Sitting of 31 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Liverpool Corporation Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords]; Bristol Blind Asylum B 11 [Lords]; Corbett Estate Bill [Lords]; County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Humber Conservancy Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Littlehampton Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords]; North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords]; Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting) Bill [Lords] (Prince of Wales' Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Central Electric Supply Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [Lords]. As amended, consideied; to be read the third time.
Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered clauses added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Rhymney and Aber Valley Gas and Water Company Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Sandgate Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; a clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time. [New Title].
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Esk Valley Power Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Stonehaven Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Glasgow University Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Glasgow Corporation (Tramways Consolidation) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed on consideration, as amended [27th July], further adjourned till To-morrow (Evening Sitting).
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
Malvern Water Bill; Rathmines and Rathgar Extension and Improvement Bill; Ealing Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to—Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [Lords].
Amendments to—Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [Lords]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [Lords]; Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Formby Township Bill [Lords]; Sheffield University Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Wemyss Tramways." [Wemyss Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Wemyss 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 i Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 303.]

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixtieth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPPLY OF FOOD AND RAW MATERIAL IN TIME OF WAR (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of the Supply of Food and Raw Material in Time of War, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices (Vol. I. Report. Vol. II. Minutes of Evidence. Vol. III. Appendices) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND CORPORATION.
  Copy presented, of First Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (CLOSING ORDER, BOROUGH OF NEWPORT, MON.).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Corporation of the Borough of Newport, Mon., and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for Barbers' and Hairdressers' Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BY-LAWS IN RURAL DISTRICTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th April; Mr. Henry Hobhouse] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 272.]
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1903–4 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 273.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, etc., for the year 1604 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HORSE BREEDING (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Tenth Report of the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CUSTOMS.
  Copy presented, of Forty-ninth Report of the Commissioners of Customs for the year ended March 31st, 1905 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered April 12th; Mr. Goddard]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 274.]
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return presented, relative thereto {ordered July 20th; Mr. Mount]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 275.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioners for the period from April 1st, 1904, to March 31st, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Copy presented, of Administration Report on the Railways in India for the year 1904, by the Railway Board [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Supreme Court (Rules). Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court, dated July 27th, 1905 [by Act].

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Statement of Particulars of Loans of which the Balances outstanding are proposed to be emitted or written off (in whole or in part) from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 276.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions in India.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE (Bethnal Green, N. E.): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received from the Government of India the Report of the results of their consideration on the subject of the separation of judicial and executive functions, which he called for in his despatch to that Government of March 10th last; and, if the Report is not yet received, will he, in view of the fact that the reform is urgently needed and has been under consideration for
  902
  many years past, ask the Government to expedite the Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have not yet received from the Government of India a reply to my despatch of March 10th last, in which I have already drawn the special attention of that Government to the matter. I do not think it necessary at present to take any further steps.

  The Land Act, 1903—Trinity College Estates.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state which two of the estates of Trinity College are the subject of proceedings for sale under the Land Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The estates consist of 140 acres of the lands of Dromomarka, county Tipperary, and 397 acres of the lands of Rossmakay, county Louth.

  The King-Harman Estate.
  MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can explain the delay in issuing orders to the tenant purchasers on the King-Harman Estate, seeing that the negotiations as to the terms between the tenants and vendor were concluded in November, 1903; and if he can state definitely when the vesting orders will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is anticipated that the holdings will be vested in the tenants in October.

  Imprisonment of Seamen at Hong-Kong for Refusal to Sail in Vessels Carrying Contraband of War.
  MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of foreign seamen who have been convicted and sent to prison by the marine magistrates at the port of Hong-Kong for refusing to proceed in British vessels from that port, on the grounds that the vessels were carrying contraband of war, for the period covered

  903
  from November, 1904, up to June 30th, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am not in possession of the information, but I will ask the Governor for a report on the point.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any men are imprisoned at Hong-Kong at the present time under sentence for refusing to proceed in vessels loaded with contraband of war; and, if so, whether he will order the release of these seamen.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the crew of the British steamer "Franklyn" were convicted by the marine magistrate at Hong-Kong in the early part of this year and sentenced to ten weeks imprisonment for refusing to proceed in the "Franklyn" on the grounds of the vessel being loaded with contraband of war; that the men, on receiving the sentence, were handcuffed together and marched through the streets of Hong-Kong, whilst Chinamen followed them and jeered at them; that the men, on receiving the sentence, demanded an appeal to the Superior Court of Hong-Kong; and whether, seeing that the marine magistrate refused to allow them to appeal and refused to allow the men to have legal aid, any steps will be taken to remove the marine magistrate.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) As I stated on June 23rd,† in reply to the hon. Member, I have asked the Governor for a report on this case, but there has not yet been time to receive his reply.

  South African Company Promoting.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan, W.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether the attention of the Government has been called to the condition and financial
  †See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 1438.
  904
  status of a number of Rhodesian and other South African mining companies, whose shares are daily quoted; whether any steps are taken by the Government to safeguard, the public from investing in such mining companies as are on the verge of bankruptcy and whose condition is withheld; and further, in view of the fact that the pub he have already suffered loss in consequence of reckless South African company promoting, will he have inquiry made with a view to remedying this evil by suitable legislation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative; and, as regards the remainder of the Question, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to take upon themselves the hopeless enterprise of safeguarding the public in its choice of investments.

  Movement of Troops and Ships of War at Cape Coast, West Africa.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether additional troops are being landed at Cape Coast, West Africa, and ships of war are being placed on the coast; and, if so, what is the object of such military and naval demonstration.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The officer administering the Government of the Gold Coast has not reported any such movement of troops or ships of war as the hon. Member refers to.

  Consular Reports—Irish Trade.
  MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in preparing their next Reports, all Consuls will be requested to report whether any, and, if so, what trade is carried on between their respective districts and Ireland, and, in particular, whether the following Irish exports find a market in their districts: agricultural machinery, bacon and hams, biscuits, butter, carpets, condensed milk, cured fish, eggs, hides and sheepskins, homespuns, lace (crochet, Carrickmacross, needlepoint), linens (including yarn and thread), manures, mineral waters, poplin, porter, whiskey, wool, woollens (including tweed, serge, and frieze).

  905
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) As the hon. Member has alreidy bean informed, His Majesty's Consuls will be asked to state in their Reports for 1905 whether, so far as they can ascertain, any trade is carried on between their respective districts and Ireland; and there is no objection to including in this request a reference to the particular articles mentioned in this Question.

  Closing of the Pentland Firth to Trawlers.
  MR. HARMSWORTH (Caithness-shire): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take the necessary steps for securing from the signatories to the North Sea Convention an agreement to the closing of the Pentland Firth to trawlers.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) We have no reason to believe that any of the parties to the North Sea Fisheries Convention would be willing to forego their rights of fishing in the Pentland Firth outside the limits of territorial waters without similiar concessions in return. Nor would the assent of those Powers alone be sufficient for the effectual closing of that area of the high seas.

  Erection of Boatslips on the Caithness Coast.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether, in view of the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on the Sea Fisheries of Sutherland and Caithness, he will state at what points on the coast of Caithness he proposes to erect boatslips for the vise of the fishermen.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) Any applications for the erection of boatslips in the congested parishes of Sutherland and Caithness will be referred by the Secretary for Scotland to the Congested Districts Board for consideration. I am not in a position to suggest the points at which the construction of such boatslips maybe considered advantageous and, from the point of view of expense, justifiable.

  Scotch Herring Fishery—Loans for Purchase of Boats.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Lord - Advocate whether the Fishery
  906
  Board for Scotland are to be empowered to make loans or advances for the purchase of large herring boats, such as are now necessary for the successful prosecution of the herring fishery, to approved crews of fishermen in Caithness and Sutherland on the share system, as recommended by the Departmental Committee on the Sea Fisheries of Sutherland and Caithness.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Secretary for Scotland is in correspondence with the Fishery Board and to e Treasury in reference to the question of provision of boats for fishermen in the crofting counties on the share system, and hopes to be in a position to make an early announcement on the subject.

  New Post Office for Tralee.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): To ask the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to build the new post office in Tralee.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The plans for the new office are almost complete, and it is hoped that it may be found possible to begin the work during the present financial year.

  Postal Rank.
  MR. NANNETTI: TO ask the Postmaster-General if he will say what classes in the circulation office and the metropolitan head district offices are equivalent to the second-class assistant-superintendents' class which exists in the central telegraph office and in the provincial sorting and telegraph offices.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) In the circulation office and the metropolitan district offices there is only one class paid on the same scale, if that is the point to which the hon. Member refers, as the second-class assistant - superintendents at the central telegraph office, viz., the class of inspectors in charge (lower section) attached to the counter and telegraph staff. The duties, are, of course, dissimilar.

  Ballyshannon Post Office.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in

  907
  view of the representations made on behalf of the people respecting the inadequacy of the accommodation afforded at the premises occupied as a post office at Ballyshannon, in the county of Donegal, any steps have been taken towards providing suitable premises.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The post office at Ballyshannon is provided by the sub-postmaster, and for some years past he has sought improved premises, but none which would be suitable have been offered on terms that to could afford to pay. The present office, though not all that could be wished, is well situated, and the accommodation it affords is not altogether inadequate, especially in view of the fact that the business of the office remains almost stationary.

  Ballyshannon and Bundoran Postal Arrangements.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that appeals for an improved postal service in the district of Ballyshannon and Bundoran have been frequently addressed to the postal authorities by the residents and visitors; and whether, in view of the increased postal traffic due to the large military camp at Finner, near both towns, and the number of visitors at Bundoran, it is proposed to take any steps to provide an improved service, having regard to the fact that letters by the morning post are not delivered at Ballyshannon till after 9 a.m., and not delivered at Bundoran till a later hour, and that the last hour for posting letters to Dublin at Ballyshannon is 7. 30 p.m., and at Bundoran an earlier hour.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The postal arrangements in this district received careful consideration a few months ago, when it was found that the cost of the existing services was so high in proportion to the amount of correspondence as to preclude further expenditure on their improvement. I have no reason to suppose that there has been any material alteration in the circumstances, but I will make further inquiry, and communicate with the hon. Member.

  Ballyshannon Morning Delivery of Letters.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a change has recently been made in the route of one of the town postmen in Ballyshannon, in the county of Donegal, whereby the morning delivery of letters in one portion of the town is delayed; whether he has received communications from the Ballyshannon Town Commissioners addressed to him and to the Secretary of the Post Office objecting to this change; and whether he will give directions to revert to the course of delivery which existed prior to the recent change.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The change in the order of the first delivery at Ballyshannon, to which the hon Member refers, was made in the interests of the residents generally nearly a year ago. This was explained to the Ballyshannon Town Commissioners in December last, and they were also informed that I should not be prepared to sanction a reversion to the former arrangement unless they would furnish me with an assurance that the residents generally are in favour of such a course. Up to the present I have not received the necessary assurance.

  Authenticity of Telegrams
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether it is any part of the duty of a supervising officer in the telegraph service to satisfy himself as to the authenticity of telegrams originating in or passing through his office.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The duty of a supervising officer in this matter would be dictated by circumstances, which vary so greatly that I am unable to give an Answer in general terms.

  Ulster Spinners and the New Factory Regulations.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any complaints had been received from Belfast and Ulster spinners with regard to No. 2 of the new regulations for flax-spinning

  909
  and weaving factories; if so, what was the nature of them, and whether any official action has been taken regarding them; and whether, in view of the ambiguity of the wording of Regulation No. 2, and with the object of preventing complications and litigation, he will look into it with a view to its alteration.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) A certain number of objections to the regulation referred to have been received from Ulster manufacturers. The regulation prescribes the means of ventilation to be used in rooms in which certain processes are carried on, and the objections taken are partly to the wording of the rule, partly to the means of ventilation prescribed. The regulations are at present in draft only, and the objections are being carefully considered. I hope it will be possible to arrive at a settlement on the points in question; but, should that not be the case, the regulations will be made the subject of an inquiry by a competent person under the provisions of the Act, at which all objectors will be entitled to appear.

  Customs Tea Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will see that, in reference to any impending promotions in the Tea Office of His Majesty's Customs, or the awarding of any further checking allowances in that office, due consideration shall be given to the claims' of seniority and long service in the Customs Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) It is the practice of the Board of Customs, in making selections for the appointments in question, to give due consideration to the claims of officers in the different branches of the Department, and there is no intention to depart from this practice.

  The Lancashire Electric Railway Accident.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL (Lancashire, Southport): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if, in view of. the disaster on the Southport branch of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, he will take some measures, in addition to the usual inquiry, to ascertain,
  910
  if possible, the exact cause and responsibility for the accident, so that all possible recautions may be taken to prevent the recurrence of such a calamity in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) When the Board of Trade have received the report of the inspecting officer what opens his inquiry into this lamentable accident to - morrow, the question whether any further measures are necessary to clear up the cause of the accident will be carefully considered.

  Calcutta Jute Tax.
  SIR JOHN LENG (Dundee): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government, for the purpose of local improvements in Calcutta, proposes to tax jute, both raw and manufactured; if so, what are the definite proposal; and whether time will be given jute merchants and manufacturers in this country to make representations respecting them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) A tax on jute has been proposed by the Government of Bengal as one of the special taxes for meeting the cost of extensive sanitary improvements in Calcutta. The tax would not exceed 10s. on £100's worth of jute. It would take the form of an export duty on jute, raw and manufactured, shipped from Bengal, and of an Excise duty on jute made up in Indian mills, but not exported. Legislation will be required before the Calcutta improvement scheme or the taxation it entails can take effect. Full opportunity will be given to the affected classes of the community to consider the proposals and to make any representations that they may deem necessary.

  Major Brooke Murray.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING (Hull, Central): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Major Brooke Murray, who, having been incapacitated from active service by wounds, has recently been compulsorily retired from his civil employment in the Cantonment Magistrates Department in India and deprived of his wound pension; why he has been refused

  911
  the furlough to which he was entitled under the rules; whether he is aware of the pecuniary loss and hardship this action has entailed on Major Murray; and whether he will reconsider the matter, with a view of seeing whether the one year's furlough to which he is entitled, and the second year's extension which might be granted on his application, may still be awarded him, and his wound pension restored.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The case of Major Brooke Murray has received very careful consideration. It is impossible to state it fully within the limits of an Answer to a Question; but I may say that Major Murray was disabled, not by wounds received in action, but by his pony slipping down while on duty, and that for his injury he received a pension annually renewable. It was granted in 1902 and renewed in 1903; whether it should be further renewed is a question which will be decided when Major Murray has appeared before the Medical Board at the India Office. No officer can claim furlough as a matter of right; but the military authorities in India were prepared to sanction Major Murray's furlough on certain conditions as to his ultimate retirement which, after careful consideration of his representations, and for reasons unconnected with his accident, they regarded as desirable. To these conditions, however, he would not agree. Nothing has come before me which would appear to justify the reconsideration of any of the various decisions which have been arrived at in his case.

  Caherdaniel Evicted Tenant.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received the application of Patrick Sullivan, a tenant evicted from his holding at Behihane, on the Burns - Hartopp Estate, Caherdaniel; and, if so, what steps they have taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The application has been received, and will be duly considered by the Commissioners in the event of the estate concerned coming before them.

  Catholic Clerks in the Irish Agricultural Department.
  MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will make inquiries to ascertain if in any other branches of the Agricultural Department, besides the veterinary branch, the Catholic officials are compelled to serve upwards of eleven years before reaching a salary rate of £100 per annum, while performing duties regarded by the Treasury and the Civil Service Commissioners as of a superior character.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have nothing to add to the replies which I have given to tie hon. Member's numerous Questions on the subject. I may, however, repeat that the suggestion that religion enters into the question of promotion is entirely unfounded.

  Belfast Tram Fares.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction which exists amongst the ratepayers of Belfast, and amongst the working classes particularly, at the refusal of the corporation to introduce halfpenny fares in connection with the new corporate tramway scheme; and whether, in view of the pledges on this subject given to the House of Commons during the passage of the recent corporation Bill, he proposes to make representations to the corporation on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have no information on the subject of this Question. The Local Government Board have no function in the matter, and I do not propose to make any representations to the corporation.

  Dundonald Cemetery.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a portion of the new city cemetery at Dundonald, near Belfast, has been allotted to the sole use of Catholics, he will state what person or persons are

  913
  named in the deed of allotment as representing the Catholic people; whether the allotment is final, or subject to revocation or alteration on the motion of either the corporation or the Government authorities; whether the jurisdiction of the Catholic authorities over the ground allotted is absolute or is subject to interference by the corporation; and whether, since the sole claim of Catholics is to maintain the burial in their allotments in accordance with the rites of their Church, and considering that they represent more than one-fourth of the population, the Local Government Board will direct that the interests of the Catholics of Belfast in this matter shall be safeguarded.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The corporation have by resolution allotted the cemetery among the different religious denominations. Their action has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and no deed of allotment is necessary. Subject to the provisions of Sections 177 and 183 of the Public Health Act, 1878, the cemetery remains under the jurisdiction of the corporation as the burial board of the district. The present allotment holds good until the corporation, with the consent of the Local Government Board, makes any alteration in it.

  Irish School Buildings Grant.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total amount of the new giant towards the expense of school buildings in Ireland; within what period it is proposed that this grant should be spent; and what is the average amount of the annual grant for this purpose for the last ten years.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The total amount of the substituted grant is £210,000, consisting of £140,000 to be voted by Parliament from public funds and £70,000 to be voted from the Ireland Development Grant. This amount will be spent in six years or more, as may be
  914
  arranged. The average amount of the annual grant voted for the last ten years was £34,100.

  Marlborough Street Training College.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount proposed to be spent on the new residences for the students of the Marlborough Street Training College; whether this amount will provide accommodation for both male and female students; what is the amount of tenders sent in; and have plans and specifications been submitted to the whole body of the Commissioners of National Education and been approved by them.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The amount proposed to be spent cannot at present be stated. The new buildings, when completed, will provide accommodation for both male and female students, but tenders have as yet only been invited for the residence for the male King's scholars. As the terms for the contract for the male students' residence have not been finally settled, I the amount of the tender which has been provisionally accepted cannot be made public. The plans of the new buildings were submitted to and approved by the whole body of Commissioners.

  Cost of Ammunition for Rifle Clubs.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Forfar): To ask the Secretary of State for War how it comes to pass that the Government charges £5 per 1,000 for ammunition to affiliated rifle clubs, while Messrs. Kynoch offer to supply affiliated clubs at the rate of £2 19s. per 1,00.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The present vocabulary rate which is charged for 303 ball cartridges is £4 15s. This includes inspection and store charges. It is not known what cartridges are supplied by Messrs. Kynoch for £2 19s. per 1,000, but they have not passed the War Office inspection.

  Messrs. Cox and Company, Army Agents — Contract with the Government
  DR. HUTCHINSON (Sussex, Rye): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is a contract between the War Office and Messrs. Cox and Company in regard to the receipt and disbursement by the latter of officers' regimental pay; if so, is it in writing, what is its date, and when does it expire; will he lay a copy of it upon the Table of the House; and at its expiration will he make arrangements that the firm in question shall enjoy no preference over other London bankers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The proposal of Messrs. Cox and Company to act as agents for the regiments and departments which they represent was accepted by letter on April 20th, 1891, in the following terms:—"I am directed by Mr. Secretary Stanhope to inform you that he approves of your appointment as agents for the regiments and departments for which you now act for the period of twenty years from the 1st January, 1892, on condition that the

  Date

  Supply

  Value

  £

  5—1—00

  290,000

  lbs. Bacon

  13,140

  21—2—00

  250,000

  lbs. Bacon

  11,459

  24—3—00

  87,600

  lbs. Bacon

  3,970

  30—7—00

  275,000

  lbs. Bacon

  12,526

  22—1—01

  188,000

  lbs. Bacon

  8,713

  5—3—01

  80,000

  lbs. Bacon

  3,708

  28—8—01

  300,000

  lbs. Bacon

  14,479

  18—9—01

  123,000

  lbs. Bacon

  5,958

  23—10—01

  200,000

  lbs. Bacon

  9,688

  26—11—01

  240,000

  lbs. Bacon

  11,708

  4—2—02

  100,000

  lbs. Bacon

  4,844

  28—5—02

  44,400

  lbs. Bacon

  2,128

  work is performed by you without charge to the public, and that security "for £50,000 is given by you as offered in the letter above referred to. It will be left to the choice of every officer as at present to be paid by you or by an Army paymaster." The arrangement will, consequently, expire on December 31st, 1911, and the question of its continuance or otherwise will doubtless be fully considered by those then responsible. It will be observed that officers are under no compulsion to draw their pay through Messrs. Cox or any other Army agent.

  War Office Contracts with Maconochie Brothers.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the Secretary of State for War that contracts have been placed by his Department with the firm of Maconochie Brothers, Limited, since the year 1900, with the date and value of each contract.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Contracts with Maconochie Brothers since 1st January, 1900:—

  Date.

  Supply.

  Value.

  £

  28—8—01

  100,000

  lbs. Ham

  5,208

  18—9—01

  72,000

  lbs. Ham

  3,750

  23—10—01

  60,000

  lbs. Ham

  3,125

  26—11—01

  280,000

  lbs. Ham

  14,583

  4—2—02

  300,000

  lbs. Ham

  15,625

  28—5—02

  79,400

  lbs. Ham

  4,135

  19—2—00

  250,000

  Rations M. and V.

  12,890

  22—2—00

  25,000

  Rations M. and V.

  1. 289

  17—3—00

  168,000

  Rations M. and V.

  8,663

  20—6—00

  333,000

  Rations M. and V.

  17,170

  13—7—00

  500,000

  Rations M. and V.

  23,696

  14—7—00

  500,000

  Rations M. and V.

  22,655

  25—7—00

  500,000

  Rations M. and V.

  22,655

  24—8—00

  1,000,000

  Rations M. and V.

  45,310

  18—10—00

  1,000,000

  Rations M. and V.

  45,310

  10—11—00

  1,000,000

  Rations M. and V.

  55,208

  11—12—00

  1,000,000

  Rations M. and V.

  55,208

  3—1—01

  3,000,000

  Rations M. and V.

  160,937

  6—3—01

  2,000,000

  Rations M. and V.

  107,291

  24—3—01

  800,000

  Rations M. and V.

  35,000

  28—4—01

  1,000,000

  Rations M. and V.

  47,917

  15—5—01

  489,456

  Rations M. and V.

  19,884

  5—1—00

  100,000

  Rations Emergency

  7,083

  6—2—00

  500,000

  Rations Emergency

  33,333

  14—3—00

  450,000

  Rations Emergency

  29,062

  27—4—00

  220,000

  Rations Emergency

  14,208

  22—5—00

  220,000

  Rations Emergency

  14,208

  Date.

  Supply.

  Value.

  £

  24—2—00

  9,260

  lbs. Roast Fowl

  578

  14—3—00

  1,800

  lbs. Roast Fowl

  112

  21—3—00

  8,500

  lbs. Roast Fowl

  531

  24—3—00

  380

  lbs. Roast Fowl

  24

  27—4—00

  4,800

  lbs. Roast Fowl

  300

  29—5—00

  6,600

  lbs. Roast Fowl

  412

  22—6—00

  11,520

  tins Roast Fowl

  720

  20—7—00

  42,000

  lbs. Roast Fowl

  2,625

  27—7—00

  20,000

  lbs. Roast Fowl

  1,250

  23—10—00

  26,400

  lbs. Roast Fowl

  1,650

  22—11—00

  27,500

  tins Roast Fowl

  1,719

  19—12—00

  8,100

  tins Roast Fowl

  506

  15—2—01

  35,000

  tins Roast Fowl

  2,115

  22—6—01

  23,400

  tins Roast Fowl

  1,170

  27—9—01

  17,640

  tins Roast Fowl

  882

  31—10—01

  7,840

  tins Roast Fowl

  457

  23—11—01

  22,500

  tins Roast Fowl

  1,219

  29—1—02

  19,680

  tins Roast Fowl

  1,066

  10—2—02

  17,880

  tins Roast Fowl

  970

  13—5—02

  4,032

  tins Roast Fowl

  218

  2—7—02

  1,008

  tins Roast Fowl

  55

  19—7—00

  33,000

  pints Calf's Foot Jelly

  962

  22—1—01

  15,900

  pints Calf's Foot Jelly

  497

  23—5—01

  19,500

  pints Calf's Foot Jelly

  623

  12—6—01

  19,500

  pints Calf's Foot Jelly

  623

  28—9—01

  22,050

  pints Calf's Foot Jelly

  750

  15—4—02

  46,125

  pints Calf's Foot Jelly

  1,345

  Date.

  Supply.

  Value.

  £

  19—1—00

  250,000

  lbs. Jam

  4,687

  250,000

  lbs. Marmalade

  3,385

  30—6—00

  264,000

  lbs. Jam

  4,950

  21—7—00

  500,000

  lbs. Jam

  6,250

  3—8—00

  308,560

  lbs. Jam

  3,857

  8—9—00

  660,400

  lbs. Jam

  8,255

  28—2—01

  200,000

  lbs. Jam

  2,361

  30—4—01

  1,528,270

  lbs. Jam

  19,200

  30—1—02

  1,020,000

  lbs. Jam

  13,562

  7—4—02

  70,000

  lbs. Marmalade

  778

  24—8—03

  1,000

  lbs. Jam

  16

  18—11—03

  1,200

  lbs. Jam

  20

  26—4—01

  14,448

  lbs. Pepper

  557

  26—6—00

  10,000

  lbs. Oatmeal

  125

  2—8—00

  14,000

  lbs. Oatmeal

  194

  2—8—00

  9,000

  lbs. Arrowroot

  163

  31—5—02

  480

  lbs. Sago

  4

  18—7—02

  2,240

  lbs. Sago

  16

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Repair before Sale of Obsolete Cruisers.
    SIR A. HAYTER (Walsall): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the justification for the expenditure of £160,000 upon the refit of nine cruisers, which within eighteen months were to be sold as of being no further use in the Navy; and whether he agrees in the view, expressed before the Public Accounts Committee, that the refits had not added much to the value of the ships, because they are not sold for commercial purposes and
    922
    fetch little more than the price of old iron.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire, Fareham): At the time these cruisers were refitted they were still on the active list, and were necessarily kept in repair in case any emergency should arise. For this purpose the amounts expended did add to their seagoing efficiency.

    General Sir Forestier Walker.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether General Sir Forestier

    923
    Walker, the newly-appointed Governor of Gibraltar, was Commander of the Forces in Cape Colony for two years during the existence of the meat contract with the Cold Storage Company, and had, as Commander-in-Chief, under him the men who passed the meat and had complete control over the Cold Storage Company, which it is estimated made a clear profit of £6,000,000 sterling from the contract; whether General Sir Forestier Walker, while in command of the Cape, or shortly after his relinquishment of that command, obtained, or was presented with by the Cold Storage Company, an interest in that company as holder of 200 and joint holder of 100 ordinary shares; whether Sir Forestier Walker subsequently became a director of the South African and Australian Cold Storage Company, to which the Cold Storage Company sold its business as a running concern with all its assets, a company which was formed for the sole purpose of buying the Cold Storage Company; and, if so, what explanation, if any, can be offered for the appointment of General Sir Forestier Walker to the Governorship of Gibraltar, having regard to his close connection with companies whose interests with the War Office have been the subject of public comment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD - FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The relations of General Sir Forestier Walker with the Cold Storage Company were fully discussed in this House in debate on Army Estimates of August 4th, 1902. He did not join the board until after he had ceased to be on full pay. There was nothing in General Sir Forestier Walker's action with regard to these companies which contravened any Army regulation.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it true or not that, immediately after resigning his command at the Cape, Sir Forestier Walker became director of a company whose contracts are now the subject of investigation by a Royal Commission?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes; but I am prepared to say that Sir Forestier Walker has done nothing either dishonourable or illegal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is he going to succeed Sir George White?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.
    Subsequently—
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the appointment of Sir Forestier Walker to the position of Governor of Gibraltar, having regard to his relations with the Imperial Cold Storage Company, of which he was a shareholder, immediately after his resignation of the command at the Cape, and his appointment as director of the Australian Cold Storage Company, a company whose contracts with the War Office have been the subject of public comment, and will be a matter of investigation before the Royal Commission on War Office Contracts now sitting.
    MR. SPEAKER: I should have thought the proper course would be for the hon. Member to wait and see what the decision of the Stores Commission is.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Long before that decision is published, Sir Forestier Walker will be comfortably ensconced in Gibraltar, the very place where the cold storage is.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can raise the question on the Appropriation Bill.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With great respect, I shall not be able to raise it; for the moment I stand up, that instant the First Lord of the Treasury will move the closure.

    Employment for Ex-Soldiers.
    SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to Lord Roberts' statement, on May 15th, that only nine places had been found for retired soldiers in twelve months in Government Departments; if the statement is based on the Report of the Director-General of Recruiting; and what

    925
    explanation he has to offer on the matter.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: My attention has already been drawn to this matter by my hon. and gallant friend. The statement in question referred only to the vacancies amongst messengers in public offices, other than the War Office, which had been filled by ex-soldiers. The numbers of ex-soldiers for whom employment generally has been found in the various public offices or Departments is shown in detail in the Report of the Director of Recruiting. The Post Office alone has found 1,461 places for ex-soldiers in the year concerned. The number of ex-soldiers employed at the War Office is 407.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)asked if it were the practice for ex-soldiers to have preference over civilians with equal qualifications.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the War Office certainly always desired to do so far as that Department was concerned.

    Armament of Volunteer Artillery.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when. the new field guns, repeatedly promised to the 4th West York Volunteer Artillery in lieu of the present antiquated muzzle-loading ones, will be issued; and whether, if it be not possible to issue new guns, he will give instructions that some of the guns now in use by the Royal Field Artillery, when replaced by the new quick-firing ones (now in course of manufacture and delivery), be delivered to the corps.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension; there has been no intention of giving this corps any of the new field guns now under construction. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I have no further information to give the hon. Member beyond what has been already given to the House this session.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)asked the right hon. Gentleman whether ha considered that troops could be ade-
    926
    quately trained by the use of obsolete guns.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of opinion.

    Officers' Addresses.
    MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if so, what, facilities are given to tradesmen and others to ascertain the addresses of officers with whom they may desire to communicate in regard to accounts due.
    MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: The addresses of officers are not furnished by the War Office. Applicants are referred to the officers' regimental agents or to the Paymaster-General.

    The Judge Advocate-General.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under the new terms of appointment, the Judge Advocate- General will report upon the findings and procedure of Courts-martial to the Army Council, or whether he will, as heretofore, tender his advice in person to the Sovereign; whether he will have power to quash convictions, or whether the Army Council will be at liberty to disregard or reject his reports and advice; whether he will be a member of His Majesty's Privy Council; what salary will be paid to him and for what period will his appointment be made.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The whole question of the position, duties, and salary of the Judge Advocate-General is still under consideration.
    MR SWIFT MACNEILL: Did you not say the other day that the office of Judge Advocate-General had been abolished?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir.

    Military Sports on Sundays.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the military sports which took place at Rush, county Dublin, on Sunday last; whether these sports were held with the

    927
    consent of the commanding officer; and if such proceedings have the sanction of the War Office.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The sports in question were held on the date mentioned with the sanction of the general officer concerned. Instructions will, however, be sent to the general officer commanding-in-chief that military sports should not in future be held on a Sunday.

    Epizootic Lymphangitis in Ireland
    MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that South African disease has been imported into Ireland through the transfer of Army horses; and, if so, whether he will have a full inquiry made into the circumstances so as to place the responsibility on the persons through whose negligence loss has been sustained by Irish horse breeders and promoters of race meetings and shows.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The introduction of the disease of epizootic lymphangitis, which is not peculiar to South Africa, may have been due to Army horses. There was, however, no reason to suppose that the horses were infected when they left South Africa or when they arrived in England. The period of incubation is a very long one. It does not, therefore, appear that the suggested inquiry would serve any good purpose.
    MR. CULLINAN: As this very serious disease has been imported into Ireland by Army horses through the negligence of the authorities, with the result that horses have died, stables have been closed, and race and other meetings stopped, will the Government compensate the people for the losses they have thereby sustained?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot admit the accuracy of the hon. Member's assertions.
    MR. POWER (Waterford, E.): In how many districts in Great Britain has it appeared?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In several. I cannot say how many.

    Lord Curzon and Indian Army Administration.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further statement to make with regard to the speech of the Viceroy of India on the subject of the administration of the Indian Army. In putting the Question, may I explain that on perusal of the text of Lord Curzon's speech I found that I was not justified on a recent occasion in using the words in relation to that speech that the decision of His Majesty's Government and the despatch of the Secretary of State conveying that decision to the Viceroy were criticized "severely if not offensively." I wish, therefore, to withdraw the word "offensively" altogether and substitute for it "unconstitutionally."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to withdraw the word in question. His Majesty's Government have carefully considered the text of Lord Curzon's speech of July 18th in reference to their decision as to military administration in India. The speech was delivered in terms which might easily give rise to misconception, but the questions at issue having been settled on lines accepted by the Viceroy and Commander-in-Chief, His Majesty's Government are content to regard it as closed, and to accept unreservedly Lord Curzon's declaration in the speech of July 18th of "his utmost desire to carry out loyally a policy decided upon by His Majesty's Government."

    The "Allanton."
    MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any claims have been put forward by His Majesty's Government to the Russian Government demanding compensation for the sailors and firemen of the British steamer "Allanton," which vessel was wrongly captured by the Russian naval authorities; whether he is aware that some of the crew of the "Allanton" were kept prisoners on the Russian warships whilst these vessels

    929
    were being chased by Japanese cruisers; whether he is taking any steps to secure for foreign seamen employed on British ships the same protection as British seamen; whether he can state the position of the negotiations at the present time; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to press for a settlement of the claims of the crew of the "Allanton."
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): Complaints have been made on behalf of the sailo s and firemen on board the "Allanton" for hardships sustained by them during their detention, but no specific claims for compensation have as yet been forwarded to us. Their statement makes no reference to the Russian warships to which some of the crew had been transferred being chased by Japanese cruisers. As regards the third paragraph of the Question, no steps for asserting generally the position of foreigners on board British ships are, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, necessary, as each case must depend on its special circumstances.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: May I ask whether the claims put forward on behalf of the sailors are admitted, and what is the reason for the great delay that has taken place.
    EARL PERCYsaid they were still waiting for further information, as they had only got the preliminary statements. They had not made any statement to the Russian Government pending the further statement of the case of the seamen.

    Photographs of Dartmoor Convicts.
    MR. MOSS (Denbighshire, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fact that convicts who are undergoing punishment at Dartmoor are photographed in their convict garb; that these photographs are publicly sold in shops; that they also take the form of picture postcards, and are sent through the Post Office, enabling convicts to be identified by the outside world; whether
    930
    he will take any, and what, steps to prevent in future anyone except the properly authorised prison authorities from taking photographs of convicts; and whether he will take any, and what, steps to prevent such photographs from being sold, or made public, or used for any other purposes except in the interests of justice.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): My attention has been called to the postcards in question, but the photographs that appear on them are old ones and do not contain the likeness that can be identified of any convict now in Dartmoor. For several years past the officers at Dartmoor have had instructions not to allow the photographing of convicts by visitors, and to take every possible action to prevent "snap-shots" being taken of convicts working outside the prison. I may add that in some cases the directors of convict prisons have allowed photographs to be taken of the interior of prisons for use in illustrating articles on prison life; but such permission has always been given subject to the condition that no recognisable photograph of any individual prisoner should be taken and that prints should be submitted to the directors before publication in order that this condition might be strictly enforced.
    MR. MOSS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the photographs?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have seen the cards and photographs and have ascertained they are old ones taken before 1897, when the present orders were made.

    Prison Photographs of Unconvicted Prisoners.
    MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, by the prison regulations, the prison authorities are entitled to take photographs of an accused person against his will while he is under arrest but before he is tried or convicted, and who after trial, may be acquitted; if so, whether the authorities retain the photographs of these accused persons, even

    931
    after their acquittal; and, if so, whether he will take any, and what, steps to prevent any accused person from being photographed before his conviction.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Provision is made in the Penal Servitude Act, 1891, for the photographing of untried prisoners when their photographs are required in the interests of justice; but it can be done only in certain cases and under certain conditions which are prescribed in the regulations made by the Secretary of State on June 20th, 1895, and laid before this House. The regulations require, inter alia, that if the prisoner is either discharged by the magistrate or acquitted on trial, botli negatives and copies must be either destroyed or handed over to the prisoner. It is in many cases absolutely necessary in the interests of justice that prisoners should be photographed before trial; but it appears to me that the interests of those who are found innocent are completely safeguarded by the regulations.
    MR. MOSS: Will steps be taken to prevent the photographing of prisoners before trial?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: In certain cases it is absolutely necessary in the interests of justice that a prisoner should be photographed before his trial, but it appears to me the interests of these men are completely safeguarded in the way I have suggested.
    MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): What means have you of being assured the negatives and copies are destroyed?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Distinct orders are given that that shall be done. I have made inquiries and no complaints have reached me.
    MR. FLAVIN: The pictures are developed outside the prison, and it is easy to print any number of copies.

    Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet seen the report of the National
    932
    Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children for the month of June; is he aware that 3,690 cases, affecting the welfare of 10,470 children and involving 4,734 offenders, were dealt with; that 2,944 children were insured for £15,263; and, if so, can he say how many of these children died of their treatment, distinguishing between the various parts of the United Kingdom; and what was the amount struck in fines and imprisonment inflicted.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have seen the figures quoted by the hon. Member. According to the statement issued by the society, forty-seven of the cases with which they dealt had resulted in the death of the child. I have no information enabling me to give the other particulars asked for.

    Relief Works and Voters' Qualifications.
    SIR A. HAYTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to issue any instruction from his office to the overseers and town clerks throughout the constituencies, directing them not to omit any names from the voting lists of persons whose sole disqualification is their having been employed upon any relief works.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have no authority to issue any instructions on this subject.

    The Unemployed Workmen Bill.
    MR. CROOKS (Woolwich): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Amendment which he proposes to introduce into the Unemployed Bill (lines 38 to 40), and which gives power to the central body to apply public money in the form of rates to the acquisition of land, with the consent of the Local Government Board, would enable them to lease or to purchase land for the purpose of creating farm colonies.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. Under the Amendment a central body would be enabled to defray out of funds

    933
    supplied by contributions from the rates the expenses of purchasing land or taking it on lease for the establishment of farm colonies. But the consent of the Local Government Board would be required.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether, under the clause as re-drafted, there will be any power to keep these colonies going out of public funds.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No. Such farm colonies will depend for maintenance entirely on voluntary contributions.

    Ireland and the Swine Fever Regulations.
    MR. LIDDELL (Down, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that in twenty-seven weeks ending July 8th there were 444 cases of swine fever in Great Britain, and that during the same period there were only twenty-one cases in Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that young pigs are admitted into Ayrshire from England, where swine fever is much more prevalent than in Ireland, he will cancel the regulations which at present prevent farmers in Ireland from availing themselves of the Ayrshire market, and thereby place them on the fame footing as English farmers.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES, Huntingdonshire, Ramsey): I regret that under existing circumstances I am unable to withdraw the regulations to which the hon. Member refers. Ireland is not yet free from swine fever, and experience has shown that the conditions under which the trade in store pigs brought from that country is necessarily carried on are much more conducive to the spread of the disease than is the ease where pigs are moved into the county in comparatively small numbers at a time. I may add that swine brought into Ayrshire from England are subject to the provisions of the Swine Fever (Regulation of Movement) Order of 1903, which require that no swine shall be moved into Ayrshire without a licence, which is only granted if they have been for twenty-eight days on the premises from which they are to be moved. On arrival
    934
    the swine must remain for twenty-eight days at the place of destination.
    MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.): Is it not the fact that swine fever is more prevalent in England than in Ireland?
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: There are more cases in England, no doubt.

    Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company's Steamers.
    SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take with reference to the statement made to him by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, that they have chartered their steam vessel "Altona" for hire from Goole to a port not within the limits of The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company (Steam Vessels) Act,1904, for the compelling that company to desist from exceeding the powers conferred upon them by Parliament.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): I am not prepared to agree in the suggestion of my hon. friend that the railway company have necessarily exceeded their powers under the Act of 1904 by chartering one of their vessels to an outsider, neither is it clear that keeping the vessel laid up would be obviously in the public interest. The Board of Trade do not propose to take any action.
    SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that traders engaged in the coasting trade look with the gravest apprehension on what they regard as the unfair competition of the railway companies in making use of the Parliamentary powers beyond the prescribed limits?
    MR. BONAR LAW: I am not at all aware of it. I should be surprised if it is so.
    SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON: I can tell the hon. Gentleman it is.

    The Vice-Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when did the late Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy retire from that position; why has not the Vice-Chancellorship been filled up; and why has Mr. Hopkinson, K. C., the Principal of Owen's College, Manchester, since January, 1898, who has since then ceased to practise at the Bar, been appointed to discharge temporarily the duties of the office; and whether the post is to be offered to a Member of this House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir WILLIAM WALROND, Devonshire, Tiverton): The late Vice - Chancellor of the County Palatine resigned on June 19th, 1905. I appointed Mr. Hopkinson to act as my deputy on account of arrears of work in the Palatine Court, owing to Sir Samuel Hall's illness, and he has consented to act until the long vacation. As the office is an important one, I have taken time to consider the claims of those eligible for it. I propose to make an appointment shortly.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he understood the appointment was to be given to the hon. Member for the Eccles Division of Lancashire, and asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had any precedent for keeping open a judicial appointment until it was convenient for the Government to give it to a Member of that House, who had at the last election a small majority. Was it not an evasion of the privileges of the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: I think not.
    SIR WILLIAM WALROND: This appointment rests entirely in my hands.
    SIR LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.): And there have been many applications for it.

    Cooscroum Harbour Improvements.
    MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the constant applications from the local
    936
    authorities to the Congested Districts Board for the carrying out improvements at the harbour of Cooscroum, the Board will put this application at the head of those to be considered for the next financial year.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The Board will consider this suggestion in due course, but cannot now give any undertaking on the subject.

    Bi-Lingual Schools in Ireland.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of schools in Ireland in which the bi-lingual programme is in operation; how many of those schools have been inspected by inspectors competent to judge of the progress made; how many such schools whose year terminated June 30th have not yet been inspected; and will he explain the cause of the delay.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The number is thirteen. None of these schools have yet been inspected. In two cases, in which the school year ended on June 30th, inspection will shortly take place. In the remaining cases the school year will not terminate till September 30th.

    Constable Masterson's Disappearance.
    MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is yet in a position to state what is the result of the inquiry made by the Inspector-General of Constabulary into the disappearance of Constable Masterson, of Maryborough, while under a rule of bail to appear at the assizes; and whether the inquiry was made on oath.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The constable's disappearance was fully inquired into by the Inspector-General, who found that the police were in no way to blame in the matter. The inquiry was not held on oath.

    Labourers' Cottages in Antrim.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

    937
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a representation under the Labourers Acts was made to the rural district council of Antrim by three men named Megarry for cottages in Crumlin district more than five years ago, that the rural district council decided that the cottages should be built, that building operations were only begun after four years delay, and that when the cottages were half built operations were suspended and no work done for some time past; and whether the Local Government Board will make inquiries as to the cause of the delay which has taken place in this case.
    MR. WALTER LONG: There has been considerable delay in this matter, but the district council have now informed the Local Government Board that the cottages will shortly be completed.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say how many schemes under the Labourers Acts the rural district council of Antrim have prepared; what were the dates of each scheme; and how many houses have been built under each scheme.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Two schemes; one, dated June 12th, 1902, for twenty cottages, of which six have been completed, and four more are nearly finished; and the other, dated June 9th, 1904, for thirty-six cottages, of which none have been completed.
    MR. KILBRIDE: How long were the Labourers Acts in force before county Antrim built any cottages at all?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will cause an inquiry to be held by the Local Government Board into the general working of the Labourers Acts in the rural district of Antrim, and particularly into the alleged difficulty of procuring tenders for the erection of cottages, and the delay which has occurred in so many cases between the lodgment of the repre-
    938
    sentation and the completion of the cottages.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Board have already held a special inquiry into the general working of these Acts in county Antrin. The alleged difficulty in procuring tenders is not a matter on which the Board could take effective action. In the absence of reasonable tenders it would be open to the council to have the cottages built by direct labour under their own architect.

    Police and Public Meetings at Kilkenny.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a placard posted in Kilkenny, calling a public meeting in the town hall of that city on the 24th instant for the purpose of organising a public fund to secure proper defence and fair trial for a young man named Michael Dwyer, who is returned for trial at next winter asssizes on a charge of sedition, has been torn down by the police; whether he can say on whose authority and for what reason these placards were interfered with; and whether he intends to take any, and, if so, what, action to punish the police officers concerned.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The placard was of a highly objectionable and inflammatory character, evidently offensive to a religious confraternity in the town, and calculated to promote turbulence and disorder. Some of these placards were torn down by members of this confraternity. The police, in order to promote the peace and order of the town, removed the remainder, acting on the instructions of their officers.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN;What portion of the placard was illegal?
    MR. WALTER LONG: There is no necessity to read it. I take full responsibility for my Answer.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Was it not a placard calling a meeting for the purpose of organising a fund to secure the proper defence of Dwyer and to prevent the packing of the jury? Is that

    939
    the seditious part of the placard? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the meeting has actually taken place and that there has been no disturbance in the city?
    MR. WALTER LONG: That is not the only part of the placard to which objection was taken.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Was it this, then? "Men of Kilkenny, remember the infamies of ex-Sergeant Sheridan, the infamous. Remember Mitchelstown. Remember Talbot, who was also a confraternity man—a police spy who got into the Church pretending to be a Catholic while entrapping young men in the country into illegal societies." Was that the objectionable part? Why was this placard torn down?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have said distinctly because I considered it contained undesirable statements.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford): This is a somewhat serious matter. Is it contended that the right hon. Gentleman has a right to tear down any placard which contains matter displeasing to him?
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir, certainly not.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is the effect of your Answer.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall later on ask leave to move the adjournment.
    Subsequently—
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the interference with the right of public meeting in Ireland by the removal and effacement of placards by the Royal Irish Constabulary in the city of Kilkenny, calling a meeting for organising a fund to secure the proper
    940
    defence and fair trial, and to prevent the packing of the jury in the case of Michael Dwyer, who has been returned for trial on suspicion to the Wicklow Winter Assizes.
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman can hardly bring this within the rules of urgency. It appears that the occurrence took place more than a week ago, and the hon. Member himself informed the House that the meeting actually took place which was summoned by these placards therefore, it can. hardly be said to be a matter of urgent public importance.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIENhanded one of the placards to Mr. Speaker.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is no part of my function to decide whether this placard is likely to cause a breach of the peace or not. I cannot undertake to say that. All I can undertake to say is that the tearing down of this placard a week ago is not a matter of urgent public importance to-day.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I submit that if the Chief Secretary was in this young man's position he would think it a matter of urgent public importance if he knew someone was preparing to pack a jury and send him to prison.

    Wexford Prison.
    MR. FFRENCH (Wexford, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Wexford Prison has been closed by the prison authorities; as a result, will it fall on the hands of the Wexford County Council; will they have to pay out of the rates the sum of £200 a year although the prison buildings are of no use to them; whether he can state if any saving has been effected by sending prisoners to Waterford Prison; and, if not, will he take steps to have Wexford Prison reopened.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The prison was closed on September 29th last, and will, by law, become vested in the county council upon the expiration of twelve months from that date, unless in the meantime it should be required for

    941
    some public purpose. Should it become so vested in the council, that body will be liable for the payment of the rent. A yearly saving, estimated at £780, has been effected by the closing of the prison. It is not intended to reopen the prison.

    Alleged Outrage at Boyle.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the date of the alleged outrage on the house of Mr. Maginnis, near Boyle, county of Roscommon; how soon after the alleged occurrence was it reported to the constabulary; when did the police commence their inquiries, and how many were engaged in them; how many police are stationed in the Boyle district; whether any report on the subject and, if any, what report, has been made by the police; and, if not, whether he will state when such a report may be expected.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The date of the alleged outrage was the night of. July 11th. The occurrence was reported to the police at 4 o'clock on the morning of the 12th, and they at once commenced their inquiries under the supervision of the local police officers. Forty-four police are stationed in the Boyle district, which is an extensive one. I hope to receive a special report as to the occurrence in a day or two.
    MR. HAYDEN: It is exactly twenty days since the case was reported to the police. Does it take forty policemen three weeks to find out that this, as everybody in the district knows, is an inaccurate report?
    MR. WALTER LONG: There are not forty policemen engaged on the inquiry;; there are forty policemen in the district, which is a very wide one. To the best of my belief, no time has been lost in making the investigation, and my sole desire is to publish the facts directly I receive them.
    MR. HAYDEN: How many men are engaged on the investigation of this sham and bogus outrage?
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Three weeks have lapsed since this accusation was published in the papers alleging a serious outrage. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it really occurred at all?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am expecting the special report to-morrow. I desire the facts to be made known.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Do you not know the facts now?
    MR. HAYDEN: How many men are engaged in investigating this alleged outrage? Has the right hon. Gentleman received any report at all?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have said inquiry is being made and I am expecting the report to-morrow. If the hon. Gentleman believes it to be a bogus outrage, surely I am doing what he desires in having the matter thoroughly investigated.
    MR. HAYDEN: May I ask the hon. Member for the Altrincham Division of Cheshire on what information he based his original Question on this subject?
    MR. SPEAKER: A Question of that kind is not permissible to a private Member.
    MR. HAYDEN: This is a serious matter to us. It was alleged there was a fight lasting five hours, and that one man, at least, was wounded. We want to find out from the hon. Member who gave circulation to the slander if he has made any inquiries as to whether it is true or false.
    MR. SPEAKER: That Question cannot be put to an unofficial Member.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: But surely it would be in order for an hon. Member who had been the innocent means of circulating a false statement to make a personal explanation.
    MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham): I am awaiting the report of the Chief Secretary just as anxiously as hon. Members opposite.

    Intermediate Education Inspectors in Ireland
    MR. FLYNN (Cork, N): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Intermediate Education Board, passed in June, 1903, impressing upon the attention of the Lord-Lieutenant the great urgency of appointing permanent inspectors as a necessary part of the reforms aimed at by the Act of 1900, with a view to the inspection being carried out in a thorough and comprehensive way, and with fairness to the schools; and will he say what steps, if any, have been taken to provide the system of inspection recommended by the Board.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The whole question of inspection has engaged the attention of the Irish Government, and if the hon. Member will refer to the recently-published Report of the Commission on Intermediate Education in Ireland he will find that it was one of several matters which the Commissioners were required to investigate. The appointment of a permanent inspectorate is not recommended by them so long as the existing system of intermediate education remains unchanged.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the Treasury blocking the appointment of these inspectors?
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir.

    Evictions in Ireland.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that 679 eviction notices have been issued under Section 7 of the Land Act, 1887, during the three months ending June 30th last; and, if so, whether, in view of the operations of the Land Purchase Act, 1903, and the desirability of still further facilitating the sale of land to tenant occupiers, he will consider the advisability of introducing a short measure to repeal this Section 7 before the close of the present session.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In reply to a similar Question on June lst,† I informed
    † See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 443.
    944
    the hon. Member that it was not proposed to introduce legislation of the character suggested.
    MR. FLYNN: Not if it were to be treated as uncontroversial?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am afraid there is no chance of its being so treated.

    Mr. Arthur Deane, J.P.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY (Cork County, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that Arthur Deane, J.P., is in occupation of several evicted farms in the county Cork, he will state on what grounds and on whose recommendation he received the appointment of justice of the peace for the county of Cork.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Mr. Deane was, in the usual way, appointed to the commission of the peace by the Lord Chancellor upon the recommendation of His Majesty's Lieutenant of the county.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Was not his sole recommendation that he had grabbed all the farms he could?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I can say nothing about the recommendations on which magistrates are appointed.

    Clonakilty Evicted Tenants.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the event of the completion of negotiations for sale between landlord and tenants in the townland of Tullincasky, Clonakilty, steps will be taken to reinstate an evicted tenant, Mrs. O'Brien, on the farm at present in occupation of Arthur Deane, J. P.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Mrs. O'Brien's application for reinstatement has been received, and will be considered in the event of the estate concerned coming before the Commissioners.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have been communicated with regarding the reinstatement of the

    945
    representatives of Mrs. O'Driscoll, evicted tenants, to the farm in Ardfield, Clonakilty, in occupation of Arthur Deane, J.P.; on what grounds is Deane refusing to vacate the farm; and what steps will be taken to restore the representatives of the evicted tenants to the farm.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No proceedings for the sale of the estate concerned have come before the Commissioners. It is not possible to identify any application which they may have received from the evicted tenant's representatives unless the names of the latter be given. If the hon. Member will communicate this information to me further inquiry will be made.

    Trinity College Estates.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether sales of any of the estates held by Trinity College have been completed; if so, will he state in how many cases, and where situated; and in how many offers of sale have been made but not completed.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No sales have been completed. Proceedings for the sale of two estates are pending.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Where are these two estates situated?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I will find out and communicate with the hon. Member.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What is being done with the £5,000 handed over to Trinity College? Is any use being made of it?
    MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

    Evicted Tenants on the Coltsmann Estate, County Kerry.
    MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state that anything has been done for the evicted tenants on the Coltsmann Estate, county Kerry, which estate has been before the Estates Commissioners for a considerable period.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The advances of purchase money in respect of this estate have not yet been made. The Commissioners are about to further consider the question of assistance to the evicted tenants.

    Gortumloe Grazing Farms.
    MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps the police have taken to bring to justice the authors of the notices posted on July 23rd last, threatening the tenants selected by the Estates Commissioners for new holdings on the grazing farm of Gortumloe, near Mullingar; what has been the result of the police investigation as to the shooting alleged to have taken place in connection with these lands last May; and will he take steps to prevent graziers and their friends making similar attacks on persons selected by the Estates Commissioners as new tenants for divided portions of grazing lands.
    MR. WALTER LONG: It was reported in a local newspaper that threatening notices had been posted up in connection with this matter, but the police failed to discover the notices or any persons who saw them. The police have not succeeded in tracing the perpetrators of the outrage referred to in the second part of the Question. The police will continue to use their best efforts for the prevention and detection of outrage.
    MR. TULLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the local paper?
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir.

    Case of Mr. Murphy.
    MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the report which appeared in the Cork Examiner of Friday last regarding the serious illness of Mr. Murphy, at present undergoing a sentence of six months in Cork gaol for his defence of Watergrasshill; whether it is true that his condition is

    947
    so serious that the two doctors who attended and operated on him ordered a Catholic clergyman to be sent for, who administered the last rites of the Church; whether, seeing that he has already served four months in prison, steps will be taken to have him released immediately.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The prisoner suffered from tonsilitis. The prison medical officer was sent for on Thursday last, but before his arrival the chaplain's substitute administered religious rites to the prisoner. Subsequently the medical officer lanced an abscess in the prisoner's throat, since when his condition has improved. His life was not and is not in danger. The doctor did not send for the clergyman. Any memorial in favour of a mitigation of sentence will at once be considered.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Did not the Solicitor-General tell the right hon. Gentleman that this man was in a dangerous state at the time of his conviction? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to convert the sentence into a death penalty?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I received no such information from the Solicitor-General.
    MR. ROCHE: Will you reconsider the case without a memorial?
    MR. WALTER LONG: If the medical reports say the man is in danger I will certainly do so.

    Galway Assize Trials
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of persons charged with unlawful assembly at last Galway Assizes, the amount expended by the trials, also the amount of fees received by the Attorney-General, the number of convictions obtained, and number of special jurors told to stand aside by the Crown.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The number of persons tried for unlawful assembly was forty-one. Convictions were had in three cases, in-
    948
    volving thirty-five defendants, and the jury disagreed in one case, involving six defendants. The amount expended is estimated at £176, but accounts have not yet been vouched. The Attorney-General has not received, and is not entitled to receive, any fees in respect of these prosecutions. In the four cases referred to 117 jurors were ordered to stand by, but this number does not represent 117 persons, as many jurors were orde ed to stand by more than once.

    Irish Loan Funds.
    MR. EDWARD MITCHELL (Fermanagh, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what is being done with the money collected by receivers appointed to various loan funds in Ireland: whether the debenture-holders will soon get payments out of the amount collected; and, if so, can he say when.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Loan Fund Board have as far as practicable authorised the payment, by the receivers appointed by the Board, of dividends to the debenture-holders out of the money collected; but owing to the fact that the Loan Fund Societies did not within six months from the passing of the Act of 1900 sue the persons liable on notes, the collection of the outstanding loans is now suspended pending the passage through Parliament of the amending Bill introduced on the 15th of March last. Until that or a similar measure has been passed, the payment of the borrowers' debts cannot be enforced, and as a consequence dividends cannot be paid to the debenture-holders.

    City of Galway Woollen Mills
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN (Galway): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that on July 12th last a communication was sent to the Board of Works by the City of Galway Woollen Manufacturing Company, Limited, calling attention to the accumulation of loose stones and rubbish in the mill race, to the detriment of the company's mills; if so, what answer was sent by the Board of Works; whether a further communication was sent on July 25th on the same subject by the Board of Works; and, if so, what reply was sent, and what action was taken.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The Board of Works have made arrangements to inspect again the alleged obstruction, and have written to the company to state that the inspection will take place shortly.

    Proposed Irish Telegraph Extensions.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether any further steps have been taken to provide the largely-populated districts of Cloonagh and Aghnacliffe with a telegraph service.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The matter rests with the hon. Member himself. As I have informed him more than once, I am willing to open telegraph offices at Cloonagh and Aghnacliffe if guarantees are given for those offices. A guarantee has been promised for Dring, and I am taking steps to have that guarantee executed.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: The objection is the Dring route. We are quite willing to give a guarantee if that is withdrawn.
    LORD STANLEY: I think the objection is unreasonable.

    Status of Irish Sub-Postmasters.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General to state whether he is still of opinion that the status of sub-postmasters in Ireland is not one calling for improvement; whether he can state why no salary for a clerk to such offices is allowed even when the members of the family discharge this office to the knowledge of the district surveyor; and will he now direct a full inquiry into the whole subject.
    LORD STANLEY: Increased remuneration has recently been granted to sub-postmasters in Ireland and elsewhere, and I am not of opinion that there are sufficient grounds for further improving their pay. The salaries and commissions of sub-postmasters are calculated to cover the cost of the provision of the necessary staff for the duties of the office.

    Irish Language in the Irish Post Office.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether steps will be taken to withdraw the Post Office regulation to the effect that parcels addressed in Irish cannot be received except there is also an English translation, in view of the fact that letters addressed wholly in Irish are received at the various post offices and delivered.
    LORD STANLEY: I see no ground for altering the rule in question. Parcels, unlike letters, have to be handed in at a post office, and it is reasonable that the opportunity should be taken of requiring the sender to give a translation of the address in English. If there is genuine difficulty on the part of the sender in furnishing a translation, the officer to whom a parcel is tendered may add it, if he can.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: For what reason is a distinction drawn between letters and parcels? The former, if addressed in Irish, are delivered, the latter refused.
    LORD STANLEY: Parcels have to be handed in over the counter. Both are delivered when the address is deciphered.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can inform the House of the present intention of the Government with regard to Friday next, in the event of the Appropriation Bill being introduced on Thursday.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): It is not in my power to answer this Question until I see what progress is made by the House with the necessary business of the session.

POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE AGREEMENT).
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 271.]

EXTRADITION BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 304.]

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE. 1903–4.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Savings and Deficiencies upon Navy and Army Grants for 1903–4, and the
temporary sanction obtained from the Treasury by the Navy and Army Departments to the Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year. That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented upon the 20th day of February last, be referred to the Committee." — (Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 122. (Division List No. 316.)

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL [LORDS] (By ORDER).
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31st July], "That, for the remainder of the session Government Business be not interrupted, except at half-past Seven of the clock at an Afternoon Sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put, and that no Motion be made for leave to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question again proposed.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said he desired to say a few words on the subject of this debate, especially in relation to the Unemployed Bill, lest silence on the Unionist side of the House should be construed as an admission of the truth of what had been stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that those on the Unionist side were hostile or indifferent to the passage of this Bill. He

  1019
  expressed his approval of the Unemployed Workmen Bill, which, enacted in its original form, he believed would prove beneficial to all classes in the country. Experience on the Mansion House Committee had convinced him that the adoption of a system of farm colonies and similar labour works presented a reasonable prospect of a solution of the unemployed problem, and he knew many Members of that House who had taken part in the deliberations of the Mansion House Committee who had come to a similar conclusion. While the experiment had been as a whole successful, he could not close his eyes to the fact that there was a disposition on the part of private donors to provide less funds for this purpose, and that this year there had been more difficulty in obtaining those private funds which, although they had not sufficed to relieve distress, had sufficed in a large measure for experiments which had been conducted with a view to ultimate relief on larger lines. He believed the expenditure in this direction would be economic expenditure, and he regarded as contributors not only the local authorities and the ratepayers but the State itself.
  If there was one thing more certain than another it was that when once poor relief in the ordinary sense had been given, when once the stamp of pauperism had been applied, it became practically permanent, and it was not to the interests of the State to allow the manufacture of paupers. There were times in the lives of almost every man when ill-fortune might affect him, and when a helping hand was of the most material consequence to him. The principle adopted at the Mansion House had resulted not only in relief but also in restoring the relieved to the ranks of the workers, and he was perfectly satisfied that many who would otherwise have dropped out had been saved and restored to their homes and to their places in the world without losing their decency or self-respect owing to the organisation set on foot by the Mansion House Committee in the City and other places. We were proud of the march of our civilisation, but we must all remember that there were weaker members of society who must receive help and aid if they
  1020
  were to keep in the ranks, and just as there was in the case of a marching army an ambulance to pick up those who fell out from exhaustion and other causes, so in the march of civilisation there should be an ambulance in the shape of an Unemployed Workmen's Act to help and assist those who dropped out from time to time and to restore them again to the ranks. To consign them to the workhouse was, in his opinion, to create obligations on the State of a permanent character rather than a saving to the State, and it was because of the added expenditure in this matter that he was anxious to see this Bill passed of course, with the national resources behind it, because they could not do the Samaritan without the oil and the twopence.
  He wished the House to realise that it was not only in bad times that this help was needed. The peculiar characteristic of the commerce and trade of our country was that in lieu of one staple trade there was a much greater and increasing variety of employments growing up, and that in the character of the employments there was much more mobility, that as the country advanced in science and the application of the most recent discoveries of science to our industry there was a tendency to reduce labour, and that prosperity itself frequently caused occasions in which this timely help was necessary to avoid the home of a man with slender means being broken up. He had known many cases of men who had in their misfortunes been taken into the country on these farm colonies and had been made the best of, and their homes had been kept together in consequence. The system was one which had been of immense benefit to the temporarily poor of the industrial population, and, whatever might be said in criticism of such institutions, the Mansion House Committee and the Lord Mayor had led a notable crusade, and set a step in practical statesmanship which might well be followed by others.
  He asked the Labour Members and others who had taken an adverse view of this Bill whether they would be wise in entirely rejecting it in its present form. It had much good in it, and while they did not agree with

  1021
  the whole of it—there had been a [strong expression of opinion that the Bill without the farm colony clause would be useless—he thought the Bill even in its present form would supply machinery which would be very useful for application next winter and which would provide an inducement for the provision of those voluntary funds without which nothing could be done. He hoped those on the other side of the House would appreciate the spirit with which the Government had approached this difficult and perplexing problem and would sanction this Bill. He looked forward to it as essential, he approved in the strongest terms the action of the Government in introducing this Bill, and he hoped that, if there was a spirit of wise and friendly co-operation, the Bill would be placed upon the Statute - book for the welfare of a class who in times of stress were unable to help themselves.
  MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)said he did not think that the House of Commons during the twenty years which he had been a Member had ever been placed in so singular and deplorable a position as it was in the present debate. What they were practically asked by the Prime Minister to do was not to complete useful work, but to end a barren session, in order that he might be able to hush up the record of the most determined and resolute betrayal, and, pushing aside of all the various reforms he and his Government had promised to the country. He agreed very much with the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Islington, and the whole House had listened with the deepest interest to the hon. Member for Woolwich, who had made one of the most eloquent and unanswerable appeals that had ever been addressed to any Government in support of the Unemployed Bill, He would not attempt to overlay that appeal with any additional arguments, except upon one point. In the last few days witnesses before the Small Holdings Committee, of which he was a member, had given most striking evidence that in the industrial centres the acceleration of machinery was having the effect of displacing the older men, and that this result was leading these men to seek other employment by trying to obtain land for
  1022
  small holdings. He urged this point as bearing materially on the proposal in the original Bill to provide land for farm colonies. The men turned away by the great acceleration of the new types of machinery were men of forty to forty-five years of age. They were deserving and industrious men who if they could not get upon the land would go to swell the numbers of the unemployed. The Government ought to force their Bill through in the shape in which they had introduced it, with the clause which would enable a beginning to be made again by men in this position who without such opportunities were in danger of becoming paupers, in order to save them from pauperism, and to make a new industrial class of men who otherwise would not be employed.
  Besides the interests of labour there were plenty of other classes of useful work on which the right hon. Gentleman had with almost insolent mockery turned his back. Take the business interests of the country. There was the Public Trustee Bill—a Bill of great importance which the Government had taken up and done nothing to pass. Take agriculture. Two useful Bills introduced by the President of the Board, the Bill to check adulteration of butter had been abandoned; while only that afternoon a measure had been introduced, nominally in the interests of business, the only result of which would be to increase the salaries of the right hon. Gentleman's relatives.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must know that he is inaccurate in what he says, because I distinctly stated that the Bill introduced to-day would not come into operation during the tenure of those now holding the offices concerned.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he was wholly unaware of that fact, and he unreservedly withdrew any imputation his words placed upon the right hon. Gentleman. But whether it affected the present salaries of the right hon. Gentleman's relatives or not, it was a very small contribution to the demands of the great business world of this country,

  1023
  and a very poor and pitiable contribution to the legislative needs of the great business world. Another Bill which had again and again been passed by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Lord Chancellor, through the other House, the Prevention of Corruption Bill, which was of immense importance for checking business frauds, had also been thrown aside. Another thing which had been passed over by the Government was the intolerable pressure of the rates of the country. The position to which vast areas of the country, and especially such districts as West Ham, were being Reduced was a great scandal of administration. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the incidence of local rating could not be dealt with until the question of valuation had been dealt with. But there had been no attempt to deal with the current needs of the nation in this question of valuation, and the question of rating had only been so far dealt with and in such a way as to benefit the landlords of agricultural land. Then there was the total neglect of the needs of Ireland. That had been thoroughly dealt with by the hon. Member for Waterford. Another point which bad shown the peculiar demoralisation and decomposition of Parliamentary procedure, and of the spirit of Parliament itself under the rule of the right hon. Gentleman, was that in no session had there been a larger number of important Bills standing in the name of private Members carried through various stages by large and decisive majorities in the House. The whole of those Bills practically could make no further progress. Only three years ago the strongest appeals were made in the House to remedy this intolerable scandal, and then the right hon. Gentleman had promised to consider measures for facilitating the passage of Bills under those conditions. Now the House had sunk so low as to acquiesce silently in the killing of Bills representing a vast volume of feeling outside. No protest was made. These Bills were allowed to be turned into empty resolutions on which many Members could record an insincere vote because they could go no further. That was a degradational Parliament. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman had adopted a method
  1024
  of handling this Motion, as singular as it was sinister. In his experience the House had never been brought to so low a level as by the present Prime Minister, who now sought six months reprieve, if he could escape by-elections, from the rebuff which the country would give him when it had the opportunity. When he was swept from power the majority of the electors would rejoice in terminating the worst Government that had ever disgraced the country.
  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."
  While the House was being cleared for a division, -
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.) (speaking seated and with his hat on)said he desired to raise a point of order. When Resolutions affecting the business of the House, such as that under discussion, were proposed, Amendments were allowable, and he and the hon. Member for Wexford had intended to move the omission of the last clause of the Resolution, which, as the House was aware, was a new addition to such Motions. They were waiting for the discussion on the general issue to conclude, when they hoped to introduce their Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: What is the point of order of the hon. Member?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it in accordance with precedent, when it is mown that Amendments on a vital principle are to be moved, to grant the; closure before such Amendments have been discussed?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, it is a matter of discretion, and I am afraid it has happened more than once before now.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I hope it will not happen again.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 211; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 317)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, George Denison, (York)

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO.

  Fellowes. RtHn. Ailwyn Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH

  Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants, Fareham.

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead

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

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Fison, Sir Frederick William

  Liddell, Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bigwood, James

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bingham, Lord

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Bond, Edward

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Brassey, Albert

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gore, Hon. S; F. (Ormsby-

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Gorst, Rt, Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Bull, William James

  Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

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

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Maxwell, RtHn. SirH. E. (Wigt'n

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gretton, John

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hain, Edward

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thos. F.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, Marqof(L'nd'nderry

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Wore.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Chapman, Edward

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Mount, William Arthur

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords.NW

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Myers, William Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford. W.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hoult, Joseph

  Percy, Earl

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hon.Sir JosephC.

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Dorington, Rt. Hon.Sir JohnE.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers-

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Purvis, Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Dyke, Rt. Hon.Sir William Hart

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Rankin, Sir James

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Ratcliff, R. F

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Welby, SirCbarlesG.E.(Notts.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol. N.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wolff, Gustav Wilbelm

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stroyan, John

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Talbat, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'nN

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Samuel, Sir HarryS. (Limehouse

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tuff, Charles

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Smith, Rt. HnJ.Parker(Lanarks

  Walrond, Rt.Hon.Sir William H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hammond, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P; J.

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  O'Shee, James John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harwood, George

  Parrott, William

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Benn, John Williams

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, Robert John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Richards, Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Langley, Batty

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington)

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Crombie, John William

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crooks, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Slack, John Bamford

  Defany, William

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Spencer, RtHnC.R.(Nortnants.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moss, Samuel

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Murnaghan, George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Field, William

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Young, Samuel

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Dowd, John

  Mr. MacVeagh and Mr. Flavin.

  Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, W,)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Garfit, William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morrell, Gerge Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Arnold-Foster, Rt.Hn. HughO.

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'r H'lets

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Mount, William Arthur

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.Sir H

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Bagot. Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Goschen Hon. George Joachim

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Greene, SirE. W. (B'rySEdm'nds

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs:)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Hain, Edward

  Piatt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Halsey, Rt, Hon. Thomas F.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bigwood, James

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Purvis, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th

  Pym, C. Guy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, John S.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bull, William James

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords. NW

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Renwick, George

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Howard, Jobn(KentFaversham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Chapman, Edward

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Coddingson, Sir William

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Smith, H. C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Knowles, Sir Lees

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

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Spear, John Ward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (TowerHamlets)

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Stroyan, John

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Liddell, Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Tuff, Charles

  Doqford, Sir William Theodore

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

  Welby, Lt. -Col. ACE(Taunton)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und Lyne

  Fellowes, RtHnAilwyn Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  M'K.llop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maxwell, Rt. HnSirHE(Wigt'n

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmav, Francis Bingham

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milvain, Thomas

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moleswoith, Sir Lewis

  1026

  1027

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Parrott, William

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hammond, John

  Rea, Russell

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Benn, John Williams

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Richards, Thomas

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, John H (Denbighs)

  Burns, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rose, Charles Day

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Russell, T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lamont, Norman

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Maurice

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crooks, William

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Delany, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thompson, Dr. EC(Monaghan N

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Kean, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Ellice, CaptEC(S. Andrw'sBghs)

  Moss, Samuel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Murnaghan, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whiteley, George (York. W.R.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norman, Henry

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Question put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 318)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A. (Worc.

  Fellowes. Rt HnAilwyn Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chapman, Edward

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

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

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fielden, Edward Brockleburst

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Coddington, Sir William

  Finlay, RtHn SirRB. (Inv'rn'ss)

  Balfour, KennethR. (Christch.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Firbank, Sir Thomas Joseph

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Forster, Henry William

  Bigwood, James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gardner, Ernest

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Garfit, William

  Brassey, Albert

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (T'r Hamlets)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bull, William James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Butcher, John George

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lowe, Francis William

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gray Ernest (West Ha)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Sir HarryS. (Limehouse

  Gretton, John

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hain, Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Maxwell, Rt. HnSirHE(Wigt'on

  Smith, H.C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Harris, F. (Leverton, Tynem'th)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Spear, John Ward

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords, NW

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stroyan, John

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Mount, William Arthur

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Howard, John(Kent, Fav'rsham

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hozier. Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Myers, William Henry

  Tuff, Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Percy, Earl

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Welby, Sir CharlesG. E. (Notts.)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne

  Keswick, William

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Purvis, Robert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Randles, John S.

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Liddell, Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Renwick, George

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crooks, William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Allen, Charles P.

  Delany, William

  Hammond, John

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hemphill, Bt. Hon. Charles H.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Benn, John Williams

  Edwards, Frank

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Ellice, Capt EC(S. Andrw'sBghs

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Bright, Allan Heywood.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Emmott, Alfred

  Joicey, Sir James

  Burns, John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, Leif (Appleby

  Burt, Thomas

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Caldwell, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Field, William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lamont, Norman

  Cawley, Frederick

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Langley, Batty

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gilhooly, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Levy, Maurice

  Crean, Eugene

  Grant, Corrie

  Lundon, W.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  1030

  1031

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  M'Kean, John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Thompson, Dr EC(Monaghan, N.

  Moss, Samuel

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Toulmin, George

  Murnaghan, George

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Murphy, John

  Richards, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Newnes, Sir George

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Weir. James Galloway

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

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Russell, T. W.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Norman, Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, Patrick (Meath North)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N,)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Young, Samuel

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Spencer, RtHn.C.R. (Northants

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

  Parrott, William

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sullivan, Donal

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

  Ordered, that for the remainder of the Session, Government Business be not interrupted, except at half-past Seven of the clock at an Afternoon Sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put, and that no Motions be made for leave to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
NEW BILLS.

  PURCHASER LAND BILL.
  To provide for the purchase of land by local authorities, presented by Mr.
  954
  George White; supported by Mr. Cremer, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Higham, Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Shackleton; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 299.]

  SECRETARIES OF STATE FOR TRADE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  "To make the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board Offices of a Secretary of State," presented by Mr. Balfour; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 300.]
  LORD WARDEN OF THE CINQUE PORTS BILL.
  "To make provision with respect to the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Pors," presented by Mr. Secretary Akers- Douglas; supported by Mr. Cochrane; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 301.]
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  "To grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fu d, and for other purposes relating to local leans," presented by Mr. Victor Cavendish; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 302.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The Motion which I now have to make has been made at one period of the session or another for many years past; and it has usually been necessary for the Leader of the House to make an elaborate survey of the Bills which he still hopes to pass into law. In moving this Resolution on July 31st I think I can compress all that I have to say in order to recommend the Resolution to the House within the compass of a very few minutes indeed. That the time has come when the twelve o'clock rule should be suspended, will I imagine, be denied by none. Indeed, though there have been examples when this Resolution has been proposed at a later period of the session, the more common practice has undoubtedly been to propose it somewhere about July 20th, ten days or a fortnight earlier than the moment which the Government think appropriate on the present occasion.
  I mean to reverse the ordinary mode of exposition in this matter, because I would rather enumerate
  956
  to the House what are the Bills and Resolutions which must absolutely be passed before the close of the session. That session ought, in my judgment, as the House well know to be brought to an end in the course of next week; and before the end of next week we must pass the following Bills and the following Resolutions, which either deal with Bills or deal with one form or another of Supply. As regards Supply, we have an excess Vote for the Civil Service and one for the Navy, which ought to be passed at once in order to bring our. proceedings in Supply to a conclusion. We have a Vote for a new service which under the Standing Order must be introduced before the termination of Supply—a new service connected with the relief of distress in Ireland. Then there are, in addition to these and to the ordinary Supply of the year, two expenditure Resolutions connected with the Navy and the Army. This is an annual proceeding which always has to be carried out before Supply is finished, and it is a proceeding which has led, in my own recollection, to a good many prolonged sittings; and it is not for me to say whether the modern practice, under which we discuss these matters at great length, or the ancient practice of having little or no discussion on them, is the better. But, at any rate, they have to be passed, with or without prolonged discussion.
  With regard to Bills, there is, of course, the Appropriation Bill itself; the Naval Works Loan Bill, of which the Second Reading has been passed and the Committee stage not touched; the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Bill; the East India Loan Railway Bill, which is absolutely necessary in order to enable the Government of India effectually to carry on its schemes in this branch of its work; the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; the Public Works Loans Bill, and the Isle of Man Customs Bill. There are, in addition to these Bills, and in addition to the Supply work, the Report of the Telephone Resolution, discussion on which was promised under a pledge given by the Postmaster-General with my full knowledge and consent. It is possible if and when these measures are passed to bring the session to a close. I do not know,

  957
  and I do not think anyone can tell at present, what amount o discussion the House will desire or insist of having in regard to these matters, which for the most part might be treated uncontroversially, but which, no doubt, are capable of being treated controversally.
  There were some expressions which fell from persons of importance in this House to the effect that His Majesty's Government was not to be allowed to get through any business at all except by force majeure, by the actual weight of long discussion and majorities. Of course if that is true, and those counsels prevail, then the prospect of doing anything but the necessary business becomes extremely small. If, however, as I venture to think, wiser counsels prevail, and if we are permitted to consider the phrases I have referred to as hasty phrases used in the heat of debate, without carrying with them any serious or vital consequences, then I should greatly hope that other measures besides those I have enumerated would pass this House. It is manifest that at this period of the session, and in the circumstances which I have briefly and uncontroversially referred to, no measure which receives serious opposition from any quarter of the House has any chance of passing into law. But I hope, and I may almost say I believe, that there are measures, some of them small and wholly uncontroversial—such as the Cinque Ports Bill just introduced—which the House may desire to pass. But in addition to smaller measures of that description there are, of course, larger measures on which, if the House is agreed, I think we might make not only substantial progress but actually come to a final conclusion. Whether that hope of mine will be fulfilled depends not upon me nor upon anything I can do it depends entirely upon the attitude of the House in general and of hon. Gentlemen opposite in particular. I will, therefore, say no more on that, contenting myself with having told the House when it is that I think our labours should be brought to a conclusion and what are the measures absolutely necessary in order to obtain that result.
  Before sitting down I want to say one word on a part of the Resolution which appears on the Notice Paper
  958
  now for the first time. It is that part which deals with the introduction of Bills under what is called the ten minutes rule. So far as my recollection serves me, no unofficial Member has ever introduced a measure under the ten minutes rule until the present session. It is a novelty. I do not express an opinion as to whether it is a desirable or an undesirable novelty; but I will remind the House that this rule was introduced, not in order to give unofficial Members an opportunity which practically they did not before possess of making a speech on the First Reading of their Bills—it was introduced for a very different purpose, namely, that of enabling the Government to explain briefly any measure they desired to bring before the House, and to permit a brief comment upon that explanation, avoiding the prolonged debate which occasionally took place upon even second-rate Government Bills, and was the ordinary practice upon first-class measures. The innovation introduced by that rule was, I think, a great advantage so far as Government Bills were concerned. Whether it is a useful innovation if it is to be habitually used by any unofficial Member who wishes to explain his Bills, I will not say; but at the present time of the session at which we have now arrived there is no possibility of any private Members' Bills becoming law, or even making the smallest progress towards becoming law. No man whom I am addressing has the smallest doubt that every Bill introduced at the present time by an unofficial Member is destined to remain at the stage of the First Reading, and will not and cannot make the smallest further progress towards its final consummation.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): What about Government Bills?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already said that no Government Bill that receives serious opposition, other than those I have mentioned, can be proceeded with. But if the hon. Gentleman meant that the Government ought not to introduce Bills under the ten minutes rule at this stage of the session, I hope that he will notice the excellent example which I ventured to set just now when I introduced a Bill, which I have long

  959
  promised, without the statement which in different circumstances and earlier in the session I should have been very much tempted to make.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): Will the Tight hon. Gentleman mention any other Bill except the Cinque Ports Bill that he hopes to pass?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. I would remind the House that of course nothing in this rule prevents private unofficial Members from introducing what measures they like. They may cover the Order Paper with their projects of legislation and have them printed at the public expense.
  AN HON. MEMBER: We are equal to you.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Prior to you. You are no superior person. ["Order."]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All that the addition to the rule provides is that, if any hon. Gentleman introduces a new project of legislation, he will require to follow the example just set by the Government and introduce it without any preliminary explanation. It will be noticed that, if the so-called ten minutes rule was used to its full extent, it might be possible on any measure introduced by an unofficial Member to have a ten minutes speech proposing the measure, another of ten minutes opposing it, and a division, which would last a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes; and forty minutes in that way might be exhausted on one measure alone. So much for the addendum to the Resolution.
  The hon. Member for Islington asked me just now to give an idea of what Bills I hoped to pass or expected to pass if there was time for them. I think the hon. Gentleman will feel that his request is rather an unreasonable one. I have already told the House that the amount of time which has to be spent on business which, in large measure at least, is not controversial, depends not upon me, but upon the House, and it is not until I have some conclusive indication of the course
  960
  which the House desires to take in, regard to the list of necessary measures which I have read out, that I can offer the hon. Member, or anyone else, anything in the nature of a correct forecast of the business we shall be able to perform outside the relatively narrow limits of the necessary business which must be passed before the session comes to an end. With this brief, and, I hope, adequate explanation [Cries of "No."] I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business be not interrupted, except at half-past Seven of the clock at an Afternoon Sitting, under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put, and that no Motions be made for leave to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11." (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs): The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in what he said at the beginning of his remarks as to this being the usual time, in an ordinary session, for a Motion of this sort being made. There has always been a little by-play as to the particular day selected for the process. Some say it is too early; others that it is too late; but as a rule the House has been accustomed in past years for the most part to agree to it without much difficulty. The session is supposed to be practically over. The harvest of legislation has been accomplished, and the wearied harvestmen are anxious, one and all, to take their harvest home, to go home carrying their sheaves with them. That is the usual situation. There are usually some measures which have been unfortunately, and to the regret of all, omitted; there has been no time to overtake them, and they are, to use the common phrase, massacred. But where are the innocents to-day? Not only are there no innocents, but there are very few measures. There never has been a more barren field than that which we see before us to-day. The Aliens Bill, a measure of first-class importance according to hon. Gentlemen

  961
  opposite, also a measure capable of very rapid transformations in the course of its two years experience, has been practically saved by being sent into harbour in another place; but the Unemployed Bill, what of it?
  The right hon. Gentleman has taken a course which I think was never taken before. He has stated certain pieces of business which must necessarily be got through before we rise, and then he says "It depends on how long you take in transacting that business whether we take anything more." He has not even told us that, if there is any superfluous time, such a Bill or such Bills would be those that he would pass. Evidently he does not expect that there will be any time, and he knows that the measures which he could proceed with are of little value. Of course there are great measures—the Unemployed Bill, which has been wrecked, I presume; the Scottish Education Bill, which I am afraid was dead a good many weeks ago; and there may be one or two other useful Bills but except those there is nothing to regret, nothing to mourn over, and nothing to look forward to if we find any time. Sir, we never were in such a situation in the course of anyone's experience.
  But I think that not only is there this extraordinary barrenness of the session, but there is another element in the case which goes deeper, and is, I think, more worthy of attention. "What is the authority of the Government for asking us to allow ourselves to be worked overtime? What is the authority of this Government to conduct the business of the House, whether it be before midnight or after midnight? That is the primary question with which we are faced. What is the authority of the Government derived from? Is it from the country? Is it from the House? Or is it simply from a sense of their own indispensable character? I wish we could get an Answer to this. The hon. Baronet who represents the Education Department is our great authority on constitutional questions. I will not quote again those words of his which have been so often quoted and with such irresistible effect; but at the end of those words he goes on to say that a Ministry
  962
  in certain conditions, which he describes, and which are an actual picture of the conditions existing in this year of grace—a Ministry in that position ceases to be a Ministry and becomes a mere group of personages. I should like to ask one of the personages to tell us what their authority is. The fare provided for us this session is of quite a minor and trivial character. It has been so all along. The single aim of the Government, apparently, has been to devote all their ability, and, what has been more useful, all their agility, to staving off expulsion from office.
  Why is it we were called upon to meet late and are now being invited to retire early? Why was there so much delay in proceeding with these Bills, which, out of respect for their comparative position, I will call the principal measures of the session? They would not have been the principal measures in any other session, but they occupy that position now. "Oh," we are told, "the Opposition wasted so much time over the fiscal question." Who introduced the fiscal question? It was not the fault of the Opposition in any sense that the country has been distracted and the time of this House occupied by the fiscal question. The fiscal question was introduced by a member of the Government, the Colonial Secretary of the day, who, of course, would never introduce such a huge and all-absorbing subject unless he had the full consent and approval of the Cabinet to which he belonged. It is they who have created the fiscal controversy at this moment and they must take the consequences. And when I ask why there has been this delay, I think the answer is that it is because of this single pre-occupation of theirs, this single, settled belief that, whether in action or in repose, whether advancing to the attack or fleeing away, present or absent, in a majority or in a minority, they are the men of destiny, and the country and the Empire would totter to their fall were it not for their Titanic support. It is that which is the underlying supposition of all we see going on now-a-days. It is about the worst compliment which could be paid to the country. I am not questioning for a moment—it would be

  963
  sacrilegious to do so—the merits of the Government. I merely ask what are their credentials? What is their right to be there? How came they to be there? I am not thinking of the more recently adopted members of the family, who, of course, are there on their merits, such as the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary of State for War. But what of the older and original members of the Government which took office in 1900? The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for India, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the President of the Local Government Board—I think those are all that I can recall—they have the 1900 certificate. Most of the Government then formed sits on the Back Benches, and those whose merits and claims probably conduced as much as if not more than many of their colleagues to win that victory, they are on the Back Benches.
  The Government took their place on the Treasury Bench after the 1900 election, which was a snatch election. ["No, no !"] There was no seven years proscription then. The election was taken much sooner than it might have been because of the advantageous circumstances. It was taken also, which is another feather in their cap, on false pretences. It was taken to carry out a definite and defined policy limited by a great emergency. What is my authority for that, my main authority? I have my own powers of observation, but I have something much better. At Blenheim on August 12th, 1901, there was, as we all remember, a great glorification. Perhaps if I called it a "Maffickation" it would be a good description. The Prime Minister was there, but the hero of the day was the then Colonial Secretary. What he said was this—
  "This great question"—which was the cutting down of the Irish representation—"was not before you at the last general election. Then it was the question of the war we have been waging in South Africa which was the question which Party should conduct it to its conclusion, which Party should make the settlement, the satisfactory and final settlement, at its close. You know that our opponents tried to confuse the issue."
  Since the wolf sat down with the lamb I know nothing better than that—
  "They were not allowed to do so. They had to fight on that line whether they liked it or not, and they did not like it."
  964
  We like still less the use which has been made of it—
  "But the result has been such a mandate from the people of this country as has never been given before to any Government, so clear, so defined, or by such an enormous majority—a mandate on which we are acting and on which we intend to act."
  This alone is enough to show that some of these wasted and mischievous years have been years of usurpation. But the Government do not take that view. They take the election of 1900 as all-sufficient for all purposes. We do not hear of a mandate of a definite kind, and they mike no account, of course, of any possible number of by-elections; and yet there are indications that the Government are not altogether easy in their minds as to the terms on which they stand with the country.
  There are one or two extraordinary features in what is disclosed to us of their view of the question. For months past they have been putting it about that the next Government will certainly not be a Unionist Government. For a Ministry to indulge in this kind of prophecy is an absolute novelty. The main defensive argument of the Government, when they are pressed, generally is a warning against the dreadful kind of people who will succeed them; but when men or Ministers abandon making claims on their own merits, and merely use the sort of argument to which I have referred, saying, practically, we may be bad, but there are others who will be worse—[MINISTERIAL cheers]—l am glad to find I so accurately represent the views and main motive principles of hon. Members opposite—when either Ministries or Parties are driven to this, they are at their last extremity. But then they have gone further. They have actually fallen into a habit of addressing us as if we had already been put in as official receivers, as if we were already in some way responsible for the government of the country. It is, "What are you going to do?" They say, "How are you going to unravel this knot or clear up this mess that we have made," not "if you come in," but "when you are in?" It has been carried to such a length that we have even in a premature way actually had a vote of confidence made against us by the hon. Member for Rochester. In

  965
  fact, we might be in apprehension any day that some other hon. Member, exhausted by the pleasant pastime of inventing blocking Motions, might come down and move some Motion expressing detestation of the heinousness of our policy.
  This is all very new and very curious, but what it shows is this. They have realised, to a greater extent than they would like it to be known, perhaps, the fact that the country has exhausted its appreciation of their services. They are in a position, with which we are familiar in domestic affairs, of having had notice given them, and I do not know why they do not leave before their month is up. If we penetrate beneath the surface, I think we shall find that this tenacity is the outcome of a solemn and settled conviction that if they are to go to the country disaster will overtake them. I do not hear any violent contradiction of that assertion. It is a mere supposition on my part, but it is not objected to. So long as they can contrive to sit there and use this Assembly as a sanctuary and a rest-house the catastrophe can at least be postponed. To avert it, of course, is beyond their hope. If they stay here, talk a little about Imperial defence, spend lots of money, and pass occasional votes of confidence in themselves, then they may still pass for a Government of some sort. They allege, I believe, that they have still the confidence of this House. ["Hear, hear!" from the MINISTERIAL side.] Yes, "a sort of confidence" which cannot be in any way a substitute for constitutional representative authority; and this confidence with which the Ministry is blessed is a kind for which the leaders have seldom in our history been thankful. So long as the Prime Minister leads them to the edge of the precipice and does not take them over, then he has their formal and unfailing support. But if it is anything else, whether redistribution or no redistribution, whether the loaded revolver or the unloaded revolver, whether free food or penal tariff—what do these things matter? There is nothing under the sun on which a shivering vote of confidence might not be obtained by a little dexterity. Defeat in this House
  966
  was the test to which the Prime Minister appealed. Therefore, we attached unusual importance, perhaps, to the event the other day on that account.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will you quote?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: One of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues said it. Some influential person on that side in the immediate neighbourhood of the right hon. Gentleman said so. [Cries of "Who?"] I am not sure that it was not a blood relation. [Cries of "Quote" and "Gerald"] I do not think it is necessary to quote; the passage has been quoted again and again. There is no ambiguity about the matter. But when a defeat in the House comes the right hon. Gentleman quotes a string of precedents in which Governments have not heeded. Of course you can find any number of precedents; but when the right hon. Gentleman derived the greater number of them from Lord Melbourne's Government I think that he must have been conscious of the character which that Government bore in respect of this very matter. But if appeals are made to precedents, where is the precedent of a Government that dares not defend in this House its own policy which is put in the forefront, of a Government which is driven to withdraw its forces bodily in order to avert defeat? Such a Government is a beaten and discredited Government, and there is no room for it within the bounds of our Constitution.
  To sum up, whether you view their presence here in going on with the business and in moving the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule and so forth as if they were a real Government; whether you view them from the standpoint of the general election or the by-election or have regard to the fact that the country is exasperated by their retention, of office; or whether you look at the tenure on which they hold office from this House, namely, that neither incidental defeats nor carefully-planned strategical withdrawals can effect their freehold, their moral authority has gone. And this is the Government which to-day asks us to express our willingness to give the whole twenty-four hours of the day,

  967
  if necessary, in order to pass a few Bills for which nobody cares, not even the authors of them. Never, I trust, will any of us, even the most long-lived among us, see again so damaged and disqualified a Ministry treat with such insolent disregard at once the will of the country and the rights of Parliament.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)said the statement of the Prime Minister was of so extraordinary a description that, full and admirable as had been the comment by the Leader of the Opposition, there were other points which certainly ought to be alluded to. The Prime Minister had not told the House, according to unbroken practice—and the House had a right to demand, and would demand, a statement on this occasion—what were the measures he intended to proceed with in this session. It was only by inference that they were able to gather that such a measure as the Unemployed Bill was not to be proceeded with. Why? It was alleged by the Prime Minister that that was a measure to which he attributed supreme importance a short while ago. That measure was being abandoned not on account of the obstruction of business by the Opposition in that House. The right hon. Gentleman did not make that allegation. He was challenged on three occasions to say whether there had been any obstruction by the Opposition, and on each occasion he had said the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman had alleged that the only time that was wasted was early in the session, on a discussion of the Army proposals of the Government. Why was time wasted on those proposals, if it was wasted? Those hon. Members who through the whole of the Army debates in the early part of the session had been interested spectators without taking part in them knew that time was l at wasted except in so far as it was wasted owing to the inability of the Government to state what their proposals were, a fact which, after the promises of last year, was certain to lead to waste of time if it was wasted, in the Army debates. Nothing else had been alleged by the Prime Minister for the session being short in legislation.
  968
  There had been a total failure of the Government to legislate since their authority had been destroyed by the raising of the fiscal question without that question being brought to a solution in the proper way by a general election and by the people of the country. The total loss of authority by the Government was a great danger to the country. There were not only enormous arrears, as the Government themselves had admitted by the language they had used in regard to their own legislative programmes of the last two years, but great danger existed in the case of the Unemployed Bill by the mere raising of the question and then dropping it—the raising of it in such a way as to excite hopes in the country in that class whose hopes were most easily excited and most easily disappointed. An hon. Member of the House the other day alluded in the gravest way to what might occur in the country if the Unemployed Bill were not passed. It was stated that it was a matter of urgency that this matter should be dealt with, and the Government, while disappointing the hopes which had been raised, had not accompanied the abandonment of the Bill by any reason for the de Germination to which they had come on the subject.
  There had been nothing said that day as to what should have been the main topic of the session, and which they were now told would be the main feature of a future session. What were called the Redistribution proposals were the first proposals in the short list in the King's Speech. Personally, he did not think the present Government would be able to legislate on that subject. The only interesting thing about it was "Who killed Cock Robin?" He said it was his hon. friend the Member for Waterford. He had the credit of being the executioner on that occasion, lie himself was afraid from what members of the Government had said that they looked forward to the resuscitation of this interesting animal in the course of next session. Personally, he believed the proposals were dead. These were the main proposals which the Government had stated that they intended to put before the House, and they had been

  969
  withdrawn without any definite statement to the House in regard to the future intentions of the Government. This was a matter which, at all events, was of first-class importance. He had alluded to the first, second, and third items of the programme of the Government. The Prime Minister that day, in speaking of what was called the ten minutes rule, told the House that it was made use of for the introduction of secondary measures. The Aliens Bill was introduced under the ten minutes rule, and, therefore, the only one of the legislative proposals of the Government which had a chance of passing into law—the only one of the first nine items in the King's Speech—was one which the Prime Minister himself looked upon as a measure of secondary importance. That was their record. There had never been a session which had shown such legislative failure.
  There were measures abandoned which the Government had claimed to be essentially necessary and of immediate importance. The Workmen's Compensation Bill, for instance, figured fifth in the King's Speech this year, and it stood higher in the Speech from the Throne last year. That Bill was really urgently demanded by the whole of the labour world without any difference of opinion. He submitted, as he had done in regard to the Unemployed Bill, that it was a great danger to the country if it came to be felt that the House of Commons was unable to pass into law measures of first - class importance which were put high up in the programme of the Government. But was the House of Commons unable to do so if it were properly led? Was it the fault of the House of Commons? The real reason was the loss of authority of the Government since the fiscal question was raised, and not any loss of power on the part of the House of Commons to legislate on subjects of this kind. The Scotch Education Bill merited that a word more be said. How had that measure been used before the House of Commons? Last year when the Scotch Education Bill stood very high up in the list in the King's Speech and had made more progress than this year, strong remarks ware made that that Bill had been made
  970
  use of as a stop-gap for Ascot week. This year the scandal had been even greater, because, notoriously, at no time had the Bill had any chance of passing, and yet on two occasions it had been used to waste time. Everybody engaged in those proceedings was perfectly aware on both occasions that it was all a waste of time. Again, nearly all the Bills dropped last year were the Bills which this year had been dropped for the second time. One of these was the Irish Labourers Bill, which was the subject of a positive pledge the year before last. Then, last year there was a Bill mentioned which was brought forward again this year for the establishment of a Ministry of Commerce and Industry. A day or two ago the Prime Minister, in answer to a Question, said that he was going to redeem his promise in regard to that Bill and the right hon. Gentleman had that day brought in a Bill which was of an entirely different kind, and one unheard of before. The Bill did not establish a Ministry of Commerce and Industry, but was a Bill to make the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board offices of a Secretary of State—for which a great deal was to be said.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman had mis-described the Bill mentioned in the King's Speech.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the note he had of the King's Speech was that the Bill was for the establishment of a Ministry of Commerce and Industry, but if he was wrong he apologised and would not press the point. His case of waste of time was sufficiently strong without it. At the end of the list of nine Bills mentioned in the King's Speech, there was one which interested his hon. friend near him. Year after year the whole rating system of the country had been condemned; and the Government had said that they were burning to deal with it. Every Party said it ought to be dealt with. But the Government said they must first pass a Valuation Act as the first step in dealing with the rating question. Last year the Government placed such a Bill very high up in their programme and introduced

  971
  a Bill, but it was dropped. This year the subject had again been brought forward, but had again been abandoned without a struggle in fact, the Bill had never been introduced at all. The only labour Bill passed last year was a sham; and this year the only Bill claiming to be a labour Bill—the Aliens Bill—that had been passed by the House of Commons was also a sham measure. He did not know how far he would be in order in saying that those Bills which were killed last year and many of those introduced this year and abandoned without the slightest struggle, were also dead for text year as well; for it was an undoubted fact that the Government had stated that the leading item in their programme for next year—if the Government did intend to meet the House at all next year—damaged, discredited, weak as they were to conduct legislation—was their Redistribution proposals. He need hardly say that it would be almost impossible to carry such a measure except at the sacrifice of almost all other Bills. And therefore these Bills were dead for next year to all intents and purposes.
  That was not a state of things which some Conservatives would regard as a state of things favourable to Conservative opinion in the country. Of course there were a few Conservatives in that House like the late Mr. James Lowther and a few noble Lords in another place who asked why Conservatives should desire such legislation? But that view could not be openly taken here or in the country. There were a few Conservative Members and even Conservative constituencies who desired legislation, and the old high Tory view was dying out. The modern Conservative's cry was that their Party was as well able to deal with measures for the benefit of the people as the Liberal Party. The Government did not present themselves as representing the Party which opposed legislation desired by the people; but they introduced measures and then abandoned them. The Government told the House and country that it was necessary to introduce legislation for the unemployed as it was required; but without alleged obstruction against the Opposition they said that unfortunate circumstances had occurred which compelled them to with-
  972
  draw that proposed legislation. These unfortunate circumstances were the weakness of the Government, and their inability to carry out their own measures. This proposed legislation was not of a reactionary character. The Government was strong enough—wrongfully, as the Opposition thought—to carry reactionary legislation into law. But now, when the proposed legislation would have been beneficent to the people, the Government had lost the strength to carry it. That he ventured to describe as essentially a revolutionary situation. The constituencies knew the evils under which they suffered; they knew the measures which they desired; but the Government this year and last year had to confess that it was impotent to pass it. The Government was impotent because they had lost that confidence, that spring of life which alone gave a Government a right to the continuance of its existence.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)said he wished, with clearness and brevity, to state to the House his reasons for objecting to the Motion of the Prime Minister. But before doing so, he wished to say a word or two with reference to the statement of the Prime Minister that afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman commenced by reminding the House that it had been the habit of the Leaders of that House to make an elaborate survey of the legislation of the session which the Government had been able to accomplish in the time at their disposal. And the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he would not on this occasion make that elaborate survey, but confine himself to a few words. He was not surprised at that; for how could the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else, make an elaborate survey of the programme of legislation of the session when that would pass even the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman. There had been practically no legislation that session. He would not labour that point, which had been already put with sufficient clearness and great ability to the House.
  In the list of Bills which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned must be passed was The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Bill. That was the only Bill dealing

  973
  with Ireland. Let him recall the facts. At the commencement of that session the Members of the Irish Party impressed on the Government that there were matters for inquiry and legislation in connection with the relief of distress in Ireland and they were told that such legislation would be introduced at an early date; but it had only been introduced in the closing days of the session. What was the nature of that Bill? It was in the nature of an Indemnity Bill, giving indemnity to certain local authorities for taking necessary action. in relief of acute prevailing distress. But it was not a Bill which it was necessary to pass within any definite time; and as there were some matters which were gravely defective in the principles on which the Government had acted, and as these matters were connected with that problem of distress in Ireland which must be discussed at some time, he thought that they had better postpone the Bill until next year, until the Government of the day could give the Irish Members adequate opportunity for discussing these matters.
  One other word with reference to the programme of the Government. He had listened with very great attention to the speech of the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean in reference to the Unemployed Bill. The right hon. Baronet went on the supposition that that Bill had been abandoned by the Government, and he was justified in that, for the reason that the Prime Minister had omitted all mention of that Bill. He, himself, would like to be clear on the point. Had or had not that Bill been abandoned? He insisted on a definite Answer being given to that Question, because there was no sacrifice which the Irish Members of that House would not be willing to make in order to secure that that Bill should be passed into law. The measure was demanded by those who professed to have, and had the right to speak in the name of the people concerned. That being so, as he had already said, there was no reasonable sacrifice which the Irish Members would not make to enable the Labour Members to obtain a measure which they thought it worth their while taking. Therefore, he would like the right hon. Gentleman
  974
  in his reply to say something on the question as to whether the Unemployed Bill had been actually abandoned or not.
  His reasons for objecting to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman were two-fold. His first reason referred to Ireland, and the treatment of Ireland in that House during the present session; and his second reason was entirely higher and much wider and much more important than the first. So far as Ireland was concerned hon. Members must know well that since the House met there had been absolutely no attempt at legislation. That was not due to the belief that there were no great Irish problems awaiting solution, for everybody admitted that there were plenty of such problems. They existed, no doubt, in this country as well as in Ireland, but probably he would be forgiven if he looked at this matter from his own point of view, and, anxious as he was to see great reforms carried for England, his first anxiety was to see them carried first for Ireland. All those great problems which were awaiting solution in Ireland had not been touched, and no attempt whatever had been made to deal with them.
  What were these problems? Notwithstanding the fact that the great measure of land reform was carried in 1903, which he took leave to say was yet destined to do an enormous amount of good in Ireland, and which would remove, he believed, a great many of the difficulties and bitternesses which existed between the two great classes in that country—notwithstanding that it was universally admitted that that Act in its working had proved defective owing to mistakes which were made by that House—he might say entirely through ignorance and not through malice, but nevertheless they were mistakes—which made that Act inoperative in many of its most important respects, yet no attempt had been made by the Government to deal with the question by legislation. He did not think the Chief Secretary would contradict that statement, because he would not venture to say that the little Land Bill which he had suggested a few days ago had anything of the character of the legislation of which he was speaking. That was a Bill to enable landlords to

  975
  accept stock instead of cash in payment of the price of their property. The object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view was a most important one, viz., to remove the block in the working of the Act. No one denied the importance of that object, although they differed as to the means proposed to achieve it. That was not what he meant when he said that it was necessary to have legislation to remedy the defects of the Land Act.
  At the present time large classes of the Irish people were shut out from the benefits of the Act, and they were just those classes of people who must be dealt with if the Land Act was to effect the appeasement and regeneration of that country. No attempt had been made, and no suggestion had been made that it could be dealt with by this Parliament. Take the labourers' question. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had said, this was a subject upon which they had received the most distinct and unequivocal Parliamentary assurances. It was a question upon which everybody in Ireland was agreed. Landlords and tenant farmers and labourers were all agreed as to the essentials for a proper settlement of the Irish labourers' question, and the late Chief Secretary had promised that it should be dealt with. Last year a very defective Bill was introduced to deal with this question, and in Grand Committee, after Amendments had been agreed to by all the Irish Members, the Bill was dropped by the Government, and this year no Bill at all had been proposed to deal with the question.
  There was a case where the Irish Members themselves attempted to legislate—he alluded to the Town Tenants Bill. The necessity of introducing some legislation to protect tenants' improvements under proper limitations and conditions was admitted on both sides. A proposal to that effect was introduced as a private Bill in that House, it was passed by an overwhelming majority on its Second Reading, and was supported by hon. Members opposite as well as by the Nationalist Members. Even the Attorney-General for Ireland did not vote against the Second Reading, so
  976
  that Irish Members, including those who sat upon the Treasury Bench, either voted for the Bill or abstained from voting against it. That Bill went before a Grand Committee, and for ten weeks it was obstructed before that Committee by hon. Members for English constituencies and by members of the Government. Although that was a very modest and a very small measure, and extremely moderate, that was its fate. Not only did the Government refuse absolutely to deal with Irish problems when an attempt was made by private Members to deal with a question which had the support of all sections of opinion in Ireland, but the Bill was obstructed by English Members and defeated by the action of members of the Government sitting upon Grand Committees. He might go through all those problems which were waiting for settlement; he might recall the repeated pledges given by the Prime Minister upon University education in Ireland and the housing of the working classes in Ireland. There were on all sides in Ireland grievous and most urgent problems waiting for treatment, and that House from the commencement of the session down to the present moment had not devoted one single hour of time to any legislation dealing with those matters.
  How was the treated administration of What had been their experience in regard to Supply? Supply was of the gravest importance to English Members in that House, but he respectfully submitted to them that the value of ample opportunities to them, for discussion in Supply was not one-tenth as great as the value of such discussions must necessarily be to Ireland, because Ireland was shut off from this country to a large extent. English Members knew little or nothing about the administration of affairs in Ireland or how the money raised for Irish services was spent. The whole of this business was in the hands of a little knot of men in Dublin Castle who were entrenched there and were quite irresponsible so far as public opinion in Ireland was concerned. It was absolutely true that the public opinion of Ireland was powerless to alter one single jot of the policy of those gentlemen in Dublin Castle. There

  977
  they sat entrenched behind the ramparts of Dublin Castle, and the only possibility which existed for Irishmen bringing a flood of light upon their work, or any influence upon their policy, was by discussion of Irish matters in that House. Although Irish discussions were not attended by very large numbers of English Members, nevertheless he valued opportunities of discussing matters affecting Irish administration. He had seen those opportunities dwindling year after year, until now it might be almost said that such opportunities did not exist at all.
  What had been their experience that session, and what had been their experience every session? Simply that the fringe of Irish Supply was scarcely touched in the debates in that House. No less than twenty days were allotted for the Supply of the United Kingdom, but if the whole of i those were devoted to Irish Supply they would not be too much. Out of the twenty days only three were devoted to Irish matters, and in those three days it was manifestly impossible to touch more than the fringe of those great questions which affected Irish administration. Ireland was governed by about forty different boards, each one independent of the other and each spending money lavishly out of the public purse. Every few years a new board was created, and the latest was the Agricultural Board, which was the most expensive of them all, and yet in that House no opportunity was given to them of going into details to examine the expenditure in order to see whether it was excessive or not.
  How great and serious for Ireland questions like these were might be gathered from the fact that the cost of governing Ireland was double that of governing Belgium, and the cost of governor Ireland had increased in amount by over £3,000,000 within a comparatively short period of years. Why was that? Many people imagined that England was getting a great benefit out of the amount of taxation raised in Ireland, but it was nothing of the kind. The Imperial contribution of Ireland had not increased, although
  978
  the total taxation had increased by three or four millions a year. The whole of that went in the increased cost of the most inefficient and the rottenest system of government which was to be found in any country in Europe. The rivers of Ireland were undrained, her railways were 50 per cent, more expensive than those in other countries, her harbours were falling to pieces, and millions of acres of waste land were waiting reclamation, and yet nothing was done by the Government for the promotion of the welfare of the people, although the population was steadily going down year by year. He was not speaking of the additional cost of the war, but of the additional cost for Irish services. Within the last ten or fifteen years millions had been added to the cost of Irish government without the slightest benefit to Ireland, and without the slightest benefit to this country. Was that not a serious state of things?
  He thought English Members ought to help them in endeavouring to get a searching examination in Committee of Supply into these questions. Instead of doing that, what had happened? An hon. friend of his had called has attention to the figures for the last two or three years. In 1903, only four subjects affecting Ireland were discussed in Supply, viz., the Board of Agriculture Vote, the Development Grant, the Vote for Criminal Prosecutions, and the Vote for National Education. The total amount of those Votes was £942,000, and there remained undiscussed for that year Estimates amounting to nearly £4,000,000, which were passed under the guillotine without a single word of discussion. Last year they had the same experience; somewhere about £500,000 of the money expended was discussed and nearly £4,000,000 remained undiscussed. It could not be put forward that the reason for this state of things was that Irish Members had taken too long discussing that half million of money. Last year the Irish Estimates amounted to £4,379,101, out of which they only discussed Estimates to the amount of £411,919. They discussed National Education, Board of Agriculture, Land

  979
  Commission" A "Vote, the Chief Secretary's Salary, Queen's Colleges" A "Vote, and the Equivalent Grant. All the rest were passed without discussion under the closure. Was it not natural, where the administration of all these Indies was put into the hands of a little ring of irresponsible men who were quite out of touch with the sentiments of the people, and where these vast sums of money were never discussed—was it not natural that the charge for the Government of Ireland should go on year by year increasing, while the population of the country was steadily diminishing, and the efficiency of the Government was going down.
  He took the opportunity of protesting against the way in which the Imperial Parliament managed Irish affairs. Nothing, in his judgment, would justify the Act of Union, but, at any rate, they would have been able to make a good and plausible plea before the world if they had been able to show, after a hundred years of that Act, that Ireland was well, reasonably, peacefully, and successfully governed; that the population was not diminishing, and that the taxation was not increasing; that the country was contented, and that the Government had the confidence of the country. But they could not say that. The exact opposite was the truth. The population was going down; the taxation per head of the population was 50 per cent, more than it was fifty years ago. They could not say that the people were contented, and they lad not got the confidence of all classes of the community. There was only one section of men in Ireland who invariably supported the Government—the men who were the expectant place-hunters of the country. None of the business men in the great cities had any confidence in Dublin Castle government, and even the landlords, despite the Land Act, could not give a vote of confidence to the present Government. Every class was profoundly dissatisfied with and divided from Castle rule by reason of the sentiments of the country.
  He protested against the way Ireland had been neglected that session. He objected to the House giving the
  980
  present Government any facility for any business. He agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that the Government had no authority to sit on that side of the House. The Prime Minister had alluded to words which he said had been used in the heat of debate with reference to this matter. He did not know to whom the Prime Minister referred, and he was not going to put on any cap that the right hon. Gentleman might dangle before his eyes. But he would repeat what he had said the other day that in his judgment the Opposition in the House would be justified in using every means at their disposal to prevent the possibility of the present Government continuing to hold the reins of office. He believed they had lost the confidence of the country, and they dared not challenge the confidence of the House of Commons except upon some put-up Resolution upon some occasion selected by themselves. Whenever a vote of censure was proposed on the most vital issue of all, the fiscal policy, the Government ran away. They either moved the previous Question, as was the case in another place recently, or they abstained from coming into the House altogether, and left the Government Benches empty, with the result that two or three votes of censure had been carried against the Government and stood recorded on the Journals of the House. Therefore, he said that they had lost the confidence of the country and the House, and it was little short of a scandal that the should carry on the Government at all. He was recently reading with interest a speech made in 1884 by the late Lord Salisbury, who was at the time opposing a Liberal Government and a Redistribution Bill brought in by a Liberal Government. Lord Salisbury then said, and he would commend these words to the Prime Minister—
  "The House of Commons was elected upon issues that have passed away."
  Was that, or was that not, true of the gentlemen now sitting on the Front Bench?
  "Its life has been nearly spent. It is the most, servile House of Commons—servile to the Minister, servile to the caucus—that the Palace of Westminster has ever seen."
  That also was nearly true of the present Government, because although they might linger out for a few months longer an

  981
  ignoble existence the House could congratulate itself that the end could not be far off—
  "We are denounced because we will not allow this House of Commons, so discredited—discredited by every circumstance, discredited by every by-election that takes place—to settle upon an unsound, partisan, and inequitable basis the Constitution which we are appointed to protect… The Ministry profess to appeal to public opinion against the House of Lords, but what sort of public opinion is it? They will not come to the constituencies, to the polling booths, where alone the public opinion of Englishmen can be pronounced. They dare not do so. They know that deluded hopes, broken promises, oceans of blood unnecessarily shed, a weakened prestige of power abroad, a distracted Empire, a discontented Ireland—that all these will be brought up against them, and that an account will be demanded of them."
  It was for reasons such as those that he opposed the Government; it was because it was discredited in the House and in the country; it was because the continued existence of the Government was, in his judgment, an outrage on the Constitution that he declined to give them any facilities to carry on their business; and because, in his opinion, the proper way to deal with the Government would be on a broad constitutional basis he said that the Government had no right to carry on the government of the country, and if this attitude was taken up by the Opposition he believed the Prime Minister would soon be forced to have recourse to the provisions of the Constitution and to ask from the electors a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty."
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)said the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the Government as harvestmen who might be expected to return home carrying their sheaves with them. Those words did not lead those who represented labour in the House to anticipate any harvest for those whom they represented. All that they had hoped was that they might, as gleaners in the field of legislation, be able to pick up a few ears of grain which the harvesters had left behind them, but from the statements made that day by the Prime Minister when moving his Resolution it would appear that even that meagre hope was to be blighted.
  There were two Labour Bills mentioned in the King's Speech—the Workmen's
  982
  Compensation Bill and the Unemployed Bill—to which not the slightest reference had been made by the Prime Minister. Probably when the session was over the Government would take credit for having passed a labour measure in the form of the Aliens Bill. But the workers of the country were not blind to the fact that, whatever else that Bill might be expected to do, it was not expected to assist them in their struggle for better conditions. The one proviso suggested as a means for helping the working classes, namely, to declare blacklegs who were being brought in under contract to be undesirable aliens, was defeated by all the power which the Government was able to command. So far as he was able to judge from the speeches made by supporters of the Government, the real object of the Bill was to protect the pockets of wealthy Jews who objected to having to contribute to the support of their poor compatriots who had come over, as they themselves came before them, either to seek refuge from persecution or to improve their conditions of life. That being so, labour representatives had a right to ask why the Workmen's Compensation Bill and the Unemployed Bill had been dropped. The Workmen's Compensation Bill was the product of a special Committee, and, though there were points in it to which objections were taken, and omissions which ought to be remedied, it was not a highly controversial measure, and the differences which existed in regard to it could easily be adjusted if time were given for discussion.
  If it were true that the people of Ireland had reason to protest against neglect of their interests, it was a thousand-fold more true of the working people of England. A Supplementary Estimate was now before the House providing a grant of £20,000 to relieve distress in Ireland, but the Government refused to contribute a single penny for the relief of distress in England, although it was by the votes of British working men that the Party opposite owed their return to this House. He desired specially to ask why the Unemployed Bill was not referred to by the Prime Minister. It was perfectly true that the unemployed problem was no

  983
  new one. The winter was approaching, when the unemployed difficulty would be more acute than it had been for some winters past. Already the amount of unemployment was increasing according to the Board of Trade Returns; the resources of the men out of work were exhausted; the public authorities were at their wits' end as to what they should do to enable the unemployed to tide over their period of distress, and this Bill which was intended in some measure to enable the authorities to cope with that state of affairs was to be dropped. Why was not the Bill included amongst the measures which it was necessary to pass before the end of the session? With the Amendments proposed to be made by the President of the Local Government Board most of the objections urged on the Second Reading would have been removed.
  As far as he could make out, the reason why the Bill was not pressed forward was that a sect on of the Government's own supporters refused to allow the measure to become law because it proposed to enable public authorities to provide honest work for honest men out of employment. The President of the Board of Trade might say that he proposed to take that clause out of the Bill, and thereby to facilitate its passage. But the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that that particular clause was the one operative provision of the Bill which made it of any value at all as a method of dealing with the unemployed difficulty, and that without the clause the Bill was not worth the paper upon which it was printed. Why had the Government yielded to the pressure of their rich supporters in this matter? Who were the men who had prevented the passage of this Bill? For the most part they were either faddists who sacrificed the welfare and the life of the poor to a doctrine, or rich loafers, themselves dependent upon the working classes for the food they ate, the clothes they wore, and the houses they inhabited, but who refused to yield even a penny in the pound of their income to assist the working classes to tide over a period of distress. A charge of cowardice lay against the Government for having allowed itself to be bullied and intimidated by its rich
  984
  supporters into sacrificing the voiceless and helpless poor in the persons of the unemployed. He trusted that even yet the Government would refuse to sacrifice so important a measure.
  It was not as if the Bill affected only the convenience of a section, of the community; it affected their very life and well-being. Hundreds of thousands of honourable decent men and women were regarding the coming winter with a feeling of apprehension which Members of that House could not understand or appreciate. Not a morning passed but the papers recorded the fact that some poor fellow, finding the struggle too hard, had preferred to end his life rather than face the coming winter. And yet this Government returned to protect the interests of the people turned a deaf ear to the pleadings of the poor at the bidding of the rich who subscribed to its funds. That kind of thing could not be done now-a-days with safety. Ireland received attention to a certain extent because there were eighty-two Irish Members to voice her grievances and claim redress. If the Government desired to assist the spread of the Socialist movement in England it could not do it more effectively than by continuing to neglect and ignore social and labour questions and to despise the poor. The feelings of common humanity might surely have prompted the Government to make a firm stand against those who were seeking to wreck this measure. But if feelings of humanity did not weigh with them, considerations of political expediency might have warned them of the result of dropping a measure of this kind. For the first time in the modern history of British politics hopes had been aroused in the breasts of the unemployed that at length a Government had arisen with the courage to do something for them. But now, when they found that those hopes were being blasted and that this Government, like other Governments, was concerned only for the interests of the rich and the well-to-do, there would be produced a feeling not only of despair but of resentment, which without a shadow of doubt would find expression during the coming winter. The poor would not continue to suffer in silence they would take the Government at its word, and being ruled outside the

  985
  law they would behave as being outside the law. Who could blame or find fault with them for so doing?
  He should oppose this Motion, not because he was anxious to do so, but because he was prepared to support the Resolution and give the Government all the time it required if they could only have an understanding that part of that time would be used to put through the measure to which he was referring. He confessed he could not understand what the extreme urgency for winding up the session on August 11th was. He was in as much need of rest as any hon. Member in the House, and he could appreciate rest as well as any of them, but when a House of Commons elected by the people had to choose between sacrificing its own pleasure and sacrificing the well-being of the poor, their own pleasure should give way in order that the interests of the poor might be attended to. He knew that in Scotland the house would be ready on the 12th, but the grouse could wait for a fortnight. He thought the Government should do its duty by the people of England before adjourning to slaughter innocent birds on the moors of Scotland. He asked, therefore, that the Government, even now, should give an undertaking that amongst the measures which would be sacrificed to meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen opposite this Unemployed Bill should form an exception, and that it should be a Bill not only providing that land might be hired for farm colonies, but also that the rates might be used to capitalise them, and thereby enable local authorities to provide honest work. What was the alternative? Demoralisation of the poor still more by charity and degrading them by the workhouse, and this was being done by those who professed to be the champions of the honour of England, and who claimed that they were keeping the present Government in office in order to uphold the dignity of England. He thought it was especially incumbent upon them, if they did not desire to be charged with, hypocrisy as well as cowardice, that their pledges to the people of England should be redeemed by legislation for the most helpless class of the community, namely, the men who were able and willing to work, but who were denied the opportun-
  986
  ity of working through no fault of their own.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said he thought the House had been much affected by the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down in favour of this measure. The Leader of the Irish Party had also expressed a desire that the Unemployed Bill might be taken this session. The Prime Minister had not told them what Bills he was going to proceed with; but he thought hon. Members on both sides of the House would be willing to sacrifice time in order that the Unemployed Bill, which was of the utmost importance, should have an opportunity of being discussed and passed by the House this session. He agreed with almost everything which had fallen from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil; he knew quite well the very serious position in which London and other parts of the country stood in regard to this most important and most difficult measure. In regard to this question the Government had raised hopes which they ought not to have raised unless they intended to realise them; they had raised in the breasts of honest working men out of employment the expectation that this Bill, which was passed by such a large majority on its Second Reading, would be carried into law, and the Government ought to have done their utmost to fulfil the hopes which they had raised.
  He regretted very much that the Government had shown in this matter a very great lack of courage. In the first place they ought to have retained their original Bill and carried it through at all risks. As far as the attitude of hon. Members on the Opposition side was concerned, as well as the attitude of three-fourths of hon. Members opposite, they had done their best from the beginning to treat this matter as a non-Party question. They had made no effort to obtain any political advantage from it, and they supported the Government because they believed that the introduction of this measure was an honest attempt to solve the most difficult of all problems. He deeply regretted that the Government had not seen their way to carry their original Bill, and to carry it more or less

  987
  in the form in which it was originally introduced. They were not able to put the responsibility for not proceeding with the measure on any other shoulders than their own; hon. Members on both sides of the House had done their best to assist them, and if the Government had allowed the original Bill to get into Committee, it would have been carried by the House, and they would all have done their best to get it through. They had done their best to arrive at that consummation and he very much regretted that even the emasculated Bill, poor and feeble as it was had not been allowed an opportunity of passing. He trusted that even in that respect he had misunderstood what had fallen from the Prime Minister. For his own part he should like to see the House agree to the Third Reading of the Bill even if it contained merely the title of a Bill to deal with the unemployed question, because that would be something to place on the Statute-book, and even the emasculated Bill had some good points. Its machinery was good, and in some directions there was power to use the rates to purchase or lease farm colonies. He agreed with his hon. friend that so far as dealing immediately with the unemployed problem was concerned, unless the money came from public funds it would be of very little practical value.
  His hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil had spoken with great natural warmth with regard to the outlook for the future. He looked with the greatest possible anxiety to the coming winter. There was a great deal of distress last winter, and the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was then the President of the Local Government Board, took a very considerable step forward in dealing with it. That was, however, only a temporary measure, and unless it was followed by legislation he was afraid the coming winter would be one of the most serious they had encountered fur many years past. Last winter was bad, but the summer had been bad this year, and the men who might have recovered by better employment this summer had failed to do so, and therefore a larger number during the coming winter would be thrown entirely out of employment and they would have to be dealt with. Last winter very large sums of money were
  988
  spent out of the rates upon the unemployed, and no less than £100 000 was expended by the borough councils in addition to enormous sums spent by Poor Law guardians. It was not a question of saving the rates, but a question of putting on a proper basis a system under which these men, who in his opinion were entitled to have their cases considered, would have the money expended in providing work for them in a proper way instead of its being wasted or causing an increase in pauperism. If this question was not going to be settled, it should not have been raised at all, and if raised it ought to have been settled. He was prepared to accept the original Bill, which would have been a very considerable step forward in the direction in which this great problem alone could be met. In spite of the almost unanimous support of that House, the Government were now offering them another Bill which was vastly inferior, but he hoped even at the eleventh hour they would be allowed to carry into law even the emasculated Bill, because he thought it would lay the foundation for something better.
  MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)said the request made by the Prime Minister that afternoon was admitted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side to be not an unreasonable one or an unusual or improper request, having regard to the period of the session, and if he for one joined with those who would resist the request it was not because he thought the Motion was one which should not be made, but because he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was the proper person to make such a Motion at all. That, of course, was a matter on which there would be difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. They had not heard much of the opinion which was entertained of this proposal upon the benches opposite. There had been, if he might say so, almost a conspiracy of silence. One might almost have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were mutes celebrating the obsequies, or approaching obsequies, of His Majesty's Government.

  989
  He did not think that any part of the House would doubt that the session through which they were passing had been extremely unsatisfactory and disappointing. It had been unsatisfactory and disappointing to the Opposition. They had tried to turn out the Government but had failed, or rather they had turned them out and they would not go, and that came to very much the same thing. It had been an unsatisfactory session to those who sat on the benches opposite. Looking back to the months of effort and inconvenience which they had passed through could they say that the results achieved had been satisfactory to them as a Party or to the House of Commons as an institution? He believed it was true to say that in this session there had been less obstruction than in almost any other session of the present Parliament; there had certainly been more closure, and yet in spite of that double condition the output of legislation was un precedently small. The session was the most barren, he believed, in modern history. What was the one Bill which the Government had passed? It was the Aliens Bill—a measure which its own supporters characterised as a third-class measure in point of magnitude, and which its opponents regarded as a third or fourth-class measure in point of quality. He did not think anyone would contend that the Aliens Bill was a serious measure or a serious effort at legislation. It was a piece of electioneering which had gone wrong. How was the Aliens Bill passed? It was introduced to the House of Commons in a tumbril. They began debating it on the steps of the scaffold, and before two days had passed in Committee they were hurried to the framework of the guillotine.
  This year they had been asked, as usual under the present dispensation, to pass Estimates as enormous in time of peace as had, except under this Government, ever been demanded by any British Government in time of war. And how had they passed the Estimates? By falling back this year on an entirely novel form of guillotine closure in Supply—a form which he did not think had been used at all in any preceding session, certainly not in any session in recent
  990
  years. When they were dealing with Estimates of such enormous magnitude they had been denied the three extra days which it was customary to grant, and which they had every reason to expect. He did not wish to be unnecessarily controversial that afternoon, but he thought it was perfectly true to say that there had only been two instances of consideration shown by the Leader of the House to the House. The first was when a night was given for the consideration of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. The second was that the Supply rule had, at any rate, been fairly worked by the right hon. Gentleman, and that the Opposition had been properly consulted in regard to the various Votes they would like to have set down. Of course, the Supply rule was a matter which was personal to the right hon. Gentleman. He invented it, and it was possible that he would have greater respect for the working of his own arrangement than others who would follow him in future years. But certain he was that unless the rule was worked with fairness it would become intolerable.
  In all their discussions they had been disturbed and disquieted by a very bad habit into which the Government had fallen. They had been in the habit of raising all kinds of disquieting and awkward questions involving grave issues, and then dropping those questions the moment they were confronted with the smallest difficulty with regard to them. A responsible Government should never introduce proposals to the House of Commons unless it was earnestly prepared to make efforts and sacrifices to carry those proposals into effect. Let the House look over the political field and see how strongly that contention might be borne out. There was, of course, the fiscal question. On that hon. Gentlemen were possessed of enough information to enable them to form their own opinion. There was the question of Ireland. Immense issues had been raised in Ireland, and men's minds were excited about them. All sorts of new hopes had begun to develop. Our whole policy had been changed and reversed, and at the very moment when Irish opinion was perhaps more favourable

  991
  to this country than ever before, a measure of Redistribution specially and deliberately aimed in its character at Ireland alone was introduced.
  He asked the House to look at the Army and the other services which might be said to belong to the land services of the Crown. The Militia had been bound over to come up for judgment when called upon. The Volunteers had been disturbed from one end of the country to the other and no one was quite certain what it was intended to do with them. The Army had been disturbed by enormous proposals of reform affecting every branch of the military service and absolutely revolutionising its whole organisation. These proposals had been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State, but because some hostile criticism was: directed upon them they had been withdrawn into obscurity, and the House did not really know at this moment what executive action the Government had in view in regard to the great forces of the Crown. There was the Redistribution proposal which affected at least 100 constituencies. At least 200 candidates were affected by that proposal. What did the Government do? They tossed their proposal on the Table of the House to be left there until next session so that all the winter in 100 constituencies all over the country Members and candidates would not know, and the workers and electors in those constituencies would not know, whether they were to be subjected to a Redistribution Bill or not.
  To-morrow they were to have a new proposal. They were to have a proposal for establishing a Minister of Commerce. That was a proposal which, he believed, had been caustically described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as a proposal for calling the Board of Trade by another name. That was a project in which great interest had been excited in commercial centres all over the country. The Government would make some detached oration in its favour, but it would get no further. It would be one of the many plans adumbrated to the House, and then abandoned as soon as the smallest difficulty was experienced in carrying it into effect.
  992
  What was the last question which had been recklessly raised? He did not think that the House could have failed to be struck with the impressive speech which had been made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil a little while ago. It was to the hon. Member a very serious matter and not at all an academic question when the winter was coming on, and when they were to have the certainty in the months which were to elapse before Parliament met again that hunger would be in the streets, and that many deserving homes would be plunged in want. The machinery which the Government themselves had thought fit to propose would not have been established in any degree too soon. He was amazed at the attitude taken up by the Prime Minister in regard to the Unemployed Bill. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman frequently say in the fiscal controversy that he was quite ready to be bound by his own speeches, but that he would not be bound by any opinion of those speeches expressed by other people, or any construction put upon his policy by other people. What did the right hon. Gentleman do in regard to the Unemployed Bill? The right hon. Gentleman the other day gave as the reason for not proceeding with the important and vital clause of the Bill, not that he had changed his mind on the principle of the clause, but that some Labour Members attached to it a certain meaning which he did not himself think it involved. If the Government really believed in their own principles, and in the merits of the proposals they were making to Parliament, their own convictions and pride for their schemes would prevent them from bringing them forward and then dropping them. When any inconvenience and difficulty arose they would be bound to make an effort to carry them into effect.
  When hon. Members complained in this House he was bound to say that the consolation which was offered was very thin. They said the right hon. Gentleman trampled on the liberties of parliament, and they were invited to observe that he always did it in perfect taste. They said he was a Parliamentary dictator, and they were asked to remember he was also the arbiter of elegance. They said the policy he placed before the country was

  993
  crude, foolish, and even vicious, and they were told it was always introduced in Speeches in the most approved Parliamentary style. If at any time a declaration he made to the House appeared somewhat lacking in clearness, vigour, or depth, they were always assured that at any rate no preparation had been wasted upon it, that the counsels he offered to Parliament, and the arguments he submitted to the country were at any rate not the result of previous consideration, but arguments dictated on the spur of the moment to meet the accidents and exigencies of the hour.
  The great feature which they had to regard this afternoon was the amazing and surprising sterility of the session. How was it that the result of the session was absolutely nothing. The policy of tamper and retire, of fiddling with great questions and dropping them again, had no doubt disturbed their discussions, but that was not sufficient explanation. He thought mismanagement and want of forethought in regulating public business, especially at the commencement of the session, was also the explanation of the difficulties in which they had been involved. After all, these were only partial explanations. There was a more real and serious explanation of the difficulties they were now in. They had been working for the past two years in the shadow of a great unsettled controversy. He could very well remember his feelings two years ago when they were preparing, as now, to separate for the holidays. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite who bore that period in recollection whether there was not a very general—almost universal—impression that when they separated in 1903 they were never going to meet again in the present Parliament? It was the opinion widely entertained throughout the country and in this House that this Parliament had done its work; that a great new issue had been raised, and that it should be brought to a decision in the only way possible—by the vote of the electorate. Nobody dreamt in those days that the right hon. Gentleman would carry on the Government of the country for other two whole sessions of Parliament.
  994
  It seemed incredible after the breakup of the Cabinet in 1903 that in August, 1905, the right hon. Gentleman should be asking to suspend the twelve o'clock rule. The unexpected had happened; the impossible had been achieved. The opposing electoral armies which were advancing against each other had been arrested petrified at the moment they were to begin the attack. The spell had lasted two whole years. They had faced each other for two whole years with uplifted weapons—motionless. He did not grudge the right hon. Gentleman the congratulations he deserved for what was a marvellous and wonderful feat of tenacity and cunning. But, after all, a victory was valuable only because of its fruits, and he searched his mind in vain for any advantage that had been gained by the right hon. Gentleman's surprising efforts and extraordinary skill and ingenuity. He had heard it said that the Conservative Party were fighting a battle against time; and every year they had to give away some valuable portion of those rights of property which it was their function to conserve. When the earth was no longer habitable, the balance of their constitutional principles and the rights of property remaining unsurrendered or unexpended would form the measure of their triumph. If that were so, there was one consolation which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends might nurse in their hearts. Whatever else had not been done, two precious years had been wasted. But the crisis had been delayed, not averted. These two years of delay had not united the Party opposite, or laid to rest the great disintegrating issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and another two years who aid not increase their hold on the affections or respect of the electorate.
  The House knew well that the tariff issue was still the supreme issue, the great dividing line between Parties. But a new issue — a constitutional issue, not less disastrous — had been added to the economic issue. Bight hon. and hon. Gentlemen on those benches through their fault or misfortune had allowed it to be said of them that they were holding office when the country

  995
  had ceased to give them its confidence and support; and no charge could be more damaging to an Administration depending upon a popular franchise. And the divisions which the tariff controversy had raised were just as fierce, vexatious, and furious as they had ever been. In every constituency they were being fought out with growing bitterness and exacerbation. The truth was that the first Parliament of the King died a natural death two years ago, but an unnatural and uncanny interval had been interposed between its death and its dissolution. They had been, as it were, in a trance, under the influence of a mesmerist.
  He was reading the other day a story by Edgar Allan Poe, entitled, "The Facts in the case of M. Valdemar"—he wondered whether the Prime Minister had read that story, for if not it might repay his study. The point of the story which made it applicable to the present situation was that M. Valdemar was approaching the crisis of a fatal illness when he was placed in a mesmeric trance, in which state he continued above seven months—that was not, indeed, so long as the Government had continued in that state. It was uncertain whether death had or had not supervened, but while M. Valdemar was in that state he retained the power of making certain feeble and erratic motions with his limbs, and even of answering in a stertorous and obscure manner questions which were put to him under the influence of mesmerism. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] At length the time came when it was necessary to awaken him. He did not intend to inflict on the House the grim and morbid details with which that awakening was described, but he commended the whole story to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his colleagues for their reading in the holidays. It might be found a source of instruction and profit. They were coming to the end of the period of trance, and he presumed that if they were to meet again in this House for the resumption of business the session would not be a very lengthy one.
  In making the Motion to suspend the twelve o'clock rule, the Prime Minister had not alleged that the Opposition had been guilty of ob-
  996
  struction—indeed, he believed there had been less obstruction this session than in any other. The right hon. Gentleman had not the right to parade any superior virtue in regard to obstruction. Everyone knew that the Prime Minister himself, when a member of the Fourth Party, indulged in flagrant forms of obstruction for a very considerable period. But it should be remembered that Mr. Gladstone defined obstruction as an attempt to influence the opinion of the House otherwise than by argument—it began when argument had failed. The history of obstruction began under Mr. Biggar and Mr. Parnell only after the constitutional agitation of Mr. Butt had failed.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! The origin and history of obstruction is rather remote from the Motion before the House.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he would not dwell on the historic aspect any more; but he was entitled to trace the origin of the vicious and dangerous position in which they stood. The duel between closure and obstruction was like that between guns and armour. No sooner had they discovered a new method by which a private Member could make a speech in introducing a Bill than the Prime Minister came down with a proposal to prohibit it. Every discovery which was made by the Opposition in procedure was followed by a counter movement by the Government; and every closure was followed by a more desperate resistance. And so they went on in a vicious circle. And so they were compelled to ask themselves whether there was not a juster and saner method of adjusting their differences and preserving the privileges of the House. The Government had used the power of their majority against their political opponents as it had not often been used in this House. He spoke with an experience which was not given to all, for he had crossed the floor of the House, and he told hon. Members opposite that until they crossed the floor they would never know how powerless a minority was, tied and fettered under the new rules of procedure. Until argument was reinstated in some position of respect

  997
  in the House there would never be an end of obstruction.
  But the Motion of the Prime Minister would have been inevitable even if there were no question of obstruction. The House was crushed by the enormous amount of business which was placed upon its shoulders. It had no longer the power to discuss questions of great interest at the time they occupied public attention. The dispute between the Viceroy of India and Lord Kitchener raised an issue of supreme importance as between military and civil Government, and as between Great Britain and her great Indian dependency; and yet not even an hour for its discussion could be obtained under the procedure of the House. It was only by the two-fold process of the devolution of business to local, provincial, or national assemblies, and the delegation of financial affairs to properly-constituted Committees upstairs that the arena of the House could be cleared for the discussion of questions worthy of so great an Assembly, and that the British Parliament would be enabled once again to guide the thought of the modern world. But they might very easily be led into exaggerating the decline and decay of the House of Commons.
  No doubt they were suffering from a period of depression; no doubt they were threatened with dangers from without and with dangers from within, and of those dangers from within the Prime Minister should be able to speak with more authority than anybody else; but British institutions had a knack of surviving many vicissitudes. There was a tide in these matters which ebbed and flowed. It was now at the ebb and they were in the slack water which preceded the return of the flood. After all, no one could contend that the House of Commons even paralysed and fettered as it was, was as prostrate as when constituencies could be bought by wealthy men in the market, and when Members could be bought in the lobby. They had survived that; they would also survive the affable tyranny of the right hon. Gentleman. A single heave of the national shoulders would be sufficient to rid them of that, and in the new
  998
  Parliament, elected by the representatives of a sobered people, the House of Commons might once again obtain its old and rightful position in public transactions and in popular regard; and would, perhaps, under more favourable circumstances, be able to devote itself to the considerations of some of those larger issues to which he had been allowed to refer.
  MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)said he should not like the debate to close without seizing the opportunity of saying a word or two. For close on twenty years he had had the honour of listening to similar speeches to that which had been delivered by the Prime Minister, both from that right hon. Gentleman and from previous occupiers of his office, and he confessed that, in common with many of his colleagues, he listened with some considerable surprise to the statement made by the Prime Minister, and he was particularly surprised at the omissions in the speech which he had delivered that afternoon. It had been the practice of previous Leaders of the House, when they had reached that period of the session, and when it was necessary to appeal for the whole time of the House to be given to the Government, to deal frankly and honestly with the House both with regard to the measures which they expected to carry and the measures which they had no hope of carrying. There were two very important omissions in the statement made by the Prime Minister, viz., with regard to the Unemployed Bill and the Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act. Those were two measures to which, whatever the House might think of them, the working classes outside attached very considerable importance indeed; and for his part he could not think but that there was some design and intention in the mind of the Prime Minister in leaving out of his statement all references to those two questions.
  Let the House remember where they stood with reference to the Unemployed Bill. Special prominence and importance was given to the question in the Gracious Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the session. More attention was given to that one question

  999
  than to any other project of legislation named in the King's Speech, for the following were the words which were put into the mouth of His Majesty—
  "I have noticed with profound regret and sympathy the abnormal distress which has been caused by the want of employment during the present winter."
  The speech called attention to the fact that temporary provisions had been made for tiding over the difficulties of last winter, and special legislation was promised for dealing with the question. In consequence of the prominence which was given to that project of legislation in the King's Speech, the hopes of the unemployed and those who were responsible for guiding and directing labour organisations were considerably excited. They naturally expected that some project of legislation would be introduced dealing with the question which, if not altogether satisfactory, would certainly carry them some distance on the way they desired to go. It could not be contended, after the prominence given to the subject in the King's Speech, that it was a mere Departmental question; they could not come to any other conclusion than that it was a matter of supreme importance, considered by the Cabinet as a whole and to which they had given their consent. Consequently legislation was proposed on their own initiative. It was a Hill proposed by the Government and over which the Government had absolute and complete control in regulating all its provisions. Who was responsible for its withdrawal? Certainly not those who sat on the Opposition Benches and least of all those who spoke directly in the name of labour. They supported the Government in reading the Bill a second time, and the responsibility for the withdrawal of the Bill rested absolutely on the shoulders of the Government and their supporters.
  It was not enough for the Prime Minister to say that certain Members of the House who claimed to speak directly in the interests of labour had read into his original Bill a meaning which he and his Government had never intended; he must stand or fall by the provisions of his own Bill, for he must have considered what was the effect of his policy as embodied in
  1000
  the Bill. He could not shelter himself behind certain statements alleged to have been made by Members of the House or by persons who had influence with the unemployed outside. He felt that they had some ground of complaint against the Prime Minister and the Government for the absolute omission of any reference either of an intention of going on with the new Bill or with the original Bill. In his judgment the original Bill was not a satisfactory one, but they were prepared to accept it so far as it went, and were quite prepared to give it a fair trial so that they might be able to gather some experience from the working of the Act to guide them on future occasions. Therefore, the responsibility for not carrying through the Bill rested not with the Liberal Opposition but the Government itself.
  He pointed out that the Workmen's Compensation Bill had found for two sessions a place in the King's Speech, vet nothing had been done. When those who had been twelve years in that House recollected what happened to the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, they certainly had reason to complain of the inaction of the Government on this occasion. An appeal was then made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and supported by the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister, to settle once and for all whether it would not be better to provide compensation for every workman for every accident, and they carried an Amendment in another place which defeated the Bill. When they had the opportunity what did they do? They passed a Workmen's Compensation Bill which provided for less than one half of the workers. It was true, when faced by the Election of 1900 they passed a Bill which brought the agricultural labourer within the Compensation Act. Since then the late Colonial Secretary had denounced every Labour Member in the House for having hindered and opposed the passing of the Act of 1897, when all their efforts had, on the contrary, been directed to improving the Bill and extending its operations. There were 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 workmen who would be affected by the Workmen's Compensation Bill which was now before

  1001
  the House, and they were certainly much more deeply interested in the measure than in the Aliens Bill. They were closely associated with large bodies of workmen outside the House, who had just reason to express their regret that no mention had been made by the Prime Minister that night in regard to this question. He hoped no attempt would now be made either by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham or anybody else to put the responsibility for not passing these measures this session upon the Labour Members.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)said the Prime Minister's scheme, which the House accepted some years ago, for dealing with Supply had admittedly broken down. The control of the House over Supply was going he might almost say had practically gone. The most useful instrument ever placed in the hands of the House for the control of Governments, namely, the control of Supply, was fast passing away from the House. The position this year was absolutely unprecedented. There had never been anything like it in the history of the finance of this county.
  The number of Votes to be passed for all services was 150, and at this moment only seventeen had been taken. There were 133 Votes—though some has been partially discussed—remaining to be dealt with. That could not be said to be a satisfactory state of Supply. The entire sum to be voted was £111,250,000. The House had voted £60,500,000, and in that Vote was included the very heavy Vote on account, which was over £20,000,000, and on which only one subject was discussed. Therefore practically there remained £72,250,000 which would be voted without investigation or discussion under the existing rules, Of the twenty days allotted to Supply, the greater portion had been given to the Army and the Navy. In the Civil Service Estimates, Class 1, three Votes had been agreed to, twelve still remaining In Class 2, which this year was a very important one, because upon it the Prime Minister made his statement on Imperial defence, three only had been agreed to, and thirty-seven remained to be dealt with. In these thirty-seven
  1002
  were included the whole administrative functions of the Government. In Class 3, law and justice, one Vote had been agreed to, and only one. The whole administration, legal and judicial, which deserved and demanded the immediate attention of the House—all that was absolutely to be ruled out. With education practically nothing had been done. For the foreign and colonial services not a single Vote had been agreed to in the non-effective class no Vote had been agreed to; miscellaneous, no Vote had been agreed to; and in the Inland Revenue no Vote has been agreed to. The figures had only to be stated to show to what a state our financial system was being reduced. The control of the House had gone, and gone altogether. And this year different from every other preceding year in the administration of the Prime Minister in this extraordinary feature that he had deprived the House of the additional three days it hid always had before for Supply.
  If he remembered aright, when these rules were under discussion an Amendment was proposed to give twenty-five days for the discussion Supply, and the right hon. Gentleman resisted that Amendment on the ground that practically the twenty-three days that would be granted would be amply sufficient to deal with the Votes brought before the House, but the right hon. Gentleman now took away the three days usually given. He thought that the system of fixing a certain number of days was a wise one, but it had not been carried out. The Government had no responsibility to the House they had no familiarity with the pressure of certain Votes over other Votes, and did not know the peculiar circumstances of each case. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have accompanied the reform with the allocation of days to the discussion of certain Votes, so as to give full and fair discussion. The House would not in that case resent the closure being moved when the time limit was reached on any specific Vote; but it certainly resented the voting of between seventy and eighty millions of money without any discussion, thereby putting the expenditure of the country into the hands of the Executive without a check,

  1003
  In earlier days the power in Committee of Supply was the dread of discussion in the House, but now arrangements had only to be made to bring the Vote under the closure rule and there was no discussion whatever. He did not impute that this was done intentionally, but it was the natural instinct of self-preservation to avoid any serious risk.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that the business in Supply was generally arranged to suit the Opposition.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that there were many classes of Votes which were never put down for discussion at all, and his contention was that if the Government were to limit opportunities they must have a controlling power to apportion time. The system was not only incomplete, but it was growing worse and worse. He thought that the present position of the House in respect of expenditure was a very dangerous one. The House had lost its control of finance, with the result that there would be extravagance and loss of that control of policy and administration which the Constitution intended it should have, and which ought to be exercised constantly in all Departments.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The discussion has ranged over a wider field than I ever remember to have been the case before. Hon. Members have dealt with the history of the country in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, and they have surveyed the fortunes of Parties and the causes which induced the rise and fall of Administrations. Some hon. Members have also indulged in a good deal of prophecy as to what this country is to be in the future, and others have spent themselves in dealing with a criticism of the past, which may be well or ill-founded, but which has very little to do with the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule.
  The right hon. Gentleman has just made a suggestion as to the reform of the Supply rule. But the right hon. Gentleman's remedy is to make what is called "the gag" far more elaborate than it is now; for it would take away from the present system that elasticity which it certainly possesses, and which I think
  1004
  would be ill-sacrificed for some such elaborate arrangement of Supply business as he foreshadows. The right hon. Gentleman makes the admission for the first time on behalf of his Party that the number of days in Supply must be a limited number. I entirely agree with him. I am convinced that the more the subject is studied the more certain that proposition will seem. He also says that we ought not to leave the arrangement of Supply to the Opposition, and that we ought in advance to settle what Votes are to be taken with discussion and what Votes without discussion, as well as the amount of time to be divided among the various Votes submitted. I do not think that this would be an improvement on the present system. However anxious the Opposition of the day might be to deal with certain questions, if before the session began that particular Vote had been put in the category of Votes which were to be closured at the end of the session or which had been given a very few hours for discussion, it seems to me that the opportunities to criticise the Government would not be improved, but would be greatly deteriorated, and we should be far worse off, as far as the criticism of the Executive is concerned, than we are at the present moment. If and when the Party of which the right hon. Gentleman is so distinguished a member, have to deal with the rules of the House we shall see whether their views in office are different from their views in Opposition, and how far they will venture to modify the rules which were proposed and carried a few years ago.
  I have not much to say about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, because obviously that speech had nothing to do with the twelve o'clock rule. It was a speech which, I presume, the right hon. Gentleman intended to make on some other occasion, as, for example, when we were discussing the constitutional question last week as to whether or not it was in accordance with practice for a Government to resign on such a division as took place last week. The right hon. Gentleman examined a number of constitutional topics, which might have been appropriate then, but which are wholly, I venture to think,

  1005
  inappropriate to the debate we are now dealing with.
  The same remark applies to the Member for Oldham, to whom we owe a great deal of constitutional wisdom, a great many prophecies as to the future of the present Government, and a great many metaphors dealing with the past history of the Government, to all of which I listened with interest and respect. There is one thing, however, which the hon. Member forgot in the course of his historical investigations, and that was that the accusations which he has levelled against the present Government are really the familiar commonplaces of political controversy, be they good or bad. When he says that the accusation of unduly clinging to office is one proof exceptionally damaging to the present Government he perhaps forgets that this accusation has been levelled against every Administration as far back as I remember—certainly against every Administration that has held office in my time—and every Administration of which I have ever read. If he will cast his mind back over the periodic revolutions which go on in the history of this or other constitutional Governments and the changing popularity of Parties according to the movement of public opinion, he will see that there is nothing abnormal in the existing state of things and that this Government is open to no charge to which other Governments are not equally open. The present debate gave conclusive proof of it, because I think that almost the only observation from the other side of the House which called forth some apparent enthusiasm was the extract read by the hon. Member for Waterford from a speech delivered by Lord Salisbury. In that speech very much the same things were said—I will not say very much in the same manner—of Mr. Gladstone's Government one and a-half years before he resigned as hon. Members have been saying on this occasion.
  There has been one set of Questions put to me which in my judgment is far more germane to the debate than the generalities in which the Leader of the Opposition and others have been indulging. Those were Questions asked by the hon. Member for Northumberland, by the right hon.
  1006
  Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, and by others. They related to the Unemployed Bill, and I have been asked why I did not mention the Unemployed and other Bills in making the statement with which the debate began. The reason is surely obvious. The Opposition may object to the general plan which I have laid down for the session. They may think that the limits put to the session are too narrow; but, granting that it is in the general interests of the proper conduct of business in the House that we should endeavour to conclude it at the end of next week, the way in which the time is to be allocated must depend, not on me or on the views of those who support the Government, but on the expenditure of time which hon. Members choose to make with regard to those Bills and Resolutions which are absolutely necessary in order to bring our work to a close. How can I forecast the expenditure of time which these measures and Resolutions will require?
  The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that he and his Party would make sacrifices to enable the Unemployed Bill to be passed. I do not know whether he referred to the original or to the amended Bill, and, as the hon. and learned Member proceeded to deliver a violent attack on the Government, I do not know how seriously I am to take him. Then the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil denounced me for not having found time for the Unemployed Bill and for raising expectations which we did not intend to satisfy. But what did he proceed to say? That the Bill as amended by my right hon. friend was not worth the paper on which it was written, because it did not contain the clause enabling labour farms to be paid for out of the rates. I have said that to pass that clause is absolutely impossible, and that it has long been impossible to pass this Bill except as a machinery Bill.
  MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston): Who said that the Bill was not worth the paper it was written on?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was said by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and the hon. Gentleman will not contradict him.
  MR. CREMER: Only on his own authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no means of knowing for how many the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil speaks, and if the hon. Member repudiates him it is a quarrel which must be settled between them, and of which they cannot expect me to be the arbiter.
  MR. CREMER: The hon. Member does not speak for the whole of the Labour Party.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say he did. But the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil is a member of the Labour Party, and though his exact authority I cannot judge, yet he cannot be ignored. As we approach the end of the session the power of individual Members to make their views felt on Bills that they disapprove increases in a rapid and augmenting ratio, so that when so important a Member of the Labour Party declares that the amended Bill is not worth anything it is a statement of great importance from the point of view of those interested in the Bill. The hon. Member for Poplar is extremely anxious that a Bill should be passed, but he thinks that the amended Bill is a very poor Bill. He was almost content, indeed, that any Bill should be parsed provided that it had the title, "A Bill for dealing with the unemployed." In other words, what the hon. Member wants is not so much a practical measure to deal with the immediate necessities as something which will affirm a principle capable of infinitely greater development.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I ventured to give my own opinion why I thought the amended Bill, even in its emasculated form, is one containing valuable provisions which I really believe would be of advantage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. But I am not dealing with that part of his speech with which I agree; I am dealing with that part of his speech with which I disagree. He said that he would be con-
  1008
  tent almost with a Bill without contents, but adorned by a title of which he approved. The hon. Member for Wansbeck was rightly anxious, from his point of view, that no charge should be levelled against him of having made it difficult to pass this Bill. Therefore, I understand, so far as he is concerned, though I am not quite sure, that he would welcome it gladly in its new form.
  MR. FENWICK: I told the House very frankly that I did not like the original Bill, though I supported it an Second Reading. But I like the second Bill less than the original Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is this encouraging? The hon. Member did not like the old Bill, but he likes the new Bill less. On looking at my notes I find that the hon. Member for Poplar minimises the effect of his own speech because he distinctly said that as a measure for dealing with immediate distress the new Bill would be useless. I took down the words at the moment.
  MR. CROOKS (Woolwich): What is your opinion about it? That is what we want to know.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member should not express such open contempt for the opinions of his friends. He will perhaps realise that I am replying on the debate, and that I cannot reply without referring to those who have spoken.
  MR. CROOKS: I shall learn better some day. It is all a puzzle to me.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: My statement was that the only objection to the Bill came from the Government's own supporters, and if the right hon. Gentleman will bring pressure on them to agree to the clause in the old Bill, then the new Bill will go through without opposition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member now asks for the old Bill to be passed, which is clearly impossible in the existing position of public business. [Cries of "Why?"]
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I protest against this closure. [Cries of "Order, order!"] Order yourselves. It is too serious a matter.
  MR. CROOKS: Is it a laughing matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I say that I think the habit of interrupting speakers has become rather excessive? I might be allowed to deal with the subject in my own fashion and my own line of order. Hon. Gentlemen will have their own opportunity of dealing with it. We have had three speakers on the Unemployed Bill—the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydvil, Wansbeck, and Poplar—and all of them are agreed that the Bill is an indifferent or a useless Bill. That is not a very tempting prospect for those who desire to pass it.
  MR. FENWICK: I did not say it was useless.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Nor did I.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, the hon. Member used the very word.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: What I said was that as compared with the old Bill it was an emasculated Bill. I said that it contained useful matter in regard to machinery, and therefore I hoped that the Government would carry the machinery clauses even if they dropped others.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood the hon. Member to say that, as far as dealing with distress in the autumn was concerned, the machinery of the Bill would be useless. Of course, if he contradicts that, I will withdraw the statement. In these circumstances, would it not be folly to say more than that if we can get through necessary business with rapidity, there will be time for other measures to be taken. But, until I know what that time is, it is impossible to say what those measures will be. I have received no encouragement with regard to the Unemployed Bill, but we can leave that over for consideration until we know what time we shall have at our disposal.
  1010
  Now I come to what has been the most serious charge against the Government. At all events, the charge in this particular debase is that we have mismanaged the time of the session and failed to pass any measures of importance. I am not going to discuss the importance of the measures which we have passed, and I am not going to trouble myself to charge the Opposition with obstruction or the reverse. The hon. Member for Oldham gave us a long disquisition on obstruction. He quoted a definition, I think, of Mr. Gladstone. He said that obstruction was the natural weapon of a minority against the tyranny of a majority, and that every new instrument the majority invented brought into play a new obstructive device on the part of their opponents, and, as is the hon Gentleman's opinion there never has been so tyrannical a Government as the present, I suppose he admits that the Opposition have made use of the natural weapon of all Oppositions and have obstructed. But it is ot at all necessary to deal with this question. I never care to accuse an Opposition of obstruction. The hon. Member says that I myself was a great obstructionist. Be it so. I do not quarrel over it. I have no doubt that every Opposition will obstruct whenever they think it suits them to do so.
  But let us consider how the time of the sesson has been spent, whether by obstruction or debate. The Government have in the course of the present session had precedence for their business on ninety days. Twelve were occupied on the Address; thirty- seven were occupied in Supply on allotted and non-allotted days, including the two days spent in the closure of Supply; two were devoted to Motions for the holidays; three to votes of censure, if the transactions of last Monday are to be included in that category; twelve to the Budget and Finance Bill; one to the Indian Budget; one to the election of Mr. Speaker; and we have had exactly twenty days for legislation, and no more—of course, not counting the Budget Bill under the term legislation. I do not believe that in twenty days more legislation could have been dealt with than has been dealt with. Now, who is to blame

  1011
  that only twenty days have been given to it?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): Of course you are, because you met late.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well that, at all events, is a reason the validity of which, so far as it goes, I accept. Of course, if we had met earlier we should have had more time.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If you had met at the usual time there would have been three more weeks.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not agree with the hon Gentleman as to what is the usual time, but that is not the charge that has been made against me all the afternoon; that is a charge thrown at my head in the middle of my speech. The charge that was made in the afternoon is that after we met I, by lack of what I think the right hon. Member for Berwick calls personal magnetism, or some other substitute for the closure, was not able to induce the House to take less time for Supply and give more time to legislation. I have not been able to induce the House to take less than twelve days for a Budget which was perhaps the least controversial Budget ever introduced into this House. Very well, there is the broad fact of the distribution of time, and here I come back to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite a few moments ago. He bitterly complains that only twenty allotted days were given to Supply instead of twenty-three. Well, even with that curtailed amount of time there will have been at the end of session no less than forty days given to the business of Supply, including the two days given to the closure. Now, I do not believe that this House, however it modifies business, will ever be able to give more than that, or ought indeed to give as much as that, to discussions in Supply. It really is running in the face of arithmetic for hon. Gentlemen always to cheer when some one on this side gets up and says, "We have not been able to discuss Supply, or do this or do that." The Member for Waterford and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton to-night
  1012
  complained that we had not given enough time to Supply and enough time to Irish legislation. But you cannot have both. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs thinks everything would have been well if we had met ten days earlier. I suppose that seven of those would have been Parliamentary days. The addition of seven Parliamentary days does not remedy the evils of which we are talking. It is really absolutely impossible for hon. Gentlemen both to have their cake and eat it, both to have unlimited tine in which to abuse the Government for their executive action and unlimited time in which to criticise the legislative proposals which they may bring forward and if they insist on indulging both of these reasonable appetites to the excess in which they have indulged them this session, the amount of time for operative legislation is necessarily curtailed. That is the whole explanation of what has occurred.
  The hon. Member for Oldham—and, I think, other Gentlemen opposite—have said that we have not passed great Bills this session because the shadow of an unsolved controversy is over us. Well, that is a very poetic explanation, but I venture to say that it is a very irrational one. Supposing the controversy had been solved, would that have enabled you to spend forty days in Supply in a reasonable session and yet carry great Bills? Why, of course it would not. The shadow of an unsolved controversy no doubt may have given the Opposition an excuse for asking for two votes of censure but, of course, the Opposition are always finding grounds for votes of censure. You cannot expect any Opposition to be content with much less than two; and that is the only effect which this unsolved controversy has had on the passage of business. Business, after all, passes because you have time to pass it; and if instead of using the time which you might have for passing it you insist on using it in discussing the conduct of the Government on Votes of Supply or on votes of censure, or on the King's Speech, the amount of time given to Bills will necessarily be curtailed. I can assure the hon. Member for Oldham and the right hon. Member for Berwick that,

  1013
  should the time ever occur when they have got to deal with the time of the House, they will find that solving controversies and personal magnetism are very poor expedients for getting controversial legislation through, and they will, in spite of themselves, have to descend to the painful and clumsy method of putting on the closure when the discussion has got beyond a certain point. If they wish to pass a long controversial Bill, I have not the least doubt that they will adopt that elaborate system of gagging in compartments which the right hon. Gentleman opposite wishes to see applied to Supply, which we and our predecessors have applied to great Bills in the past, and which, in what, I trust, will be an improved form, even fervent lovers of Parliamentary liberty like the hon. Member for Oldham will find it necessary to apply in the future.
  MR. CROOKSsaid that the statement which the Prime Minister had just made had left him as much bewildered as he was before. There was, after all, a larger House than this—the country outside, where public opinion was expressed. He would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite how the unemployed working man was going to feed his children during the coming winter? The performance of the right hon. Gentleman was a brilliant one, but that would not satisfy any man out of work. He expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have got up and said that he and his Government had a real living interest in the unemployed, but that they were not particularly concerned with the measures which the Opposition desired to see passed; they wanted to push on their own measures. He could not understand this, because the right hon. Gentleman had a vast majority which had over and over again, with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, been saying that they were the Party which stood for the well-being of the working classes of this country; and they pointed out the marvellous things they had done for the working classes, and that if they had the proper opportunity how much more marvellous things they would do for them.
  1014
  They wanted the Workmen's Compensation Act to protect the widows and children, and the Bill now before the House showed how right the Labour Members in the House were, when the Act was pushed through Parliament, in their criticisms. Here they were all agreed and they wanted to do something, but they had not got any time. Dead birds were of no importance to them; they were dealing with living men. As they posed as business men, conducting the business of the nation on business principles, it did seem strange that they offered excuses for not continuing the permanent job they had got. They had said very pointedly and very plainly to the British public, who had told them they did not want them, "If you do not know when you have got a good servant we know when we have got a good master, and we are going to stick. We are not going to be frightened out of a good job like this. You may win by-elections; what do we care? We are not going to leave it." Well, well, all he said to them was, ''Keep on with the job." He was not asking them to leave it; he was asking them to stop and work.
  They had made a first-class measure of the Unemployed Bill, and it had formed the subject of many sympathetic speeches. The Member for West Birmingham had made speeches upon it. He had said that if they made a fiscal change there would be no men out of work, and it to aid settle the unemployed question. If they allowed him to have his way, there would be two jobs for every man. That was 200 years old. When it was found out that there were more men in the village than work, they put the hay in the loft over the stable, and instead of bringing the hay down to the horse, they heaved the horse up to the hay. That made plenty of work, but it did not mean food for the people. That sort of thing was merely an idle excuse. It was a Bill the creation of the Government and Tabled in all good faith. Surely it WHS a libel to say that they introduced it, put it on the Table, had a first-class debate on it, and got a majority of 217 for it, merely in order to kill time till the birds were big enough to shoot? That would positively be a

  1015
  libel on the Government; it would not do anything like that. It was a serious thing, and it had been pointed out what it meant to the poor people outside. From the bottom of his soul he wished any hon. Member would go and stay with him for a fortnight quietly and unknown he would willingly give up his bed and sleep on the floor if he could only convey to the minds of the Members how important the subject was. Some of them had given up their heal hand strength; they had no leisure for shooting; they bad had to do their best year after year to deal with the poor, and their hopes had been raised that the Government were really in earnest. He did not suppose there ever was a Bill which satisfied everybody, but the Government had led them to believe that they desired to deal with the poor people who had nothing to sell but their labour and who were claiming an opportunity to fulfil the curse inflicted upon them "Henceforth thou shalt live by the sweat of thy brow."
  Was no effort going to be made to alter the present condition of affairs? Parliament was said to have no time to deal with it; but he had sat night after night between the hours of nine and eleven when hon. Members had got up and "stone-walled," keeping their ends up, as it was called, until someone had finished a social function in which there were about fifteen courses to be got through and taking about two hours. The hungry might go hungry until they got a majority. Then they talked about wasting time. It was positively wicked to make such an assertion. He asked them in all honesty whether since he had been a Member of the House they had done a single thing the working classes were the better for. If not, then so far as the majority of the community were concerned they might as well be without the House of Commons. The House of Commons was created so that the rights of the people who were unable to protect themselves should be protected by Parliament; it existed to see that no injury was done to an honest man, and as a terror to the evil-doer. It seemed to him that the evil-doers had bad an innings, and that they had had all the
  1016
  best of it. He only asked the Government to keep in a little longer, and having pushed through Bills for those, the brewers, the clergy, and the rest of them, who could help themselves, he asked them to stop and use the same means to push through Bills for those who could not help themselves.
  They were told that if they behaved themselves and were very good lads and helped the Government to push through their other measures the Government would think whether it was possible to find the two or three hours necessary to push through the Unemployed Bill. Was that fair? For the next nine days they were supposed to work night and day, and then they were expected to give proper attention to all the questions which were considered. There were no men so silly as tired men, and they saw the House absolutely out of order when all the Members were tired. If they wanted to use the time for the best, it seemed to him it was quite a mistake to run into the early hours of the morning. It would be far better to suspend the Standing Orders and sit from ten till eight. Then they would get something useful done. If they were all tired out and wanted a holiday, let the Prime Minister get up and say they would go and kill the grouse and pheasants, and that, when they had got them strung up in Leadenhall Market or somewhere else, they would come back and finish the business off. He had no objection to their taking a holiday. He would like to have a holiday every Sunday if he could get it, but he could not, though he was sometimes able to have a nod and a rest in the House when some Members were talking. The work of the nation ought to be done when Members were fresh and not when they were tired. He objected to social functions over-riding the nation's business.
  What they wanted was that some proper attempt should be made to deal with the unemployed problem. When they were told that a crisis would arise they must not misinterpret the term crisis. It was a very different thing to the crisis that had arisen in Scotland over the Church question. The people there would have been no worse off, and they would not have gone hungry, if the Church Bill had

  1017
  not passed. A crisis with regard to the unemployed did arise some years ago when fearful and terrible things took place; when after a meeting in Trafalgar Square the men ran amuck in the West End, in which all the thieves, pickpockets, and blackguards used the unemployed agitation for doing the wickedest and cruellest things ever known. Did the Government want that to occur again. He asked the Government to come to the help of the unemployed. Here were these poor men, as the hon. Member for Poplar said, in midsummer, 120 of them, able-bodied men, applying for parochial relief; taking two loaves home to feed their starving wives and children. Only that morning three men came to his door and said, "For God's sake give us something to take home, we cannot go over the way," meaning to the workhouse.
  The great evil was that when they went for relief men lost their manhood. We were wealthy as a nation because of our hardworking industrial classes, but after they had sold, as he had known them do, all their little household gods until they had nothing left but the bare boards, then they sank so low that they said, "What does it matter? There is only 6d. between the man who wants work and the man who does not, and the man who does not generally gets it," and they lost their manhood. The nation wanted good, sound, hardworking men in time of peace as well as men to shoulder a musket in time of war, and he applied to the House to help them now. Suppose it did cost a little to start a farm colony, what did they not get for it? Was it not worth while on the part of this House to make an effort so that it might be possible for a man to get his daily bread and to enable him to retain his self-respect. Let it not be said that this House had no feeling for the unemployed until there was three feet of snow upon the ground. Let not these poor people say, "We are not to have any relief until we are up to our knees in snow and slush, but the nation can have any money it wants for any expedition anywhere it likes." It had truly been said, "You may fool some people all the time, and you may
  1018
  fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Forty years of popular education had given the people knowledge and they would use it.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.
  BANGOR (COUNTY DOWN) WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  CLASS VII.

    £20,000, Relief of (Distress in Ireland:)
    MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)understood that this money had already been expended by the guardians in the relief of distress last winter. While it was not for him or his colleagues to oppose the granting of the money, there were certain matters connected with the question that they desired to discuss. As he had already stated, he did not think the Relief of Distress Bill, which had been introduced for the purpose of regularising the relief of distress last winter and of indemnifying persons for their action in connection with it, ought to be proceeded with now, and if the Chief Secretary would give an assurance that that Bill would not be pressed at a time when it could not
    1032
    be discussed it would be unnecessary to debate this Vote at length. He noticed that of the sum asked for 30 per cent, was required for salaries, a fact which seemed to show that there was something wrong in the system under which this work had been carried out. He really thought that they ought to have some explanation upon this point, and in view of the recurring distress year after year in Ireland, the wasteful expenditure of the past, and their desire to discuss this matter and find out how the waste occurred, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to give them an opportunity of discussing the Bill by postponing it until next session.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)asked the meaning or a foot-note to the Vote, which state that the expenditure out of these grants-in-aid would not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This was a most extraordinary thing. Why was this money not to be accounted for in the usual way? He wished to emphasise the protest which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in regard to £6,000 being paid to officials for the administration of £20,000.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Walter LONG, Bristol, S.)said he had listened with amazement to the statement made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone in reference to this footnote, because not only did the hon. Member claim to know something of what took place in Ireland, but he had been for a time associated with

    1033
    the administration of the Local Government Board, and surely he was aware that this remarkable foot-note followed the precedent of 1898 when similar work was done. This money went in a multitude of small payments, many of them weekly, and if detailed statements of all these payments were required it would so greatly increase the cost of administration that there would be an end of relief works.
    He agreed with the hon, and learned Member for Waterford that it was not absolutely necessary that the Bill should be passed this session in order to give the necessary indemnity to the Treasury on the one hand and to the guardians on the other. The works had to be undertaken unexpectedly in November, 1904. The harvest of that year had been on the whole a good one, and it was not till towards the end of the year that there was any failure in the potato crop, which brought in its train financial difficulty in, he was happy to say, a smaller number of unions than had been the case in previous years. In order to deal with that difficulty it was necessary to enable the guardians to act under Section 13 of the Local Government Act, and for the Irish Government to go to the relief of those specially distressed unions in the congested districts where the low rateable value and the pressure of distress made it impossible for them to deal with the difficulty under the powers conferred under that Act. His predecessor, therefore, determined to take action and to rely upon the indemnity of the House for the advances made by the guardians on the one hand and by the Treasury on the other. It was true that that indemnity did not absolutely press for the moment, but it was also true that unless the indemnity were passed before March 31st next year the proceedings would not be legalised. It was also necessary to legislate then in order to prevent the recipients of relief from being disfranchised.
    He did not wonder that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had called attention to the large proportion of money spent on salaries. He had looked very carefully into the work, in which, having had previous experience of it, he took special interest, and was able, he hoped,
    1034
    to bring to it some useful experience, and he thought it would be seen that the expenditure was necessary if they were to avoid those difficulties into which they had fallen before and into which they would no doubt fall again unless hey could find some solution of the enormously difficult question of the relief of special districts.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Why not make the LandAct work in the West of Ireland?
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid his was an extremely difficult problem, as everybody knew who had looked into it even in the most perfunctory manner, and previously there had been a great deal of waste owing to the work, however well done, not being of a permanently beneficial character, and the object of the Government in spending, as it would seem, large sums in salaries was to enlist the active co-operation of the various local officials. The relief works were only carried out in seven unions as compared with eleven and thirteen in 1895 and 1898; and seed loans were applied forty fifty-eight unions and were actually granted in fifty-one unions. The seed question, of course, meant a very considerable addition to the engineering, supervision, and other expenses. Although he admitted that t ere was still room for improvement, he believed it would be found that the work had been more satisfactory in its character than in previous years, and he hoped in the special circumstances the Committee would sanction the Vote and that they would get the indemnity they ought to have.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman had said he was satisfied that so long as they went on giving relief and not subjecting the expenditure to the public audit in the ordinary way they would have bad work. He always distrusted the right hon Gentleman when he assumed that high and mighty tone which he had no right to assume in Irish affairs.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that at the commencement of the session they were promised that the Bill would be introduced early and that they would have an opportunity of dealing with the very difficulties to which the Chief Secretary had alluded, and it was because, if they passed it now they

    1035
    would have no such opportunity, and because when there was another period of distress they would go back to the old rotten expensive system that he objected. He would not oppose the Vote, however, so long as they understood that the Bill would be left till next session, and they would have an opportunity of discussing the extravagance and the bad principle upon which the whole proceeding was based. If that was understood he should not oppose this proposal.
    MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)asked the indulgence of the House to say a few words upon this subject. He wished to speak from the point of view of a taxpayer. Under this Vote they were finding £20,000 for the relief of distress in Ireland, and it was highly probable that similar expenses would be incurred in the future. They were all aware that these eleemosynary payments were most unsatisfactory. Supposing this money had been paid in interest on capital under the Land Purchase Act, how much would it have represented? It would have paid the interest upon £500,000. He understood that the whole system of land purchase in Ireland was hung up for want o capital, and here they were voting £20,000 for the relief of distress. He thought that showed that money could be got in Ireland when it was required. The first satisfactory settlement of the Irish land question was based upon recommendations made by a body of Irishmen.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That question will not be in order upon this Vote.
    MR. AINSWORTHsaid that all he wished to point out was that the only way out of the difficulty was to pay more in interest on capital for land purchase instead of wasting £20,000 upon purely eleemosynary purposes.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lchfield)said he did not quite understand why there were no accounts kept of this expenditure. It was very strange that £20,000 should be spent without any account being kept. To say that this money was paid out in very small sums was no reason why some sort of an account should not be kept and placed
    1036
    before the Auditor-General. It was gross mismanagement of public affairs if £20,000 was spent without any sort of account being kept. They ought to be given some further explanation as to why these accounts could not be audited in the ordinary way.
    Vote agreed to.

    CIVIL SERVICE (EXCESS), 1903–4.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That a sum, not exceeding £1,345 17s. 4d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good, in Excess on the Grant for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1904."
    MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said he observed that the Vote was for he purchase of a site for a Consulate at Cairo, and that the transaction took place in 1903. Why, then, was it placed in the Estimates for 1905?
    MR. WEIR (ROSS and Cromarty), as protest against extravagant expenditure in providing palatial Consulates, moved the reduction of the Vote by £50. He happened to know the Cellulate at Cairo, and he could not understand why they wanted a new site here. He thought the present Consular buildings were quite sufficient or the purpose. They had no right o spend so much money in erecting these grand buildings. The hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote gave them lo information and remained dumb, and le protested against that sort of thing.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That a sum not exceeding £1,295 17s. 4d. be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Weir.)
    LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)said the hon. Member appeared have misapprehended the object of he buildings in question, which were surely Consular buildings. The growing interests of this country in Egypt, which lad been largely increased since the acquisition of the Sudan, made imperative an increase in its Consular offices. The site was in a quarter of Cairo where sites were difficult to obtain, and the excess Vote was rendered necessary because our agent, in he interest of the public service,

    1037
    completed the transaction before Parliamentary sanction was obtained. The Secretary to the Treasury gave his sanction to the site, and the sum necessary was placed on the Estimates for 1904–5, but owing to a purely local misunderstanding the transfer of the title deeds took place earlier than was expected. He expressed regret that this oversight had occurred, but he assured the Committee that the public service had not suffered in consequence.
    MR. WEIRsaid that while the noble Lord had stated that the site would cost £3,414, he had said nothing as to the cost of the building. That, he presumed, would probably be £30,000 or £40,000, and as a taxpayer and a Highland Member, who was unable to get the Government to spend even a sixpence for the benefit of the poor people in his part of the country, he strongly protested against such excessive expenditure. He agreed that suitable buildings for our Consuls were necessary, but far too much money was being spent on them at present.
    MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)asked what the total cost of the site was to be; he understand the amount which had been mentioned was in addition to the money the Committee were now asked to vote.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid that what the Committee were now asked to sanction was an excess Vote on the whole of Vote 7, Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, Class 1. The total cost of the site was £3,414, and the estimated cost of the buildings £6,000.
    MR. WEIRsaid anything more absurd than that £3,000 should be spent on a site to accommodate buildings costing £6,000 could not be conceived.
    MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)asked whether it was usual for officials to carry out such works on their own responsibility.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid it was quite exceptional, but, as he had already explained, there were local difficulties in this case.
    MR. SOARES: Where did they get; the money from?
    LORD BALCARRES: They borrowed it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)asked whether it would be possible to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a riot that had taken place in Manchester in connection with a procession of the unemployed which had been attacked by the police.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid the only Motion the hon. Member could make while he was in the Chair was to report Progress, but such a Motion for the purpose of calling attention to the matter mentioned by the. hon. Member could not be accepted, as it was not germane to the Vote under discussion.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsail he would call attention to the matter after Questions to-morrow, and ask leave to move the adjournment of the House.

  NAVY (EXCESSES) 1903–4.

    £100, Navy (Excesses), 1903–4.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Arthur LEE, Hampshire, Fareham)explained that this Vote was a purely technical matter, affecting the Estimates of the year 1903–4. The matter had had to go before the Public Accounts Committee and be passed by them before it could be submitted to the House, and, as that body had only just reported upon the Estimates of 1903–4, this was the earliest opportunity there had been for bringing up this excess Vote. In the year 1903–4 there was an excess expenditure over the total of the Navy Estimates of £97,900, and an excess receipt of appropriations-in-aid over the Estimates of £115,974. Thus the Admiralty had more than sufficient funds in hand to pay for the excess expenditure, but they were not permitted to transfer surplus receipts to surplus expenditure without the sanction of the House, and consequently a token sum of £100 had been put down for the purpose of obtaining sanction to the transfer.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERStaffordshire, Lichfield): The matter has been before the Public Accounts Committee and received their sanction?
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Yes.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA LOANS (RAILWAYS) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)said that when the Bill was before the House in its earlier stages the Secretary of State for India promised to make a statement in regard to on the Second Reading, but now when they got to the Second Reading no statement was made. That was exactly the way the House was always treated when a Bill was introduced in Committee. It passed from one stage to another, but there never seemed to be a time when it could be discussed at all. He did not think it was fair to treat the House in that way. He had always said that they should ever allow a Bill to pass its first stage without discussion, because they did not know that there would Le an opportunity for discussion on another stage. In this case the Secretary of State proposed to raise by loan a sum not exceeding £20,000,000. The House certainly expected that some explanation would be afforded why this large amount was to be raised. It was a very much larger loan than had been granted on former occasions. The Secretary of State had informed the House that one or two millions of the 1901 loan was still unexpended.
    The Bill proposed to raise the money for the construction, extension, and equipment of railways in India. Four-fifths of the railways there were under the direct financial responsibility of the Government, and they also exercised a considerable amount of control in the remainder. There was no indication, for example, given in the Bill as to the nature of the transactions in the Bombay-Baroda line, nor as to the terms and conditions under which the purchase was to be made. He did not understand how it was that the Secretary of State was not able to give them the terms and conditions on which
    1040
    the purchase was to be made. The amount at which it would work out might be a different question, but the-principle on which the transaction was to be carried out was a matter on which there could be no possible doubt. At the termination of the Bombay-Baroda line there was the narrow-gauge railway to the North-West of India. That narrow-gauge railway originally belonged to the State, and it was worked under agreement with the Bombay-Baroda Company, How was it to be worked in future? Was the lease to be renounced in consequence of the purchase of the Baroda line? They had no information about these matters. The Government wanted to borrow £20,000,000, and the House with, practically no information on the subject was expected to pass this Bill without a word being said in explanation.
    It had been brought to his notice that there was a ruinous competition going on between the railways and the steamboat services in India. That had been frequently brought before the India Office, and probably the Secretary of State knew all about it. Steamboats were necessary on the Ganges and other rivers, and the complaint was that they were being unfairly competed against by the Government railways. It had been pointed out that while this competition might be very effective in putting down the steamboat traffic, the result in the long run would be that the districts served by the steamboats would suffer.
    Perhaps the Secretary of State would tell the House what was the total amount of debt in respect of Indian railways. He himself would say that roughly it amounted to about £250,000,000. The return for Indian railways was nearly 5 per cent., and if the £250,000,000 spent on the South African War, which was money thrown away, had been spent in India what an enormous development there would have been to the trade of that country. That was the only way in which the country could realise the extent to which £250,000,000 could go in reproductive expenditure. He could wish some information as to-the extensions of railways on which these £20,000,000 were to be spent.
    This was also the time to know how the new Railway Board in India was working. Formerly the railways were managed by one of the Public Works Commissioners,

    1041
    bat last year a special and separate Railway Board for India was appointed. There could be no doubt that such a board would be of considerable advantage. It consisted of three practical men, and, whilst the financial arrangements were still to remain under the control of the Secretary of State for India, all other management was to be decentralised, and the Railway Commissioners were to have the practical working of the railways and the arrangement of all questions of freight and the localities to be benefited. The board was not located at Calcutta or Simla, but travelled over the whole system with a view to superintend its development. When the Railway Bill was before the House he had taken a strong objection to having new Commissioners; but owing to outside pressure and the statement by Lord Curzon that it would be of great advantage to India the Bill was allowed to pass as an unopposed measure. Unquestionably it would be a benefit to the Board to have the whole control of the railways and to work them as a unit, so that the system might be developed all round. That was a point on which he would like a little information from the Secretary of State for India. He might say he threw out these hints to give the right hon. Gentleman some information on which to base his Second Reading speech.
    He noticed that this Bill was one with references, and that it brought in a great many sections of the Act of 1893. He did not know whether the Secretary of State knew what these sections were, but he thought it was necessary that the House should have some knowledge of them before the Bill passed. If the right hon. Gentleman was not going to explain what these clauses were it would be necessary for him to do it. There was a clause dealing with the method of raising money, which was practically vested in the Secretary of State for India. That high official might raise the money by any method, at any times, and at any rate of interest he thought fit. He might raise the money issued by bonds under the hand of a member of the Council, countersigned by the Secretary of State; by debentures, by
    1042
    bills, or by the issue of capital stock. As a rule, one half of the money was raised in this country and the other half in India, but for the money raised in India the Indian Exchequer paid 3½ per cent., while the money raised in this country was paid only 3 per cent. That difference of ½ per cent, was paid, so it was said, to give the people of India an interest in the debt of India. He thought that was not a satisfactory explanation. It did not at all follow that the part of the loan issued in India was taken up by the people of India. Moreover, the Indian stock bearing 3½ per cent, might be transferred to persons in this country; there was no restriction that the stock should be held by the natives of India. The result was that, after all, there was no security that the money was being invested by the people of India. It seemed to him, therefore, that the Indian Government should simply borrow the money required wherever it could be got at the cheapest price, and he did not see why the Indian revenue should be saddled with that additional ½ per cent. There was a clause which stated that the Commission which dealt with the payment to the East India Company of the composition in lieu of stamp duties should pay composition in respect of the bonds to be raised under this Act. The Secretary of State, he hoped, would be able to tell the House what was the amount for which the East India Company compounded for the stamp duties. As the loans increased obviously the composition would increase also, and what he wanted to know was what was the amount originally fixed, and what it would reach now. These were only a few of the questions which occurred to him on which information should be given by the Secretary of State. There could be no doubt whatever that the railway system was of the utmost importance to India, not only for strategic purposes, but for fighting famines, and for the purposes of trade and locomotion generally. He would like to know whether it was the intention of the Railway Board to utilise the Indian railways in developing the steamboat and other traffic on the great rivers of India. These waterways should be developed in every possible way, because carriage by them was cheaper and more profitable to the people.
    MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire)said there was a very general impression among hon. Members, derived principally from speeches by different Secretaries of State, that the railways of India had been very well managed. On the contrary, the working and administration of railways in India could not be considered at all satisfactory. The Indian Government in 1902, quite conscious of this fact themselves, appointed a Commissioner of great experience and ability, Mr. Thomas Robertson, to make inquiry, and that gentleman reported very fully on the subject. Mr. Robertson stated that the conclusion forced upon him was that root and branch reforms in the railway system of India were necessary and would be productive of lasting good; that the development of railways in India should not be hampered in the way it had been, and that they must be wrought more on the lines of commercial enterprise than in the past. The present Secretary of State had, he believed, displayed great administrative ability in initiating many important reforms, and a Railway Board had been appointed composed of a chairman and two members, which would have the very best result in perfecting the railway System of the country. It was in the financial management of railways in India, he thought, that the greatest mistakes had been made, and private enterprise had been almost entirely crushed out. Mr. Robertson remarked in his Report that the only lines which the Government were prepared to allow private companies to take up were those which were not expected to be profitable to the State.
    The new departure taken for the raising of the £20,000,000 would, he thought, give the Government a solid basis on which to work. With the large sum of £20,000,000 at their disposal, they would be able to proceed with their works upon a thorough and systematic basis with great advantage the country. On the whole it was with great pleasure that he heard the proposal, which, ha believed, would leave a greater surplus of Government Funds to be devoted to the important work of irrigation. He quite agreed with what the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark had said with regard to the higher rate of interest to be paid for that part of the loan to be raised in India. When the Indian Currency of
    1044
    1897 was passed, one of the principal objects which was brought before the House by the then Secretary of State for India was that the financial liability of India should be raised to the same level as that of this country. On the contrary, they found that it was going to be handicapped to the extent of ½ per cent. He did not see the necessity for that at all. If British money was ready to be applied to India at 3 per cent., why should they not raise the whole £20,000,030 from the capitalists of this country? But the raising of a loan of £20,000,000, whether at 3 or 3½ per cent, would be of the greatest advantage to India, and he hoped that in consequence a much larger percentage would be voted to irrigation works than previously. Far to little British money had been spent on railway extension, but ever so much less had been used in connection with irrigation works. He would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the great necessity that existed for extending the irrigation works. Those schemes had been thrown into the background by the railway schemes; but now that the railways were being properly provided for he hoped that the Secretary of State for India would see that the much more necessary irrigation schemes got the required amount of capital devoted to them, which would be even more beneficial to the population of India than the money spent on railways.
    SIR SAMUEL HOARE (Norwich)expressed his approval of the Bill. It had, he said, been his privilege to be associated with one of the largest railways in India. He had been chairman of it from the very commencement, and he was perfectly astonished at the work which the railways did in India. He re-echoed the words of his right hon. friend when, speaking the other evening, he said how much India owed to the railway system, and how important it was for this country to do all it could to further that system. He remembered going out to the opening of the railway with which he was connected, and meeting the Viceroy in the middle of what was then the jungle, and it was astonishing now to see what the railway had done for that district, and the immense amount of traffic which it carried. He felt that not merely the

    1045
    present Government, but past Governments also, had done a very great work for India in furthering the development of the railways. He was glad the Bill had been introduced, and he should be glad to see the floating debt on the Indian railways made more of a funded debt, because those associated with the railways knew how, from time to time, they had large amounts of debentures falling due which sometimes they could renew favourably and which sometimes they could not. It would be better if the floating debt were made a regular funding stock for the Indian railways. He considered it would be an advantage to India if the natives had an opportunity of investing their savings in their railways. He thought it would be a grand thing if they had that opportunity of taking a deep interest in a matter which had done so much for them; and he did not think there would be any great loss if they did encourage them to put their savings in the railways.
    He expressed his appreciation of the great advantage of the formation of the new Railway Board. The railway system in India had got beyond that organisation which was satisfactory and which answered in its earlier days; something larger and more comprehensive was required, and he was glad indeed that there was now a Railway Board in India. In Mr. Upton, the chairman, they had an authority on Indian railways to whom all would listen with satisfaction. He could speak very highly of Mr. Wynne, who was agent and chief engineer of the line with which he was connected, and with the gentleman from England they would have the advantage of experience gained not necessarily on the Indian lines. He therefore looked for the greatest advantage from the formation of the board. All who had listened to the statement of the Secretary of State for India must have felt much satisfaction that he had taken the view that the capital was safely invested, and that it was producing so much income that there was no cost whatever. That was a satisfactory state of things of which they ought to be proud, and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on being able to make such a statement. He hoped that in future
    1046
    they would hear that the railways were earning sufficient to pay all the interest for which the State was liable and to bring in a large amount for the country.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford)said that the hon. Member who had introduced the debate had shown considerable knowledge of the subject, and while he had asked a good many Questions, he had supplied most of the Answers. It had been forced upon him that there really was no man so competent to speak on the Indian railway system, and he would, no doubt, when the proper time came take up a position on that bench and be able to speak with authority. He endeavoured on the previous occasion to give the House the figures which the hon. Member desired, and he went as fully into the question of the purchase of the Baroda line as the hon. Member himself would have done had he been in his place, and he had no more to say upon the terms. They might know, but they were bound not to say. They might buy the railway perhaps by the allocation of stock, or perhaps by the payment of annuities; but until the method of purchase was settled the whole question must remain a secret. The House had with a unanimous voice on the Indian Budget declared its strong conviction that the time had come to pursue a more generous and not necessarily quite so cautious a policy in developing Indian railways; and, having used up the money previously voted by way of loan, they now required a large margin of £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 with which to carry out those great operations, the benefits of which, in safeguarding the country against famine and in creating prosperity, were recognised on both sides of the House. They were not asking for anything extravagant.
    His hon. friend had stated that irrigation had fallen into the background. He could assure him that that was not the case. Two very large projects had been started during the past year, and, although irrigation was necessarily bounded by certain limitations he could promise the hon. Member that those schemes would not be put in the background in

    1047
    consequence of any money spent upon the railways.
    He would like to deal with two points to which the hon. Member had drawn his attention. In the first place, he had asked him how the new Railway Board was getting on. The speech of the hon. Member behind him had given the general view. The railway system had grown beyond the mere departmental control previously exercised over it, and the new Board had already taken up some of the most urgent questions as to the provision for third-class traffic, the equalisation of railway rates, the general co-ordination of the railway system, and the effect of Government competition upon private enterprise. The Board had sat now for several months, and he could vouch that it was doing good, sound, and effective work. The hon. Member had also asked him with regard to the rupee loans at 3½ per cent. as compared with the sterling loans at 3 per cent. That might appear to be an anomalous state of things, but the first thing they had to consider in India, as in every other country, was the care of the people, to give them to the largest extent possible opportunities of investing their money in the securities of the country. He wanted, and it was necessary, to interest the people of India in their own securities. They had had under consideration the question of rupee loans, and they were not otherwise than alive to the distinction between 3 and 3½ per cent., but whatever might be the ultimate result of their deliberations, the state of the money market for some years past had not been such as to justify any very large transactions or any large methods of conversion, but, if they would give them a little time, he thought they would be able to show a good return and that they were doing heir best for the community. The Bill was neither novel nor extensive in its scope, and he was sure it would be gratifying to the people of India and encouraging to those who were pressing forward a policy accepted by all parties, if they were allowed to make progress with it.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)expressed ndebtedness to the
    1048
    hon. Members who had elicited the right hon. Gentleman's interesting statement, which he believed would enable them to render the support for which he asked. He himself took particular interest in this question, because it was eleven years since he had the pleasure as well as the duty of advocating a similar policy to the present in the India Council. He did not then anticipate that in so short a time so much progress would have been made, but he was bound to say that the India Council in London and the Indian Government had during the last ten years proceeded, if slowly, very surely, and the Indian railways had now reached a point at which they not only paid something over 5 per cent, on the capital invested, but were giving a large contribution, increasing at a great rate year by year, towards the general revenue of the country. There ought not to be any question of competition between irrigation and railways. The Government of India had never neglected irrigation, and he was satisfied that they were doing all that they could in the matter. After hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and after reading the very clear exposition of the irrigation history which Lord Curzon gave at the meeting of the Legislative Council some two or three months ago, he had formed the opinion that the Government of India were doing their best to carry out this work. He thought the appointment of a Railway Board would prove an economical and at the same time a very judicious administration of the railway system, and he hoped the House would put out of sight all Party considerations and support what he believed would prove a bold, progressive, and successful policy.
    MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)said the system of co-ordination and nationalisation of railways might be adopted in Ireland with great advantage. The railways in India were a national asset and formed a kind of security into which money could be put by the natives, and they developed the trade and commerce of the country. He thought an application of the same system would be very useful in Ireland. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on approaching the matter in a broad national spirit; and

    1049
    he trusted that the administration of the Railway Board would help India to emerge from poverty. He did not rise to oppose the Bill; on the contrary, he welcomed it; though he thought it should have been introduced earlier to have enabled them to discuss the details. He rose only in order to drive home to the House that what could be done ought to be done much nearer home.
    MR. BRIGHT (Shropshire, Oswestry)said it did not seem to him advisable that in the present state of the money market the Government should have the opportunity of putting out further loans than their immediate needs. He therefore regarded the large margin of £9,000,000 as somewhat dangerous. He agreed, however, with the idea of raising some of the money in India. Although they might have to pay something more for it, it was exceedingly desirable that as much money should be raised in India as possible, quite apart from the advantage it would have of interesting the people themselves in the railways. He toped that the money market would be relieved by some statement that it was not likely that the full amount would be raised at the present moment.
    MR. WEIR (ROSS and Cromarty)said he thought the right hon. Gentleman would have saved a great deal of time if he had in the first instance explained the Bill. The Government had been complimented on the way they managed affairs in India. The railways, however, were not well managed. He had not travelled on the Bengal and Nagpur Railway, but he had travelled on the other great railways, and he had never witnessed more disgraceful treatment of third-class passengers. They were shamefully bundled about by the police, and packed in carriages like herrings in a barrel. He knew that Lord Curzon had noticed this state of affairs, and it was one of the things which caused him to instruct Mr. Robertson to go to India and make a Report. The railways, no doubt, were splendidly managed from the shareholders' point of view, but they were very badly managed indeed in the interests of the natives. He hoped things would be changed and
    1050
    that third-class passengers would be very differently treated in the future. Ha agreed with his hon. friend that it was a bad time to go to the money market for additional money, and however much they desired to see railway extension in India, they might pay too dearly for it. The right hon. Gentleman had given no indication whatever as to what the "other purposes" were, and some explanation on that point was certainly required. The high rate of interest at which this borrowing was being carried out was absurd. It would be much better for the sake of India that the right hon. Gentleman should raise his money in the money market here and so reduce the tax on the people of India for interest. He was deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State had not referred to the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, who had devoted considerable time to his researches, and was entitled to some reply.
    MR. BRODRICKmade a brief statement, which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

  ISLE OF MAM CUSTOMS BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)explained that the Bill simply imposed on the Isle of Man the extra duties imposed upon this country by the Budget Bill. The Isle of Man Government, instead of paying the extra duties, put the money into their own pockets for their own administrative purposes. He thought it

    1051
    was necessary that he should explain the object of this Bill
    MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said he should like a little explanation of this Bill. The Bill proposed additional duties on tobacco, tea, and spirits imported into the Isle of Man, and said that they should continue to be charged, levied, and paid as from August 1st, 1905, until August 1st, 1906. It was clear that this Bill could not be passed through all its stages before August 1st. In case tea, tobacco, and spirits were imported into the Isle of Man before this Bill was passed, could the duties under this Bill be imposed?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY(Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbshire, W. said the duties were imposed by the Isle of Man Legislative Assembly, but it was necessary that they should be confirmed by the passing of this Act.
    MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)asked if it was a fact that the differentiation between stripped and unstripped tobacco in this country was not applied to the Isle of Man If that were so he thought it demanded some attention. If this differentiation was a good thing for this country why should it not also apply to the Isle of Man? He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have some explanation to offer.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)said they did not impose all their duties upon the Isle of Man. The Legislative Assembly proposed the duties, but the Government here had to either confirm or disallow them. They were not in the habit of taking the initiative of imposing new duties unless the Legislative Assembly of the Isle of Man had previously passed them, and had asked them to con-
    1052
    firm those duties. The reason why the differentiation in regard to stripped and unstripped tobacco had not been applied to the Isle of Man was probably because they would not be affected by it.

    ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    SERVICE OF MILITIAMEN BILL [LORDS].
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL [LORDS].
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

    POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 31st day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
    Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—London Building Acts (Amendment).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
London Government Scheme (London and Middlesex) Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions) Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
North-East London Railway Bill; Wigan Corporation Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord de Saumarez be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Colville of Culross; read, and agreed to.
Malvern Water Bill; Rathmines and Rathgar Extension and Improvement Bill; Ealing Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Wemyss Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5)Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Fraserburgh Harbour. Was presented by the Marquess of Linlithgow; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 158.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Forty-ninth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs, for the year ended 31st March, 1905.
  Tenth Report of the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Annual Report of Proceedings under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, etc., for the year 1904.
  INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Administration Report on the Railways in India, for the calendar year 1904, by the Railway Board.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Report of the Commissioners, for the period from 1st April, 1904, to 31st March, 1905.
  First Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, for the year 1904.

  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Sixtieth Report of the Commissioners.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Order made by the Corporation of the borough of Newport, Monmouthshire, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the

  839
  hours of closing for barbers'and hairdressers'shops within the borough.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHIPOWNERS' NEGLIGENCE (REMEDIES) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF HOUSE
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will not consider that the Motion which I have put on the Paper is an invasion of the privileges of the House. The proposal that Bills should have priority of other business towards the end of the session is not a new one. I admit that of recent years the proposal has more usually been made with reference to a particular Bill on a particular evening; but, as we now stand, we have to look in the face the fact that there are probably not more than eight working days left of the session, during four of which, under the Standing Orders, Bills already have priority. My Motion really, therefore, only amounts to this, that during the other four days Bills should be given a similar priority. As there are several important Bills awaiting the consideration of your Lord hips, it does seem, I think, desirable that they should be dealt with at the commencement of each sitting, and that time should not be taken up, as it sometimes is, in the discussion of Motions and Questions, with the effect of giving the really important business of the evening a subordinate and secondary position. I, therefore, ave to ask your Lordships to agree to the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being suspended, and that for the r m under of the session the Bills which are entered for consideration on the Minutes of the day shall have the same precedence which Bills have on Tuesdays and Thursdays.—
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I said something the other day rather pointing in this direction, arising out of the action of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who took my noble friend Lord Wemyss somewhat to task with regard to the discursive nature of his speech. I, therefore, have no serious objection to the Motion now moved by the noble Marquess. It has been the practice elsewhere for Government measures to have precedence, but that has not applied to private Bills. Therefore I would suggest that the noble Marquess should amend his Motion so that Government Bills only should take precedence.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We shall certainly raise no objection to that proposal as the noble Earl has made it, and I gladly amend my Motion accordingly.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess OF LINLITHGOW): My Lords, l am well aware that those of your Lordships who come from Scotland have a full knowledge of the reasons which have made it necessary, and a matter of urgent necessity, for the Government to introduce a Bill of this kind without delay; and were I addressing them alone I should feel that I was guilty of an impertinence were I to attempt, to explain the situation to them. But some of your Lordships who come from this side of the Tweed may not have had the same opportunities forced upon them of studying this question as we have. In their interests I ask the permission of the House to describe as briefly as possible the circumstances which have led up to events which have stirred the religious life of Scotland to its very foundations, and which have brought about a state of things there the like of

  841
  which, has not been known for over sixty years.
  I may remind the House, in the first place, that the great majority of my fellow-countrymen have for 300 years adhered, and do still adhere, to the Presbyterian form of religion. During the last fifty years of the past century this great body of Presbyterians have been divided into three parts—firstly, the Church of Scotland, established in the land; secondly, the United Presbyterians, composed of various bodies who had seceded from the Church of Scotland during the eighteenth century and who were united in one body in the year 1817; and thirdly, the Free Church of Scotland, which had its origin in the great Disruption of 1843, when a large proportion of ministers and congregations left the parent church—the Church of Scotland—and seceded from it upon the vexed question of the patronage of the livings. May I be allowed to remark, in passing, that between these various Churches little or no difference of doctrine existed. The two great Churches outside the Establishment cannot, in the ordinary sense of the word, be called dissenting Churches. There has never, I believe I am right in saying, been a secession from the Church of Scotland upon a question of doctrine, but secessions have invariably taken place on questions of Church government or of forms of worship, the seceding Church generally taking up a conservative attitude and desiring to maintain its doctrine and form of worship unimpaired.
  We have our differences in Scotland, and no doubt at times those differences are acute, but I do not think it can be laid to our door that we hate one another for the love of God. Such being the case, it will not surprise you to hear that in the Colonies no differences exist between the different forms of Presbyterianism. They are all under one Church, and it has been the dream of many of our wisest and best men in Scotland to bring about a reconciliation and a reunion between these three great bodies. I need not weary your Lordships with the reasons which have stood in the way of a successful attempt being made to bring the Established Church of Scotland into this
  842
  union. I will only remind you that, after negotiations extending over a very considerable period, a union was arranged in the year 1900 between the Free Church and the United Presbyterians under the name of the United Free Church. The vast majority of the Free Church were favourable to this union, but there were, as your Lordships will remember, a small minority who refused to come in, and who raised an action to the effect that the union was unlawful, that it was ultra vires of the Free Church, and that effect could not be given to it. However, the larger body raised an action to prove that the smaller body were no longer members of the Free Church, and ought to be evicted from the churches and houses which were then in their possession. The Scottish Courts decided in favour of the United Free Church, but the smaller body took their case to your Lordships' House, sitting, of course, in its judicial capacity, and won it.
  The judgment of your Lordships' House declared that the United Free Church had no right, title, or interest in any part of the whole of the lands, properties, and sums of money, and that the Free Church of Scotland lawfully represented the old Free Church, and were entitled to have the said lands, properties, and funds applied. In plain English, my Lords, the effect of this judgment was to hand over, subject to certain conditions, to a small body, consisting of twenty-seven ministers and 2,743 members, not only a considerable quantity of hereditable property, but also sums amounting to any thing between£l,500,000 and £2,000,000 sterling. A great deal of litigation also took place in the Scottish Courts regarding congregational property, which bad not been technically included in the judgment of the House of Lords. The spectacle of a great and vigorous body stripped at one blow of a great part of its worldly possessions, and those worldly possessions being declared to be the property of a body which, though no doubt vigorous, could not, in the very nature of things, make a proper use of it, came as a great shock to the religious feeling of Scotland. At this stage I fear a great deal of ill-feeling and bitterness was imported into the dispute. I will say nothing more

  843
  upon that subject because I do not think it is a phase of the proceedings upon which any Scotsman can look back either with pleasure or satisfaction.
  Matters, however, were in a condition so painful and so unsatisfactory that the Government felt that the time had come when it was incumbent upon them to step in, and in December of last year a Royal Commission was, as your Lordships are aware, appointed to inquire into the whole matter. In April of this year the Commission reported, and in their Report they declared that the situation was one which demanded Parliamentary interference, and they recommended that an Executive Commission should be set up with powers to deal with the property in question and with other subjects in dispute between the two Churches. They made certain other recommendations, the principal amongst which were briefly as follows. They recommended that the whole of the funds and property of the Free Church as at October, 1900, should be vested in the authority of the Commission; that in the administration of such property the first consideration should be the observance of trusts and adequate provision for the performance of the purposes for which the money was raised; that, in cases where the Free Church appeared unable to execute the trusts, the Commission should be empowered to transfer the funds and property to the United Free Church. They recommended that, consideration having been given to the due performance of trusts, liberal provision should be made for the equipment of the Free Church for its mission as a Christian Church according to the standard which prevails in other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland. Then there were certain recommendations as regards congregational property and as regards foreign missions and, finally, the Report recommended that the decisions of the Executive Commission should be given authority by Executive Order.
  The Bill which is now before your Lordships is founded upon the recommendations in this Report. I do not, of course, pretend that all the recommendations of Lord Elgin's Commission have been rigidly adhered to, but such changes as
  844
  were proposed have been introduced into the Bill after friendly discussion with both parties to the dispute, and after considerable deliberation and discussion in the other House of Parliament. I would now ask your Lordships to turn to the Bill itself. Clause is the ruling clause of the Bill. By the first sub-section of that clause the Commission are empowered to divide the whole of the property between the Free Church and the United Free Church as they think proper, taking into account the whole of the circumstances. The second sub-section of Clause I deals with churches and other congregational property, and when the Commission find that the Free Church have one-third of those who were at the 30th of October, 1900, members or adherents of the Free Church and are now members and adherents of the Free Church and resident in the district, they are to give the congregational property to the Free Church; but in particular circumstances they are empowered to make special arrangements.
  The Commission are required, under Sub-section 3, to make adequate provision for the Free Church for certain objects. This sub-section should be read in relation to the first schedule on page G of the Bill. Your Lordships will observe that in the first column of the schedule these objects are set out, while in the second column the funds are specified out of which the Commission are to draw, and, should these funds prove insufficient for these purposes, the Commission may bond hereditable property other than what is specified at the foot of column 2; in other words, they are entitled to put a bond over the Assembly Hall. In making these provisions the Commission are to have regard to congregational contributions and other income of the Free Church. The effect of this schedule, read along with this sub-section, is that trust purposes are respected.
  The first sub-section of Clause 2 sets out that the orders which the Commission think necessary for carrying into effect the allocation are to have statutory force. The Commission may also make interim orders which are to have temporary effect. The second sub-section enables the Commission to raise money

  845
  by way of bond, and I would ask your special attention to the next sub-section. The Free Church and the United Free Church are to receive the property allocated, to them on the basis of their present constitution. Accordingly, no conditions as to their power to change this constitution are inserted; such matters must be left to the two Churches. Subsections 4 and 5 set forth that no legal proceedings as to the property in question are to be allowed to continue, and that no Court of law is to have power to review the decisions of the Commission. Under Clause 3 the Commission is set up and machinery provided for its working and procedure. Sub-sections and 2 of Clause 4 define the property which, is to be dealt with by the Commission. Broadly stated, it includes the whole property of the undivided Free Church immediately prior to the union. By Sub-section 3 of that clause legacies now in dispute are to be determined and allocated by the Commission. All lawsuits regarding them are to be stopped.
  Clause 5 deals with the formula of subscription for ministers and professors in the Church of Scotland. It gives the General Assembly power to prescribe what the formula shall be, subject to the approval of the majority of the presbyteries. This latter provision is inserted in order to recognise the check imposed by the Barrier Act—an Act of the General Assembly of 1697, which proceeded upon the idea that important changes should be made by the Church as a whole and not by one representative Assembly, which may be regarded as merely an annual organ of the Church. The Act of 1690, which established the Westminster Confession as the public and avowed confession of the Church of Scotland, may be regarded as the bed-rock of our ecclesiastical constitution so far as we are concerned in the present day. This Act—the concluding one of the Revolution Settlement—insisted upon no formula, and required no subscription but in that very year the General Assembly, and not Parliament, did prescribe a formula, for it passed an Act requiring that all persons admitted to the Church as ministers, preachers, or elders should be obliged to subscribe their approbation of the Confession of
  846
  Faith. In 1693, however, Parliament for special reasons, and at the instigation of King William, passed another Act, which set forth that—
  "No person be admitted or be continued hereafter a minister or preacher within the Church unless that he, having first taken and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance and subscribed the Assurance in manner appointed by another Act of this present session of Parliament made thereanent, do also subscribe the Confession of Faith ratified in the aforesaid 5th Act in the second session of this Parliament, declaring the same to be the confession of his faith and that he owns the doctrine therein contained to be the true doctrine which he will constantly adhere to."
  My Lords, there were very strong reasons from King William's point of view why this very rigid sub-section should be insisted upon. At that time there were a large number of men who had before the Revolution acted as Episcopalian clergymen, and who were anxious to come into, and conform with, the Presbyterian Church, but that Church looked upon them with suspicion, and would have none of them. The King, nevertheless, said—
  "If these men are prepared to subscribe to this formula and to make this declaration, both of which I invite Parliament to pass, I do not see that you have any cause for further complaint against them, and you must take them in."
  My Lords, we do not propose to touch the Act of 1690. All that we propose to do is to repeal certain words in the Act on 1693, an Act which was forced upon the Church against its will, and which the Church never accepted as a Bill which Parliament ought to pass. The actual words which we propose to repeal will be found in the second schedule on page 6 of the Bill. They are as follows—
  "The same to be the confession of his faith, and that he owns the doctrine therein contained to be the true doctrine which he will constantly adhere to."
  We propose this change in the future in regard to ministers, and also in regard to professors appointed to the Church of Scotland Chairs of Theology in the Scottish Universities, as it would be obviously impossible to take one form of subscription for ministers, and another form for those who are charged with the duty of training young men for the ministry. One is the complement of the other.

  847
  We are not asking Parliament to do anything revolutionary. We do not propose to tamper with the creed of the Church. All we seek to do is to revert to the state of things which existed from 1690 to 1693 and to give the Church that small measure of relief which she has been asking for many years past. I could, my Lords, if I felt justified in taking up your time, quote the opinions of many of our ablest and best men, both laymen and ministers, as to the desirability of this measure. I will only quote an extract from a letter which came under my notice a few weeks ago. The writer of it is a parish minister in the North of Scotland, a sensible, temperate, moderate man, an example of hundreds of other sensible, temperate, and moderate men whom you will find occupying parishes all over Scotland. He says—
  "We do want this Clause 5 in the interests of getting back our old class of constitution and for the future of the Church. At present, owing to the results of modern research and science, our best University men do not enter the Church because they cannot sign the Confession in its present rigid form. They are quite prepared to sign the Confession as a public Confession of the Church, and to accept any symbol of the reformed doctrine. This the proposed clause enables them to do, and, besides, it only reconstitutes the old law of Scotland which held at the Revolution Settlement. The Bill, including this clause, is wanted by every fair-minded man in Scotland."
  Times change, and the theology of 1905 is not the theology of 1693. We are under this Bill fully recognising the claim of the Churches outside the Establishment to complete freedom as regards their constitution, and we feel, therefore, that under the circumstances the time is not inopportune to grant this small, this reasonable, this much-desired boon to the Church of Scotland.
  It has been suggested, rather unkindly, I think, that the Church of Scotland and those who favour the Church of Scotland have seized upon an opportunity offered by the dispute between the two kindred Churches to force on their request for this measure of relief for their own Church. To put this contention in somewhat concise and brutal language, it has been hinted that when honest men fall out, thieves may step in and get their due. I belong to the Church of Scotland and am a well-wisher of the Church of Scotland. Those who know me in my own
  848
  part of the world will tell you that I am not a bad friend to the Churches outside the Establishment, and, therefore, I think I have a right to repudiate once and for all any suggestion that I would allow myself to be made the humble instrument of such a selfish and cruel transaction.
  I feel that I have detained your Lord-skips already at great length, but before I conclude I should like to say a word or two upon two other matters. I am sure that all of your Lordships, upon which-ever side of the House you sit, will one and all agree with me that nothing could have exceeded the ability and strength of purpose shown by my noble friend Lord Dunedin, the then Secretary for Scotland, in grappling with the very difficult and perplexing problem which presented itself to him during the closing months of last year. It was a fortunate thing for Scotland that matters were in his strong and capable hands. He has had all the hard work inseparable from preparing the ground. Fortunately for me, and fortunately, perhaps, for Scotland, I have only had to play a humbler part in assisting to put in the crop. I should like also to say a word about the Commissioners who are to be appointed under this Bill. I do not believe it would have been possible to obtain a better Commission. I may remind your Lordships that Lord Elgin, Lord Kinnear, and Sir Ralph Anstruther had already done a great service to their country by sitting on the Royal Commission which was appointed at the end of last year. The work which they had then to perform was no sinecure, and they might, with good reason, have turned round to me when it became my duty to ask them to sit upon this new Commission and have i told me to go elsewhere for the Commissioners. But they did not do so. I The other two gentlemen who are appointed under the Bill, Sir Thomas Carmichael and Sir Charles Logan, are I well known and highly respected in Scotland, and they have accepted service on this Commission at no small inconvenience to themselves.
  The Government feel themselves very fortunate in having secured the services of these five gentlemen, and the country will, I know, appreciate their patriotic and unselfish action in taking upon their

  849
  shoulders what must at the very best be an arduous and troublesome task. Knowing as we do, my Lords, the characters and public records of these five gentlemen, we feel certain that their work will be admirably and expeditiously completed. We cannot, however, hope that the mere passage of this Bill, or, indeed, the mere completion of the work which Parliament has thrown upon the Commissioners, will once for all put a stop to the ill-feeling which unfortunately exists amongst some of our fellow-countrymen in Scotland; but I, for one, have faith in the good sense of Scotsmen, and I believe that when once the questions in dispute have been settled, and when the flame of the acute passions has burnt I itself out, as it will undoubtedly quickly do when it is not fed by current events, matters will settle themselves down, and that all that has been best and most noble in this movement for the union of these two great Churches will be remembered, and all that is most regrettable will be forgotten. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
  LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, this is a thorny subject, but am certain the Government have been most fortunate in having an exponent of their measure so well qualified to bring an atmosphere of conciliation and reasonableness with him. I should like to say one word, and one word only, as to the position of the humble individual now addressing the House. I was, as your Lordships may be aware, a party to the judgment out of which this Bill has arisen, and if the question before the House involved the merits or the Tightness of that decision I should take no part in the proceedings; but, my Lords, that is not the case. We are now past the stage when any question of that kind is possible. The judgment as a decision is an historical fact, and we are now dealing with the remedies that must be applied to the situation which has arisen, and accordingly, as a Peer connected with Scotland, I feel not merely that there is no delicacy in my touching the subject, but that I should fall short
  850
  of my duty if, with a very competent knowledge of it, failed to express my views.
  My noble friend has given an account of the Bill which places everyone. in possession of its scope, for it was fair and complete; and I may say, at the outset, that I recognise the necessity for legislation. I think it is impossible that Parliament could leave existing the situation which was brought about by that judgment. I think also that the Government are perfectly right in appointing a Commission, and an Executive Commission, to deal with the matter. But, having said that, I am sorry to say that my objection to the Bill is that the Government have not adhered to the principle which they have laid down in the preamble of the Bill, but have embarked the Commissioners upon a course which I think necessarily involves a most dangerous interference with the rights of property. I am quite aware that this is a subject very difficult to explain in its very intricate untheological aspect, but I do hope that English Peers will attend during the Committee stage of the Bill, because cannot help thinking there are questions raised which involve the most serious consequences to property and to trusts all over the country, and also that in one part of the Bill there are very dangerous precedents laid down which are extremely easy of application to England.
  What I hold to be the true principle of this Bill is this. You find here a comparatively small body in possession of very large endowments. That body from its limitations in point of number, is not in a position to administer the money in accordance with the trusts on which it holds it. The obvious remedy is to relieve it of so much of the property as is applied to trusts which it cannot administer. am speaking in the hearing of very distinguished constitutional authorities. I appeal to any one of my noble friends on the Front Bench whether have not accurately stated the principle applicable to such a case. You have no right, because a Church or a lay corporation is rich, to take its riches from it. You have no right, because another Church side by side with it is very much more numerous and not

  851
  so rich, to take from the one and give to the other. I am not speaking of law; I am speaking of justice. All that was settled so long ago as the days of Cyrus, who refused to give the coat which belonged to the little boy to the big boy.
  The noble Lord has somewhat ignored one part of the Bill, although he was extremely careful in taking us over it. He has somewhat ignored the preamble. The preamble seems to me to start with an exceedingly good doctrine, only it very soon lapses from it. Here is how it begins—
  "And whereas a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the matter have reported that the Free Church are unable adequately to carry out all the trusts of the property—
  That is exactly the position which I have described—
  "and that it is desirable to provide for the allocation thereof—
  and "thereof" is the whole property—
  "provision being made for the equipment of the Free Church."
  The true logical sequel is to provide for the allocation of such part of the property as the Free Church are thus unable to apply. That is not a mere verbal criticism, because, unfortunately, the first section, which is the operative part, shows that having made their bow, as it were, to this sound principle, the Government take leave of it altogether, because they say that their Commission shall allocate between the Free Church and the United Free Church—
  "The property in question as defined in this Act, in such manner as appears to the Commission fair and equitable."
  Therefore, while the theory of the preamble is a sound one, that the property being that of the Free Church you are only to deal with what is superfluous and what it cannot use for the purpose of its trusts, the first section places the two bodies before the Commission as if they were competitors instead of one of them the true owner and the other not the true owner, and says to the Commissioners: Do whatever you think is equitable.
  I have always in the course of my public life had an extreme suspicion of the word "equitable" in matters of this kind. In a law Court we know
  852
  what we are doing when we use the word equitable, but in my experience if you tell anyone to do what is equitable it means do what you have a mind to and cannot give a good reason for; and that is what I am very much afraid will happen in the present case. It seems to me the mandate to the Commission, if the Act were properly expressed, is this—Do not think about the United Free Church at all in the meantime; concentrate your attention on the Free Church and ascertain her limitations and superfluity of property, and then turn round and. proceed to deal with the superfluities. I am well aware that in using the terms "limitations" and "superfluities" I amusing terms which require a little ascertainment, but I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that this small Presbyterian body ought to be dealt with a little generously by both parties upon this head. You are to consider what it can do, and not take it at a moment when it has been stripped of all its goods—it all being lawfully its own—and left for five years to struggle on with practically no property at all, and then say, "Oh, it is a terrible scandal that all this property should belong to you we will take away all that it is thought equitable to give to the United Free Church."
  I think it is necessary, not merely that fair Commissioners should be appointed, as I daresay has been the case, but that they should understand that they are not to treat these two bodies as co-owners between whom a fair division is to be made, but are only to take away from the Free Church what it cannot deal with, and cannot deal with assuming it to be recuperated and refreshed from the condition in which it was placed by its opponents. Only then will you arrive at a conclusion which is consistent with sound legislation. When I have said sound legislation, observe I am not speaking as a lawyer at all. Do not let anyone say something so trivial as that I am a lawyer, and that I take a strict view. I am here as a Member of Parliament, and I am speaking not on litigation, but on legislation. I say there are limitations which are imposed on legislation

  853
  not by any strained force of law. You could, so far as Parliamentary power goes, give this property to the Archbishop of Canterbury if you liked to do so, or to any noble Lord, but I say that morally you cannot do that. Such a course would not be within the moral competence of a responsible Legislature; and in like manner I say the only extent to which this Commission is justifiable is to the extent of finding out what are those trusts which cannot be performed, and relieving the Free Church of those only.
  I will give an instance or two to show with what an entire impartial eye I view this situation. I observe from the Report of the Commission that the Free Church—the small body—has now come into a very large sum for foreign missions. I am not aware that the Free Church has any equipment for dealing with foreign missions, and accordingly I should be surprised to hear that a case could be made out for its retaining that money. I should unhesitatingly take it from it because I hold that in that case there is a trust attached that it shall apply that money to foreign missions. I do not think the Church is entitled to melt the foreign mission fund and apply it to general uses, and I arrive at that conclusion more readily because I cannot suppose that la the view of any intelligent Hindu converted from the error of his ways the question of Establishment in Scotand can bulk very largely.
  I do not forget that I am speaking on the Second Heading, and I do not wish to enter into any details, but merely to deal with principles. I have said that the Free Church are entitled to have this matter viewed in a broad and liberal way, but I am bound to say that the circumstances under which this Bill has passed through the other House are not favourable to such consideration. I am speaking now not of noble Lords opposite or of their political friends. But I cannot help knowing that we are now—I must not say on the eve of a general election, because it may recede still further, but let me say that a general election must fall within the next eighteen months. I am afraid that hon. Gentlemen in another place felt the shadow of that election upon
  854
  them, and had a disposition naturally to cultivate those who have the larger number of votes. I suppose that the number of votes in the Free Church is not very large, and I think that unconsciously it is possible that the views and, still more, the speeches in another place may have been influenced by those considerations. Therefore, I do not think we have had very much criticism of this Bill on such points as I have referred to.
  Another difficulty is thrown in the way. The Government have, for reasons which I must not conjecture, introduced Clause 5 into the Bill. I do not intend to discuss the fifth clause to-day, but I think it fair to say that upon constitutional grounds I am opposed to that clause. I think it endangers the stability of the Scottish Establishment and opens a new chapter in the ecclesiastical life of Scotland, and for that reason I am opposed to it. But I am not going to discuss that now. I am aware that amongst those whose opinions I share on questions regarding property and private rights that view does not generally prevail, and I am not going to make differences gratuitously at this stage of the Bill. There are some noble Lords who are extremely anxious for this fifth clause, and I regret to think that their interest in the Bill is to a large extent this—that this is possibly the only opportunity when Clause 5 could pass in a Bill of this kind with the present Government in power, and, therefore, the I whole Bill should go through. No one supposes that if a Bill of this kind, caused I by the present emergency, were introduced by the Party opposite it would contain Clause 5 as one of its natural parts; and accordingly, what want to say now is this, that I deeply regret we have not applied to the question which I have been arguing the unbiassed judgment of many men whose judgments I should like to have had. I will name one for the sake of honour—Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He, know, is immensely interested in Clause 5. I should have liked very much to have had his most just and discriminating mind applied to the question which I have been discussing. I know perfectly well that quite unconsciously he is anxious to get this Bill through, and will think me a troublesome person because I am endangering

  855
  Clause 5, not by discussing Clause 5, but the other clauses. Yet, think, that is the more reason why noble Lords in this House should look at this matter very closely.
  I said there were some parts of the Bill which formed dangerous precedents for England, and I will mention one. You are going to make your Commissioners take a sort of head poll of the adherents of the Free Church, and if they fall short of a certain standard then you are going to deprive them of the property. Now, I want to know how far that is to be applied elsewhere. Suppose we have a Welsh Disestablishment Bill, is the property of the Welsh Church to be taken away in those parishes where they fall below a certain standard, and are my noble friends on this side of the House to back up the Government in that system? The noble Lord says the Bill is one and indivisible. You see now the kind of enterprise you are embarking on. When the time comes I shall have other things to say about the application of Clause 5 to affairs in England, but I think that is rather a serious matter even as regards the rest of the Bill. I have said that the proper view of this question is to treat it briefly as dealing with the superfluities of the Free Church, and I should like to read a passage from a public declaration of the Free Church. I mention it because one is very apt to suppose that this is an excessively obstinate and unreasonable set of men, whose ideas are entirely out of date. Here is what they say on this very question—the question of the relinquishing of property which they cannot deal with—
  "We claim, as an undeniable right, possession of Free Church property to the extent the Church may require it, with a reasonable measure of opportunity to ascertain her requirements, but we have no desire nor intention to retain anything which may be beyond the limits of the Church's capacity to use and administer when fairly ascertained. Provided the scope of the judgment in congregational property was first admitted, as has been done in regard to the general property, and, further, provided possession was given to the extent indicated, we should not only loyally submit to, but gladly welcome, the lawful authority which should undertake to administer the remainder. That authority, it seems to us, is to be found only in the Sovereign power of the realm."
  856
  Therefore, let no man say that these people are claiming everything. They are not claiming everything, but only what is within the scope of their duty and power to administer. All the rest they place at the free disposal of Parliament. What shall Parliament do with it? I hold that Parliament is absolutely free to dispose of it to that body which is most able to administer it as nearly as may be in accordance with the old trusts. In selecting which ecclesiastical body in Scotland meets that description, I hold that the Legislature has an absolutely free hand. I think, for my part, it being to a certain extent property in peculiar parts of the country, that the Legislature might very well have said that the Established Church of Scotland and not the United Free Church was the better fitted for that duty. I mention that merely by way of illustration; and it would certainly be contrary to the duty of the Legislature to give it to the United Free Church merely because it had claimed it in litigation and had lost it. We have to deal with the state of Scotland as a whole, and, on the whole, I make no doubt whatever that the United Free Church, which in numbers, in character, in ability, and in zeal is so strong, is the proper recipient of this State endowment, but State endowment it is. It is conferred upon them by the Legislature for the purpose of fulfilling trusts which have lapsed in the hands of their proper holders, for that purpose and on that occasion only.
  I do not intend to touch at any length on one incident in the progress of these events. I have indicated that the difference between those two bodies is to a certain extent extremely imperceptible and evanescent; but, on the other hand, it touched a point upon which the conscience of religious people in Scotland has always been extremely sensitive. Although I do not in the least degree share in the opinion, I highly honour people who stand to principles, and think that is the case of the Free Church. But, my Lords, in the course of the proceedings leading up to this Bill, the other body has taken a step which I think the House ought to know. It has made as part of its constitution a declaration that it is absolute

  857
  master of its own creeds, that it can alter them to any extent and to all extent to-day, to-morrow, and to the end of the chapter and it holds out its hand to receive the money which the State is now dealing with on the footing that its creed, so far as legal obligations go, is absolutely fluid, and that it is not bound to any doctrine whatever, even in Christian, let alone Free Church, theology, longer than it pleases. If anyone thinks that a strong statement, I will just read the words. They are as clear as noonday. It declares that—
  "This Church has the sole and exclusive right and power from time to time, as duty may require, through her Courts to alter, change, add to, or modify her constitution and laws, subordinate standards, and formulas, and to determine and declare what these are, and to unite with other Christian Churches."
  I am sure everyone in the House knows that an appeal to the Bible is an appeal which is made by everybody, and accordingly so far as any restraining power is concerned that may be regarded as nugatory. Further, the General Assembly declares that—
  "A decision of the Court given either unanimously, or by a majority of its members present and voting, is the decision of the Court, and the decision of the General Assembly so reached is final."
  I part from this branch of the subject, having pointed out that it is perfectly idle to represent the Church which, I agree, must receive this large sum of money as a Church holding, in the sense of being bound to the standards of the old Free Church. That is not historically the fact.
  I would like to say one word in conclusion. The bulk of what I have said, although not the whole, has its drift in favour of the Free Church Let me say that I have personally no relation or sympathy whatever with either one body or the other. Trojan and Tyrian are alike to me, and I am afraid I stand equally in the black books of both, because I am a Prelatist, and therefore a malignant and a heretic. Accordingly I have no favour to make or conciliation to procure with either body. I am afraid they take a very gloomy view of my future but, at the same time, when a
  858
  man has no character to lose he perhaps more boldly faces the consequence. That is my happy position. The other word I want to say is this. I am not without sensibility to the ecclesiastical traditions of my own country, but on an occasion of this kind I do not think it fitting, at least for a layman, to run about holding candles at every shrine all at the same time. I think that on the Second Reading, and particularly in Committee we had very much better cultivate such mundane virtues as justice and fair play without aspiring in the meantime to any of the other Christian graces; and perhaps at the Third Reading all these things may be added to us.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I think the House will appreciate the impartial tone in which the noble and learned Lord has addressed himself to this question. The noble and learned Lord quoted a declaration by the legal Free Church in which they say—and a most praiseworthy sentiment it is—that they have no desire or intention to retain anything which may be beyond the limits of the Church's capacity to use and administer when fairly ascertained. Well, my Lords, I understand that one of the chief objects of this Bill is to provide an authority which will ascertain the fair administration of the property. The noble and learned Lord went on to say that he agreed with the further statement of this body, that the authority was to be found only in the Sovereign power of the Realm. After all, the Sovereign power of the Realm is invoked in the proposal to pass this Bill, and a statutory Commission is appointed under no other authority than that of the Sovereign power of the Realm.
  If I may refer to the extremely interesting opening statement of the noble Marquess, I venture to think he might have made the review of the past events which have rendered this measure necessary even more fully than he did. In one point the noble Marquess did not, so far as my information goes, give the version which will be received with agreement throughout Scotland as to some of the steps which occurred before

  859
  the decision of your Lordships' House was given. I mean when he said that after the union of the two Churches in 1900, the United Free Church—that is the majority Church—took action to expel the minority—the old Free Church—from certain churches and buildings. My impression is that the procedure was rather the other way, and that the minority Church took the initiative on that occasion. Then the United Free Church, in order to defend their position, took action in the case of four churches, I think it was, and gave private intimation to the other side that the procedure was in the nature of a test case. No agreement was arrived at, and the minoritv Church took proceedings against the United Free Church claiming practically the whole of the property in question. The decision of the Scottish Courts was given against them, and they then appealed and, as your Lordships know, the decision of this House was in favour of the minority Church.
  I hope no one will suggest that approval of this Bill is in any way inconsistent with due respect for, and deference to, the decision of the noble and learned Lords who formed the Court which dealt with this case. I should have thought that no one in this House would welcome this measure more than the noble and learned Lords who were called upon to take part in that judgment. It is no new thing that the literal application of the law may not really attain the end of justice in the ordinary sense of the word. We were taught at college that the origin of the great department of law, which the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack represents, was simply that it was found in early days that the strict application of the law might work hardship, and in order to bring about an alleviation of that state of things an officer was appointed to cancel decrees and decisions which seemed to be inconsistent with equity and justice. The recognition of that principle may be found in rather a notable decision given by a Judge on a certain occasion when he addressed the accused person thus—
  'You say that you broke the law inadvertently and in ignorance. Very well,
  860
  the law says that to keep within the law you ought to have done so and so. Among other things, to put yourself right you ought to have taken proceedings which might have cost you £500, though apparently you do not possess five hundred pence. In the circumstances the sentence of the Court is that you are to be imprisoned for one day, and as you have been detained the whole of this day you are now discharged."
  I admit that that particular case was one of bigamy, but I do not think that makes mv illustration less appropriate. This Bill has been found necessary because there was a union between two Churches. That union was declared to be irregular, and consequently pains and penalties ensued.
  I have spoken as to the necessity of the Bill. In this country we have sometimes heard this matter spoken of as if it were a quarrel or dispute between two bodies, a sort of ecclesiastical tug-of-war; and such expressions as these might be heard, "A plague on both your Churches." But those who know the facts know what a very different aspect the matter really holds. It must be remembered that those who form what we used to call the Free Church of Scotland obtained at a very great price their freedom to manage their own affairs as they thought right. That was in 1842, and they did secure, as they thought, the right to carry out a union with any other body and the decision which was given in this House was to most people in Scotland a most astounding decision as regards its effects. I do not want to lay too much stress on the disproportion in the membership of the two Churches, though that must not be lost sight of. It might almost be described in the words of a former Prime Minister, who on one occasion during the recess had as a guest at his place in Scotland a distinguished Austrian statesman. When driving through the park the guest remarked to his host, "I see you keep sheep." "Yes," said the host, with modest complacency, "I keep a thousand." "Ah," said the Austrian, "I keep a thousand shepherds." Really, as to numerical proportion, you may almost say that the number of the ministers of the United Free Church constituted a very consider-

  861
  able proportion of the number of the membership of the legal Free Church after 1900.
  I am the last person to speak disrespectfully of minorties. Those who sit on this side of the House are not likely to minimise the rights and privileges which attach to a minority, but there is a certain amount of anomaly when we speak of the apportioning of property between such disproportionate bodies in numbers. The judgment of this House laid stress on the importance of recognising the intentions and the wishes of the donors of the property which was being dealt with. Well, my Lords, that sounds as if it referred only to donors who are past and gone, but some of the donors are still alive. I see one in this House who is one of the strongest supporters of the union. I think you would find a great many more donors who are in favour of the union than of the other way of thinking. It is stated in the clause dealing with the proportion which the Commission are directed to keep in view in dealing with the property that if one - third of the congregation can be shown to belong to the legal Free Church they may claim the church building in dispute. Perhaps I may be excused for alluding to the fact that one of the noble and learned Lords who were called upon to give judgment in the recent decision has since suggested that he thought the basis of a mere majority would have been quite sufficient to meet the requirements of the case—I mean that instead of two-thirds of the membership being necessary, a majority should have been sufficient. But that is in some sense a point of detail.
  I think it may be maintained that this B II really does provide what is sufficient and nothing more than sufficient for the purpose in view. I cannot help thinking of a phrase which the noble and learned Lord used in his speech last week when he spoke in a different connection—"the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." Leaving out of the question Clause 5, I would say that the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, will meet the case before us in order to secure that equity which the Bill speaks of. I do not think I need say anything about Clause
  862
  5. I am afraid that the Parliamentary student of the future will be puzzled when he finds the apparition of Clause 5 rearing its head in a Bill which deals with a very different class of matters altogether. The noble Marquess disclaimed with some warmth—and we all know that that is so—that he is incapable of being a party to anything dishonourable. I entirely agree, and I support the insertion of Clause 5 in this Bill. Those who represent in Scotland the United Free Church have shown on the whole considerable self-abnegation and calmness in very trying circumstances. There can be no doubt that this question might have been made a Party political question at a certain period, namely, before the Commission was appointed; but I think it was a wise decision on the part of the leaders of that Church to discourage any such intention. I rejoice to see the Bill before the House, and though my noble and learned friend has rather intimated that it is his intention to move Amendments, my hope is that there may be no material Amendments, so that the Bill may go back to the other House without substantial alteration and have a prospect of being passed into law. without delay.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not think that I can refuse altogether to take part in this amicable and friendly discussion upon so important a Bill as that now before the House, but I am sure your Lordships will be relieved to hear that as there does not seem to be the slightest chance of any opposition to the Second Reading stage of the measure, it will not be necessary for me to say very much on this occasion. I really could not allow this discussion to close without adding my humble tribute of congratulation to my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland for the manner in which he dealt with the introduction of this Bill. I venture to say that a more calm and temperate and equitable statement was never made with regard to any Bill before the House. But it is such a one as we should have expected from him who has lived amongst us in Scotland from his earliest years, who has held the post of Commissioner to the General Assembly, I and who throughout his life has shown

  863
  his interest in all the branches of the Presbyterian Church.
  Although, as has been said, we have our controversies, and sometimes rather bitter controversies, amongst Presbyterians in Scotland, I think there is an over-ruling feeling amongst all of us that the interests of Presbyterianism and of the Church of Christ in Scotland are superior to the special interests of any one particular branch of it; but I venture to say, if ever that feeling seemed by our controversies to have been overclouded during the last few years, and more particularly during the last eight or ten months, at any rate in the case of some of us that feeling has come to the front and has done something to still some at any rate of those bitter controversies. The noble and learned Lord who spoke from the bench behind me was most generous in his acknowledgment of the necessity of the Bill and the necessity of having an Executive Commission, and did not, therefore, contest anything that I should call a Second Reading principle of the Bill, although I understood him to say that in some of its clauses it contained a dangerous interference with rights of property, with trusts, and with some principles which might be extended to the South of the Tweed; and I understood him to say that the right principle to have gone upon would have been to take nothing from the Free Church which it was not absolutely proved up to the hilt that that body could not administer.
  LORD ROBERTSON: I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that I thought that the proper scope of the inquiry for the Commission was what parts of the property the Free Church on a reasonable view of the whole circumstances might be found to be unable to administer.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I absolutely accept that definition, and I should say that the noble and learned Lord had stated in the most accurate terms what is the intention and purport of the Bill. The Commission is to find out what there is a reasonable chance of the Pree Church being able to administer,
  864
  and only to deal with that which it is not able to administer. The noble and learned Lord, in the earlier part of his speech, quoted a passage from the preamble of the Bill, and contrasted it unfavourably with the words in the first clause. The words in the first clause which he quoted were that the Commission established under this Act are to allocate—
  "The property in question, as defined by this Act, in such a manner as appears to the Commission fair and equitable."
  The noble and learned Lord stopped there. But the clause goes on—
  "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, but subject to the provisions of this Act."
  The judgment is obviously one of the circumstances of the case. It could not be anything else. I am quite sure that none of your Lordships would support this Bill for a moment if that were not perfectly clear on the face of it. It is not the case to say that the Commissioners are turned loose upon the property. You do not distribute it under the nebulous conditions of being fair and equitable without any directions, because in the subsequent clauses of the Bill there are, as I think, reasonable, but certainly fairly elaborate, provisions as to the conditions to which the Commissioners are to have regard. All I can say, in addition, upon that point is that when we see the Amendments we shall be able to judge of the points in which the Bill, I will not say offends, but in which the Bill is not pleasing to the noble and learned Lord, and discussions upon such points as those can be deferred until the Committee stage.
  What I am anxious to emphasise is this, that those who consider this Bill should come to it carefully remembering the facts of the judgment. The judgment said that the United Free Church had no right or title in the property it said that the Free Church had a right and title to it according to the terms of the trusts, and those trusts contained different and varying conditions and I contend that it would be just as great a diversion of trusts, just as great an invasion of the rights of beneficiaries in trusts or in private

  865
  property, to divert from the purpose designed by the testator or the donor of the special trust as it would be to divert the property from one Church to another. The noble and learned Lord was quite candid about this. He evidently felt that in the case of foreign missions that contention was absolutely correct, and he said so with great fairness. But that does not exhaust the whole of the different trusts. There are funds devoted to the support of aged and infirm ministers, to colonial schemes, to Continental churches, and to purposes for the conversion of the Jews and others and I think I may say it is a matter of public notoriety that at any rate of the great majority of these cases those who have been adjudged to be the real trustees are not able to administer the funds. That is the point upon which the Commission will have to decide, and the whole scope of the Bill is that on such matters, subject to the conditions laid down in the Bill, we should trust the Commissioners and leave them to decide the matters upon the evidence brought before them.
  The noble and learned Lord seemed to think that principles equivalent to these might have effect in, I think he specified, the Established Church in Wales. I do not see how that parallel holds good. These Churches which are concerned in this property are in no sense Established Churches. The Church in Wales could not be the subject of a judgment such as this, and, therefore, I do not see that the parallel indicated by the noble and learned Lord is really germane to the point at issue. At one period of his speech the noble and learned Lord seemed to indicate that either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Established Church of Scotland might, on principles analogous to these, come in for some part of this property.
  LORD ROBERTSON: I did not say that. I said the competence of Parliament was so absolute that it was within their legislative powers to give it to the head of the Church of England; but in another part of my speech I discussed the question whether the Established Church of Scotland might not be a possible depositary for some of these funds.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is obvious on the face of it that that would be a diversion of trusts and an interference with the principles on which the property is held far in excess of anything suggested by this Bill; but I am most anxious not to widen the range of controversy, and perhaps, as it was only used as an illustration, it would have been wiser if I had made no allusion to that part of the noble and learned Lord's speech. In one part of his speech, however, he made a direct appeal to me as to whether I, except for the appearance of Clause 5, would not have perhaps scrutinised the provisions of the Bill rather more closely. I do not think that was, under all the circumstances, an altogether fair insinuation. I do not think that this is an ideal method of doing what is necessary after the judgment. Some of us last year would have preferred if the matters could have been arranged by private negotiation between the two parties chiefly interested. Among others, I did my humble best to bring this about. I failed, and I believe I failed mainly because the spirit of controversy ran high, and because some of those who were concerned thought it was contrary to their consciences to allow the diversion of anything which had been adjudged to them. When people in a case of this kind bring in an argument from what they conscientiously believe it is not possible to go further, and I frankly admit that the effort which I and others made failed, but I would rather have made that effort and failed than that it should not have been made at all. From that moment, I think I am within what is known to a great many more than those who are in this House when I say that I recognised the necessity for the intervention of the Government, and according to my own humble ability I have done my best to bring about a reasonable settlement such as is embodied in the Bill.
  I am in favour of Clause 5, and if it is attacked in Committee I venture to say that I shall be able to give good reasons for its retention. I am not going into that now, because it has not been attacked. I do not say that I, like the noble I Earl opposite, would not have preferred

  867
  to see Clause 5 in a separate Bill. But we know the circumstances and conditions under which legislation is transacted in another place, and I cannot say that I think the discretion of the Government to insert this clause in the Bill, to which in some aspects it is certainly much more relevant than many people seem to think, was not a wise discretion. There has been no contest or hardly any contest in Scotland about this clause upon its merits.
  It has been suggested that this Bill has been passed in the form in which it stands because a general election is impending, and the votes on one side are supposed to be more worth having than the votes on the other. I do not think that in itself is an altogether worthy insinuation. I believe that the heart of Scotland has been very deeply stirred in this matter, and that in the main this Bill reflect the sound and matured Judgment of the people of Scotland as being likely to bring about as fair a settlement as is possible under the circumstances. But if it is contended that Clause 5 would not have passed had it been by itself and judged purely on its merits, surely I am entitled, bearing in mind that a general election is impending, to refer to the vote of the Scotch Members in the House of Commons when Clause 5 was proposed by itself. On July 12th, when in Committee the Question was put from the Chair, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill," fifty-four Scotch Members voted for it, and only one against it. Surely, under the political circumstances in which we live, that is as near an approach to unanimity on the part of the representatives at any rate of the people of Scotland as to the merits of Clause 5 as we can reasonably expect. And if a general election is impending, and if the votes of those who are interested in various parts of the Bill are supposed to be reflected by the votes of their Members in Parliament, surely it is a pretty good indication of what is the feeling of the people of Scotland on the merits of this clause that on one occasion the Question of whether this clause should pass or not was carried by fifty-four to one, and on another occasion by forty-two to eight. I venture to say that under all the circumstances that is an ample justification for the intro
  868
  duction of this clause, and is a full answer to those who think that it should not have appeared in the Bill.
  I think that most of the other matters which have been referred to are matters which can be much better dealt with when we come to the Committee stage. I here is much in this Bill which is of great interest to the people of Scotland, much which has been the subject of great discussion, but I think that on the whole we may fairly pass this Bill with the feeling that it meets with approval in Scotland, and that the Government have done what is right. They and their Commission have had a long and laborious task, and I for one shall be very glad to see the consummation of a hope of a greater amount of peace brought about by the passage of this Bill. I believe with all my heart that that will be a permanent result of the measure, and that it will work for the good of religion and for the peace of the Presbyterian Church.
  LORD OVERTOUN: My Lords, the noble Lord, who with so much ability, moved the Second Beading of this Bill, said that noble Lords South of the Tweed might probably have some difficulty in understanding all the divisions of our Scottish Presbyterianism. I suspect that that is true. I would like to add that when one of the largest Churches in Scotland set about trying to heal those divisions the result was that it was despoiled of all its property. I need not go into the question which has been so ably set forth by the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, except to remind your Lordships that in 1843 at the time of the Disruption the majority of the Church of Scotland believed that the State was encroaching on their spiritual independence and they voluntarily gave up all the benefits of Establishment—they gave up their manses, their stipends, and their churches—and left the Establishment in order that for conscience sake they might be free.
  I shall say nothing about the notable judgment of August 1st last, beyond that the Free Church, having voluntarily left the Establishment and all its emoluments and severed their connection with the State, were certainly amazed to

  869
  learn that in spite of all they had said I and suffered, Establishment was decided to be a vital doctrine of the Free Church, and that by treating it as an open question—which to my knowledge I for the last forty years has been done in the Free Church—they had violated i their trusts and forfeited their property which was valued at many millions. The Free Church believed, and still believe, that they possess the right of self-government in doctrine and creed. The noble and learned Lord opposite said that the United Free Church claimed to be the master of its own creed. And so we do, and we think it much more reasonable and right, and scriptural too, that a Church should be master of its own creed rather than Parliament, which is composed of many heterogeneous elements. In the Auchterarder case which was decided in the House of Lords, Lord Campbell—one of the Judges—said that clergymen of the Church of Scotland were servants of the State and that they must do what the State bade them, and he added, "It is only a Church self-founded and self-sustained that has a right to self-government." That is a right which we believe we possess. At any rate, the judgment of August 1st came as a thunderbolt and was felt far beyond these Islands. It convulsed Scotland to its centre, and the country was amazed that the Church of at least one-third of the people of Scotland should be dispossessed of property provided by themselves and that it I should be handed over to a small fraction of about one - fiftieth of its members who contributed practically nothing to that property, and who admittedly could not administer it. The first instinct of the Scottish people who were thus mulcted was to resist such a decision which appeared to them unjust. But, animated as the Scottish people are by a strong law-abiding spirit, they obeyed the law, though they felt none the less keenly the injustice and the hardship which it involved. he Free Church congregations who entered the Union in 1900 numbered 1,132, while those who refused to enter the Union numbered twenty-seven, and those twenty-seven, though they were assured of generous treatment if they did not see their way to enter the Union, began law
  870
  proceedings immediately after the Union for the purpose of having it declared that they were the Free Church and that all its property belonged to them.
  Besides the question of Establishment, one of the grounds of the charge against the United Free Church was that it had departed from the Confession of Faith by adopting, in 1902, a Declaratory Act as to the free offer of the Gospel. A small secession from the Free Church took place in 1902, and I am afraid that then, as also in this later case, which I suppose I should not call a secession, a great number of people were utterly ignorant of the principles involved. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one illustration of that. In 1902 when the secession took place in regard to the Declaratory Act one of the office bearers of those who left the Free Church and formed the Presbyterian Church of Scotland called upon me, and I said to him—
  "I am very sorry to bear that you have left the Free Church. Why have you left?" "Well," he said, "I could not stand the Declaratory Act." "Now, my friend," said I, "might I ask you a question? Have you ever read the Declaratory Act?" "No," he replied, "I never did." I asked, "Are you aware of the contents of the Declaratory Act?" "No," he answered, "I am not aware of what is in it at all." "Well," I said, "I honestly think you had better hear it read."
  So I told him what was in the Declaratory Act, and he expressed his intense amazement, because he had believed that the Declaratory Act had for its main issue that we were descended from monkeys, and that various tenets of scripture were set aside by arguments such as that. But the body that left the Free Church in 1902 made no claim whatever to property, nor did the twenty-seven ministers who refused to enter the Union suggest that any such proposal should be made. When the judgment of August 1st was given, some imagined that the United Free Church would at once proceed to dissolve the Union for the sake of keeping their property. But those who held that view little knew Scottish character, for now, as in Covenanting days, spiritual independence and sacred rights were involved, and no such course was for a moment thought of.
  Happily, by strenuous efforts, as the noble Lord opposite has mentioned, this

  871
  question has been kept out of Party politics, and the Scottish Members, of Parliament, and the people of Scotland, with few exceptions, have insisted that whatever might be said as to the legality of the judgment of August 1st, a cruel injustice had resulted and that it must be remedied by Parliament. It was hoped that a Suspensory Act would be passed to preserve the status quo until Parliament should move and decide as to what should be done. But the Government did not see their way to such a course, and the minority at once seized by force twenty-eight churches and then applied to the Court for execution; they evicted nearly 100 flourishing congregations from the churches, and gave notice to 115 clergymen to leave their manses; they evicted Principal Rainy, and the professors and students from the Edinburgh College, and they took possession of our great Assembly Hall. Some noble Lords may perhaps say that, after all, this small body were only retaliating for the harsh treatment they had received. I would like once and for all to put an end to such a belief. At the opening of this Parliament in February last, the noble Lord who in this House seconded the Address, said that it was well known that the minority had been harshly treated. May I assure your Lordships that that was not the case. There was not one minister evicted from his manse; there was not one congregation evicted from their church; and I challenge anyone to prove a single case of harsh treatment in the case of the smaller body. On the contrary, they were personally and officially assured before the Union that they would receive the most generous treatment if they thought it right to remain outside the Union.
  At length the Government appointed a Royal Commission to investigate the situation, and after much labour that Royal Commission gave in a Report which everyone viewed as admirable the United Free Church had vainly tried by negotiation to bring about an amicable settlement by arbitration. The Government succeeded no better, for they appointed Sir John Cheyne to arbitrate, but the small body, the Free Church, refused to fall in with his suggestions, for the Free Church demanded their last
  872
  pound of flesh and would entertain no proposals whatever. The evictions proceeded, and I can speak with feeling, because I happen to be an officer-bearer in one of the largest congregations who have been evicted from their church. We number nearly 1,000 members, while of the body who have evicted us not more than twenty ever belonged to the congregation. On June 7th the Government introduced their Bill, which, however, did not entirely follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission and it contained provisions to which the Scottish people could not assent. I would like to say that we do not quarrel with the very unusual provision that was suggested by the Royal Commission and is embodied in this Bill, that if a body of trustees were unable to fulfil their trust they should be asked to fulfil such part of it as they are able to do, and that the remainder should be handed over to another body to fulfil. We do not quarrel with that exceptional treatment, because the circumstances are so entirely exceptional that I do not believe in the story of Christendom a parallel case could be found.
  I shall not refer to Clause 5 further than to say that while the United Free Church could not think of refusing to her sister Church, the Church of Scotland, the liberty which they themselves claim to have, we do think that it deals with an important question which has little or no relation to the Bill and which ought to have been separately dealt with.
  With regard to congregational property, we were under the belief that it should have been dealt with in accordance with the one trust deed of the United Free Church, which provided both for union and for change of name, and which under its model trust deed provided as follows—and I hope noble Lords will notice this—
  "Whatever the Courts of law may determine as to which of the contending parties is to be held to be the Free Church, it shall be competent for each congregation, by a majority of its members in full communion, to decide that question for itself, so far as the possession and use of their place of worship and other property are concerned, with or without compensation to the minority, and such compensation to be settled by arbitration."
  The noble Lord, Lord Davey, one of the Judges in the case, was distinctly of

  873
  opinion, and said so, that the property I thus provided for should be arranged in accordance with that deed. His Majesty's Government are fully aware of this, but they think that in view of the minority being successful litigants they ought to recognise the situation by fixing the proportion at two-thirds in place of a majority. Might I draw the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland so one word that he used in moving the Second Reading. In speaking of the allotment of property and of the provision in the Bill to allot to the Churches according to their respective constitutions, he put in the word "present" constitutions. Now, while that is all right, and we are glad that the Government in the Bill has recognised our constitution as made since the Union, the noble Lord will notice that we do not intend that we should be tied down to our present constitution, because we hold that we possess the liberty to vary and alter that constitution as within Scriptural authority the United Free Church from time to time may consider it right to do.
  In sitting down, let me say that on the whole we feel that the Government lave met the wishes of Scotland reasonably in this matter, and while we cannot help feeling that it is a little hard that our trust deed, the only one we have, should be departed from in dealing with property, we are willing to suffer this loss for the sake of a settlement, and while in addition to this important point there are some minor matters which we should be glad to have seen altered, we are glad that the Bill has unanimously passed the House of Commons. We hope that it will now meet with your Lordships' approval, so that the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty may be enabled to enter on their labours, and that in the wisdom of the Commissioners and their noble Chairman, all of whom have the full confidence of the country, the distracted condition of Scotland may soon be brought to an end, that the controversies and litigation which unhappily have done so much to injure the highest interests of the country may cease, and that the Churches may be thus enabled to pursue in peace their great and divine work.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I will not detain your Lordships many moments, but I should not like this Second Reading debate to close without my having said a single word upon a matter which must be profoundly interesting to all those who are specially concerned in the religious welfare of Scotland and of England too, even though they may stand quite outside and have little or nothing to do with the actual litigants in the recent controversy. Exactly a year has passed since the decision was given upon which our attention has been concentrated tonight, and your Lordships know how many were the offers and how many were the endeavours that were made a year ago by those who had very closely at heart the great interests which are at stake, in order, if it were possible in any voluntary way, to compose so wide and important a difference. When I came down to the House tonight I anticipated that we should hear some objections at least raised to this Bill upon questions of fundamental principle. We have heard one speech from a noble and learned Lord—a speech as lucid in its argument as his arguments always are, and as pointed in its phraseology as his phraseology always is, but it did seem to me—it may have been due to my inadequate appreciation of some of the points of his argument—that he was dealing not with the fundamental principle which underlies this Bill, and with which alone we are concerned on Second Reading, but with the question of whether or not the words set forth in the preamble as the principle upon which the Bill should go had been adequately given effect to in the subsequent provisions of the measure. If I understood the noble and learned Lord rightly, his argument amounted to this that when the property claimed by the larger body had been decided to be in fact the property of the smaller body, the money then allotted to the smaller body could be legitimately administered by them only in so far as they were capable of effectively using those trusts, and that any balance which lay beyond was at the disposal of Parliament absolutely without any direct or prerogative right on the part

  875
  of the disinherited body to claim the money thus set at liberty. If that be so, is it not—1 shrink from saying it—purely a legal rather than a general argument, for this reason? If I understand the story of these, monies aright, their origin and source all date back to donors who belonged to one or other of these two bodies, the United Free Church and the Free Church. If that be the case, common sense would seem to say that it was between those two bodies alone that the money could be legitimately and fairly allocated, inasmuch as it was not derived from sources which lay outside the two taken together. If I might venture with some trepidation to say so to one who argues with the weight and authority of the noble and learned Lord, that appears to me to cut away somewhat the ground from the argument on which he laid stress to-night.
  On the practical issue now before us, I do not understand that the noble and learned Lord or any other Member of your Lordships' House thinks for a moment that the money ought to go elsewhere than to one or other of the two bodies who are at present concerned in the controversy, and, that being so, it is, as it seems to me, a question for the Committee stage of the Bill rather than for Second Reading whether or not the allocation, such as it is, which the Bill proposes, has been fairly arranged for in its provisions. When the time comes we shall all be prepared to give attention to the matter in its details, and I, for one, shall look with the most respectful care at any suggestions or Amendments that may emanate from so high a source as the pen and brain of the noble and learned Lord.
  But, my Lords, I should intensely regret if anything were to happen which should imperil a measure which does seem to have commended itself to the common sense of the country, both north of the Tweed and south of the Tweed, as being likely, with whatever modifications of detail may be necessary, to bring about peace where peace is so sorely desired, and, as I venture to hope, to bring about peace on lines which may lead to a yet larger reconciliation and to a wider area of union or at least of unity than we
  876
  should have dared to anticipate a year or two ago. Therefore, my Lords, I hope a Second Reading will certainly be given to this measure.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I intervene to say only a word or two on the Second Reading of this Bill, not because the subject is one that is not full of interest, because it is full of interest to all Scotsmen and to me personally, and not because there is not plenty of subject of debate, because undoubtedly you can hardly conceive a subject which could more naturally give rise to debate, because your Lordships have heard from various noble Lords different accounts, but all agreeing in the main, of what has taken place during the last eighteen months. The events of those eighteen months, so far as the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland are concerned, have been full of incident and full of danger and it seems to me that the first duty that is laid upon Parliament is to meet the danger which has arisen amongst our Scottish Churches. I will not for a moment attempt to go into the causes which led to this condition of danger and risk. I think that the great majority both of Englishmen and Scotchmen will agree that the time has come when this condition of things must be abated. I do not say that the proposals in this Bill are absolutely I deal or that they please me or would perhaps exactly please anybody who takes an interest in the subject. But they do seem to me to give good grounds for a settlement that will, on the whole, satisfy the people of Scotland and meet the difficulties which have arisen. I believe, therefore, that the less debate and the less controversy we have, and the less we attempt to amend the Bill in this House the better. I would remind your Lordships that this Bill is, after all, to a large extent an agreed Bill. It is a Bill of which the proposals have been carefully discussed by the Government on the one side, and by the representatives of the Churches on the other, and an agreement has been come to on the terms of the Bill itself, even though there had to be a certain amount of give and take on either side. It was a rather remarkable thing, I think, to observe the last Notice Paper

  877
  of the House of Commons on, I think, the Report stage of this Bill, when throughout that Notice Paper Amendments were down in duplicate in the names of the Lord-Advocate for Scotland and of my hon. friend Mr. Thomas Shaw, the Member for the Border Burghs. Amendment after Amendment appeared on the Paper in exactly the same terms, and those Amendments were accepted by the House of Commons as a whole, and the Bill passed by consent of the House. I hope that English Peers will not be led astray by the arguments of one Scottish Peer, however eminent a lawyer he may be, but that they will grant us again, as they have before granted us, some share in the management of our own affairs and in dealing with questions which pertain especially to Scotland.
  THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: I hope I may be allowed to express my most earnest hope that this Bill may pass unanimously through your Lordships' House. My wish is founded not entirely on the grounds which have been put forward this evening, but largely because of the effect it will have on the religious life of Scotland. It is impossible not to sympathise with all the Churches in question in view of the magnificent work which they have done. I make no distinction between them. The United Free Kirk, which has sprung to arms during the troubles of the last year or two in a way which does it the highest credit; the Free Kirk, small though it may be, which sacrificed all it had for the sake of principle, and the Established Church, to which I myself belong, which through the centuries has done a work which has formed, I think I may say, the best part of the Scottish character—all these three deserve, I think, the deepest sympathy of everyone in the difficulties in which they have been placed. They have all done good work; they all work from principle, and the only difference between them, I think, is entirely one of sentiment. In Scotland the other day I was asking members of these three different Churches whether, if there had never been any rupture, there was any ground for such a rupture now, but I could not find anyone to say that there
  878
  was. The difference, I think, is purely one of sentiment, and it requires an adept to say what the difference really is. In my opinion this Bill, if it passes, will tend to broaden the foundations on which these Churches stand, to help them to work together in the cause of religion, and to humanise hundreds of thousands of men who at this moment, owing to the divisions between these three Churches, are left entirely outside the pale, not only of Christianity, but of civilisation. In our great towns—Glasgow and elsewhere—hundreds of thousands of men never go to Church, but we have these three Churches, practically in agreement one with another in all essentials, but counteracting one another's good work, overlapping in many directions, and one preventing the good which another might so well accomplish. I do most earnestly hope that the condition of the country and the religious life of Scotland will be borne in mind, and that any questions of detail that may arise will receive only their due amount of consideration in view of the great importance that this Bill may have with regard to the religious life of the country.
  LORD KINNAIRD: May I echo the hope of the noble Lord opposite that we may be able speedily to pass this Bill without any Amendment? I can assure your Lordships that the feeling in Scotland is very keen upon it, and I believe that the sooner we get out of the present position, in which we have been placed by the decision of the House of Lords on August 1st last, the better. Take one point as an illustration, namely, the Aged and Infirm Ministers' Fund, to which over a thousand men have been subscribing, many of them for forty or fifty years. At the present moment, according to the legal position, the fund to which they have been subscribing has been transferred to other hands, and, but for the expectation that the people of Scotland will back them up, these people, owing to that unfortunate decision, are, so far as the legal position is concerned, without any certainty of pension or relief should occasion necessitate it. This and other points which might be urged will, I think, convince every Member of your Lordships' House that the sooner

  879
  this Bill is passed the better. As the measure is a compromise, it will not be wise to go in it too closely or to amend it to any large extent. I venture to think that the unanimity of Scotch Members. with reference to Clause 5, to which Lord Balfour of Burleigh alluded, was possibly due to the feeling that unless the Bill went through as a whole it would not be passed at all, and not because they approved of the provisions of this clause.
  The only other matter to which I would refer on the present occasion is that portion of the speech of the Secretary for Scotland in which he said that it was assumed on all sides that the religion us opinions of the people in the Church of Scotland had changed, and that there fore the creed and formula of subscription of the Church of Scotland must be amended so as to meet that change of opinion. I understand that in another place it was asserted that no change in the creed of the Established Church is proposed by this Bill and that all that is proposed is that the terms of subscription should be changed for Ministers and professors.
  THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I do not think I used the word "creed."
  LORD KINNAIRD: Belief or dogma.
  THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I said that the theology of to-day was different from the theology of 1693.
  LORD KINNAIRD: I will not enter into any theological argument, but the creed is the outcome of the theology of the people, and I do not think that that has been to any serious extent changed. I do not think those who have signed a certain creed and departed from it, and who are filling certain ecclesiastical appointments, are the proper people to come forward and ask for a change in the terms of subscription. This argument applies not only in Scotland but also in England, and, therefore, I did not wish this opportunity to pass without contradicting the idea that because a few people in a Church change their theloogy, therefore the creed of the Church in England, Scotland, or Wales should be altered. With these few words I
  880
  beg to express an earnest hope that the Bill will go through, so that we may have in Scotland the assurance that we shall be able to continue the work of the Churches as it has been through so many years, for the glory of God and for the benefit of the nation.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I shall not detain the House a moment, but I should not like this discussion to close without saying one word, not to disturb, but to swell the general chorus of harmony which has prevailed throughout this discussion. The only exception, perhaps, has been the singularly brilliant and interesting speech of my noble and learned friend opposite, who, I think, took some intellectual pleasure in the differences which he indicated, because they did not seem to me to be founded on any very deep principle of objection, or based on anything more than the Committee spirit of looking at a Bill, which has much larger aspects than the merely legal condition to which it applies. My noble and learned friend seemed to think that this was an almost piratical measure, containing certain principles of a noxious and dangerous kind which had been set afloat like a fire-ship on the waters of controversy, and which might in the long run set on fire many institutions, many trusts, and even one Church Establishment which at present conceived itself to be free from its dangerous operations. With great humility, I venture to say that that is a very narrow view to take of this measure.
  I think we have all recognised, and I have observed with great pleasure in the discussion of to-night, that the one important preliminary in considering the Bill is this—that we are bound to respect the soundness and the legality of the decision given by this House last year. I have not heard a word of criticism of that decision, although I think I caught a tinge of regret in the speech of my noble friend Lord Overtoun; and it would have been most unmeet if any such word of criticism had been offered. But, at the same time, we must recognise the fact that that decision, legally sound as it no doubt was, did appear to the great majority of Scotchmen, to whatever Church they might belong, to have

  881
  effected substantial injustice, to which at the first blush, at the first agony of that decision, it did not seem easy to offer any effectual remedy. We turned to the right and to the left; efforts at conciliation were made, among others, by my noble friend at the Table, as he has mentioned to-night but it was felt from the beginning, I think, by some of us, that the only possible remedy for the anomaly which had been created by the undoubted operation of the law was by the interference of the Government and the Legislature. And the result of that has been that we have had one Commission already; we have had now this Bill, which is setting on foot another Executive Commission, with the largest discretion and the most effective powers, to put in order that which has been put in some disorder by the law. It is a rough and ready remedy for a condition of things which had arisen in that strange fashion. In these circumstances I would appeal to my noble and learned friend not to apply too much of his legal acumen in Committee to the various clauses in which he sees a germ of danger.
  This is, after all, a remedy, perhaps unprecedented, for a state of things which I hope will have no repetition in this country. We must not be tied absolutely in large matters of policy of this kind by considerations of rather nicely-drawn disquisitions on legal points. We must apply ourselves to this matter with a broad wish to meet the equities of the case or, let me say, as I know my noble friend objects to the word "equity" in this connection, with a broad wish to meet the necessities of the case. I. for one, having lived for some months last year in Scotland, when the feverish passion and stress of this matter were at their height, do offer my hearty thanks to the Government for having brought forward a measure which has received the acceptance of the United Free Church and the submission, I cannot say more, of the smaller Church which claims and has a legal title to the epithet "Free." I thank the Government for having made this effort, and I thank my friend the noble Marquess for the spirit and largeness of view with which he has presented it; and I hope, in view of
  882
  all the considerations, that this Bill will return at this late period of the session to the other House as it came, because even a word or two of amendment might retard the beneficent operation of a measure which every patriotic Scotchman desires to see passed.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  THE LOSS OF THE "KHYBER."
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have given their consideration to the report of the formal investigation into the loss at Porthloe Cove, Cornwall, of the British ship "Khyber" with twenty-three lives; whether, with a view to avoiding, as far as possible, similar sacrifices of life in the future, they are intending to take any steps in carrying out the four suggestions contained in the report made by the three magistrates and three nautical assessors constituting the Court; whether they can assist in carrying out the recommendation of the Court regarding the Sennen lifeboat; and, further, whether they can see their way clear to act on the recommendation that a reward should be given to Charles Trenerry for his energy and promptitude in bringing intelligence regarding the "Khyber" to the coastguard station at Sennen.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, in replying to the noble Lord I would remind him that the report of the Court of inquiry suggested in the first place that the coastguard staff should always be kept up to such a strength at all times that every part of the coast might be. properly patrolled. I understand that the Admiralty, in reply to that recommendation, state that it is not a part of the duty of the coastguard to patrol the coast for the purpose of watching for casualties, and that the force must be always liable to be withdrawn or reduced at the discretion of the Admiralty.

  883
  With regard to the second and third recommendations, I understand that the Admiralty are prepared to consider them in a favourable light and are trying to carry them into effect. With regard to the fourth recommendation, that some improved method of communication between the mainland and adjacent lighthouses and lightships should be provided, a system of wireless telegraphy is now being tried to see whether these different points can be connected up, but no conclusion has yet been arrived at. The next recommendation was to the effect that improvements were required to enable the Sennen lifeboat to be launched in all weathers and at all states of the tide, and in connection with this it has been suggested that improvements should be made for the protection of the harbour against storms. As regards the first point the board are in communication with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and, as regards the second, they have intimated to the town authorities that they would approach the Treasury with a view to obtaining a grant for these purposes, provided that the town itself would contribute an adequate sum, but at present no reply has been received from the town.
  There was another recommendation, that lighter transport carriages should be supplied for the rocket apparatus for use in this hilly country; but the Board of Trade cannot agree to the suggestion that the apparatus should be carried in three different carriages, because it is probable that in the event of the apparatus being required only a portion of it might be brought up. They, therefore, think it desirable that the strongest transport carriage should be used. As to the last Question, I am informed that both the Board of Trade and the Lifeboat Society gave. Charles Trenerry adequate remuneration, and they do not see their way to increase it.

  THE CHANTREY BEQUEST.
  THE EARL OF CARLISLErose "To ask whether the Government had received any communications from the Royal Academy in answer to the Report of
  884
  the Committee on the administration of the Chantrey Bequest; and, if not, whether they intended to take any steps to carry out the suggestions of that Committee." He said, my Lords, may I, as shortly as possible, state my reasons for asking my noble friend this Question? Last year a Select Committee was appointed, on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Lytton, to inquire into the administration of the Chantrey Bequest. That Committee sat a considerable number of times, had a great deal of evidence before it, and arrived at a practically unanimous decision. They made certan recommendations which, if I may say so, were excessively conservative and moderate in their character. These recommendations were aimed, not at any revolutionary change, but were intended to give the Academy power of fulfilling the obvious intentions of the testator, which, owing to different words in the will and regulations, it fails to do at present.
  I will give but one instance of my meaning. Chantrey stated that the fund which he provided was to be used for the purchase of works of Fine Art of the highest merit in painting and sculpture that could be obtained, and he added that this fund should be allowed, if at any time thought desirable, to accumulate for a term of not exceeding five years. It is obvious, I think, that the accumulation was to be allowed in order to make it possible to purchase works of the highest merit, but that accumulation has practically never taken place, because the council of the Academy, which is the purchasing body, changes from year to year, and they have always spent the income of the year in the year and have never been able to have that accumulation which Chantrey directed that they should have. In fact, one of their members, giving evidence before the Committee, said—
  "You must remember the limitation of our funds; £2,000 a year does not go very far."
  That is not an imaginary case. Only this year, I believe, a very important work of art, which has received admiration and applause almost universally, was not purchaseable by the trustees of the Chantrey Fund on account of their not

  885
  having at their disposal the accumulations they were directed to have by the will.
  One of the recommendations of the Committee—and the most important recommendation, I think—was intended exactly to meet that case. The Committee recommended that the elected members should be appointed to hold office for five years in order to enable them to accumulate money and buy important works of art. It seems to me clear that the Royal Academy have not availed themselves of that advice. The advice of the Committee was that effect should be given to these provisions, either under a scheme of the Charity Commissioners on the application of the trustees or by Act of Parliament. It seems pretty clear that no application has been made, because we understand that purchases have gone on in the usual way, and that DO advantage has been taken of the suggestion that has been made to them. I do not think it at all likely that an Act of Parliament will be passed this year, or probably next, to remedy this state of things, but I should like to point out to His Majesty's Government that they have in their hands a certain remedy, though perhaps only an indirect one. At present the purchases made by the trustees of the Chantrey Bequest go automatically to the National Gallery. They are handed over to the Government, who direct the trustees of the National Gallery to house them. The trustees have no power of selection or elimination. This collection is increasing very rapidly.
  By the generosity of Sir Henry Tate, who built a gallery at Millbank, there is at present still some room for the housing of pictures; but if the pictures so on accumulating at the present rate it will shortly become a question as to where they are to be placed. At present the nation has no control over the number or quality of the pictures sent. If the Government, and I believe they can do it without any difficulty, were to alter that restriction, and make it possible for the Board of the National Gallery to exercise some selection and discrimination, it would at all events be some sanction on the action of the Chantrey Trustees and would show them that they are not entirely
  886
  and solely masters of the situation. I very much regret that Lord Crewe, who was Chairman of this Commission, has not brought forward this question, as I believe he intended doing. I can only say that I have consulted with him on the subject, and he heartily concurs with me as to the propriety of this Question being put to His Majesty's Government. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, I am sure that His Majesty's Government do not complain of the action taken by my noble friend in asking this Question, They do not desire any more than he does, or any more than the members of the Committee do, that the recommendations which the Committee have made should be lost sight of or in any way ignored. A reply has been received by the Government from the Royal Academy in answer to the Report of the Committee on the administration of the Chantrey Bequest, and that reply will be laid on the Table of the House. The Royal Academy in this Memorandum having stated that although they do not accept all the conclusions arrived at by the Committee they are anxious to meet the suggestions it contains, it is the view of His Majesty's Government that a reasonable time at least should be given to see how the proposals of the Royal Academy and their manner of acting upon these suggestions, work out before any further steps if any further steps should be necessary, are taken by the Government. The noble Earl in the latter part of his remarks made suggestions as to the possibility of the Government taking a course with regard to the powers of the trustees of the National Gallery in making some selection or elimination from the pictures of the Chantrey Bequest before taking charge of them in the Tate Gallery. That is a suggestion which I am sure the noble Earl will not expect me to give any definite answer to at this moment; but I can assure him that the suggestion will be carefully considered.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Can the noble Lord inform the House when this reply was received from the Royal Academy,

  887
  and whether it will be laid on the Table before the end of this session?
  LORD WINDSOR: I do not remember exactly when the reply was received, but it will be laid on the Table at once, certainly before the end of the session.

  RUSSIA AND NEUTRAL SHIPPING.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to call attention to the sinking of the British ships "St. Kilda" and "Ikhona" by the Russian converted cruisers "Dnieper" and "Terek" on the 4th and 5th June respectively; to ask whether representations have been made to the Russian Government with regard to the disobedience of their naval officers to the orders issued to them on this subject; whether the Russian Government have agreed fully to compensate the owners and crews of the two vessels; also, whether these converted cruisers are admitted by His Majesty's Government to be ships of war.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I venture to think that Parliament ought to take under serious notice the violation of international law by vessels belonging, or purporting to belong, to the Russian navy, which I regret to say has become almost habitual. I would remind your Lordships of the facts in the two most recent cases which have occurred. On June 4th last the "St. Kilda," a Liverpool-owned ship, left Hong-Kong for Yokohama carrying a mixed cargo of goods, which were consigned, not to the Japanese Government, but to private persons. When she was about sixty miles from Hong-Kong she was met by the Russian cruiser "Dnieper," which had previously gone by the name of the "Peterburg." She was boarded and on the next day was sunk without any confirmation having been obtained of her having any contraband goods on board. Her crew were detained on board the "Dnieper," and were brought home on their way to a Russian port. When they reached Port Said, on urgent representations received from the Government they were liberated.
  On the day after the seizure of the "St. Kilda," the "Ikhona," a ship belonging to the British Indian Steam
  888
  Navigation Company, which also had a cargo of mixed goods, and, I believe, some mails on board, was stopped about 140 miles from Hong-Kong on her way to Yokohama. She was detained by the Russian cruiser "Terek" and sunk on the next day. That these two cases were a clear violation of international law I think there can be no doubt. I cannot state it in clearer words than the noble Marquess used in this House on July 28th last year in the case of the "Knight Commander." The noble Marquess said—
  "Upon no hypothesis of international law can we conceive that a neutral ship, even if it be that her cargo included contraband of war, could be destroyed upon the mere fiat of the commanding officer of the capturing squadron and without reference to a properly constituted Prize Court."
  In the cases that I have quoted the captains deny that they had any contraband of war on board, and at all events there was no proof brought that they had any. Not only were these violations of international law, but they were in contravention of distinct assurances which had been given to the British Government; and, curiously enough, with regard to one of these ships especially the noble Marquess on August 11th last year said—
  "As for the "Peterburg"—
  that vessel is now called the "Dnieper."
  "—and the "Smolensk," we know that the instructions that have been sent to them to desist from further seizures have reached their I destination—"
  the instructions, as we know, were delivered by British cruisers.
  "And we may assume that no further seizures will be made by them."
  That assumption has proved to be entirely unfounded, and the fact is that the captains of these two vessels allege that they were obeying orders received from Admiral Rozhdestvensky, which, of course, were in distinct opposition to the orders which had been delivered to them from the Russian Government by British cruisers last year.
  What does the Russian Government say to this? Unfortunately, generals, admirals, and apparently some captains, as soon as they leave the shores of Russia are a law to themselves, and act

  889
  according to what they think right and without any reference to international law, or, unfortunately, to any instructions received from their Government. But the Government, nevertheless, cannot possibly repudiate responsibility for their action. The noble Marquess, I am sine, will admit that he has been completely misled and that what has happened shows that the assurances which were given to him were really not worth the paper on which they were written. I have seen it alleged that the Russian Government contends that there is some justification for sinking ships which you cannot take into port so that they may be adjudicated upon by a Prize Court. I want to know whether the Russian Government have in any way changed their, position in regard to that matter, and whether His Majesty's Government in any way admit that that position can be defended.
  Then with regard to the question of compensation. Hitherto the payment of compensation by the Russian Government has admittedly been very slow. I want to know whether in these two cases the right of compensation has been admitted, and whether the Russian Government are prepared fully and immediately to compensate the owners and crews for the detention, the harm, and the damage they have sustained. Lastly, what is the status of the cruisers which were at one time volunteer cruisers? A year ago their status was under discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government, and on July 26th Mr. Balfour in the other House of Parliament said—
  "The whole question of the status of the volunteer fleet is under discussion between this Government and the Russian Government."
  I suppose that that discussion has had some issue, and, if so, I should like to know what it is. I see that the noble Marquess on July 28th, when speaking with reference to the seizure of the "Knight Commander" by the "Peterburg," said—
  "Volunteer ships have been withdrawn from the Red Sea to some other destination, and we understand that it is not intended that they shall in future be employed upon a similar service."
  The status of the "Peterburg" may in some way have been altered for aught I
  890
  know. It has been suggested to me that she went into a Russian port and received a commission. Possibly that may have been the case when her name was changed to that of the "Dnieper," but, at all events, the result remains the same, she continues her former practice, and while there is no Russian Navy there are several of these vessels detaining merchant ships belonging to various nations, and which, of course, detain more ships belonging to this than to any other nation because of the great size of our mercantile marine.
  I am sure that neither I nor anyone in this House, nor, indeed, anyone in the country, would desire to act in any way ungenerously towards the Russian Government under present circumstances; but, at the same time, surely Russia cannot be permitted to continue as a practice to disregard international law and to allow her cruisers to sink, in violation of all international law, the mercantile ships belonging to other nations. In these circumstances I do not think that we can be surprised if British shipowners are a little impatient and feel indignant when their ships are taken under the guns of British vessels, as was the case the other day at the Isthmus of Suez. I hope that some stop will be put to this very objectionable practice. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, my noble friend, I think, correctly stated the circumstances under which these two vessels were sunk by Russian cruisers, and it is therefore not necessary that I should recapitulate them. The sinkings took place on June 5th, and, as soon as possible after the news reached us, we instructed our Ambassador at St Petersburg to address urgent representations to the Russian Government on the subject. Sir Charles Hardinge dwelt on the great irritation created in this country by the news of these incidents, and pointed out more particularly that the conduct of these cruisers was in direct contravention of the statements which had been made to us by Count Lamsdorff in August, 1904—the statements which, no doubt, my noble friend has in mind.

  891
  We asked for a disavowal of the action of the "Dnieper;" we said that compensation would be claimed; and we called for some security against the repetition of such occurrences. We also asked that the officers of the "St. Kilda" should be transferred from the Russian cruiser at Port Said, and that an assurance should be obtained from the captain of the "Dnieper" that, during the remainder of his voyage, British ships should not experience a recurrence of such treatment; and, in order that there might be no delay in conveying the necessary instructions to these cruisers, we offered to place at the disposal of the Russian Government a British cruiser to which would be entrusted the task of conveying the instructions. We addressed similar representations a few days afterwards, when the news of the sinking of the "Ikhona" had reached us.
  On June 28th, Sir Charles Hardinge reported the result of his conversation with Count Lamsdorff, who attributed the sinking of these vessels to instructions issued independently by the Russian Admiral owing to the state of disorganisation in which the Russian navy had fallen in consequence of the recent disasters that had overtaken it. He promised to send orders to these vessels to come home at once, and to abstain from similar action, and he accepted the offer of His Majesty's Government to convey the necessary instructions by a British cruiser. There were four Russian cruisers altogether; my noble friend mentioned only two. The necessary instructions were, in fact, delivered to three of the cruisers at Jibuti, and to the fourth at Batavia, where she was, and is now, interned. The whole of these four cruisers may therefore be considered as no longer in a position in which they are likely to interfere with our commerce. The "Dnieper" has already arrived at Kronstadt, the "Rion" has passed Gibraltar, the "Kuban" has passed Port Said, and the Russian Consul has informed our Consul that she will not interfere with any more British ships. The "Terek," the fourth vessel, was interned on July 1st at Batavia.
  My noble friend asked me whether claims for compensation are to be pre
  892
  sented. They will be presented as soon as they have been formulated by the owners and shippers of the vessels, and we have intimated that these claims will be pressed irrespective of the decision of the Russian Prize Court. The claim on account of the "St. Kilda" is in a forward state of preparation, and the owners' claim will be sent in at once. The claim of the shippers is not complete, and the claim on account of the "Ikhona" has not yet come in. My noble friend asked me a Question as to the view of the Russian Government as to the right of these cruisers to sink neutral prizes. I gather that the Russian Government consider that, in an extreme case, a belligerent ship is justified in sinking a neutral prize. We have, as my noble friend knows, taken a different view.
  The last Question my noble friend asked me had reference to the status of these ships. In our view, such vessels, whether they belong to the Russian Volunteer Squadron, as did the "Dnieper," or whether they are merchant vessels acqui ed and properly commissioned in a Russian port, as the "Terek" was, are ships of war, and are entitled to be so regarded. The question of the status of these vessels is, of course, distinct from the general question of the right of a belligerent ship to sink a neutral prize. My noble friend referred to the discussions which took place in 1904, discussions in which the case of the "Peterburg," as she then was, the "Dnieper," as she is now, played a conspicuous part. But I daresay my noble friend will recollect that, at that time, we were discussing more particularly whether vessels of this class which were in the Black Sea had a right to emerge from the Black Sea in the guise of peaceful vessels and then suddenly to transform themselves into ships of war and behave as ships of war. We protested strongly against that view—but that is a circumstance which, of course, is not present in the matter we are now discussing.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Marquess has said that these claims for compensation will be pressed irrespective of the decision of the Russian Prize Court. I should like to

  893
  ask the noble Marquess how the Russian Prize Court can give any decision, because the vessels h question are at the bottom of the sea, their goods are there also, and their crews have been released. I do Dot see, therefore, how the Russian Prize Court can have anything to adjudicate upon.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I imagine it would be possible for the owners to product evidence as to the circumstances in which the ships were sunk, the nature of their cargo, and their destination.

  COLONIAL APPEALS.
  LORD LUDLOW: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord Chancellor whether his attention has been called to observations made by Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice of New Zealand, as reported in The Times of July 17tn, to the effect that he was surprised that the Colonies endured the present state of things under which cases were delayed by the Privy Council for two or three years; whether, in his opinion, the complaint as to the delay in the administration of justice in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is well founded, and, if so, what remedy he proposes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, my attention had been called to the statement before the noble Lord put down his Question, and I had directed a Return to be made of causes which had been before the Privy Council during the last two years. I regret very much the information which has been given to the Chief Justice of New Zealand, and I very much regret that he should have used the words attributed to him. I can hardly believe that they were correctly reported. But what is most material is what foundation is there for the observations? I do not pretend that the state of things is absolutely satisfactory—I have had to adjourn the judicial sittings of this House several times in order that I might sit in the Privy Council, as there are not enough of us to form two Courts in very important cases—but the statement of the
  894
  Chief Justice, if correctly reported, is wholly and absolutely inaccurate.
  With regard to the list which I have had prepared, I think it will be well to explain that, where a case comes on appeal from New Zealand, or, indeed, from any other colony, the date on which it is set down for hearing is entirely the act of the parties, and the tribunal has no control over it at all. Of the whole of the cases heard from New Zealand, three cases were decided in less than two months, including not only the hearing, but the judgment; two cases in between two and three months; one case between three and four months, and three cases between four and five months. There was one case which occupied about nine months i these circumstances. There were three consolidated appeals, which began to be heard in the beginning of August. After hearing the appeals for two days, and after consultation with the counsel, it was felt to be impossible that the case could be finished until after the long vacation. That case lasted, if we count the whole of the long vacation in, about nine months before judgment was given. There was another case in the list for February and March of this year, but it was adjourned from time to time until June by, and for, the convenience of the parties.
  In view of these facts, I think it will be seen that the statement of the Chief Justice—if he really used the words attributed to him, and I should be very sorry indeed to think he did use them—was manifestly a ridiculous exaggeration. I trust to lay the Return which I have quoted on the Table of the House, and I hope notice will be taken of it, because it seems to me that, although it does not disclose an entirely satisfactory state of things, it shows that the delays in the law are not so remarkable in these days. The Privy Council, through its Judicial Committee, hears cases not only from New Zealand, but also from India, Canada, Australia, and other colonies, and, therefore, I do not think the extreme limit I have mentioned is extraordinary delay. I hope this matter will be brought to the attention of the Chief Justice, and that he may see reason to correct the observations he is reported to have made,

  895
  attributing to the Privy Council the habit of delaying cases for two or three years. There is not the smallest foundation for such a statement.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to say one word on this matter. I am certain that Sir Robert Stout is the very last person in the world who would be guilty of ridiculous exaggeration and—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. I suggested that there was some mistake or that the Chief Justice had received inaccurate information. I should be very sorry indeed to say he was guilty of wilful exaggeration.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I did not the least understand the noble and learned Earl to say that. I only wished to say that Sir Robert Stout is the very last person who would make any statement that could be described as a wilful exaggeration, and I agree with the Lord Chancellor that there must be some mistake in the report. I should like to call the attention of the House for one moment to what lies behind all this. Sir Robert Stout also complained, as far as I understand, of the fact of these cases having to come to England to be tried at all, and I think the House might take notice of that. I am well aware that in this country most people, and especially those who have never been to the Colonies, look upon the Supreme Court of Judicature as the last link which joins the mother country to the Colonies, and they would be very sorry to see it interfered with; yet that is not altogether the way in which the Colonies consider it. I remember that when I was in New South Wales a land case was decided one way by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, but when it was sent home to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court in this country the decision went the other way. The result of that was that when the decision was telegraphed out a Bill was passed unanimously through both Houses of Parliament in New South Wales and Australia making it a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment to d—what?—to do exactly what had
  896
  been stated to be the law by the Supreme Court of the Empire. I think it is as well that it should be known that there is some little dissatisfaction amongst people in the Colonies on that score, more especially at the Cape, where, as your Lordships are aware, the law is Roman law.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Roman-Dutch law.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Where the law is Roman-Dutch law and quite different from the law in this country. I think we have had an object-lesson to-night. The debate earlier in the evening turned on the great dissatisfaction felt in Scotland at the reversal of the decision of the Supreme Court in Scotland as regards Church matters; and when we hear such language as was used by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, who talked, apparently with the approval of the entire House, of the anomaly of the law, of the agony of the decision, of the disorder in which the Church had been put by the law—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must ask the noble Earl whether he considers he is in order in going into the Scottish Church Bill in this discussion.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Am I not in order?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think not.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Then I will not say another word.
  LORD LUDLOW: I may state that I put the Question down with the sole object of learning what was the state of things. I was careful to refer to the observations made by Sir Robert Stout "as reported in The Times."

  PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.