiency. The supernumerary and seconded officers included in the deficiency are—Militia, 244; Yeomanry, 63; Volunteers, 193. That makes a total of 500, and if you deduct that number from the total I have given, there is left a shortage of 3,653 officers in the Auxiliary Forces.
This shortage of officers works out in a singular way with regard to the Militia. You may almost say that in some Militia regiments the subaltern ranks are almost non-existent. In the Highland Light Infantry there are three subalterns out of an establishment of twelve; in the Manchester Regiment there are four subalterns out of an establishment of twenty-four; in the Sherwood Foresters there are three subalterns out- of an establishment of twelve; in the Black Watch there are eight out of an establishment of twelve, and in the East Surrey ten out of an establishment of fifteen; whilst the East Lancashire Regiment has no subalterns at all. I only quote this shortage to show what a sorry plight we are in. This is, I think, a state of affairs serious enough in time of peace, but what would be the state of affairs in case of war? What would be the call made upon our forces for officers in war and to fulfil the duties of the Army Service Corps, the Intelligence Department, and the general staff? The call likely to be made on officers for these purposes in anything like a serious war will be very great, and one that, to put it very mildly, it will be very difficult to meet.
We are always told that the most probable theatre of war is the North-West Frontier of India. Now, let as suppose a war in that region—a war for which it would be necessary, let us say, to mob lise and despatch eight divisions.
132
What would our shortage be in the first instance? I leave out the question of the Auxiliary Forces altogether, merely saying that the shortage of officers in the Auxiliary Forces, and especially in the Militia, would be a very serious thing when you came to the question of getting fresh officers for an emergency to serve in the Regular Army. One of your great sources of supply of officers-will be taken away, and if you pass your measure which lays on the Militia the duty of going abroad, I think the power of taking officers from that source will be still more diminished in the future. In the first place, then, supposing that such a war as I have described—which, please God, may not happen—should break out, you would have your original deficiency of 242 officers. Then I am. told that the Indian authorities say that they want at least 600 officers in. India. I believe that is the number which has been named by Lord Kitchener, and which he would ask for. I think you will admit that I do not exaggerate when I say that a further 300 officers would be wanted for Staff purposes, and for the Army Service Corps and other purposes another 200 officers; that is to say, a total of 1,342 officers. I do not know, but I am told that the War Office estimate for the purposes I have mentioned no less than 1,850 officers, so that my estimate is not a high one.
Then I have assumed that you would, have to mobilise these eight divisions and send them out. I should like to put it to the noble Lord whether I am. Over stating the case when I say that in order to make up these eight divisions you would have to fall back on your Reserves. You have 91,000 Reservists in this country, and to make up the eight divisions you would have to call out 60,000 Reservists. How are you going to officer those 60,000 Reservists, taking one officer to every thirty Reservists? It would require 2,000 officers to officer the Reservists who would be taken to make up the eight divisions. That is at the commencement; but some allowance must be made for wastage in. war and for loss among officers through death and disease.
Sir Coleridge Grove stated in his. evidence before the Elgin Commission

133
that 3,000 officers above the normal were supplied during eighteen months of the South African War, excluding Auxiliaries. The campaign that I am supposing is not in e country anything like so healthy as South Africa. There is no doubt that we were saved great losses in South Africa by the healthiness of that country, and the conditions, therefore, under which our troops were able to serve there; bat on the North-West Frontier of India you have great extremes of temperature, and a very rough country to fight in. You would, I suppose, be fighting against European soldiers. You have also to consider the high mortality that is always found to ensue when native troops are led by white officers. White officers have to show themselves well to the front, and consequently they suffer. I do not think that I am putting it very high when I say that you ought to allow 1,000 officers for twelve months service in such a war.
But that is not all. It is not sufficient to provide for a year's war. The war might come to an end at the conclusion of the first year, but still you must be prepared for the contingency of its going on beyond the first year. I know that both the Intelligence Department and the Staff College have estimated that in order to keep a force of eight divisions and your Indian Army in full strength you would require to supply 140,000 men a year. I suppose you would take steps. at once to get this number of men to reinforce your Army during the second year. What would you then have to fall back upon? I daresay there might be about 30,000 recruits not of sufficient age to go in the first year to the war. Then you might have, perhaps, 30,000 Militiamen to send out. That would leave you with still some 80,000 men to find, and you would have to recruit them. You would also have to train those 80,000 recruits at home during the first year of the war. You must have officers to do that. If I may take one officer to every thirty men, 2,600 officers would be required in order to train and make ready the troops that would be necessary to continue the war and to reinforce your Army during the second year.
That little sum amounts to this. There is the original deficiency of 1,342;
134
there are the 2,000 officers for the Reservists who would go out the first year of the war; there are the 1,000 to meet the wastage of the first year; and there are the 2,600 to train the recruits in case the war should go into the second year, making a total of 6,942 officers who would have to be provided during the first year's hostilities. My Lords, where are you going to get that number, or half that number from? You have no reserve. At this moment, I believe, you have eighty-seven Staff College officers, with instructors; I think your junior officers reserve is about 479, and I believe you have about thirty officers unemployed under the rank of colonel or second in command. That is the asset you have to set against this great demand for officers. It may be thought that I am drawing on my imagination, but I do honestly believe that that is about the number of men that would have to be provided, and that we ought to be able to provide, in order to carry on operations such as I have described and such as I believe are considered to be possible.
I will leave that and come to the present difficulty. After all, nobody denies that there is a difficulty now in obtaining officers. I remember that the other day the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War said, in the debate raised by the Duke of Bedford, that there was no difficulty in getting candidates for commissions. I agree with him on the whole, but I do say that at this moment you have not got sufficient candidates for the cavalry and the Guards; or I will put it in this way, that you are beginning to feel a tightness in the supply of candidates for the cavalry and the Guards. What, then, does this shortage arise from? It is admitted that it does not come from any want of men ready to serve in the Army. It comes from the fact that you have had an altogether abnormal number of resignations of officers who have already obtained a certain position in the service. The noble Earl, in the Answer he gave to Lord Heneage the other day, said that since the South African War 321 cavalry officers had voluntarily retired or resigned their commissions, and during the same time 116 have received commissions.

135
Let me take the case with regard to the Guards and the cavalry. I will take the year before the effect of the war can have at all acted on the motives of men remaining in or leaving the Army. In the year 1898 I find that there were. fifty-two voluntary retirements or resignations from the Guards and cavalry. In 1903, again, there were no less than 144 such voluntary retirements or resignations, or nearly treble the number in 1898. What I am told is that quite recently over 1,000 officers have either resigned their commissions, given notice that they will resign them, or have told their commanding officers that they are thinking of resigning. I have seen that put at 1,500, but I am not going to argue upon any particular figure. My point is that there is a great movement in that direction, that the ordinary number of retirements year by year throughout the Army is gradually increasing, and that you are losing valuable men who have already received training and have had considerable experience. Even when they are replaced they are replaced by men who have to be trained in order to become efficient.
There are various reasons given for this state of things. Some people say it is because the pay is too low. I have not got much belief m that. I quite admit that the pay of the Army officer is not high, and I think that at any rate in the lower ranks some increase might well be given. I think second lieutenants might get 6s. 6d. a day instead of 5s. 3d., and I think lieutenants might get 7s. 6d. a day. But the amount of pay is not what will bring men into the Army. Whatever you are likely to give will not be such as to be a great inducement to men to become officers in the Army. They will enter for other reasons than that of pay. Another explanation is that it is on account of the great amount of work that has been thrown on officers lately. I do not believe that either. If you said that it was on account of the great worry that had been thrown on officers lately there would be something in it; but I do not believe it is either insufficiency of pay or over-sufficiency of work that has caused these retirements. That being the case, you will say, what do I think has been the cause? I can
136
tell you very shortly. It is the absolute uncertainty of the position of the Army and of the officer in the Army, and the uncertainty as to what is going to happen to the Army, or to the particular regiment or officer. Nobody knows what is going to happen, and naturally officers do not like to remain in that state of uncertainty and doubt. If they enter a career they like to have an opportunity of following: it out with some certainty of success if they are competent.
When you hear of a regiment being ordered abroad, and of that order being suddenly countermanded after all the arrangements have been made by the officers; when you hear of a commanding officer who has three houses on his hands at the same time because he has been moved so often from one place to another; when you hear of officers who have held, high positions and who had every right to expect to be maintained in those-positions suddenly thrown out without any particular reason—I am not going to mention names, though they could be easily given—when you hear these things you can quite understand why retirements and resignations come about. The great reason for all these retirements is that the War Office is out of touch with the Army altogether. I will grant that the War Office is extremely anxious to apply remedies to the Army. During the last few years it has gone on applying remedy after remedy, but it has never diagnosed the disease, and a great deal of the present discontent arises from the fact that officers do not like to feel that their career and their position is largely at the sway of what I can call nothing but ignorance and incapacity.
The effect of this has been to excite the discontent of two classes of officers. The officer who is keen for his work dislikes this new regime and this new order because he feels the utter hollowness of all the worries that are imposed upon him. The idle officer hates them also because they interfere with his pleasure. I expect that under any improved system for the Army you would find the idle officer's pleasures interfered with, and, if he went, I daresay the country could get on well without him. The authorities have been desirous of making a great show. They have gone in for a great

137
many field days; they have imposed a great many examinations. No doubt it is a very good thing for an officer to know all about the American War and the Peninsula War, and to write an essay on the tactics of Moltke in 1866 and 1870; but the first duty of officers is to be able to train their men, and they cannot do that unless they are given men to train and are allowed to train them. That is what is not done now.
As a matter of fact, what does a company officer rind I He thinks himself very lucky if he gets half his company out on any occasion. Let me give you an nstance. There is supposed to be a cavalry brigade ready 4o take the field at Aldershot—three regiments supposed to be of the strength of 600 each. What is the fact? By putting into the ranks their mess waiters and the officers' servants they can just each average 200, so that the total of that brigade when it comes to war is 600 of all ranks instead of 1,800. The fact of the matter is, the regimental officers—and I own that I myself have a great tenderness for the regimental officers, for it was they and the soldiers, not the generals or the staff, who pulled this country through the South African War—the regimental officers get very little opportunity of seeing their men, much less of training them. For the annual company field training no doubt the regimental officer does have his men, but he only has half a company instead of a whole company. On field days he sees them, such as they are, and also on church parade. Beyond that be does not do very much, and I honestly believe that the cause of good officers leaving the Army is that they are sickened by the hollowness and mockery of their everyday life. It is not for me to suggest a remedy for this state of things. I merely ask my noble friend if any and what steps have been taken to mitigate this grave source of weakness to the efficiency of our land forces, and I ask your Lordships to support me in declaring that this House is of opinion that the supply, training, and conditions of service of officers in all branches of the King's Army require the instant attention of His Majesty's Government.
Moved to resolve, "That this House is of opinion that the supply, training, and
138
conditions of service of officers in all branches of the King's. Army require the instant attention of His Majestys Government."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
LORD LOVAT:My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down on the very interesting way in which he has put the facts before the House. They are facts which the nation as yet has not had placed before them, but they are facts each one of which can be deduced from the Blue-books and from the Army List. There are certain general principles which make it essential that our Army should be more thoroughly officered with qualified officers than any army on the Continent. Our Army is founded on the basis of possible expansion. We have a small standing Army which, in time of need, has to be very considerably increased; and therefore it is of the first importance that we should have a good supply of officers. It is well known that men, provided they can shoot, can be quickly made into soldiers; but, as was pointed out in the Report of the Elgin Commission and also in the Report of the Norfolk Commission, officers cannot be improvised in a moment, and it is therefore most essential that we should have a sufficient supply of officers in the ranks, and an adequate reserve to meet the casualties which must occur.
Our Army, moreover, must always be made up of men of various degrees of training. It must consist of a certain number of Regulars, a certain number of half-trained Militiamen, and an even larger number of Volunteers who have-had but little training at all. It is a well-known axiom that the less educated, the troops the more educated the officers must be who lead them. There is another principle which is equally applicable to the British Army. The whole of our Army is founded on the voluntary system. of service, and the men in it must be led and not driven. The iron discipline of the Germans is inapplicable in our case. It is essential that each officer should have the respect of his men, otherwise the morale of the Army must suffer. The Elgin Commission in their Report said that—
"There is no subject of more supreme importance to the organisation of the Army than, the supply of officers."

139
Well, my Lords, how do we stand in this respect? What we want is a supply of junior officers, of subalterns, and captains. Of colonels and higher officers we have always had a redundancy. In the German army they have, in the Landwehr Reserve, over 13,000 second lieutenants; they have something like 7,000 first lieutenants, and some 3,000 captains. The French army, in connection with which it was stated that they had the greatest anxiety about the scarcity of officers, possesses 18,500 in the Reserve. We, with all our expansion, have a reserve, I think, of seventeen second lieutenants, of about 100 first lieutenants, and some 600 or 800 captains. Included among the lieutenants are Cabinet Ministers and others. We see officers who command Auxiliary units figuring among these officers. It is a well-known fact that on mobilisation during the South African War a very considerable number of these did not appear through ill-health, monetary causes, and otherwise; and that is what we have got to fall back upon to fill up this enormous number of vacancies which Lord Tweedmouth has pointed out.
As to the exact deficiency of officers, everyone who works it out will probably come to a different result, but I think we are safe in saying that for service abroad and for our Auxiliary Forces we are not less than 10,000 officers short at the present time. The statement of Sir Coleridge Grove that 3,000 officers were required for the first eighteen months of the South African War was exclusive of officers for the Auxiliary Forces. They were to fill the ranks of the reserve forces of officers and to replace the casualties. There could be no war in which the casualties were fewer than in the South African War. Would anyone compare South Africa, which has, perhaps, the best climate in the world, with the North-Western Frontier of India, where the thermometer varies nearly a hundred degrees from morning to night? Sir Evelyn Wood pointed out, in his evidence, how one Reserve officer commanded 850 men at home. From another statement before the same Commission it appears that there were seventeen officers during the South
140
African War to officer the whole 4,500 gunners who were mobilised. There were companies in the war which had only one or two very junior officers. If we add to the officers who would be required to go to the front the officers necessary for the proper training of the Reserves not immediately sent out, the number of officers deficient would be very considerably increased. It is no exaggeration to say that the deficiency, including the Auxiliary Forces, is 10,000 officers. Of some of Lord Tweed-mouth's figures I do not pretend to judge, but I consider his statement as to staff officers very much below the actual requirements. When you consider that in evidence before the Norfolk Commission 453 officers were put down for the Army Service Corps alone, the number which the noble Lord calculated—13,000—is by no means over-estimated.
How is the existing deficiency going to be made up? It is constituted, in the first place, by a deficiency in Regular officers. I do not agree with the noble Lord as to the gravity of the deficiency of 250 officers, because that will be put right, to a certain extent, very soon when the next batch come up from Sandhurst and the garrisor regiments are dismissed. But there is one question with regard to that which is of importance. The senior subalterns of to-day put in an average of six and a-half years service, while previously they put in rather over nine years service. That means that you are now losing your officers who understand their work, and that is a sign which is not hopeful for the future of the Army. I do not wish to enlarge on the point which Lord Tweedmouth. raised as to the pinpricks to which officers seem to be subject at every turn, but I think there are certain matters which the War Office might without much difficulty redress. I mean, for instance, such questions as the continual changes of drill-books and drill regulations, the continual changes of dress, and the shifting of barracks. Again, if you wish the senior officers to regard the War Office in a friendly spirit, it is not a good thing, for two years in succession, to have the seniority examination held on Derby day. I do not say that officers need necessarily be encouraged to go racing, but I think

141
that on the day of a national festival like the Derby it is rather unnecessary, after some trouble had been raised last year, to have Derby day again appointed for the examination of senior officers.
Then there are other matters, such as the short notice which is given of changes. The 17th Lancers were ordered to go to Egypt. They had procured their houses in Egypt and bought their polo ponies there; they had given up their houses in this country and made all the arrangements to start, but at the last moment were told they were not to go. That makes dissatisfaction almost indelible. Junior officers see the statement which was made by Lord Kitchener, that as a whole the junior officers did better work than the senior officers throughout the South African War; yet it is the junior officers to whose interests no consideration whatever is given.
I wish for a moment to go into the question of Staff and mobilisation. Evidence taken before the Elgin Commission made it clear, according to the Report of the Commission, that confusion was caused by the fact that there was much improvisation in Staff arrangements at the beginning of the war. At the present moment there are in England only twenty-nine unemployed Staff officers under the rank of colonel—twenty-nine for eight divisions. In the late war there was about the same number. One general said—
"There was no officer of any war experience on my staff."
Lord Kitchener, too, complained about the inequality of the work, and it is well known that only one brigade—General Hildyard's—left England as a constituted body with all the staff known to the general. That will happen again; we shall have identically the same thing repeated. I asked the noble Earl the other day what the exact deficiency of Staff officers was, and he informed me that that was not the time to bring the matter forward. I would now ask the noble Earl what the deficiency of Staff officers is in the Army as a whole on mobilisation.
There are certain things which might be done without very much cost. In the first place we should have both a long course and a short course at the
142
Staff College. We ought to have a long course of two years for those who were going to the general staff, a shorter course of one year for those who were going to be the acting staff officers in the various brigades, and, further more, we ought to have a course of six months or so for the pick of our Auxiliary adjutants to learn staff work. They will have, in the case of the mobilisation of the whole of our forces, to act as Staff officers for the Auxiliary brigades and divisions, That has also been advocated by Lord Kitchener in his evidence before the Elgin Commission. I would also like to say a few words on the subject of the Auxiliary Forces, in connection with which a terrible deficiency exists. The numbers have already been quoted. In the South African War we took Militia officers, but we shall be able to take them no longer. We have to go down to the Volunteers to fill up the ranks of officers in the Regulars. Many of the officers in the Volunteers are simply serving in order to get recruits and to keep the regiments together.
If you do not recruit from the Volunteers, where will you go for your officers to make up this deficiency of something like 7,000 for service abroad? You will have to go out to the man in the street. We tried that in the South African War, and what did we find? Of 500 officers for one lot of Yeomanry 148 were cashiered before they had been out in South Africa many months, and, in addition, there were a considerable number who were not cashiered, but who were left in camps as perfectly hopeless to command men in the field. If you recruit again in the same way, 50 per cent, of your men will, as in the case of the Yeomanry officers to whom I have referred, be useless after short service and have to be fired out. As to what may be done to improve matters in regard to the Auxiliary Forces, the principle might be adopted which is laid down by the Norfolk Commission—namely, that an officer should not have to pay to serve his King. It would appear that many gentlemen who now serve as non-commissioned officers or privates are kept out of the commissioned ranks because they are not able to face the expense of £20 or £30 which it is necessary

143
to incur to be an officer in these regiments. Surely, by some proper rearrangement of the capitation grant, officers need not be called upon to pay to serve in that force. I am convinced that there are only two methods by which we can get the officers necessary—either by some system of compulsory service for the leisured classes—by that I mean the enforcement of the Ballot Act against those without incumbrance who have, say, £400 a year and have reached the age of twenty-one—or, by what I think is more rational, an appeal to the Universities and the seats of learning.
THE EARL OF ERROLL:My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few remarks on this subject purely from the point of view of cavalry officers. I have been watching for some time with considerable anxiety the gradual and steady decrease in the number of officers in the cavalry, and I feel that unless this wastage can be arrested the efficiency of the cavalry must be very seriously prejudiced. I seldom look into the Gazette without seeing two or three resignations, and I very rarely find a corresponding number of appointments to fill up the vacancies. In August, 1903, the date which I think the noble Lord took, I find that the cavalry was seven officers over its strength. When we come to January, 1905, the surplus had been swept away and we had by that time a deficiency of thirty-seven. In April, 1905, just three months later, that deficiency had risen to sixty-seven. Taking cavalry officers at somewhere between 600 and 700 strong, your Lordships will see that this deficiency comes to something like 10 per cent.
I am informed by officers who are qualified to know that the establishment of our cavalry at the present moment is none too high even if all the regiments were full and up to their proper strength. These defects ought to be remedied and to be remedied at once. The effect which this has upon the cavalry is cumulative. As the shrinkage increases the work also gets harder, and the tendency to resign becomes very much stronger. There is one regiment which the noble Earl mentioned, the 5th Lancers, which has five subalterns short. The meaning of that is that nine sub-
144
alterns have to do the work of fourteen, and consequently there is a tendency to discontent in the regiment. Your Lordships understand that it is quite impossible to improvise officers. Officers to be efficient must have a, thorough professional training, and it is very important that this training should be given them in the early stages of their service when they are young. We must remember that the subalterns of to-day are the captains of five years hence, and that if we have a large deficiency now in the junior ranks in the future we shall have no experienced officers to take the places of those captains who are either promoted or pass into civil life. I think that is one of the strongest reasons why immediate action should be taken.
I am happy to think that this subject has been occupying the attention of His Majesty's Government. I believe that a Committee has been sitting, and that certain recommendations have been made. I do not, of course, know what they are, but I hope that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War will be able to reassure us, and to tell us that some steps will be taken which are likely to make the cavalry more attractive than it is at the present moment. In my opinion—and this is purely my own opinion as a soldier—there are-various reasons why the cavalry is unpopular at the present moment. I believe that the chief among these are the inadequacy of the pay, the uncertainty of the prospects, and the constant worry, which has been already referred to. I do not believe that it is the extra work that the officers mind—I believe-it is the constant and never-ending examinations. In the Navy a sublieutenant when he has been to Greenwich at the age of about twenty finishes all his examinations. He has no further compulsory examinations, and I do not think anybody will say that the officers of the Navy are less efficient than the officers of the service to which I have the honour to belong. But, my Lords, these examinations in the Army are constant and never-ending. One officer described the situation, I thought, somewhat aptly when he said—
"We seem never to get away from examinations, they seem to last all our lives, and even after death we have a post mortem."

145
I believe that this question resolves itself into one of supply and demand. When there were a great many more officers than were necessary to fill up the vacancies the country was able to make its own bargain. Now that the supply has fallen below the demand, and, if I may say so, the boot is on the other leg, I think some extreme measures will have to be taken to fill up the vacancies. Increase of pay would be of great service. This is the opinion of a great many senior officers with whom I have conversed on the subject. In the Indian cavalry there is no difficulty in recruiting officers because the pay is very much better and the pension is worth looking forward to. The pay of a private soldier has during the last thirty years been materially increased and hispositionhas been very much improved in various ways. Officers' pay has alone remained stationary, although the expense of living has very much increased and the consequent spending value of money very much decreased.
At one time it used to be thought that the supply of officers was inexhaustible, and that if you gave them no pay at all you could get as many as you liked. Those times have changed. Suitable young men have gone on strike, an abnormal number of resignations is taking place, and it is more difficult every day to fill the vacancies. In old days the Army was looked upon as a service in which to spend a few years among pleasant companions, with a chance of seeing a little active service, and when not too great a call was made upon the officer's time during peace; I believe that the miserable pittance which is called "pay" was looked upon more as a sort of retaining fee, and that the life was sufficiently attractive to get the number of officers required. As I have said, the times have considerably changed. I am not finding fault with that change. I am far from denying that we should have officers highly trained and up to date, but I cannot conceal from myself at the same time the fact that their work has increased ten-fold. Now that their whole time is given up to soldiering they should receive much better remuneration.
At the present moment it seems to me we are rather falling between two
146
stools We are not getting the old sporting officer that we used to get because he will not stand quite so much interference with his liberty, and we are not getting the poor man because we do not pay enough to make it worth his while to serve. If we do not look out, I think we shall end by getting neither. I know I am laying myself open to be told that any appreciable increase in the pay of the officer would not be stood by the taxpayer. If the taxpayer will not pay the market price and if this wastage goes on, as I venture to predict it will, all I can say is the taxpayer will have to do the work himself, I think the advantages which the taxpayer enjoys in immunity from conscription are so great and so far-reaching that he ought not to grudge a fair wage to those who guarantee him that security, without which it would be impossible for him to carry on his commerce, his business, and his daily life in safety. I quite admit that the Army Estimates are very high, but my point is that the men who do the work—that is to say, the combatant officers—do not get their fair share. I should like to read to your Lordships a comparison of the pay given to British, Australian, and American officers. The second-lieutenant in the British Army gets the princely wage of £95 a year. In Australia apparently there are no second lieutenants, but in America the second lieutenant gets £280 a year. A lieutenant in the British Army gets £118 a year; in the Australian Army £200, rising by £25 a year to £300; and in the American Army £300. Captains in the British Army get £211; in the Australian Army from £325 to £400; and in the American Army £360. Majors receive in this country £247; in Australia from £425 to £500; and in America £500. Lieutenant-colonels receive here £328; in Australia from £500 to £600; and in America £600. I think this shows that the Colonies recognise the justice of giving a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and that they treat their officers very much more generously than we do.
What are the conditions under which we ask the British subaltern to serve? In the first place he has to pass a very stiff examination, and in consequence

147
of the somewhat antiquated methods of our public schools he has to go through a special and expensive preparation—how expensive some of your Lordships who have had sons at crammers must know. Then, after he has gone through this ordeal you give him the wages of an artisan or of one of your Lordships' butlers. For this pay he runs a very great risk ef being killed or of dying of fever in a far off country, while the said artisan is able to carry on his work in perfect peace and the butler is able to pour out your Lordships' claret, neither of them doing anything personally for the defence of their country. If he grumbles in the least, or gives out that it is difficult to make both ends meet, what do you do? Do you give him more pay? Certainly not. You begin cutting down his little comforts and make his life as unattractive as you possible can.
There is nothing that the British citizen likes so much as lecturing the subaltern on his extravagance. I believe the extravagance is very greatly exaggerated. I am informed by officers in the cavalry who have every right to know, that it is perfectly possible for an officer in a cavalry regiment to live now on £300 a year. The initial expense of joining is also much less. The cavalry is no doubt a less expensive force now than it used to be, but at the same time it is more difficult to get officers. Regiments very often get the blame when a young man comes to grief, although they have done all in their power to help him. It depends on the boy much more than on the regiment. When I used to be asked by parents how much money young men coming into my regiment as officers would want, I used to reply that it would depend very much on the boy and how he had been brought up. I have no sympathy with a man who sends his son into a very expensive regiment because he thinks he gets some sort of social advantages thereby, and then writes to The Times and grumbles at the expense. I hope that, whatever steps the Government take to get officers, we shall not get a different class of officer in the cavalry from that we have had in the past.
I daresay this is not the- opinion of the man in the street, but it is the opinion
148
I have formed after thirty-six years service, and it is the opinion held by every Inspector-General of Cavalry and by every commanding officer of cavalry whom I have met, that what we want in the cavalry are sportsmen. We do not want prigs or pedants. There is a popular fallacy in this country that all Englishmen are horsemen. I do not believe that is the case. We are not a riding nation. I say that with all diffidence in your Lordships' House, where there are so many brilliant examples to prove I am wrong. Englishmen cannot compare with Australians, South Africans, Canadians, or any of our frontiersmen in the matter of horsemanship. The people of this country very seldom got on a horse at all, and they do not get that rough-and-ready life which i best fits a man for service in the field. The nearest approach to it is to be found in the hunting field. Why were the Boers such good scouts? Not because they were scientific soldiers; or highly educated. If it had come to the question of education we should have had a walk over. It was because of the outdoor and sporting life they led. I venture to think the country will get better value out of the sportsman who hunts and plays polo than out of the man who never gets on a horse except on parade. He is not only a better horseman, but, what is more important on service, he is a better horse-master. Some of the best scouting that was done in South Africa was done by the foxhunting officers of the first contingent of Yeomanry who went out and who had little technical knowledge before they started. Instead of driving this class of man out we ought to do all we can to keep him in, at any rate until we can get others to take his place.
Another reason why we have not got officers is that the standard of education has become rather too high. No one values the advantages of education more than I do, but I think at the present moment it is being rather overdone. No amount of education will make a good general. Nothing but force of character and strength of will will do that. There is no doubt that at the present moment the high standard of

149
education frightens away a great many I men who would make very good cavalry officers. This principle has been to a certain extent acknowledged by admitting officers to the Guards without examination as probationers, though they will have, after a couple of years, to pass a purely technical examination in order to be allowed to stay on.
It is not so much the falling off in the candidates which seems to me so very serious. It is, as has been mentioned before, the abnormal number of resignations. The noble Earl told us the other day that the resignations had numbered about 320 since the war. Making all allowances for the supernumeraries, I think this total is too high, because it comes to very nearly half the number of officers we have got in the cavalry. I believe it is due, as has also been stated, to the uncertain prospects of the officer. It is easy enough to get boys. The love of adventure, the chance of seeing active service, and the sort of glamour that always hangs round the soldier's life will get you the boys; the difficulty is to retain the best men, who see much better opportunities in private life. The prospects of the majority of our officers are not brilliant owing to the tendency of recent legislation to reduce the appointments for seniors. This, I believe, makes a good many men resign. A man is very lucky now if he gets command of his regiment or battalion, but it is after that that the pinch comes; and I believe that the abolition of depot centres has had the effect of putting a good many officers on the shelf. There is no doubt that this amalgamation of depots has been a good thing in itself, but it has reduced to a certain extent the chances of senior officers securing advanced appointments and they get put on half pay at £300 a year or are retired on a totally inadequate pension of £420. The command in Egypt has been reduced from that of major-general to brigadier-general, and in consequence the A. A. G. has been done away with. In the artillery I believe many posts for senior officers have been done away with. It is changes like these that give rise to unrest and prevent men embarking on a career the plums of which
150
become fewer and fewer every year. In the cavalry the prospects are worse, because there are fewer billets open to cavalry officers when they have left their regiments than are open to officers of the other branches of the service.
I am afraid we cannot disguise from ourselves that there is a feeling that the officer is not very generously treated by the country. I do not think that that feeling is against any particular Government or any particular Party. It is a feeling of resentment against the policy which has been acquiesced in by successive Governments, and it tends to focus itself against the War Office. Governments may come and Governments may go, but from the soldier's point of view the War Office goes on for ever. There is no doubt that there is a feeling against the War Office that officers are not well treated, and which gives a sort of soreness which it is almost impossible to ignore. This feeling is not of recent date; it dates almost from the days when purchase was done away with. To sum up, my contention is that if the country wants to attract the best men it will have to pay the lower grades better, and it will have to give a certainty of employment to the higher grades. In other words, it must make the service good enough. The prospects at the present moment are too shadowy to attract good men, and, what is more important still, to keep them: I thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to me. This is a subject on which I feel very strongly, and this must be my excuse for having detained your Lordships so long.
THE EARL OF ARRAN:My Lords, I venture to address your Lordships with some diffidence after so many more prominent Members have spoken, but I do so because I think perhaps the opinions of one who until recently had the honour of holding a commission in His Majesty's service may prove of some interest. The figures which have been given by Lord Tweedmouth represent a very serious state of affairs, because they show that the class which has until now supplied the British Army with officers is no longer able to supply them, or, if it does, that those officers are no longer willing to stay. However

151
advanced may be the opinions one may hold, I think all who have had anything to do with the Army will agree with me when I say that to get the best officer you must go to the upper or the professional classes. Experience has shown that the rank and file will more readily obey and respect a man who has been brought up under circumstances different to their own. Since we see this dearth of officers, it is necessary for the country to make the most earnest inquiries as to the cause, and, having satisfied itself on that point, to remove that cause, whatever difficulties and expense may stand in the way.
The opinion in the Army, and my own opinion, is that the reasons of the deficiency of officers are two-fold. First of all, because you do not pay the officer enough for all that you ask of him, and, secondly, because he is being continually worried about. Those of your Lordships who have been soldiers will understand the expression "worried about," which comes from Aldershot; but for the information of those who have not been soldiers, "worried about" may be defined as meaning that officers are treated as irresponsible children instead of responsible men, and orders are given and work insisted upon which cause expense and worry to the officers without leading to the efficiency of the Army. I will give you an instance of the first kind. Just before I left the Army there was published an account of a War Office order, which was received in a very laudatory manner by the Press, and which was to the effect that colonels commanding regiments were not to give leave to young officers under their command until they had previously ascertained whether their parents were anxious and ready to receive them. I would remind your Lordships that an officer, however young, holds a very responsible position, both morally and financially, and I should like to know what the men over whom he is in command can think of an officer who, while he is considered capable of looking after them and of granting their leave, is not capable of going outside his barrack yard by himself. I confess I should not have been surprised if this order had been supplemented by a further
152
order saying that colonels of cavalry regiments were to forbid their officers keeping hunters and polo ponies, and were to encourage them in the care, shall we say, of white rabbits, the officers being given professional advancement who could produce the most remarkable animal of that kind. I do think that such an instance as this of being worried about must not only disgust officers already in the service, but have the effect of preventing young men entering on a military career.
There is the other question of officers being given work which really leads to nothing very great. I have been talking to several senior officers lately. They have obtained field rank; their soul is in their profession, and they have served their country all over the world. They gave me instances of certain infantry battalions being sent this summer into camp for their training—a course of instruction that has lasted two months; that is, without musketry instruction and without manoeuvres, which may be coming on. As I know from personal experience, camp life is at least 25 per cent. more expensive for an officer than barracks. At the same time there are many officers who are married, and who not only have to incur the extra expense, but have at the same time to keep up their home establishments as well, do not say that if this training was necessary for the efficiency of their units the officers would not cheerfully have acquiesced, but they all say that the scheme of instruction which they had to give their men could have been easily given in three weeks or a month, and they felt that through mismanagement the men were getting stale and overworked, and everybody under them was getting discontented.
You ask officers to undertake a profession that involves a very high level of education, which I think perfectly right, and which also involves a very expensive outfit, residence in every class of climate, continual moving, and also a very uncertain career, because, of necessity, promotion must depend on the opinion and whim of one man. For all this you give an officer, as my noble friend Lord Errol said just now, the wages of an artisan. He has great

153
moral and financial responsibilities and you pay him only a little over the wages of a weekly labourer. Great changes have been made in the Army. You have very properly increased the comfort of the men and their pay; you have made many changes in the interior economy, and I think every change has been for the good. But with all these changes, and with all the expense that has been incurred, the country has clean forgotten the officers. If you are to get the same class as officers that you have now, if you are to have the same class of men who up to now have done the work conscientiously, efficiently, and well, you must pay them properly; you must pay them the wages that they would get in other professions. High education turns a man into a reasoning animal, and he says to himself that if he has to -work so hard for such little pay in the Army he might as well turn his attention to another career in which he would have a chance of making his fortune and of securing a competency for himself and his wife and family in advanced age.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, hitherto I have not taken part in any of these debates in your Lordships' House, but I think I may claim that I am entitled to be listened to for a few minutes as the only commanding officer of Volunteers who commanded an entire Volunteer battalion in the field in the late war. As one who for many years has taken the greatest interest in. the Volunteers, I would embrace this opportunity of asking the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War for. a statement as to the intentions of the War Office as regards the Volunteers in the immediate future. The noble Lord who raised this discussion to-night mentioned the deficiency of Volunteer officers as 2,799. I do not think the noble Lord understated it, because that is not including quartermasters and other non-combatant officers. I wish to ask the noble Earl in what way he proposes to remedy the evil, for if the Volunteers are to be a reality and not a sham they must perforce be attended to. There. are plenty of men in the ranks readily available and socially qualified to be-come officers if they receive at the hands of His Majesty's Government some
154
encouragement and some little financial support. Many good men are deterred from joining the commissioned ranks by reason of the fact that they shirk responsibility, and many more by reason of the fact that they cannot afford the £20 or £30 which it is necessary for a commissioned officer to spend. I myself have seen men with large incomes serving in the ranks and doing fatigues and other menial work. That was three or four years ago. There are still men who will do such work to-day rather than become officers, because they shirk responsibility.
The Norfolk Commission declared that no officer ought to be compelled to pay for the privilege of serving the King. I am not going to enter into the rights or wrongs of that, but I understand that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to reduce the Volunteer force to 180,000 men, thereby, I believe, effecting a retrenchment of between £300,000 and £400,000 per year. I would ask the noble Earl whether some of that saving could not find its way into the Volunteer force. Can he not do something by way of increasing the capitation grant? Can he not give a little towards defraying the expenses which officers joining the commissioned ranks are bound to undertake? I should like to see the capitation fee made more elastic. Before sitting down I should like to direct attention to the transport service. There are many regiments in the Volunteers which have no transport service at all and others which have very inadequate transport service. I have been shown the place which the brigade that I have the honour to command will occupy in the case of invasion. Am I to go to this place with inadequate transport and also with a deficiency of officers? Is my brigade of four battalions to take its place in the defence of the country inadequately furnished?
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I say at once that I have nothing but friendly feelings towards the noble Lord opposite for having brought forward this important subject to-day, and I am very glad to join in a debate the tone of which has been so businesslike and so earnest in dealing

155
with a matter, which is, I think, the most important that could possibly confront any Minister replying for the War Office in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord asks your Lordships to express the opinion that this matter requires the instant attention of His Majesty's Government. I am sure I am speaking within the recollection of those of your Lordships who have been at the War Office, or been connected with the War Office, when I say that this is a matter which calls for constant attention, and it has been kept anxiously in mind during the last few months. I will not in these circumstances offer any objection to the Motion which the noble Lord has moved appearing on the Journals of the House.
The debate this afternoon has ranged over a very great number of subjects, and I am glad that it should have done so. The noble Lord who initiated the discussion, although he dealt with the shortage now existing in the Auxiliary Forces and in the Regular Forces, applied himself more particularly to what I agree with him is infinitely the larger and more important part of the subject—the general question of the extension of the whole Army for purposes of war. But before turning my attention to that I should like to deal at once with the Question asked me by the noble Earl Lord Albemarle. I can assure the noble Earl that we attach great importance to the necessity of developing Volunteer transport, and have intimated our intention to make a grant for this purpose as soon as money is available.
I pass to the undoubted shortage of officers in the Auxiliary Forces. This is a very serious matter. I do not think the noble Lord opposite gave the percentage, but it practically amounts to 25 per cent., and I admit that it is by far the most serious problem which confronts the military authorities in connection with the Auxiliary Forces. The shortage is easier to explain than to remedy. It must, of course, not be forgotten that we are still feeling the effects of a great war of long duration —the longest war in which we have been engaged for a whole century—in the course of which many officers of the Auxiliary Forces achieved the two-fold
156
purpose with which they joined, the patriotic purpose of serving their country and the desire to see war service if the opportunity presented itself. It is natural, perhaps, that the ambitions of many of them in this direction should have been satisfied, and it is not a thing that we can complain of that there should now be, as there always has been after a war, a considerable increase in the number of resignations. No action that any Government can take can remedy such a thing as that. We have to wait for a remedy for that difficulty until a younger generation shall grow up who have not had the opportunities for war service.
LORD LOVAT: I should like to ask the noble Earl if that means that we must wait for twenty-five years before getting a new set of officers.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Will the noble Lord let me finish my sentence? I was only introducing the subject with some general observations, and showing how natural it is that at the present moment the impulse to join the voluntary Army should be weaker than it has been, and making good my point that it is easier to find reasons for the falling off than to suggest a remedy. But we have done something towards remedying the evil, and we intend to do more, as financial opportunities permit, to reach what is undoubtedly the true ideal, as laid down by the Norfolk Commission, that no man should be out of pocket by serving his country. We hope to increase the camp allowance to Volunteer officers, and to provide them with horse allowance. Since the war we have provided an outfit allowance for the Militia. These, I admit, are only palliatives. More drastic remedies will have to be found. The remedies suggested to us in your Lordships' House by those who are every bit as qualified to suggest remedies as we are, have not up to the present time been of a very practical nature.
My noble friend Lord Raglan last year suggested £100 a year for Militia officers as a retaining fee. I said then, and I still think that that was not a practical remedy. I am familiar with the remedy suggested

157
by my noble friend opposite in his evidence before the Royal Commission, that we should have compulsory service under certain conditions. That is not a remedy which we can at present contemplate, and I am sure the noble Lord, in his heart of hearts, does not expect us to contemplate it. He referred to another scheme which he has made his own—the use of the Universities to a larger extent than at present in the plans for obtaining officers for the Auxiliary Forces. It is too early for us definitely to announce our adhesion to that scheme; it is an expensive scheme. But we are going into it, as the noble Earl knows, in great detail, and I can promise him that it will receive careful consideration. If I may express a purely personal wish I will say that I hope both for the noble Lord's sake and for our own that it may lead us definitely along the path which we all so much desire to tread.
I now turn to the Regular Army. The noble Lord who moved the Motion before the House gave the figures correctly. The shortage of officers in the Guards is twenty-nine, in the cavalry sixty-nine, and in the infantry of the Line to date, 156. As regards the Guards, we have, as the noble Lord said, initiated the system of appointment on probation, and if your Lordships will consult the Army List you will see that as a result a considerable amelioration has taken place in the numbers of junior officers. We believe that this system, which was very carefully drawn up in consultation with colonels of the Guards, is leading us on the right road in solving the present difficulty. It has been settled that these probationers should be appointed every six months, not indiscriminately, and everything points to the probability that in this way a remedy will be found for the shortage in the Guards.
EARL SPENCER: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether it is proposed to extend the same system to the cavalry.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It has been suggested, but at present it is not intended. The case of the
158
cavalry is far more serious than that of other branches, and a Committee has recently been sitting in connection with the matter. That Committee has collected a great deal of evidence from cavalry officers, which is, to a great extent, contradictory, as to the cause of the deficiency in the cavalry. I had hoped to have been able to inform your Lordships of the decision of the Army Council upon that, but we have not yet arrived at a full decision with regard to it. We admit that some special measures will be necessary in order to deal with this very serious deficiency in cavalry regiments — a deficiency which gives no sign whatever of decreasing of its own accord.
EARL SPENCER: And prompt measures?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes. The engineers and artillery have at the present moment reached the establishment authorised by Parliament, and, as regards the infantry, the deficiency is not so much in the number of candidates that come forward; it is due to some extent to the want of accommodation at Sandhurst. The term there is very shortly coming to a conclusion, and as a result about 120 officers will join the infantry from Sandhurst at an early date, which will reduce the deficiency of 156 to only thirty-six, which is a very small percentage
I now come to another point touched on by the noble Lord—the question of the staff. It is impossible for anyone to affirm that the Staff College turns out at present enough trained staff officers for the requirements of the Army, especially in view of the expansion necessary in time of war; but, as your Lordships will perhaps remember, some advance has recently been made in this connection. Lord Kitchener has decided to open a Staff College in India, which will, of course, benefit the British Army to a considerable extent. I believe, though perhaps I may be wrong, that the last figures the War Office have shows that the Indian Staff College will turn out twenty-four staff officers every year. This will set free a number of places at the Staff College at home which are at

159
present earmarked for candidates coming from India, and will have the effect of increasing pro tanto the present output of thirty-two staff officers per annum.
I do not pretend that this is anything like the end to which we should go, but it is at any rate a step in the right direction. The only difficulty, as your Lordships will realise, in the way of considerably extending the Staff College is one of pounds, shillings, and pence. We still have a considerable amount of money available from previous Loan Bills to be applied to educational establishments, and I can assure your Lordships that we intend to apply a portion of that to increasing the accommodation at the Staff College. As regards the point mentioned by Lord Lovat with reference to the way in which improvised staffs went to South Africa, your Lordships are no doubt aware that at Aldershot and in some of the other commands in the kingdom the units are now organised under the staffs which it is proposed should command them in time of war—a state of things which in no way existed before the South African War broke out. The noble Lord touched on what is one of the most burning questions with regard to staff education—namely, whether we could arrange a short course as well as a long course at the Staff College. He quoted Lord Kitchener as being in favour of such a course.
LORD LOVAT: The noble Earl is incorrect. I only quoted Lord Kitchener as to the deficiency.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I misunderstood him. But he must know that that is a subject which occasions considerable controversy. A great many staff officers do not like the idea of going through a short course for fear they should be labelled as Class B. officers, while those who went through the longer course would be labelled Class A.
I now come to what is, of course, the most important part of the whole subject—the necessity of expansion in time of war of the present establishment of officers. With regard to the existence of that necessity there cannot possibly be two opinions. I do not
160
wish to follow the noble Lord into his estimates as to what that necessity is. He put it at 7,000, and my noble friend opposite put it at 10,000. I admit, of course, that the number is very considerable. We hope to very materially increase the number of officers in the Army. My noble friend the Secretary of State for War announced a year ago that he hoped to add five officers to every regiment, but to my mind, though you may increase the number of officers in the Army on the active list, what is needed is a large reserve, on which to draw. We have at the present moment a rather larger reserve than is represented by the figures given by the noble Lord opposite. We have 2,744 officers in the Reserve—
LORD LOVAT: How many of those are senior officers?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Of those 2,744 officers, 2,500, roughly speaking, are under the rank of colonel. I admit, however, that very few of them are subalterns, and that is the direction in which we have to find the greatest expansion. A Committee is now sitting considering this very important subject, but I cannot anticipate when their Report will be received. Several proposals are before them, one of which is, that we should insist on all officers giving a certain service to the Army either on the active list or in the Reserve; but it is possible that to insist on that might affect the number of officers that would be obtained. The subject, therefore, is one of extreme delicacy, which can only be approached after mature consideration. With regard to Sandhurst it is very satisfactory not only that the candidates vastly outnumber the vacancies, but that the candidates who have qualified, who have reached the standard that we consider necessary, also vastly exceed the vacancies. In November, 1903, we had 443 candidates; eighty were admitted, and, beyond these eighty, 232 qualified outside the list of those successful. In June, 1904, eighty - four were admitted out of 522, and 257 qualified outside. And last November 511 candidates came forward, 129 were admitted

161
and 244 qualified outside. That is, perhaps, the only satisfactory feature in connection with the whole question. We have made a temporary alteration—a retrograde alteration, I am sorry to say—at Sandhurst, and by reducing the course from two years to one we shall obtain accommodation for 230. By this alteration in the course we have doubled the accommodation, but we feel that we must still considerably increase the accommodation at Sandhurst. That will cost £300,000 if not more; but we have made up our minds that expenditure in this direction is necessary, and plans are well forward for carrying out this alteration.
The noble Lord opposite has shown, and I do not deny it, that there is a considerably larger movement in the direction of resignation than existed before the war. I think we must accept such a movement as inevitable for the reasons I have already outlined in dealing with the Auxiliary Forces. There are always a certain number of men who leave a voluntary Army at the end of a big war. I am glad that the noble Lord who moved the Motion now before the House does not put forward the view that the pay is too low.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Except in the case of the junior ranks.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I accept the correction. I do not admit the justice of the comparison which has been drawn between the British officer and the artisan. I have not the least idea what the average artisan in this country does receive, but the amenities of the officer's position, at any rate, widely separate his lot from the lot of the artisan. I would instance the fact that in the case of the artisan there is the danger of unemployment. The artisan, again, does not receive housing from his employer, and there are other advantages, such as free doctoring, etc., which do not fall to the lot of the artisan.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: The artisan does not have to live like a gentleman. Unless an officer lives like a gentleman he is of no use to you as an officer.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: And the officer has to keep up an expensive uniform, which is not the case with the artisan.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: That only emphasises my contention that there is no earthly comparison between the two. The noble Lord opposite referred to the question of expense. I quite agree that the question of expense to officers is a very important one; and I am sure my noble friend, whose experience in the Army is a recent one, will admit that a great deal has been done in the direction of lightening officers expenses. In this connection, however, it is an interesting fact that a certain amount of evidence has been placed before the Cavalry Committee claiming that the deficiency in officers is due to the fact that the War Office interfere with the way officers spend their money. The attempts which have been made to diminish expense are, it is said, resented by officers who wish to live as expensively as they please. I do not put that forward as a final argument for consideration, but it is worthy of note that such an argument has been put forward. It is also a curious circumstance that the regiments familiarly called crack regiments, which are supposed to be the most expensive in our cavalry, are not the regiments which have had the greatest difficulty in getting officers.
I agree, however, that there has been need for action in the direction of the diminution of expenses, and I claim that the Government have taken action in that direction. Cavalry officers are now provided with their chargers at the public expense. Issues of saddlery and of a certain amount of farriery are also made at the public expense. The officers' quarters and mess are not now, indeed, furnished at the public expense; but officers receive privileges and assistance which has not, I think, always met with a just measure of appreciation. Officers have undoubtedly been saved considerable expense in this direction. There is no body in the world more subject to rumours than the British Army, and I cannot help telling your Lordships of an experience

163
I had in Ireland shortly after I went to the War Office. Your Lordships are aware that officers are provided with furniture and that a certain charge for depreciation is made against them. I was at a big public entertainment, and a fond father whose son had just gone into the Army was there contending that his son had been supplied with furniture worth £50 and was charged £30 a year rent for it. The facts of the case were that he was charged one penny a day, which worked out at 30s. Yet this fond father was going about all over the place blackguarding the War Office on account of their rapacity.
The action of the War Office in helping officers in this manner has not been as much appreciated as it ought to have been. I am not familiar with the figures quoted by my noble friend behind me with regard to the pay of officers in the Australian service and in the service of the United States; but I think if they were inquired into we should find considerable difference in the conditions of service which would largely account for the apparent discrepancy in the amount of pay. The noble Lord opposite touched upon the complaints which have been made in certain quarters that the Army is unpopular because there is too much work to do.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I said too much worry, not too much work.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Although that may not have been the noble Lord's suggestion, complaints have been made in certain directions that too much work is given to the officers. I am glad the noble Lord dissociated himself from that suggestion; but I join issue with him as to there being too much worry. I confess I heard with astonishment the suggestion that the War Office is out of touch with the Army What is the War Office? The War Office is a body of, roughly, a thousand members, rather more than half of whom are soldiers. Why should it be said that a soldier who goes to the War Office is necessarily out of touch with the Army from which he is for the moment separated by only a few miles? I can assure
164
your Lordships that we are in constant touch with the Army. Only a few days ago I had a conference with cavalry officers from various commands all over the country. The whole tendency at the War Office is to keep officers flowing between the War Office and the Army, and to have officers who are administering the Army in different parts of the country coming up and giving us the benefit of their advice.
Then there is the Selection Board, the body which advises us with regard to promotion and appointment in the lower ranks. It consists of the commanders-in-chief of the six different distinct commands in this country, and I can imagine nothing more calculated to increase the degree to which the Army and the War Office are kept in touch than the Selection Board. I am sure that Lord Tweedmouth's figures have been supplied to him on excellent authority, but I cannot for the life of me comprehend that such a thing could have happened as that three regiments in a cavalry brigade at Aldershot should have had only 200 mer available to come on parade. I have before me a Return, the latest we have, dated the 1st June. This Return shows that the strength of the three cavalry regiments in the cavalry brigade at Aldershot on that date was, after deducting those sick and absent, as follows: 1st Dragoon Guards, 21 officers and 637 men; 5th Lancers, 21 officers and 621 men; 8th Hussars, 24 officers and 601 men. I accept the noble Lord's statement, but I cannot provide an adequate reason for this extraordinary shortage, whereby each of these regiments could only produce one third of their lull number on parade. I cannot help thinking that some very special circumstances must have been in evidence on the day he refers to. I quite sympathise with Lord Lovat as to the holding of promotion examinations on Derby day. But I would remind your Lordships that it is not the custom of Parliament to adjourn on Derby day, and I am sure the inconvenience which is caused to a few officers going up for promotion in the British Army does not constitute such a very great grievance when Parliament itself continues sitting on that day.

165
The noble Lord opposite referred to the inconvenience entailed on the 17th Lancers through being ordered to Egypt and then having those orders countermanded. That order was given in accordance with the decision to considerably decrease the garrison of Egypt, and I think your Lordships will admit that no other course was open to us than the one we followed. The only alternative was, after having decided that this cavalry regiment was not required in Egypt, to calmly send them there in order not to entail inconvenience upon them; and this, I think, would have been an illogical action for any Government to have taken.
LORD VIVIAN: May I ask whether any compensation has been given to those officers of the 17th Lancers who had already sent their baggage on to Egypt?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have not the least idea. I am not aware that any application has been made. My noble friend Lord Erroll animadverted, from the cavalry officers' point of view, upon the number of examinations in the Army, and compared the position of the Army with that of the Navy, to which he looked with longing eyes, stating that no naval officer after passing the rank of sub-lieutenant is troubled with examinations. I am not aware of the practice in the Navy, but as a humble reader of the newspapers I have noticed that such distinguished persons as admirals are sent to Greenwich for instruction. Whether that instruction is followed by examination I do not know, but at any rate instruction is considered necessary; and, after all, instruction is the important thing, whether there is an examination at the end of it or not. The object of the examination is only to make sure that the instruction has taken place. I would point out that while the noble Lord is opposed to the present high standard of educational requirement for the Army, he will not find any large consensus of opinion among cavalry officers to agree with him in the advisability of lowering the standard. One of the facts which has come out very
166
strongly in the evidence before the Cavalry Committee is the strong feeling of opposition among cavalry officers to any reduction in the educational requirement of their branch of the service
Though my noble friend was correct in saying that a certain number of billets in the Army had been abolished by the organisation of depot centres, I would again ask him to contemplate the alternative. The only alternative would have been to retain these billets, having made up our minds that they were not necessary for the good of the service. It is, of course, an unpopular thing at any time to do away with appointments, but the general benefits to the service must, I submit, be always considered as of more importance than the convenience of certain individuals. Every cavalry officer who is qualified for a high command is just as likely to be appointed to it as an officer in any other branch of the service. It is possible that there may not be the same large number of billets earmarked for officers in the cavalry, and I should be very glad if it were so. I regard it as a most vicious system that high oppointments should be earmarked solely for certain branches of the service; except, of course, where expert knowledge is necessary. The true ideal we should put before ourselves is that any officer, no matter what branch of the service he may belong to, should be eligible for any billet provided he is the best man for it.
As regards the instance given by my noble friend of a regiment sent into camp for two months I do not recognise the case, but shall be glad to inquire into it if he will communicate with me privately. As my noble friend knows, officers in camp draw camp allowance, and, therefore, I do not think the expense is necessarily so great as he would have us believe.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Has an alteration been made in the camp allowance of staff officers?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes; staff officers now draw consolidated pay, which includes certain allowances which they did not draw in old days

167
when in camp. I do not wish to conceal that we intend to apply the principle of consolidated pay to officers throughout the whole Army. I think I have now dealt with most of the points which have been raised in the course of this debate. I admit the great importance of this subject; it is the most important of the subjects that could be discussed in connection with the military forces of the Crown. I can assure the House that we fully recognise its importance, and I am glad to be able to accept the Resolution of the noble Lord opposite.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I wish to briefly thank the noble Earl for accepting my Motion. He differed from me on, I think, only two points, and one was as to the War Office being out of touch with the Army. That is a matter on which he would naturally take a view different from my own. The noble Earl at the beginning of his speech said that the resignations of officers of the Auxiliary Forces were due to the war, to the fact that that they had had enough soldiering. I do not think the resignations arise so much from that reason as from the reason that you are using your Auxiliary Forces for purposes for which they were never intended. A man joins the Auxiliary Forces for the purpose of defending this country, and the fact of his being sent out of the country—not without his permission, I admit—would naturally have a deterrent effect on "other possible officers. I agree that it is a pity that the course at Sandhurst should be cut down from two years to one, and I had hoped that it was intended to restore the two-year course.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes, when we get the extra accommodation.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It does seem to me that it would be a good plan, for admission to the Army, to put the Militia or the Volunteers and Sandhurst very much more on a footing; that is to say, the candidate should have the choice of going to Sandhurst or of joining the Volunteers or the Militia for a certain period, and after that period of service
168
in the Auxiliary Forces he should pass exactly the same examination as is given to the cadet at Sandhurst at the end of his time. In that way you would have, so to speak, a check on the officers issuing from Sandhurst, and at the same time a check on the qualifications of the officers passing through the Militia or the Volunteers. The reason I think this system desirable is that it would secure a greater number of officers for the Militia. It is most necessary that the Militia should be used as a sort of intermediate stage to the Army. If you had a great number of young men joining the Militia for the purpose of entering the Army under such conditions as I suggest, those who did not eventually succeed in getting into the Army would remain in the. Militia regiments, and would be more or less capable officers who could be used from time to time. Then I am extremely favourable to the idea that all officers joining the Army should agree to serve for a definite time. That would be putting them on exactly the same footing as an ordinary soldier in the ranks, and it seems to me it is no hardship to say to the officer that if he joins His Majesty's service he shall remain in it for a certain time, except on the payment of a heavy fine. In that way you would greatly increase your reserve of officers. I again thank the noble Earl for accepting my Motion, and would express the hope that the War Office will pay particular attention to the words in it which insist upon the urgency of the question.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl the Under-Secretary for War questioned the statement of the noble Earl opposite when he said that the subaltern in the British Army was not paid so well as the average artisan. The pay of the subaltern is, I believe, £95 per year; that is, including Sundays, 5s. 2d per day. The wages of an engineer are 6s. 6d. a day, and in the shipbuilding yards the wages of good rivetters are 8s. 2d. a day; engine-drivers get either 6s. 6d. or 7s. a day. I only mention these facts to show that my noble friend was perfectly accurate when he said that the subaltern in the British Army is not as well paid as the skilled artisan.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord, the mover of the Motion now before the House, to say that the shortage of officers in the Auxiliary Forces was due to the fact that those forces had been used for purposes for which they had not been enlisted. I have only risen for the purpose of saying that if there is one thing which has been more conducive than another to the happiness and good feeling of the Yeomanry and Volunteers it has been the fact that they have been allowed to take an active part in the service of the country, and to fight for their King and country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY TRADING.
LORD AVEBUEY: My Lords, I rise to ask whether His Majesty's Government remain of the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that a further inquiry should take place on the conditions under which Sunday trading is now carried on; and, if so, what steps they propose to take. At the commencement of this session your Lordships in a full House, and after considerable discussion, gave a Second Reading, without a division, to a Bill which proposed to amend the law relating to Sunday trading. The Committee to which it was referred were unanimously in favour of the Bill, but when it came back to your Lordships' House, though no notice of any opposition was given, nor a single Amendment put on the Paper, it was thrown out in a small House by a majority of twenty-one. In those circumstances the Committee have felt that that vote did not express the deliberate judgment of the House. They have satisfied themselves that the Bill was supported by an overwhelming majority of shopkeepers in the country; in fact, it was their Bill. It was also supported by a large number of the principal local authorities throughout the country, and of the trades councils. I was glad to notice that my noble friend the Leader of the House, though he objected to some of the details of the Bill, which we thought were matters that could have been satisfactorily dealt with
170
in Committee, did not express himself as hostile to legislation, or to the very natural desire of the shopkeepers of this country to have Sunday as a day of rest. The Committee thought they had inquired fully into the question. As to the facts there is, I believe, no question—no other subject of inquiry suggested itself or inquiry suggested itself to them. But the noble Marquess said he would be glad of some further information on the subject. In those circumstances I beg to put to my noble friend the Question standing in my name.
THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I think the best Answer I can give to my noble friend is to remind him of the fact that there is on the Journals of the House a record which shows that when the Sunday Closing of Shops Bill came up for Second Reading an Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Belper, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to this effect—
"That the House is not prepared to legislate upon this subject without further information as to the facts of the case, and that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conditions upon whien Sunday trading is now permitted by law."
That Motion represented our views. We did not press it upon the House because we had reason to believe that many of your Lordships preferred a different course It still, however, represents our view, and at a proper time we shall be ready to agree to a Motion for an inquiry into the present condition of the law. But it is quite impossible for me in the last days of the session to tell my noble friend that we have any intention of ourselves moving in the matter.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I should like to ask the noble Marquess what is the exact interpretation we are to put on the very kindly and encouraging words which he has just uttered with regard to this measure, in which we take very great interest. The noble Marquess quoted a Resolution which had been carried in your Lordships' House at, the beginning of this session.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:No.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Well, the Committee was appointed in consequence of that Resolution, was it not?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No. My noble friend does not grasp the distinction between what we proposed and what was actually done. We proposed that there should be no legislation, hut that there should be a Committee of inquiry. In deference, however, to what we believed to be the views of the House we agreed to read the Bill a second time and to refer it to a select Committee.
THE DUKE of NORTHUMBERLAND: As I understand it, His Majesty's Government are not satisfied with the inquiry which has taken place, and think that some further inquiry should be instituted. It that is the case, I am quite sure no one would object to the course proposed. We recognise that the question is a very difficult one, and that a thorough inquiry should be made. I am only sorry that the Committee was allowed to sit and to occupy its time with an inquiry which apparently could not in its nature be satisfactory. I earnestly hope that no time will be lost in inquiring into the subject and arriving at a conclusion upon it, because every day the question becomes more serious and difficult.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I think a small Commission would be more to the purpose than a Parliamentary Committee. It would have to be a locomotive Commission and go and see this evidence for itself. What I urged on the members of the Committee was that they should go and see this Sunday trading, and I defy anybody who has witnessed it to support with a light heart a Bill which would put a stop to it. Since the Sunday Closing Bill was thrown out I have received innumerable letters thanking me for the course I took in reference to the Bill. The tone of them is that poor people living in one room, which is their bedroom, their
172
workroom, their everything, find it most inconvenient and unhealthy to have to keep their provisions in that room, and they therefore strongly urge that they should be allowed to continue to purchase these goods on Sunday mornings. Another argument was that the Bill would take away the livelihood of thousands of small tradespeople. One man wrote to me saying that his actual takings in a week were 26s of which he took 14s. on a Sunday. That is the sort of small trader who would be injured by my noble friend, who has shopmen and shopgirls on the brain. But I look beyond them. They can take care of themselves. What we have to do is to guard against committing a great injustice to the mass of the population, and not only causing them great inconvenience but ruining small traders. As I have said, I defy anyone who goes to see Sunday trading carried on, to pass a Bill such as that introduced by the noble Lord, and I would suggest that next Sunday the Cabinet should meet in Petticoat Lane between the hours of 10 and 12.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as one who has taken a keen interest in this subject, I should like to express my satisfaction at learning that it is not the view of His Majesty's Government that this matter is finally closed. Perhaps it is hardly reasonable to expect at this period of the session that the noble Marquess should go into detail as to the manner in which the question should be reopened. But at least we have his assurance that it can and. will be reopened. I desire to endorse what has been said by the Select Committee and by Lord Avebury and the noble Duke who have spoken this afternoon, that there is an urgent need that something should be done in regard to this matter. The noble Earl who has just spoken has suggested an interesting excursion on a particular day to a region in which these markets exist. Some of us are not only able to speak from occasional visits but have lived for years in those parts of London where the whole thing is going on around us; and we are thus familiar with many of the things that surprise the noble Earl. But

173
I admit that it is a perfectly legitimate matter for further inquiry I have always felt that the difficulty of these inquiries arises not in getting evidence about the shopkeepers but in getting evidence as to the needs of the customers. I think further inquiry on that subject is still desirable, and would contribute very largely to the possibility of our being able to satisfactorily legislate on the subject.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I only rise to associate myself with what was said by the noble Duke as to the urgency of the question and the desirability of no time being lost in inquiring into the subject and arriving at a conclusion upon it. I am glad that the noble Marquess does not think that this is a matter which can be passed over as not requiring attention, and that in his opinion it is a question deserving a further inquiry.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'olock, to Thursday next, a quarter - past Four o'clock.