Sitting of 9 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Rotherham, Maltby and Laughton Railway Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

NORWICH UNION LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY [STAMP DUTIES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe) in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or assurances which, in case the Bill had

901
not been passed into an Act, would have been required to pass to and vest in the Society certain property, there be charged a Stamp Duty of five pounds, and such Duty shall be impressed upon the copy of the intended Act to be delivered to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies under the section of this Act the marginal note whereof is 'Copy of Act to be registered.' "—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Clause 1.
MR. WHITLEYasked for some explanation of the Bill.
MR. CALDWELLsaid all the matters contained in the Bill had been carefully considered by the Private Bill authorities in conjunction with the parties concerned, and there was no opposition.
MR. WHITLEY: But what is the effect of the Bill. It proposes something and we ought to have some explanation.
MR. CALDWELLsaid it dealt with the stamp duties. The matter had been carefully considered. The Bill was one for which the consent of the Crown was necessary, and it was forthcoming.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Bill, he understood, dealt with a revenue question and imposed an extra stamp duty. If that were so it could only, under the forms of the House, be proposed by a Minister of the Crown, and not by a private Member, even one so distinguished as the hon. Member for Mid.-Lanark.
MR. CALDWELLsaid it was on the last occasion proposed by a Privy Councillor on behalf of the Crown.
MR. FIELDthought the circumstances very peculiar and pressed for some explanation.
MR. WHITLEYagreed that a Minister of the Crown ought to be present to
902
answer Questions, and he therefore moved to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Whitley,)—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

MULLINGAR, KELLS, AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY BILL.
"To abandon the Drogheda section of the undertaking authorised by the Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Acts, 1903 and 1904; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
COLNE CORPORATION BILL.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Colne Corporation Bill to omit Clause 30 of the Bill.—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS, AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1896.
  Two Petitions from Renfrewshire, for continuance; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF CLOSING).
  Petition from Bootle, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN HOLDINGS (TERMINABLE LEASES).
  Petition from Blackrock, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Copy presented, of Army Estimates of Effective and Non-Effective Services for the year ending 31st March, 1906 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 73.]
  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATES, 1905–6).
  Estimate presented, of the sum required for the year ending 31st March, 1906, to defray the Expense of the Ordnance Factories [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 78.]
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, Nos. 629 and 630 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EMIGRATION (COLONIES).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Emigrants' Information Office for the year ended 31st December, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUGAR (COST) (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return ordered, "showing the price per pound retail of the kind of sugar most largely consumed by the working classes, whether refined or unrefined, on or about the 1st day of March, 1905, in the capital cities of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Holland, Russia, Denmark, and Great Britain, respectively, together with the amount, in English currency, of the existing Customs and Excise duties respectively per pound in each case."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Colonial Securities—Double Payment of Estate Duty.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary of
  904
  State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the fact that the executors of a deceased gentleman domiciled in New Zealand, after having paid estate duty at the rate of 10 per cent. in New Zealand in respect of certain New Zealand securities, have been compelled to pay estate duty again in England at the rate of 5 per cent. in respect of the same New Zealand securities, making a total estate duty of 15 per cent.; and whether, with a view to the reciprocal operation as between this country and the Colonies of Section 20 (Sub-sections 1 and 3) of the Finance Act, 1894, he will take such steps or make such representations as will prevent such double payment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) My attention has been called to a recent case of the nature referred to by the hon. Member, and I am in communication with the Government of New Zealand on the subject.

  Publication of Report of Commission on Native Affairs in South Africa.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will present to Parliament the recently issued Report of the South African Commission on Native Affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I propose to lay the Report in the form in which it has recently been published in South Africa.

  Administrative Expenses and Income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  MR. STEVENSON: To ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as Church Estates Commissioner, if he will state the total administrative expenses (including legal expenses and fees to architects and surveyors) of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England in each of the financial years from 1890 to 1904, both inclusive, and the income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in each of the said years.
  (Answered by Sir Lees Knowles.) The information desired is, in relation to each financial year of the Ecclesiastical

  905
  Commissioners, contained in their Annual Report laid before both Houses of Parliament. For the years mentioned in the

  Year ending 31st Oct

  Official Establishment Expenses.

  Legal Expenses.

  Surveyor's Charges.

  Architects' Charges.

  Total.

  Income of the Commissioner's Common Fund.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1890

  32.766

  5

  7

  14,332

  17

  9

  7,485

  6

  2

  1,449

  9

  11

  56,033

  19

  5

  1,151,047

  3

  10

  1891

  32,832

  17

  10

  8,379

  1

  7

  6,983

  4

  3

  1,197

  9

  3

  46,392

  12

  11

  1,219,414

  15

  4

  1892

  32,289

  7

  3

  12,135

  19

  9

  6,448

  7

  10

  1,177

  8

  5

  52,051

  3

  3

  1,209,137

  12

  1

  1893

  32,351

  9

  5

  10,653

  6

  5

  5,928

  10

  11

  1,305

  16

  7

  50,239

  3

  4

  1,186,063

  14

  0

  1894

  32,290

  15

  11

  7,887

  11

  1

  5,766

  11

  7

  1,546

  6

  11

  47,491

  5

  6

  1,232,528

  17

  9

  1895

  32,272

  15

  2

  7,424

  4

  9

  7,090

  9

  4

  1,101

  4

  2

  47,888

  13

  5

  1,258,995

  16

  11

  1896

  32,572

  8

  10

  9,853

  2

  2

  7,170

  14

  9

  1,245

  3

  11

  50,841

  9

  8

  1,266,735

  14

  7

  1897

  32,932

  1

  8

  7,097

  11

  11

  6,819

  12

  0

  1,160

  7

  2

  48,009

  12

  9

  1,286,801

  1

  11

  1898

  33,476

  19

  7

  6,543

  12

  5

  6,794

  14

  10

  1,240

  12

  3

  48,055

  19

  1

  l,314,256

  5

  5

  1899

  34,343

  11

  1

  7,352

  5

  2

  7,768

  15

  7

  1,074

  1

  1

  50,538

  12

  11

  1,371,580

  13

  11

  1900

  34,764

  2

  8

  6,576

  7

  1

  7,164

  12

  11

  1,280

  10

  11

  49,785

  13

  7

  1,400,592

  0

  8

  1901

  33,875

  13

  10

  7,158

  19

  5

  7,130

  2

  9

  1,148

  8

  3

  49,313

  4

  3

  1,466,939

  12

  5

  1902

  34,801

  4

  8

  10,136

  10

  0

  8,208

  19

  3

  1,506

  19

  9

  54,653

  13

  8

  1,509,920

  9

  8

  1903

  30,592

  17

  2

  8,540

  10

  1

  7,294

  7

  0

  1,256

  3

  6

  47,683

  17

  9

  1,517,802

  12

  8

  1904

  30,939

  16

  6

  7,498

  17

  5

  8,464

  0

  10

  1,528

  3

  6

  48,430

  18

  3

  1,531,177

  4

  3

  Workmen's Compensation Scheme for Government Employees.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEForest of Dean): To ask Mr. Attorney-General, with reference to the statement made on behalf of the then Government, July 12th, 1897, that it was their intention to turn the compensation warrant as to Crown workmen into a scheme under the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Act, whether the scheme under the Act is still in force, and will be reconsidered in connection with any changes to be introduced by the Government Bill of the present session.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The scheme accepted by Government workmen under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, is still in force. Before any new scheme is proposed for their acceptance full consideration will be given to any alterations that
  Question, the income of the Commissioner's Common Fund, and the expenses paid thereout, were as follows:—
  may in the meantime be made in the law.

  Motor-Car Whistles.
  MR. SEELY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an advertisement of a patent whistle for motor-cars louder than a railway whistle, which can be heard half-a-mile ahead; and whether he can take any steps to prevent the use of an apparatus of that kind.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have not seen the advertisement referred to by my hon. friend, and I do not at present see my way to take any steps in the matter.

  Report of Mansion House Unemployed Committee.
  MR. WHITMORE: To ask the President of the Local Government

  907
  Board whether, in view of the legislation promised on the subject of the unemployed, he will advise the Central Mansion House Committee to prepare a Report, to be presented to Parliament, giving a detailed account of their proceedings, and of the results as yet obtained.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I contemplated that the Central Committee would make a Report, and I understand that preparatory steps for this purpose are being already taken. I fear, however, that some time must necessarily elapse before a detailed Report could be presented to Parliament.

  Electrified District Railway—Protection of the Public.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether under the proposed electrical equipment on the District Railway there will only be one motor-man to each train; whether, having regard to the safety of the public, he will take steps to secure that there be two motor-men to each train.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed by the railway company that every electrical train, whether of seven, four, or three cars, on the District Railway will, in addition to the motor-men, have one or more men who will be thoroughly instructed in the control of the motors. It may be added that the effect of the withdrawal of the motorman's hand from the lever would simply be to cut off the current and stop the train. As a further precaution, if a train passes a signal set at danger it will instantly be stopped through the automatic application of the brakes. I see no reason to take any action in the matter.

  Division of the Kingston Estate.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state what part, if any, of the Kingston Estate is excluded from the five sections into which the vendor has applied to the Estates Commissioners to have the estate divided; and if he will give the names of the townlands comprising each section respectively, and the number of tenants
  908
  in each such proposed separate estate who have signed the purchase agreements; lodged with the Estates Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Commissioners have declared all the lands comprised in certain specified townlands to be four separate estates. There are nearly 200 of these townlands, and I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by enumerating them. The agreements to purchase have not yet been checked, and until this has been done the number of tenants included in each separate estate cannot be given. It is understood that the vendor proposes to include the remainder of the property in a fifth originating application.

  Alleged Theft of £5 Note from Mr. Hannon.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 9th ultimo, the refusal of Sergeant Booth of the C Division to investigate the theft of £5 belonging to a man called Hannah, was reported to the Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police in writing; whether, seeing Hannah occupies apartments in Sergeant Booth's house and that other thefts of money belonging to Hannah were traced by the sergeant to his son, he will state why the Commissioner has not replied to Hannah's complaint and no action has been taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Hannon, who was a lodger in the house of Sergeant Booth, received notice to quit on January 2nd. A few days subsequently he stated to the sergeant that a £5 note had been abstracted from a box belonging to his father, and demanded that the sergeant should investigate the alleged theft. The sergeant considered it would be indiscreet for him to take up the case, and requested Hannon to report the matter at the police station, with a view to its investigation independently by another officer. Hannon neglected to take this course, and took no further action until February 9th, when he made a written report to the Chief Commissioner. The police have not yet succeeded in tracing the missing note or in obtaining any information which would

  909
  corroborate Hannon's account of the reported loss. Hannon is aware that inquiry is being made, and he will be informed of the result in usual course when the inquiry has been completed. The Chief Commissioner is not aware of any foundation for the insinuation in the Question that the sergeant's son, who is a boy under ten years of age, has been guilty of any theft of money.

  Royal Irish Constabulary — Average Number of Men in Charge of County and District Inspectors.
  MR. DELANY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state what is the average Dumber of men in the Royal Irish Constabulary in charge of a county and district inspector respectively; and will he say whether the two officers by which the force has been reduced since August, 1903, were county or district inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The average number of men in charge of a county inspector (including the force in Belfast) is 261. The average number of men in charge of a district inspector is forty-eight. The two officers by which the force has been reduced since August, 1903, were district inspectors.

  Labourers' Cottages in the Athlone Union.
  MR. SULLIVAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that Mr. Barnewell Crofton, Local Government Board Inspector, held an inquiry in the Board Room of the Athlone Union on July 9th last, and approved of the erection of eight labourers' cottages, and that on the next day he visited the sites and approved of them; and, if so, will he say what is the cause of the delay in erecting the cottages; and will the plots be given to the labourers this spring in order that they may be fenced in and potatoes planted.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Provisional Order, authorising the erection of six of the eight cottages proposed, became absolute on the 21st ultimo, and the rural district council are now in a position to apply for a
  910
  loan to put the scheme in respect of these six cottages into effect. The remaining two cottages were petitioned against, and the council have abandoned their intention to provide them.

  Promotion and Pensions of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will give the number of national school teachers in Ireland promoted from third to second grade, second to second of first grade, and second of first to first section of the first grade respectively, for the triennial period ending March 31st 1903; and of the number thus promoted how many up to the present time have been advanced to a higher class pension scale.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) For the triennial period ended March 31st, 1903, 580 teachers were promoted to the second grade, 113 to the second of first grade, and 55 to first of first grade. In 601 of these cases the question of pension advancement does not arise, inasmuch as the teachers interested were not promoted to a grade higher than their previous respective classes. In the remaining 147 cases the teachers were promoted to a grade higher than their previous classes.

  Postal Facilities at Redford-Moy, County Tyrone.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a memorial in favour of a pillar letter box being placed at Redford-Moy, county Tyrone; and if he can remove the grievance of a large district in regard to the posting of letters.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) An application has been received for the erection of a letter box at Redford near Moy, and inquiries are now being made on the subject.

  Appointment of Chief Telegraph Superintendent at Bristol.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the post of chief telegraph superintendent has been vacant at Bristol since February, 1904;

  911
  and, if so, whether, in view of the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee that vacant superior appointments should be filled without delay, and the stoppage of promotion in the Telegraph Department, he will direct that the necessary appointment be made speedily.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The vacancy is not an ordinary one, but is caused by the creation of a new and important appointment. Matters relating to the telegraph department at Bristol have required special consideration, and I have not yet been in a position to select a thoroughly suitable officer to fill the vacancy, but I hope to be able to do so very shortly,

  Posting of Late-Fee Letters.
  LORD CECIL MANNERS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that a new regulation will come into force on March 15th requiring letters bearing the late fee of an extra halfpenny stamp to be posted in a special box at a post office instead of as at present in any pillar box, he will, in the interest of the public convenience, consider the advisability of retaining the existing facilities of posting.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Owing to the enormous growth of the correspondence falling into the 7 p.m. collection in the central districts of London it is not now possible in the short time available to pick out all the letters, etc., bearing a late-fee stamp if they are posted in the same box as other letters. The result is that some of them fail to be selected in time for inclusion in the mails for which they are intended. To obviate this I have reluctantly been compelled to restrict the posting of these late-fee letters to special boxes which have been provided at all post offices in the districts affected.

  Sunday Delivery of Letters between Belturbet and Milltown.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will give a Sunday post between Belturbet and Milltown, county Cavan, and, if necessary, even withdraw one
  912
  of the ordinary week-day deliveries, seeing that Sunday is availed of almost exclusively for country correspondence, and that it is the day on which American letters, local newspapers, etc., are due to arrive.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will make inquiry on the question of establishing a Sunday post between Belturbet and Milltown, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

  Education—Circular 512.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a leaflet issued by the Emergency League in which it is stated that Circular 512 sent out by the Board of Education is practically a dead letter, and the League is prepared to defend any case of prosecution under it; and whether he is ready, under these circumstances, to support authorities in enforcing the demands of the circular.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) My attention has been called to the leaflet in question. There is no ground for the statement there contained that Circular 512 is a dead letter. The Circular sets out the interpretation placed by the Board upon the Education Acts so far as they relate to school attendance, and conveys certain instructions to inspectors. The Board have not departed and will not depart from that interpretation or from those instructions.

  Attendance at Schools by Children Re siding out of the District.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the managers of a public elementary school have any right to refuse admission to a child on the ground that the parents do not reside within the area of the local authority in which the school is situate, assuming, always that there is room in the school for such child.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The fact that a child does not reside in the area of the local education authority in which the school is situate is not of itself a ground upon which the managers of a

  913
  public elementary school would be justified in refusing to admit the child. Where, however, children of one, area attend a school maintained by the local education authority of another area in such numbers as to entail a serious charge upon the rates, the Board consider that the maintaining authority would be justified in directing the managers to exclude such children, unless the authority within whose area they reside agrees to contribute a proportionate sum to the maintenance of the school.

  Gambling in Options.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the information received from Canada, Germany, and other countries respecting the working of legislation against gambling in options and futures is available for Members of the House; and, if not, whether it will be printed and circulated.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) If the hon. Member cares to call at the Board of Trade he can see the information that has been received on this subject.

  Preferential Trade between the United States and British Colonies.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, seeing that under the existing tariff law of the United States the President has authority to enter into treaties of reciprocity with Canada, Newfoundland, the British West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or any British colony or foreign country, he can say whether under it treaties have been negotiated with Newfoundland, British Guiana, British Honduras, and Trinidad, securing the preferential Customs treatment of American products in those colonies.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) No treaty securing preferential treatment for American goods has been negotiated or is in process of negotiation on behalf of any British colony.

  Petitions to Parliament of Indian Subjects.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India,
  914
  having regard to the fact that petitions from natives of India for the redress of grievances have been again laid upon the Table of the House this session, will he take steps to make known to the people of India that no action in regard to such petitions is taken either by the House or by the Secretary of State for India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) As promised in the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Ipswich on July 19th†last, a copy of the Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions was sent to the Government of India last autumn, and they were instructed to make the recommendations of the Committee widely known. I find that my despatch and its enclosures were published in the Gazette of India on September 15th last, and were also sent to local governments and administrations for publication in their Gazettes, and for distribution to commissioners and district officers, who have no doubt done their best to give publicity to the matter.

  Election of Bombay University Provisional Syndicate.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that certain members of the Bombay University Senate objected to the legality of the rules framed by the Chancellor for the election of the provisional syndicate, and took no part in the election, and that their protest was supported by the opinion of counsel; and, if so, whether, in view of the Indian Universities (Validation) Act, he will direct the Chancellor to hold a fresh election for the provisional syndicate.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) As at present advised, I see no reason for taking the action suggested. If the hon. Member will refer to the speech delivered by the legal member of the Viceroy's Council on February 10th last, when the Indian Universities (Validation) Bill was under discussion, he will see that it was pointed out that under the law the Senate (not the Chancellor as stated in the Question) can only make one appointment of a provisional syndicate, and that
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 415.

  915
  a fresh provisional syndicate could only be appointed if it were beyond doubt that the present provisional syndicate was not validly appointed. This is by no means the case. The hon. Member will find the whole matter explained in the debates on the Bill referred to, printed in the Gazette of India for February 18th, which is in the Library of the House.

  Indian Universities (Validation) Act.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, under the rules framed by the Chancellor of the Bombay University, Mr. Justice Tyabji, Mr. Justice Chandravarkar, Mr. Justice Batty, Sir Pherozshah Mehta, the Hon. Mr. Setalwad, and other Fellows of the University have been excluded from the Faculty of Arts; and whether, seeing that these Fellows have for many years taken a leading part in the management of the University, he will withhold his sanction to the Indian Universities (Validation) Act of 1905 until this defect is remedied.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I understand that the gentlemen named in the Question, though not members of the Faculty of Arts, are, nevertheless, Fellows of the Bombay University and members of the Faculty of Law, and as such have the opportunity of taking part in the management of the University in the future as in the past. I see no reason, therefore, on this account to advise His Majesty to disallow the Act mentioned in the Question, which is already law.

  Tibet Expedition—Rewards for Officers of Transport and Lines of Communication.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that it was chiefly due to the exertions of the transport and special service officers on the lines of communication that the Tibet Mission Force was able to get to and was maintained at Lhasa, and that not one of them has obtained a reward; and, if so, whether he can explain the omission from the list of honours issued in connection with the Mission of the names of any such officers.
  916
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The value of the services of those employed on the lines of communication in connection with the Tibet Mission both beyond and within the British frontier was fully acknowledged in General Macdonald's despatch, and in the Papers which have been presented to Parliament, and my hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that their names have been omitted from the list of honours. The officer commanding the line of communications received a C.B., two officers of the Supply and Transport Corps have received the D.S.O., and an officer of the Telegraph Department has been made a C.I.E. The names of many deserving officers were brought to notice, but it was impossible to give rewards in the cases of all who distinguished themselves, whether at the front or on the lines of communication.

  Army Lists and Muster Rolls at the Record Office.
  COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when a few years ago the old Army lists and muster rolls were transferred from the War Office to the Public Record Office, it was stipulated they should be available to all students under the rules in force there; if not, under what conditions they were handed over.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The reply is in the affirmative.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Mooring Places for Disused Vessels in the Clyde.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the Gairloch, Loch Long, and Loch Goil, the head of Loch Striven and that portion of Loch Fyne above Otter Spit as suitable ground for the disused vessels now anchored in the Kyles of Bute and the Holy Loch, to the serious inconvenience of the public; and whether he will arrange to have the matter reported upon by the proper Admiralty official, and the result communicated to the House.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,: These lochs were all considered as possible mooring places for the vessels requiring to be laid up temporarily, but none of them possess the advantages of the East Kyle of Bute and Holy Loch.
  MR. AINSWORTH: Will the hon. Gentleman lay the Report on the Table?
  MR. PRETYMAN: There is no Report. The matter has been carefully considered and this is the result, but there is no formal Report.

  Army Recruiting.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated number of recruits required annually, under the present nine years system of enlistment, in order to maintain the establishment at full strength, and how many recruits have actually been obtained since January 1st of this year.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The number of infantry recruits enlisted for nine years required to maintain the establishment of the new Army organisation scheme when in working order is as shown in the document presented to Parliament in 1904 (Cd. 1910). At present a large number is required for reasons that I have already explained to the House. The number of infantry recruits actually obtained since January 1st to February 28th is 4,810.

  Short Service.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the scheme for the formation of the new localised short-service regiments is now definitely abandoned; and, if not, when it is proposed to take steps to bring the scheme into operation.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the general-service Army, consisting of men enlisted for nine years with the colours and three with the reserve, explained by him in the House of Commons on July 14th, 1904, and in the
  918
  Memoranda dated August 2nd, 1904, is now intended to be a temporary measure.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As I have already explained, this scheme of short-service enlistment has not been abandoned, but only postponed until the nine years enlistments have proved sufficient to provide the men necessary to furnish the Indian drafts for the next two years and to stiffen the battalions. The scheme of enlistment for nine years forms part of the whole scheme of Army reorganisation together with the short-service scheme, but has been temporarily applied to all infantry enlistments until the infantry has been rehabilitated in the manner above mentioned.

  Army Establishment.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present establishment of the Army, and what was the number actually serving on March 1st of this year.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The latest numbers available are those for February 1st, and are as follows:—British establishment—establishment, 206,783; effectives, 206,170. Indian establishment—establishment, 74,648; effectives, 78,141.

  Whitchurch Rifle Range.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the cost of the range at Whitchurch, Gloucestershire; whether the range is now closed; and, if so, for what reason, and for how long it is likely to remain closed; and what arrangements are being made to permit the men of the depôt at Horfield, and the Militia and Volunteer Battalions to fire their annual course of musketry.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The range cost £5,000. It is now closed, owing to some cottages in the rear being unsafe, as there is not sufficient danger area. It is not possible, however, to state at present whether it will have to be abandoned. The 4th Militia Battalion of the Gloucester Regiment will fire the annual course on Salisbury Plain. Arrangements will be made for the other troops using this range to fire their annual course, but the places have not yet been definitely selected.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked if the cottages were there before the expenditure was incurred.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must request notice of any further Question.

  Indian Expenditure.
  MR. CREMER:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what are the chief causes of the Indian Government's increased expenditure during the first eight months of the financial year, under the head of Military Services, of 100 lakhs in excess of the Budget estimates; have there been any recent savings under that head, or has an estimate been made for an excess during the remaining portion of the year ending with next month; to what unforeseen circumstances is attributable the excess in these eight months under the head of Civil Debts; to what amount beyond the Budget estimate of £18,435,500 for Home Charges have the Secretary of State's drawings on India reached at the present date, and to what purposes are these excess drawings being applied; and what is the present amount of the Secretary of State's cash balances in this country and in India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): May I refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for North Manchester on March 2nd.†

  European Turkey.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the latest information given to the House is dated August, 1904, the Government will lay upon the Table further correspondence relating to the European provinces of Turkey.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: It would not be desirable to present further correspondence on the subject until the important negotiations which are still
  † See p 172
  920
  pending have been brought to a definite issue.

  Turkish Outrages—Rebuilding of the Villages.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, how many of the houses in the six villages in Malesia and the nineteen villages in Debritza, which were totally destroyed by Turkish troops, have been rebuilt, as promised by the Turkish Government.
  EARL PERCY: We have received no information as to the rebuilding of these particular villages, but His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople will be instructed to make inquiries on the subject.

  Post Office Savings Bank—Purchase of Consols.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of Consols purchased by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Post Office Savings Bank (exclusive of the amount purchased for depositors) in the years 1894 to 1899, inclusive; what was the average price paid for the stock so purchased; what was the deficiency in respect of the total amount of Consols bought in these years, taking the price at which the stock was valued on December 31st, 1903, namely, 87⅞ per cent.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The details of the figures now asked for by the hon. Member will appear in the Return which has already been promised to him, and which is now in preparation.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the Return be unopposed?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes Sir. I understood it had been given, and was being prepared. Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with the Secretary to the Treasury.

  Interest to Post Office Savings Bank Depositors.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the average rate of interest allowed to depositors by the Post Office Savings Bank is higher than the average rate of interest on deposits paid by the London Joint Stock Banks; and in view of the fact that, in addition to the deficiency in the capital account of the Post Office Savings Bank, it is estimated that for at least several years to come there will be, as there has been in the last two years, a deficiency in the income account, he will take steps to secure that persons belonging to the well-to-do classes do not, as Post Office Savings Bank depositors, enjoy a rate of interest partially made up by contributions of the general body of taxpayers.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not admit that the average rates of interest allowed to depositors by the London Joint Stock banks, which derive profit from the monies placed on deposit with, them, should determine the rate to be given by the Post Office Savings Banks, which were established to encourage thrift and do not trade for profit. But, however that may be, the evidence given before the Select Committee of 1902 did not support the view that any considerable proportion of depositors are outside the classes for which the Savings Banks are intended to provide. It has been suggested that the Savings Banks Act, 1893, passed at the instance of the Party opposite, by extending the limit of annual deposit from £30 to £50, has led to the introduction of depositors of a different class; but the evidence before the Committee was that the proportion of depositors of different classes had not been altered by that Act. I see no present necessity for taking any step to diminish the facilities afforded by the Savings Banks.

  Electricity in Mines.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the new rules relating to the use of electricity in mines have been agreed upon; if so, can he state the date upon which they will come into force.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): In settling these rules, I consulted representatives both of the owners and of the men. The notices proposing the rules were sent out between February 20th and March 1st, and the rules come into force in each case at the end of twenty days from the receipt of the notice by the owner of the mine, unless he has previously objected to them in writing. So far, very few objections have been received.

  Labour Statistics—Annual Abstract.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the President of the board of Trade whether he can state the reason for the delay of the publication of the Tenth Annual Abstract of Labour Statistics, and when it is likely to be ready for issue.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): This volume will be published very shortly; its preparation has been somewhat delayed by the pressure of work in connection with the preparation of special Returns.

  Post Office Savings Bank—Limit of Deposits.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the rule as to limit of deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank is evaded by the opening by the same person of two or more accounts in his own name, or in fictitious names, or in the names of members of his family or other dependents.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: Cases have come to light in which the limit of deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank has been exceeded by the opening of two or more accounts in the same name or in fictitious names by means of a false declaration; but such cases are very rare. There is no information available as to the extent to which the limit is evaded by the opening of accounts in the names of members of a depositor's family or household; as such evasions would not come to light so long as deposits and withdrawals were

  923
  made by the persons in whose names the accounts were opened. There is, however, no reason to suppose that evasions of this nature are numerous.

  Rural Postmen's Wages.
  MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will take steps to give the rural postmen who start from the Oswestry Post Office the same rate of wage as those who deliver letters in the town.
  LORD STANLEY: I have already announced to the staff that rural postmen starting from towns will be given the same pay as the postmen in the towns, and the rural postmen at Oswestry will be dealt with on these lines.
  MR. SLOAN: Does that apply to Ireland?
  LORD STANLEY: Yes it applies everywhere throughout the United Kingdom.

  West Highland Mail Services.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if, in renewing the mail contracts for steamer services for the Barra, Uist, and Benbecula districts of the West Highlands, he will endeavour to arrange a more convenient service, having Oban and Mallaig as termini; and if he will make it part of the contract that the mail steamer should call at Petersport Pier in Benbecula.
  LORD STANLEY: There is at present no question of renewing the contract for the mail steamer service to the districts to which the hon. Member refers; but I may state that with the existing train service it would not be practicable to afford so good a mail service by way of Mallaig as is at present provided via Oban. There are also other objections to the adoption of the Mallaig route, as was pointed out in the letter sent to the hon. Member on August 17th. 1901. As regards the suggestion that the mail steamer should call at Petersport Pier, I find that such a call would delay the boat, and would prejudicially affect the mail service to and from the most important places in
  924
  the districts concerned. In these circumstances I regret I cannot comply with the hon. Member's wishes in the matter.

  Berwick-upon-Tweed—Preservation of Ancient Walls.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the negotiations for the preservation of the ancient walls of Berwick-upon-Tweed, dating from the reign of King Edward the First, have now been completed by His Majesty's Office of works; and, if so, whether they have resulted in a scheme which will prevent the threatened destruction of these interesting monuments.
  *LORD BALCARRES: The negotiations have now so far advanced as to give reason to hope that they mar be brought to a successful issue. The scheme proposed includes a lease of the historic ground and monuments to the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works which, if concluded, will effectually preserve them from destruction.

  Land Purchase in Ireland—Archdale, County Longford, Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether any application has been made to the Estates Commissioners for the purchase by them of the Archdale (county Longford) Estate; and, if so, to state the terms of such offer.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): No such application has yet been made.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: And supposing, one is made——
  MR. ATKINSON: I cannot answer a hypothetical Question.

  Longford Land Appeals.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland when the next sitting of the Chief Land Commission for the hearing of appeals will take place in and for county Longford; how many such appeals are now pending

  925
  when the last sitting of the Commission took place in Longford; and on how many occasions since have Longford appeals been sent to other venues because of the refusal of the Commissioners to come to Longford.
  MR. ATKINSON: A sitting for the hearing of appeals has been provisionally fixed for May 30th. There are 204 appeals pending. The last sitting of the Commissioners to hear appeals was held in July, 1903. Appeals from Longford have not since been heard elsewhere.

  Monaghan Lunatic Asylum—Case of Nurse Holland
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can now state the result of the Government inquiry into the case of Nurse Holland, who was reported by the Inspectors of Lunacy as entirely unfitted for her position, having regard to her faithless-ness in the discharge of her duties and the untrustworthiness of her statements.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have carefully considered this case. The appointment and dismissal of asylum nurses is vested solely in the committee of management of the asylum. The only way in which the Government could intervene would be by withdrawing the capitation grant paid to the Monaghan Asylum under Section 58, Sub-section 2 (c) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898, on the ground that the asylum is improperly managed. In the present instance the charge preferred by Nurse Holland was found to be false. The action of the committee in deciding to retain her services under the circumstances is much to be regretted, but I do not consider that their action can be held to bring the case within the provisions of the Act to which I have referred.

  Mr. Robert Jevers' Estate, County Limerick.
  MR.LUNDON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, is he aware that the estate of Mr. Robert Jevers, of county Limerick, is up for sale in the court of Mr. Justice Ross; does he know whether any bid has been made for it as yet; and, if so, by whom, and what is the amount of it; can he say
  926
  whether the notice of sale has been brought before the Estates Commissioners with a view to their purchasing it in the public interest for the benefit of the evicted tenants, small farmers, and labourers of the district; is he aware that a brother of the owner, by name William Jevers, is an evicted tenant, having been evicted off the Langford property convenient; and, if so, will he recommend to the Estates Commissioners that William Jevers will have the first claim for a farm on the estate of his father and brother of equal area to that from which he was evicted.
  MR. ATKINSON: The estate was offered for sale in the Land Judge's Court on the 1st instant. An offer of £3,250 was made and was considered insufficient. A motion on behalf of the owner was thereupon made to the Court that an application be made to the Estates Commissioners to issue a request under the 7th Section of the Act of 1903, and the solicitor having carriage of the sale was authorised to make such application. I am inquiring whether the matter has been brought before the Commissioners.

  Irish Agricultural Department—Catholic Clerks in the Veterinary Department.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the chief clerk of the Agricultural Department recently suggested to one of the Catholic clerks of the veterinary branch that he should withdraw from the representations which they had put before the Department in May last; and, if so, whether he will say what steps he proposes taking to put a stop to such action.
  MR. ATKINSON: This is a repetition of a Question put to me by the hon. Member on the 1st instant.† I have nothing to add to the reply given by me on that occasion.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of James Jordan, of Granard.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case
  † See page 27.

  927
  of James Jordan, of Derrycassan, Granard, who was evicted by Colonel Dopping in 1886, although offering to pay the full amount of rent which he was decreed for; whether he is aware that subsequently Jordan obtained a decree for £47 10s. for illegal eviction against the agent; and whether, having regard to the fact that this man's holding now forms part of the demesne of Derrycassan, and is therefore in occupation of the landlord, he will take steps to bring his case under the notice of the Estates Commissioners with a view to his reinstatement when the property is being sold.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that Catherine Jordan deceased, and her son James Jordan, were evicted in January, 1887. Payment of the amount of the decree was offered, but not within the period allowed by the County Court Judge. No decree for illegal eviction against the agent was obtained. The evicted holding appears to be in the possession of a new tenant. The application of James Jordan for reinstatement will be considered by the Commissioners should the estate come before them.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the evicted tenant actually paid the money to the sheriff? Whether it was paid to the agent I know not.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware that it is so.

  Dopping Hepenstall Estate, North Long ford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether any reply has yet been received from the Estates Commissioners on the subject of the proposed purchase of the Dopping Hepenstall Estate, in North Longford, under the 7th Section of the Land Act of 1903.
  MR. ATKINSON: No proceedings are at present before the Commissioners in respect to this estate, and it does not appear, so I am informed, that the sale of this estate is pending in the Land Judge's Court. If particulars of the property are supplied to the Commissioners
  928
  they will consider the question of issuing a request under the enactment referred to.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case a petition was signed by the leading men of the district, and the priests and clergy of all denominations, asking the Commissioners to take action? Will he draw their attention to it?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am sure if the petition has been received it will receive the attention of the Commissioners.

  Kenmare Guardians—Charges against the Rev. Mr. Duggan.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that a memorial, signed by seventeen members of the board of guardians and rural district council of Kenmare, was sent to the Local Government Board on January 30th, assigning reasons why a public inquiry should be held relative to the case of a fever patient named Cottar who died recently in the union; can he state on what grounds the inquiry has been refused; and whether, in view of the charges made against the Rev. Mr. Duggan, Protestant rector of Kilgarvan parish, steps will be taken to hold an inquiry immediately.
  MR. ATKINSON: Such a memorial has been received. The grounds upon which the memorialists urged the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry on oath were that the Rev. Mr. Duggan had gratuitously afforded medical advice to a poor person named Cottar. As this clergyman is not in any way under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board, they were advised that the matter was not one in which they could intervene. Moreover, there was nothing to show that the rev. gentleman had done anything illegal or actionable, rendering him liable to a penalty under 21 and 22 Vic., Cap. 90, Sec. 40.
  MR. BOLAND: But seeing that this man died from fever and not pneumonia and the rev. gentleman has asked for an inquiry, cannot one be held?
  MR. ATKINSON: The Local Government Board have no power to hold an inquiry.

  Longworth Estate, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the acreage of the Longworth Estate, in county Galway, purchased by the Congested Districts Board; how much of it is untenanted; how long this portion is in the possession of the Board; what use is being made of it; when it is intended to divide it up amongst small adjoining occupiers; and what is the cause of the delay in currying out the work of dividing this land.
  MR. ATKINSON: The estate contains 1,316 acres, all untenanted. It has not yet been vested in the Board, but it is expected this will be done in a few weeks. The lands are being let for grazing until the Board are in a position otherwise to deal with them.
  MR. ROCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the large quantity of untenanted land in this neighbourhood is giving rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction? Will he draw the attention of the Congested Districts Board to the fact?
  MR. ATKINSON: The Board have stated that they are dealing with the question.
  MR. KILBRIDE: To whom are the lands being let? Is it to the adjoining tenants?
  MR. ATKINSON: I cannot say.

  Pirrie-Iveagh Motor Scheme.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state how many and what county councils have declined to accept the financial responsibity of keeping the roads in the condition required by the promoters of the Pirrie-Iveagh scheme; and whether any negotiations took place between the promoters and any member of the Government with reference to providing funds from the Treasury for putting the roads in order.
  MR. ATKINSON: The local authorities in the counties of Mayo, Galway, Londonderry, and Antrim declined to incur the expenditure necessary for putting the roads into proper condition for motor traffic. In reply to the second part of the Question the hon. Member is doubtless aware that, acting on a suggestion made by the Galway County Council, the Government proposed an Amendment to the Labourers Bill of last session which contemplated the expenditure of the whole or part of the unexpended balance of a county's share in the Exchequer contribution for labourers' cottages for purposes such as the schemes referred to in the Question. There was never any intention, so far as I am aware, to provide funds from other sources.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is that statement made with the knowledge and concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover?
  MR. ATKINSON: The statement I make here is, of course, not made with that right hon. Gentleman's knowledge.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Are we to understand that this scheme has broken down? Are we to hear no more of it?
  MR. ATKINSON: "Broken down" is not the phrase to use. It has not been carried into effect because the roads have not been put in proper repair.
  MR. CULLINAN: Is it not a fact that several county councils in Ireland have offered to repair the roads if they could secure the introduction of this motor scheme, but their offer has been refused?
  MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice of that.

  Sir George Colthurst's Estate.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that some time last June the tenants of Sir George Colthurst or Lady Colthurst, in the parish of Ardpatrick, and county of Limerick, signed agreements for the purchase of their holdings: is he aware that the Hon. W. C. Trench,

  931
  of Clanadfoy Kilfinane, purchased the mountain portion of the estate in which they had the right of turbary and grazing young cattle, thereby depriving the tenants of the advantages of cheap turf and rearing of some cattle; and can he state whether, in negotiations with the tenants, stipulations were made that the turbary rights should belong to the tenants, and if the tenants were compelled to pay the amount of interest usual in such circumstances; and have the tenants communicated on the subject with the Estates Commissioners; if so, with what result.
  MR. ATKINSON: The mountain referred to does not form part of the estate for sale. It has been sold to Captain Trench. For some years past the tenants have ceased to cut turf on the mountain as the bog is practically cut out. The Commissioners have no knowledge of any stipulations as to turbary in the negotiations for sale. The tenants have been required to pay the interest payable under the statute pursuant to their agreements.

  Gore Booth Estate, Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sale of the Gore Booth estate, situate in the county of Sligo, has yet been ratified or agreed to by the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, whether, seeing that the town of Ballymote forms portion of that estate, and that the landlord agrees to sell to his town tenants, through the Estates Commissioners, the latter will be instructed to look into this matter with the view of having the proposed sale sanctioned.
  MR. ATKINSON: The lands in the neighbourhood of Ballymote on this property have been declared an estate for the purpose of sale. But the town of Ballymote was excluded from the originating application.
  MR. FIELD: Why is the town of Ballymote excluded?
  MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice of that.
  MR. O'DOWD: Is it not a fact that Boyle, on a neighbouring estate, has been sold, and was not Strokestown purchased by the Congested Districts Board?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Beet Cultivation in Ireland.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Central Chamber of Agriculture have recently reported that beet grown in Ireland yields as much sugar as that grown in Germany; and that beet has been successfully grown on inferior bog land in the counties of Sligo and Mayo, as ordinary crops, such as mangold and turnips, are grown; and, if so, whether the attention of the Board of Agriculture will be called to this matter, with the view of establishing experimental plots for the purpose of ascertaining how far this crop can be profitably grown in Ireland.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Department are aware that the Central Chamber of Agriculture issued a Report in June, 1901, dealing with beet sugar experiments carried out in 1900 in several counties in Ireland, as well as in other centres in Great Britain. They are also aware from their own experiments, a report of which appeared in the Department's Journal for February, 1901, that beet of a good quality can be grown in Ireland. They cannot, however, feel justified in recommending beet as a general crop in this country for the reason mentioned in my Answer to the hon. Member's Question of February 24th.† The obstacles to the successful establishment of the industry in Ireland are more detailed in a memorandum which I have communicated to the hon. Member.

  Lugnadiffa National School.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will name the religious denomination to which the teacher of Lugnadiffa National School, near Cullooney, county of Sligo, belongs, also the religious denomination of the children on the rolls of that school on
  † See (4) Debates, cxli. 1212.

  933
  December 31st, 1904; will he state the name of the school nearest to Lugnadiffa, the religious denomination of the teacher, and also the name of the nearest school taught by a Catholic teacher; and whether, seeing that the patron of Lugnadiffa and Larkhill Schools is the landlord of the district, and that he has refused a site for a new school, and in view of the fact that the people of the district are mainly Catholic, the commissioners of National Education will co-operate with the Rev. E. H. Connington, the parish priest, with the view of having the needs of Catholic children attend to.
  MR. ATKINSON: Lugnadiffa School is a Protestant. The number of children on the rolls on December 31st last was eighteen, all of whom were Protestants. The nearest school to Lugnadiffa is that at Larkhill, the teacher of which is a Protestant. The nearest schools under Catholic teachers are at Rockfield and Ballysodare. The Rev. E. H. Connington has already been informed by the Commissioners that the proposed additional schoolhouse at Larkhill is quite unsuitable and unfitted for school purposes, and that his application for a grant would be considered when these objections were overcome.

  Alleged Outrage at Woodville.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state if he has any official reports in regard to an alleged outrage at the residence of Mr. Persse, Woodville, county Galway; and, if so, whether he will state their purport.
  MR. ATKINSON: Reports have been received from the police who are investigating this matter. It is obviously impossible to disclose the purport of these confidential reports without injury to the public service.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report that shots were fired into this house was true or false? Was it not mere sensational journalism?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: In view of the fact that a sensational account of a desperate outrage has been published, would it not be advisable also to publish a correct statement of fact?
  MR. ATKINSONasked for notice of further Questions on this subject.

  Irish Agricultural Department—Staff Grievances.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what local public bodies in Ireland have up to the present made representations to the Irish Agricultural Department regarding the dissatisfaction which exists in that Department on account of the inequality in the treatment of its staff; and what action has been taken in the matter.
  MR. ATKINSON: Six public bodies have made representations to the Department in the terms of the resolution which was proposed by the hon. Member himself at a meeting of the King's County Council and passed by that council. The receipt of these representations was acknowledged.

  Palms Spread Morgan Estate.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the circumstances connected with the farm forming the estate of Palms Spread Morgan, who is at present confined as a lunatic, and from which farm James J. Greene was evicted in 1889; and whether, seeing that this holding is now in the occupation of Captain Jonathan Morgan, brother and administrator of the owner, the Commissioners, having regard to his position as remainder man, will refuse to sanction an advance to Captain Jonathan Morgan to enable him to purchase this estate to which he is the heir in succession.
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member has been in correspondence with the Commissioners in this matter. The property is under the control of the Court of Chancery, and an offer made by Captain Morgan to purchase the holding

  935
  in question was accepted by the Land Judge in July last. The Commissioners, under the circumstances, have no authority to intervene, but in the event of their acquiring untenanted land in the neighbourhood the application of James Greene will be further considered.

  De Freyne Estate.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Congested District Board has purchased the estate of Lord de Freyne in counties of Roscommon, Galway, and Sligo; and, if so, whether he can state the total purchases money and the number of tenants, also the particulars of the arrears, current rent, and untenanted land.
  MR. ATKINSON: The negotiations have not yet been brought to a conclusion.

  Case of H. J. Livingstone, of Newry.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state under what statute the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary was empowered to forbid the execution of the warrant issued by a resident magistrate in public Court, for the arrest of H. J. Livingstone, of Newry; whether he can state the precedents, if any, for suck a course; whether Fearon's solicitor was consulted as to the evidence available against Livingstone: and, if so, by whom and with what result; whether any private representations were made to any official in Dublin Castle as to the advisability of preventing the warrant from being enforced; and whether the whole question will now be reconsidered.
  MR. ATKINSON: The facts are not accurately stated in the Question. I have already informed the hon. Member that when inquiries were made to determine whether steps should be taken to obtain the extradition of the accused, if found in America, or his re-arrest and deportation to this country under the Fugitive Offenders Act, if found in Canada, it was ascertained that there was no available
  936
  evidence to sustain the general charge made on the information of Fearon on which this warrant was granted in Ireland. Under such circumstances, it would be futile and improper and contrary to the practice to attempt to take action in the matter, and the Inspector-General was directed accordingly. The course taken was the usual and proper course, and precedents frequently occur. It was Fearon's duty, when asked, to supply the evidence, which he failed to do. The district inspector consulted Fearon's solicitor and informed him of the nature of the evidence required before the Crown could take action. There is no foundation for the insinuation contained in the latter part of the Question. Of course, if sufficient evidence be at any time supplied action will be taken by the police.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is it not the fact that this man is still in Toronto, and that the Chief Constable of the city has provided the Government with his address?
  MR. ATKINSON: He is supposed to be somewhere in Canada, but we have no definite information.
  MR. KILBRIDE: He is on the railway there.
  MR. ATKINSON: He cannot be arrested unless we have sufficient evidence.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Why was he not arrested before he went there?
  MR. ATKINSON: He absconded before the issue of the warrant.
  MR. MACVEAGH: But——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If Questions are to be treated in this way it will be impossible for other Members to ask their Questions within the time limit.
  MR. MACVEAGH: On a point of order, Sir, I want to submit the right hon. Gentleman has utterly reversed the Answer he gave the day before yesterday.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It is not in order now to

  937
  discuss whether Answers to Questions are consistent with previous Answers.
  MR. MACVEAGH: What I want to do——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! I call on Mr. Kilbride——
  MR. MACVEAGH: I want to inquire——
  *MR. SPEAKER: I hope the Member will submit to my ruling.
  MR. MACVEAGH: But the right hon. Gentleman has given contradictory Answers.

  Rent Reductions in Clare.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by representative bodies in county Clare at the reductions of five per cent. in West Clare and ten per cent. in East Clare given by the Sub-Commission at the last hearing of fair rent applications; will he state what previous knowledge or experience had this gentleman who inspected these lands of Clare farming or the nature of Clare land and the climatic conditions of that county; and whether, in view of these expressions of want of confidence in the Lay Sub-Commissioner, he will represent to the Land Commission the advisability of transferring the services of this gentleman to a part of the country with which he has had some previous acquaintance.
  MR. ATKINSON:This Question has been referred to the Judicial Commissioners, who are at present in the country hearing appeals. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question on Monday.

  Galway Harbour.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Harbour Commissioners of Galway had repeatedly pointed out to the late Chief Secretary the damage which was being done to the trade of the city owing to the silting of sand at the entrance to the docks, which
  938
  caused great difficulty to steamers trading to the port; whether he is further aware that the late Chief Secretary promised to place a dredger at the disposal of the Commissioners: and if he can now say when the dredger will be available.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The Board of Works, in whose charge the dredger is, have no knowledge of any communications between the Harbour Commissioners and the late Chief Secretary, or that he made any such promise as stated. The Board are now in correspondence with the Harbour Commissioners as to the date when the dredger will be available for Galway, but they are not yet in a position to state when that date will be.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Have not the Board of Works received a deputation asking——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Then may I ask if representations have not been repeatedly made during the last two years asking for the hire of a dredger?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I will raise the matter on the Estimates.

  Telegraph Line to Scrabby.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the proposed guarantee given for a telegraph line from Granard is given in respect of a line through Cloonagh to Scrabby and not to Dring; and that the distance from Scrabby to Aghnacliffe is only two miles, and would be, moreover, the easiest way to reach that district; and, if so, pending an arrangement of the line of route which will be satisfactory to the local people, will he suspend any order made in the matter for the present.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware that any guarantee has been proposed for a telegraph line to Scrabby. As to the other places referred to, I made a suggestion to the hon. Member in

  939
  replying to his Question of the 27th ultimo,† and I shall be glad to wait a short time to enable him to consider whether it can be acted on.

  Irish Language in the Irish Post Office.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in reply to an application from Mr. Thomas Murphy, asking of particulars of the errors which were alleged to be in Irish address of the letter written by him to a correspondent in Kilronan, Aran, the Post Office authorities refused to give the information; and whether, in view of the fact that the sub-postmaster of Kilronan could not read Irish, he will state who is responsible for the statement that the Irish address of the letter was incorrect, and will he state what the alleged errors were.
  LORD STANLEY: The Postmaster of Galway reports that the address on the cover of the letter to which the hon. Member refers was considered by those competent to judge to be incorrect, both as regards spelling and in the formation of the Irish characters. As a knowledge of the Irish language is not at present made a condition of the Postmaster-General's appointment, and as I do not happen to know the language, I should be unable to explain the errors of the letter before me.
  MR. BOLAND: Who is the official responsible for the statement that there were errors in the address?
  LORD STANLEY: The Postmaster of Galway.
  MR. BOLAND: Does he know Irish?
  LORD STANLEY:He got information from who are competent to judge.
  MR. BOLAND: I will put a further Question on this.

  Irish Postmasterships.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state how many years service had the successful candidates
  †See (4) Debates, cxli., 1336
  940
  dates recently appointed to the post-masterships of Tralee, Carrick-on-Shannon, and Arklow at the date of their several appointments; and what were the years of service of the senior applicants in each of the three cases.
  LORD STANLEY: I do not think it desirable to enter into details as to the qualifications or seniority of the candidates for postmasterships from amongst whom my selection is made; but I may mention that in the case of Tralee and Carrick-on-Shannon the senior recommended applicants were officers at Sheffield and in London respectively, who did not possess all the qualifications necessary; while in the case of Arklow the senior recommended applicant was a postman unacquainted with telegraphy.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Were there no Irishmen fit for these positions?
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, but these postmasterships are open to the whole United Kingdom, and there were applicants from other parts senior and more suitable.

  Longford and Elphin Mail Service.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the proposed direct mid-day mail service between Longford and Elphin has yet been begun; and, if not, when he proposes to inaugurate it.
  LORD STANLEY: The question of establishing a day mail service between Longford and Elphin has been carefully considered, but I regret to find that I should not be justified in giving this accommodation in view of the additional expense which would be involved. The cost of the existing service is very high as compared with the revenue from the correspondence.

  War Office Purchases in Athlone.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the War Office authorities took over the bog situate at Curramore, near Athlone; that awards for compensation to the tenants were made as far back as November 29th, 1903, and that the tenants were notified by the police

  941
  authorities not to further use the bog on May 28th, 1904; and, if so, whether, seeing that the tenants have been deprived of their principal means of livelihood, though the compensation awarded them has not yet been paid, he can state when the money will be paid to these tenants.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The awards were delivered on December 23rd, 1903. No tenant was disturbed until August 16th, 1904, when possession of the portions of the Curramore turf bank which projected into the danger area was taken over by the War Department. This only affected the turf banks of ten of the twenty-three tenants, all of whom had other banks in Curramore which have not been interfered with. The necessary arrangement will, it is hoped, be completed and the money paid during the present month. The tenants concerned in the portion taken over will be entitled to interest on the purchase money.
  MR. HAYDEN: By what authority was the land taken from these people before the money was paid?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is a legal Question for which I must ask for notice.

  Sir Antony MacDonnell.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the resignation of the Chief Secretary, it is still the intention of the Government to retain the services of Sir Antony MacDonnell as Under - Secretary at Dublin Castle.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): My hon. friend will readily understand that I could not offer any opinion upon the subordinate members of the Chief Secretary's Office until I have the advantage of the advice of the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary is not yet appointed, and, therefore, I fear I cannot answer the Question.
  MR. SLOAN: May I ask whether in the meantime the House is to understand that conditions under which Sir
  942
  Antony MacDonnell accepted the Under-Secretaryship have not been with-drawn, and still hold good?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sir Antony MacDonnell, as I have explained, in my opinion, holds his office on the ordinary tenure of a Civil servant.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman appealed to any of the Ulster Unionists to see if they will take the Chief Secretaryship?
  AN HON. MEMBER: Sloan will take it.
  MR. DELANY: Is there any reason why Sir Antony MacDonnell should be victimised to satisfy a handful of Orange bigots?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Can the First Lord of the Treasury say whether Sir Antony MacDonnell has been informed that the particular conditions under which he accepted his appointment have been withdrawn?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have answered that by statements in debate in this House, and those statements are public.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when he will be in a position to make an announcement with reference to the appointment of Chief Secretary; or does he intend to leave it vacant until the dissolution?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I hope to make an appointment very soon. The length of time the hon. Gentleman suggests for leaving the office open would be formidable indeed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who is now the Minister responsible for the maintenance of the Executive Government in Ireland?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order. That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, on the receipt by him in September, 1902, from the late Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, of the purport of the letter of Sir Antony MacDonnell, dated September 22nd, 1902, he communicated in any way to his colleagues the conditions set forth in such letter, and their acceptance by the late Chief Secretary and himself as the basis of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment as Undersecretary.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no statement to make to the House, as I think I have before intimated, with regard to communications between members of the Government.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: May I ask why, as the Chief Secretary, in the hearing of the right hon. Gentleman, made a statement as to the communications between himself and the First Lord of the Treasury, the House should not have the other letters?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. My right hon. friend made no such statement. What he did was to read two letters, one which passed from Sir Antony MacDonnell to him, the other from him to Sir Antony MacDonnell, in which there was a reference to me.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: He went further. [Cries of "Order."] I am perfectly in order. I wish to remind the Prime Minister that the Chief Secretary went further. He not only read the letters, but told the House that he sent to the First Lord of the Treasury the purport of those letters, and received his assent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think he did say that. [Cries of "Yes."] I may be wrong; I do not remember everything said in the House; but my recollection is that there was a phrase in one of the letters which the hon. Gentleman has in his mind, but that no comment was made by the Chief Secretary.
  MR. FLYNN: Did it not appear from one of the letters read to
  944
  the House that a ciphered message passed to the Prime Minister?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he communicated the fact that he had these ciphered letters submitted to him to his other colleagues?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not on the Paper.
  MR. BLAKE: With all respect, Sir, I would submit that it is on the Paper, for the Prime Minister is asked whether he communicated in any way to his colleagues the conditions set forth in Sir Antony MacDonnell's letter.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I thought some other communication was referred to, because the Question on the Paper has been answered.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The First Lord of the Treasury is under a misapprehension if he thinks he answered that Question, because he certainly did not answer either negatively or affirmatively whether he communicated to his colleagues the ciphered correspondence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I did not answer the Question either affirmatively or negatively. I did not answer it at all.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in expressing his concurrence with the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell as Irish Under-Secretary, in reply to a ciphered telegram from the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant conveying to him the purport of the letter of Sir Antony, dated September 22nd, 1902, reciting the conditions under which he accepted that appointment, this concurrence was signified by him as the head of His Majesty's Government, and is to be understood as carrying with it the collective approval of the Cabinet; and, if not, when that approval was given.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must draw his

  945
  own conclusions from what has already been made public.

  The High Commissioner of South Africa
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the instrument by which the present High Commissioner in South Africa was appointed, and any other documents showing what is the nature and extent of his authority over the government of those, districts of British South Africa which do not enjoy responsible government, and over the British forces in South Africa; whether it is intended to advise His Majesty to confer similar powers upon the new High Commissioner as those possessed by the present High Commissioner; or, if not, what difference will there be.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Colonial Office for information as to the official publications which contain some of the documents inquired for, or as to others which could be laid on the Table. It is not proposed to make any alteration in the position of the new High Commissioner.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the Papers which the Government are willing to lay contain everything to be said with regard to the position of the High Commissioner?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should move for a Return, and then my right hon. friend will be able to tell him if there is any objection.
  It being now five minutes to Three o'clock four starred Questions on the Paper remained unanswered.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make about the business for next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We take Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates on Monday, but I cannot specify the business for succeeding days. I think that the whole of next week will
  946
  have to be devoted to the necessary business of Supply.
  MR. LOUGHasked when Part II. of the Navy Return promised would be ready?
  MR. PRETYMANreplied that it would take a fortnight to prepare. Part I. had been issued.
  MR. LOUGHsaid Part I. was quite useless. He suggested that further consideration of the Navy Votes should be postponed till Part II, was ready.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Part I. was issued at the request of hon. Members.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: When will the Army Estimates be out?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I hope to lay them on the Table on Monday.
  MAJOR SEELY: When is the debate on these Estimates likely to be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I presume there will be two or three days interval between the circulation of the Estimates and the debate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I desire to give as long an interval as I can.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Sir J. Fortescue Flannery; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Llewellyn.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886," presented by Mr. Cathcart Wason; supported by Sir

  947
  Arthur Bignold, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Leveson-Gower, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Lamont, Mr. Black, and Mr. Weir; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 28th March, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  "To promote Agricultural Education and Nature Study in Public Elementary Schools," presented by Mr. Jesse Collings; supported by Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Rothschild, Mr. Seymour Ormsby-Gore, Sir Ernest Flower, Mr. Spear, Mr. Morrell, Colonel Webb, and Sir J. Fortescue Flannery; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]
  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
  "To extend The Agricultural Educational Rates Act, 1896, etc., Continuance Act, 1901," presented by Mr. Long; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
  TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
  "To amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1904, with respect to the Construction and Maintenance of Telegraph Lines," presented by Lord Stanley; supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Victor Cavendish; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

  CLASS III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st, 1905, for the
  948
  Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."
  MR. CULLINANsaid the Irish Members were placed in a very awkward position in regard to this Vote, because they had no Report from the Commission from which they could obtain any information upon the items involved, and consequently they were at a disadvantage. The amount, according to the Estimate, was intended to cover an increase in the staff which was sanctioned for the year 1904–5, but they had no knowledge as to what that increase meant. The only information they did possess as to the procedure in the office of the Estates Commissioners and of the Land Commissioners was that the work was going on most slowly. In the Return, dated December 31st, it appeared that there were 31,000 applications from purchasers in Ireland, while only 8,000 purchases had been sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners, and that showed the vast amount of arrears. Again, in regard to the evicted tenants, out of 4,000 only 131 had actually been dealt with, and he was reminded that of the 131, ninety had been reinstated by the landlords, thus leaving only forty cases dealt with by the Estates Commissioners, which made things very much worse. Last August they were told that the Estates Commissioners were not willing to take the initiative themselves in approaching landlords in regard to buying evicted farms or untenanted lands. He personally waited upon the landlords and agents in his own Division to try to get them to approach the Estates Commissioners in order to bring about negotiations, and his experience of both landlords and agents had been most unsatisfactory. Although he applied to large numbers there was only one who gave a sort of tacit consent to sell an evicted farm, and when that half-hearted consent was submitted to the Estates Commissioners it took them over six months to deal with it. Indeed, he believed that no decision had yet been arrived at in the case. If this was to be the rate of progress, when might they expect the problem of the evicted tenants to be solved? He knew there were large grazing tracts in his own county which had been brought under the notice of the

  949
  Estates Commissioners, yet he had never been able to get a satisfactory reply from that body as to what they were doing. All they had told him was that the matte was under consideration. Gould the Attorney-General that day give them the information which had been asked for by the hon, and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford over and over again? Could he tell them whether any orders or instructions had been given to the Estates Commissioners by Dublin Castle? He did not care whether those orders or instructions were written or oral, but he did think they had a right to know what, if any, instructions had been given, seeing that last August or September the Commissioners were reluctant to take the initiative themselves in cases of purchase of untenanted or evicted farms, and that now they were actually taking the initiative.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): Yes, in a different class of cases.
  MR. CULLINAN: Yes, they were taking the initiative, and he would like to know whether in so doing they were acting under any special instructions of the Law Officers of the Crown, and what those instructions and orders were. Last year the hon. Member for South Tyrone made a complaint that a totally inadequate staff was employed in the office of the Estates Commissioners, and when they looked at the Returns they found that, although agreements representing a total value of £17,000,00 had been entered into within the last eighteen months, the Commissioners had only sanctioned agreements of the value of £4,600,000. He submitted that that was most unsatisfactory, and he would like to learn from the Attorney-General whether the sum asked for in the Vote under discussion was to be applied to an increase of the staff, whether the proposed increase was sufficient to relieve the pressure of business in that particular office, and would it tend to expedite the completion of sales? Would it not be better for them to have more frequent Reports from the Estates Commissioners as to the progress they were making in the working of the Land Act, and could
  950
  they not let the House have the necessary information to enable Members to know on what grounds the objects of the Land Act were being frustrated? He could point to cases where tenants had been evicted for a long period of years, where the Estates Commissioners had sent inspector- to visit their holdings, and had then, in fixing the purchase money, based it on the original rent paid by the evicted tenant, and had offered twenty-four years purchase, of that rent to the landlord, whose reply was to the effect that it was simply an attempt to confiscate his property. He would like to know what was being done to prevent the Estates Commissioners from making that progress which it was indicated would be made in the settlement of the evicted tenants' question at the time of the passing of the Land Act. At that time they had every assurance that the evicted tenants would be dealt with in a most generous manner, yet at the end of eighteen months they found that only forty evicted tenants had been dealt with through the medium of the Estates Commissioners.
  He would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in cases where the present occupier of an evicted farm, who had purchased the interest in that holding under the Ashbourne Acts, was willing to surrender that holding on getting compensation from the Estates Commissioners, they would take action to restore the evicted tenant, and whether they would be prepared to give an equivalent farm or compensation to the person vacating the evicted farm? On the Report stage of the Irish Land Bill the hon. Member for Waterford asked the Chief Secretary whether, under the clauses then under discussion, the Estates Commissioners would be empowered to compensate the occupiers of evicted farms with the object of restoring evicted tenants to their holdings, and whether they would be empowered to advance money for the purpose of putting up buildings on the evicted lands and of restocking the farms. The Chief Secretary replied unhesitatingly that the Estates Commissioners would have such powers. Now, they were anxious to learn from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Commissioners

  951
  in the future would be in a position to deal with these cases on the lines indicated in that debate, and whether, where occupiers of evicted farms were perfectly willing to give up those farms providing the Estates Commissioners would compensate them in cash or give thorn an equivalent farm elsewhere, that would be done. He would like to point out that one effect of the removal of these parties out of the various localities would be to create a better feeling among the people, and to improve the men's own position by taking them to places where their presence would not excite trouble.
  Another point to which he wished to invite attention was the selection of places for the sittings of the Land and Sub-Land Commissioners' Courts. He would like to point out that the Land Commissoners were in receipt of splendid salaries, and that they were allowed travelling expenses, and he did think that in fixing the places at which appeals could be heard they should study the convenience of the farmers, who were very poor, and who often, even if they succeeded, were put to an expense which many years gain, based on the extent of their success, failed to compensate them for. He thought they were justified in asking on behalf of the Irish farmers that in future the Commissioners should make arrangements to meet at places more convenient to the parties appealing. He had also a few words to say in regard to the decisions arrived at by the Land Commissioners' Courts. It was a most extraordinary fact that, while the Sub-Commissioners had been giving very small reductions—reductions which the tenants themselves considered inadequate in view of the present depressed condition of agriculture in Ireland—yet in the majority of the cases where appeals had been entered the Land Commission had actually raised the first-term rents. He called that simply monstrous, and he assured the Committee that the Members of the Nationalist Party were resolved on every possible opportunity to call attention to the working of the Land Commission in this direction.
  There was still one more point to which he wished to draw particular attention. He had always considered that the zone system had proved practically ruinous to
  952
  the tenants of Ireland. They found that landlords, when negotiating terms of purchase with their tenants, offered them trivial reductions and then got them to sign second-term rents, immediately afterwards instituting legal proceedings. The result was that they were terrifying them into purchasing at any price in order to save themselves. That had especially been the practice in the West and South of Ireland, and he was satisfied that many years would not pass ere a large number of tenants would find themselves ruined because of the improvident prices which were forced upon them. In his own Division he was aware of the conspiracy which existed in order to force tenants into purchasing. It was a most extraordinary fact that in one case, where the landlord demanded exorbitant terms and the tenants refused, he immediately turned round and sued these tenants for the year's rent just then due.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! I do not think the matters the hon. Member is now entering into are relevant to the Vote. He is perfectly right in criticising the action of the Land Commission, but he is now going further, and dealing with the general working of the land system in Ireland, and that I do not think is relevant to the Vote.
  MR. CULLINANsaid he would, of course, bow to the Chairman's ruling, and he proposed to conclude at once by moving a reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £600, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Cullinan.)
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he desired to call the Attorney-General's attention to the promise made by the Chief Secretary that the instructions and regulations of the Estates Commissioners would be laid upon the Table of the House. In answer to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth the late Chief Secretary said that he had not yet decided upon the exact form of publication, but he agreed that the regulations should come before the House in some way. Being further

  953
  pressed by the hon. and learned Member for York who represented the landlords, the Attorney-General stated that if the desire of the House was that the rules should be laid on the Table he would bring up a clause on Report dealing with the matter. Did the right hon. Gentleman doubt that that was the desire of the House? What did the Chief Secretary mean when he said that "He had not yet decided upon the exact form of publication, but he agreed that they should be brought before the House in some way."
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, I gave that promise in Committee, but it was not carried out on Report.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that meant that the right hon. Gentleman did not carry out the undertaking he had given. It was a rule that such understandings should be religiously kept, and the right hon. Gentleman had no business to go against a direct pledge given by the Chief Secretary. He wished to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant to do in the face of what took place during the Committee stage of that Bill? Did he mean to take refuge in the plea that this great Act was to be administered by private correspondence between the Lord-Lieutenant and the Estates Commissioners? What was the object of trying to work an Act of this kind without rules and regulations? The only object of this course was to burke discussion, and that was not a legitimate object. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to lay these regulations upon the Table of the House? If he did not, would he tell the House why With regard to the Report of the Estates Commissioners the Committee was in an extraordinary position. They all knew what an enormous amount of work had been done under the Act of 1903. No less than £20,000,000 had been applied for, and agreements had been made under the Land Purchase Act for that amount. They all knew that the Estates Commissioners were enormously overworked, and their start and premises were wholly insufficient. Nearly eighteen months had passed since the Act came into operation and they had not yet had any Report of the proceedings of that Department, because they refused to take the half-sheet of paper that was
  954
  published as an Interim Report giving a column of figures which had already appeared in the newspapers. Was that Report to be presented at once, or were they to remain in the same position of blank ignorance of what was taking place, or were they to have a detailed Report of how this money was being spent? The House of Commons was entitled to a full Report of what was being done with the money of the people. He had in his possession the Report of the Land Commission for 1903. The practice was to issue these Reports about the month of July or August in the following year when they could not be discussed in the House. He thought they were entitled to have the principles laid before them upon which the Estates Commissioners were proceeding and acting. During the discussion of the Land Bill of 1903 a certain section of tenants were taken out of the zone system because they had no relation to the zones whatever. What actuated the House at the time in adopting this course was that those tenants had never had their rents fixed. In the case of 70,000 or 80,000 future tenants they were taken out of the zones, and Section 5, which was adopted to meet their case, was as follows—
  "In the case of the sale of an estate where an application for an advance, to which the provisions of Sub-section 1 of Section 1 of this Act do not apply, is made, the Land Commission may, subject to the limitations of the Land Purchase Act, advance the whole or part of the purchase money if they are satisfied with the security, and are of opinion that having regard to all the circumstances of the case the agreed price is equitable."
  He wanted to know what the Estates Commissioners had done under that section and how it had been administered. This section referred to 100,000 tenants who had a right to that justice which the House of Commons intended them to have. Was it a fact that when the inspectors were sent to inspect such a holding all they inquired into was whether the security on the holding was sufficient for the advance? It might be a holding upon which the tenant had more property than the landlord. Was it a fact that the tenant's property was assessed as security and that the tenant was in fact buying his own property over again. Was that the way the working of Section 5 was being carried out? He did not want to

  955
  know so much about the amount of money expended, but they did want to know upon what principle the Act was being administered. The declared intention of Parliament was that these tenants would not get justice under the zones system, but now they had gone out of the frying-pan into the fire. They were being plundered and robbed, and the Estates Commissioners were a party to the plunder and the robbery. The Estates Commissioners were now administering Section 5 of the Act upon the sole question of security. What did "all the circumstances of the case" mean? What did the House of Commons intend? Simply that when an inspector went to inspect a holding under that section he should discriminate between the property of the landlord and the tenant. Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the Report should contain the principles upon which those gentlemen were acting in regard to Section 5, and would he let them know how it was being administered?
  He wanted to put another Question to the right hon. Gentleman. There was an estate—the Maher Estate—the other day brought before the House of Commons by the hon. Member for Mid.-Armagh. It was a very interesting story. He himself wanted some supplementary information in addition to that which had been obtained by his hon. friend. The hon. Member for Mid. Armagh was very anxious to find out which of the Commissioners had acted in that case. Mr. Wrench was one of the Estates Commissioners, and part of his salary, but only part, came under this Vote. The rest was safe under the Consolidated Fund. Did Mr. Wrench visit that estate? Was he the only Commissioner to visit it? With whom did he confer? Did he see the owner or her solicitor? Did he see a single one of the men who had been placed on the land? Did he see Lord Kilmaine? That was the question he wished to press, because Lord Kilmaine was at the bottom of this whole story. Did he make any report when he came back to his fellow Commissioners. Could they have that report? [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: It is privileged.] He knew it was privileged and they were not likely to get it, but all the same his hon. friend was
  956
  exceedingly anxious to know about that case. He wanted to know which of the Commissioners was involved in it.
  MR. LONSDALE: I did not mention the name of Mr. Wrench. It was Mr. Finucane I mentioned.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was mentioning Mr. Wrench. The hon. Gentleman went for Sir Antony MacDonnell and brought down the Chief Secretary. In this case he went for Mr. Finucane and brought down Mr. Wrench. These Gentlemen were bringing down the wrong birds. They were not good sportsmen. He asked whether Mr. Wrench was the only one of the Commissioners to visit the Maher Estate. Did he make any report of his business? What was he doing there if he did not? Whom did he see, whom did he call upon, and with whom did he stay? They would find out how this business was being administered some way or another.
  He now came to another part of the proceedings. This Vote was for a sum of £700 for salaries. He asked what was the position of the business of this Commission at the present moment. Would the Attorney-General tell them what was the amount applied for at the present time.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have done that.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he wanted the information up to date. Really this was the House of Commons, and they would have get some information. The information already given was up to December 31st last and they travelled fast. They dealt in millions every month. In addition to that would he tell them how much had been paid out, how much money had been secured, and if anything was going to be done to supply money for those cases where agreements had been made and simply awaited payment of the money. Had the whole machinery been slowed down? The Secretary of the Treasury was in his place and he would be able to tell them whether the whole machinery of the Estates Commission had been deliberately slowed down because there was not nearly enough money to meet the agreements that had already been signed, lodged, and passed. The

  957
  1903 Act was a great Act of Parliament. Were they to be told that that Act, which was passed for the pacification and appeasement of the country—that the whole thing was to be brought to a dead stop and that friction was not only to go on but to be increased every day. If there were any English Members around he asked them not to be alarmed. There was no raid on the British Treasury because when he asked for more money the British Treasury was perfectly safe in their hands. There was no establishment in this country which could take better care of England in dealing with the people of Ireland and they had taken admirable care that whatever loss there was on the money, and whatever discount there was, the English Treasury would not suffer. They were only getting £88 or £89 for every £100, and that deficiency was made up purely out of an Irish fund. It did not come from Imperial sources at all. In view of the fact that £20,000,000 sterling was applied for, and that only £11,000,000 sterling had been raised, that agreements were coming in every day and the machinery was being slowed down, how were they to go on without money, and were these agreements to lie in the office in Merrion Street and landlords and purchasers alike to be placed at a disadvantage? That was a plain question and they would have to get a plain answer.
  The last Question was what was going to be done about the office and staff of the Commission. The office was a perfect disgrace. There was no accommodation for the clerks, and he dared to say that if Sir Charles Cameron, the medical officer of health, were called into the place he would clear the whole place out. It ought to be cleared out. It was one of the most congested districts in the city of Dublin. The sanitary inspector ought to have been sent in long ago. Was the Attorney-General going to provide decent accommodation for this great Department of the State, and was he going to supply the Estates Commissioners with a staff competent and fit for its work. The whole thing had got into the most lamentable condition already although the Department was only eighteen months old. They were disappointing hopes and causing friction in
  958
  the country which need not be caused if they dealt resolutely with the whole thing. What about those instructions, regulations, and rules? The Attorney-General had said there was no word about instructions or rules in the debate. He should not take refuge in that. The word regulations was used and that covered everything. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to redeem the promise made by the Chief Secretary at that date and give the House an opportunity of judging of the work and principles upon which that body was acting.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he wished to call attention to the fact that the rent-fixing machinery of the Land Commission was practically at a standstill, and that in consequence of the manner in which the sittings of both the Sub-Commission and the Head Commission were fixed considerable injustice had been done to a great number of his constituents and to people in other constituencies. When the Irish Land Act was passing through this House great hopes were aroused that it would completely change the whole face of the country, and that tenant farmers would not very much longer require to have rents fixed at all, that they would be all transformed at once into peasant proprietors, and so forth. One of the pleas which the late Chief Secretary put forward in bringing forward the Land Bill in 1903 was that the machinery by which rents were fixed was so costly and such a deadweight upon litigants and the Treasury that it should be swept away. It was swept away by setting up this comprehensive scheme of land purchase. That was very good so far as it went, and if the tenant farmers of the country had been allowed by the landlords to purchase on fair terms he had no doubt the prophecies of the right hon. Gentleman might in great part have been realised. Those who were acquainted with the working of the Land Purchase Act in Longford, at all events, knew that it had been brought to a standstill by the exorbitant demands of the landlords. He could quote quite a number of cases in support of that, statement. The tenants were not allowed to purchase their holdings on fair terms, and the consequence was that they had

  959
  to go into Court to have their rents fixed or revised. But in consequence of the breakdown of the rent-fixing machinery the tenants were being held like Mahomet's coffin between heaven and earth on the questions of land purchase and rent-fixing. This was working out in the interest of the landlords, and acting as a sort of lever to compel the tenants to give a higher price for the land. In answer to a Question to-day the Attorney-General acknowledged that there were 200 appeals from county Longford awaiting the consideration of the Land Commission, and that it was in 1903 that the last appeals from that county were heard. Instead of being heard in the county town they were heard at Dublin, the most inconvenient place that could have been chosen for the tenants, many of whom were poor and unable to bear the expenses of the journey and the employment of counsel to appear in their cases. The way appeal cases were dealt with in the higher Court was a perfect scandal. On two occasions within the last four years the Land Commissioners passed by Longford, going from Carrick-on-Shannon to Mullingar. And why? Because they thought they could not get proper hotel accommodation at Longford. It was their own personal convenience they were thinking of, and not the convenience of the poor people whose cases were to be heard. The management of the Sub-Commission was almost as bad. An eminent K.C., Mr. Edge, occasionally came round, and so far as that gentleman was himself concerned the list brought before him was fairly well exhausted; but many on the list of between 200 and 300 cases were adjourned by reason of the absence of the Lay Commissioners or for some other excuse. He asserted, and believed implicitly, that the wish was to suspend the operation of the Land Act of 1881 in order that it should be applied as a compulsory lever to the tenants to give larger prices for their holdings and bring them under the heel of the landlords. That was a disgraceful state of things, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, as the chief Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland, and in the absence of a Chief Secretary the be-all and end-all of the Government system in Ireland, to take note that the Head Commision was over listed by 300
  960
  cases, that the Sub-Commissioners gave bad attendance to their duties, and that the sittings were too infrequent.
  He had been very much interested in the purchase by the Estates Commissioners of the Cusack Estate in the county of Longford. This estate formed one of the most famous cases of landlord tyranny that could be brought before the House of Commons. The owner deliberately entered into possession for the purpose of wrecking the property and the homes and hearts of the unfortunate people who were cursed with him as a landlord. With a great deal of trouble he had got the late Chief Secretary to press on the Estates Commissioners the necessity of purchasing that property under the 7th Section of the Act. The Estate Commissioners sent the case on to Judge Ross's Land Court on November 7th. On the property there were 400 acres of untenanted land—the only untenanted land in county Longford on which evicted tenants could be placed. He found that the decision in the case was not a judicial decision, but it worked at that the purpose for which the land was acquired was over-ridden by the decision of Judge Ross, who accepted deliberately the applications of seven grabbers who already had holdings of their own, for the purpose of shutting out evicted tenants. If the Estates Commissioners lent themselves to a policy of that kind, then the whole of this Act was a fraud and a humbug. They would be far better without it, for all the high hopes of its doing good in settling the land question were a mockery, delusion, and a snare. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if, in the case of this particular property, no relief was to be afforded to evicted tenants, the Irish Government might furbish up the Coercion Acts for use in the county of Longford. Then there was the King-Harman Estate in the neighbourhood of the county town, consisting of 40,000 acres. On that estate there was a Protestant tenant named Robert Armstrong, who, with his forefathers, had been for generations in occupation of a large farm from which he-was evicted by the late Mr. King-Harman, a Member of that House, in 1887. The tenant who was put in possession was a bailiff on a neighbouring estate, but his.

  961
  security for the rent was supposed to be uncertain and the landlord only made him an eleven-months tenant. But that tenant was made a permanent tenant for the purpose of purchase, to the exclusion of the evicted tenant, who could have got any amount of security for the proper repayment of the instalments. Was that the way in which the policy of pacification was to be worked out? Was the grabber to be protected and encouraged, and the evicted tenant to be left out on the roadside?
  Then there was the case of the Galbraith Estate, which was really a congested district within the meaning of the Act. Whatever powers the Commissioners had ought to be availed of; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would call their attention to this matter. The majority of the tenants on this estate were rented at under £4; their land was mountain and bog, and their lives were made miserable by a harassing system of processing and decreeing from time to time in the Assize Court. There were 1,400 such tenants, and the greatest possible good could be done if they were granted fair terms. They were willing that the whole of the transaction should be carried through by the Estates Commissioners, and they were not anxious to strike a bargain at too low a rate. If the Act was going to work, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the fact that the rate of interest was going on for months and years before the bargains already passed were finally closed up. That delay should be put a stop to. The landlords in some cases charged 4 per cent., and in others 3frac12; per cent.; but whatever the tenant paid in such cases the money was absolutely paid away, and if the Act was to work satisfactorily the money should be advanced more quickly. There was another case to which he wished to draw attention, viz., the farm of Tonnemore in the North Division of the county of Longford. On that farm 190 acres of the best grazing land were available, and these were let at present under the eleven-months system. He happened to know the gentleman who had the farm, and he would not stand between the Commissioners and the tenants if
  962
  purchase terms could be arranged. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to treat this as a matter of Question and Answer, but to use his powers or influence to see that this property was bought up for the settlement of evicted tenants. There were eighty-six applications before the Estates Commissioners, and as they had at present only 400 acres of untenanted land available, it would only give five acres to each. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could induce the Estates Commissioners to acquire this farm of Tonnemore in order to settle evicted tenants on it he would do a great deal to restore confidence in the working of the Act
  MB. FLYNNsaid that two points arose in connection with the debate, namely, the fixing of rents and the administration of the Estates Commissioners. It was, therefore, unfortunate that the Committee had no information in regard to the operations of the Act of 1903. He hoped that when a Return was presented it would not be a mere column of dry figures, which were appalling to the average mind and conveyed little information to the intelligent mind, but that it would show how the Act had been working in regard to tenants within the zones and tenants outside the zones, and the other various classes of tenants, so that real light might be thrown on the operations of the Act. His hon. friend had called attention to a very grave matter in connection with the administration of the Act of 1903, and its reflex action on the Act of 1881. There was at present a loss of £11 or £12 per cent, on Consols, and there would, therefore, be enormous loss in the flotation of the stock if large advances were sanctioned. In his opinion it would be better that large advances should not be sanctioned until they involved a smaller loss. Although it might be said to be opposed to the land settlement he thought that the Estates Commissioners should act rather slowly than hastily. As long as a large proportion of landlords were seeking to impose upon the tenants, and to drive them into bargains which undoubtedly would be detrimental to their future prosperity if not absolutely ruinous to them, the

  963
  Land Act of 1903, which was intended to be a great measure of appeasement and pacification, might turn out a curse rather than a blessing to the tenantry of Ireland. The Committee would observe the connection between the administration of the Estates Commissioners and the present operation of the Land Commissioners. A two-fold process of procrastination and unfair treatment was in progress, and a double-edged policy of that kind was calculated to drive the tenants into improvident bargains. In the case of second-term rents the tenants were face to face with two great difficulties. One was that their cases were held over, and every possible delay was put in the way of getting their rents revised. The second and the more alarming difficulty was that the tenants were not receiving the reductions to which they were entitled, owing to the present deplorable state of agriculture, the fall in prices, increased competition, and other circumstances. Only to-day it was pointed out that the reductions only varied from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent., and the Attorney-General was only able to give a stereotyped answer. In such circumstances the tenants were being driven to purchase on terms which would be ruinous to themselves and their successors.
  He would wish to refer to a few matters of detail. One was the callous indifference with which the Assistant Commissioners treated the comfort and the resources of the tenants in the matter of fixing rents. Every Irish representative would be glad if this rent-fixing business was done away with once for all, and the land question settled in a large and comprehensive way, if it could be accomplished without ruinous conditions being imposed on the tenantry. But until then the tenants would stand by the fixing of fair rents as the lesser of two possible evils. It would, therefore, be thought that the Sub-Commissioners would strive to meet the general convenience of the tenants. They had heard that afternoon of the Sub-Commissioners sitting in remote towns because comfortable hotels and bathing and golf were available. They all liked such things, but did not allow them to interfere with the conduct of their business. He had received numerous complaints from
  964
  his own constituency with reference to tenants being obliged to travel forty or fifty miles to have their cases heard. When he asked a Question he was told that Killarney was more convenient for Cork tenants than Cork City itself. The real explanation, of course, was that Killarney was a very pleasant place in summer and had beautiful scenery and a salubrious climate. As regarded the action of the Estates Commissioners in connection with the evicted tenants he regretted they did not adopt a more sympathetic attitude. If such an attitude were not adopted the land settlement would turn to ashes on the lips of the Irish people. So far as he could see there was very little of the sympathetic spirit which animated the ex-Chief Secretary when the Bill was passing through the House being reflected in the action of the Estates Commissioners. He hoped that the result of the debate would be to introduce a better and a broader spirit into the administration of the Act.
  An Irish Member had to comply with many requirements. He had to possess an intimate knowledge of all the Land Acts and be able to give advice to his constituents on technical points. Otherwise he was regarded as inefficient. Secondly, if he did not bring every case of hardship, be it gigantic or minute, before the House he was regarded as not discharging his duty. His hon. friend had brought several cases to the attention of the Committee, he would submit one. The Newman Estate in his constituency was recently sold, although the money had not yet been advanced. One tenant, Mr. O'Callaghan, of Dromore, a thrifty, improving, and industrious tenant, came to him in great distress and wanted to know why he had been excluded from the general bargain, as he was willing to pay the same price as the other tenants. He wrote to the Estates Commissioners and received a very unsatisfactory answer. It stated that this tenant was excluded not for any wrong he had done or the terms he required, but because the landlord wanted to resume possession of the holding. There might be disturbance and trouble if this man was evicted, and he certainly would not give up his holding without a struggle, whereas the Estates Commissioners could settle the whole matter by

  965
  informing the landlord that they would not sanction the advance unless this tenant was included with the others. This question could be discussed much more adequately if the Committee were in possession of the necessary Papers and Returns, and he hoped that when the main Estimate came up hon. Members would have all the information the Irish Office could supply.
  MR. GORDONbelieved that in the next few months before November 1st, which would complete two years operation of the Land Act, it was not unreasonable to suppose that from twenty-eight to thirty millions' worth of land would be agreed to be sold. There was no difference of opinion among those persons who had regard for the welfare of the country that the Act should be worked rapidly in the interests of both landlord and tenant. But what would be the position of affairs supposing that between twenty and thirty millions' worth of land were agreed to be sold, but only ten millions of money could be had to carry out the contracts? That would leave two-thirds of the purchasers hanging up and blocking future sales. There was another matter in which the tenant was greatly interested. He knew landlords who would be satisfied with 3frac14; or 3frac12;per cent. interest until the money was advanced by the Land Commissioners. But the period during which the tenant had to pay instalments and at the end of which he was to become absolute owner of his property, did not begin to run during all the period of time that such interest was being paid. He thought that in many cases landlords were trying to make reasonable arrangements as to interest, but they were powerless in the matter. Nothing could bring into operation the beginning of the period during which instalments were to be paid before the tenant could become owner of his farm. The late Chief Secretary said he did not want more than £5,000,000 a year to be advanced. He thought that probably the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind the very low price of the Funds at that time, and the great loss there would be in dealing with large sums of money, and he might also have thought it would interfere with the money market. The
  966
  last speaker was in error, he thought, in regard to the quotation of Consols. He understood that when the first loan was issued they stood at, 86frac12; or 87frac12; per cent. But Guaranteed Irish Land Stock now stood at 94frac12;. It that were so, there was 7 per cent. difference. That eased a great deal of the strain upon the Irish funds. But notwithstanding that, he thought no reasonable Irishman would be unwilling to put some strain upon them in order to hasten these land transactions.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that in the quotation he made he was speaking of earlier transactions.
  MR. GORDONsaid that that made the matter clear. He wished to point out that at the expiration of a year and a half they now found that money could be raised on 7 per cent. better terms. What had they to wait for? He hoped the Treasury would take advantage of a reasonably good market, and not stop at the suggested £5,000,000 a year. He believed it was the wish of hon. Members that these transactions should be hastened, and he hoped the Attorney-General would influence the Treasury to double the amount advanced and make it £10,000,000 a year. Then as to the Department, there ought to be a better staff. He did not care how efficient a man at the head of a Department might be, if he had an insufficient staff the work must be retarded. He hoped the observations made in the course of the debate that the Government desired to go slow was not well founded, but that as everybody had heartily approved of the Act nothing would be done by the Government to retard its rapid progress.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid that having watched very closely the working of the Land Act he thought it regrettable that they did not know exactly what had been done up to the present by the Estates Commissioners. It should be remembered that the Estates Commissioners were not a judicial body; they were strictly ministerial, and subject to the control of the House of Commons. It was, the before, very strange that there should be any hesitation in

  967
  laying upon the Table or communicating to the House in some other way the regulations under which they carried on their business. The Attorney-General would doubtless see the necessity for satisfying the House of Commons that everything that ought to be done had been done to make the Act really effectual. As to the delay, it was preposterous that cases should be pending for three years before the tenants could ascertain their position. That was the more to be deplored because, without drawing to any appreciable extent on the Imperial Exchequer, the staff could be so strengthened as to obviate this delay. There was a large number of Assistant Commissioners, both lay and legal, who, under a properly arranged system, could go round the country and fix first and second-term rents. Mr. Justice Meredith was doubtless very hard worked, but there was no reason whatever why aid should not be rendered by other Judges of the High Court. Could not some means be adopted, without throwing any additional burden on the Imperial Exchequer, by which the hearing of appeals might be facilitated and the fixing of fair rents expedited? Reference had already been made to the inadequacy of the staff. That matter and also the condition of the offices in Dublin should be looked into. One of the best suites in Dublin had been purchased, but although some months had elapsed since the completion of the purchase the staff were not yet reaping the fruits of the expenditure. If those offices were fitted up there would be ample accommodation for the additional staff which was so urgently required.
  There was a feeling in Ireland that the authorities were not anxious to expedite the carrying out of this Act and that for financial reasons they did not desire to have the whole of the land of Ireland purchased within a reasonable time. That was a bad and unsound policy. The Act was passed with the idea of abolishing dual ownership, with the hope of turning every occupier into the owner of his land so as to make him a prosperous and a peaceable citizen, and it was a monstrous thing that any financial reasons should now stand in the way of the Act being fully carried out. Notwithstanding an unfortunate legal construction
  968
  which had been placed upon one section of the Act, which had caused considerable delay, about £17,000,000 of land purchase contracts had been made. Cases had come within his knowledge where all the necessary steps had been taken except the payment of the money, and there was a considerable difficulty now being experienced about the landlord getting the 3frac12; per cent, interest which had been contracted for under the Act. He knew of cases in which all the arrangements were completed some six or nine months ago, but the landlords had not yet received the interest on the purchase money. That state of things was intolerable, and he agreed with the hon. Member for South Deny that means should be at once taken to obviate that difficulty. As there was no limit in the Act stating that not more than £5,000,000 a year should be raised, as seemed to be the impression, the money ought to be forthcoming upon reasonable terms. If more money was not advanced Ireland would be in this extraordinary position: that there might be millions of pounds worth of landed property in regard to which agreements had been consummated and all the difficulties got over, but the law would not operate until the money was forthcoming, and the occupier would be neither the tenant nor the owner, but would be under the obligation to pay the interest, which must be recovered through the Estates Commissioners. This was a most anomalous state of things and there was nothing like it in the whole Empire. The only remedy was to have a fund ready to meet all demands.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he regretted that hon. Members were not in possession of the Land Commissioners' Report, which ought to show what the operations of the Act had been, and the lines upon which it had been worked. He hoped that hon. Members would be indulgent during this interregnum, when he scarcely knew whether he was the Chief Secretary, or the Attorney-General, or an Estates Commissioner, or probably, as Mrs. Malaprop said to Cerberus, "three gentleman at once." Had he known that this debate was about to take place so early in the session, and was going to range over so

  969
  many subjects, he would have endeavoured to have obtained special information dealing with the particular matters, and this would have enabled him to give a much more satisfactory reply to the legitimate Questions which had been put to him. The delivered had dealt with two topics: (1) land purchase, and (2) the fixing of fair rents. With regard to the fixing of fair rents, he entirely concurred with the hon. Member who mentioned the matter that three years was much too long a time for appeals to be pending. He was not in a position either to quarrel with that, statement or to accept it, because, he did not know what answer the Commissioners might have, or what explanation they might offer. He admitted that unless there was a very sufficient answer three years was much too long a period for appeals to be outstanding. He did not think there was any ground for the accusation made against the Sub-Commissioners that they selected places for their own convenience which were inconvenient to those who had to appear before them. He was informed that they did their utmost to choose places with the most facilities of access to meet the convenience of all concerned. They insisted upon the best possible arrangements being made for the general convenience, and for disposing as rapidly as possible of the business that came before them. As he had not received notice of this Question he could not furnish the hon. Member with any explanation, and it would not be fair under the circumstances to pronounce a definite opinion. It was the duty of the Sub-Commissioners to endeavour to accommodate and meet the convenience of all the litigants, and to endeavour to deal as expeditiously as possible with their cases. An hon. Member opposite had dealt with the reductions made by the Sub-Commissioners on appeal. That was a matter for which the Commissioners themselves were responsible. They were in a judicial position and they were bound to administer the law as it was enacted and according to their lights and notions of what was right and just. If they found that some rents were too low, of course it was their duty to raise them, and if too high to lower them. It should be borne in mind that it was contemplated that this
  970
  Purchase Act would dispense with the necessity of fixing rents in a great many instances. Of course there were judicial decisions which he was not in a position either to criticise, condemn, or approve.
  With regard to this particular Estimate speeches of £700, that was required for salaries of the additional staff of the Estates Commissioners in order to promote and facilitate the purchase operations. That additional staff would consist of one examiner, one assistant examiner, one inspector of the management of estates, four estate surveyors, nine surveyors of boundaries and holdings, and fourteen second-division clerks; but all these were subordinate members of the staff.
  With regard to the sales the money distributed was £4,630,000. That, owing to the figure at which the first loan was placed, practically absorbed the £5,000,000. The agreements lodged covered estates, the purchase money of which was £16,900,000. [An HON. MEMBER: Up to what date was that?] Up to the 28th February. Assuming that those agreements were carried out, that would leave a balance of £12,270,000. Perhaps hon. Members opposite could persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance money in sufficient sums to deal with these questions as they arose—in sums sufficient to put the Estates Commissioners in ample funds. He doubted very much whether they would succeed, the reason being that the loss in flotation would fall upon an Irish fund, which would not be able to bear it for any length of time, and the fund would not have any money available for other legitimate purposes which it was desired to supply out of that fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed a loan of £6,000,000 this year, making £11,000,000 for the two years, and in the face of the definite pledge given by his right hon. friend the late Chief Secretary that not more than £5,000,000 a year would be required for the first few years, it would be unfair to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to arrange in the first two years not for £10,000,000 but for £16,000,000 or £17,000,000. The £6,000,000 loan would probably bring in £5,340,000 which with the bonus, assuming that that amount was sold would leave —4,900,000 to be applied in purchase money, so that there would be available

  971
  for purchase £5,000,000, which added to the £4,900,000 would bring up the amount for the two years to £10,000,000. No one was more convinced than himself that the two great difficulties in the way of this Act were the growth of agreements and the dearth of money.
  MR. CLANCYasked whether there would be a third flotation after March.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not know whether that would be so, or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that it came within the arrangement at all that a loan should be floated in 1903–4, another in 1904–5, and that a third loan should be floated in 1905.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLpressed for some information as to whether the Estates Commissioners had received the second loan. He pointed out that sales were being delayed and if the Estates Commissioners had already had that money he would like to know how such a state of delay came about.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he could not say how much had been paid out. That was how the matter stood at present. He had been requested to press the Estates Commissioners to furnish a Report and he quite agreed a Report ought to be furnished. He had made representations and the information conveyed to him was that the Commissioners were doing their utmost to bring out a Report as soon as possible. But as hon. Members must know, the framing of such a Report must take time. He could not say what the delay in getting out this Report was due to, but he had made inquiries of the Estates Commissioners, and he was informed that it would be out in a very short time. It would, of course, require to be very carefully examined and framed by them.
  MR. CLANCY: Is it to be examined by any other person before being issued?
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the Treasury have the revising of it?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not know anything about revision, but the Treasury would have to see it as it dealt with
  972
  public money. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had made a vehement charge against the Estates Commissioners, and had told the House of the intention of the Act, but he would remind the hon. Member that once a Bill passed on to the Statute-book it had to be interpreted according to its wording and no one was entitled to state the intentions of its framers.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman misrepresents me. What I charged the Estates Commissioners with doing was ignoring the last paragraph of Section 5. They only had regard to the security for the advance, and ignored the second part which directed them to take the actual circumstances of each case into consideration.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the Estates Commissioners were obliged to be guided by the Act of Parliament, and if they found themselves in a difficulty in regard to a point of law or the meaning of a section, as to how far it bore on a particular case, it was their business to get a decision upon it from the Judicial Commissioner. If the Commissioners had any difficulty about the interpretation of this or any portion of the Act all they had to do was to get a judicial decision on the matter from Judge Meredith. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had suggested that they were to take their law from, himself.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No, what I suggested was that if they were in a difficulty they were to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the Law Officers of the Crown had nothing to do with it. The only persons he was called upon to advise were the Chief Secretary and some Departments of the Government, but provision was specially made in the Land Act in order that the Commissioners might get their legal directions from an independent source unconnected with the Government whenever a point of difficulty arose. It was not at all necessary that parties should go on their own motion in any particular case for

  973
  a judicial decision. He was not aware that they had raised the point in question in any particular case.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: What the right hon. Gentleman has said now is very important, namely, that it is not necessary that the point should be brought before the Judge by the party interested and that it can be brought before the Judge by the Commissioners.
  MR. ATKINSONstated that what he said was that if the point arose in any particular case they could of their own motion bring it before the Judge and get his decision. He did not say that the Judge was to entertain abstract questions or applications, but if any particular case arose in connection with any case before them they could immediately refer that to the Judicial Commissioner and get his decision upon it.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask in regard to Section 5 whether in the case of any estate where the Commissioners are dealing with non-judicial tenants, the Commissioners can on their own motion go to Judge Meredith and ask a proper interpretation of the concluding words of that section, and that they should take into account the equities of the case. Have they done that in this instance?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he was not aware that they had. Possibly the matter had not been before them.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Has it not?
  MR. ATKINSON: If it has the fault was theirs. If any non-judicial tenant came before them, they could make a ruling upon the case and decide according to Section 5, and if there was any doubt about the ruling the landlord or the tenant, if they desired it, could get a decision from the Judicial Commissioner, This provision was specially designed in order that the Commissioners should get their law from the head of the Commission to which they belonged, and that they were not to take their law from any Law Officer, whoever he might be. Hon. Gentlemen sometimes found fault with
  974
  the Commissioners for not doing something they wished them to do, or something that they thought it fair and right they should do, without ever asking themselves if they had any power to do it. If the statute did not give them power they could not do it. They were bound by the powers conferred upon them, and on this question of the evicted tenants some Gentlemen who had addressed the House thought that the Estates Commissioners had much larger powers than in point of fact they had. It was only under Section 8 that they had power to buy land, and that was in reference to a sale or intended sale of an estate. It was ancillary to that sale that they got land for the purpose of enlarging holdings, and for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants. Many hon. Gentlemen supposed that it on a landlord's estate there were two evicted farms they could go down to the landlord and say, ''Will you sell these two evicted farms without the rest?" The landlord said, "I cannot do that. I will sell the whole of the estate, but I will not sell these two evicted farms apart from others even for the sake of reinstating these men." The Commissioners had no power to make the landlord sell in such a case, and any attempt to do it would lead to great confusion.
  MR. CLANCY: Have any instructions been issued to the Commissioners on that matter, or has any Minute been made with reference to it.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he would come to the Minutes later. He would deal with the matter altogether when he came to it. He admitted the other night and he admitted now that it would be desirable that the purchase of these different estates should progress at a much quicker rate, but unfortunately the Commissioners were not able to secure untenanted land sufficient to carry out the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. But it must be always borne in mind that the main purpose of this Act of Parliament was to turn occupying tenants into owners. No doubt that hope had not been so quickly realised as was desirable, but it must be remembered that all the untenanted land that the Commissioners so far had

  975
  obtained was 6,000 odd acres. They were in treaty for 30,000 acres more, and they hoped to be able to obtain them. When they did so the progress would be very much accelerated.
  The hon. Member for South Tipperary had asked if the Commissioners had any power to advance money to evicted tenants for the purpose of stocking their farms. The hon. Member must have forgotten that he stated the other night that forty-six men who had been reinstated had been advanced free grants amounting to £3,311.
  MR. CULLINAN: What I asked was if the Estates Commissioners could assist the evicted tenants, whether they purchased under the Ashbourne Act or any other Act.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he had been under a misapprehension on that point. The Commissioners had done so in every case without adding to the purchase money at all. On August 13th, 1904, the hon. Member for South Kildare asked whether the attention of the Chief Secretary had been directed to a letter from the Estates Commissioners to Mr. John Purcell, Arless, Queen's County, representing P. J. M'Laughlin, an evicted tenant, then in America, and the Chief Secretary replied—
  "The hon. Member has been good enough to furnish me with a copy of the letter in question. But some misunderstanding seems to exist because the apparently simple question, 'Can the Estates Commissioners make an advance for the purpose of compensating a tenant for leaving his holding?' raises several issues which in reality are distinct. (1) In the case of a holding forming part of an estate which is not 'purchased or proposed to be purchased' no advance can be made. Such a case is outside the scope of Section 12 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. (2) In the case of a holding forming part of an estate 'purchased or proposed to be purchased' compensation may be paid, under Sections 12 and 43, for the 'benefit or improvement' of that estate, or 'generally for the purposes' of the Act, one of which is the restoration of evicted tenants in connection with a transaction for sale. (3) The suggestion that compensation may be paid for this purpose seems sometimes to be made in respect of a third category of cases, viz., where the present holder has purchased under a previous Land Act. On such cases I express no opinion, and refer the hon. Member to the reply given on July 19th to the hon. Member for Tipperary South."
  MR. CULLINANasked whether a tenant who had purchased under the Ashbourne or any other Act an evicted farm and was willing to dispose of his interest was entitled to compensation in cash or an equivalent farm.
  MR. ATKINSONrefused to answer that, and for this reason, his opinion would bind nobody but himself. The Estates Commissioners might take no notice of it, and he had no power to make them act on the opinion he gave. It was a very difficult and nice question. If a question of that kind came up they would have no difficulty in sending it to Mr. Justice Meredith in order to have it decided one way or another.
  MR. CULLINANasked whether the Estates Commissioners had any power in a case where a planter was willing to surrender a farm.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he could not answer the question off-hand, and even if he did answer, he did not know that any person would be bound by it.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman could give any information about the Maher Estate.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the only information he had about that estate was what he gave the other day. The only other matter which he thought it necessary to deal with was the question of the regulations, and he confessed that he felt very great difficulty in approaching it, because whatever he could say could have no binding effect on whoever might be appointed to the important office of Chief Secretary for Ireland; and, indeed, it would be most unfair for him to endeavour to outline or suggest any policy which the successor of his hon. friend the Member for Dover might deem it right to adopt. He knew the policy that his right hon. friend pursued, as he had indicated the other day, but on this question of the position of the Estates Commissioners it would be necessary to make up one's mind as to what they were. Were they Judges regulating their conduct by published rules, independent as long as they acted within those rules, or were they Civil servants for whom

  977
  rules might be prescribed, but in addition to which they might get instructions? Then he turned to the Act and the speeches which were made in the House to see what it was contemplated they should be. The 8th sub-Section of the 23rd Section of the Act of last year purported to fix their position. It was to the following effect—
  "The Estates Commissioners, in carrying out the foregoing provisions of this Act, shall be under the general control of the Lord-Lieutenant and shall act in accordance with such regulations as may be made by him from time to time."
  In the last section of the Act-there was a provision about the rules. When the clause, which was ultimately crystallised in the form in which it appeared in the Act, was under discussion in Committee, his hon. friend the Member for York objected to the Lord-Lieutenant having any daily intercourse or daily communications with the Estates Commissioners.
  "What was objected to," he said, "was that in carrying out the provisions of this measure they should be subject to the daily and hourly control of the Lord-Lieutenant. It could not be right for the Lord-Lieutenant to give directions that the Commissioners should buy a particular estate or give a particular price. If that were done the Commissioners would be prejudiced in the discharge of their duty, and lie was unable to say what other meaning could be placed on the words."
  The hon. Member for Longford then intervened and said that—
  "The words, when taken in connection with those that followed seemed to lend themselves to some extent to the criticisms which had been made."
  He agreed that these gentlemen were to be executive officers, and there was no harm in making it perfectly plain that the Government were responsible for their conduct. That being so, the Government must be able in a general way to regulate the course which the Commissioners should pursue, and that object was secured not only by the tenure of the office, but also by the words—
  "Shall act in accordance with such general regulations as may be made by the Lord-Lieutenant."
  But when the two provisions of this sub-section were taken together it seemed to be intended that the Lord - Lieutenant should exercise a daily and hourly control over the detailed performance
  978
  of the work and the determinations of the Commissioners in regard to particular estates.
  "He thought that could hardly be intended," said the hon. Member, "and it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman explained exactly what the words did mean."
  Then his (Mr. Atkinson's) right hon. friend replied that the hon. Member—
  "must be aware that a member of the Government could not interfere minutely from day to day in the detailed work of a great Department. These words merely meant general control and guidance, the Government being responsible for the success of the Act. The Government would not interfere in regard to a particular estate or as to the sphere of the operation of the Commissioners. But seeing that the Government of the day would be criticised in Parliament if the holies raised in the course of the debate were disappointed, it might be right for them to have a word as to whether the energies of the Commissioners should be directed towards dealing with congestion or some other of the objects of the measure."
  Then the hon. Member for Louth intervened and made a pointed speech. He said—
  "That in the administration of a new body with large funds at its back it would be intolerable if the Chief Secretary of the day, who would be constantly subject to criticism in Parliament, had not a directing voice. Especially would that be the case in regard to the present Chief Secretary, who was responsible for this Bill. If the measure failed to work satisfactorily the right hon. Gentleman would be attacked on all sides, and it would be impossible for him to defend his position, unless he could say he had given the necessary directions or something to that effect. It would be a satisfaction if the Committee could be told whether the regulations to be prescribed, were to be published, or submitted to Parliament. He would suggest that they should be laid on the Table of the House with power to present a prayer against them if necessary."
  The hon. Member for Longford again intervened, and said—
  "There was a great deal to be said for the position of the Chief Secretary, so long as the interference of the Executive Government was directed to the principles of actions, to seeing that the Act was carried out in the spirit in which it was intended, and did not extend to the minor details of judgment and so forth."
  Now, it would be observed that the hon. Member for Louth dealt with two things, first, the general regulations, and asked how they were to be published: but he also dealt with the control and interference for the general purposes of the Government with the Commissioners. They were to make regulations,

  979
  but in addition to regulations, and outside them, it was competent to control the Commissioners on general lines but not to interfere in particular instances. In reference to that his right hon. friend said that—
  "He had not yet decided the exact form of publication, but he agreed that the regulations should come before the House in some way."
  That was quite so.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: You did not say that yesterday.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that subsequently the hon. Member for York proceeded to state that—
  "This Act was going to work for a considerable number of years before it was worked out, and therefore he did not like the Lord - Lieutenant to be able to lay down any regulations he liked."
  And the hon. Member moved an Amendment to add the words—
  "And such regulations shall be deemed to be statutory rules within the meaning of the Rules Publication Act of 1893."
  The question was put that those words he there inserted. Then he himself interposed and said that he had no objection to the proposal of the hon. Member, but some other form of words would be necessary if the rules were to be laid on the Table of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: Rules?] That must have meant regulations, for they were then speaking of regulations. Then he went on to say that if it was the desire of the House that the rules should be laid on the Table of the House he would bring up a clause on Report dealing with the matter.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had omitted the fact that in consequence of that statement the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment—viz.: on the understanding that the rules would be laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. ATKINSON: Quite so. He (Mr. Atkinson) said that if it was the desire of the House he would bring up a clause.
  An HON MEMBER ON THE IRISH BENCHES: Why did you not?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not do it because he was thrown over; and when the Bill came up on Report and a further Amendment was introduced he had not charge of the Bill. The pledge he had given seemed to others unacceptable; and that it was not desirable to lay the rules on the Table of the House. Accordingly an Amendment was introduced which limited the provision as to disclosing the regulations to the rules referred to in Sub-section 13. The provision in the Bill then read—
  "On page 14, line 14, add 'these reports and rules under the last preceding sub-section': i.e., Sub-section 13."
  He quite admitted that he said in Committee that if it was the desire of the House he would bring up a clause. On the Report he was not in charge of the Bill; but in Committee he was put up and told to say that. On consideration on Report his right hon. friend did, as he was perfectly entitled to do, change his mind.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that the hon. Member for York withdrew his Amendment in Committee on the distinct promise—on an undertaking given to the House of Commons that that would be done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now said that he did not fulfil that promise because he was thrown over. But did he not make any explanation to the House?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not think he was required to make any explanation to the House at all. He was not in charge of the Bill, but his right hon. friend who was in charge of the Bill did not make the Amendment on Report, and nobody objected.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: But you made a promise.
  MR. ATKINSON: But my right hon. friend was in charge of the Bill.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: May I ask if you were in charge of the Bill at the time when you made the promise?
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir. Certainly not.
  MR. CLANCY: Who threw the right hon. and learned Gentleman over.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he quite admitted that his right hon. friend did say that the regulations should be published to the House in some form. He himself had never said anything to the contrary. A Question was asked on February 2nd by the hon. Member for East Mayo of the late Chief Secretary as to whether any instructions in connection with the administration of the Land Act had been issued by the Lord-Lieutenant to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, would they be laid on the Table of the House. His right hon friend's Answer was this—
  "No such instructions have been issued to the Estates Commissioners; the hon. Member may, however, have in view the instructions to be issued by the Estates Commissioners for the guidance of the inspectors. The laying of these instructions on the Table of the House is under consideration."
  He was again pressed for a further reply by the hon. Member for East Mayo as to whether any instructions had been issued, and he said there had been a Departmental instruction sent out, and he would consider whether it should be laid. Then the hon. Member for South Tyrone asked the late Chief Secretary whether he had not given a definite promise that instructions should be laid before Parliament. To that he replied—
  "There is a distinction to be drawn between Departmental instructions and ordinary regulations."
  If that did not meet the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite it was not his fault. His right hon. friend contended that there had been no regulations made within the meaning of Section 23, Sub-section 8, of the Act, and that all that he did, viz., to convey a Departmental communication to the Estates Commissioners, was done in accordance with the power that was reserved to him and discussed at the time the Act was passed. It was never contemplated at that time that the only communication he could make to the Estates Commissioners was in the form of a general regulation. No general regulations of that kind had been made, and therefore his right hon. friend thought that he had not failed to fulfil his pledge that he would publish general regulations. He understood that the late Chief Secretary regarded those
  982
  instructions as confidential and that they should be communicated to nobody. Of course his successor might take a different view of the matter. Until, however, that successor was appointed, it would be quite improper for him to enter into any obligation, or give the House any pledge which he might not be able to carry out. He was not in a position to give any pledge on behalf of the late Chief Secretary's successor. The position of the Commissioners had to be considered. If it were right that under the provisions of the Act they should be in the position of ordinary Civil servants of the State who took orders from their superior, then if these instructions were confidential, they should be confidential for all parties and kept secret from everybody. If, on the contrary, they were to be disclosed by either side they should be disclosed by both. That was the ordinary rule in regard to Civil servants and no Civil servant would be eight to disclose the confidential communications of his superior without the concurrence of all parties concerned.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINasked if there was any confidential document in Dublin
  Castle?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he was afraid that according to the debate there were very few. If it were desirable to put these Estates Commissioners in the position of Judges they should be governed by a set of rules published to the world. Then they could have the protection which the Government took upon itself in reference to Civil servants who were bound to do as they were told and were saved from all blame so long as they acted within the instructions given them by their superiors.
  MR. MURPHYsaid that they had been led to believe that the regulations would be issued and laid on the Table in order that they whether they were framed on and intentions of the Land could not come to any other conclusion than that some "hugger-mugger" or hidden work was to be laid at the doors of the Estates Commissioners which would prove injurious to the tenants. He sympathised thoroughly with the

  983
  complaints made as to the action of the Sub-Commissioners in different parts of the country. In every district there appeared to be a denial of justice by reason of the delay that had taken place in the sittings of the Sub-Commissioners. In Killarney, appeals lodged five years ago had not yet been heard, and any reasonable person must come to the conclusion that the tenants were placed in a very awkward position, and were badly handicapped. Let the Committee compare the Land Commissioners' work with the fixing of rents in the County Courts. The latter took up the applications and disposed of them in three months, and it was hard to understand why the Head and Sub-Commissioners had to delay for years in dealing with questions of so much greater importance to people in the different districts.
  He desired to intervene in the debate on behalf of the evicted tenants of Kerry. Out of 411 applications lodged not one single case had been dealt with by the Estates Commissioners in the matter of restoring them to their holdings. It was satisfactory to note that in the majority of Kerry cases no planters were in occupation of holdings from which men had been evicted. Possibly that was because men could not be found to occupy the holdings, but if the holdings were un-tenanted and no effort made to effect such an object surely a stronger case was made out than where planters or grabbers were already in occupation. In one case a gentleman of position named Magill, who had one of these farms, instead of being negotiated with by the Estates Commissioners, was appointed one of their inspectors for the transaction of business under the Land Act. It was setting at defiance both justice and fair play that such a man should be in receipt of a salary from the Commissioners who were expected to deal fairly with the evicted tenant. In another case he, although without influence with the landlord, had been able to effect the reinstatement of an evicted tenant for the mere asking it of Mr. Coltsman, the landlord. Previous to his taking that step they had sent several letters and applications to the Estates Commissioners, and had made every possible effort to get the evicted tenant reinstated, but without avail, and they were compelled to
  984
  take their own course. He had also made representations to the Estates Commissioners that owing to the number of years the tenant had been out of occupation, to his poverty and difficult position, he was entitled to some assistance; but although twelve months had lapsed since the reinstatement, and various reports had been made regarding that particular evicted tenant, nothing had been done beyond a promise that the case would be considered by the Commissioners. What was true of those two tenants applied equally to other estates in Kerry. The inspectors of the Estates Commissioners apparently made inquiries, but they resulted in no satisfactory treatment of the evicted tenants. Another case was to be found on the estate of the Earl of Kenmare in Killarney, where an evicted tenant, who had been out of his holding fifteen years, was still claiming to be reinstated. A fair rent had been fixed before he was evicted and he owed only one year's rent. He went out on the "Plan of Campaign" and in defence of the other tenants; the landlords' agent was written to, but declined to let to the evicted tenant, and although the farm was vacant, and the Estates Commissioners had been appealed to, nothing had been done. But a worse case was to be found on the Collis Sands Estate, where the landlord had agreed to sell, and the tenant had agreed to buy, and yet no definite arrangement had been made. The result was that tenants were determined not to pay rent until the landlords dealt fairly with them, and the landlords were determined to obtain high prices, even if they had to resort to writs and other processes of intimidation. Thus the whole parish was in a state of turmoil and disorder, whereas if a reasonable bargain had been allowed the parties would have been happily situated. It appeared to him that if anything was to be done for the evicted tenants it must be effected by raising their voice in Parliament and getting the people to agitate at home. The Attorney-General could only be regarded as a stop-gap in the absence of the right hon. Member for Dover, which they all regretted, but he would express the hope that some good might yet be done for the evicted tenants, who were the most deserving and needful section

  985
  of the people, and that negotiations under the Land Act might be in the future carried out in a more reasonable manner than had been the case during the last two years.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman could say how long the extra staff had been employed, became if they were to be employed for merits between any considerable time, in his opinion the tenants would, Vote was insufficient. It was notorious throughout Ireland that the block in the way of completing transactions was due first to the want of money, and second to the length of time necessary for the completion of the process of examination and inspection, and if this £700 now asked for was for the payment of the staff mentioned for another year, it was quite evident by the experience of the past that that staff was insufficient to get through the work.
  Passing to the larger question, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the amount available each year for land purchase would be £5,000,000. Up to the present there had been £11,000,000, £5,000,000 for the financial year 1903–1904, and £6,000,000 for the financial year 1904–1905. In a few days, when the next financial year commenced, there could be another flotation of stock for another £5,000,000, and the result of that would be that £16,000,000 would be ail the money available to meet the whole of the transactions up to March 31, 1906. In the meanwhile applications kept pouring in. Those already in represented something like £16,000,000, so that they would absorb the whole of the purchase money that could be expected to be available up to the 31st of March, 1906. Yet bargains were being made and applications were coming in. There would be very long delays between the signing of the agreement and the vesting order, which was, to say the least, unfortunate. It had a great disturbing influence in Ireland, and it appeared to him that if the money was not to be got to meet the demands as they came in, some notice should be published by the Government warning both landlord and tenants that
  986
  under the circumstances any agreement arrived at must remain in abeyance for many months. This was an important matter. He did not complain of the delay, because it arose from the unanticipated success of the Act of 1903, but, the conditions having arisen, in his opinion the Government ought to take some steps, either to ameliorate them, or if they could not do that they should at least let it be known that the agreements between the landlords and the after they had been signed, be shelved for many months, perhaps years, to come.
  *Mr. DELANYsaid it was very necessary for the Estates Commissioners to have proper clerical assistance, because from his personal experience they could not even acknowledge a letter in less than fourteen days. He, however, did not see any necessity for this £700 Vote at all. The staff at the Four Courts had practically nothing to do except read the newspaper all day, and the same state obtained in other Departments, consequently there was no need whatever for this extra expenditure, as clerks might have been transferred from other offices. Twenty inspectors had been appointed by the Estates Commissioners, but in reply to a Question the Attorney-General had been unable to give any information as to their creed, knowledge, or previous experience. As to the evicted tenants, according to the official Returns there were 215 evicted tenants in Queen's County of whom only one had been restored. That was an even lower rate than in the rest of the country. Out of 5,500 evicted tenants in Ireland forty-six had been restored by the Estates Commissioners, and ninety by the landlords, so that at that rate it take forty years to settle the evicted tenants question, upon which settlement depended the whole success of the Act and the peace and contentment of the country. On the Marquess of Lansdowne's estate there were forty-nine evicted tenants, not one of whom had been restored by the Estates Commissioners. He wished to know whether they had approached the planters in the matter, or whether any communications had passed between the Estates Commissioners and Lord Lansdowne with regard

  987
  to the reinstatement of these tenants. Another case was that of the Caldbeck Estate, one-half of which consisted of untenanted land. That land had been parcelled out between the big graziers, business men, and the bailiff himself, although there were thirty-four tenants whose holdings were absolutely uneconomic and who under the Act had a right to a fair share of the land. Were those men to be swindled out of their rights? When the inspector went down to the estate he travelled with the agent, met the bailiff
  at the village, and lunched with the biggest grazier. His report, however, could not be procured; it being held to be privileged. He protested against this arrangement being sanctioned by the Commissioners, seeing that under it the whole intention of the Act was being completely defeated.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 218; Noes, 246. (Division List No. 34.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Law, H. A. (Donegal, W.)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Corn wall)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Edwards, Frank

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Allen, Charles P.

  Elibank, Master of

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Asher, Alexander

  Ellice, Capt E. C(S. Andrw'sBghs

  Levy, Maurice

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lloyd-George, David

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lough, Thomas

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lundon, W.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Field, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bell, Richard

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

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Benn, John Williams

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Black, Alexander William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mc Crae, George

  Blake, Edward

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mc Hugh, Patrick A.

  Boland, John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mc Kean, John

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  McKenna, Reginald

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mc Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Brigg, John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Mc Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Gilhooly, James

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Moss, Samuel

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hammond, John

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  Murphy, John

  Caldwell, James

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cameron, Robert

  Harrington, Timothy

  Newnes, Sir George

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Harwood, George

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Nussey, Thomas William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Higham, John Sharpe

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Crean, Eugene

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  O'Dowd, John

  Crombie, John William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.

  Cullinan, J.

  Johnson, John

  O'Malley, William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Mara, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Delany, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Parrott, William

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Partington, Oswald

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Labouchere, Henry

  Perks, Robert William

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lambert, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lamont, Norman

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Langley, Batty

  Rea, Russell

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Reddy, M.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Weir, James Galloway

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Roche, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore G. (Radcliffe)

  Wills, Arthur W. (N. Dorset)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

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

  Russell, T. W.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Tomkinson, James

  Young, Samuel

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

  Toulmin, George

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Sheehy, David

  Wallace, Robert

  Thomas Esmonde and Mr.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Patrick O'Brien.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

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

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Helder, Augustus

  Balcarres, Lord

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ban bury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Horner, Frederick William

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hoult, Joseph

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir J. William Hart

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj'min

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Jeffreys, Capt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Bigwood, James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jessel, Capt. Herl ert Merton

  Bill, Charles

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Konnaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'ru'ss B'ghs

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

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kerr, John

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fison, Frederick William

  Keswick, William

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Brassey, Albert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Butcher, John George

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J A.(Glasgow)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Garfit, William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

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

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks NR

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (W'rc

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S.

  Chapman, Edward

  Green, W.D. (Wednesbury)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Greene, Sir E W( B'ry S Edm'nds

  Loder, (Gerald Walter Erskine

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

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

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

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Gretton, John

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cook. Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hain, Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  990

  991

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Purvis, Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Randles, John S.

  Thornton. Percy M.

  Mc Calmont, Colonel James

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tuff, Charles

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Turnour, Viscount

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Renwick, George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Warde, Colonel C.E.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Moore, William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Whitmore. Charles Algernon

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Myers, William Henry

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Shaw-Stewart. Sir H. (Renfrew

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

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Smith, A. B. (Hertford, East)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart.

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Smith. Rt. Hon. J. P. (Lanarks

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Spear, John Ward

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Percy, Earl

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Alexander Acland - Hood

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stock, James Henry

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stroyan, John

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he had not had the advan age of hearing the speech of the Attorney-General, but he had got what he believed was a fairly adequate summary of it. He wished to return to the subject of the status of the Estates Commissioners at the point where the right hon. Gentleman left it. He would read the passage in the speech of the late Chief Secretary dealing with that subject when the Laud Bill was in Committee. It was to be found in Hansard, 1st July, 1903. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "He would like to define the attitude of the Government step by step. During the long conferences which preceded the introduction of the Bill, and on almost every clause, he had laid the greatest stress on the administrative character of the new Commission. That the new Commission should be of an administrative character was not merely his personal opinion, it was an integral part of the policy of the Government. He could not have persuaded his right hon. friend to sanction the use of large public funds for purely executive work except
  992
  upon the basis that those who administered them were to be in a very real sense executive officers, subject in all matters of policy, and the economic and proper use of the funds, not only to the control of the Government, but to the criticism of the House."
  The late Chief Secretary was certainly a master of lucid exposition, and no language could be more explicit than that passage. There was no single statement in connection with the Bill the meaning of which was more palpable than the one he had quoted. All would agree that they had a right to criticise the action of the Estates Commissioners. It was intended that they should be under the constant control and criticism of the House. To him it was axiomatic from that proposition that the Committee must know the instructions under which the Estates Commissioners did their work if they were to be criticised. Let the Committee see the position in which they were placed by the startling statement of the Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman said, "It is quite true that I gave a.

  993
  pledge that these instructions should be made public."
  MR. ATKINSON: These "regulations?"
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he was instructed to give that pledge, and that then he was thrown over. He said he was not in charge of the Bill. They must assume. Therefore, that he was thrown over by the Gentleman in charge of the Bill, namely, the late Chief Secretary. They had a subordinate officer of the Government telling the House of Commons that, having on instructions given a deliberate pledge, he was overthrown by his superior. There had been such remarkable relations between different members of the Government that he had ceased to be startled at anything they might do. When he read a speech by the Chief Secretary in favour of one policy, and when he found a strong denunciation of that policy by the Attorney-General, he was in doubt whether the Chief Secretary had thrown over the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General had thrown over the Chief Secretary. They were accustomed to the ordinary constitutional reserve which was observed between Ministers, but this was a startling new development on which he would make further comment. He would look at the situation in which Members from Ireland were placed. They got an undertaking from a representative of the Government, and if that undertaking was not carried out they were deprived of the means of criticising the Commissioners. A pledge given to the House of Commons by one Minister was beyond the power of any other Minister to recall. The Irish representatives had strong reason to complain that the Attorney-General should have allowed himself to be thrown over, and further they had reason to complain that when he was thrown over they were not told of the matter so that the House might have dealt with it.
  MR. ATKINSON: I told the House that words would be brought up on Report.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the Attorney-General did not bring up words
  994
  on Report, and the only explanation he gave was that he was thrown over by his hierarchical superior. The result was that a solemn pledge given to the House was broken. That was a flagrant breach of the old practice of that Assembly—a practice without which no business could be brought forward and properly and decorously discussed, namely, that a pledge given by a Minister was one from which he had no right to recede except with the consent of those to whom it was given. It was a most discreditable transaction. He supposed that the next Chief Secretary would not be an Irishman, but a man of the superior nationality who thought they had a right to manage the affairs of Ireland. When he saw the Attorney-General, an Irishman, with long years of office, thrown over by an English Chief Secretary, his sympathies gushed forth towards the right hon. Gentleman in the humiliating position in which he had been placed. He renewed his strong complaint that a breach of faith had been committed.
  So much in regard to form; he would now come to substance. They had been promised the right to criticise the Estates Commissioners, but they were without the materials to do so on the very point on which, above all others, they wanted material. So far as the transactions between landlord and tenants for the sale of land were entered into, these merely concerned the two parties, and the bargains might be either good or bad. There was no power on those benches by which transactions of that kind, sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners, could be revised; but the action of the Estates Commissioners in regard to the evicted tenants was primarily and mainly executive, and was a matter which affected every section of the people of Ireland, and the whole of the land policy of which the Land Act was the expression. Everybody knew that the Land Bill would not have got one vote from any single man on those benches if they had thought that the evicted tenants were going to be deserted. The supreme and vital part of the Land Act was that relating to the evicted tenants, and the Chief Secretary, as long as the Bill was under discussion in that House, and Lord Lansdowne in another place, cordially accepted that proposal. The

  995
  Bill became law, and the Estates Commissioners were appointed. He did not know one of them except as a nodding acquaintance; but he had read in the public Press that the Estates Commissioners had been most anxious to deal with the evicted tenants. The right hon. Attorney-General admitted that, somehow or other, the work had not been done. If that was the fault of the Estates Commissioners let the House of Commons know. If the Irish Members could be persuaded that the blame for the manner in which this question had been tinkered with could be laid at the door of the Estates Commissioners, he could assure the Committee that the Estates Commissioners would get the full measure of Parliamentary criticism promised in the speech of the late Chief Secretary. If it was not the fault of the Estates Commissioners, let the House of Commons know. If this great question, which lay at the root of social order in Ireland, which was almost what he might call its poisoned root, was not settled, they had a right to ask who dared prevent it. For that settlement thousands of unhappy beings had been looking, yearning, and longing for ten, twenty, thirty years, hoping that they might be permitted to return to their untenanted houses and desolated farms. In the sporting phrase of his hon. friend behind him he wanted to saddle the right horse; to find out the criminal in order that they might frame an indictment against him.
  All that the Attorney-General could do was to say, "I promised to give you the material for criticism; I was overruled; I am still like the peri at the door of Paradise awaiting with tremulous anxiety, not unmixed with apprehension, the name of the gentleman who is to succeed to the vacant office of Chief Secretary." To what base uses this Chief Secretary ship, which was once the most important position in the Cabinet, must have come, that it was now going a-begging from one Minister to another? Was there even a poor, shuffling, callow Under-Secretary who would think it worth his while to pick it out of the gutter? This was the apotheosis of Unionism. The Attorney-General was waiting for his new hierarchical chief, and he could promise the right hon. Gentleman that it would be far more easy for him when the typical
  996
  Saxon, with a fine colossal, hide-bound, rhinoceros-laden ignorance of Irish affairs, arrived as a new Chief Secretary. He pressed upon the hon. and learned Attorney-General the necessity, at the very first consultation he had with his new chief, of impressing on that Gentleman, whoever he might be, the propriety of making no pledges that he could not fulfil, and the absolute necessity of his keeping faith with Parliament and giving to the House the information promised. This matter could not be left where it stood. He was sure that they would have the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman in pressing upon his new chief the duty, the honour, and obligation to give the information required. When that information was forthcoming they would be able to deal with this question which for twenty years had been a source of sorrow and astonishment to Ireland.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid the restoration by the Estates Commissioners of forty-six, and by the landlords of ninety odd evicted tenants was not a very great result to show for a year and a half's working of the Land Purchase Act of 1903. In fact, it was an exceedingly poor result. There were, they were told, 4,550 applications for reinstatement, some from America, some from Australia and other countries, and he was glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say he did not intend to make any point of that fact. He quite admitted that some of those claims might not be genuine, but the enormous bulk of them were, and the hon. and learned Gentleman might minimise them as much as he could, but still the forty-six restorations by the. Estates Commissioners stood out as a. miserable result of the working of the Act of 1903 in this regard. Out of the. £250,000 at the disposal of the Estates. Commissioners for the reinstatement of evicted tenants they had spent something like £3,500, which came to about £72 each tenant. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether those forty-six tenants had been restored to their own holdings, or whether in that number he included those for whom other farms had been found. He himself believed that the Irish land question would never be settled to the satisfaction of Ireland, or

  997
  to the advantage of the House until every evicted tenant was restored to the holding from which he had been evicted. He himself was the first tenant evicted under the Plan of Campaign, and ho never had, and never would go back from anything he did on that occasion. Given the same, circumstances and conditions, he would do to-morrow what he did then. He had taken the rough with the smooth side of Irish political life, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite knew, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had used every device of the law to give him penal servitude. But when he arrived in that House he neither attacked the hon. and learned Gentleman nor complained. He was one of those who preferred the rough tongue of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the smooth tongue and smiling manner of the late Chief Secretary the right hon. Member for Dover. In the one case he always knew where he was and in the other case he never knew where he was. The hon. and learned Gentleman had never deceived him. He always knew that in the hon. and learned Member he had an opponent, skilful and learned in the law, to fight, who would use every trick and device of the law to put him into jail and keep him there. He did not complain, and frankly admitted that if, under different circumstances, the hon. and learned Gentleman had to deal with him, as through the mercy of providence he might have to, yet he would do the same by him.
  With reference to the question he had asked that day as to the reduction of rents in county Clare, he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to remember that some of those rents were fixed as first-term rents before 1884. Rents in West Clare were reduced by 5 per cent., and in East Clare by 10 per cent. He could not understand how any Commissioner, acquainted with the nature of the land, and having regard to the reduction in the prices of agricultural produce, could come to the conclusion that a reduction of 5 per cent. on a second-term rent could result in a fair rent, when the first-term rent had been fixed before 1884. He drew attention to the fact that one of the Sub-Commissioners who was sent to fix these rents in Clare, where the land was principally crag land and bog land,
  998
  came, from county Wexford where such classes of land were almost unknown, and the result was that, instead of proper valuation being made, these ridiculous reductions of 5 per cent. for West Clare and 10 per cent, for East Clare were made. It was, of course, all done in the interest of Irish landlords, who desired to sell. The basis of purchase must be the existing rents, and these men who knew nothing about the value of land in a particular county were sent down in order to make these valuations so that the landlord might get as much money as possible, and in order to prevent the tenants going into Court, and so drive them into purchase. The Land Commissioners issued periodically a list of prices current in the Dublin markets for beef and mutton and for all classes of store stock at the various country fairs. They had inspectors attending at these fairs who sent up a return of the prices of all things sold, and what yearlings and two-year olds and so on were to be bought for, and these returns were sent to the Sub-Commissioners as a guide to them in fixing rents. Some of these Sub-Commissioners were broken-down landlords, while others were men who had endeavoured to farm on their own land and then could not make it pay. He would like to know the names of some of these Sub-Commissioners.
  Late in the previous session he put several questions to the right hon. Member for Dover as to whether the Estates Commissioners had any power of initiative with regard to the reinstatement of evicted tenants, or whether the Estates Commissioners had the power of initiative to approach a grabber and suggest to him to take either monetary compensation or a similar farm elsewhere to that which he was in. To these questions he never obtained a satisfactory answer. On June 29th, 1903, during the Report stage of the Land Bill, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford asked whether, under Clause 11 of the Bill, the Estates Commissioners would have power to buy out the interests of existing tenants in order to reinstate evicted tenants, and whether the money at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners, under that clause, would be available

  999
  for the purpose of restocking and rebuilding farms. The Chief Secretary in reply said—
  "The answer to those two questions is certainly in the affirmative."
  In the face of that reply he could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman at the close of the session could have refused to give a definite answer. If nobody had a power of initiative there could not possibly be a settlement where persons had taken possession of evicted tenants' holdings. These grabbers had been described as the landlords' "wounded soldiers." There never was a greater misnomer; while the battle was going on they never took part in the fighting. They were rather the camp followers and jackals, who came in after the battle was over to rifle the wounded and the dead. In nine cases out of ten they were not and never had been practical farmers. Yet, in spite of the definite statement of the late Chief Secretary, the Estates Commissioners, under some occult influence, now refused to approach any grabber. Why was it? Who had given them their instructions? Instructions, regulations, orders, or minutes had been supplied by someone, and somewhere; it was not
  known by whom, or where. Was it because of those instructions that the Estates Commissioners refused to do that which the Chief Secretary definitely stated they would have power to do? The Attorney-General had stated that he did not give the instructions. But did they issue from the law department of Dublin Castle? Were they given by the Lord-Lieutenant? It was not supposed that the Lord-Lieutenant had anything to do with them. Lord Dudley desired to see the evicted tenants' question settled on just and amicable lines, and for that reason Nationalists were delighted that he still remained at Dublin Castle. Those who had not the courage of their convictions, who could not keep their word, had left the castle, but the man of honour and the man of his word remained.
  Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 35.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brassey, Albert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bull, William James

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hon. H. 0.

  Butcher, John George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Garson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A. (Worc.

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs.

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

  Chapman, Enward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Forster, Henry William

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

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

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Colston, Chas Edw. H. Athole

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Berjamin

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Garfit, William

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bigwood, James

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bill, Charles

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bingham, Lord

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(TowerHamlets

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs.

  Gretton, John

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Hain, Edward

  McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mc Calmont. Colonel James

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Milmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Helder, Augustus

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Moore, William

  Stock, James Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stroyan, John

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Horner, Frederick William

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray G.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hunt, Rowland

  Myers, William Henry

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tuff, Charles

  Kenyon, Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Kerr, John

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Tumour, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Valentia, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pemberton. John S. G.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Percy, Earl

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow),

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Webb, Colonel William George,

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N. R.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Willough by de Eresby, Lord

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

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Randles, John S.

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Renwick, George,

  Wylie, Alexander

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rolleston. Sir John E. L.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burns, John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Caldwell, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Asher, Alexander

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Asqnith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Duffy, William J.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Dunn, Sir William

  Beaumont, Wentworth G. B.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Edwards, Frank

  Bell, Richard

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Elibank, Master of

  Benn, John Williams

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Black, Alexander William

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Ellis, John Edward(Notts.)

  Blake, Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Emmott, Alfred

  Boland, John

  Gremer, William Randal

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Crombie, John William

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Brigg, John

  Gullinan, J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Fenwick. Charles

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Delany, William

  Field, William

  1002

  1003

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

  Mc Crae, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mc Hugh, Patrick A.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mc Kean, John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mc Kenna, Reginald

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

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Mc Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shackleton, David James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mc Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sheehy, David

  Gilhooly, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Moss, Samuel

  Slack, John Bamford

  Hammond, John

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murphy, John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Donnell, John(Mayo, S.)

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

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O' Dowd, John

  Tillett, Louis John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Toulmin, George

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Johnson, John

  O' Mara, James

  Wallace, Robert

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Parrott, William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Joyce, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Kilbride, Denis

  Perks, Robert William

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lambert, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rea, Russell

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Langley, Batty

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Reddy, M.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  |Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Leese, Sir J F. (Accrington)

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Levy, Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Lundon, W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, John

  Thomas Esmonde and Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Rose, Charles Day

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Walter

  Question put accordingly, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding£700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and
  Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 299; Noes, 193. (Division List No.36.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Bigwood, James

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Bill, Charles

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Bingham, Lord

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Arrol, Sir William

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Brassey, Albert

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. HnSir H.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Bull, William James

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Butcher, John George

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

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pretyman. Ernest George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Purvis, Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Randles, John S.

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Worc.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Chapman. Edward

  Hunt, Rowland

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Renwick, George

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

  Kennaway, Rt, Hn. Sir John H.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Kerr, John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Keswick, William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Kirg, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N. R.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Dewar, SirT.R.(Tower Hamlets

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  Doughty, Sir George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Stock, James Henry

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Loyd, Archic Kirkman

  Stroyan, John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Finlay, SirR.B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tuff, Charles

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Forster, Henry William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Turnour, Viscount

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

  Maxwell. W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Garfit, William

  Milner,Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Moore, William

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Greene, Sir EW(B'ry SEdm'nds

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Gretton, John

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray G.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R(Bath

  Hain, Edward

  Myers, William Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Percy, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES£Sir

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Helder, Augustus

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Asher, Alexander

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  1006

  1007

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bell, Richard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Benn, John Williams

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rea, Russell

  Black, Alexander William

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Blake, Edward

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reid, SirR. Threshie (Dumfries

  Brigg, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Richards, H. C. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Johnson, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burns, John

  Jones, Leif(Appleby)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Roche, John

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Rose, Sir Thomas

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

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

  Rose, Charles Day

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kilbride, Denis

  Runciman, Walter

  Cawley, Frederick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lamont, Norman

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Langley, Batty

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Sheehy, David

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Maurice

  Shipman, D. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crombie, John William

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cullinan, J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Delany, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Spencer,Rt.Hn.C.R (Northants

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Crae, George

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kean, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mooney, John J.

  Tillett, Louis, John

  Edwards, Frank

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tomkinson, James

  Ellice, CaptEC (S. Andrw's Bghs

  Moss, Samuel

  Toulmin, George

  Ellis, JohnEdward (Notts.)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Emmott, Alfred

  Murphy, John

  Wallace, Robert

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Field, William

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

  Weir, James Galloway

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

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

  White, George(Norfolk)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Dowd, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Mara, James

  Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

  Hammond, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parrott, William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Harrington, Timothy

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas Esmonde and Mr.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Perks, Robert William

  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [By ORDER].
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. MOONEYin rising to move the rejection of this Bill, said he had no wish to detain the House for any length of time, but merely to explain shortly the position of himself and the other Members who had similar Motions on the Paper. Rathmines and Rathgar was an urban district situated in that portion of the county of Dublin which he had the honour to represent. Six Members representing the city and the county of Dublin were returned to this House, and so representative was this Bill that the only persons who could be found to introduce it were the hon. Member for South Londonderry and the hon. Member for North Antrim. That curious state of things did not arise from the fact that those who represented Dublin had failed in their duties to their constituents, but from the fact that they would not be parties to a Bill which proposed to confer on one set of people powers and privileges to the detriment of another set of persons who already enjoyed certain of those, powers and privi eges. His main reason or asking for the rejection of this Bill was that it transgressed certain rules which had been laid down by the House for its own guidance. The object of the Bill which was proposed by the Urban District Council of Rathmines was to grab a portion of the existing county of Dublin. The portion it proposed to take had a district council of its own and formed the residential portion of the county of Dublin. It was over one-third the size of the existing area of the district which proposed to annex it, and had a local authority of its own. He submitted that it was against the settled principle of the House to allow the annexation of one district, by an adjoining district when there was in the district proposed to be annexed a council of its own which was hostile to that
  1010
  annexation, unless there was an over whelming case made out in favour of it. The Urban District Council of Rathmines was the last body which should have come to this House and ask them to vary their own rule. The Rathmines District Council had been before the House many times, it had given evidence before Committees which was found to be absolutely misleading, and produced figures which, had it been a limited company whose figures were scrutinised every year by an auditor, no auditor would have granted a certificate for. The town clerk of Rathmines before one of the Committees of the House deliberately stated that the rates in existence in the township of Rathmines were only 4s. in the £. He stated the same thing before a Committee of the Upper House. His statement at the time was strictly true, but he omitted to mention that the rates had been deliberately kept down for the purposes of that evidence, and a less rate had been struck than should have been; that in 1898 the rate was struck at 6s. in the £, and that in 1900 it was actually struck at 10s., in order to make up the deficiency which had resulted in 1899 owing to too low a rate having been struck. The indebtedness of the Rathmines Council per head of the population was greater than that of the City of London. They had indulged in the most extravagant and costly schemes which had not the real sanction of the people in the district, and the real fact of the matter was that the Urban District Council of Rathmines had by mismanagement in the past got themselves into such a state of confusion and debt that they had been obliged to look round for some means of extricating themselves, and the only means which they had been enabled to discover was this attempt to annex this adjoining district, thus robbing the county council of the rates of that portion of the county in order that they themselves might take them for the purpose of paying off their own debts. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  *MR. NANNETTIsaid the hon. Member who had moved the rejection of the Bill had given so clear an explanation of his reason for so doing that it was not necessary

  1011
  to further labour that point. He himself opposed this Bill on the ground that it would inflict a grave injury upon the Corporation of Dublin, of which he was a member, and the Port and Docks Board of Dublin, of which he was also a member. Both those bodies had entered a protest against this Bill. The unfortunate thing about this Bill was that it came before the House of Commons, very few Members of which understood the matter, and that when the division was taken its fate would be decided by a number of gentlemen who would come in and vote either for or against it, but who had not troubled to come and listen to the arguments. He was perfectly satisfied that if this Bill went before a committee of the citizens of Dublin, no matter whether they were a Unionist or a Nationalist committee, it would be scouted. No case had been made out for the annexation of the district which it was proposed to take over by this Bill. On the other hand, the Corporation of Dublin believed that this Bill would seriously interfere with their scheme of water supply and their great drainage scheme, which had now almost come to completion. The Corporation of Dublin was already supplying the population of the district with water, and, if this Bill was allowed to go through the Rathmines District Council would immediately come into active competition with the Corporation in regard to that. He thought a more preposterous proposal than this could hardly be brought before the House. At the present time the Dublin Port and Docks Board were in negotiation with these people to deal with their sewage. The Port and Docks Board now received £200 a year for allowing them to discharge their sewage into the River Dodder, which was a tributary to the Liffey, and they were now to receive a further £40 a year from the Rathmines people for dealing more effectively with it, as the Rathmines people could not deal with it themselves. The Port and Docks Board of Dublin, therefore, strongly opposed this Bill. Having regard to the great drainage scheme of the city, of Dublin and the purification of the Liffey, in which they were now engaged, was it fair, he asked, to the Corporation of Dublin, who had made ample provision to take
  1012
  over the drainage of these surrounding areas, that this council should be set up against them, and that the work they were now doing in regard to the purification of the river should be prevented by another authority coming in and discharging their sewage into the River Dodder through which it passed into the Liffey, and flowed through Dublin, while they themselves were not allowed to discharge into the Liffey, but to carry it out to sea. No case had been made out for this measure. It was an omnibus Bill which went into various other matters, and it would do a serious injury to the Corporation of Dublin. The promoters of this Bill had sent out a dishonest circular in which, on the one hand, they asked for power to carry out the principle of municipalisation, while at the same time they were sending out a circular on behalf of the manufacturers. This Bill would injure the City of Dublin in regard to their main drainage scheme, which it would hamper unfairly; it would increase the City of Dublin's obligation to the county council, increase taxation in the county at large, and impose a heavier burden of taxation upon the districts to be taken in. For these reasons he asked the House to reject the Bill. When the corporation asked for a locus standi in regard to this measure they were refused unless they consented to withdraw their opposition. Of course, the Corporation of Dublin could not do such a thing, and so they were, refused locus standi.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Mooney.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. GORDONsaid he knew something about the facts of this case. In regard to this measure hon. Members opposite had dealt with everything but the merits of the Bill. Those who had backed this measure with their names were residents and ratepayers in Dublin, and they were deeply interested in the welfare of the city, and each of them could throw a stone from where they lived into the township of Rathmines. Although they

  1013
  represented other constituencies in the House they were far more interested in the districts affected by this Bill than some of the hon. Members opposite who were opposing it. It had been argued that it was contrary to the settled practice and principle of that House for a large municipal community to annex another without the full consent of that community. Now what had happened in the case of the City of Dublin itself? Three times Dublin had brought Rathmines before the House of Commons to annex them against the wishes of nine-tenths of the people of Rathmines and Pembroke, but they had managed to escape the net of that political caucus which ruled Dublin. Clontarf and Kilmainham fought, but both of them were absorbed. For several sessions Dublin had attempted to bring in Rathmines. which was well managed and well regulated, and in every way well-governed in its non-political affairs. ["Oh, oh!"] Rathmines was Unionist to the backbone. [NATIONALIST laughter.] That was a fact, and it was quite capable of managing its own municipal affairs. It was solely because Rathmines excluded politics from its local affairs, and would not be governed by the Dublin Corporation, that this measure was being opposed by hon. Members opposite.
  It had been said that this was a question of the rates. He did not believe that the rates affected the question much, but he would deal with that argument. The rates in Rathmines were 8s. 9d. in the pound, and 3s. 6d. of that went to the county council, and 1s. to pay the costs which the township of Rathmines was forced to incur in defeating the efforts of the Dublin Corporation to annex them. That was the sort of neighbour Rathmines had got. Now the rates in the City of Dublin were 10s. 4d. in the pound, but Rathmines had to pay 7d. or 8d. in the pound as an equalisation rate, and hand it over to the City of Dublin. Rathmines had been called upon to pay an extra rate of 1s. in the pound for five years by an indefensible procedure on the part of the Corporation of Dublin to annex them, the rates in Dublin being 10s. 4d. in the pound.
  MR. CLANCY: Your are inventing that. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not a proper expression to use, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he did not wish to use an un-Parliamentary expression and he would withdraw it.
  MR. GORDON,proceeding, said that Rathmines had a good water supply and the City of Dublin at one time had to go to them when they ran short. The hon. Member for Dublin Harbour had said that the difficulties Dublin was likely to be in for water would probably be mitigated by this Bill if passed.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: The hon. Member is grossly misrepresenting me. What I said was that Dublin Corporation were making calculations for a new reservoir, and I told them that in my judgment the supply was insufficient, and that if this Bill passed there would be a less demand.
  MR. GORDON: That is practically what I said. Proceeding, he said that in the first place Dublin would not give them a supply unless they came with their hats in their hands, which they refused to do; but they now had a supply capable of supplying a town three times its size. Rathmines, which lay to the south of Dublin, had been in existence since 1847, and it consisted of some 7,000 or 8,000 inhabitants, who found themselves excluded from everything a populous community required. They got themselves formed into a township, and since then adjoining communities had grown up and got themselves added, till now the township numbered about 35,000, with a valuation, he was told, of over £160,000. Pembroke, a large district beside it, was formed into a township, and in 1877 the two joined, and, under Act of Parliament, carried out a joint drainage scheme, whilst Dublin was still polluting the river and making it a perfect scandal. This particular district, which did not join the city, but was in the county of Dublin, grew up till now it had about 5,000 inhabitants and 1,000

  1015
  occupied houses, with not one single attempt at drainage and without anything in the nature of any system which should serve a populous community. They applied first to the guardians, who prior to the Act of 1898 were the sanitary authority, and then to the district council to do something for them, but not one single step had been taken to do anything, and ultimately, in self-defence,—and he could not blame them—somebody made an opening in the Eathmines and Rathgar main drainage which was absolutely independent of the Corporation of Dublin, and was constructed at a cost of £100,000. The Rathgar Main Drainage Board then applied for and obtained an injunction, but so convinced were they of the necessity of some drainage for the district that from that day, some five years ago, to this they had never put their injunction in force. Everybody knew that it would inflict such a gross injustice and hardship upon the people of the district that they did not attempt to stop it. It would be a source of danger for them to be left in their undrained state; and therefore what they asked was that the injunction should be dissolved, or that, notwithstanding it, the Bill should be allowed to pass, and the little field, consisting of about 500 acres, should be annexed to Rathmines.
  They got some supply of water from Dublin, and there was an arrangement that they should pay for the pipes, but the corporation found out afterwards that this would not work, and they allowed it to be worked out by giving a reduction in the price for a considerable time. There ought, however, to be some regularity as to streets, for at present anyone could put up buildings at their own will and pleasure, and there were a great many matters both as to frontage lines, material, and mode of construction requiring attention. Then there was no means of lighting the place. The hon. Member submitted that inhabitants representing five-sixths of the valuation of the place were in favour of its being taken over. Rathmines wanted to protect itself, to protect the people who lived in this little district, to take them over and form them into part of a good, well-managed, and well cared-for township. The drainage of the Liffey had already
  1016
  cost about £350,000, and would probably cost in the end over £500,000. If the House was satisfied that there was matter here which did not affect the principle, which hon. Members were not now in a position to determine, and which could be examined into by a Committee, with the view to justice being done to all parties, he would respectfully ask that the Bill should be read a second time and sent to a Committee. If the Corporation of Dublin had all the grievances which were suggested, they would be able to bring them before the Committee if they could prove a locus. All that the promoters asked, and this showed the strength of their position, was that the Bill should go to a Committee, and that it should not be stopped now.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry. N.)said this was a matter of certain importance, and he thought it right that he should, on behalf of the Government, express their view on the position. He did not at all express any opinion one way or the other on the merits or the demerits of the scheme put, forward by the promoters of the Bill. The question was what was right and proper to be done in the circumstances. There was no assertion that had been made on the opposite side of the House which had not been traversed on his side, and there was no assertion made on his side which had not been traversed on the opposite side, and the result was that the House was absolutely incapable of coming to a conclusion in the matter. In that state of matters what would be the natural course to take? [NATIONALIST cries of "Home Rule."] If Home Rule were in operation, there would not lie two disagreeing parties, but there would probably be five. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You have five in the Tory Party already.] Was it not common-sense and reason that, inasmuch as the House was absolutely unable to decide between the conflicting claims and objections on different sides, the Bill should go to the recognised tribunal where things could be investigated. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill praised the local body in whose administrative jurisdiction this unfortunate district was placed. He said that the District Council

  1017
  of Terenure was one of the best governing bodies if they left out the question of lighting, sewers, and water.
  MR. MOONEY: I never said anything of the kind.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he understood the hon. Gentleman to say so, but if he did not say it he might have said it. The local body had not supplied this district with light, sewers, or water. In order to get rid of its sewage it had to poach on its neighbour and deliver sewage against the law into the drains in another county. It was absurd to ask the House to decide between the parties, and, therefore, the only intervention he made on behalf of the Government was to say that in the present state of controversy this was a matter which should go to a tribunal which would be able to investigate the circumstances as they affected the Corporation of Dublin and the local body.
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid if the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered was a specimen of the rigid impartiality of mind which the Government had on this question he and his friends looked with considerable anxiety to the time when he should speak as a partisan. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken on this question as if the Government had really no responsibility. A Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords considered the question of the relations between Rathmines, Pembroke, and the City of Dublin some years ago, and the right hon. Gentleman, who occupied the same position then as now, had forgotten that that Joint Committee made a recommendation throwing on the Government the responsibility of establishing a joint board so as to prevent the Liffey from being polluted by the discharge of crude sewage into it. The hon. Member for South Londonderry had assured the House that he had no interest in the district in question or in Rathmines.
  MR. GORDON: I have no property there.
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid the hon. and learned Member did not explain to
  1018
  the House his reason for his warm advocacy of the Bill. The county council was opposing the Bill, and the district council which had charge of this particular district was also opposing it. Every local authority which had anything to do with the drainage of the district was opposing the Bill, except Rathmines, which proposed to take it in. How were they taking it in? Instead of coming to the House with a Bill for that special purpose, they came with an omnibus Bill, in which this was one of the proposals, and this was done deliberately so as to enable them to make out a case for having the Bill sent to a Committee. If it were simply an attempt to extend boundaries the House could consider the question whether or not there should be an extension. This, he maintained, was a dishonest way of bringing a Bill before the House of Commons. It was not a straight way of facing the question of the acquisition of this district.
  The opposition of the Corporation of Dublin to the Bill was two-fold. First of all they said they were the water authority for the district proposed to be added. Since 1872 the corporation had had a contract with the district for the supply of water, and the contract was so favourable to the district that the corporation was bound to supply water at the price at which it was supplied to the city itself. He was not sure but that the corporation could bring an action for an injunction against the Rathmines Commissioners for employing the borough funds in the promotion of a water scheme where a water scheme already existed, for the Commissioners were prohibited from employing the borough funds in competing with the water authority of the district. These Commissioners were using the borough funds in this matter, although they were as favourably situated as regards water as they possibly could be. The water pipes in the district were the property of Dublin Corporation, and the corporation paid rates to the district council in respect of the pipes. As to the question of sewage, the hon. and learned Member opposite pointed out to the House that an injunction was obtained against the people of the district to prevent them from draining into the Rathmines sewers, but he forgot to tell the House what was

  1019
  the case made in favour of the injunction, namely, that the Rathmines drains were not sufficient to take any more sewage. That was the ground on which the injunction was obtained, and now because they were prepared to annex the district the Commissioners were willing to put themselves to inconvenience in order to collar the rates of the district. Now they were going to turn the storm water in one direction and the sewage in another, and take in the district. Up to the present time the River Liffey had been an open sewer, but the Corporation were now expending £500,000 in preventing the pollution of the river, but at the time when this was being done the Rathmines and Rathgar authority and the Pembroke district had a system of drainage which was delivering into the river crude sewage. In 1900 a Committee of the House of Lords reported that they did not see their way to add the two districts of Pembroke and Rathmines to the City of Dublin, but they came to the unanimous conclusion that it would be a public advantage to have one administrative control of the drainage and the treatment of sewage for Dublin and the two townships. The Committee recommended that legislative steps should be taken to constitute a joint district board for the City and Rathmines and Pembroke. When the Bill was reported to the House, Lord Shuttle worth expressed the hope that the Government would consider that recommendation. The Government had not dealt with the question, and the corporation had only delayed until their system of main drainage should be completed in order that they might promote a Bill. That system would not be completed until next June, when they hoped that the whole scheme of the City of Dublin would be in order. Then it was the intention of the corporation to promote a Bill for the establishment of the joint board suggested by the Committee. He hoped the House would give the corporation fair play by rejecting this Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid that it was perfectly plain that the real opposition to the Bill came from the Corporation of Dublin; and that
  1020
  there was very considerable doubt as to whether that corporation had a locus. An offer was made to be Dublin Corporation that if they withdrew their opposition to the Second Reading the opposition to their having a locus would be withdrawn.
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid that that statement was calculated to deceive the House. There were five or six other parties opposing the Second Reading.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid he apologised if he had been led into a mistake. He believed that it was the wish of the House that if this Bill or any other Bill had merits it should be allowed to pass. Hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to prevent the House from ever getting to a discussion on the merits, but no real reason had been shown why the Second Reading should not be passed and the Bill sent upstairs for consideration and adjustment on its merits in Committee. The opposition, he contended, had been determined mainly by political motives, and he hoped that the House would defeat this attempt to deprive the people of Rathmines and Rathgar of the opportunity of presenting the merits of the case before the Committee upstairs.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had been asked by the Rathmines Town Commissioners to support the Bill, and by the Dublin Corporation to oppose it. He had declined to put his name on the back of the Bill, or to say what he would do before he had heard the debate. Nobody would be able to say that he had been retained either by the Dublin Corporation or by Rathmines. Two years ago he had given his strongest support to the annexation of Rathmines by Dublin, and it would have been done but for political feeling on both sides. After listening to the debate that evening, and with no prejudice in favour of Rathmines, but rather the contrary, he would not undertake the responsibility of doing anything to prevent the Bill going upstairs to a Committee.
  Question put.
  The House divided—Ayes, 207; Noes, 147, (Division List No. 37.)

  AYES

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Muntz, Sir Plillip A.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Garfit, William

  Myers, William Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn.HughO.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Arrol, Sir William

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Pease Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds

  Peel, Hn. Wm.RobertWellesley

  Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHon. SirH.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Percy, Earl

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hain, Edward

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W(Leeds

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hamilton,Marq.of( L'nd'nderry

  Purvis, Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Randles, John S.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Ratclitf, R. F.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bigwood, James

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords, NW

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bill, Charles

  Helder, Augustus

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bingham, Lord

  Henderson, Sir A (Stafford. W.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Brassey, Albert

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bull, William James

  Hozier, Hon JamesHenry Cecil

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Butcher, John George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Russell, T. W.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cavendish. V.C.W (Derbyshire

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon Arthur Fred

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohn H.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney.Rt.Hon.Col.W

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A(Worc.

  Kerr, John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Lawson, J. Grant, (Yorks, N.R

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

  Colomb, Rt Hon. Sir John C. R

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Spear, John Ward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.Fareham

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stock, James Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stroyan, John

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Long, Col. Charles W(Evesham

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol S)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lowther, Rt HnJW(Cum.Penr.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lucas, ReginaldJ(Portsmouth)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dorington. Rt Hon. Sir John E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Doughty, Sir George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tuff, Charles

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tnrnour, Viscount

  Dyke, Rt. Hon.SirWilliam Hart

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Valentia, Viscount

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  M'Calmont. Colonel James

  Walrond, Rt. HnSir William H.

  Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Massey-Mainwaring. Hn. W.F.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Finlay, Sir R. B(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Maxwell,W.J H(Dumfriesshire

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fisher, Williams Hayes

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Montagu, Hon.J.Scott (Hants.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamstow

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Foster, Philip S.(WarwickS.W.

  Mount, William Arthur

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

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Wylie, Alexander

  Mr. John Gordon and Mr.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Moore.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Reddy, M.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Asquith,Rt.Hn Herbert Henry

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Richards,Thomas (W Monm'th

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bell, Richard

  Hutchinson, Dr.Charles Fredk.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Benn, John Williams

  Johnson, John

  Roche, John

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rose, Charles Day

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Runciman, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Labouchere, Henry

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Shackleton, David James

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Langley, Batty

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Sheehy, David

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, Louis (Bomford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kean, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan,Gower

  Delany, William

  Moss, Samuel

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

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay (Galway

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Tomkinson, James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Murphy, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Douglas Charles M. (Lanark)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary,Mid

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Edwards, Frank

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Emmott, Alfred

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fen wick, Charles

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Field, William

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Young, Samuel

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Malley, William

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Mara, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn HerbertJohn

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Mr. Mooney and Mr. Nannetti

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Parrott, William

  Hammond, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  Pease, J A. (Saffron Walden)

  Question puts and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

  CLASS III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending March 31st, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, King's Proctor, and Director of Public Prosecutions, the Cost of Prosecutions, and other Legal Proceedings."
  MR. WHITLEY, said that the first item of this Vote, BB., was £3,500 which it was stated, in a note on the Paper, was a sum for the repayment of the expenses of the prosecution of Whitaker Wright, in addition to £2,000 already voted, making in all a total of £5,500 required for that purpose. He did not know what arrangement had been made by the Government with the gentleman who undertook the prosecution, but what he did remember was that the Attorney-General was frequently pressed in the House to undertake that prosecution and that the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that, in his opinion, it was not a case likely to prove successful. Therefore it had been left to private individuals, on their own initiative, to bring the case into the Courts of justice. When it was remembered that the Attorney-General received a salary of £7,000, and in addition fees to the amount of £12,921, he thought it was a pity that they should be called upon to pay £5,500 for legal proceedings which ought to have been undertaken by the law officers of the Crown. In order to make a protest against the way in which this matter had been mismanaged he moved to reduce the item by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item BB (Criminal Prosecutions
  1026
  not undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions) be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): said it was rather more than a year since he had the opportunity, in the debate on the Address, of stating very fully the grounds on which he came to the conclusion, after taking the best advice and after full consideration of all the circumstances, that this prosecution should not be undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The hon. Gentleman had said it might be a question whether these costs should be paid in view of the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions ought to have undertaken the prosecution. Might he point out that a large part of these costs would have been incurred even if the Director of Public Prosecutions had undertaken the prosecution? The only difference would have been that the fees for counsel, instead of going into the pockets of the gentlemen who did conduct the prosecution, would have gone into the pockets of those very much underpaid officials, the law officers of the Crown. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!"] Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not object to the Vote after the order made by the Judge, so that the costs of the prosecution, which would be fully taxed, should not fall on the shoulders of private individuals.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that the Committee were thoroughly dissatisfied with this wretched business; and he hoped his hon. friend would take a division. As to the Attorney-General being underpaid, many eminent lawyers would be glad to do the work for less.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said he thought a public apology was due from the Attorney-General, and also that other legal luminary, the Solicitor-General.
  THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON, Dublin University)said he had nothing to apologise for.
  MR. FLYNNsaid although the Solicitor-General might not apologise, he would have heard a great deal more of the case if Gentlemen above the gangway had discharged the duty of criticising the Government which primarily devolved on them. It was all very well for officials to talk in a tone of levity with regard to their fees; but their enormous salaries were no laughing matter for the taxpayers. It was a, public scandal that the right hon. Gentleman had no explanation to offer the Committee for an obvious failure in his official duties. But for the public spirit of private individuals this infamous scandal would not have been exposed. This prince of swindlers blasted the career of one of the most brilliant Irishmen of his generation, whose latter days were shaded and darkened by the misery brought upon him. Yet, apparently, the legal luminaries on the Treasury bench were unable to prosecute him; and he hoped that a division would be taken as a protest against the manner in which they discharged their duties. In times like the present, with a shilling income-tax and extra duties on tea and sugar, it was no light matter to be paying enormous salaries to the law officers. He charged Gentlemen above the gangway, with a few honourable exceptions, with an absolute abandonment of their duty as critics of the Government, which they said should be turned out.
  MR. SOARESsaid that the Attorney-General stated that he decided not to prosecute Whitaker Wright after taking the best advice he possibly could. To whom did the right hon. Gentleman apply for advice?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the responsibility for every decision rested with him alone; but he had the opportunity of consulting with and discussing these matters with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the experienced gentlemen who acted for the Treasury, and, above all, the Solicitor-General.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that the Solicitor-General stated in the House that it would be impossible, in his opinion, to prosecute Whitaker Wright successfully.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid what he stated was that in his opinion the evidence did not bring Whitaker Wright within the statute.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the expression of the right hon. Gentleman was that under the existing law it would be impossible to prosecute Whitaker Wright. That duty then involved on private individuals, and he desired to know whether they would be recompensed for performing a duty which ought to have been performed by the law officers, or whether these men would be ruined.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the costs of the prosecution would be taxed and would then be paid out of the money voted by the House.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid it was important to know who would pay the costs beyond the taxed costs, which would probably be very considerable. The Attorney-General stated that he had consulted the Public Prosecutor. Was not the reason why the Public Prosecutor was so very slow in advising prosecutions owing to the fact that he was treated almost as a criminal by the Treasury if he did not obtain a verdict?
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: We are all treated as criminals. I do not mind in the least.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid any man would be criminal on £20,000 a year. He would suggest that the Treasury should not take the line to which he referred. They could never be sure of a verdict; he knew that from his own experience, and had suffered for it. The Treasury should accept the fact that they might lose: and if they did, they should not complain about it. In regard to companies, it was very essential in the public interest that the law officers should prosecute when they thought there was a fair case. In most companies many of the shareholders were poor, and would not incur the risk of a prosecution. That was the reason why the Treasury should prosecute, and not object when they did

  1029
  not get a verdict. A few years ago there was a change in the manner in which the law officers were paid. They were then told that the new method would be cheaper. He would ask the Attorney-General whether, taking year in and year out, that had been the case.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Vote.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he would not have intervened in the discussion were it not for the highhanded manner in which the Solicitor-General had treated the Committee. He had nothing but praise and admiration for the manner in which the Committee had been treated by the Attorney-General; and for his support of an Estimate for an amount of money which was rightly to be refunded to those who, at the risk of the remnant of their property, determined to see justice done. He was present in Court when the application was made by the hon. and learned Member for Reading and when Mr. Justice Buckley gave his decision. Previous to that learned decision of that very learned Judge he had read with amazement, because he had some knowledge of similar proceedings in another remarkable case, the statement of the Solicitor-General. He read that statement in the light of his knowledge of the Larceny Act, under which the prosecution was eventually brought; and he thought, in his humble judgment, that the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman was not correct. When he, listened to the decision of Mr. Justice Buckley, with all the respect due to any utterance from such a learned source, he could not help thinking that the judgment was given with a view of letting down the law officers of the Crown as lightly as possible, while at the same time it maintained the public rights that were at stake and which ought to have been asserted by the law officers. To oppose the Vote would be an illogical proceeding; but he thought that the Committee was entitled, if not to an apology from the Solicitor-General, at least to an explanation. The right hon. Gentleman ought to demean himself respectfully to the Committee. Other men as good as he had made
  1030
  mistakes in their professional career; they were all prone to make mistakes; and he did not think it would detract from the dignity of the right hon. Gentleman's position, which he so worthily and brilliantly filled, if he made an explanation in respect of this prosecution.
  MR. DALZIELsaid if he interpreted the view of the Committee accurately it was their desire, if possible, to bury this unfortunate and wretched business. So far as Whitaker Wright was personally concerned, he had paid the penalty with his life; and he thought the matter might be allowed to rest as far as he was concerned. A very important point was, however, raised by this proposal. He thought the Committee were unanimous in their sympathy with those who instituted the proceedings; but the point which he wished to bring before the Committee was the importance of the precedent they were setting if they passed this Vote. Was it to be the case in future that any private individual could institute a prosecution and rely on the Treasury to pay his expenses if he were successful? That was really the point raised by the Vote. He wished to know what there was in the Whitaker Wright prosecution that induced the Treasury to pay the expenses of the private prosecutors. There were, in his opinion, only two explanations. The first and obvious one was that the Treasury admitted that the law officers had made a mistake in not undertaking responsibility for the prosecution. So far as he was concerned, he did not profess to be able to judge whether the law officers were right in their action or not. He did not know what evidence they had before them; but he did not think that anyone would suggest that they were actuated by any private considerations. He had no doubt that their decision was arrived at dispassionately. The important point, however, was why the Treasury sanctioned this Vote. Surely it was not because the prosecution was successful. Had it failed, would there have been a Vote before the Committee for the expenses? He ventured to say that the Committee would have laughed at any such proposal, and that the law officers or the Treasury would never

  1031
  have consented to pay the expenses of a private prosecution had it been unsuccessful. Therefore, the Committee ought to be given some explanation. The obvious interpretation was that the law officers admitted that they had made a mistake. Otherwise, it was a Vote given entirely because of sympathy with the public feeling which was created by the unfortunate crash caused by the Whitaker Wright collapse. He did not object to the money being given to these private prosecutors; but they would be establishing a precedent which would have a far-reaching effect. How were they going to distinguish between cases of this kind? In future, according to this precedent, it would be open to form a private prosecution committee, and to prosecute any person, and if the prosecution were successful they would have a claim on the Treasury. If that were not the case, why was this particular instance singled out from all similar prosecutions.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid that he had no desire to rake up the evil memories associated with Whitaker Wright; but during his short experience in the House he had never listened to a more cavalier answer given by a Minister than that which they had heard from the Solicitor-General. He told the House he would not apologise for what everyone admitted was a gross dereliction of duty.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: If I had been guilty of any dereliction of duty, I most certainly should not only have apologised, but should not have continued to hold my office. I exercised my judgment honestly according to the best of my ability, and that is all any law officer can do.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid the right hon. Gentleman was the only Minister who had sat on the Treasury Bench who would resign for a dereliction of duty. He was delighted that one of his own countrymen was the first to recognise the position. The right hon. Gentleman was not only a law officer of the Crown; he had been the chief apostle in the campaign of slander against Sir Antony MacDonnell, and in fomenting opposition to one of his own colleagues in the Cabinet.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: This is not in order.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid he only gave it as a reason why the right hon. Gentleman had not time to examine into the Whitaker Wright case. He accepted the ruling of the Chair, and recognised that even if that were the reason, he had no right to discuss it. As one of his hon. friends pointed out, the law officers were placed in a position to enable them to give all their time to the legal business of the Government, and apply their master minds to cases which concerned millions of money belonging to the people of this country. Here was a case where millions of money were swindled away, but the right hon. Gentleman airily passed the case aside until a Judge on the bench had to tell him what his duty was. Some philanthropists on that side of the House stated that the Vote should pass because private individuals should riot be put to the expense of this prosecution. The law officers had, however, salaries amounting to £32,100; they must admit that they had made a mistake; and he would suggest to them that they should pay the costs out of their salaries, and, in that way, relieve the public from expenditure entirely incurred through their ignorance. He was inclined at first to think that it was a sense of chivalry of a high constitutional lawyer that inspired the mind of the Solicitor-General. Then he remembered that the right hon. Gentleman was a coercion prosecutor in. Ireland, and that he prosecuted Members of Parliament and sent them to prison. He could not, therefore, understand why the right hon. Gentleman had displayed so much squeamishness in connection with the Whitaker Wright prosecution. He did not suppose, however, that his suggestion would be accepted, especially in view of the fact that the salaries were not likely to last long.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)said the Treasury had already paid a sum, though perhaps not a very large sum, in addition to the taxed costs to the persons responsible for the prosecution. As to the reasons why the prosecution was not undertaken by the Attorney-General, the matter had been fully dealt with on a previous occasion, and he had nothing to add to what was then said.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that possibly the hon. Gentleman did not hear the point he raised. What he wanted was an answer to the question what were the considerations which induced the Treasury to depart in this case from their well-established rule that they should not pay the costs in a private prosecution. Was it because the Treasury were convinced that a mistake had been made by the law officers? Or was it because of the public interest which had been created? If it was for neither of those reasons, was it because the Treasury had so much money at their disposal that they thought they might pay these costs out of their own funds? This was a Treasury matter, and he thought the Committee were entitled to a full explanation from the representative of the Treasury, who doubtless had the whole of the facts at his finger ends.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid his learned friend the Attorney-General had already fully stated the reasons why he had advised the Treasury to pay the costs, and it was on that advice that the Treasury had acted.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Committee would recollect that this case was the subject of a great deal of consideration in February of last year. The precise point which he had to determine was whether the prosecution should be undertaken in the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Solicitor-General was in no sense responsible for the decision which had been come to on that point. The responsibility rested with him, and with him alone. But it seemed to be the general desire of the House, when the matter was under discussion a year ago, that the costs of this private prosecution should be borne by the Treasury, and therefore the Treasury, with his full concurrence, decided to pay the costs. In these circumstances he submitted it would be a little hard were the Committee now to go back upon their decision.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid there must be a great many other cases similar to this though they were not so well known. They wished to know on what particular ground this case
  1034
  was differentiated from other similar cases. There must be some rule or definite principle laid down to justify a departure from well - established precedent, and his hon. friend desired to know what that rule or principle was.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he was one of those who, when this matter of Whitaker Wright's prosecution was first under discussion, ventured to differ from the opinion expressed by the Attorney and Solicitor-General. There was no question whatever of any dereliction of duty, but he thought the law officers attached too much importance to one principle in their examination of the case, and in their view of the duty of the Public Prosecutor—and that was that there should be, as he understood them to say, some certainty of conviction. He very much questioned that as a principle in the administration of the criminal law at all; in a criminal prosecution the objective ought not to be victory, but truth. The first step in such proceedings would be a magisterial investigation, and if it was then found that an ultimate conviction was improbable there might not be a committal for trial, or the proceedings need not be continued. The fear of a public investigation was a deterrent influence, and one chief object of the appointment of the Public Prosecutor. In this case such an investigation was, in any event, as he had said at the time, fortifying his opinion by references to the statutes under which Wright was ultimately convicted, absolutely necessary, and he was glad the result had been to assert the rights and vindicate the wrongs of many people who had been greatly injured. He thought the law officers had given very proper advice in suggesting the payment of full costs to those who had undertaken the risk and responsibility of instituting the prosecution, with the authority of the learned Judge who authorised it, by which means justice was done and the law vindicated.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcongratulated the hon. Member for South Islington on having proved himself a better and greater lawyer than either of the law officers of the Crown. In this matter the House of Commons had not

  1035
  been treated fairly or even respectfully. In 1903 an Amendment to the Address was moved by the hon. Member for South Molton calling attention to this case, and the Government escaped defeat by the skin of their teeth only on the solemn pledge of the Prime Minister that he would introduce legislation to remedy the alleged defect in the law. Down to the present time no remedial legislation whatever had been brought forward. As a matter of fact it was unnecessary, as Mr. Whitaker Wright was prosecuted and convicted under the existing law. In both 1903 and 1904 the "guillotine" was so worked as to prevent discussion on the salaries of the law officers, and thus to silence the House of Commons in regard to their action in the matter. In 1904 an Amendment was again put down to the Address, but before it could be moved some of the respectabilities above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House asked a question in reply to which the Attorney-General made an ex parte statement on which he could not be cross-examined. Why was there a "put up" Question and Answer to prevent discussion? Seeing that the Prime Minister promised legislation to deal with the matter, he thought the right hon. Gentleman's absence on the present occasion most questionable.
  MR. McKENNAsaid the House ought to have a plain Answer to the Question upon what grounds the Treasury abandoned their established practice of refusing to pay for a private prosecution. The Attorney-General had referred to a general feeling in the House. A general feeling to do what? Not to pay the costs of a private prosecution, but for the Treasury themselves to prosecute, and that general desire was resisted
  1036
  by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the Attorney-General blundered, he should say so frankly. The Committee wanted a clear explanation from the representative of the Treasury, and in order to give the Secretary to the Treasury time to consult the Treasury records on the subject he moved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. McKenna.)
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he had already answered the Question. The Attorney-General did not think in the first place that the case was one which ought to be prosecuted, but subsequently a very strong feeling was expressed that the Government ought to have taken up the prosecution, and the Treasury thought they were only doing what was fair and proper in the circumstances in paying the costs of the prosecution. There was nothing behind the decision.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORexpressed his surprise that the Motion to report Progress had not been accepted by the Government. Very strong feeling had been aroused in the country over the failure of the Government to prosecute, and the matter could lot be fully discussed in the short time which had been allotted to it.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH (interposing)said he would have no objection to agree to the Motion, but he hoped the Treasury would be allowed to take the Vote without prolonged discussion on a subsequent occasion.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid the hon. Gentleman must understand that no condition was made on the Opposition side of the House with regard to the length of the debate.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SMALL ARMS DEPARTMENTS (ENFIELD AND SPARKBROOK).
  MR. HARRISon behalf of Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.) moved an Address for Return showing—

  "(1) The average number of persons employed at the Small Arms Department at Enfield, and the Manufacturing Department at Sparkbrook, respectively, for each of the last ten years, 1895 to 1904, inclusive, showing separately, the number of the administrative and clerical staff and of the artisans and labourers.

  "(2) The rate of wages paid to the principal classes of workmen at the two Departments above named, respectively.

  "(3) The rates of sick pay, pension allowance, or bonus, at the two Departments, respectively, if they differ in any way.

  ''(4) The price of coal at the two factories, respectively, giving, if possible, the average price per ton per annum for the same quality for the last five years.

  "(5) The number of small arms, whether rifles or pistols, of any kind turned out in each year by the two factories, respectively.

  "(6) The amount, expended during the years 1902–3 and 1903–4 at Sparkbrook, in the Manufacturing Department, on new buildings machinery, engines, and boilers.

  "(7) The same for the Small Arms Department at Enfield.

  "(8) The cost of the same class of rifle made during the last ten years at Enfield and Spark-brook respectively.

  "(9) The amount of fixed charges, including rent, rates, and taxes, contributions to or provision for religious worship and secular instruction, depreciation on buildings and machinery,
  1038
  interest on capital, etc., debited to the Small Arms Department at Enfield and to the Manufacturing Department at Sparkbrook, respectively, for each of the last five years."

  Several HON. MEMBERS rose to object.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid it had been ruled frequently that an unopposed Return could not be objected to merely on the ground that it was after midnight.
  MR. LOUGHsaid they desired some explanation of the Return.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether it was not competent for hon. Members to ask for information with regard to a Return such as this, involving as it did public expenditure and work in various departments.
  *MR. SPEAKER: When an hon. Member asks for information and the Government consents to give it, it has never been the practice to object. There is no reason why an exception should be made in this case.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked why the matter was brought before the House at all if they had no power to object.
  MR. WHITLEYasked whether Members could not inquire why other particulars were not to be included in the Return.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is perfectly open to hon. Members if they wish for other information to ask for a further Return. Have hon. Members any substantial objection to the Return being granted?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he objected on the ground of the expense to the. public.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Government has undertaken that responsibility. If hon. Gentlemen have any substantial objection to make to it, I will not take it now. But it must be understood that an unopposed Return cannot be objected to simply because it is after twelve o'clock.
  The Motion was then postponed.
  On the Motion that the House do now adjourn.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether any hon. Gentleman had yet been appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington): I have no information to give to the House on the subject.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether anybody had yet been appointed to the Presidency of the Board of Agriculture. That Department had for some time been without a head, to the great inconvenience of hon. Members interested in questions relating to agriculture.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLreminded the right hon. Baronet that on a previous occasion he declared that no resignation had been tendered on behalf of the late Chief Secretary, whereas only three days later the Prime Minister stated that he had at last yielded to the repeated appeals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover that he might
  1040
  be allowed to resign his office. The right hon. Baronet gave a very emphatic denial on the occasion in question. He ventured to think that such an answer did not show that regard for the facts which the House desired to see in one holding so responsible a position.
  *SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he could quite understand the natural impatience of the hon. Member for Oldham at not having yet received a letter from the Prime Minister offering him an office in His Majesty's Government. He strongly repudiated any imputation upon his good faith. He had given the House all the information he possessed. As to the Presidency of the Board of Agriculture, he was not in a position to give any information.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he had no desire to make any imputation upon the good faith of the right hon. Baronet, but he certainly did make an imputation as to the accuracy of his facts.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcalled attention to the habitual absence of the Prime Minister from the debates in the House. Disraeli, Gladstone, Smith, and Harcourt, gentlemen who knew what was due to the House of Commons, were always in their places until the rising of the House so as to be able to answer any Questions that might arise. The present Leader of the House, however, whenever he knew a question was to be raised, beat a strategic retreat. That was a pretty position for the Prime Minister to occupy, and he thought it did not show that respect to which the House of Commons was entitled.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.

The Earl of Northbrook sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Blackpool, St. Anne's, and Lytham Tramways Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. The order of Friday last referring the Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee, discharged. Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that all reference to the payment of the costs of the Bill for 1903 be omitted from
The Bill
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill ought to be dispensed with.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Heckmondwike Improvement Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that Clauses 10 and 11, and so much of the preamble as related thereto, be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of Wigan Corporation Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Tramway No. 2 be struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the Aspull Urban District Council be proved before the Committee on the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for the
858
Darien Gold Mining Company Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Hastings Tramways Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Clause 7 be struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the Corporation of Bexhill is proved before the Committee on the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Wellingborough and District Tramroads and Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramways Nos. 1 and 2 are struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the Northamptonshire County Council and that of the Wellingborough Rural District Council are proved before the Committee.
Read, and agreed to.
Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield University Bill (H.L.]; London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]. Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Metropolitan Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on Friday and Tuesday last, discharged, and Bill committed.
Municipal Corporations (Merthyr Tydfil Scheme Confirmation) Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Nine Mile Point Railway Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff. Railway

859
Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.]; Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [H.L.]. The meeting of the Select Committee (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Tuesday the 21st instant.
Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [H.L.]; Dearne Valley Railway Bill [H.L.]; Truro Water Bill [H.L,]; Torpoint Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Romilly be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Zouche of Haryngworth; read, and agreed to.
Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company Bill [H.L.]; East London and Lower Thames Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.]; City of London Electric Lighting Company Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [H.L.]; North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]; Central Electric Supply Bill [H.L.]; County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.):—

E. Camperdown (chairman).

E. Lytton.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

L. Aberdare.

L. Estcourt.

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday next, at Two o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

GAMBLE'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Charles George Gamble (formerly of No.
860
14, Rostrevor Terrace, Orwell Road, Rathgar, but now of Mount Jerome House, both in the county of Dublin, and of 39, Fleet Street, in the city of Dublin), solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Ireland, with Ida Gertrude Gamble, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes. Presented (on petition), and a copy of the proceedings in, and of the decree of divorce of the King's Bench, Matrimonial Division, of the High Court of Justice in Ireland delivered (on oath). Bill read 1a.

GAMBLE'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Petition of Charles George Gamble, of Mount Jerome House, in the county of Dublin, solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Ireland, that substituted service of a copy of the Bill and of the Order for the Second Reading thereof, and of all other Orders connected therewith be made upon John Haynes, of 11, Vernon Street, Hammersmith, solicitor, and that in the event of the said Bill not being opposed he may be permitted to read, as he may be advised, the evidence given on the hearing of this petition, and as evidence on the Second Reading of the said Bill; read. Ordered, That the said petition be considered on Monday next.
MALONE'S DIVORCE.
Petition of John Richard Malone, of Baronston, in the county of Westmeath, Deputy-Lieutenant, late colonel in the Westmeath Militia, for leave to present a Bill to dissolve his marriage with the Honourable Charlotte Mildred Malone, otherwise D'Autichan, as from the 22nd November, 1892, and to confirm his marriage with Catherine Cecil Percy, his present wife, and for other purposes; was presented, and read. Ordered, That the said petition be taken into consideration on Tuesday the 28th instant, and that notice thereof be given to the said Charlotte Mildred Malone. Leave given to the Petitioner and to the said Charlotte Mildred Malone to be heard by Counsel at the Bar upon the said Petition. Copies of the proceedings in the High Court of Justice (Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division) in England delivered (on oath).
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 629. Cotton Mills of China.
  No. 630. Technical Instruction in Germany (Supplementary and Miscellaneous).

  GERMANY (NEW GERMAN TARIFF AS MODIFIED BY TREATIES).
  Statement showing (1) the new German "General" Customs Tariff; (2) the modifications made in that Tariff by each of the new German Treaties with Russia. Switzerland, Italy, Roumania, Belgium, Austria-Hungary, and Servia; (3) the new German "Conventional" Tariff resulting from all these modifications; with comparison with the existing German rates of duty on imports from the United Kingdom.

  UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (GREAT BRITAIN) (GRANT IN AID).
  Treasury Minute of March 30th, 1904.
  First Report of the University Colleges Committee, dated December 19th, 1904.
  Treasury Minute of December 28th, 1904.
  Second and Third Reports of the Committee, dated February 23rd, 1905.
  Treasury Minute of March 8th, 1905, relating to the grant in aid of University Colleges, Great Britain.

  VACCINATION (EXPENSES).
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board to inquire into the subject of vaccination expenses. Part I. Report.
  Minutes of evidence, with appendix and index to evidence. Part II.

  LOAN FUNDBOARD OF IRELAND.
  Sixty-seventh Annual Report, 1904.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade.—
  Amending the Blackpool and Garstang Light Railway Order. 1901.
  Amending the Mid-Suffolk Light Railway Order, 1900.
  Amending the North Lindsay Light Railways Order, 1900.
  Authorising the construction of a light railway in the county of Derby, from the Midland Railway Company's (Dore and Chinley) Railway at or near Hope Station to Bradwell and Castleton.
  Authorising the construction of light railways in the county of Middlesex between Hounslow and Cranford, and between Heston, Hounslow, Hanworth, Twickenham, and Sunbury Cross, being extensions of the existing and authorised undertaking of the London United Tramways (1901), Limited.

  EMIGRATION.
  Report on the Emigrants' Information Office, for the year ended December 31st, 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COUNTY COURTS ACT. 1888.
  Order of the Lord Chancellor, dated February 23rd, 1905, under Section 45 of the Act, ordering that Arthur Labron Lowe, Registrar of the county court of Warwickshire, held at Birmingham, shall not practice as a solicitor, and that Section 20 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879, shall not apply to the office of the said Arthur Labron Lowe.

  BARBADOS.
  Special Prison Rules for "Juvenile Adult" Prisoners.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM.
  Statement of the Funds, January 5th, 1905. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to regulate whale fisheries in Scotland. Was presented by the Marquess of Linlithgow; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No 21.)
  CONVOCATIONS OF THE CLERGY BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to declare the law in regard to the reform of the convocations of Canterbury and York, and to make provision for joint sittings of the said convocations. Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed. (No 22.)
  PUBLIC MEETINGS (FACILITIES) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for granting the use of schoolrooms for public meetings. Was prosented by the Lord Burghclere; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 23.)

  A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a Question of which I have given him private notice. Two days ago your Lordships may have noticed an announcement in the public Press with regard to a meeting of the Cabinet. Now the Question I wish to ask is one of considerable historical interest, and also, I should say, of considerable constitutional importance. In the list of those who attended the Cabinet I noticed the name of Lord Cawdor, who has lately been nominated to succeed the noble Earl Lord Selborne as First Lord of the Admiralty, though I believe the warrant has not yet been issued. I believe also that the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, is not yet a member of His Majesty's Privy Council, and there can be no question that the Cabinet must consist entirely of members of the Privy Council. It is only on special occasions when non-members are present, as, for instance, when the Commander-in-Chief, or a general, or the Attorney-General is brought in to advise the Cabinet. Without saying anything more, and without pointing out what the consequences may be if I am correct, I would ask the noble Marquess the Question of which I have given him notice, namely, whether the statement in the Press that Lord Cawdor attended a Cabinet Council on March 7th is correct, and, if so, whether before his attendance he had been sworn of the Privy Council.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, it is the case that my noble friend Lord Cawdor, although he has not yet assumed the high office for which he has been designated, and although he has not yet been sworn of the Privy Council, was present at a Cabinet meeting held on Tuesday last. The noble Earl regards this occurrence as one creating an historical incident of great importance, and as involving constitutional issues of a first-rate character. Surely, the noble Earl's experience as a Cabinet Minister must have made him aware that it is far from unusual for gentlemen, not members of the Privy Council, to be present at Cabinet meetings when their presence is desired for any particular reason. The noble Earl seemed to think that these occasional visits only took place in the case of generals, and, I think, he added Attorney-Generals.
  EARL SPENCER: And some others.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But I can assure the noble Earl that, within my own comparatively short experience as a Cabinet Minister, that category has been very considerably enlarged. Even if it be assumed, as the noble Earl is, no doubt, correct in assuming, that the Cabinet is a committee of members of the Privy Council, I cannot bring myself to believe that the presence of the noble Lord to whom this Question has reference, even if it be an irregularity, is an irregularity which deserves the importance which the noble Earl opposite attaches to it. It seems to me obvious that there were reasons of convenience for which it was very desirable that my noble friend Lord Cawdor should have an opportunity of being present during the discussion of subjects with which he is likely to have many opportunities of dealing when he has become formally installed in his position as a Cabinet Minister.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this conversation, but I beg to point out that the statement that Lord Cawdor attended the Cabinet is not a mere statement in the newspapers, which might have been an error. His name was included in the official list of members of the Cabinet

  865
  who attended on that occasion, which was issued to the Press. That, I think makes a very considerable difference. The names of those who attend the Cabinet not being members of the Cabinet are not sent to the newspapers by His Majesty's Government. The name of Lord Cawdor did appear in the official list, and my noble friend is quite right in drawing attention to what is an irregularity and inconsistent with the fundamental constitution of the Cabinet.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): The noble Marquess refers to what he calls an official list of members who attend Cabinet Councils. I am not aware that it is official. I can only say that if it is it is very often most, inaccurate. I have repeatedly observed that people's names are inserted in it who were not at the Cabinet meeting at all, and that sometimes the names of people who were there are not mentioned. With regard to the practice, I may say that I attended a good many years ago the Cabinet Councils of Lord Beaconsfield when I was Solicitor-General.

  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the Bill which I shall ask your Lordships to read a second time to-day is not one of great complexity, nor is it very long or very difficult to understand, and, I think, I can promise your Lordships that I will put the main considerations which have induced me to move in the matter within such a compass as will not unduly trespass upon your Lordships' time and attention. But if I make that preface, I should not like to minimise the importance of the subject with which this Bill deals, because, in my humble opinion, it is a matter of very considerable and growing importance, and one which, if it is to be dealt with at all, had better be dealt with before it can be alleged that large vested interests have been created.
  I start from the proposition that it is not only important, but of great public
  866
  interest, to maintain both for the country and for the town the beauty and the symmetry of our outdoor life. I think it is not less true of the town than of the country, but country communities are not so easily organised. They are not so alive to their corporate interests, and I think that some of the erections which we see throughout the country would not have been so long endured if there had been an effective means of checking them. I aim in this Bill not only at the abatement of what I suggest is in some parts of the country a serious nuisance, but at preserving both the grace and the dignity of many of the most beautiful parts of our scenery both in town and country. I suggest that the time has come when there ought to be some control of the method of advertising even as it now exists. I think it ought to be undertaken both for town and country. Many urban communities have started upon this enterprise themselves for the preservation of the amenity of their area; many more have tried to do it. As I know from my experience last year in undertaking the private Bill work of your Lordships' House, it is one of the most common features of Bills promoted by municipal corporations to endeavour to get some control over the vagaries of advertisers, both in the matter of large and unsightly hoardings and in the matter of skysigns and flashing signals at night. I venture to suggest that this is rather too important a matter to be left to the separate initiative of the many hundreds of local authorities.
  My suggestion is, and I believe that to this extent, at any rate, I shall have behind me not only the Home Office and the Local Government Board, but also the Irish Office and the Scottish Office, that if this thing is to be done at all the right way to proceed is to lay down a general law, and to give the local authorities power to administer that law within their area, always subject to the control of the various Government Departments which have to sanction the by-laws, so that while there may be a sufficient play for local feeling and local desires there shall be general control exercised by an authority which is amenable to Parliament itself. I disclaim at once any idea of harassing interference with a legitimate business.

  867
  I recognise that advertising within limits is a necessity of the circumstances in which we live. I do not think it would be possible, even if I or those for whom I am acting were enthusiastic enough to desire it, to altogether put down that which, in my opinion, is very much overdone, and which does not produce such great advantages as many people seem to suppose.
  I frankly admit that all advertisements are not bad, and that some are necessary; but what I do submit to your Lordships is that those which are objectionable, should be controlled even in the interests of the other class that are not themselves objectionable. I think there is a widespread desire for some power of control over these advertisements. I do not think any of your Lordships can have been up the river Thames in the summer or along many of our great railways, or, indeed, have walked about almost any large city or have gone to some of the most important health resorts, without seeing large placards which are in themselves extremely unsightly, and which deprive many people of a great deal of the pleasure they would otherwise obtain by looking at the scenery round them. There was the case of the cliffs at Dover, which were extensively used for advertising some preparation more or less useless. Dover has been successful in obtaining a power of control and there the nuisance has been abated. I understand that in the neighbouring town of Folkestone, though in this matter I do not speak from actual personal knowledge, they have not been so successful in abating what is felt there to be a very serious disfigurement of the cliffs around the town. I note also that the City of Edinburgh has been successful in its efforts to preserve the amenity of the city, and I believe there is also a clause which gives the neighbouring city of Glasgow control over advertisers. But what I want to suggest to your Lordships is that the right way of effecting the object which, I believe, very many persons have in view, is for Parliament to lay down once for all general principles and to allow the localities to administer them.
  Perhaps it would not be unduly wearying your Lordships if I tate the exact
  868
  circumstances of what occurred in the City of Edinburgh. It is no doubt in some respects a special case, but it is only typical of many others. I venture to think there is no city in the country which is more vulnerable to attacks of this kind than the city of Edinburgh. The Corporation have obtained complete control over the sites where any advertisements may be put. They have had it for five years, and I have not heard that any real injury has been done to the business of the city in consequence. But let me tell your Lordships of the circumstances as they occurred. About six or seven years ago, possibly eight years ago, there was beyond all question a systematicand deliberate attempt to exploit the City of Edinburgh for advertising purposes. It was attempted to be done upon a large scale. It was chiefly to be done for the benefit, of parties outside the city, and, therefore, on the part of people who had no interest whatever in the preservation of the amenity of Edinburgh, but interested only in turning it to account in so far as they could get a good advertisement for the wares which they wanted to dispose of. And apart from the fact that Edinburgh, having a large number of inhabitants, is therefore a useful place for advertising, it is a place visited by an immense number of travellers throughout great parts of the year, and it was, therefore, thought to be a particularly attractive place for this form of advertising.
  The first attempt to get protection in Edinburgh was in 1896, just after the first attack which I have mentioned began to be developed, and a Bill was promoted in that year by the Corporation of Edinburgh. This proposed restriction was struck out by the Committee of the other House of Parliament, and one of the members of the Committee—he represented an English constituency, by the way—publicly gave the reason. He said he objected to any such restrictions on the general ground that in his district these advertisements were looked upon as an ornament and were the art galleries of his constituents, besides promoting business. Of course, there are towns and towns, but it was almost the unanimous opinion of the people of Edinburgh that this was a form of art gallery which they did not desire to have imposed upon

  869
  them; nor did they think that the promotion of the business of outside persons was of sufficient importance that their city should be disfigured in its interests. The case for restriction was made even stronger by what happened in 1897, and I would venture to quote, in the words of the report of the town clerk of the City of Edinburgh to the town council, exactly what happened. In November, 1897, a company that deals in an article called Bovril acquired the option of a lease for some property which overlooked Princes Street, and the Mound, and they proposed, having acquired that property, to place upon it a number of illuminated signs. A public outcry was not unnaturally raised, and remonstrances were addressed to the company by the Lord Provost and others. The company, I am bound to say, with a courtesy which deserves the thanks of the community, delayed the operations until they ascertained the feelings of the citizens in the matter. Within a day or two they acknowledged that they had received so many protests that they abandoned their proposal. In intimating their decision they said—
  "We are without any doubt convinced that the views of the people of Edinburgh are distinctly against the erection of illuminated signs as contemplated, and we accordingly, give way before the evidence yon put before us."
  But they went on to say that they would be sorry if their sacrifice on this point led to their missing a chance which might be utilised by their competitors. They pointed out that two years previously they refrained from erecting a sign at the back of the High Street, but that some less scrupulous person had subsequently erected a sign in that locality. As I have said, since that time a power of control has been obtained over the sites where advertisements may be put, the amenity of Edinburgh has been saved, and I have not heard that any injustice or hardship has been inflicted upon any of those concerned.
  My suggestion, therefore, is this, that there is a case for control on the general principle that the amenity of a district is the property of its inhabitants as a whole, and that it is not fair, certainly very much less than fair, that those who have no interest in a locality should have an unrestrained power to put up anything
  870
  they like there, however offensive it may be. I am aware that some objection may be raised that these advertisements are paid for, and may be a valuable interest to the owner or occupier of the property. I suggest that that is only one side of the question. They may also be a great detriment to the owner of adjoining property. At any rate, it is a fair question of discussion upon which side the balance of advantage or disadvantage lies, and I suggest that the proper persons to decide that question, subject to general law and general conditions, are the local authority of the district concerned. A friend of mine suggested that if these advertisements along railways are to be removed there might be a use found for them. I commend the suggestion to the noble Earl who leads the Opposition in this House, because I am sure he would be interested in it. They are not very sightly where they are. I do not know that they would be sightly anywhere; but if they were moved and made signs upon those fences on which there is barbed wire, during the winter they might give a valuable warning to that large class of persons interested in foxhunting who I understand suffer in certain districts from the infliction of barbed wire. I throw that out as a suggestion, and perhaps it may get for me a certain amount of support for this Bill.
  As I have said, the object in view is to give a power to the local authority to regulate these advertisements and to control them. I do not refer to the contents of the advertisements. The contents of advertisements in so far as they are indecent or otherwise objectionable are already controlled under the general law. I do not propose to give the local authority any additional power in those matters. In the second clause of the Bill you will see that there are five subsections. The first of those sub-sections gives power of control in cases of dazzling light and the use of pavements for pictorial advertisements, and the scattering of advertisement papers about the town or country; the second sub-section gives power to regulate the height of the hoarding; and the third deals more particularly with the places where advertisements may be placed. The fourth and fifth sub-sections give power to draw up

  871
  by-laws for the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill and the removal of those advertisements which may be now existing after a certain period of grace has been given. The third clause of the Bill deals with the sanctioning authority, and the fourth and fifth clauses define what local authorities are meant in the different parts of the United Kingdom.
  Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that since I introduced this Bill I have been the recipient of a certain number of communications from those who are interested in maintaining the existing state of matters. Some of those communications are not particularly worthy of notice, but others of them undoubtedly proceed from substantial corporations who have a real interest in maintaining the right of advertising, and who, I am prepared to believe, in the main exercise their functions in a reasonable and proper spirit. I have been asked to meet them and to discuss the terms of the Bill with those who are interested in the matter. That, as a matter of course, I shall be glad to do, and have said so to them; but I venture to suggest that objections in regard to detail ought not at this moment to prevail against, the Second Reading, because, as I suggest to your Lordships, this is a great and important public reform which has been already too long delayed. Although it may be a sanguine hope, I hope that those who do not want to abuse the right of advertising, but only to use it properly, will join in passing a reasonable Bill which, while strengthening their position, will help us to abate what is a very serious and growing evil. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL' OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is desirable to give local authorities power to make by-laws respecting the exhibition of advertisements. I think everyone will be of opinion that it is undesirable that private individuals should exercise the power they at present do of going about the country sticking up advertisements wherever they choose without the consent of the owner or occupier; and simply for their own private
  872
  purposes. To that, extent, at all events, I imagine the noble Lord will receive unanimous support. But is he quite certain that the term advertisement, of which there is no definition in the Bill, covers all that he means to include? For instance, is he quite certain that it includes all kinds of hand-bills? I merely throw that out as a matter for the noble Lord to consider. I may say that in the Local Government Acts power was given to county councils to make by-laws with regard to nuisances. There then came the question, what was a nuisance? Several county councils, notably some in Scotland, did make by-laws for this purpose, and I understand that by a decision of the Court of Session it was held that the county councils had acted ultra vires, presumably, I imagine, because such advertisements were not held to fall within the term nuisance. At all events, I think some extension in the direction which the noble Lord has proposed is a matter very much to be desired
  I quite agree that county councils and local authorities ought to have power with regard to the area within their own jurisdiction. The noble Lord, in the instances he gave, dealt chiefly with the city of Edinburgh. In this matter large towns differ very considerably from country districts, and it may be expedient to give to corporations of towns powers of dealing with such a nuisance, for instance, as that which he referred to—the proposed advertisement facing Princes Street and the Mound in Edinburgh. It was right and proper that such a proceeding as that should be made impossible, but when you come to the country other considerations come into force. I quite agree that in the country, too, no one ought to have a right to put up advertisements without the consent, at all events, of the occupier, and possibly of the owner. But when you go further and say that the local authority may pass a by-law making it impossible to put up an advertisement in a place which is not in any way a public place or near a public place, as, for instance, in the case which was given of the London and North Western Railway, I think the matter deserves serious consideration.
  It is not very interesting, when travelling on a railway, to pass a series of

  873
  "Carter's Little Liver Pills" and "Beecham's Pills," and other advertisements of that sort, which suggest in different degrees various imperfections of human nature; but at the same time there is another side to it. The persons who own these fields get a certain amount of money for these advertisements, and it is a matter for consideration how far it is just to say that a public authority may pass a by-law declaring that a private individual is not at liberty to set up in his field an advertisement which is not near a public place and which is presumably of value to him. Those are the only remarks I have to make with regard to the Bill. I have no desire at all to offer any opposition to the Second Reading, but I think these matters will have to be considered in Committee. I would once again repeat that I think there is a distinction to be drawn between corporations of towns and local authorities in the country, where the nuisance of advertisements is not, of course, so great.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, as representing the Home Office, the House will expect mo to say a few words with regard to this Bill, because in England, at any rate, the Home Secretary has the power of assenting to these by-laws. I think the House will have listened with great interest and considerable sympathy to the case which my noble friend made out for the introduction of the Bill. Every one of us must have been struck by the hideous erections which are put up in town and country for the purpose of advertising goods, and I think there is a very general feeling that it is desirable that there should be some regulation and control over the constantly increasing advertisements of this kind. The noble Lord, undoubtedly, made out a strong case for the large boroughs, which have in many cases themselves taken powers to control the increase of advertising mediums within their areas. But I think if this Bill is to contain, as it does at present, powers to prevent the disfigurement of the natural beauty of a landscape, it is equally necessary that other local authorities besides the authorities over large boroughs should have this power. It is obvious that county
  874
  councils would not be inclined to go to Parliament for the purpose of securing power to put a stop to advertisements disfiguring the natural beauty of the landscape at different places within their area unless it came to be a very grave scandal indeed.
  The question to which the noble Earl has just referred, as to how far powers should be given under this Act with regard to districts where there is no population and no particular natural beauty which might be disfigured, is one for Committee; but I think it is obvious that a general Act is desirable, and I have to say on behalf of the Home Office that His Majesty's Government have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. But I must guard myself by saying that there are many matters, such, for instance, as those which were touched upon by the noble Earl who spoke last, which will require very careful consideration at the hands of the Government before the Bill is dealt with in Committee. With regard to the question raised by the noble Earl opposite as to what constitutes a nuisance, county councils have power already in the matter of certain nuisances which are specified, and many county councils have made by-laws which have been approved by the Home Secretary; but I doubt very much whether these advertisements would come under any by-laws which it would be possible to make without further legislation. If the Bill is read a second time to-night, I hope the noble Lord will allow a sufficient interval for the consideration of these various points before putting it down for the Committee stage.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I need hardly say that if the House is good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading I will allow full time for negotiations with those who think their interests are affected, and will not put down the Committee stage without communicating with the noble Lord who represents the Home Office and making sure that the date is convenient to him.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MILITARY MANœUVRES BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee, according to order
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY*THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY moved to omit the sub-section which proposed to reduce from six months to three months the notice required by the Act of 1897 to be given to the local authorities of the district in which the manœuvres were to take place. He said this was a somewhat innocent-looking Bill, but it contained several provisions which, if the were passed in their present form, would, in his opinion, act harshly. Among those provisions was the sub-section he now proposed to omit. The proposed reduction of the period of notice would prejudicially affect the interests of those situated within the areas scheduled for the manœuvres, and he believed the reduction to be absolutely unnecessary. He did not think any person who had any knowledge of the necessities of troops during the period of manœuvres would object in the main to the proposal in the Bill including woodlands and plantations for the purposes of manœuvres, but he thought that fair notice should be given. It might save owners and occupiers who wished to rear game on their land a great deal of money if the Act of 1897 was not amended in this respect, and they received the full six months notice. The manœuvres usually took place during September; many county councils, like the one of which he had the honour to be a member, met in May. If the period of notice was altered to three months they would not get the notice until after the May meeting, and it would be far too late in August when they met again for them to take the necessary steps for the general arrangements in connection with the manœuvres and to give full notice to the other authorities with whom they might have to communicate. He could not help thinking that it was very unwise on the part of the War Office at this juncture, when it could not by any stretch of imagination be said that that Department was a very popular one,
  876
  to attempt in any way to unduly, and, as he believed, unnecessarily, hustle public bodies and private individuals, especially as the six-months notice had worked well.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): It has not.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid he had not heard any instance given in which the notice had not worked well. The present proposal would not tend to promote that good feeling between the civilian population and the War Office which was so desirable. The War Office in this Bill was expecting a certain amount of compulsory service from the civilian population. He hoped that that might be the thin end of the wedge to a further advance in this direction, but he was afraid that that was not likely to be the case. He did not see any real necessity for the proposed change with regard to the term of notice. The only reason for it that he could make out from the speech of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary was that six months beforehand was rather too long for the War Office to make up its mind.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid he did not think that any other reason had been given for altering the existing period than that six months was rather too long for the War Office.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1. page 1, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(The Marquess of Granby.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTERassociated himself with the remarks which had fallen from the noble Marquess the mover of the Amendment. Whilst thoroughly inspired with the necessity of giving the War Office every facility for holding manœuvres, he was altogether opposed to the alteration of the period of notice to three months. The county councils were the authorities approached under this Bill, and they might find themselves unable to make the necessary arrangements owing to shortness of notice if the period of notice was reduced to

  877
  three months. He appealed to the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, in the event of his being unable to accept the Amendment, to at least insert four months instead of three, as that period would sufficiently expedite the notice as to enable the county councils to receive it at their May meetings. He was, of course, presuming that the manœuvres would be held in the month of September. He did not know whether or not it was the intention of the War Office to propose that they should be held at any other period of the year, but he did wish to impress upon those who were promoting this change that any other period of the year than that when the hay harvest and the corn harvest had been successfully secured was an impossible time for the manœvres to take place. The holding of manœvres at any other period than September was, in his humble opinion, impossible owing to the large amount of compensation which would have to be paid to agricultural tenants.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I would only say, with regard to the statement of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment that its adoption would save landowners money who were concerned in raising game, that the noble Marquess has perhaps forgotten that whatever damage we do we have to pay for, and we pay very liberally for it, as the damage is assessed by the Military Manœuvres Commission, which consists almost entirely of local landowners. I do not at all object to our paying full compensation. I think it right that we should do so; but as we have to pay full compensation it is quite impossible for any landowners to lose money through three months notice only being given.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid he was anxious that the taxpayers should not be called upon to pay unnecessary sums in compensation.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: That was hardly the ground on which the noble Marquess based his Amendment. The gravamen of the noble Marquess's attack on this sub-section lies in the fact that bad relations may be set up under it with the local authorities. He
  878
  went so far as to say that we were hustling those authorities. My Lords, we are doing nothing of the kind. We are carrying out the recommendations of the representatives of the local authorities. This clause was based originally on a recommendation of the Military Manœuvres Commission of 1898. That Commission consisted of seven members, four of whom were directly appointed by the local authorities and the other three by the War Office. The three members appointed by the War Office included Lord Portman and Lord Pembroke, who were at the time members of the local county councils, so that the county councils had a total of six out of the seven representatives on the Commission which made this recommendation. Their recommendation was supported by the Commission of 1903, which also, of course, contained a majority representing the local authorities, and these local authorities, having experience in this matter, are not animated by the fears which the noble Lord himself has given expression to. The reason for the alteration is not a War Office reason, but practically a constitutional reason. The Army Estimates are very seldom finally framed till the end of February. They are not approved by Parliament until March, and constitutionally we are not permitted to say we will have manœuvres until, at any rate, one Vote has been approved in another place, and that never takes place until March. It may be said, "Oh, but you need not wait for that. You can send notice to the local authorities that you are going to hold manœuvres in their localities long before Parliament passes the Army Estimates." If that were done, I imagine Parliament would at once say that we had not got their permission to carry out the manœuvres. Therefore, we have to wait until the month of March, and are not able to carry out the manœuvres till six months after. We think six months unwarrantably long. You cannot give notice of your intention to put the Manœuvres Act into force until the middle of March, and the manœuvres, therefore, cannot be held until about the end of September, which is very often getting near the beginning of winter. It would be a great convenience to us and much better for the troops if we could always

  879
  begin the manœuvres immediately after the harvest is over. I think that in asking your Lordships to give legislative authority to this recommendation, which has been made by representatives of county councils having experience in this matter, we are not asking too much. I therefore hope your Lordships will agree to leave this sub-section in the Bill.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, had given the House another proof of the way in which the War Office looked upon the question of expense. The War Office preferred to pay large compensation for damage which need never take place rather than save the expense in the first instance. Listening to the noble Earl's speech, one would imagine that in the past, under a six months notice, it had been impossible to hold manœuvres. The noble Earl had raised all sorts of constitutional questions with regard to the notice. It would be perfectly open to the War Office, to give this notice for manœuvres in the month of January, in spite of all that had been said in regard to the question of the Estimates, with a proviso that the manœuvres would only take place subject to the sanction of Parliament. Then the people in the county proclaimed would have timely notice that it was probable that manœuvres would take place over their land, and would be able in good time to make preparations. He would not go into the question of game at all. He put that entirely on one side. But their Lordships would agree with him that any owner of property, knowing that manœuvres were likely to take place over his land in August and September, would carry on his estate management in a different way during that year. He would not, for instance, set to work to do any spring planting that year, and if there was any great question of fence repairing he would leave it over until another year. Again, surely it was convenient for tenant farmers to know early in the year that manœuvres were going to take place, for it would, of course, govern such questions as cropping. The great reason put forward originally for reducing the notice from six to three months was that it
  880
  was impossible to carry out manœuvres on land which had once been scheduled, even though the land had not been used, for another five years; but, under this Bill, if notice was given of manœuvres one year, and the manœuvres did not take place, the Government could proclaim the same land for the manœuvres the following year. This did away with one of the main reasons for shortening the period of notice from six to three months. He was sure that no noble Lord had any desire to place undue hindrance in the way of carrying out manœuvres in the fullest possible manner, but they must risk a certain amount of damage to land and inconvenience to owners and occupiers. It was, therefore, only fair that owners and occupiers should receive sufficient notice, and he contended that three months was not sufficient notice. All operations connected with land had to take place in the spring, and the persons concerned ought to be able to modify those operations by the knowledge of what was going to take place in the autumn. He would certainly vote with the noble Marquess in favour of the Amendment.
  *LORD MONKSWELL: pointed out that the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, had not taken any notice of the suggestion he made on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill to the effect that the period of six months was inserted in the principal Act to secure that before the draft Order was advertised in the local Press, which had to be done three months before the manœuvres were to take place, it should be considered by the county council. He did not think it was respectful to the county council to put before it a draft Order already advertised in the local Press.
  LORD STANMOREasked the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, whether the constitutional objections to which he referred had in the past had this operation, that six months had always elapsed between the passing of the Estimates and the holding of the manœuvres.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I understand from my noble friend the Under-Secretary

  881
  that the answer to that question is in the affirmative, and that six months has been allowed to elapse. What I cannot help thinking has been somewhat lost sight of by the last two speakers is the fact that this proposal for a change in the period of notice is founded upon the recommendation of a Commission, six out of the seven members of which were appointed on account of their position as large landowners, or on account of their connection with the local county councils, and that it was the experience of these six Commissioners that led them to the conclusion that the period of six months was unduly long. I confess that I listened with some surprise to the suggestion that in these matters there was any desire on the part of the War office to hustle either the local authorities or the landowners. I believe, on the contrary, that the whole history of these Bills is one long history of earnest attempts to carry out manœuvres without giving either the local authorities or the owners or occupiers of land any just or reasonable cause to complain. I believe you may search in vain the practice of other countries in which an army is maintained, and in which that army undergoes training by means of military manœuvres for provisions so full of thought and consideration for the convenience of those concerned as the provisions upon which we have acted and now desire to act. We have been told that the proposal to shorten the period of notice is due to irresolution on the part of the War Office. It is nothing of the kind. The change is asked for because, as we all know, it is not possible to get the military Votes until well on in the spring. A period of six months brings you right into the middle of the manœuvring period, It surprises me to hear the noble Lord opposite tell the House that any Government could issue the necessary notices and set in motion all the complicated, machinery which is necessary for this purpose in anticipation of a Vote of the House of Commons. It is contrary to all my own impressions. There is another reason which has not been mentioned. I believe it is the desire of the War Office not only that there should be these manœuvres on a large scale, but that opportunity should be taken for much smaller local manœuvres, and if in the case of each
  882
  manœuvres, however modest in their dimensions, it was necessary to give six months notice, it is obvious that very great impediment would be placed in the way of the military authorities. This proposal has been made, not on account of any desire on the part of the War Office to spare itself trouble, but because those who have had practical experience of these manœuvres, those who have had to organise them in the War Office and those who have had experience locally of the manner in which they have been carried out, have come to the conclusion that unless the period of notice is materially shortened very great inconvenience and obstruction will be placed in the way of the military authorities.
  EARL SPENCER: said that whilst strongly in favour of facilities being given for manœuvres to take place in the best and most convenient manner, they ought also to consider the convenience of local authorities. He could not for a moment see why the noble Marquess should object to giving the longer notice. Surely a notice that the Government intended to hold manœuvres could be given at an early date, with the proviso that if Parliament did not agree to the manœuvres they would not, of course, take place. That seemed to him a perfectly fair and reasonable proposal. There was no need for elaborate preparations to be made until after the Vote had been passed by the House of Commons. He pleaded, on behalf of all connected with county councils, for the longer notice. There were many county councils whose meetings were held in May, who would therefore have hardly any time to make the necessary preparations and give the requisite notices for carrying out the manœuvres.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I would point out, in reply to the noble Earl who has just sat down, that we are giving the local authorities exactly the notice that the representatives of the local authorities who have had experience in these matters ask for.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid the statement which had been made by the noble Marquess the Foreign Minister,

  883
  that there were to be more smaller manœuvres held, rendered the proposed alteration in the notice to be given to
  the local authorities more objectionable.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved an Amendment to the effect that the owners of enclosed woods and plantations—"on showing sufficient cause to the local Military Manœuvres Commission, may prohibit entry into any specific wood or plantation being their property." He said he was not in love with the absolute wording of his Amendment, but he thought that it clearly showed what his intention was. If the Bill was passed in its present form, woods and plantations would fall in the same category as land
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:— Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 37.

  CONTENTS,

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lytton, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Mansfield, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  (L. President.)

  Onslow, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Stamford, E.

  Farquhar, L.

  Stanhope, E

  Forester, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Verulam, E.

  Harris, L.

  Brandon, D. (D. Hamilton.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.)

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Kenyon, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Kilmaine, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Cross, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Bath, M.

  Esher, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore)

  Lindley, L.

  Linlithgow, M.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Rathmore, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  (L. Steward.)

  Abinger, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Alington, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Stuart of Castle Stuart, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  (E. Moray.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Windsor. L.

  Feversham, E.

  Belper, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Muncaster, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Northbourne, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Hill, V.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Reay, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Denman, L

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  James, L.

  Thring, L

  Lichfield, E.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)[Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]

  Northbrook, E.

  Wandsworth, L.

  which was not woods and plantations. All that he was contending for in this Amendment was that woods and plantations should be put in a category by themselves. They should not be considered simply as part of the general ground over which manœuvres were to be held. The owners of woods and plantations should be put on rather a different footing, and there should be the assumption that any objection to entry upon woods and plantations should be specially given attention to by the Military Manœuvres Commission. He did not know that his words were the best possible words that could be selected, and he would be quite satisfied if the

  885
  noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, would, on behalf of the Government, introduce other words with a similar object either at the next stage or on Report.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, line 21, after the word repealed' to insert the words 'provided always that the owners of such enclosed woods and plantations, on showing sufficient cause to the local Military Manœuvres Commission, may prohibit entry into any specific wood or plantation being their property.' "—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I quite understand that the noble Lord desires to place woods and plantations in a special category, but I am afraid from his wording that this special category would be one which would be very bad in working. The whole of the manœuvring ground is marked out with flags and so on by the Military Manœuvres Commission, and I think the Amendment, as drafted, would enable the owner to put up the prohibitory notices. This would obviously lead to confusion.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that was not his intention. He should only be able to put up the notices on cause shown before the Military Manœuvres Commission, and with their sanction.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I quite accept that correction, but I do not think it is necessary to put woods and plantations in a special category. The powers given to the Military Manœuvres Commission are very sweeping. I am advised that all woods and plantations would be covered by the word "lands," and it naturally follows, I think, that the Military Manœuvres Commission, the members of which are local people, will give special attention to woods and plantations. To put them in a different category would lead to inconvenience in working.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHexplained that he did not wish to put them in a separate category from the point of view of the power of the Commission. All he wanted was to put in a proviso which should direct the Commission to give special consideration to them.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think we understand the point of
  886
  my noble friend's suggestion, and my noble friend the Under-Secretary will consider whether we can adopt his proposal that woods and plantations should be treated in a category by themselves. But what we are anxious to make clear is, that the last word shall be said, not by the owners of the woods and plantations, but by the Manœuvres Commission. If that is understood, we do not differ from the object aimed at by the Amendment.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he quite agreed with the noble Marquess. All he wished was a special direction with regard to woods and plantations.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved an Amendment to this clause—which deals with the power of an officer to control the public use of a road or footpath—providing that the commissioned officer in command, upon whom this administrative power devolved, should not be the officer in command of any "part" of the authorised forces, but an officer of status high enough to command a "company or squadron." This was, he said, only a small Amendment to secure that the officer who was to have the power of stopping footpaths or rights of way should be an officer of some status, and not merely a subaltern. He thought the Amendment would commend itself to the Government.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, line 25, to leave out the word 'part' and to insert the words 'company or squadron.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The Amendment does not commend itself to me, because it goes too far. We are not intending that even a captain of a company should have this power. What we had in our minds in putting in the words "or any part thereof" was the commander of a

  887
  considerable unit—a division or a brigade. It really depends on the size of the manœuvres. If there are a number of divisions engaged, the commander of a division would be sufficient; if it is smaller, then the commander of a brigade. We have had considerable difficulty in drafting the clause. It is certainly not our intention that even a captain, except in very exceptional circumstances, should have this power, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsuggested the insertion of words securing that the power should not be exercised by any officer in command of any force less than a regiment. He certainly thought the term "or any part thereof" should be defined. Some minimum should be inserted, and the minimum should be not less than a regiment.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Will not the noble Lord trust petty sessions?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No, I do not think the power should be so wide as that in the clause.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: There has always been, as I have said, considerable difficulty in drafting words which will meet the case, and I am assured by our legal advisers that "or any part thereof" is the most satisfactory phrase to use because it covers all cases. I do not think there will be any difficulty.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Why not say field officer?
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: There may not always be a field officer present.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Then it is clear that the intention is that any officer shall be able to exercise this power.
  On Question, whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 15.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lichfield. E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Vane. E. (M. Londonderry.)(L. President.)

  Mansfield. E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Farquhar, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Onslow, E,

  Forester, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Harris, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Hay, L. (K. Kinnoul.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Verulam, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  James, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Killanin, L.

  Bath, M.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Cross, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Linlithgow, M.

  Hill, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Muncaster, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Rathmore, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Ravensworth, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Abinger. L.

  Robertson, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Alington, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Stuart of Castle Stewart, L. (E. Moray.)

  Dartrey, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Belper, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Burghclere, L.

  Reay, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Denman. L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Manners of Haddon. L. (M. Granby.)

  Stanmore, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]

  Monkswell, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL [H.L.]
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, this Bill has passed through its various stages in your Lordships' House without a word of question, and I now ask your Lordships to give it a Third Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a—(The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  THE SUPPLY OF TEACHERS.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord President of the Council if he will consider the advisability of revising the regulations as to candidates for pupil-teachers, and the employment of probationers in schools, so as to secure a sufficient supply of teachers on a principle fairer to the rural district, and less costly to the ratepayers. This is a matter that presses very hardly indeed on rural districts, and I hope my request may meet with some sympathy from the noble Marquess the Lord President of the Council, especially as in this case I am not demanding additional money from the Treasury. Before the present Education Act came into force it was the custom in rural districts when a child reached the age of thirteen to put him to teach the younger children, and
  890
  thereby an opportunity was afforded of seeing whether he had any natural talents for teaching, and, if he had, he in due time became a pupil-teacher and was recognised as a member of the teaching staff and paid. At one fell swoop, under the Act of 1902, the whole of this was put an end to, probationers being no longer allowed. In that way a very large source of supply for teachers was cut off, and I think this will be very seriously felt in a few years.
  I also ask the noble Marquess to consider the advisability of revising the regulations on the ground of the hardship inflicted on the ratepayer. Now these probationers are cut off the position is this, that local authorities are obliged, out of the present limited supply, to secure teachers at a much higher cost. Under the old system a pupil-teacher would work, up to the age of nineteen, for about £52 a year, whereas under the present system he costs nearly £80, and the large sum which will have to be paid during the five or six years by the local authority for the more expensive teacher falls on the ratepayer. If this principle is persisted in it will make it impossible almost for the children of parents residing in rural districts to become teachers. In the towns it is quite easy for children to attend half-time and continuation classes from thirteen to sixteen, and in that way qualify for pupil-teachers; but it is impossible to expect that parents in rural districts can send their children to pupil-teacher centres away from home. I may be told that the travelling expenses will be paid, but they will be paid by the ratepayers.
  We are told that it is very desirable that the population should not be induced to leave the country districts and concentrate in the towns, but what will be the effect if in a few years your teachers are all pe sons who have been recruited from the towns? How is it possible that children can be taught to take an interest in the country if you utterly close the teaching profession to people, born and bred in the country? If you allow the employment of probationers in schools you will have teachers who will be able to instruct young children much more in the pleasures of country life than if they were all brought from

  891
  the towns. It is in the interests of rural districts that some concession should be made in this matter. The present arrangement presses very hardly on the ratepayer and will press still harder in the future. On these grounds I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to allow the present rules to be revised.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of your Lordships that we had a discussion last year upon this question, raised by the noble Lord the Chairman of the education committee of the East Riding, Lord Herries. While I cannot quite agree with the drift of the speech of the noble Lord who has brought the question before your Lordships to night, I feel that there is a great deal of substance in the complaint that it is most difficult at the present moment to adjust the new regulations of the Education Board with regard to pupil-teachers to the conditions of rural life, and I cannot say that I think the way the Board of Education are working these regulations tends to facilitate the transition. But I do not think that any remedy is to be found by falling back upon children of thirteen as part of the staff of a school, to be counted on that staff for the purpose of teaching other children.
  I agree with the noble Lord that it is extremely important, if possible, that we should recruit the teachers who are to take charge of rural schools from the rural population. The conditions of service of teachers are likely to be more attractive in towns than in the country. The schools are larger, there are greater opportunities of promotion, there are higher ultimate salaries to be won, and therefore the most ambitious of the young people who enter the teaching profession have a tendency to gravitate to the towns. At the same time, we cannot too much insist that the most valuable qualities in a teacher are more needed in rural schools than in town schools. A rural school is about the most difficult school you can have to teach. It has a very small staff, and probably in the smaller schools they are lucky if they have one fully qualified teacher and one assistant teacher. The difficulties in such cases can be surmounted if you get
  892
  exceptionally good teachers. I remember the evidence of Mr. Matthew Arnold, when he was sent to examine the state of schools on the Continent. Describing a school—a small school—near Zurich, he said he found one master in charge of the whole school, but the great skill of that master enabled him to conduct the school in a brilliant manner. I am not going to say that if you can get good people you cannot grapple with the difficulties, but the difficulties are great, and you cannot expect the county councils to fix a scale of salaries for rural schools with an average attendance of sixty, seventy, and eighty which will compete with the salaries offered in town schools attended by 300 children. Therefore it is most important that you should try to recruit those who, having been brought up in the country, and having friends in the country, would be naturally wishful to go back to their homes.
  I also agree that the difficulties of preparing pupil-teachers in the country are immense. You cannot work a centre there. Take the poor county of Anglesey, with which I am connected, which has a large number of rural schools. A young person from sixteen to eighteen cannot be going half a day to his school and half a day to a centre; he cannot even be going alternate weeks. I defy any person in charge of a school to make any one of these young persons count effectively on the staff when they cannot be trusted continuously with the charge of a class. In the old days they worried through into class management because they were given a class all the week, but to give a young person twenty-five children every morning or every afternoon, or every alternate week, would be disastrous to the class, and the pupil-teacher would not get a sense of responsibility.
  The Board of Education have suggested that in the two years of pupil-teachership you may evade the obligations of their Minute by making the pupil-teacher a half-timer every alternate six months. That would be very inconvenient, but it would practically be making him a full - timer in the school for a year. I agree with the noble Lord, that the system which has been

  893
  introduced is extremely expensive. It is quite true that the Government have slightly increased the grants, but they have not increased them anything like so much as is set forth. They will now give in respect of a young person up to the age of sixteen, if he or she goes to a properly recognised secondary school, £4 a year for two years, and then for the two years from sixteen to eighteen they will give £7 a year, making a total of £22; but if the young person is sent to the secondary school earlier they will not give you anything except for the two years. The whole tendency of the pressure which has been brought to transfer pupils by scholarships from elementary to secondary schools is that the time for leaving the elementary and going to the secondary school should be between the ages of eleven and twelve—put it at twelve. The rules of the Board of Education for secondary schools make twelve the minimum age at which they begin to pay, and I quite agree that in the case of rural schools it is better that the child should move at the age of twelve. But you are demanding that the local authority shall take these children from the elementary schools and pass them on for four years to the secondary school. A child in a secondary school costs quite £12 a year to instruct, and you are going to give the local authorities, as an encouragement, £4 a year for two years. Not only that, but if the child lives at any distance the travelling expenses have to be paid besides, and some small bursary allowed. Therefore the whole of this is inordinately expensive.
  I have a little grievance of my own to which I should like to call the attention of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education. The education committee of my own county prepared a scheme by which we were to have these scholarships and send our children to become pupil teachers, but when we proposed to utilise the intermediate schools of the county, which the House will recollect are schools under Government patronage and support, and supposed to be quite efficient, we received a letter from the Board of Education, stating that before they accepted our proposals as to scholarships they must know how far we were willing to subsidise
  894
  the secondary schools so as to make them as fully efficient as the Board of Education might require. The Board of Education are heaping up weights upon us which are becoming too heavy to be borne.
  Throughout England the county councils, as a rule, have thrown themselves into the administration of the Education Act with great earnestness and self-sacrifice. So far the ratepayers have not rebelled, although the education rate has gone up immensely. But if the Board of Education continue to increase the difficulties of the county councils, instead of trying to make things easy for them, there will be a mutiny of county councils. I am not referring to Welsh county councils, who have to be coerced by a special Act of Parliament, but to good Conservative county councils, and a mutiny or these authorities would be difficult, indeed, to suppress. The Board of Education have shown a tendency, ever since the Education Act of 1902 came into force, to pile up quite recklessly all kinds of demands in regard to those things, the cost of which falls on the ratepayers. I very much doubt whether Eton, Harrow, or any of our great public schools come up to the recent requirements of school planning of the Board of Education in regard to secondary schools. I do not wish to check the zeal of the noble Marquess for educational efficiency, but I would like him to go one step at a time. The method by which the grants are given, and many other matters which I will not refer to to-day, require serious consideration, and I hope shortly to have the opportunity of placing them more informally before the noble Marquess.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, I regret that no one is present on this bench who has at least some I slight influence with the House. I represent portions of two agricultural counties, and this question looms very large in our mind. Yesterday I was discussing it with the chairman of the county council of one of those counties, and he told me that in his judgment the rate was rising to an absolutely impossible point. I asked him if he could put his finger on one particular item and he put his finger on this question of pupil-teachers. This question is a most important one, and I

  895
  find myself entirely in accord with the noble Lord who introduced it.
  *LORD HARRIS: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has put the case so clearly that it seems almost superfluous to add anything to what he has said. But, just as he had a private grievance, so have I, and I propose to ventilate it. The noble Marquess will remember that when the Education Act was going through the House in 1902 I took the opportunity of cross-questioning him, and the noble Duke, who was then Lord President of the Council (the Duke of Devonshire), stated what the intentions of the Government were with regard to compelling county councils to put on a rate for secondary education. Both the noble Duke and the noble Marquess gave me most positive assurance that that certainly was not their intention. I must admit that so far they have held true to their word; but in another way the Board of Education are doing everything they can to tempt county councils to put on a rate for higher education. They are doing so in this way. There are certain grants for scholarships given by the Board of Education, and the liberality of this grant is limited by the stipulation that it shall only be given where a rate is imposed. In my county we were careful in the use of the whiskey money and laid by a nest egg. We have got that nest egg now for use for its original purpose—the relief of the rates; but unless we impose a rate now, although we do not want to, we lose the Government grant for the sescholarships; and at a meeting the other day we decided that on the whole it was more politic to secure the grant than avoid putting on the rate. I admit that the Board of Education cannot be said to be compelling us to put on a rate, but the difference between that temptation and compulsion is a little difficult to draw.
  I endorse what has been said by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord opposite, and would appeal to the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education to impress upon the Treasury that this matter of the education of pupil-teachers is becoming a real and very serious grievance in the counties. I did not realise when this Act was passed the
  896
  immense burden that was going to be laid upon the ratepayers for the purpose of training schoolmasters. That is what it has come to. The burdens are of all kinds. My noble friend the noble Viscount referred to the difficulties of rural districts in sending children to centres in the populous areas. We have had experience of that, and we have had to make arrangements, not merely for travelling expenses, but for boarding expenses as well, in order that these children may be kept in fairly good health while they are under tuition. All that expense has been thrown on the ratepayers for what, as I submitted in 1902, and submit again, is a national object. The most important duty that can be conceived is the training of the masters and mistresses who are to have the education of the children of this country under their charge, and surely it is not just that the great part of the cost should be laid upon a class of property which the Commission appointed by the present Government has declared to be already overburdened. I appeal to my noble friend to endeavour to induce the Cabinet to look into this question very carefully, for I honestly believe with the noble Lord opposite that unless some far greater assistance is given to the county councils than is given now a very justifiable grievance will exist and a very serious manifestation of the feeling that will be roused by that grievance may become evident.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I do not for one moment complain of the tone of the speeches which we have heard from noble Lords on this question, nor do I in the least object to its being raised. On the contrary, I approach the question sympathetically, because undoubtedly there is a feeling in the country, and especially in rural districts, that the rates at present are advancing by leaps and bounds on account of education, and this must necessarily bear very heavily on the land, which, as the noble Lord has said, is already very heavily burdened. How far the rates should be allowed to rise depends a great deal on the local authority. Undoubtedly, when powers were given by

  897
  the Act of 1902 to the local authorities it was in the firm belief that they would watch over the interests of the ratepayers, and not add to their burdens. Undoubtedly the Duke of Devonshire and myself did say that the Bill of 1902 would not cause the rate to be raised; the only rate we caused to be raised was for elementary education, and the question of raising the rate for secondary education rests with the local education authorities. But my noble friend went further, and imagined that because we offered scholarships it would be necessary to raise the rate. It is impossible to please all parties, but I have no hesitation in saying that we are going to drop the system of scholarships in future.
  *LORD HARRIS: Are there to be no grants at all for scholarships?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The scholarships are going to be dropped. Those who uphold the system of probationers have the right to a certain amount of our sympathy. Undoubtedly probationers in the past were an extremely useful class, and I agree that when that system was done away with to a certain extent there must be a grievance. But let us look at the other side of the question. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley agrees that at the present day, when education has taken such a prominent place, we cannot go back to a system which existed many years ago and worked admirably.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I said you could not go back, but I never said the system worked admirably.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It has been considered absolutely necessary to raise a higher class of pupil-teachers. The old practice of having the pupil-teachers taught in the school is not suitable to the present system, and the object of the Department has been to give a higher grant to pupil-teacher centres; and in Section 28 of the last Regulations for pupil-teachers an effort has been made to give advantages to the rural teachers, whose case is more difficult than that of the town teachers. The Department fully realises the difference between the two, and the
  898
  undesirability of drawing the country children to the towns. As reading and education increases the attraction of the towns increases, but everything is being done to cope with the difficulty. Last year I was asked to give some grant for facilitating the transport of pupil-teachers to the centres. At the time I could give no definite assurance either that further aid would be available, or that if it were it would be applied in any particular way; but I have since inquired into the circumstances, and I found that they warranted me in approaching the Treasury.
  To explain the further assistance that I am now in a position to announce I must go back to the first set of new regulations, which applied to the year 1903–4. We there provided that the grant for a pupil-teacher taught in a centre should be £3, that the grant for a pupil-teacher not taught in a centre should be £2, and that the grant for children who were preparing to become pupil-teachers and taught in proper preparatory classes should be also £2. These, as I say, were the grants for the year 1903–4. Now I come to the grants for the year 1904–5. Those grants were as follows:—£7 for a pupil-teacher taught in a centre, £4 for a child preparing to become a pupil-teacher and taught in a preparatory class, and £2 10s. for the pupil-teacher who is not taught in a centre. It was with reference to these grants and the question of providing more aid for the case of pupil-teachers not taught in a centre, that is to say, roughly, for country pupil-teachers, that my statement was made last July in reply to a Question by Lord Herries.
  The result of the further information that we have been able to obtain, and of the representations that have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that I am able to announce a considerable increase in the grants, which will be especially beneficial in the case of pupil-teachers who are not taught in the centres. The augmentations of grant that I have to announce relate to the current year for pupil-teacher instruction which ends on July 31st next, and also to part of the last year of pupil-teacher instruction which ended on July 31st last. For the seven months, January

  899
  1st to July 31st, 1904, we shall pay a further grant at the rate of £3 a year for a pupil-teacher taught in a centre, in addition to the grant of £3 already paid, and a further grant at the rate of £2 a year for the pupil-teacher not taught in a centre, in addition to the grant of '2 already paid. These additions, your Lordships will understand, benefit both urban and rural authorities, and with the further change I have still to announce, they will bring the grants for those months up to the level of the grants for the current year, with a small exception in the case of centres.
  Now I come to the additional grants for the current year. There is no additional grant either for the child taught in a preparatory class or for the child taught in the pupil-teacher centre, but there is an additional grant for the pupil-teacher who is not taught in the centre, that is to say, generally, for the rural pupil teacher. The increase I am able to announce in this case brings up the grant for this year to the sum of £4 per head as compared with £2 10s. in the regulations, and will specially benefit the rural areas. The change in the grant which I have just announced is for the present provisional only and will apply to the current year ending July 31st, 1904, and possibly for another year. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that in any permanent scheme which may be framed for pupil-teachers special consideration will be given to the difficulties to be expected in rural areas, and though I cannot pledge myself at the present moment to any details, the assistance given towards the education of pupil-teachers in rural districts will not be less on the average than the amount which is available under the provisional arrangements I have just described.
  It is most important that those who teach in our schools should know how to teach, and I have given special consideration to this question of the instruction of pupil-teachers. In view of the large sums which public education costs the country, it is most desirable that the instruction given at such great expense should be sound. I realise that there is a great deal more to be done, but the Department
  900
  over which I have the honour to preside has at any rate done something to meet the necessities of the case.
  *LOKD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Will the Minute which the noble Marquess has just announced be included in the Code and laid on the Table?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: A Minute will be presented.

NEW BILLS.
  PRIZE COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the law relating to the administration of oaths for the purpose of proceedings in prize courts; and

  NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate with Amendments the enactments relating to naval prize of war. Were presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.