Sitting of 20 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 67 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 67 has been complied with, viz.:—Cork Junction Railways Bill.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 66 NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 66 has not been complied with, viz.:—Cork Junction Railways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Leven's Patent Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Dublin United Tramways Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
  Swansea Corporation Bill; Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Swansea Improvements and Tramways Bill in Session 1897 be referred to the Committee on the Swansea Corporation Bill.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Accrington Corporation Bill; Morley Corporation Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Leeds, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Ayrshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return [presented 17th March] to be printed. [No. 88.]
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) GENERAL REPORTS.
  Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Northern Division of Scotland for the year 1904 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of January, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (VICTUALLING YARD MANUFACTURING ACCOUNTS, 1903–4).
  Annual Accounts presented, of the Cost of Manufacturing, Provisions, Victualling Stores, etc., at the Home Victualling Yards and Malta Yard for 1903–4, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 89.]
  NAVY (NEW SCHEME OF TRAINING).
  Copy presented, of Further Reports of Members of the Interview Committees on the selection of Candidates for nomination as Naval Cadets [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903 (IRISH LAND COMMISSION ESTATES COMMISSIONERS).
  Copy ordered, "of instructions issued by the Commissioners for the guidance of inspectors."—(Mr. Walter Long.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 90.]

  EAST INDIA (EMPLOYMENT OF TROOPS OUT OF INDIA).
  Address for "Return comprising the particulars, as follows:—

  (1) What number of British Troops, and of what arms, were taken from the Indian Garrison in September and October, 1899, and sent on service in South Africa.

  (2) How many subsequently, and what number were there at the close of the war.

  (3) How many and what classes of Troops were sent from India to China to assist in putting down the Boxer rising, rescuing members of the European Legations, and recovering their buildings at Pekin.

  (4) The numbers of British and Indian Troops detached from the Indian Garrison for service in Somaliland and East Africa.

  (5) What was the amount saved to the Military Expenditure of the Indian Government by the loan of these Troops and the Indian Commissariat Services for purposes of the Home Government in the several years of those transfers; also in the aggregate."—(Sir Walter Foster.)

  SMALL ARMS FACTORIES (MANUFACTURES).
  Address for "Return showing—
  The number of Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles manufactured at the Royal Small Arms Factories at Enfield and Sparkbrook respectively, with the cost per rifle at each Factory for the years 1890–1 and onward to the year ending the 31st day of March, 1903, inclusive. Also the number of Lee-Metford and
  424
  Lee-Enfield rifles manufactured at the Birmingham and London Small Arms Factories respectively, with the contract price of same at each Factory for the years 1890 and onward to the year ending the 31st day of March, 1903, inclusive.
  The total numbers made at each of the four Factories for the years named respectively, and the average cost at each Factory per rifle.
  The number of sword bayonets for the Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles manufactured at the Royal Small Arms Factories at Enfield and Sparkbrook during the same period, with the number and cost per sword bayonet for each year respectively, and the orders on hand and unfinished at the present time.
  The number of sword bayonets for the Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles manufactured by private contract for the same period, showing cost per sword bayonet for each year respectively, and orders in hand undelivered at the present time.
  The number of machine guns made at Enfold and Sparkbrook respectively for the years 1889 to 1904, showing type and cost per gun for each year, and the number of guns on order and unfinished at each Factory at the present time.
  The number of machine guns made by private contract during the years 1889 onwards to 1904 respectively, showing type and cost per gun for each year, with the numbers of guns on order and undelivered at the present time.
  The number of pistols manufactured at Enfield between the years 1880 upwards to 1904 inclusive, showing type and cost per pistol for each year respectively.
  The number of pistols manufactured by private contract for the years 1880 upwards to 1904 inclusive, showing type and cost per pistol for each year respectively.
  The total amount of money expended on plant for the manufacture of pistols at Enfield.
  The additions to building and plant at Enfield since the year 1883 up to the present time, and the co t for each year respectively.
  The estimated cost of the electrical power now being installed.
  The number of men employed in the machine gun department at Enfield for the years 1889 upwards to 1904 respectively, and the number employed at the present time. The total amount paid in wages for each year respectively, and the amount paid in wages for the eleven months ending February, 1905.
  The number of men employed at Enfield and Sparkbrook respectively, for the years 1888 upwards to 1904, and the total amount paid in wages for each year during the same period at each factory.
  The number at present employed at Enfield and Sparkbrook respectively.
  The number of machines at present standing idle at Enfield and Sparkbrook respectively, and the number of machines partially employed at each factory.
  What is the normal capacity for output at each of the two factories, and what would be the capacity for output of Enfield and Sparkbrook respectively if the men were employed on three eight-hour shifts in each twenty-four hours, including Sundays.
  The cost of building and plant of the Royal Small Arms Factory now being built in India, and the estimated capacity for output in normal and three eight-hour shifts each twenty-four hours, including Sundays."—(Mr. Abel Smith.)

  ARMY (PENSIONS).
  Address for "Return of—

  (1) The number of Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men who retired from the Army on pension (time expired only) in each of the following years: 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903.

  426

  (2) The average number of years of service (a) of Officers retiring on pension, (b) of Non-Commissioned Officers and Men retiring on pension in each of the above years.

  (3) The total amount of cash paid to the above time-expired pensioners, namely, (a) to Officers, (b) to Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, in each of the above years.

  (4) The total number of pensioners deceased in each of the above years (a) Officers, (b) Non-Commissioned Officers and Men.

  (5) The average ages at death (a) of Officers, (b) of Non-Commissioned Officers and Men in each of the above years.

  (6) The total cash amount disbursed in pensions, during the tenure of the pension, to each deceased pensioner in each of the above years (a) to Officers, (b) to Non-Commissioned Officers and Men."—(Captain Norton.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Duties of Local Authorities under the Public Health Acts.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the report of a case in which the Mayor, Aldermen, and Council of the Borough of Paddington were summoned for refusing to grant a certificate to allow a baker to use his premise; and whether, having regard to the observations made by the stipendiary magistrate who dealt with the case (granting at once the necessary certificate), he will, in the interests of traders, issue a circular to all borough councils and administrative bodies as to their duties under the Acts relating to public health and sanitation.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to and have made some inquiry with regard to it. I understand that the consideration with which the

  427
  Paddington Borough Council and their officers have administered the enactment under which the proceedings were taken has been acknowledged by a considerable number of the proprietors and lessees of underground bakehouses in the borough and it does not seem to me necessary to issue any such circular as that suggested

  Out-Relief for Underfed Children.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the evidence given before the Physical Deterioration Committee relating to the condition of children, he will issue a circular to boards of guardians calling their attention to their powers and duties as to underfed children, and pointing out the importance, in the case of giving out-relief to young children, of giving milk rather than a large amount of bread.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) So far as I am aware, there is no reason to suppose that boards of guardians are not alive to the powers and duties which attach to them in relation to underfed children, where application is made to them for relief. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I think that boards of guardians may be trusted to use their discretion as to giving of milk as out-relief to young children. The Local Government Board called the attention of their inspectors to the subject last year. It does not appear to me to be necessary to issue a circular as suggested.

  Issue of Somaliland Medal and Gratuity to Naval Brigade.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will explain why the medal and gratuity for service in Somali-land has not yet been issued to the men of the Royal Navy who took part in the operations, although they have for some time been distributed to those entitled to them in the Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Admiralty decision as to the medal and gratuity for the operations in Somaliland was given on 28th January. Steps were at once taken to make the necessary com-
  428
  munications to the Treasury for the payment of the gratuity and to the Mint for the supply of the medals. The bulk of the latter having now been received, a notice as to the terms of the award will appear in the London Gazette of Tuesday 21st instant, and the distribution will proceed forthwith. The payment of the gratuities to those entitled has already commenced.

  Fair Wages Resolution and Steamship Mail Contracts.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the wages paid to the sailors and firemen employed on the Royal Mail steamer "Orepesa," of the Pacific Line, are in accordance with the Fair Wage Resolution of this House; and whether such rate of wages is equal to that paid by other steamship companies engaged in the same trade carrying the Royal mails from Southampton and other ports.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Secretary to the Treasury has requested me to reply to this Question, as it relates primarily to the Post Office. I have no information as to the wages paid on the steamer mentioned by the hon. Member. It has always been held that the Fair Wages Resolution of the House does not apply to contracts with steamship companies for the conveyance of mails.

  Injuries to Seamen.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state the number of seamen who met with hurt or injury on board British ships during the year 1904; whether he can state the number of such seamen who were engaged at ports in the United Kingdom; whether he can state the number of such seamen engaged at ports abroad; and whether he can state the number of seamen whose expenses were paid by the owners, and also of those whose expenses were paid out of the wages due to the seamen from the ship.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The number of seamen reported to the Board of Trade as having been injured during the year 1904 was 2,594, while 1,049 are reported to have lost their lives owing to

  429
  wreck, casualty, or other accident. I am afraid I cannot give comparable figures with reference to the various other matters referred to by the hon. Member's Question.

  Inspection of Weights and Measures on Board Ship.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether inspectors of weights and measures examine the weights and measures used on board ship for weighing provisions and other articles supplied to seamen, as provided by Section 201 of the Merchant Shipping Act; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to such weights and measures being thoroughly examined and, if unfit, condemned as required by the Weights and Measures Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Inspectors of weights and measures are under the control of local authorities, and I will cause inquiries to be made as to the practice with regard to their inspection of weights and measures used on board ship.

  Prices of Tobacco supplied to Masters of British Ships.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state the price paid by the masters of British ships per pound for tobacco out of bond at ports in the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) There are no figures in the possession of the Board of Trade that would enable me to furnish the information asked for by the hon. Member.

  Scale of Provisions for Merchant Ships.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state how many shipowners have adopted the scale of provisions for merchant ships recommended by the Mercantile Marine Committee; whether he can state the reason why the scale recommended by this Committee has not been generally adopted; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill this session making the scale recommended by the Mercantile Marine Committee compulsory.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am unable to state how many shipowners have
  430
  adopted the scale of provisions recommended by the Mercantile Marine Committee, but I find that out of 3,647 merchant vessels registered and engaging crews in the United Kingdom in the year 1904, 380 adopted that scale. Although this scale has not been more generally adopted I find that a similar scale was inserted in the articles of 1,691 vessels. As at present advised the Board of Trade are not prepared to introduce legislation for the purpose of making any scale compulsory.

  Seamen's Discharges—Case of Bengtson.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of a seaman, named Bengtson, who engaged on the British steamship "Ovid," at Yokohama, on October 25th, 1904, and, in consequence of injuries received in the service of the ship, was discharged at Batavia on December 5th, the master paying him the balance of wages due; and will he explain, in view of Section 207 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, why, on Bengtson's arrival in London on February 27th, 1905, he was informed by the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office, Victoria Docks, that the balance of his wages, namely, £6 1s. 4d., for which he applied, had been used for the purpose of defraying the cost of his passage and maintenance to England.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade are making inquiries into this matter, and when they are concluded a communication shall be addressed to the hon. Member.

  Fatal Accidents on Electrified North Eastern Railway.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state the names of the persons who have met with fatal injuries since the opening of the electrified portion of the North Eastern Railway a year ago through coming into contact with the live rail; and what compensation has been awarded to the relatives in each instance.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The names reported to the Board of Trade are as follows: John Frederick Irving, Joseph Innis, Jonas Whitehead, James Harris, and Elizabeth Chapman. The

  431
  accident to the last named appears to be that which the hon. Member has referred to in previous Questions as an accident to Alice Maughan. I am not aware what compensation has been paid to the relatives in any of these cases.

  Explosions caused by Escaping Gas and Electric Current.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to accidents reported by the Metropolitan Police as being due to explosions caused through gas escaping into telegraph inspection chambers and coming into contact with leakage in an electric wire; and will he state what compensation has been paid for any personal injuries which such accidents may have caused, and what action has been taken to prevent their recurrence.
  (Answered by Lord, Stanley.) My attention has been called to this matter frequently, but as I told the hon. Member, in reply to his Question of last session,†I have not seen any reason to suppose that explosions have been due to leakage in a telegraph or telephone wire. No compensation has been paid by the Post Office, which has not been in any way in fault. The engineers of the Post Office are considering whether there is anything the Department can do to diminish the danger arising from the escape of gas.

  Allowances to London Post Office Engineers.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state whether any part of the allowances authorised by the Treasury to London Post Office engineers on November 2nd, 1904, has yet been paid; whether it has been proposed to apply these allowances by means of a corresponding reduction of salaries; and whether, in view of the figures quoted on page 116 of the Post Office Estimates, it has been decided to enforce this method of application, despite the unanimous refusal of the officers concerned to accept it after being invited to do so.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The allowances in question have been paid to all persons entering the establishment since November 2nd last. But it was
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxix., 1551.
  432
  not my intention to alter the total remuneration of the existing members of the upper classes of the engineering establishment in London. In their case the allowances can only be paid concurrently with a corresponding reduction in salaries, and they were allowed to choose between the old and the new method of payment. In the case of the sub-engineers, however, I have under consideration the question of granting the allowance as an addition to the present salaries of men now on the class. The full allowance, however, would not be given to those who have already received increased pay in respect of their appointment to a post in London.

  Regulations to Check Importation of Diseased Fruit.
  COLONEL LONG: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what foreign nations or British Colonies have laws and regulations to check and prevent the importation of diseased apples or other fruit, so as to stop the introduction into their respective countries of the codlin moth and other insect pests.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) All the principal vine-growing countries have made regulations designed to prevent the introduction of the phylloxera. The United States, Canada, and the South African and Australian Colonies also take precautionary measures against the San Jose scale. British Columbia aims at excluding the woolly aphis, the apple tree aphis, the codlin moth, and other injurious insects and all fungus diseases, and most, if not all, of the Australian Colonies and many of the American States adopt similar precautions to prevent the introduction of insect and fungus pests. As my hon. friend is aware, we have prepared a full Memorandum on the subject for the information of the Departmental Committee on Fruit Culture, of which he is a member; and the subject is one which will continue to receive their careful consideration.

  Employees in the Ordnance Survey Office.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the official order recently issued to the Royal

  433
  Arsenal and Dockyards, that in the event of its being necessary to discharge employees those who have been employed less than ten years should be selected for discharge, is to apply to the Ordnance Survey.
  (Answered, by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The order to which my hon. friend refers does not apply to the Ordnance Survey. It is the general rule of the Survey, when a reduction of the staff becomes necessary, to select the younger men for discharge where possible, but each case is considered on its merits. It may, for example, sometimes be necessary to discharge an old employee if there is no suitable work for him to do, or to give the preference to a younger employee with an excellent record as compared with an older one with a bad record. I may add that we do not anticipate that it will be necessary to make any general reduction in the staff of the Survey in the near future which cannot be effected by not filling up vacancies as they occur.

  Sugar Duty.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average gross rate of duty received on sugar in each financial year since the reimposition of the sugar duty, up to the 31st March, 1904, and in the eleven months up to the 28th February, 1905; the number of samples of sugar polariscopically examined by the Customs in the above periods and the cost of such examination; the annual cost to the country of supervising the British sugar refineries in bond; and whether he has yet had an opportunity of considering

  Number of samples polariscopically examined.

  Cost of examination thereof.

  £

  Financial Year ended 31st March, 1902

  25,706

  2,159

  Financial Year ended 31st March, 1903

  28,005

  2,471

  Financial Year ended 31st March, 1904

  28,176

  2,380

  11 months ended 28th February, 1905

  23,369

  1,934

  the system by which the sugar duties are levied on polariscopic tests; and whether, in view of the bonding of British refineries under the Sugar Convention Act, a simpler method might with advantage to the revenue be adopted; and, if so, whether he intends to make any change in the system this year.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The average gross rate of duty received on sugar in each financial year since the reimposition of the Sugar Duty, up to the 31st March, 1904, and in the eleven months up to the 28th February, 1905, is as follows: Financial year ended 31st March, 1902, the cwt. 3s. 10·87d.; financial year ended 31st March, 1903, the cwt. 3s. 10·21d.; financial year ended 31st March, 1904, the cwt. 3s. 11·49d.; eleven months ended 28th February, 1905, the cwt. 4s. 0·06d. The increase in the average gross rate in 1904 and in 1905 is due to the fact that, previous to 1st September, 1903, sugar which was imported to be refined in this country was duty-paid while in an unrefined condition, and that, from the 1st September, 1903, sugar imported to be refined in Great Britain has not been duty-paid until after refinement. As a consequence, the average cwt. of sugar, duty-paid while unrefined, being of a lower polarisation and sweetening power than the average cwt. of sugar now duty-paid on delivery from a refinery, was necessarily assessed at a lower average rate of duty. The number of samples of sugar polariscopically examined by the Customs in the above periods and the cost of such examination was as follows—
  The annual cost to the country of supervising the British sugar refineries in bond is estimated, under present conditions, at £15,600. With reference to the remaining portion of the Question, I am advised that the system of levying the sugar duty on polariscopic test is accepted without demur by all engaged in the trade, and that the polariscopic method of testing sugar is simple, rapid, and accurate, no better method being known or required. Both at home and abroad it is a method understood and practised with satisfactory results both by Governments for sugar revenue and by those engaged in the sugar industry. In view of these considerations I am not prepared to recommend any alteration in the existing system of collecting the duty.

  Budget Figures—Payments for Outstanding Contracts—Arrears of Income-Tax.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in preparing the Budget Estimates for the year 1905–6, he will append thereto a schedule giving particulars of orders given and contracts entered into by the Government for stores, buildings, munitions of war, or other supplies which will have to be delivered to the Government in future, but which have not been provided for in the said Budget Estimates; and whether he will also give an estimate of the amount of arrears of income-tax outstanding on 31st March, 1905, as compared with the amount of arrears of the said tax which were outstanding on 31st March, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I must ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement. If, when that statement is made, it does not contain information which he thinks indispensable, I shall be prepared to consider the propriety of supplementing it by further communications. But I must respectfully decline to pledge myself beforehand as to the nature and scope of the statement.

  National Repertory Theatre—Suggested Government Subsidy.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been requested to grant an annual subsidy towards the
  436
  permanent establishment of a National Repertory Theatre, provided a proportion of the funds required is guaranteed by the members of the public interested in its establishment; and, if so, can he state the answer which he gave to that request.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Yes, Sir, I have been requested to lay before His Majesty's Government a proposal to grant an annual subsidy of £10,000 towards the permanent establishment of a National Repertory Theatre in the West End of London. I have replied that I am unable to recommend such a grant from public funds.

  Political Pensions—Declaration of Necessitous Circumstances.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the political pensions granted under the provisions of 32 and 33 Vic., c. 60, are subject to a declaration of necessitous circumstances; and if he will state the terms of such declaration.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Yes, Sir, the grant of such pensions is subject to a declaration that the pensioner's total income is inadequate to maintain his station in life. The declaration is framed under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1869.

  Report of Income-Tax Inquiry Committee.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into the Income-Tax has reported; and, if not, when its Report may be expected; and whether a copy of its Report will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Committee has not yet reported, but I am informed that its Report may be looked for shortly. The work of the Committee has been somewhat prolonged by the addition in November to their reference of an instruction to inquire and report whether co-operative societies enjoy under the present law any undue exemption from liability to income-tax. When I have received the Report, I will consider whether it can be presented to Parliament.

  Bombay University Degrees.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that no person can obtain a degree in any of the faculties of the Indian Universities without passing the entrance examination, and that this examination is under the control of the Faculty of Arts; and whether, seeing that the Faculty of Arts is the dominant faculty in the Universities, he will take steps that Mr. Justice Tyabji, Mr. Justice Chandravarkar, Mr. Justice Batty, Sir Pherozshah Mehta, the Honourable Mr. Setalwad, and other Fellows of the University should not be excluded from the Faculty of Arts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The regulations for the constitution of faculties in the Bombay University have under the law to be made by the Senate of that University, of which the gentlemen named in the Question are members. The preparation of rules for examinations also rests with the Senate, and in the preparation of these rules the gentlemen named will have the opportunity of taking part. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion of the University authorities as constituted by law.

  Calcutta University Senate.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the services rendered to higher education and to science in India by Raja Peary Mohan Mookerjee, Mr. A. M. Bose, Father Lafont, Dr. P. C. Ray, Mr. Perceval, Mr. N. N. Ghose, Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mukerjee, and Dr. J. C. Bose, and of the dissatisfaction felt at the exclusion of these gentlemen from the Senate of the Calcutta University, and from the Faculty of Arts; and whether, seeing that over 70 per cent, of the members of the Calcutta Senate are not graduates of the University, and that over 56 per cent, are Government servants, steps will be taken to prevent the exclusion of Indian gentlemen who have served the University with distinction from a share in its management.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed as to the facts stated in his Question. Of the eight gentlemen named by him, five, viz., Father Lafont, Mr. Perceval, Mr. N. N. Ghose, Mr. Justice
  438
  Ashutosh Mukerjee, and Dr. J. C. Bose have been appointed Fellows and members of the Senate of the Calcutta University. Of these five, three, viz., Mr. Perceval, Mr. N. N. Ghose, and Mr. Justice Mukerjee have been allotted to the Faculty of Arts, and the remaining two to the Faculty of Science. I have no information as to the reason why the remaining three gentlemen were not appointed to the Senate by the authorities charged with the duty of selection; but I observe that of the ninety-one ordinary Fellows of the Calcutta University whose nomination was notified in the Gazette of India of December 10th, 1904, and January 28th, 1905, no less than forty-five are Indian gentlemen of distinction.

  Election of Kildare Petty Sessions Clerk.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, at the recent election in Kildare of a petty sessions clerk for the districts of Kildare and Rathangan, in which a Mr. Samuel Bratton was declared elected on February 2nd, he is aware that the said Samuel Bratton received only three votes out of a total of seven magistrates present and voting; that this alleged election was held in a private room off the public Court from which the candidates, the public, and the Press were excluded; and that a memorial protesting against the irregular character of the proceedings was addressed to His Excellency the Earl of Dudley, on behalf of the general public of the districts concerned, and signed by the Very Rev. P. Campion, P. P. Kildare and Rathangan,and the Very Rev. N. A. Staples, O.C.C., White Abbey, Kildare, on February 4th, and duly acknowledged by His Excellency; and if, under these circumstances, he will take steps to have this election annulled and a new election ordered.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. There were three candidates, of whom Mr. Bratton received three votes, and the two remaining candidates two votes each. Prior to the election the chairman of the magistrates announced that the candidate who should first receive a majority of the votes, would be declared elected. I am advised

  439
  that this was a legal method of election, and also that the magistrates acted within their powers in retiring to their private room to Vote. The result of the election was duly announced in public Court. A reply to the memorial was sent on March 8th to the effect that the election was legal.

  Irish Education—Amalgamation of Boys' and Girls' Departments.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the dissatisfaction in regard to the introduction of the new rule in boys' schools, he will consult with the National Commissioners of Education as to the advisability of the amalgamation of boys' and girls' schools where work goes on under one roof, and inaugurate a separate infant department for both sexes up to eight, the head mistress holding her salary and being put in charge of the latter department.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners are in favour of the amalgamation of small schools in suitable cases, and the arrangement suggested in the Question might be possible in some such cases. But the circumstances affecting the amalgamation of schools are so varied that each case must be judged on its merits, and it is not practicable to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases.

  Teachers as Secretaries of School Attendance Committees.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain on what grounds the new rules of the National Commissioners of Education debar teachers from acting as secretaries to school attendance committees; and whether, seeing that such work is performed outside school hours and does not interfere with the discharge of their duties as teachers, he will communicate to the Commissioners the advisability of removing this disqualification.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Under Rule 88 (a): "Teachers are not permitted to carry on, or engage in, any business or occupation that will impair their usefulness as teachers." It has been decided that the position of secretary to a school attendance committee comes within the rule.

  Improved Navigation of the River Suir.
  MR. CONDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture for Ireland have had the navigation of the River Suir from Clonmel to Carrick-on-Suir examined and reported on by their engineer, and that, being satisfied of the large traffic on the river and the importance of its improvement, he had recommended the improvement of such navigation, which necessitated the erection of certain works and the alteration in the bed and banks of that river, and that the Law Officers of the Crown had advised them to carry out such improvement; and, if so, having regard to the importance of improving the navigation of such rivers in Ireland, will the Government bring in a Bill to confer all such powers as may be necessary on the Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The facts as to the engineer's examination and reportare substantially as stated. There is no foundation, however, for the suggestion that the Law Officers gave advice to the effect mentioned. I cannot give any undertaking that the Government will introduce legislation on the subject.

  The Ivel Motor Ambulance.
  COLONEL McCALMONT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether sanction will be given by the War Office to trials, free of all cost, of the Ivel motor, shielded with Cammell's bullet-proof steel for protecting medical officers and men giving first aid, affording electric light without glass to field hospital camps, and also working a new portable ice-making machine, for testing and report in the field, under the direction of the medical department at Aldershot.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold Forster.) The Ivel motor ambulances with bullet-proof armour, electric light apparatus, and gear for portable ice machine has been under consideration and has been declined as unsuited to service requirements. Further trials are not therefore contemplated.

  Greatcoat of King's Messenger.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact

  441
  that the King's Messenger's greatcoat, Requisition Order 3,156, was made in the Department at the Royal Army Clothing Department, Pimlico; and will he explain why this greatcoat was passed through the outdoor division and paid for in the same way.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) This coat was made up by some of the military tailors under instruction, because the ordinary women piece workers employed in the factory are unskilled in this description of work. In this and similar cases the men employed are temporarily attached to one of the divisions of the factory to enable the payment for the work to appear in the accounts in a regular way.

  Barrack Accommodation in North China.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received reports on the barrack accommodation in North China, showing that the quarters and barracks of British officers and native ranks of the Indian contingent quartered in China at Shan-hai-Kwan, Tientsin, and other stations, were in an unsanitary condition; whether he is aware that at Shan-hai-Kwan nearly every British officer has been, at some time or other, laid up with fever, dysentery, or diarrhœa; that the quarters of both officers and men were in an old yamen, the enclosure of which is the old bed of the river Shito, and liable to be flooded; whether, seeing that the other foreign contingents at Shan-hai-Kwan are better housed in forts captured by the British force in 1900, and at Tientsin have superior accommodation, and in view of the condition of those of our own troops, he will explain why the money taken in the last year's Army Estimates for the improvement of the accommodation at Pekin was not expended, and why it is now decided to spend no money at Shan-hai-Kwan.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The official reports do not bear out the statements made in the Question as to the insanitary character of the barrack accommodation for the troops in North China. It is, however, admitted that the officers' quarters at Shan-hai-Kwan compare very unfavourably with those at Tientsin. As regards Shan-hai
  442
  Kwan and Tientsin, local syndicates have offered to erect suitable barracks for the troops, and lease them to the War Department; and these offers have been accepted. As regards Pekin, since the money was originally taken in Army Estimates a revision of the scheme has been brought forward and is receiving careful consideration.

  Interchange of Stores and Plant between Army and Navy.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War under what Vote and sub-head is credit taken for the guns and ammunition taken over by the War Office from the Navy consequent on the laying up of obsolete ships; and what is the amount so credited.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) This interchange of stores and plant already provided by Parliament does not necessitate any fresh Parliamentary provision, of appropriation. Its effect will, however, appear in the Stock Accounts published at the close of the year with the Appropriation Account.

  South African Jam Contracts—Names of Contractors.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state who were the contractors who supplied 1,350,816 tins of jam for South Africa, each tin containing, as described in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, 12 ounces of jam instead of 1lb., as per contract, and whether he will state who were the War Office inspecting officials who passed the goods on receipt.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to say that I have made inquiry as to the names of the contractors, but have not yet received the information. The Agent-General for South Australia has informed me that the contracts were made in Australia, and that he is not acquainted with the names of the contractors, but that they shall be furnished. I have no doubt that I shall receive similar information with respect to the other contracts made in the Colonies. The supplies furnished by the Australian Colonies were inspected by the Agricultural Departments of those Colonies before shipment.

  443
  As regards the second part of the Question, under war conditions time did not admit of the weighing or detailed examination of such supplies at Durban, and the examination by supply officers at that port was confined, necessarily, to seeing that the goods had not suffered any damage during sea transit and were apparently fit for issue to the troops. The question as to whether there was any shortage on the total amount ordered is under investigation, and I am not prepared to anticipate the result of the inquiry.

  Coolie Education in Ceylon.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies why it has been found necessary to appoint a further Commission to deal with the question of coolie education in Ceylon; what are the names of the present Commissioners; and whether he will cause to be supplied copies of the special Minutes or Memoranda on the subject of estate schools which were submitted by the various individual members of the Education Cess Committee of the Incidence on Taxation Commission, but which were not included in the Commissioners' Final Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Governor has found it desirable to appoint a Commission (a) to consider how the suggestions of a Committee

  Land Settlement in Transvaal and Orange River Colony.

  Transvaal,

  Orange River Colony.

  Total issues on Loan Account, to 31st December, 1904

  1,031,134

  1,040,288

  Acreage purchased.

  not less than 878,552 acres

  1,025,456 acres (to 30th June last. This is in addition to 501,800 acres inherited from the Orange Free State Government).

  Price fixed for land.

  £484,843

  £844,379

  Advances to settlers

  £94,524

  £73,740

  Acreage allotted

  690,929 acres

  1,245,332 acres

  Number of settlers (exclusive of any families)

  557

  691

  appointed in 1901 can be given effect to; (b) to suggest any other practical means of meeting the cost of elementary education; (c) to deal with the question of coolie education and grouping estates for school purposes. The members of the Commission are: Mr. Wace, Government Agent, Central Province; Mr. Harward, Director of Public Instruction; the Rev. H. Highfield, Principal of the Wesley College; Mr. D. B. Jayatilleke, Principal of the Ananda College, and Mr. T. C. Huxley, planter. So far as I am aware, the Papers referred to in the last part of the Question have not yet been presented to the Legislative Council, and I am, therefore, unable to lay them upon the Table.

  Amount spent on Land Settlement in Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the total cost spent on land settlement, the number of acres purchased, the price paid, the amount of money grants to settlers, the number of acres now actually occupied, and the number of settlers actually in occupation in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The information, as far as I have it, is as follows:—

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Civil Servants' Pay while Volunteering.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the Treasury Minute which grants part payment to Civil servants for leave taken for the purpose of attending certain Volunteer camps when held for the extended period of a fortnight, he will give a like privilege to those Civil servants who attend camps of one week's duration; and, further, whether he will so arrange that leave taken for the purpose of attending such camps shall not be included in the fortnight's leave now allowed by Admiralty regulations.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PKETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): The privilege referred to is given under Treasury Minute which is applicable to all public Departments. Any question as to the extension of this Minute to cover camps of less duration should be addressed to that Department.

  Obsolete War Vessels in the Kyles of Bute.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the position of the obsolete war vessels in the Kyles of Bute is objected to by the Clyde Lighthouse Trust, who have complained to the Board of Trade on the subject; and whether he will communicate with the Board of Trade with a view to putting an end to the grievance complained of.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The Clyde Lighthouse Trust raised certain objections to the mooring of His Majesty's ships in the Kyles of Bute, which the Admiralty did not consider to be well founded, and so informed the Trust. It is not proposed to consult the Board of Trade on the matter. The mooring grounds for these ships were selected after careful inquiry as to their suitability, and with as much consideration as posssible for local interests.

  South African War Contracts.
  *MR. NOKMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any person has been
  446
  reprimanded, dismissed, or otherwise punished in connection with any of the transactions to which public attention is drawn in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): No person has been, or will be, reprimanded, dismissed, or otherwise punished until a full inquiry has been made, and until his responsibility for any malpractice has been established. When this responsibility has been established the Army Council will immediately take such steps as may be necessary. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of informing the hon. Member, and the House, what is the actual history of these transactions. Many of the transactions appeared originally to be justified by the explanations given by the local military authorities. In 1904, however, attention was drawn by the Comptroller and Auditor-General to other alleged errors or malpractices; and in investigating these reason was seen for questioning the accuracy or relevance of the explanations previously accepted. The cases were, therefore, taken up as a whole and minutely investigated de novo by the newly formed Accounts Branch. On January 17th I was informed that, as a result of these inquiries, there was reason to view some of these transactions with great suspicion. On the same day, therefore, I decided to appoint a strong Committee, of which General Sir William, Butler is the Chairman, to make a careful investigation into the cases, and to report to the Army Council. This inquiry has been proceeding since that date, and a large number of witnesses have been examined. I am fully alive to the necessity of relieving the Army from any general imputation of malpractice, and the House may rely upon it that individuals against whom misconduct or neglect of duty may be established will be dealt with without fear or favour. At the same time, I would point out that it is necessary to proceed with care where the reputation and character of individuals, whether in the service or not connected with it, are concerned. Perhaps I may remind the House that an officer who was selected for frequent animadversion by hon. Members, brought

  447
  his case before a Court of law and obtained the withdrawal of the charge, and an apology. In conclusion, I may say that the best guarantee against incidents such as those now the subject of complaint is the establishment of a proper organisation for dealing with purchases, contracts, and payments in time of war. The Army Council are fully sensible of this, and last year established a new organisation expressly charged with the duty of dealing with matters of this kind in the field.
  *MR. NORMAN: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very full reply, but may I remind him that the Question referred only to the past, and many of the alleged malpractices are of very long standing.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I hope the hon. Member will pardon me for having made an addition to the actual Answer to the Question.
  *MR. NORMAN: I have already thanked the right hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. NORMAN: I beg further to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will furnish the names of the contractors mentioned anonymously in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General; and, in the case of any name not being given, will he state the reason for withholding such name.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the names of the firms refered to in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, under the heading "Sales of Surplus Supplies as, A, B, and C."
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The reply to this and a similar Question by the hon. Member for West Newington, is that the names of the three firms are: Messrs. E. Stepney, Messrs. Meyer and Co., Messrs. Wilson and Worthington. I am aware of no reason for withholding the names of these, or of any other firm. I have already furnished them in response to a request by another hon. Member of the House.
  *MR. NORMANasked if the names as now given corresponded with the alphabetical order of the anonymous contractors in the Report.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is a Question I am unable to answer now; perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of the Question?
  *MR. NORMAN: That is the whole point of the Question—to enable us to identify the coutiactors.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is it a fact that the names of two of the three contractors are on the list for 1904–5?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must ask for notice of the Question; but it must not be assumed from the fact that firms are mentioned that it is proof that they are in any way guilty of misconduct.
  CAPTAIN NORTON. Seeing that during the late war contractors who had been guilty of malpractices were replaced on the list, will the right hon. Gentleman take care that for the future the names shall be permanently struck off?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I make no admissions as to the correctness or otherwise of the hon. and gallant Member's statement.
  *MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that quantities of stores, many of them of an imperishable nature, such as wire netting, sent out for the service of the troops in South Africa, after remaining for some time upon the quays of certain South African ports, were reloaded upon steamers and jettisoned at sea; if he can state the amount and the value of these stores; by whose orders they were thus destroyed; what sums wore paid to the owners of the steamers for these services; and why such of these stores as were not of a perishable nature were not sold.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Nothing whatever can be traced at the War Office of the matter alluded to in the Question. I shall be much obliged if the

  449
  hon. Member will communicate to me the source of his information to enable me to make further inquiries.
  *MR. NORMAN: I will, so far as I am at liberty to do so.
  *MR. MACONOCHIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private notice, viz., whether he will expedite the discussion on the question of the liability of the contractors in regard to the disclosures made recently, as they are suffering severely by the delay.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I can quite understand the very great anxiety of all those who, even in the most distant way, have been touched in connection with the subject of these Army contracts to have a discussion in this House as soon as possible, and I can assure my hon. friend, as I assured the House last Thursday, that it is our earnest desire to bring on the discussion at the very first moment at which it can be fruitfully and profitably undertaken by the House. My hon. friend will, however, see, as the House, I think, sees, that to bring it on before all the facts are in such a state that the House can deal with them would be neither in the interests of the House itself, in the interests of the public, nor in the interests of the contractors; but I will do my best to meet my hon. friend's views.

  Highland Light Infantry.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst the officers and men of the Highland Light Infantry at the arrangement under which the regiment is not brigaded with other Highland regiments, but has been assigned to a depot in the Lowlands of Scotland; and will he arrange for the depot of all Highland regiments to be in the Highlands.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: I must refer the hon. Member to a reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Midlothian on the 8th instant,†from which he will
  † (4) Debates, cxlii., 706.
  450
  gather that the depot of the Highland Light Infantry has been at Hamilton since 1881. There is no intention of making a change.
  MR. MALCOLM: Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold to the opinion that regimental depots must go?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir; I do very strongly think it would be very greatly to the public advantage that the existing regimental depot system should be altered.

  War Office Payment to the Rhodesian Railway.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when is he prepared, as promised, to deal fully with the payment of £60,000 to the Rhodesian railways contained-in the Army Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This matter will arise whenever the Supplementary Estimates come on for discussion.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, in making arrangements for the discussion of the Army Supplementary Estimates, opportunity will be given for a full statement upon the payment of £60,000 to the Rhodesian railways instead of the £24,000 offered last year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be glad to do anything in my power to meet the views of hon. Members, but the distribution of time between the different Votes is not within the control of the Government. It is impossible for me to give any pledge, not knowing how much time hon. Gentlemen may consider necessary or desirable for the discussion of previous Votes. In correction of a statement made at the previous sitting it should be understood that the Secretary of State for War will make his statement on the Army Estimates on the Motion for into Committee.
  MR. BUCHANAN: All I ask is that the Secretary of State for War shall have an opportunity to redeem his promise.

  The War Office and the Wicklow County Council.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a copy of a resolution recently passed by the Wicklow County Council, to the effect that the council consents for one year to the by-laws submitted on behalf of the War Office, provided that the War Office pay to the general fund of the county council as compensation to the ratepayers of Baltinglass and the surrounding districts for the loss of user, and the stoppage of the roads around the Glen of Imaal range, a sum of £400 on or before the 30th April, 1905, for the year 1905, the question of paying for the costs incurred by the increased traffic on these roads to be arranged hereafter between the War Office and the county council, or, in lieu thereof, the sum of £60 annually hitherto paid, with the arrears due, be secured to the council; and, if so, will he say whether the War Office accepts the conditions as laid down by the Wicklow County Council in the resolution.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. The matter is under consideration.

  Coolie Labour in Rand Mines—Enlistment at Canton.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Viceroy of Canton has again forbidden the enlistment in his province of coolies for the Rand mines; and, if so, if he will state what reasons have been given by the Viceroy for this action.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): The Answer is, as far as I am aware, in the negative. The matter is without importance, as all recruiting for the Rand mines for some time past has been carried on in the North of China.

  Dissatisfied Coolies on board ss. "Courtfield."
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the ss.
  452
  "Courtfield," carrying 1,342 Chinese labourers for the Transvaal, was stopped at Singapore on 15th February owing to the Chinese refusing to proceed further, and that the Protector of Chinese of the Straits Settlements, accompanied by a police officer, boarded the ship at the request of the captain in order to pacify the coolies; and if he will state what was the cause of this occurrence.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have received the following account of the occurrence from the Governor of the Straits Settlements by telegraph: "Captain of ship reported to Protector of Chinese that he believed that Chinese coolies were in a mutinous condition; he was advised to ask for police protection. European drill instructor and a few Sikhs taken on board during the night. Protector went on board next morning, and, on careful examination, found coolies very good tempered and quite content. Captain of ship and Agent reported further arrangements police protection unnecessary. Ship left next morning."

  Indian Civil Administration—Appeal Rules.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when any alterations or modifications were last made in the rules and regulations governing the submission of appeals to higher authorities over the orders and decisions of provincial officials and administrations in India, and if he will place upon the Table of the House a copy of the rules and regulations now in force; also if he will state how many appeals of this character were submitted for the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council during the six years ending 31st December, 1904, giving the number in each year separately, and showing how many of these were forwarded to the Secretary of State for orders, and how many were withheld in India, and how these statistics compared with the corresponding figures for the six years ending 31st December, 1898.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BROURICK, Surrey, Guildford): The last occasion when alterations

  453
  were made in the rules governing the submission of appeals to the Government of India from the orders of subordinate authorities and to the Secretary of State in Council from the orders of the Government of India and the Governments of Madras and Bombay was in January last, when the rules as last revised were published in the Gazette of India. The rules will be found in the issue of that Gazette for the 21st January, 1905, which is in the Library; but I shall be ready to lay them on the Table if my hon. friend will move for them. The statistics asked for by my hon. friend cover a period of twelve years, and it will take some time to collect them.

  Madras Plague Precautions—Kuppam Outbreak.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the successful action taken by the Madras municipal authorities in repressing a recent outbreak of plague in the fishing village of Kuppam; whether he is aware that the measures by which plague has been kept out of the city of Madras have met with popular approval; and whether he will invite the Government in other Provinces to follow the example of Madras, and to take measures of plague prevention in consultation with the municipal and rural local authorities.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have seen accounts of the case, which reflects great credit on the local health officers. The hamlet, however, was very favourably situated for the early discovery of the outbreak, and for prompt and effective action to stop its spread. All Provinces in India have rules which prescribe that similar preventive measures shall be taken by Government officers in consultation with the municipal and rural authorities, and with the concurrence of the people. But the degree of success attained must necessarily depend on local circumstances.

  Stamp Duty on Customs Bonds.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the incidence of the Stamp
  454
  Duty on Customs Bonds, and particularly to the disadvantage at which small traders are placed by the present practice under which the holders of general bonds in the majority of cases are not required to pay Stamp Duty, while small traders not able to enter into a general bond are required to pay Stamp Duty on every single transaction; and whether, in the interest of the revenue and smaller traders, he could have this practice revised.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this matter and I am now considering it.

  Penal Servitude Bill.
  SIR ERNEST FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is intended to reintroduce this session the Penal Servitude Bill.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I am not prepared to reintroduce the Penal Servitude Bill this session unless I find on inquiry that it is likely to be treated as non-contentious.

  Companies Acts—Committee of Inquiry.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the Companies Acts has commenced its sittings; in what building the inquiry will be held; and whether it is open to the public.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): The Committee appointed to inquire into the Companies Acts began its sittings on the 23rd February. The inquiry is being held at the Board of Trade, but is not open to the public.

  Learners in Scottish Post Offices.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are only four post offices in Scotland where learners are appointed by

  455
  open competition; and, if so, will he consider the expediency of making the appointment of learner subject to open competition throughout the United Kingdom.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): It is the fact that there are now only four offices in Scotland at which learners are appointed by open competition. The competition system was adopted at those offices as an experiment; and the question whether it should be extended is under consideration.
  MR. WEIR: It is a very bad experiment, working most unsatisfactorily.

  Shetland Cable—Damage by Trawlers.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can ascertain if the damage to the Shetland cable was caused by trawlers working within the three-mile limit; and, if so, will he consider what steps it is advisable to take to prevent a recurrence of such mischief.
  LORD STANLEY: It is not improbable that the damage to the cable to which the hon. Member refers was caused by trawlers. The question of how such damage can be avoided has received consideration, and I will see whether it is possible to take any further steps in the matter.

  Physical Condition of School Children— Johanna Street Council School.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, on the occasion of his visit to the Johanna Street Board School, he found any children unfit to attend to the duties of the school in a proper way; whether he has any reason to think that Dr. Eichholz in his evidence before the Committee on Physical Deterioration exaggerated the proportion of such children; and whether public money is still spent at this school in providing instruction which the children cannot, from their physical condition, attend to.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,):On the occasion of my visit to the Johanna Street Council School the children were attending to the duties of the school in a proper way, but I think that many of them might with advantage have been provided with a curriculum more suited to their capacities. I am not in a position to criticise the medical evidence of Dr. Eichholz, but I have good reasons for thinking that it may not be final. The school is still being conducted as a public elementary school.
  SIR JOHN GORST: May I inquire whether the teachers were asked whether the children were capable of receiving their instruction.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I made careful inquiry into the condition of the school, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes I will give him my conclusions.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the Question and say whether, on the occasion of his visit he found any children unfit to attend to the duties of the school in a proper way.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The children were all attending to the duties of the school. As I have said, I think many of them might have been provided with a more suitable curriculum.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to give notice that in Committee of Supply on the Education Vote I shall move the reduction of the grant for public elementary schools by £500,000 in respect of the children who are attending public elementary schools in a condition totally unfit to receive instruction.

  Inter-Departmental Committee on the Physical Condition of School Children.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, whether he will give the names of the Departmental Committee which the President of the Board of Education has appointed for the purpose of providing useful and precise information on the physical condition of children in public elementary schools and the date of their

  457
  appointment; what methods the Committee have adopted for obtaining information more precise than that furnished to the Committee on Physical Deterioration by Dr. Eichholz and other witnesses; and to what use the information thus provided has been put.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: An Inter-Departmental Committee, consisting of Mr. H. W. Simpkinson, C.B., Assistant Secretary of the Board of Education, Chairman; Mr. H. Franklin Parsons, M.D., Assistant Medical Officer under the Local Government Board; Mr. C. Jackson, Chief Inspector of Elementary Schools under the Board of Education; The Hon. Maude Lawrence, Chief Woman Inspector of the Board of Education; Mr. R. Walrond, Senior Examiner of the Board of Education; with Mr. E. H. Pelham, Junior Examiner of the Board of Education, as Secretary, was appointed on March 9th to collect certain information as to the medical inspection of children in elementary schools, and as to the provision of meals for such children by voluntary agencies. I am sending the right hon. Member the terms of reference. I am not prepared to state the methods which the Committee will employ for obtaining this information. But I hope that they will provide information more thorough and precise than any which we at present possess; and will enable deductions to be drawn less indefinite in character than those which are supplied in the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether this is a Departmental Committee appointed to consider or to revise the findings of another Departmental Committee?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No, Sir. It was appointed to collect facts which may be very useful.

  St. Joseph's School, Nymphsfield, Gloucestershire.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that St. Joseph's School at Nymphsfield was opened on October 29th, 1900, at the suggestion of His Majesty's Inspector,
  458
  and at the request of a majority of parents, Catholic and Protestant, because of the inefficiency of the Church of England school; that the inspectors have continued to inspect the school, have insisted on the conscience clause, and in other respects treated it as a public elementary school; that in February, 1903, the plans of the new school building were approved by the Board of Education; and whether, seeing that under the proposals made by the local education committee a heavy expense will fall on the ratepayers if the Church school is to be repaired, he will now direct the holding of a public inquiry into the whole matter.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board and its inspectors from the outset always made it quite clear to the managers of the St. Joseph's School at Nymphsfield that it was not and could not be recognised as a public elementary school. In approving the plans for the new school building in February, 1903, the Board stated that no hope could be held out that the proposed school would become eligible for Parliamentary grants, and inquired whether the managers, in view of all the circumstances of the case, considered that they were well advised in proceeding further in the matter. The inspector also communicated with the managers to the same effect. The Board have considered the case and given their decision, which is final. There appears to be no reason for a public inquiry.

  Ladies' Gallery—Lighting Arrangements
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if, in view of the fact that in the Ladies' Gallery it is often quite dark, he will inquire into the possibility of lighting it up.
  LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner will give the matter his immediate attention.

  Scottish Fisheries—Protection against Illegal Trawling.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that the fishery, cruisers at the disposal of the

  459
  Fishery Board for Scotland are insufficient for the protection of the interests of line fishermen from the depredations of illegal trawlers; and will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of approaching the Treasury for the requisite funds for an additional cruiser.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): I must remind the hon. Member that the £15,000 now available for marine superintendence is placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board in terms of Section 2 (3) of the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898, and marine superintendence is provided to the full capacity of the funds. No Vote is taken for this purpose, and the Secretary for Scotland does not therefore see his way to approach the Treasury for funds.

  Scottish County Medical Officers of Health.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate how many county medical officers of health in Scotland now engage in general or consultative practice.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I am informed by the Local Government Board that the number is six.

  Crofter Holdings in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state what progress has been made by the Congested Districts Board in their negotiations with the proprietor of the Island of Lewis for the sub-division of the farm of Aignish, Lewis, into crofter holdings, and the nature of any arrangements on the subject which may have been entered into.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The proprietor has selected tenants for the thirty-two crofts into which this farm is to be subdivided. Tenders have been invited for the necessary roads and drainage and also for the houses to be erected on the crofts.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the Question?
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: My Answer contains all the information I have.

  Rents on the Culloden Estate, Ross-shire.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that tenants under the Crofters Act, 1886, on the Culloden Estate, Muir of Ord, Ross-shire, have had fair rents fixed by the Crofters Commission and arrears of rent cancelled, whilst their neighbours on the same estate who are leaseholders are being pressed for arrears of rent under a process of ejectment; and will he consider the expediency of so amending the law that both classes of tenants may be placed on an equal footing.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I learn that in the case of one leaseholder only, with whose circumstances the hon. Member is fully acquainted, have proceedings been taken. In one or two other cases where no payment on account of rent at the last collection was made, letters requesting a payment to account have been issued. The Secretary for Scotland does not propose to legislate in the sense suggested.

  Crofters and the Highland Deer Forests
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland will introduce legislation to compel the owners of deer forests in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland so to fence in their forests as to prevent deer from ravaging the crops of crofters on adjoining lands.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON; The matter engaging the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, but he is unable to promise legislation this session.

  The Scottish Fishery Board.
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland can see his way to appoint one or more practical fishermen to be members of the Fishery Board for Scotland.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: When vacancies occur the Secretary for Scotland will give due consideration to practical knowledge in making his selection, but he cannot give any undertaking in the sense suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. WEIR: Is it not the fact that one member of the Board is the owner

  461
  of a small ironmonger's shop in Rothesay and knows nothing whatever about fishing?
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I have no knowledge on the point.
  MR. WEIR: Well, it is a fact.

  Science Teaching in Irish Schools.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if elementary science, as recommended by the Committee of Manual and Practical Instruction, is about to be discontinued in primary schools with a view to cutting down Treasury expenses; and, if so, what is the actual annual cost of this branch of education, and the amount of the grant to be continued.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg also to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if, having regard to the fact that there were 8,700 schools and 13,100 teachers to be trained in experimental science, and that as yet only forty per cent. of the teachers are qualified in Part I. and only five per cent. in Parts I. and II. experimental science, owing entirely to the short limit of time allowed and the fewness of the organisers supplied, steps will be taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer these Questions. The teaching of elementary science will not be discontinued. On the contrary, instruction in this branch is progressing in national schools, and there is no reason to anticipate that it will diminish in the future. The Commissioners of National Education have not applied for a continuance of the service of six sub-organisers of elementary science after the end of the current financial year, and in accordance with an arrangement with the Treasury in the year 1900, the employment of these sub-organisers will accordingly terminate on the 31st inst. But the Treasury have sanctioned permanently the continuance of the services of the head organiser and of two of his assistants, and the grants for service apparatus have also been
  462
  continued. In answer to the remaining inquiries in the hon. Member's two Questions, I beg to refer him to the published Estimates and to the reply given on the 7th inst.† to the Question of the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division.

  Land Purchase in County Limerick— Gascoigne Estate.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that applications for the sale of the Gascoigne Estate in and around Kilfinane, in the county of Limerick, have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners; and that a petition has been lodged with the Commissioners by the Town Tenants' Association of Kilfinane on behalf of the inhabitant occupiers of that town; and whether, seeing that untenanted land previously in the occupation of the landlord and situated at Spa Hill, near the town, has been lately broken into small applotments and assigned to the estate bailiff, thus creating a new tenancy and frustrating the intention of the Land Act of 1903, while other applotments have been advertised for sale by public auction, so that the landlord may have two profits, one from the tenant right, and the other from the purchase money to be advanced by the Estates Commissioners, he will say what action the Commissioners will take on the petition.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This estate has not yet come before the Estates Commissioners. The petition referred to has been received and will be duly considered when occasion arises.
  MR. LUNDON: Has any Department received an application in respect of this?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously I cannot answer such a Question without notice.

  Land Act Administration—Rules and Regulations.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government or the Lord-Lieutenant
  † See (4) Debates, cxlii., 562.

  463
  has issued any regulations, directions, or instructions, in correspondence or otherwise, to the Estates Commissioners, causing an alteration in any way of their policy or administration of the Land Act of 1903 in respect to evicted tenants, or the sales of estates, or any other matter connected with their administration of the Act; and, if so, whether these regulations, directions, or instructions will be laid upon the Table of the House, in accordance with the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Dover, on behalf of the Government, on July 1st, 1903.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It was stated by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover on February 20th † that no regulations of the character mentioned in Section 23, Sub-section 8, of the Act had been made, but that communications of a Departmental and confidential nature had passed between him and the Commissioners. Having regard to the experience that has been obtained of the working of the Act, I am now considering whether the time has not arrived for formulating such regulations as are contemplated by Section 23 (8) and publishing them in the manner that may be deemed most satisfactory and convenient.

  Irish Land Act Finance.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that under the Irish Land Act of 1903 the State is pledged to find the money required to enable the agricultural tenants on properties declared to be estates within the meaning of the Act, to purchase their holdings as soon as they have come to terms with their landlords, he will say whether the Act contains any provision for delaying such purchases beyond the period necessary for deducing title; if not, by what authority, and by whose order, are the loans now stated to be limited to £5,000,000 a year; is he aware that over 10,000 tenants are waiting for completion of purchases they have agreed to make; and will steps be taken during this session to provide at least £10,000,000 more stock before
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 609.
  464
  Parliament rises if that amount is required by reason of the success of the Act, and having regard to the rise in the value of the stock since the last issue.
  MR. WALTER LONG: My right hon. friend the Member for Dover when introducing the Irish Land Bill on March 25th, 1903, said: "I say emphatically that it will be neither financially prudent, nor administratively possible, to expand these operations at a pace so high as to make us come to the City for more than £5,000,000 a year in any one of the first three years after the passing of this Bill. It could not be done." There is no express provision in the Irish Land Act, 1903, limiting advances by the National Debt Commissioners to £5,000,000 a year from the Land Purchase Fund. But that fund is financed by the issue of Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock, and Section 28, Sub-section 3, of the Act provides that "The stock may be issued at such times, in such amounts, and subject to such conditions as to payment of deposits, etc., as the Treasury may direct." It is the case that a large number of tenants are awaiting the completion of purchases which they have agreed to make. As to the latter part of the Question, I am not prepared to make any statement at present.

  Rules of Commissioners of National Education—Instruction in the Irish Language.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of Rule 4 of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, which states that the Commissioners do not change any fundamental rule without the express permission of the Lord-Lieutenant, the Commissioners have sought for the express permission of the Lord-Lieutenant to change the rule relating to the payment of special fees for extra subjects so that, in future, no fees are to be allowed for Irish for pupils under Fourth Standard, and Irish is not to be allowed to be taught as an extra subject outside school hours by the ordinary teachers in schools which do not show merit; and whether, in view

  465
  of the expression of opinion on this matter in this House twelve months ago, and the promises made by the Chief Secretary, the express permission of the Lord-Lieutenant to change this rule has been granted; and whether, in deference to Irish opinion, steps will be taken to have these restrictions on the teaching of Irish as an extra subject removed.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in stating that the Commissioners are precluded from changing any fundamental rule without the express permission of the Lord-Lieutenant. But the rule, No. 123, under which fees for Irish as an extra subject outside school hours are paid, is not a fundamental rule. My right hon. friend the Member for Dover undertook to communicate with the Commissioners with a view to the removal of some doubts created by the Circular of January, 1904, and as result of this communication a further Circular was issued in March. The terms of the latter were outlined by my right hon. friend on March 15th. I cannot give any undertaking that the conditions prescribed by this Circular, and which appear to me to be perfectly reasonable, will be withdrawn. They do not exclude children from obtaining instruction in Irish, nor do they impose undue restrictions on its teaching. It must be borne in mind that these Circulars do not in any way interfere with the teaching of Irish in national schools during school hours, for which, however, no special fee is payable. Irish may be taught during school hours to every pupil in every national school, provided the adequacy of the course of instruction in the ordinary curriculum is not thereby impaired or hampered. Correspondence has passed and is still proceeding between the Commissioners, the Irish Government, and the Treasury with respect to the adoption for a limited period of a modified scale of fees for Irish, instead of the existing fee of 10s. per pupil. In connection with this matter, I must point out that when the rule under which payments for Irish and other extra subjects was sanctioned in 1901, it was on the express understanding that the total payments for extras, including Irish,
  466
  French, Latin, Arithmetic, and Geometry, would not exceed £2,000 per annum. It appears, however, that in 1904 no less a sum than —12,069 was expended in payments for the teaching of Irish alone. This is a matter which requires and will receive the serious consideration of Government.

  Irish National School Teachers' Emoluments.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that by agreement signed between the Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) and those teachers who were in training at the time of the abolition of the results system, the latter had assured unto them the same emoluments as they would have received under that system; and whether he can state by what authority the Commissioners have reduced the initial salaries so secured.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The agreement entered into between the Commissioners and the teachers in training does not contain any provision of the nature suggested. The form of agreement which was in use when the results system was abolished, and is still in use, is set forth in Schedule VII. to the Rules of the Commissioners. Teachers, as a rule, now receive higher incomes upon first being appointed to national schools than they received under the former regulations.

  Iveagh-Pirrie Motor Scheme.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what development has taken place in the Iveagh-Pirrie scheme of motor traction in Ireland, and in how many of the seventeen experimental districts already surveyed and investigated has the scheme been put in operation.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. and learned friend to Questions on the same subject put by the hon. Member for South Down on the 2nd†
  † See (4) Debates, cxlii., 187.

  467
  and 9th instant.† I have no further information in the matter.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of officials in various Irish Departments were put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover at the disposal of these gentlemen for this scheme, and are we to understand there is no result after all these years?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member must realise it is impossible for me to answer supplementary Questions as to which I have no knowledge of what has been going on during the last few weeks. If there is any information I can obtain for him I will inquire.
  MR. FLYNN: We are not responsible for the change in the Irish Secretaryship.

  King Harman Estate, County Roscommon.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Estates Commissioners to secure all the non-residential or grazing farms on the King-Harman Estate, county Roscommon, for redistribution amongst the tenants of uneconomic holdings; if so, will he explain why they are negotiating with Mr. Robert V. Stoney for the sale to him of three non-residential or grazing farms at Knockadoo, containing 78, 140, and 107 acres respectively; and whether, seeing the necessity that exists in this locality for securing untenanted lands, will he instruct the Estates Commissioners to secure these farms for the purpose of redistribution.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are taking steps to secure certain non-residential farms on this estate for distribution amongst the tenants of small holdings. There are, on Mr. Stoney's holding, twelve sub-tenants, who are now purchasing their divisions. The Commissioners are considering the question whether they will make the advance sought by Mr. Stoney for the remainder of his holding.
  † (See (4) Debates, cxlii., 929.

  Teachers in Irish Schools—Effect of New Rule.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to enforce Rule 127 (b) as given in the revised edition of 1905; and whether, in view of the disapproval of the proposed rule expressed by managers and teachers and to the probable effect of such in replacing trained male teachers by women teachers, he will order its withdrawal.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The rule has not yet come into operation. It has been made solely in the interests of children under eight years of age, and the necessity for such a rule was emphasised in Mr. Dale's Report on primary education. At their meeting held on Tuesday last the Commissioners adopted a resolution defining a "suitable" school to mean a school in which there is adequate accommodation of a satisfactory kind, in which the teaching of infants is efficient, and in which the teaching staff is of the same religious denomination as in the neighbouring boys' school. The Commissioners further decided that in any case in which the enforcement of the rule would lead to the loss of an assistant teacher, such case will be specially considered on the application of the manager, and that boys over seven years of age who are fit to be enrolled in the 2nd Standard may be transferred to a boys' school.

  Lislea National School, County Armagh.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the grounds upon which the National Education Commissioners refuse to appoint a local non-clerical manager of the Lislea No. 1 National School, county Armagh.
  MR. WALTER LONG: When a vacancy arises in such a case as this, it is the practice of the Commissioners to recognise the clerical successor of the former manager. The school is being conducted satisfactorily under the present temporary manager, and the Commissioners do not propose to recognise a

  469
  permanent manager until the successor of the former clerical manager has been appointed to the locality.
  MR. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman resides twenty-five miles from the school?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Mr. Hancock's Estate, County Roscommon.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether proposals for the sale of the estate of Mr. Hancock, county Roscommon, have been received by the Estates Commissioners; whether he is aware that the landlord has refused to sell to six tenants living on the town-land of Lackan; and, if so, whether the Commissioners will refuse to sanction a sale unless these tenants are included in it.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Estates Commissioners have received no originating application or request in respect of the sale of this estate. They have no knowledge of the circumstance referred to in the Question, and can express no opinion thereon until the facts are fully before them.

  Clarke Estate, County Cork.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state to whom the untenanted land acquired by the Estates Commissioners on the Clarke Estate, county Cork, has been allocated; and whether, after provision is made for the evicted tenants on the estate, preference will be given to the claims of evicted tenants in the immediate neighbourhood who are unable to obtain possession of their former holdings from the present occupiers.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The question of the allocation of untenanted lands on this estate is still under consideration by the Estates Commissioners, who are making arrangements for the reinstatement of persons who have been evicted from holdings on the estate. The claims of other evicted tenants in the neighbourhood will subsequently be considered.

  Local Government Inquiries—Shorthand Writer's Fees.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the District Council of Birr have recently refused to pay the shorthand writer's fees for attending a recent Local Government inquiry, on the ground that such fees were excessive and could be avoided if the services of capable local reporters were utilised instead of bringing a man specially from Dublin; and, if so, whether, having regard to the continued complaints made by local authorities against the continuance of this practice at public inquiries, he will take steps to prevent it in future by employing local men.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Local Government Board have received no information to the effect stated in the first part of the Question. The fees for shorthand writing in the case referred to were not increased by the employment of a shorthand writer from Dublin, as no travelling expenses were claimed or allowed. It is the practice of the Board's inspectors to select local shorthand writers for this service when competent men are available, but it would be undesirable to lay down a hard and fast rule that none but local men should be employed.

  Mr. Mowbray's Estate, County Monaghan.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the estate of Mr. C. F. Mowbray, Errigal, Truagh, county Monaghan, is in process of being sold under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; whether the vendor has consented to restore three out of four evicted tenants; and if the Estates Commissioners can take any action to secure that Mrs. McKenna, evicted in 1899, shall be restored to her holding previous to the sale being completed.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No proceedings for the sale of this estate have yet come before the Estates Commissioners. An application for reinstatement has been received from Mrs. McKenna, and this will be duly considered in the event of proceedings for sale of the estate.

  Cautwell Estate, County Dublin.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a considerable portion of the Cautwell Estate, in the county of Dublin, which has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners, has been sold by them to a person who was neither a tenant on the estate nor an evicted tenant, nor a small tenant on a neighbouring estate; and, if so, by what authority such a sale was authorised.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This estate, which was purchased by the Estates Commissioners under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, has been sold to six persons. Two of these persons were tenants on the estate and at the same time tenants on an adjoining estate; two others were evicted tenants; and the remaining two were the representatives of deceased evicted tenants. The provisions of Section 2 (1) apply to each of these purchasers.

  Butler Estate, County Dublin.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in disposing of the Butler Estate, in the county of Dublin, due consideration will be given to the claims of the small tenants on adjoining estates for an enlargement of their holdings, and of evicted tenants in that county.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This estate was purchased by the Estates Commissioners under Section 7 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants, and the lands have, accordingly, been distributed amongst three evicted tenants.

  Butson Estate, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a few months ago negotiations were in progress between the tenants on the Butson Estate, county Galway, and the nominal owner for the purchase of untenanted land on the estate; that the Land Judge was selling to Mrs. Butson 800 acres for £12,000;
  472
  that Mrs. Butson offered to sell to the tenants, for the purpose of enlarging their uneconomic holdings, 300 acres for over £6,000; that the negotiations have fallen through because the tenants refused to purchase at the price demanded; and that these tenants are now being proceeded against for the hanging gale; and, if so, can he state at what date the hanging gale was incurred.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed that the sale to Mrs. Butson of 800 acres of land had been completed before any question arose as to the resale by her of 300 acres, part thereof, to the tenants. The Land Judge had no power to compel Mrs. Butson to resell the land, nor could he exercise any control as to the price demanded. The negotiations with the tenants having fallen through, the receiver has been instructed, in the usual course, to take proceedings for the recovery of the arrears of rent actually due.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last line of the Question? Is it forty years ago?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Strokestown District Inspector of Police.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing in the Kilglass district, county Roscommon, by reason of the fact that the district inspector of police at Strokestown brings his dogs and ferrets on the lauds of Clooneen to kill rabbits, with the result that ewes in lamb have been chased about and cattle driven over the fences; and whether, in view of the reduction of the police force now going on in Ireland, he will recommend the abolition of Strokestown as a separate district and its amalgamation with a neighbouring district.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The district inspector states that he has never had his dogs on these lands, and the suggestion that sheep and cattle have been chased by them is therefore unfounded. There is no intention to abolish the district station at Strokestown.

  Irish Civil Service "Junior Clerks."
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as the term junior clerk is not recognised by the Civil Service Commissioners, he will state to what class of officials the Department of Agriculture applies the term; and whether it is correct to describe as such the Catholic gentlemen who have eleven years service under the Crown, and whose work (the drafting and writing of correspondence, interviewing callers, and conducting of registries) requires initiative and training.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The term "junior clerk" is a popular designation of clerks who are in the lower grades of the Civil Service.

  Newport District (Mayo) Police Surgeon.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the doctor who was appointed police surgeon for the districts of Newport, Glenhest, and Mallaranny, county Mayo, in succession to Dr. Gill, late of Newport, resides in Westport, the town to which Dr. Gill has removed, and for which he was asked to send in his resignation, being outside the above police districts; and will he explain why the successor to Dr. Gill, who resides in Newport, did not get the appointment.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The hon. Member has on to-day's Paper two unstarred Questions which bear on this subject, and, with his permission, I will deal with all three together. My right hon. and learned friend has recently informed the hon. Member what were the circumstances in which Dr. Gill was required to resign. It is the fact that the gentleman who has been appointed to succeed him as medical attendant at the stations named resides at Westport, but, unlike Dr. Gill, he holds no appointment which could interfere with his attendance on the police. There is no rule which requires that Constabulary medical attendants should reside in the districts for which they are appointed. The appointment of these gentlemen rests with the Inspector-General, who consults
  474
  the interests of the men concerned and makes the best selection possible.
  Appended are the unstarred Questions referred to:—
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether police surgeons in Ireland must live within the district to which they are appointed.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why, in appointing a police surgeon for the district of Newport, county Mayo, did the police authorities select a man eight miles outside the district.

  School Teachers' Pay—Newry Memorial.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of Education have received a memorial from members of public boards in Newry, asking that those teachers who were in the training colleges when the new rules were issued in 1900, and who were bound by agreement to enter the service of the Commissioners after training, should be remunerated in accordance with the scale which was in operation at the time the agreements were entered into; whether these teachers have received special consideration, as promised in the footnote to the new rules; and, if so, what is the result of the special consideration.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The memorial referred to has been received by the Commissioners. The agreement signed by teachers on entering a training college binds them to follow the calling of teacher in a public elementary school, and imposes on them the liability to forfeit the cost of their training in the event of their failing to fulfil a probationary service of two years as teacher. There is nothing in the agreement which binds the Commissioners to employ such teachers under any particular set of rules. The interests of teachers who were actually in the Commissioners' service prior to 1900 were, as a matter of fact, preserved by the new rules. Any such teachers who were in training colleges

  475
  in 1899–1900 received special consideration when their incomes were fixed under the new rules; and this special consideration consisted in the promotion in grade to which they would have been entitled by reason of their having entered training colleges. Other students in training in 1900, who had never been employed as principal or assistant teachers under the Commissioners, had no claim to special consideration.

  Howth Harbour Dredging Operations.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the North Dublin District Council, in which the complaint is made that the dredger at present employed in dredging Howth Harbour deposits the stuff which it removes in such a place that the incoming tides wash it all in again to the mouth of the harbour; and whether, if there be foundation for this complaint, directions will be given by the Board of Works to have the operations of the dredger referred to conducted with a view to the effective discharge of the work which it is set to accomplish.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): No such resolution has been forwarded to the Board of Works. The Board's officers carefully selected the position in which the dredger deposits and I understand there has been no occurrence such as described in the Question.
  MR. CLANCY: The Question will be repeated, for the resolution I refer to in it has been published.

  Dublin Port and Docks—Dockmastership.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade under what circumstances is Mr. Manders, first mate of the Commissioners of Irish Lights steam yacht "Alexandra," serving under the Dublin Port and Docks Board in the temporary capacity of dockmaster; how long has he been employed in this position; and whether his services under the Irish Lights Board will be considered as continuous for the purposes of promotion and pension
  MR. BONAR LAW: The Board of Trade are informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that this officer being a candidate for the appointment of dock-master under the Dublin Port and Docks Board, the Commissioners gave him leave of absence to act as the temporary dock-master during the illness of the present occupant of the position, and that Mr. Manders, who pays the salary of his substitute on the "Alexandra," has now been, on leave for four months. Should he return to the service of the Commissioners after a period not exceeding twelve months, his service under them would, in accordance with the practice ruling in the Civil Service, count as continuous, but he would not be entitled to count for pension purposes the time during which he was in the employment of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The question of promotion is one entirely for the Commissioners.

  Ballina Post Office Staff.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if, in view of the fact that in February, 1904, after due inquiry, it was decided to increase the staff in Ballina, county Mayo, post office by six male sorting clerks and telegraphists, and that this decision his not yet been acted upon, he will state the cause of delay; and if he can say when it is proposed to make the necessary additions to the Ballina staff.
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. Proposals for changes in the staff at the Ballina office are under consideration, but there is no question of increasing the number of male sorting clerks and telegraphists by as many as six. I hope that a decision will be arrived at shortly.

  Higher Education in Ireland.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that, while no grant whatever out of Imperial funds has been made for the purpose of a system of higher education of which Catholics in Ireland can conscientiously avail themselves, the grants in aid of the University Colleges in England have in the last twenty-five years risen from an annual sum of £15,000 per annum to a sum of £54,000

  477
  per annum in 1904–5, and that it is now proposed by the University Colleges Committee to increase such annual grant to the sum of £100,000 per annum, he will say whether that recommendation has been endorsed by the Treasury; and whether it is the intention to include such increase in the Estimates for the coming financial year.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that University Colleges in England, apart from the Universities which are in receipt of grants out of Imperial Funds, number upwards of a dozen, and that there are not any such institutions in Ireland of which Catholics can conscientiously avail themselves, it is now contemplated to increase the grants to those institutions to £100,000 per annum; and whether, if it is so contemplated, he will refuse to sanction any increase in the grants referred to while no provision is made for the higher education of Catholics in Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are some adjectives in the hon. Member's Question which suggest controversy; and I will content myself by saying to the hon. Member that the actual amount which I understand to be on the Votes for higher education in Ireland is £33,416, and it is proposed to give for English higher education £100,000, which will appear on the Estimates. I ought to add that under the English system four times the amount is required from local subscriptions before anything is derived from the public funds.
  MR. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say, in mentioning the figures regarding Ireland, that there is any single institution in that country of University character of which an Irish Catholic can conscientiously avail himself?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is really a very difficult Question for me to answer. I understand that English Roman Catholics go to Oxford and Cambridge.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is Scotland to have any share in the increased grant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The original Question has no reference to Scotland. I must ask the hon. Member to put his Question on the Paper.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Did I correctly understand the right hon. Gentleman to answer to the effect that the provision on the Estimates for higher education in England was to be raised from £54,000 to £100,000 this year and that no additional provision whatever is to be made for Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, that is true.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: We will see about that.
  MR. CLANCY: Has the Prime Minister recanted his views on Irish University education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; although few people may be prepared to agree with me, my opinion in regard to Irish University education stands as it will be found in a published letter which I have never withdrawn.

  Fiscal Reform—India and the Colonial Conference.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any representative of the Government of India will be summoned to the Colonial Conference of 1906.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the calling together of this Conference and the delegation to it of any question of fiscal reform should take place under the auspices of the present Government, of course India will be represented.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Military Manœuvres Act, 1897." [Military Manœuvres Bill [Lords.]
NEW BILLS.

  LEASEHOLDERS (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
  "To give facilities to Leaseholders for the purchase of the Fee Simple of their

  479
  holdings," presented by Mr. Kearley; supported by Mr. Charming, Mr. Whiteley, Mr. Field, Mr. McArthur, and Mr. Benn; to be read a second time upon Monday, 5th June, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

  ALLOTMENTS (LONDON) BILL.
  "To facilitate the provision of Allotments by the London County Council," presented by Mr. Benn; supported by Mr. John Burns, Mr. Crooks, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Lough; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

  SUPPLY [2ND ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHEK (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £21,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS III.

  £

  Ireland:—

  Land Commission

  70,000

  MR. BLAKEmoved a reduction of the Vote by £100, and said his object in so doing was to call attention to two points in connection with the operation of the Land Act. The first was with regard to the publication of any instructions that might have been given to the Land Commissioners by the Irish Executive, and the second was the early submission of a Report relating to the administration of the Land Act. The fact that an enormous amount of money was required for the purposes of the Act, and that the greater part of it was to be advanced out of public resources in order to secure the carrying out of the great objects of that Act, justified their demand for full information as to the manner in which the Act was being administered. The question of the failure or success of the Act depended mainly on its administration, and, therefore, the policy pursued and the principles adopted ought to be made known to Parliament in order that it might have an opportunity of criticising them. The question of individual decisions by the Land Commissioners in the cases of particular estates, whether they affected unjustly landlord or tenant, and whether they had good or bad results, whether also they were dilatory or expeditious—these questions, he said, sank into absolute insignificance when compared with the more general principles upon which the administration of the Act was based. What they wanted to know was what were the fundamental principles which had been from time to time laid down as to the mode in which the Land Commissioners should proceed in the discharge of their very important duties. They wanted to know what general regulations or instructions were made for the Commissioners by the Executive Government.
  It was quite true that the Act might be made or marred by its administration. How important, then, was it to know the general lines upon which it was being administered, and of how much more importance was it that they should get that information in the early days of the operation of the Act. He made no apology whatever, therefore, for pressing on the attention of the Committee the vast importance of this
  484
  question, for he conceived it to be of vital consequence to Parliament and to the public to get the information for which he was now asking. So vital did he look upon it, that rebuffs would not deter him from continually pressing for it on all possible occasions. In his opinion publicity was the very essence of the successful administration of the Act, and they believed that that was the only security which Parliament had for proper control over this matter. The discharge of their duties in an efficient manner by the Commissioners largely depended upon a clear understanding of the relations between themselves and the Government, and the extent and degree to which such powers as Parliament had given them were being controlled by the action of the Executive Government. It was impossible, satisfactorily and intelligently, to deal with the action of the Commissioners and of the working of the Act without the publicity to which he had referred. They had had a debate on the 9th of that month in which the Attorney-General, answering for the Irish Government in the absence of the new Chief Secretary, pointed out that the right, hon. Gentleman was not there to state the view which he might deem it his duty to take on that particular subject. He was glad to hear on that occasion that the question was to be left an open question. Nobody could doubt it was within the province and competence of the Executive Government to communicate to Parliament any general instructions or directions which it might have adopted with reference to the Estates Commissioners. Nobody could doubt either that the matter was one quite within the competence of the Chief Secretary to deal with. Neither could anybody doubt that it was entirely within the competence of that House to determine what information it might require from time to time.
  The case which he was making out was greatly strengthened by what occurred on the occasion of the recent debate, when, undoubtedly, the feeling was in favour of the information for which they asked being furnished. The right hon. and learned Gentleman on that occasion read a number of extracts from the proceedings in Committee on the Land Act, when

  485
  the question of placing the Commissioners under the control of the Lord-Lieutenant was under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion moved the omission of the words which provided for that control, and, in the course of his remarks, indicated that it was the intention of the Government that the work of the Commissioners should be administrative and that they were not to occupy a position of independence or detachment such as was occupied by many Irish Boards. That view was assented to on the Opposition Benches, and they quite believed that the result of the debate and of the agreement thus arrived at would be to ensure that they would have full information which would enable them to discuss the work of the Commission, and would give really effective Parliamentary control. The clause, as originally drafted, provided that the Commissioners should be under the control of the Lord-Lieutenant, and that they should act in accordance with such regulations as he might make. Now, the danger of that was that it might indicate a day-to-day and hour-to-hour control of the details of the work of the Commissioners in concrete cases. He thought that very objectionable, because it brought in questions affecting persons and private interests, questions which it was extremely dangerous to place in the hands of the Executive. Indeed, it was absolutely impossible in the nature of things for such details to be effectively supervised by the Executive Government. It might act for evil sometimes, and certainly very little good was likely to come out of it at any time. The result of the discussion was that the Chief Secretary agreed that there should be no interference by the Executive with the details of concrete cases. The Executive held that the best prosperity of the country and the efficient working of the Act depended on the Commissioners devoting themselves to administrative work, and the Government, in the end, accepted words making it clear that that was the desire of the House. Then came up the question of the House knowing what instructions or regulations the Government might from time to time prescribe. An Amendment was moved, and received the assent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, providing that
  486
  they should be laid before Parliament. The Chief Secretary intervened in that debate and confirmed what had fallen from the Attorney-General, and eventually the clause was passed in a confessedly imperfect state on the understanding that, later on, words should be inserted which would give effect to the intentions of the House. On a later clause an Amendment was moved by the Chief Secretary, and carried, which provided for the laying before Parliament of the Reports of the Estates Commissioners; and that was all that was done to carry out the agreement.
  He did not think that the course that was taken in reference to this matter of the rules was one conformable to the traditions of Parliament with reference to understandings made in the House. The Attorney-General frankly acknowledged that there had been a departure from the original understanding, that he had, in fact, been thrown over; that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had changed his mind, as he had a right to do, and had come to the conclusion that it was inexpedient to follow the course which had been agreed upon. Now they did their business in that House very largely upon conventions, and the orderly transaction of the business of Parliament very much depended upon the carrying out of understandings arrived at across the floor of the House, it was indeed most advantageous that such understandings should be observed with the strictest good faith. They were matters of honour, and though they might be repugnant to a very large number of Members, yet, when once an arrangement had been made, every one considered himself bound by it. Pledges made by the Government with reference to the business of the House with regard to legislation were always held to be extremely sacred. He would be the last to impute any selfish or conscious divergence from that standard of honour on the part of the late Chief Secretary, especially at that period of his political career, for he thought it would be ungenerous to take even a legitimate advantage of Parliamentary warfare at such a time. He could only suggest that there must have been some misconception on the part of the right hon.

  487
  Gentleman, not of what he had agreed to, but as to the extent of the honourable obligations of the Parliamentary convention.
  He had observed that such obligations were sacred. Of course, he did not mean to suggest that if a Minister came to the conclusion that a grave mistake had been made, by which the public interest would suffer, he was absolutely bound to be the instrument for perpetuating that mistake. He might then be under the painful necessity of having to retire from the obligation. But he did not think that that consideration applied in the present instance; and he did hold that it was the incumbent duty of the Minister, if he found himself in any difficulty in carrying out an agreement, to take the House into his confidence before abandoning it. Under such circumstances the Chief Secretary should have asked to be released from his undertaking, and it would then have been his duty to place matters in as nearly as possible the position they would have occupied if the arrangement had not been made, and to give Members an opportunity of taking the judgment of the House upon the proposition to which he had acceded. The question came up on July 17th, when the Bill was being hurried through, and entreaties were made that there should be no discussion. A statement that it was intended to depart from the arrangement, and an opportunity to move another Amendment, would have put a different face on the matter, but the statement was not made nor the opportunity given, and, consequently, the clause passed Report in its present form. Those circumstance ought very favourably to dispose the Administration to do the thing they were free to do, but under no obligation to do, and to consider long before they decided not to keep in the spirit the pledge given to the House of Commons, and which it was believed had been carried out.
  These Commissioners were no ordinary administrative officers. They were administrative officers, but they were charged with duties of the very highest character, and it was the duty of the House of Commons to assert for itself the right to such information as
  488
  would enable it from time to time to judge how the Land Act was being worked. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the instructions were confidential and that there were no Departmental instructions in the usual sense to be given. The instructions were general instructions as to the course to be pursued by the Commissioners in the discharge of their high duty, and those who knew what an atmosphere of doubt and suspicion surrounded Dublin Castle in the minds of the people of Ireland would be the first to realise what injurious consequences would result from the refusal of this information. It was no doubt true, as the Attorney-General had stated, that the Commissioners were officials of the Government, and that the Government were responsible for their actions. But this was a special case, in which the confidence was one which those who made the communications were entitled, and, in his opinion, bound to disregard. The Government might take the responsibility of directing the Commissioners as to what they should or should not do in certain cases. What harm could possibly be done, how could the principles of Ministerial responsibility be violated, by laying down the wholesome rule that, as these instructions were of a general character, they should come before Parliament, and that Parliament should see what were these general principles of action or inaction which the Government had prescribed to the Commissioners for dealing with these enormous interests. Where did the inconvenience lay? Members of the House of Commons, who on the whole theory of the case had to criticise not the Commission but the Government, the latter being held responsible for everything that was done or not done, were entitled to know what came from the Government and what was the act of the Commissioners. It was of the utmost consequence that the House should know the instances in which the Government had taken the direct responsibility of action, and had themselves practically laid down the lines upon which decisions should be given. At present the House had no information at all, and they did not know what information they were going to get from the Commissioners themselves.

  489
  It was generally believed that there had been a considerable amount of interference. The belief might be unwarranted, but such beliefs were bound to arise, especially in Ireland, and the only way of checking them was to give the cases in which there had been interference, and to declare that in all others the Commissioners had been perfectly free. What reasons could the Government give for withholding the information? What evil would be done by publication? The Act was being administered, and it was admitted that there were communications, but it was said that they were Departmental and confidential. If they were such as affected the conduct of the Commissioners with reference to the general principles upon which they should administer the Act, he denied that they were such Departmental and confidential communications as should be screened from the light of the House of Commons, or so dealt with that the House of Commons could not pass judgment upon the giving of them. Therefore, having regard to the origination of the matter, as evidenced in the debates to which he had alluded, to the character of the Commission, to the interests at stake, and to the great advantage of Parliament seeing what the rules were, he hoped the Chief Secretary would pause long before—by refusing to publish the Papers—he deepened the already existing suspicion, created an obscurity about what ought to be open and clear as day, and surrounded with uncertainty, perplexity, and confusion the operations of the Act. If the right hon. Gentleman was to have a quiet Chief Secretaryship it was necessary that his administration should be marked by the utmost clearness and candour. The Report of the Commission was long overdue, but within the last half-hour Members had been able to obtain an "advance proof of appendices, so far as printed, for ad interim Report of Estates Commissioners for period from commencement of the Act to December 31st, 1904." In that document, however, he had not yet been able to find a single statement on a subject of the greatest importance as affecting the working of the Act, viz., the evicted tenants. To hand over to them these imperfect appendices was really a bad joke, and it
  490
  could not be seriously supposed that it would do them any good. Valuable as they might be to those who had time to study them, they were of little value unless they were illumined by the language of the Report itself. The tail—with the exception of one or two joints—had been produced, but the body was missing.
  Why had they not got this Report? What did the Attorney-General say upon this subject? He told them that he regretted hon. Members were not in possession of the Land Commissioners' Report showing the lines upon which the Land Act had been worked. With even a deeper pang Irish Members shared that view. The Attorney-General further stated that he had been requested to press the Estates Commissioners to furnish a Report, and he agreed that a Report ought to be furnished. He stated that be had made representations to this effect, and that he had been informed that the Commissioners were doing their utmost to bring out a Report, but the framing of such a Report must take time. He should have thought that the appendices would have taken most time, but they had got them. The Report indicating the procedure, summarising the operations of the Commissioners, and illumining them as to the course they had taken in all the particulars in which this new departure had been made, vitally important as it was, need not take so very much time. He could not see why this Report should take so much time, and they ought to know what their general propositions were and the principles upon which they had proceeded. He ventured to say that for the satisfaction of the country and the House, the good working of the Act itself, and the standing of all concerned, the Report should have been laid upon the Table of the House as soon as possible after the House assembled. The Act prescribed that these Reports should be laid on the Table as soon as possible. They wished to know exactly what the principles of action were. The Commissioners had done a great deal of work, for they began very early, and therefore there was not very much late work to do in compiling the Report up to December 31st. The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether the Report had been revised by anybody

  491
  else, and whether the Treasury would revise it; and he replied that he did not know, but the Treasury would have to see it because it dealt with public money. He presumed, however, that the Treasury would not prescribe the general principles upon which the Act was worked, but would only deal with those things with which the Treasury was immediately concerned. The language of the right hon. Gentleman indicated that this Report was not to be limited merely to an explanation of the figures, but that it would give the lines upon which the Commissioners had worked the Act. They wanted the Report to be a full one. No doubt the Report had been in type for a long time, and probably it had been bandied about from one office to another. He did not know whether the Report would be the expression of the opinion of the Commissioners as they originally made it, or whether it would be the opinion of higher authorities. Probably parts would be excised or added to, but the House might at least be told the general rules upon which the Act had been administered and the principles of their proceedings.
  This was a Vote taking money on account for five months, although the old practice used to be to take enough money for two months. Therefore the Government were asking for sufficient money to last them until nearly the end of the session. Taking into account all the devices for restricting the liberties of the House, it might be considered that except under extraordinary circumstances this might be the only occasion upon which they would be able to refer to this question. He was pleased to say that they now had an opportunity of delivering their minds upon the freedom of action of the Commissioners before their Report had been submitted to its last polish at the hands of its editors. As to discussing the working and administration of the Land Act without knowing what the instructions were upon which it had been worked, and without the Report of the Commissioners as to what they had done, that was another farce to which they were asked to submit. They complained of the lack of these instructions and of this Report, and in
  492
  order to emphasise that view he begged to move a reduction of the Vote.
  Motion made and Question put, "That Item, Class 3, Vote 16 (Irish Land Commission), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Blake.)
  MR. CLANCYsaid this would probably be the only occasion upon which they could debate this question. Unless the Government were able to give them a very good explanation as to why they were not in possession of the only document which could give them full information they could not discuss this matter with anything like confidence. This delay seemed to him to be almost unaccountable. More than a year and a half had elapsed since the Act came into operation and they were still without any Report of how it was working. The production of the Report was absolutely necessary in order to obtain a proper understanding of what had actually been done under the Act. He did not know any other Department of Government of which it could be said that a year and a half after the passing of an important Act there had not been available a full account of the transactions under that Act. Everybody recognised that this was not an ordinary Act of Parliament. It was a revolutionary Act which marked the commencement of a new stage in the agrarian history of Ireland. Obviously it was essential that they should know what was going on at the very earliest moment in order that, if there was anything wrong, they might be able to correct it in time, and before any wrong practice became stereotyped. They knew very well that in many matters relating to Ireland one false step led to another, and a precedent was thus laid down. When the precedent was found to lead in a wrong direction the answer of the Minister was that the thing had been commenced and that he must now follow on the same lines of policy. That was a very dangerous thing if anything of the kind had occurred in this matter. The third reason for debating this matter at length was that the duty lay upon the Irish Members to see that the interests of their country were safeguarded. The duty which lay upon the

  493
  Government was very important, but he should almost be inclined to put as scarcely second in importance the duty of the representatives of the vast majority of the people to see that their interests were being safeguarded in the working of the Act. They were entirely unable to say whether that was being done or not. The Report had been delayed, and no general statement of principles had yet been vouchsafed.
  He felt sure that the view which had been indicated, rather than expressed, by the hon. Member for Longford was correct, namely, that this was not the fault of the Commissioners themselves. The Report drawn up by them had long been in print, and it had been submitted, he supposed, to the Chief Secretary, the Law Officers, and, above all, to the Treasury, and all the Departments they represented were having their finger in the pie and examining the Report with the view of determining what should be its eventual form. That was an extraordinary act on the part of the Government. If it was really true that the Report had been long since before the Government, and that they were altering it in the way suggested, it would not be the Report of the Commissioners. If the Government wanted to supervise the Report, they ought to have done as was done in the case of the Congested Districts Board, and other public bodies like the Local Government Board. They should have made the Chief Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary of the Treasury a member of the body, and he could have signed the Report and taken the responsibility. If it were really true, as suggested by the hon. Member for Longford, that it had been submitted to other Departments to be revised, he said that was a more or less questionable proceeding for which an apology ought to be made on this the first occasion on which the act had been committed. The duty of the Irish Members did not rest in protesting simply against the delay that had taken place in the publication of the Report. It was their duty to pres that it should be immediately presented, and, moreover, that it should be regularly presented in future. He and his friends would not tolerate
  494
  this hugger-mugger in future if, by protesting, they could prevent it. They must have the document that dealt with such vital matters concerning their country, and with such vast sums of money as were charged upon Ireland itself. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to take care that this Report should be presented regularly and in time in future, and warned him that if that was not done things would be made very uncomfortable for him in the House.
  As to the character of the Report, he wished to say that the document which had been presented that day was not the sort of document they wanted. It was a mass of figures which it would take, not a couple of hours, but probably a couple days properly to analyse. They did not want to know half so much how much land had been sold and how much money had been advanced in this or that county in a period ending at a particular date, as to know the general lines on which the Commissioners proceeded. It was no use to tell them that £2,000,000 had been advanced for purchase in Leinster, £500,000 in Munster, about the same sum in Ulster, and only £250,000 in Connaught. That did not convey to their minds the general lines on which land purchase was proceeding in Ireland. He regarded as of far more importance the question whether those advances had been made for the purpose, say, of the purchase of untenanted land, for the purpose of increasing the small economic holdings that existed not only in the West, but all over Ireland, or for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants who were to be found in all parts of Ireland. To fling at their heads at the very commencement of the debate a mass of figures from which they could not make the wildest possible guess as to the lines the Commissioners had gone on was entirely unfair on the part of the Chief Secretary, and would certainly justify the Irish Members in demanding a fresh day for considering this matter whenever the full Report was available.
  In regard to the instructions supposed to have been given under the Act, he did not think it was open for the present Chief Secretary to repudiate any of the general principles or declarations made on important matters by his predecessor. On

  495
  July 1st, 1903, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, who was then Chief Secretary, said in the House—
  "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 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."
  What did that mean? Surely that could only have meant one thing, namely, that whatever general instructions might be given to the Commissioners would be laid on the Table of the House or otherwise made public, so that they might criticise them in the House. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that day in answer to a Question, if he rightly understood him, that he was considering whether or not the instructions under Section 23 of the Act might in future be published.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): That is not exactly what I said. I stated that I was considering whether the time had not arrived both for the drawing up of those regulations and for their publication in some form which might seem most convenient.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he understood that no regulations had been framed up to the present, and also that they would be framed and that they would be published.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not say in what form the publication would be made. It might be made in one or two ways; and there might be a difference of opinion even as to whether the time had arrived for the regulations to be drawn up in a formal manner, and what might be the most convenient step to take in making them public.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he was somewhat puzzled by that answer.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not mean to puzzle the hon. Gentleman. All he meant was that there might be publication of the regulations in the Gazette or by their being laid on the Table of the House. He did not mean to commit himself to one particular course or the other; but to the principle that when they were drawn up they would be made public in one form or the other.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That answer was perfectly explicit. He understood that the regulations would be made, and that they would be published either in the Gazette or presented in some form to Parliament. But instructions might be given to the Estates Commissioners other than under the 23rd Section of the Land Act of 1903. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not instructions had been given to the Estates Commissioners dealing, in a general way, with the administration of the Act and which would not be included in the regulations under Section 23. He could conceive that a letter might be written to the Estates Commissioners in reference to a particular subject of great importance, and that the instruction laid down in such a letter might never be formulated in the form of a rule, and yet that it might be of the vastest practical importance. Common rumour prevailed that such a thing had taken place. He, himself, at the commencement of the session last year, felt bound to call the attention of the House to a rumour current that the law advisers of the Crown in Ireland, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, had volunteered opinions to the Estates Commissioner which they had no right to offer, and that this was done under instructions from the Treasury with a view to curtailing the beneficial operation of the Act. He wanted to know whether an instruction or direction to the Commissioners, on their asking the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, was given, and that the Commissioners were to abide by it; whether that instruction had been communicated by letter or otherwise; whether such instruction as that would be regarded as a regulation under Section

  497
  23; and whether it would be published. If it was not to be a regulation under Section 23, and therefore not to be published, then he should regard the concession just made by the right hon. Gentleman as absolutely futile and useless.
  Now, he had heard it remarked that these communications were confidential. He held that they had no right to be confidential. They dealt with matters of the greatest public importance, and dealt with them in the general way in which the Act ought to be administered—with matters relating to classes of estates or properties. As his hon. and learned friend the Member for Longford had said, if they were in existence at all, reports, instructions, letters addressed by the Chief Secretary, or the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or even the Prime Minister, dealing with matters of that sort were to be regarded as confidential. Ministers had no right to claim such a privilege. Every one of the letters ought to be published. He asked the plain question—had any letters of the kind been sent by the Government?—he did not care who was Chief Secretary. This was a continuous Administration, and the present Government were responsible for the acts of the Chief Secretary.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Hear, hear!
  MR. CLANCY: Then let them say whether they had instructed the Estates Commissioners, by letter, about public matters—not dealing with individual trivialities, as, for instance, whether a certain person was to be promoted to a certain office—he did not care a button about that—he did not care who was appointed to the Estates Commission, except it was a gross partisan who had already disqualified himself from office under the State. But what he did care about was the broad general lines upon which this Act had been or was to be administered; and whether in any particular cases any steps had been taken in contravention of what ought to be the general policy on the matter by the Government of the day; and whether, above all, the will and view of the Commissioners themselves had been
  498
  overborne by those in authority over them.
  He would take, as an example, certain town holdings in Ireland. He read some time ago a statement that, in consequence of the action of the Commissioners in sanctioning the sale of certain town holdings which formed a part of a property which was substantially agricultural, a certain instruction had been given through the Commissioners not to buy any more of it or advance public money for the further acquisition of these town holdings. Were such instructions given, and would they be among the regulations to be framed under Section 23, and would they be published? Because, if any such broad general instructions were given, he held they were a violation of the spirit of the Act, and, under certain circumstances, would delay the settlement of very serious agrarian disputes. It was well known that in various parts of the country small villages and towns had come under the operation of the Act, and that these belonged to estates where there had been agrarian trouble. Now, a great part of the inducement to the landlords of these estates to sell to their tenants would be taken away if money was not to be advanced for purchase. He admitted that there might be cases, in view of the limited amount of money at the disposal of the Commissioners, in which a restrictive policy might be justifiable; but to lay it down as a general rule that, because money was scarce, or for any other reason, no money was to be advanced for the purchase of holdings in small towns or villages coming within the Act was against the policy and spirit of the Act, and ought not to be tolerated by the House.
  One of the reasons why he had wished to see the Commissioners' Report and study the lines on which the work of sale and purchase had proceeded, was to learn whether or not precedence in making advances for sales and purchase had been given to certain classes of estates. Everyone knew that in nearly ever county of Ireland certain estates gave trouble on agrarian questions to the Executive Government. It was that fact which furnished the argument for all

  499
  the Land Bills which had been passed. Reason and justice had nothing to do with the passing of any Land Bill by the House. It never had been; it had always been expediency, and a low kind of expediency at that. It arose from a sense of fear, of the danger of the peace being broken. It was that which led British Ministers, no matter to what Party they belonged, to touch the land question in Ireland, even if it involved the advance of money. Was it not, then, obvious, even from the English point of view, that precedence should be given in settling the Irish land question, and these agrarian disputes, to those estates to which the operation of the Act might most usefully be applied. He was re erring to cases where there were evicted tenants in large numbers, and where there were many uneconomic holdings, as well as large areas of thousands of acres of untenanted land given up to sheep and cattle. He should like to know whether or not instructions had been given to the Estates Commissioners as to securing precedence in such cases. In what order had the money been distributed. Was it by priority of application? A question of that kind was of much greater importance than the ill-digested mass of figures which had been issued that day. He was all the more curious as to whether or not any rules or instructions had been given to the Estates Commissioners, apart from regulations under Section 23, before there was a denial which seemed to be volunteered by the Law Officers.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)said that there was no foundation for the suggestion. It was purely imaginary.
  MR. CLANCYsaid it was very odd that the right hon. Gentleman did not give that answer to him last year when he asked who was the man in the iron mask who had written the letters.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not know anything of the letters referred to, or who sent them.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have been very
  500
  badly treated. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have retired in indignation. From the very foundation of the Act there had been confusion. Sometimes it appeared in the shape of a legal opinion; and sometimes in a letter from the Department. He hoped an explicit answer would be given to all these questions which would at once solve the rumours which were afloat.
  There was a further question. Complaints had been continually made as to the delay which had taken place in the fixing of fair rents. The minimum was from two or three years after the application; and if an appeal were lodged a further three years would be added. Without exaggeration, quite a third of the statutory period might elapse before a fair rent was fixed. That was ridiculous; and he submitted that the Government were entirely to blame. He would tell the Committee the reason why. Last year there was a change in the constitution of the Sub-Commission. Formerly, a legal Commissioner sat with two lay Commissioners; but last year the constitution of the Court was changed to one legal and one lay Commissioner. If the then existing staff had been retained under that arrangement, manifestly double the work would have been accomplished; but the Government immediately dismissed thirty or forty Commissioners; and that, of course, defeated the object the Government had in view in changing the constitution of the Court. That was done for the purpose of making good the policy of the late Chief Secretary that he would save in administration many thousands of pounds a year in order to pay for the bonus. In his opinion, if the Government wanted to save, they might, have accomplished their object much better by a considerable reduction of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Even with the reduction that had taken place, nine-tenths of the force had nothing to do except walk round the by-roads. It was a positive disgrace that a lot of able-bodied men should be maintained out of public funds and have no duties to discharge. It would have been better to have cut down the Constabulary; and to have left the Commissioners as they were. He desired again to protest against the delay in the publication of the Report of the

  501
  Estates Commissioners; and he hoped the Chief Secretary would commence his career by making a frank and candid explanation regarding the instructions which had been given to the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. LONSDALEsaid there was only too much ground for the belief that in some parts of Ireland the United Irish League was exerting far too great an influence upon the decisions of the Estates Commissioners. In a Question which he had addressed to the late Chief Secretary he had drawn attention to the Maher Estate which had recently been sold to the Estates Commissioners and divided up. He was informed that the vendor of the estate intended that the land, which was largely untenanted, should be divided up amongst the villagers, most of whom held conacre and other small quantities of land of poor quality. But this benevolent intention was largely frustrated by the intervention of the United Irish League which, it appeared, exercised so much influence upon the Estates Commissioners. These holdings were given to the leading officials and to the prominent members of the League, many of whom lived at a considerable distance from the estate, whilst those persons living in the immediate vicinity who were not in favour with the United Irish League were shut out from the distribution altogether. He should like to give a few details showing how the distribution of this estate had been carried out. The estate was sold to the Estates Commissioners in July last. In that month, Father Murray, who was the parish priest, furnished the Commissioners with a list of fifty small farmers whom he considered were most suitable and most deserving, in order that the farms should be divided amongst them. This list was approved by the late owner, and on August 7th Father Murray, at the request of the president of the local branch of the United Irish League, also sent the Commissioners a list of about fifty names furnished by the League; but Father Murray in furnishing this second list took care to state that he was in no way responsible for it, nor did he approve in any way of this second list. On January 4th of this year the Estates Commissioners inspector called upon Father Murray and informed him that
  502
  he must reduce his number of names from fifty to nineteen. Father Murray at once consented to do this; and he did so selecting the most suitable and deserving people. The inspector of the Estates Commissioners then proceeded to announce his decision to the various people who were present; and he was informed that when he did so he was threatened with a great deal of intimidation from the United Irish League because certain of their friends had not been included in the list. At any rate. the disorder at the meeting was so exceptional that the final selection was postponed for two days. On that same day (January 6th)—and this was a rather important point in this matter—a meeting was held in the herd's house. The inspector of the Estates Commissioners was present and Father Murray's list was revised, other most deserving cases being struck out. This arrangement was at once ratified by the inspector, and he would like to give the Committee some details concerning the men who got land under this arrangement.
  The whole estate comprised 447 acres. The president of the local branch of the United Irish League, a working mason, who lived three or four miles away from the Maher Estate, and who already had sixteen acres as a subtenant on another property, got some eighteen acres. His colleague, the treasurer, a tailor, living in the village with his father, was handed twenty acres; yet another colleague a prominent member of the South Westmeath executive, who occupied twelve acres on another property, was allotted about sixteen acres. Another president—this time of the labour league—got fourteen acres, though he was a labourer, and though his house and garden were valued at five shillings a year only. A second labourer, who occupied with his father a union cottage, had fourteen acres thrust upon him. A third labourer, in the occupation of a house and garden valued at ten shillings, received eighteen acres. A coachman received over twenty acres, and a working blacksmith, occupying in the village a house and garden valued at twenty-five shillings, was given fourteen acres. It was quite unnecessary to

  503
  prolong this list. There was one feature about it which must surely strike every hon. Member, and that was that the men who were not farmers and who had no means of stocking their holdings had been placed in possession of lands simply because they happened to be members of certain political organisations. He concluded that that was part of the pernicious policy of attempting to smother disloyalty by kindness; a policy which, he might remind the Committee, had aroused considerable indignation among the Loyalists of Ireland. But in this case the action of the Estates Commissioners had pleased no one except the individuals who had benefited through their connection with the League. The villagers who had been shut out from the lands to which they had the first claim were highly indignant, and had gone the length of levelling the fences on the lands to mark their indignation. The parish priest also— the Rev. Father Murray—whose advice was first taken and then thrown on one side in favour of the advice of the League, had written a letter in which he declared that only six tenants living on Mrs. Maher's property and in the very immediate neighbourhood got land; while the principle which was at first laid down by the inspector that labourers, artisans, those living at a distance, and sub-tenants, would be excluded, was violated in every particular. He thought this case deserved the attention of the Government. In his opinion they ought to institute a thorough investigation, a sworn inquiry, into the proceedings at the herd's house when the list of claimants was settled under League domination. It was important not only that landlords should sell their estates, but that the land, when sold, should be apportioned amongst those who were best entitled to it, and not amongst men whose first and only qualification appeared to be membership of a political organisation.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the first thing the new Chief Secretary would do well to understand was the meaning of the word "loyal." and not to rely too much on men whose loyalty was measured by the amount of the cheque they obtained from Dublin
  504
  Castle. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, who had been in Parliament a great number of years and who had himself had a great agricultural experience both as a landed proprietor and as Minister of Agriculture, would take up this matter as a practical farmer; that he would look at it from the point of view of the interests of both the landlord and the tenant, and that for the very short time that his term of office would last he would try and do justice as between man and man, and would not lean towards one class which would betray him at the earliest moment. The hon. Member for Mid-Armagh, when speaking of a political organisation, meant the United Irish League, but if the hon. Gentleman had been in Parliament in 1881, he would have recollected the words of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that if there had been no Land League there would have been no Land Bill. If he might paraphrase those words, he would say that if there had been no United Irish League there would have been no Land Purchase Act of 1903. The late Chief Secretary in introducing that measure made a great speech, one of the leading features of which was that these Estates Commissioners were not to be excluded from the privilege of Parliamentary criticism. The very essence of their position was that they were to be subjected to it. But another essential feature of the programme was the restoration of the evicted tenants, and he challenged the recollection of the House to say whether he was not correct in saying that that Act would not have been passed had it not been understood that they were to be reinstated. What had happened? Large powers with reference to the administration of the Act as it affected evicted tenants were inserted in the Act, and the Commissioners were perfectly willing to act upon them. Why were they not allowed to do so? After all these millions of money had been ladled out to the landlords, what was the position of the evicted tenants? Four thousand five hundred and fifty applications had been made and forty-six only had been dealt with, and the tenants restored either to the farms they previously held or economic farms of the same size. That was how the Commissioners had

  505
  discharged their duty. He hoped, after the favourable Answer to the Question asked him that day, the Chief Secretary would place the instructions asked for on the Table.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that what he said was that he would consider the desirability of formulating those regulations and of laying them on the Table.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid it was necessary that the House should have the rules which had been laid down for the guidance of the Commissioners so that they might apportion the responsibility. Then, if the Land Commissioners went wrong because of the instructions of the Chief Secretary, they would not spare the right hon. Gentleman; while if the Commissioners went wrong of their own accord they would be open to the criticism of the House. Why, then, would not the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the memorandum referred to by the late Chief Secretary? For proper criticism and discussion it was absolutely essential that the House should know precisely what were the relations between the Commissioners and the Executive Government. The right hon. Gentleman would commence his tenure of office wisely, honestly, and honourably by stating clearly whether his predecessor had, rightly or wrongly, taken a course intended to burke debate and prevent the supply of information in reference to the work of the Estates Commissioners. The Attorney-General was a gentleman who, in private affairs, would not dream of breaking a pledge, but in this matter of Government policy he undoubtedly had done so. On July 1st, 1903, the right hon. and learned Gentleman promised in the most absolute manner that all regulations framed by the Government under Sub-section 8 should be laid on the Table, and that an Amendment embodying the undertaking should be inserted on the Report Stage. On March 8th, however, the right hon. Gentleman said the Government had thrown him over. But the right hon. Gentleman had no right to throw himself over. He was not only a backer of the Bill, but a representative of the tenant farmers, and how could he re-
  506
  concile his action with his own pledged word and his duty to the tenant farmers of North Derry? The late Chief Secretary had no right to change his mind after a pledge had been given on his behalf. In order to show exactly the position in which the Estates Commissioners were towards Parliament, and the grave disadvantage to which the House would be put if instructions given to the Commissioners by the Government were not communicated to Parliament, he would read an extract from a speech delivered by the late Chief Secretary on July 1st, 1903. The right hon. Gentleman then said—
  "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 upon the basis that those who administered them were to be in a very real sense executive officers, subject in 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 this House."
  If the Government controlled the action of the Commissioners in a way not known to the House at large it would be impossible for Parliament to debate their policy, and that, in a matter involving the use of enormous public funds and of the good relations between landlords and tenants, was a serious consideration. It was not the way to treat the Grand Inquest of the nation. Ten millions of money had already been ladled into the pockets of the landlords, but so far as the reinstatement of the evicted tenants was concerned the Act had been a dismal failure. What excuse had the right hon. Gentleman to offer for the Administration, who were acting badly not only to the House of Commons and the people of Ireland, but also to the Commissioners themselves? Was the right hon. Gentleman going to work this Act in the interests of the people or in the interests of the clerks in Dublin Castle? Was he going to be a Minister himself, or to minister through clerks? If he was going to be a Minister himself he should do the honest and proper thing, produce this document, and give an assurance that all the communications in reference to the policy and administration of the Act should be placed before the House.

  507
  Another matter urgently requiring attention was the appalling block in the Land Court. It would be fully permissible, under the provisions of the Judicature Acts, for the right hon. Gentleman to get other Judges from Irish Courts who were doing nothing to help Mr. Justice Meredith with these appeals and to expedite public business. It had been stated—he did not know with what truth—that the Commissioners had obtained legal advice from the Law Officers in Dublin Castle. If that were so, it would be a matter for the strongest criticism, not only of the Law Officers of the Crown and the Chief Secretary who allowed it, but also of the legal Commissioners themselves, because under the Land Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners were empowered to ask advice on questions of law, not of legal politicians, but openly and publicly of the High Court of Judicature. His own feelings in the matter were perfectly well known and he did not think much good would come out of it. He had always hoped for the best and had welcomed conciliation, and he had never opposed any generous acts in reference to the Irish landlords, although he knew the Irish people would have to pay for them. He had, however, done all this under the supreme belief that that awful sore in Irish public life, namely, the unfortunate position of the evicted tenants, would be remedied. Up to the present everything had been worked for the benefit of the landlords, and everything for the relief of the distress of the victims of the Plan of Campaign had been ignored. The right hon. Gentleman must have an intelligent appreciation of these difficulties. He might not be very successful as Chief Secretary, but he might be able to do good between man and man and see that justice was done without the progress of the Act being obstructed by the officials at Dublin Castle. The right hon. Gentleman might be a successful Minister for Ireland as compared with the disastrous failures which had gone before him, but the first thing he would have to do was to do what was right in regard to the administration of this Act. The right hon. Gentleman was credited with possessing the apostolic gift of suffering fools gladly, but he hoped he would endeavour to remedy the difficulty of which he had
  508
  complained by allowing other Judges to assist Mr. Justice Meredith. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to him, and he assured hon. Members that he would not have intervened except that his heart was touched by the manner in which their hopes had been shattered by the administration of this Act, for it was another of the many Acts which were meant well but which had been obstructed and murdered in its administration and had been worked in the landlords' interest by the officials at Dublin Castle.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I think it is desirable at this stage that I should say a few words in reference to the points which have been raised, for more than one reason. In the first place it seems to me that, upon the examination I have been able to make in connection with the two main subjects raised here this afternoon, namely, the delay in the presentation of the Report, and the question as to whether or not the regulations issued to the Estates Commissioners are to be laid on the Table and made public, there is considerable misapprehension. I gather from the speech of the hon. Member for South Longford and one or two other speeches which have been made that there is in some quarters an idea that the delay in the issue of the Report — which has naturally caused much inconvenience to hon. Members from Ireland, as it has also to those responsible for the government of Ireland and for the defence of this Vote—has been due to some mysterious proceeding on behalf of the Executive Government, and that the Report has been going through a process of trimming in order to put it into a form more acceptable to those who are responsible for it. ["Hear, hear."] I can assure hon. Gentlemen that there is no foundation whatever for that suggestion. The facts, briefly and baldly stated, are that communications have been passing between the Estates Commissioners and the Treasury, not in regard to the precise matter that should be in the Report, for which naturally the Estates Commissioners must be responsible, but as to the form that Report should take. I am assured that not only is there no foundation for the assertion that the Report is being trimmed

  509
  to suit the views of the Executive, but that it has not yet reached the stage at which it would be possible for any such treatment to be accorded to it. The Report has been delayed owing to reasons which cannot be wondered at. The Estates Commissioners have had a vast task to perform, which, although, no doubt, they undertook with persons experienced in the work, yet they had inevitably to approach it without any accurate knowledge of the form the work would take, or as to the way in which it could be best and most economically and efficiently performed. Therefore I do not think that we ought to wonder that there has been delay, which seems unreasonable to some extent, in the production of the Report, but it has certainly not been due to any act of omission or commission on the part of the Irish Government, and there has been none of that improper treatment to which reference has been made. I have heard with some feelings not only of surprise, but also of regret, the contemptuous repudiation of the tables of statistics which, by my directions, were issued to hon. Gentlemen to-day. It is not my fault, or the fault of the Executive which I represent for the first time to-day, that there has been delay in the presentation of this Report. These tables were ready, and it occurred to the Irish Government that it might be advantageous that hon. Members should have all the information we had, and we could not give the Report because we had not got it. There is absolutely no foundation for the charge that the delay has been caused by any attempt or desire to trim the Report to suit our own views.
  MR. CLANCY: Is the Report in type?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, it is not in type? [An HON. MEMBER: Is it in manuscript?] I do not believe it is in manuscript as regards a portion of it. The Report is in course of preparation and will be ready very shortly, and I shall do everything I can to expedite its production. I hope it will be in our hands within a few weeks. I think it is a little hard to blame those responsible for the delay when it is remembered how heavy has been the burden of the work
  510
  which has fallen upon them during the first year of the working of the Act. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  The other point is the publication of the rules. I have already said in answer to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to-day that I have done my best to examine this question both as to its local aspect and from its historical point of view. I do not think that there need be any contest is to the statement of fact we have heard to-day. So far as I have been able to learn, the view given by the hon. Member for Longford and the hon. Member for South Donegal is quite accurate as to what took place during the Committee stage of the Bill and during the subsequent Report stage, but there is some little misapprehension as to which of the regulations it is that was meant. As hon. Members opposite are aware, there are two sets of regulations, those issued by the Commissioners to their inspectors and those I propose to lay on the Table at once. Then there are the regulations referred to in the subsection, namely, those issued by the Executive Government to the Commissioners, and these are the regulations to which reference has been made this afternoon. It is alleged that regulations which come under this sub-section have already been issued by the Executive Government. An answer has been given by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General that no regulations answering to those described in this sub-section have up to the present time been issued. Under the language of Sub-section 8, as the hon. Member for Longford pointed out during the Committee stage of the Bill and again to-day, two duties are imposed upon the Executive Government under the general control of thy Lord-Lieutenant and acting in accordance with such regulations. Now the regulations described here, as contemplated by this sub-section, and referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am authorised to say have not been issued.
  I have been asked, Are these regulations going to be made, and, if made, will they be full and complete? I have yet a great deal to look into in connection with this Act and the general administration, and therefore I am not in a position to

  511
  speak with the vast experience which my predecessor had. I do not think anyone will blame my right hon. friend the Member for Dover for these instructions not being published while he was Chief Secretary. When he was asked a Question about this he stated that they had not had the full experience which was required for the issue of the instructions. I do not hesitate to say that the time has arrived when these regulations can be formulated, and, being formulated, they ought to be laid before the country. I was asked by the hon. Member for North Longford whether they would be full and complete. Most certainly they will. These regulations will, as contemplated, deal generally with the broad principles on which the Act was to be administered, and I conceive, therefore, that they will contain everything covering the whole ground governing the administration of the Act. I cannot conceive it possible that they should be open to the criticism the hon. Gentleman has suggested, namely, that they would contain only a portion of the instructions, and that the more important, and perhaps the more interesting, would have to come out in another way. I hope that that, at all events, will be a satisfactory answer to the Question I have been asked as to the publication of the regulations. I am now considering whether they cannot at once be formulated, but so soon as they are drawn up in full they will be published in one form or another—in the Gazette, or in some way which may seem most desirable and convenient.
  The only other question raised in this debate has been the question of the evicted tenants.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The Land Commissioners.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I mean in regard to the Act of 1903.
  MR. CLANCY: I asked the right hon. Gentleman questions as to what were the instructions of the Government to the Estates Commissioners, what was done in regard to precedence, and also whether instructions were given as to purchase in towns.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not in a position to say what instructions have been given in regard to these questions. I may state that the policy of my right hon. friend the late Chief Secretary in regard to the purchase of town property is one which seems to commend itself to the Irish Government. It is obvious that the difficulty surrounding the question will not be so much the purchase as the re-sale without proper security for a loan. That is the foundation of the whole thing. Then as to the precedence of the evicted tenants.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he had mentioned the question of precedence being given to the purchase of untenated land. His suggestion was by so doing to enlarge the small uneconomic holdings and to reinstate the evicted tenants.
  MR. WALTER LONG: All I can give is the information I have received. There is no foundation at all for the suggestion.
  MR. CLANCY: What suggestion?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The suggestion the hon. Member made just now, namely, that there had been instructions given by the—
  MR. CLANCY: I made no insinuation at all. I simply asked for information whether the Commissioners in purchasing estates gave precedence in these cases or not.
  MR. WALTER LONG: My right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland believes not, so far as his information goes.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Do the Estates Commissioners deal with the estates in the order in which the applications are made?
  MR. ATKINSON: So far as I know that is the rule, and, so far as I know, no instructions have been given to the Estates Commissioners on the subject.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It has been suggested that the Act has not done as much as it ought to have done for the

  513
  evicted tenants. It has been suggested by one or two speakers that the evicted tenants have not been put in the position which my right hon. friend the Member for Dover contemplated. Of course, again, I can only draw my inference from what he said on that subject when he was carrying his great Bill through the House, and when he made it perfectly clear, that important as unquestionably the question of the evicted tenants is, the Act was in the first instance for the sale of land to tenants in Ireland, and that, therefore, the evicted tenants question must not take priority, but must be ancillary to the great object of the Act, which was the transference of ownership from the landlord to the occupier. If that is a correct representation of my right hon. friend's views I do not think it is fair to blame us because we have acted on that line, and still believe that policy ought to animate those responsible for the administration of this great measure.
  The hon. Member for South Donegal has complained of the glut in the Laud Courts, and made one or two suggestions for its removal. I am afraid it is true that there is such a glut, which is very much to be regretted, although I am not quite sure that it is so serious as we have been led to suppose. Obviously it is a matter which calls for attention, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will receive attention. The hon. Member for Armagh has referred to a certain case as to the facts of which there appeared to be considerable controversy. The hon. Member has said that in this particular case occupiers of farms have been selected from men living at a great distance to the detriment of men living on the spot. If that is correct it is obviously contrary to the object of the Act, and I will inquire into the matter and ascertain the facts.
  MR. HAYDEN: The Attorney-General for Ireland gave all the facts showing that the statements made in respect to this estate by the hon. Member were very misleading.
  MR. LONSDALE: No, no!
  MR. WALTER LONG: In that case there is no need for the hon. Member to
  514
  be anxious about it. Perhaps I may be allowed to examine the facts for myself.
  MR. LONSDALE: All I ask is that there should be an inquiry—a sworn inquiry if necessary—into the proceedings in the herd's house.
  MR. WALTER LONG: My hon. friend must realise that I shall not undertake to hold a sworn inquiry until I have had an opportunity of inquiring into the subject myself.
  MR. LONSDALE: Hear, hear!
  MR. WALTER LONG: With that assurance I hope hon. Members on both sides will leave the matter for the present, although I cannot expect my answers will have been satisfactory to all those interested. I can assure them that in connection with one difficulty, namely the publication of the Report, I shall do all in my power to expedite it, as I, as strongly as anyone, desire to see it published.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid the Act of 1903 had been in operation for eighteen months. It dealt with £112,000,000, of which £100,000,000 was primarily secured by the ratepayers of Ireland, and, in default of them, guaranteed by the Imperial Exchequer. It was an Act which the House and the general public were entitled to expect to be carried out with great strictness and care. He had not a word to say of the defence made by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had just been installed to his responsible office, and it was quite impossible that he should have made himself master of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the present discussion. Not only did the Act deal with these enormous interests: but in the money Estimates before the Committee there was an amount of £150,000 as expenditure for its administration. That was an additional reason why everything should have been done with great care and attention. Hon. Members other than Irish might not be aware what the staff was to carry out the Land Act. It consisted of two Judicial Commissioners, four Estates Commissioners, five assistant

  515
  legal Commissioners, twenty-seven permanent assistant Commissioners, twenty-seven temporary Commissioners, five deputy registrars, two inspectors, a secretary, and an immense number of first, second, and third-class clerks. This Act had been in operation since November 1st, 1903, yet the regulations contemplated by it had never been made. What explanation was there of that? Sub-section 8 of Section 23 said that—
  "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."
  Of course, such regulations must be in writing; and it was inconceivable to him to have it stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that, up to this hour, no such regulations had been reduced to writing. Of course, if they had not been made, they could not have been laid on the Table of the House. But, as business men, what excuse could the Government give for these regulations not having been made long ago? Further, the Estates Commissioners were not a judicial but an administrative body, and were put, by this section of the Act, directly under the control of the Lord-Lieutenant, who was personally responsible for them and for their proper conduct in carrying out the Act. The Lord-Lieutenant must have given some instructions to the Estates Commissioners regulating these most important functions. If these instructions were in the form of letters, this House was entitled to know what they were. Then some light might be thrown on the question whether directions had been given them to grant a preference to some estates over others. That was a suspicion which ought not to exist. These were not private or confidential communications, but instructions contemplated by Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had not promised—perhaps was not in a position to promise—that any other such instructions were to be given; and, for that reason, he maintained that all these instructions, when given, should be laid on the Table of House. It was expressly provided in the same section of the Act that—
  "Reports of the proceedings of the Estates Commissioners shall be made by them in such
  516
  terms and in such form as the Treasury may prescribe, and these Reports, and all rules under previous sub-sections, shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after their making."
  It was most unaccountable that no Report had been made from time to time, when the Committee had been told that £20,000,000 worth of estates had been sold.
  MR. ATKINSON: Agreements for sale have been lodged.
  MR. HEMPHILL: Well, agreements lodged; but, of course, the money had to be provided to pay for them. He had seen a Report, which was a perfect labyrinth of incomprehensible figures, and he did not see why the Chief Secretary or his predecessor, or the Attorney-General for Ireland, who were responsible, should not have insisted on intelligible Reports being made. The public were still in the dark as to the proceedings of the Estates Commissioners. They were told that the Report would shortly be made and laid on the Table; but it was not at all satisfactory either to the Irish tenants, who were deeply interested in this question, or the Irish landlords, who were profoundly concerned, or the English taxpayers responsible for £112,000,000, that there should have been this laxity in carrying out this important Act. The consequence was that the preliminary arrangements even for carrying out of sales had been delayed for years. It was right that the strong light of the House of Commons should be brought to bear on the subject, for discussion on these Estimates was the only means afforded the public of seeing how far the intentions of the Legislature in regard to Irish Land Purchase were being carried out. He had been astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite say that the restoration of the evicted tenants was regarded as a comparatively unimportant matter when the Bill was passing through the House. Why, it was one of the strongest objects the Irish Party had in view in giving consent to the Bill; and, during the discussions in Committee, it was most prominently brought forward. Yet they had it now that that part of the Act had been a complete failure. Only a few out of some thousands of evicted tenants had been restored to their farms

  517
  since the Act became law; and he trusted one of the effects of this debate would be to call the attention of those responsible to the laxity with which the Act had been carried out in regard to making regulations, making Reports, and facilitating the hearing of cases for land purchase so as to enable the objects of the Legislature to be accomplished.
  MR. HAYDENsaid he wished to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on being able to make a speech on an Irish question after spending twenty-four hours in the country! Of course, the Irish Members were perfectly reasonable. They did not expect from the Chief Secretary, any more than from his predecessors, that he should be a complete master of the Irish situation or of Irish questions after a residence in Ireland of even a week. But by the time the week expired they expected that the present Chief Secretary, like so many of his predecessors, would be able to speak in an authoritative style and to lecture hon. Members who had lived in Ireland all their lives and knew the facts of the situation in that country.
  One point which had been dealt with very elaborately by the hon. and learned Member for Longford, and to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had devoted a considerable portion of his speech, was the publication of the regulations. He would not repeat the arguments already put forward; but he and his colleagues wanted it to be perfectly understood what they meant by regulations was not the legal interpretation of the exact word in an Act of Parliament, but the spirit of the promise made by the late Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General for Ireland when the Bill was going through this House. That promise, so far as they understood it, was that the instructions in the past, and which were intended to guide in the future, should, without any quibble as to words, be put into regulations which were to be published at very short periods. At any rate, that was the meaning attached, on those benches, to the promise of the Chief Secretary, and they regarded that promise as satisfactory. If there were to be any quibble with regard to the word "instructions" then the pledge of the Chief Secretary would not be satisfactory. The Chief Secretary
  518
  stated that there were two methods of publication; one in the Gazette, and the other by laying the documents on the Table of the House. It was strictly in accordance with the promise given when the Bill was passing through Committee that the regulations should be laid before the House; the principal reason given being that Members should be in a position to criticise the action of the Government and the Estates Commissioners. Therefore, all such regulations should be circulated among Members of the House. It should, however, be recollected that for six months of the year the House of Commons was not in session, and that during that interval the regulations should be issued to hon. Members not only in their capacity as Members of the House, but also as citizens of the country. Therefore, they would commend to the Chief Secretary this double method of publication, and he trusted the suggestion would receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
  As regarded the matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh, it was really too absurd for anything that the Estates Commissioners should be indicted on such grounds. The facts were laid before the House last week by the Attorney-General, who was not alleged to be over-friendly to the Estates Commissioners, and they went to show that the statements of the hon. Gentleman were totally inaccurate. They were founded on articles published in the Irish Times which had been repudiated. The plain object of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh, as he stated in a supplementary Question, was to bring odium on one of the Estates Commissioners, namely, Mr. Finucane.
  MR. LONSDALEsaid he did not mention any Commissioner's name in his Question. He only wanted to know to what extent the power of the United Irish League was being allowed to prevail.
  MR. HAYDENsaid he would return to the proceedings of last week. It transpired from a remark from the Irish Benches that the particular Commissioner was Mr. Wrench. Then the hon. Gentleman stated that he did not state that it was Mr. Wrench, but Mr. Finucane.
  MR. LONSDALEsaid he did not mention Mr. Finucane's name in his Question.
  MR. HAYDENsaid the hon. Gentleman did not mention Mr. Finucane's name in his Question; but he did state when Mr. Wrench's name was mentioned that he was referring to Mr. Finucane.
  MR. LONSDALE: Hear, hear!
  MR. HAYDENsaid that the hon. Gentleman repeated it now. They were endeavouring to elicit from the Attorney-General the name of the particular Commissioner who actually signed the agreement for the scheme for the distribution of this estate. They did not succeed in getting the name; and it was then they mentioned that they knew it was Mr. Wrench, the landed representative on the Estates Commissioners, that was concerned. It was, as the hon. Member for South Tyrone stated, another bad shot from the Orange gang. They fired on a previous occasion on Sir Antony Mac-Donnell and brought down the late Chief Secretary. They now fired at Mr. Finucane, and had very nearly brought down Mr. Wrench. What was the tremendous crime about this Maher Estate? It was almost a farm—210 acres; and one of the charges was that the United Irish League of Rochfort-bridge exercised a certain amount of pressure as to the distribution of this land. What curse was there in that? The United Irish League consisted practically of the people of the district, and if they were to exclude from all administration in connection with the Act the United Irish League, they would exclude the majority of the representatives of the country, most of the clergymen, and all the representatives of local boards all over the country. What would then be left? There would only be left the Orangemen, which would be a highly satisfactory thing for the five or six unofficial Members from Ulster on the opposite side. That would be very satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but would it help to settle the land question? On the contrary, the Irish land question and the Irish question would be more burning than they were even in the most
  520
  revolutionary days of the Irish agitation, and would create such a state of things as might prevent the present Government from carrying out their intention of effecting economies which would reimburse the British Treasury for the bonus.
  Now as to the distribution of the lands of the Maher Estate, the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh stated that one man got sixteen acres out of 210 "although he was a labourer." This, from an hon. Gentleman who posed before his constituents as a friend of the labourers.
  MR. LONSDALEsaid the hon. Gentleman should not misinterpret him. He said the labourer was a prominent official of the United Irish League.
  MR. HAYDENsaid he had no intention of misinterpreting the hon. Gentleman; but he intended to quote correctly the words of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman's remark was that although this particular man was a labourer he was allotted a plot of land. What stigma was to be put on a labourer who succeeded in graduating on to the small farming class? Would the hon. Gentleman repeat such a declaration to the labourers in his constituency? If the hon. Gentleman did, the result which he thought would happen at the next election would be absolutely assured. The fact in connection with the Maher Estate was that there was a large number of applicants. The United Irish League sent in about fifty names of applicants; but they did not expect they would all receive plots, because in that case the farms would only amount to about four acres each. The hon. Gentleman stated that the parish priest and the Labour League sent in lists. He himself lived within five miles of the estate; and he knew the facts better than the paid writers who were sent down from Dublin to give food for speeches in this House. He knew all the applicants; and they were all fit and proper persons to get small plots. What was really proved was that there was not land enough to go round, and also that there was a necessity on the part of the Estates Commissioners in that district and in other districts to acquire more untenanted and for the purposes of division. There

  521
  was not a shadow of truth in the story of the supposed coachman, except that for a short while a small farmer of the district acted as coachman in charge of the single horse kept for the parish priest and subsequently for the Bishop. That man's name was in the list sent in by the parish priest, the list which the hon. Gentleman complained was not accepted.
  The Question asked by the hon. Member for North Dublin, though he thought the Chief Secretary had misunderstood it, was whether in practice the Estates Commissioners treated estates in the exact order in which they were sent into them, or whether they had power, and, if so, whether it was their practice, to treat an estate according to what they considered its urgency. It was perfectly well known that the condition of some estates was far more urgent than that of others. That was particularly so with regard to estates in the West. This House had now been discussing for some years what was known as the Connaught problem and its solution, and while that problem existed, to a peculiar degree, in the West of Ireland, it was also to be found in a greater or less degree in almost every county in the country. It was the condition of estates of this class which caused the land war in Ireland, and it was the condition of these estates in the West and other parts that made legislation by this House an imperative necessity. When the Land Purchase Bill was being framed, and it was doubtful whether a bonus would be granted in connection with it, the members of the Irish Government, who were anxious to obtain the bonus, invited the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to visit Ireland. They did not take the right hon. Gentleman through the rich lands of Meath, Westmeath, and Kildare, but through the county Roscommon, and from there on a motor tour through the poverty-stricken districts of the West. That was to show the urgent character of the problem sought to be solved. It was because they were able to bring the urgent and pressing character of that problem before the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they were able to give the bonus of £12,000,000 to the landlords, and that the Government were able, with the approval of both sides of the House, to carry the financial provisions of the Bill. They now found from the
  522
  Return presented to the House that morning, that of the money spent in Ireland upon land purchase £250,000 only was spent in the province of Connaught and £2,000,000 in Leinster, where the land question was of quite a different character to that of the West of Ireland. A quarter of a million only was spent in a district where every day an agitation might arise unless the land question was settled, and he thought, therefore, they had good reason to express disappointment. It was not a proper policy to pursue, he thought, to take estates in the exact order in which they came before the Commissioners, because one landlord of Leinster, by putting his estate in, might cripple the resources of the Commissioners and make it impossible for them, for perhaps a full year, to touch the problem of congestion and assist in settling the country. If the right hon. Gentleman would look up the debates which took place when the Land Purchase Bill was before the House he would find that the chief incentive for passing the Act was that it would once and for all settle the Irish land question. That could not be done so long as the poverty - stricken districts of the Wrest, which always provided so rich a field for the agitator against whom the Government inveighed so much, were not dealt with till last. If the Chief Secretary studied the debates he would find the two things emphasised by his predecessor and the Prime Minister were that the Bill would deal directly and satisfactorily with the problems of the congested districts and the evicted tenants. It was not the idea to benefit rich and well-to-do farmers, but to settle the land question, and that could not be settled unless they grappled at once, and in a satisfactory manner, with the thing which, above all others, had made this question an urgent and a burning one, namely, the condition of the congestion in the West of Ireland and the consequent depopulation.
  *MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he hoped the Chief Secretary would not go away under the impression that the majority of Irishmen thought that the Land Purchase Act was not a success. On the contrary, it had been almost too successful. If anything went to

  523
  hinder its success it was that the amount of money granted at the present time for the purpose of carrying it out had been exhausted. He trusted that when the Chief Secretary had had time to thoroughly master the details of the land question in Ireland, he would see that the thing most necessary to be done was at all costs to provide sufficient money to enable the Act to be kept steadily flowing along. Up to the present time they had only £11,000,000 to meet the sales of estates, amounting to between £20,000,000 and £30,000.000, in regard to which agreements had been made and lodged. Now the House would understand that if once the landlords and the tenants got it into their heads that after coming to an agreement a space of time amounting to perhaps two or three years must elapse before the sale and purchase could be completed, the inevitable result would be that the landlords would become more unwillingly to sell and the tenants to buy. Therefore he hoped that the objection raised by the Treasury that some extraordinary effect would be caused on the money market if more than £5,000,000 a year were granted for this purpose would be speedily dispelled. He was glad the Chief Secretary had stated what he considered was the proper policy to be pursued with regard to the Land Act. The first object of the Act was to transfer as much land as possible from landlords to tenants, and anything which hindered that operation would be fatal to the settlement of the land question. Hon. Members opposite had argued that because the farmers in Ulster were prosperous and contented, the cases of farmers in Connaught, whose lot was considered to be less happy, ought to be taken first. Such a course would be grossly unfair and would be inimical to the working of the Act. During the passage of the Bill it was freely stated that it would never work in Ulster, because the landlords were receiving their rents so regularly that they would have no inducement to sell. That, he was glad to say, had not proved to be the case. Landlords in Ulster, recognising that the land question must be settled, had been amongst the first to show their willingness to sell, and if more land had been sold in Ulster than in Connaught it redounded to the credit of the Ulster landlords and tenants.
  524
  A great deal had been said about the evicted tenants. Hon. Members opposite would almost have the Committee believe that upon the reinstatement of the evicted tenants depended the settlement of the whole land question in Ireland. The position taken up by the Ulster Members while the Land Act was under discussion was clear. They had never admitted that the evicted tenants ought to have any special advantage over other people, but they had said that if means could be devised for reinstating the evicted tenants without injuring the persons in occupation of their former holdings they would be very glad if it could be brought about. They did not raise any objection to the clauses or conditions relating to the evicted tenants in the Act, and they would be very glad to see them back on their farms if it could be arranged. But to lay it down that the evicted tenants should be attended to and their cases dealt with in front of all others would be most unfair to people in other parts of the country.
  With reference to the Maher Estate, what his hon. friend the Member for Mid-Armagh objected to was the fact that the list prepared by the two people—the seller of the estate and the parish priest—who were probably better able than anybody else to judge who should benefit by the re-parcelling of the estate, had been set aside at the instance of the United Irish League. The objection was that the Estates Commissioners seemed to have allowed themselves to be influenced against their better judgment by the United Irish League. Another point was that he did not think it was ever intended by the Act that in the case of the uneconomic holdings that appeared to have existed around that estate the owners of those small holdings should be put on one side in favour of the variety of persons whom his hon. friend had enumerated. From the list read out by his hon. friend it was quite clear that the land had been given to a number of villagers who had previously not been farmers at all instead of to those who were already farmers, but whose farms were too small. The Act did not intend that. It did not intend to turn dwellers in towns into farmers, but it intended, where an uneconomic holding existed, to enlarge it to such an extent

  525
  that it would be economic. It was the question of the United Irish League which prompted his hon. friend to bring up that case, and that interference of the United Irish League he believed to be the interference of an iniquitous and most immoral association.
  MR. FLAVIN: It has as good a character as you have.
  *MR. CHARLES CRAIG,continuing, said he was not going to blow his own trumpet, but the character of the United Irish League was patent to all as that of an iniquitous and immoral body. In county Galway the League was at present acting an iniquitous and immoral part.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Why not suppress it?
  *MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he certainly would suppress it if he had the power. Some days ago he asked two Questions on the subject, which were treated with a want of seriousness which did not speak well for the intentions of the Irish Government. The League had been bringing pressure to bear on a vast number of individuals in Galway and the surrounding districts to get them to surrender grass lands for the purpose of enlarging what they considered to be uneconomic holdings. It would no doubt be most desirable that the uneconomic holdings should be made economic, but that the possessors of those grass lands should be forced to give them up for that purpose was contrary to all the laws which ought to rule in a civilised country. He had recently asked the Attorney-General whether for the purpose of coercing the owners of those grazing farms into giving them up, large quantities, amounting in one case to 650 yards, of walls surrounding those holdings were wantonly pulled down. Any person, he thought, would understand the gravity of that offence. It was quite a new method of coercion, but if it was not dealt with at once and strongly by the Executive Government, it would no doubt before long be common. He brought before the House two cases in which that had been done£one in which 650 yards of wall were pulled down,
  526
  thus rendering a large farm utterly useless for the only purpose for which it could be used, namely, for grazing—and in the other case 500 yards had been pulled down. That action must have been prompted and to a large extent brought about by the United Irish League, and if, that was so, he felt that every Member of the House who was not a Nationalist Member—and probably some of the Nationalists if they would only say so—would say that such action was most immoral and should be put down with a strong hand. He hoped the new Chief Secretary would make it clear that such lawlessness as existed at present in Galway would not be allowed to continue.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid he desired to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the new post to which he had just succeeded, and he trusted that he would take such a course in reference to Irish affairs as would allow him to give him what assistance he could. He wished to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of providing better facilities for the work of the Estates Commissioners by easing the money difficulty. The question had been gone into, and they had had a statement of the facts. From the moment he heard of the right hon. Gentleman's appointment he had entertained some hopes that the new Chief Secretary was the statesman marked out to deal with the money part of that problem. Under the purchase scheme of the Metropolitan Water Board over £40,000,000 had been applied for, and at first it was feared that the raising of this immense sum would cause inconvenience in the money market. This, however, had not turned out to be the case, and this great transaction went through as easily as any great financial transaction ever went through in the history of this country, and upon that he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite was to be congratulated. He thought some steps of a similar kind might betaken in connection with the work of the Estates Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman in his scheme put such an attractive bait before the London water companies that they were induced to take a large part of their purchase

  527
  money in stock, and he did three things to bring about this desirable result. In the first place he found out exactly what the stock was worth. He then ascertained what would be the cost of launching it on the money market, and he offered a portion of it to the vendors if they would take the water stock and not require the raising of the money. Thus the vendors were saved the expense and trouble of reinvesting their capital. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any inquiries as to whether any scheme of that kind could be adopted to help forward the sale of estates under the Land Act? The effect in the case of the water stock in London was that the price went up and the value of the stock was increased. Why could a similar scheme not be devised under which Irish landlords would be inclined to accept land stock instead of cash? It would, he said, be a great discredit if the Purchase Act, the greatest movement of English statesmanship since the Union, was seriously clogged for want of every assistance that sound finance could give.
  MR. WOODsaid it was a remarkable thing that these charges should have been made against the Estate Commissioners, having regard to the fact that the inspector sent out was a supporter of hon. Members opposite. As for the Galway Estate, that was placed under an absolute order for sale in 1887 and up to the present time no sale had taken place. He understood that Lord Ashbourne was desirous of purchasing the estate. That accounted for some of the agitation in Galway, and if the same thing took place in county Down he should not be surprised at the same exhibition of feeling. He wanted some information as to the number of sales which had taken place under Section 26 of the Act of 1903. That was the section under which estates vested in the Lord Chancellor were dealt with. He wished to know how many of those estates had been disposed of and the terms upon which those sales had taken place. He was told that the highest prices had been demanded by the Lord Chancellor and that there had been no sale under the section he had referred to. As to Section 5 of the Act, which stipulated that certain farms might be sold where the
  528
  Estates Commissioners considered that the prices for the estates which were agreed to be sold were fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances, he wanted to know if any construction had been placed on that section by the Land Judge or the Estates Commissioners. Was it only the landlord's interest that was to be taken into consideration in relation to the question of security, or was it the combined security of the landlord and the tenant? He desired to get answers on these questions from the right hon. Gentleman, because it was utterly impossible to deal in detail with the work of the Commissioners in the absence of the Report, which should have been placed before the House long ago. He listened with some satisfaction to the reply of the Chief Secretary. He thought the Treasury ought to have given instructions in Regard to the Report long before February 27th. The Treasury had been guilty of laches and neglect. What had the Secretary of the Treasury been doing? He had been careless in allowing this matter to remain over until the end of February.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKEsaid that in the course of this discussion the fact had been strongly borne in upon his mind that, after all, the letter of the law was comparatively a small thing when contrasted with the spirit in which the law was administered. They might have, on the one hand, a law that had many shortcomings, that might fall far short of their ideal, and yet, if it was administered in a strong, broad, and sympathetic spirit, they might do much. On the other hand, they might have a law theoretically perfect on paper, a law which might have secured the enthusiastic assent of every Member of the House, and yet, if they entrusted the administration to a set of hide-bound officials on the one side, or a set of covert enemies on the other, all their labour and trouble might go for nothing; their best intentions would be frustrated and come to naught. When speaking of good intentions from these benches, might he address a perhaps not unfriendly warning to the right hon. Gentleman who had succeeded to the thorny and difficult position of Chief Secretary for Ireland? They might

  529
  remind him that the way to Dublin Castle, like the way to a certain other place, was only too often paved with good intentions; and that any man who wanted to rule Ireland, and who submitted to the restrictions of Dublin Castle red tape, was a man foredoomed to failure, no matter how good and excellent his motives might be.
  He felt, in common with the rest of his colleagues, that he was suffering under a serious grievance. It was absolutely impossible to make much of a contribution to a discussion for which no official information was forthcoming. He was sorry he could not agree with the Chief Secretary that this was a mere misapprehension on the part of the Irish representatives. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no misapprehension as to the effect of the non-production of the official Report. It was not a question of misapprehension, it was a question of design. It was part and parcel of a well - established Dublin Castle dodge for deliberately delaying vital and most important facts and figures until too late for use in debating Irish affairs. In that way the Government not only mystified and befogged the House, but obstructed Members from Ireland in the performance of their duties. A promise was made from the front Ministerial Bench that the Report would be produced in reasonable time, and he regretted that efforts should be made to belittle the seriousness of that promise by all sorts of quibbling and hair-splitting. It was a promise that ought to have held good among gentlemen no matter what their political differences might be—a promise the breach of which was not only a political default, but something like an infraction of the personal courtesy between the two sides of the House.
  The defects of the Land Purchase Act were due, primarily, to the assumption of the overwhelming majority of the Members of this House that the one body of men in the whole of the British Empire whose warnings could be disregarded in the management of Irish affairs were the men who were locally and constitutionally elected as Members of Parliament to represent the opinions of the people of Ireland. If Parliament,
  530
  in dealing with the most true-blue county in England, say Kent, were to disregard the opinions of the representatives of the county, the county councils, and the district councils, in a very short time the county would be Radical to the backbone, instead of Tory, as it was to-day. They had to complain of the spirit which had permeated the working of the Act. It had been made a reproach in English quarters against the Irish Party that they had had some differences amongst themselves as to the methods of working the Act. In this it seemed to him that Englishmen had been unfair and inconsistent, because if Irishmen had a few differences, not very serious or deep-rooted, they were told that they were a pack of quarrelsome Celts, but if they had not the slightest difference of opinion such as might arise amongst a body of intelligent men, then they were told that they were a pack of Irish slaves, controlled by the tyrant hands of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. Whatever differences there had been about this Act, what were they compared with the spirit shown on the benches opposite, and even on the judicial benches? One of the greatest troubles they had had to deal with in connection with the working of the Land Act was that, on the very eve of the Second Reading, the Solicitor-General for England went down to the country and at a public meeting sneered at the Land Purchase Bill, and said that he was only going to vote for the Second Reading as a matter of form, and that the Irish land legislation for the past twenty years was a scandal and a disgrace to civilisation. That was a very sinister remark to make. It gave to the Judges in the Land Courts, and to every man having the administration of the Act in his hands, the straight tip that if they took a line against the tenants, and did all they could for the landlords, they would be doing a thing heartily approved of by a very strong and powerful section of the present Government.
  He greatly regretted that the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh and the select little band of his friends should try to import bad blood into the discussion of Irish affairs. That hon. Member had said much about land sales in Westmeath of which

  531
  he did not approve, and though the hon. Member in his own constituency, in view of the next general election, posed as the champion of the agricultural labourer, he tried to bar out the agricultural labourers in Westmeath from getting any scrap of benefit out of the Land Purchase Act. The hon. Member had also complained of the intervention of the United Irish League in land sales. He could only say that his grievance against a large proportion of the tenants was that they had purchased under the Act without sufficiently consulting the League, with the result that tens of thousands of pounds had been put into the pockets of the landlords more than they should have got. A number of remarks had been made by Land Judges and Land Commissioners to the effect that the high prices paid for farms in many parts of Ireland were a proof that higher rents could have been paid. He defied anyone in or out of the House to produce a quotation from any English political economist, no matter what his politics might be, which went to show that the sale price, in Ireland, of land ever had been, or could be, a fair test of the rent which the owner might reasonably ask a tenant to pay. The competition for land, and the excessive price paid for land had been notorious, and he trusted that that would be taken into account in fixing prices under the Land Purchase Act.
  *MR. JOHN CAMPBELLsaid he wished to invite the Chief Secretary's attention to some figures taken from the Return placed in Members' hands only that day. He would take his own native county—Armagh—but the conclusions deduced therefrom would probably be found applicable to the other counties in Ireland. Firstly, the purchase price was too extravagant. In the case of judicial rents fixed before 1896 (first-term rents) the number of years' purchase was almost twenty-nine. In the case of second-term rents the number of years' purchase varied from nearly twenty-six inside the zones to over twenty-seven and a half outside the zones. In the case of non-
  532
  judicial rents the price was over twenty-five years purchase. This was far too high. Another point was that in county Armagh the sales were all direct between landlord and tenant, without the intervention of the Estates Commissioners. This was a dangerous mode of procedure, and was accountable for the unduly inflated prices which tenants in county Armagh had been cajoled or coerced into paying. As to the question of evicted tenants—there was a reference in the King's Speech which promised the Land Act—and a final settlement of the land question would not be possible until the last of the evicted tenants had been reinstated. Rent reductions were lamentably small and inadequate, considering the increased pressure of foreign competition and increased price of labour. Good swingeing reductions were the only way to beat down to their knees landlords like the Earl of Dartrey who demanded twenty-six years' purchase. He also desired to direct the Chief Secretary's attention to the definition of a congested estate in Section 6, Subsection 5, of the Act of 1903—
  "The expression 'congested estate' means an estate not less than half the area of which consists of holdings not exceeding five pounds in rateable value, or of mountain or bog land."
  This definition would cover nearly the whole of South Armagh, where most of the land was mountain or bog land.
  One word in conclusion. In the days of old Rome a new Praetor, on entering on his term of office, was wont to promulgate by edict the various laws by which he proposed to govern. The Chief Secretary was assuming a new and important post. During his tenure of the Irish Secretaryship he might be content merely to mark time. But if he desired to finish the work which his predecessor had begun, then he would show unto him a yet more excellent way. Let him open a new leaf in his album and let him take up his pen and write quickly thereon these words, "Compulsory Sale and Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act." Let him not deceive himself. The one and only ultimate solution of the Irish Land Question was the introduction into future legislation of the element of compulsion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 224 (Division List No. 65.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E (Berwick)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Allen, Charles P.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  'O'Mara, James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Partington, Oswald

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Reddy, M.

  Bell, Richard

  Harwood, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Benn, John Williams

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Blake, Edward

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Boland, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brigg, John

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roche, John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Runciman, Walter

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Burns, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

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

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Labouchere, Henry

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lamont, Norman

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crean, Eugene

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Crombie, John William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Crooks, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Toulmin, George

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ure, Alexander

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Wallace, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Crae, George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellice, Capt E C (S Andrew's Bghs

  M'Kean, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whitley, J. H. (Halfax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murphy, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Ffrench, Peter

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wood, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Young, Samuel

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norman, Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Patrick O'Brien and Mr.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

  Haviland Burke.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bigwood, James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Bill, Charles

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Bingham, Lord

  Arnold-Fortser, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bond, Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Bagot, Capt, Josceline Fitz Roy

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Bull, William James

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Butcher, John George

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helder, Augustus

  Percy, Earl

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A. (Worc

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, John S.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Kerr, John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Keswick, William

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

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

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowe, Francis, William

  Stanley, Rt Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stock, James Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Garfit, William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tuff, Charles

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Massey, Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'mlets

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Wharton, Rt Hon John Lloyd

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Gretton, John

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Hain, Edward

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Myers, William Henry

  Viscount Valentia.

  Original Question again proposed.
  And, it being half past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  WOOLWICH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [BY ORDER.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SUPPLY [2ND ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £21,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS III.

  £

  Ireland:—

  Land Commission

  70,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Colonial Office

  25,000

  Local Government Board

  86,000

  CLASS I.

  Royal Palaces

  26,000

  Osborne

  7,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  43,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  25,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  33,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  15,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  54,000

  Revenue Buildings

  200,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  180,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  90,000

  538

  £

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  8,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  10,000

  Rates on Government Property

  260,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  110,000

  Railways, Ireland

  35,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords Offices

  7,000

  House of Commons Offices

  15,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  40,000

  Home Office

  66,000

  Foreign Office

  25,000

  Privy Council Office, etc.

  3,000

  Board of Trade

  85,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  55,000

  Charity Commission

  15,000

  Civil Service Commission

  17,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  25,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  3,000

  Lunacy Commission

  5,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  5

  National Debt Office

  6,000

  Public Record Office

  10,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  5

  Registrar-General's Office

  17,000

  Stationery and Printing

  330,000

  Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

  8,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  30,000

  Secret Service

  40,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland, Office of

  25,000

  Fishery Board

  5,000

  Lunacy Commission

  3,000

  Registrar-General's Office

  2,000

  Local Government Board

  5,000

  Ireland:—

  Lord-Lieutenant's Household

  2,000

  Chief Secretary for Ireland

  12,000

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

  80,000

  Charitable Donations and Be-quests Office

  1,000

  539

  £

  Local Government Board

  27,000

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  Public Works Office

  17,000

  Registrar-General's Office

  5,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  6,000

  CLASS III.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  40,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  28,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  140,000

  Land Registry

  18,000

  County Courts

  2,000

  Police, England and Wales

  13,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  350,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  130,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  12,000

  Scotland:—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  30,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  15,000

  Crofters' Commission, Scotland

  2,000

  Prisons, Scotland

  37,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  32,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  43,000

  County Court Officers, etc.

  45,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  60,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  600,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  54,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  55,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  3,500

  CLASSIV.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Board of Education

  7,000,000

  British Museum

  70,000

  National Gallery

  10,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  Wallace Collection

  3,000

  Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom

  24,000

  540

  £

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  60,000

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  770,000

  National Gallery

  5,000

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  760,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  400

  National Gallery

  2,500

  Queen's Colleges

  2,500

  CLASS V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  250,000

  Colonial Services

  595,000

  Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  35,000

  Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

  15,000

  CLASS VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  300,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc.,

  1,500

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  1,000

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  17,000

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies

  —

  CLASS VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  20,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  14,587

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  —

  Ireland Development Grant

  100,000

  Visit of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to India

  —

  Total for Civil Services

  £14,070,000

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  £

  Customs

  350,000

  Inland Revenue

  830,000

  Post Office

  3,800,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  250,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  2,200,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £7,430,000

  Grand Total

  £21,500,000

  MR. SCHWANNsaid he desired to call attention to the want of education among the children of the Tamil coolies who worked on the tea estates in Ceylon. The Tamil coolies were those who came across the sea from Madras and other parts of Southern India and who settled down to work on the plantations of Ceylon, and for their children so slight a provision was made in the way of education that it could be left altogether without recognition. The whole state of education among the population was neither flattering to our rule nor very encouraging. According to the census of 1901, the population of Ceylon was 3,500,000, and of the number only 750,000 were able to read or write, the rest were without any education. So far as the children were concerned, of the Ceylonese three-fifths had education and two-fifths had none; the children of the Tamil coolies were even more neglected. They numbered roughly some 90,000 or 100,000, and of those only one in fifty received any education at all. Such a state of things did not redound to the credit of the tea-planter, or, this being a Crown Colony, to our institutions. Two years previously the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, when Colonial Secretary, had been good enough to refer this question of the education of the children to a Committee then sitting upon the incidence of taxation and education cess, and he believed a Report was made by every member of that Committee with regard to the education of the coolie children of Ceylon. That Report had never been given to the House. They now found quite recently that a new Committee had been established by Sir Henry Blake, the new Governor of Ceylon, for the purpose of examining this question. He desired to know the reason for appointing that Committee, because it was generally acknowledged by those who understood these matters that the appointment of a Committee was only another means for delay. He believed, however, from the reply that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had made to a Question upon this subject, that this Committee was for a benevolent object, and was to take into consideration the recommendations of the Committee
  542
  which sat upon the incidence of taxation and education cess and to establish a system of education in Ceylon for these children. If that was so, he should be highly delighted and could only congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon commencing his official duties by such an act of real civilisation to this colony.
  There were some Tea Estates Companies who felt they owed a duty to the children on their estates, and they had established schools which had been successful in obtaining grants from the Government, but there were only forty-three of those schools among 1,857 estates. The experience of the education obtained in those schools was of the greatest value to the Committee, a great many owners of estates expressing the opinion that the children on their estates, owing to the education they received, were a great deal more intelligent than before, that they were able to check the accounts of their families and thus keep a check upon the moneylenders, who were a great evil so far as the coolies were concerned in Ceylon. That established the position that education was not only in the interests of the children, but of the planters also, because it gave them intelligent workmen. Mr. J. Harwood, the Director of Public Instruction in Ceylon, had not a great opinion of the estates schools, and said—
  "It was not unfair to say that there was hardly any proper educational provision for the children of the Tamil estate coolies."
  and further
  "That no planter would deny that many children go out as pluckers at an age when they would be more appropriately going to school."
  In conclusion, Mr. Harwood said that these children—
  "should have some instruction of a simple and elementary nature."
  Referring to the question of age, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take that question into consideration. These children of tender years were taken out into the fields and exposed for ten or twelve hours in all weathers, for there was not always sunshine in Ceylon, and he thought there should be some limitation to the time at which they should

  543
  be at work. Mr. Harwood's opinion was that—
  "The real solution of the question seems to be in the establishment of a special class of school for the estate coolies with a syllabus framed, to meet the real wants of these children. The extension of schools of a similar type through the more backward parts of the rural districts of Ceylon would be a wise measure."
  Mr. Kingsford, Chairman of the Planters Association of Ceylon, on the other hand, rather threw cold water upon that scheme and said—
  "I would advocate an extension on a more liberal scale of the present Government grants."
  Unfortunately a rumour had reached him that the Director of Public Instruction there proposed to reduce the grants made by the Government. He hoped that that was not the case. Nobody proposed to give these children an elaborate education comprising algebra, trigonometry, and so forth; all they wanted to teach them was a little writing, reading, and arithmetic in their own vernacular. Two or three hours a day would be quite sufficient, and nobody suggested that these children should spend the whole day in school. Another idea which had struck a great many was that for the purposes of the schools the estates should be grouped together so that a school might be founded for the children of, say, four or five estates. He did not think the cost of such schools as he suggested would be alarming, seeing that a schoolmaster could be obtained for twenty rupees a month, and though the planters themselves were not very enthusiastic on the subject of education, he thought, if they only fell into line, they would in the end be glad to see, as some already did, the benefits of education extended to those whom they employed. The Times of Ceylon stated—
  "We have little doubt that primary education for the Tamil children on the estates would create a more intelligent class, more free from crime than their more ignorant fathers."
  The hon. Sir James Ferguson, a member of the Government Council, Ceylon, said
  "The primary duty lies with the estate proprietors, with the directors and chairman of Tea Companies. If this duty be neglected for long I can only say I shall feel bound to advocate compulsion."
  He himself held a certain number of tea shares, and was also connected with some
  544
  estates in Ceylon, and was therefore able, as well as willing, to contribute his share towards promoting the welfare of the children. The right hon. Gentleman had already shown his interest in this question, and he hoped they would very shortly see a simple, cheap, and effective system of education introduced in Ceylon.
  *MR. KEARLEYsaid he had already about a fortnight since directed the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the treatment of British ships trading with the Marshall Islands, but the replies not being entirely satisfactory he was entitled to mention the subject again. The Commonwealth Government had made a strong protest to the Home Government against the outrageous treatment accorded to British ships trading between the Colonies and those islands which belonged to Germany. What were the facts? A Sydney firm intended to establish a line of steamers between Sydney and the Marshall Islands, but, before doing so, they approached the German authorities, who assured them that they would come in under the most-favoured-nation terms. On the arrival at the Marshall Islands of the first ship they were charged a licence fee at the rate of £2,700 per annum for the privilege of trading. Two voyages were made, both of which were necessarily unsuccessful, but at the urgent request of the native chiefs it was decided to make a third trip in the hope that the authorities would make some concession. On arrival, however, the captain of the ship was told the fees were doubled, and a trading fee at the rate of £5,400 per annum was levied. When the ship returned to Sydney and the facts became known considerable excitement arose in the harbour, culminating in the strong protest that was sent by the Commonwealth Government to the Home Government. A great deal was said now-a-days about protecting our trade from outrageous treatment; here was a case in which the Government could apply their policy of retaliation without any delay longer than that of obtaining the assent of Parliament, which would be freely given. Let them consider the difference in treatment accorded to German and other nationalities when trading with the group of islands

  545
  under British control; ships of any nation could go and trade on payment of a fee of £100 a year! What was the nature of the protest of the Commonwealth Government, and were the Imperial Government discussing this question with Germany? because it was not a question which would brook much delay. He would like to know also whether the right hon. Gentleman would publish Papers. He hoped the Government would not tamely submit to this outrageous interference with our trade, and that if satisfaction was not accorded by Germany they would devise some means of retaliation.
  *MR. McCRAEasked for information as to the issue of the first instalment of the £30,000,000 Transvaal loan. The answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the willingness of the guarantors to fulfil their obligations was entirely borne out by the correspondence. The Government had made the proposition for this £30,000,000 loan with an utter disregard to the one consideration they ought to bear in mind in all transactions of this kind. The arrangement the late Colonial Secretary made with the guarantors for the loan excluded all possibility of a sinking fund. A sinking fund was to be provided for the £35,000,000 loan which the late Colonial Secretary said was part of the agreement whereby this country was to guarantee the £30,000,000, and that fact ought to be kept in the forefront. The present Colonial Secretary, wiser than his predecessor, said a sinking fund must be provided for the £30,000,000 loan also, and the guarantors then asked for further particulars. So far as he could discover, all negotiations had since then been suspended with the guarantors, and he asked, Why this delay? Why had the right hon. Gentleman allowed fifteen months to elapse without taking action in the matter. In his letter of December 4th, 1903, to Messrs. Wernher Beit & Company, the Colonial Secretary stated—
  "The necessary legal provisions for raising the loan had been embodied in a draft Ordinance which was forwarded some time ago to the Governor of the Transvaal, and which will be submitted in due course to the Legislative Council of the Colony, but an important point in connection with the Ordinance remains un
  546
  settled, namely, the question of a sinking fund."
  Had anything been done since December, 1903, to get the assent of the Legislative Council of the Transvaal to the issue of this loan? The matter was in a most extraordinary position, and the Committee ought to have some definite and detailed statement from the Colonial Secretary as to how the whole matter stood. The first instalment was to have been paid some fifteen months ago, but there was no immediate prospect of the promise being fulfilled. Quite recently Lord Milner had stated that the finances of the Transvaal were in a very rosy condition, but it was only a few weeks back that the Colonial Secretary said that they were not sufficient to meet the sinking fund and interest for this first instalment of the loan. He thought, however, that, having regard to the contribution from the mines under the new system, the right hon. Gentleman would find, if he looked into the matter for the coming year, that the finances of the Transvaal would be sufficient to meet the sinking fund and interest. Moreover, the money market was in a condition favourable to the issue of the loan. All financial authorities would agree that at any time within the last two months a successful issue might have been secured; but in any case, so far as the first issue was concerned, the guarantors were liable for its success. How was it that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken advantage of the condition of the money market? Even the municipality of Johannesburg proposed to issue a loan of £2,500,000. If the reason for the non-issue of the loan was not the condition of the Transvaal finances or of the money market, was it connected with the Legislative Council? The right hon. Gentleman ought to make a clean breast of the matter, and he hoped he would take advantage of the present debate to give the Committee a clear and definite statement. He begged to move a reduction in the Vote of £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Class 2, Vote 6 (Colonial Office), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. McCrae.)
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the question raised by the hon. Member for Devonport was a serious one, and, with him, he appealed to his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary to consider it. He would point out, however, that the action of Germany in regard to the Marshall Islands was not a single application of a singular principle, but the application of a general principle to the whole of His Majesty's Colonies by that Power. At the present time the North-German Lloyd Company, by its contract with the German Government, was prevented from taking from Australia to Germany a single pound's worth of wool, food stuffs or any raw material which Australia might produce. It seemed to him the Committee should consider this question in relation not only to Germany, but also to the United States. What was the policy of the United States with regard to our Colonies? He was aware that hon. Members opposite were opposed to him on the question of preference, but there was such a thing as not only preference in relation to the trade of foreign countries with our Colonies, but also practical prohibition. In 1885, England was commercially supreme in the Sandwich Islands. By virtue of a strenuous commercial policy the United States gained control of the commercial position there, turned that position into a political position, and eventually, as in Samoa, effected a territorial acquirement. The result was that now the shipping trade from Australia was not allowed to carry a pound of goods from the Sandwich Islands to San Francisco. How could Great Britain view a circumstance of that kind without considering her own position? In the Sandwich Islands, Samoa, and Mexico, the United States had, to use an American expression, "chiselled" us out of our position.
  The hon. Member for Devonport had very properly protested against the action of Germany, and had asked what position the Government were going to take up with regard to what was practically a prohibitory proclamation against our trade. The matter was worthy of attention, and the Committee ought to consider whether the question of retaliation, whether applied to the dumping of goods in this country by foreign countries
  548
  or to the passage of ships upon the sea, was not really a serious and critical question for this country. If a policy of retaliation might be applied in the case of Germany in regard to the Marshall Islands, should the Committee not consider whether it would be possible, or proper, to incorporate into our national policy a reconstruction of our navigation laws? We boasted of our shipping trade, and yet our position was only the same as fifty years ago, in spite of the vast increase of our population and the acquisition of large territories which ought to give us new markets. In Cuba there had been a policy of preference. ["Question."] The policy of retaliation involved the policy of preference, if it involved anything at all, ["No."] If a nation pursued a policy favourable to its own territories and oppressive to those of other Powers, that was a policy of preference. If the hon. Gentleman asked the Government to retaliate in this case, he was asking them to retaliate in the interests of some of the British dominions, and if that did not involve the principle of preference what, in the name of common-sense, did it involve? At any rate, it involved the principle of fair play for our shipping trade and of justice to our Colonies. This policy of preference or of justice to our dominions had been well exemplified in the relations between Canada and Germany. When Canada put a surtax upon sugar, Germany was exporting to Canada 188,000,000 lbs. of sugar. Immediately Canada put on the surtax the importation of German sugar ceased, but the importation from the West Indies and British Guiana went up to such an extent as to make good the cessation of the German supply. In the course of recent debates with regard to the Sugar Convention and the increased production in the West Indies, hon. Members had spoken of the importation into England as though that were all. But the Empire was larger than England, and if, by the Sugar Convention embodying the principle of preference to the West Indies, the Government had benefited the trade of Canada and developed the production of India, and by so completing the circle had drawn Canada closer to this country, they had been pursuing not only an Imperial idea of unity but an economic idea of security.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that with regard to the Transvaal loan, there had been an entire failure to carry out the obligations contracted when the late Colonial Secretary went to South Africa. Three obligations were then entered into. The first was that the gold and property tax should not exceed a certain percentage. That was in favour of those interested in gold mines, and had been rigidly observed. The second was that this country should guarantee a loan of £35,000,000. That was for the benefit of the colony, and the money had been issued. The third was that a sum of £30,000,000, should be raised at 4 per cent., without guarantee by this country, towards the cost of the war. That was in favour of this country, but the obligation had been absolutely unfulfilled. He did not blame the Colonial Secretary for not carrying the arrangement into effect, his view being that we had no right until a representative Government adopted the proposal to impose upon the Transvaal such an immense burden of taxation as would be involved in another £30,000,000 of debt. The £35,000,000 already issued, and the additional £30,000,000 would amount to about £160 of debt per head of the white population of the Transvaal, an amount unprecedented in the history of any nation. The indebtedness in this country worked out to about £18 per head. He had endeavoured, with considerable trouble, to ascertain what the financial position of the Transvaal really was, but it was the most difficult thing in the world to investigate. The Blue-books gave the impression that the truth was being purposely concealed, so muddled and confused were the statements. He thought, however, that any impartial observer of the Transvaal accounts for last year would come to the conclusion that the financial prospect was anything but rosy. Did the Government really believe it possible to impose this fresh burden of £30,000,000 on the Transvaal. If so, he would be glad to hear it, as there were many persons in South Africa who profited very largely by the war, and who ought to pay something towards relieving the burden imposed upon this country. He had no feeling of tenderness for the capitalists of South Africa, who, he believed, were
  550
  largely responsible for that most disastrous war, but business ought to be business, and it was idle to put an additional £30,000,000 of debt upon the Transvaal unless the Government were satisfied that the country could bear the burden. If the Colonial Secretary had doubts on the subject he would receive support from both sides if he said so at once and took the consequences, which, after all, would not be the result of his own acts. The truth was that this arrangement was an illusory and impossible bargain from beginning to end. He hoped the Colonial Secretary would tell the Committee what he really thought about the subject, and whether he proposed to leave the matter open until representative Government was established in the Transvaal, and that representative Government had taken upon itself the responsibility of this burden.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman was one of the few Members who were justified in taking the line he had just followed, because in the discussions on the South African Loan Bill he took the fundamental objection that the condition of the Transvaal was such that a debt of £65,000,000 could not equitably be imposed upon the colony, and he had consistently opposed the policy of the Government from beginning to end. But that did not apply to all Members, and certainly not to the Government. There was a case, at any rate, for full inquiry and explanation. What was the condition of affairs with regard to this £30,000,000 loan? Without going through the matter from the beginning what was the condition now? The last statement they had upon this subject was one made two or three days ago by Lord Milner in Johannesburg, who said that he was leaving South Africa without a vestige of anxiety regarding the ability of the Transvaal to pay its way, and there was money enough there to meet all the normal requirements of good government. Lord Milner further stated that the contribution of the Transvaal to the burden of the war was one of honour, and one which no colonial statesman of any credit could ignore. That was quite a recent statement from Lord Milner,

  551
  but they had had no information as the views of the Government upon this subject for more than a year.
  His hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries seemed to indicate that the Colonial Secretary had held the idea that since the South African Loan Bill was introduced it had been practically impossible to attempt to demand the issue of this £30,000,000 loan. He did not think that idea was quite accurate In December, 1903, the Governor of the Transvaal telegraphed to the Colonial Secretary stating that he was expecting instructions with regard to the first instalment of that loan, and there were several communications with regard to the issue of the loan in accordance with the scheme of the Loan Bill, but it was not issued. He contended that the loan of £30,000,000 was not issued in 1903, not on the ground that the finances of the Transvaal would not bear it, but on account of the state of the money market. In the last few months there had been considerable improvement in the finances of the Transvaal. Therefore it did not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to meet this argument on the ground of the condition of the finances of the Transvaal. They had not yet got the complete figures, but they had been given up to the end of December last. The figures they had got, however, marked a very considerable improvement, and he thought they might deduce from Lord Milner's statement that in his view the possibility of issuing the first instalment of the £30,000,000 loan was within a reasonable distance. He wished to remind the Committee of the White Paper which was issued with the Loan Bill, explaining the finance upon which it was founded. That Paper showed the way in which the interest was to be paid, and it stated that at first there would probably be a deficit, but that afterwards there would be a surplus. If that was the case in 1903, when the Transvaal finances were not so hopeful as at the present time, surely now that they had turned the corner they might fairly expect that some steps would be taken for the issue of the first instalment of this loan. With regard to the guarantors, he did not want to go into details as to their position, but he did not think they had been very eager.
  THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTOX, Warwick and Leamington)dissented.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid at the beginning they had the most equivocal and categorical statement as to the way in which they had given their guarantee. They were going to underwrite the whole amount, and they were not going to take any preference or commission, and it was to be a full and complete guarantee. Up to the present they had shown that they were not particularly eager to join in the issue of the first instalment of this loan. When they' remembered the patriotic expressions with which they had expressed their readiness to join in this guarantee he thought they had good reason to be disappointed at the want of eagerness amongst the guarantors at the present moment. He asked the other day whether there had been any communication between the Colonial Office and the guarantors since 1904, and he was informed that there had been none. Absolutely all negotiations between them had ceased since February, 1904. He further asked if there had been any correspondence between the Home and the Transvaal Government upon this question, and he was informed that all the correspondence had been of a private and confidential character, and there was no correspondence which could be presented to the House. He thought some announcement ought to be made of the intentions of the Government with regard to asking the Transvaal to take steps for the issue, at any rate, of the first part of the loan, and that the Committee ought to have some more detailed statement of the condition of the Transvaal finances. Lord Milner appeared to contemplate the possibility of the Transvaal Government borrowing more money for capital expenditure, and he should like some information upon that point as well as upon the various points he had raised.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid they had been told that it was desirable that they should be taught to think Imperially. In his opinion he thought it was quite time that the Government should be taught to weigh jam Imperially. He was bound to observe that the hon.

  553
  Member for Gravesend was not quite so flamboyant upon the subject of preference when that question was before the House, because he took refuge in the previous Question.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Does the hon. Member assume that I am not prepared to defend the principles which I hold?
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he did not assume anything, but at any rate he had not the courage to support his views on that occasion. With regard to the question of local self-government in the Transvaal, he had no wish to place difficulties in the way of the Government, but he regretted that they had determined to proceed by way of letters patent. The South African War lasted thirty-seven months, cost them £250,000,000, and 450,000 British troops were engaged in it, and if ever there was a case in which procedure should be by statutory enactment which would have come fully before the House for decision this was such a case. He wished to know how far they would be in a position to discuss the form of the letters patent. Would it be in detail or would they be substantially perfected before the House had an opportunity of considering them? He understood that in the Government of the Transvaal they were going to keep the official element, take away the nominated members, and substitute for them elected members.
  The Colonial Secretary had said that when the question of the Chinese Labour Ordinance was put before the representatives elected by the country they would see who was right and who was wrong upon that great issue, and that great issue was, did the country approve of the Ordinance? He held that the immediate purpose of the Government in conferring self-government on the Transvaal was to obtain a vote on the Labour Ordinance, and he warned the Colonial Secretary that it would be very disastrous indeed for the future of the Transvaal if, for the sake of securing a verdict favourable to that Ordinance, he in any way gerrymandered the Constitution. He would like to know why the Government did not propose to ask for a contribution from the Orange River Colony?
  554
  They would have to watch this question with great care, because the Government had very peculiar views as to what was the expressed wish of the people of the Transvaal on the question of the Chinese Ordinance. The right hon. Gentleman sent a telegram to the successful candidate at the Chertsey election, in which he asked all fair-minded men to remember that the labourers who came willingly upon the terms offered to them had been introduced into the Transvaal at the express wish of the white population. That was the view of the Government. On May 20th, 1903, in reply to the Australian Federal Government, who protested against the introduction of the coolie into South Africa until a referendum had been taken as to the views of the white population, the right hon. Gentleman sent a cable stating that His Majesty's Government adhered to the policy of treating the Transvaal as a self-governing colony where Imperial interests were not concerned. How had they done this? The Legislative Council consisted of twenty-seven persons, thirteen of them officials and fourteen nominated persons, and twenty-two of these gentlemen had voted in favour of the Labour Ordinance. And yet the Colonial Secretary had thought fit to inform the electors of Chertsey that the opinion of such a Council was the expressed wish of the white population of the Transvaal, and the Australian Federal Government had been informed that the Transvaal was being treated as a self-governing colony. He did not think such statements would deceive anybody, and they would not influence a single vote in the country in favour of the Government. They would, however be likely to cause exasperation in a country which had cost this country already quite enough in blood and treasure.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I think the circumstances of the Government's abstention at the present moment from the issue of £10,000,000, the first instalment of the loan no doubt require explanation; but I do not think that when the full facts of the case are put before the House they will require argument, or at any rate much argument. It is in placing the full facts of the case

  555
  before the House that I shall seek the justification of His Majesty's Government for that abstention. I say in the first place that the financial state of the Transvaal is remarkably good, all things considered; but it must be remembered that it is less than three years since peace was concluded. In the interval it has been necessary to reconstruct the entire economic fabric of the Transvaal, to restore the people to their dwellings, to rebuild their dwellings, to restock their farms, and to give them seed for planting. You have to make up the leeway in the deterioration which naturally took place during three years in the mines; the railways have had to be repaired and reconstructed, the bridges have had to be rebuilt, and the roads to be made. It has been necessary, in fact, to reconstruct the entire condition of things, which had been, of course, desolated by the war. For that purpose, among others, a development loan of £35,000,000 was guaranteed by this country. It was secured on the revenues of the Transvaal and on the railway receipts of the Inter-Colonial Council. You had, therefore, as good a security as it was possible to have. There is an ample balance to secure the loan, and there is not the slightest doubt that it will always be paid. I venture to say that any one of us who had the money would be very glad to have a share in the loan. When you have taken that guarantee into consideration, when you have reckoned the £1,400,000 which is the interest on the £35,000,000, and when you have made every provision for the expenses of government in the Transvaal, you have about a balance of ordinary revenue and expenditure. In June, which is the end of the financial year, there is estimated to be a slight deficit. But assume that the greater degree of prosperity may result in financial equilibrium at the end of June, 1905. We are asked why we do not issue the war contribution, which is to take the form of a loan of £30,000,000 at 4 per cent., secured on the revenues of the Transvaal. I say in the first place, without fear of contradiction, from those experienced in colonial affairs, that when ordinary revenue and expenditure balance in a Crown Colony it is entirely against all precedent in the financial administration of either Party
  556
  to permit a Crown colony to issue further loans. You have then nothing to issue them on. I say, therefore, with great respect to those who have advanced the contrary opinion, that even if you stop there, then you have a reason for not issuing the promised war contribution. There is no surplus on which to issue it at present, although we anticipate in the course of the next twelve months a good surplus. I wish to be very moderate in my statements in regard to the future; I do not profess to be an experienced financier, and although we have good reason to believe that there will be a reasonable and substantial surplus in 1905–6, still at the present moment, in a state of financial equilibrium, I say we are not justified in issuing the £30,000,000 loan.
  But it may be said that the circumstances of the Transvaal are peculiar, because there has been a promise—it has always been put very loosely—that the £30,000,000 would be paid; and the first £10,000,000, it is vaguely said, has been guaranteed by the capitalists of the Rand. [Cries of "Not vaguely."] It is generally said. Please look at the facts. Every business man will recognise them at once. A contract of guarantee is ambiguous. It might be supposed that the capitalists of the Transvaal had guaranteed both the principal and interest of the first £10,000,000
  *MR. McCRAE: Nobody said so.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I believe nobody said so, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who is very well informed, would not say so, but I think from what passed in this House before, and certainly from what I have heard outside, there is a general belief that the Government, by asking for £10,000,000 at the present moment and issuing the loan, could obtain the money from the pockets of the capitalists of the Transvaal, and so make the position of the British taxpayer so much the lighter. I believe that was the idea. Now, I will point out that that is an absolute delusion. The contract was not a guarantee for principal and interest. It was an underwriting contract. I do not profess to be a City man myself, but everybody who has been in the City tells me that at the present moment, if you

  557
  chose to issue that £10,000,000 at 4 per cent., there would not be the slightest difficulty in getting the money. I do not think that is disputed. Of course hon. Members will see in a moment that what would happen would be this. That loan would be issued, it would be subscribed, I venture to say—though no expert in these matters—many times over at 4 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: At par?] Yes, I venture to say that it would go beyond par, probably to 101 or 102. Now please consider the consequence. The consequence is that the capitalists of the Transvaal, instead of paying the taxpayers of this country £10,000,000 out of their pockets, would receive in premiums on that loan something like £500,000. Is it not ridiculous to blame us for not bleeding the capitalists when the effect of their being bled would end in putting half a million into their pockets?
  *MR. McCRAE: That is not so.
  MR LYTTELTON: The House has heard my argument, and I am speaking in the hearing of gentlemen who know the circumstances of the money market better than I know them.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Does not the 4 per cent. include the sinking fund?
  MR. LYTTELTON: It does not include the sinking fund. But let me allow for a margin of error. Let me suppose that the 4 per cent. loan would not go beyond par. In that case the capitalists of the Transvaal would lose or gain nothing, but the burden of this contribution would fall, not upon them, but upon the taxpayers of the Transvaal. I think that it is only justice to the gentlemen who made that engagement to say that in 1902 the circumstances of the Transvaal were widely different. There was a period which no one could foresee when the economic prosperity of the country would revive. This underwriting contract was made by the capitalists without any commission, without any certainty what the results of it would be, when, indeed, their position might be one of serious loss. They ought to have the credit of that. But do not let us hear any more of the plea that we
  558
  can get £10,000,000 out of these gentlemen when, in point of fact, the result of such an operation would be to put money into their pockets.
  *MR. McCRAE: You are misstating the case.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not wish to make any statement beyond bringing to the attention of hon. Members the great seriousness of what the contract of underwriting was. What was the so-called contract for £30,000,000? It was an undertaking made by fourteen prominent citizens of the Witwatersrand. They described themselves as being large taxpayers resident on the Witwatersrand, and to these fourteen members were added the Johannesburg Town Council, the chambers of mines and commerce the Stock Exchange, and other bodies. I think that, looking at the list with perfect impartiality, we would say that it was a very representative body. What did they resolve to do? Great as my admiration is for my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, I think that one of the most important and triumphant of his feats is to have secured a resolution from that body to this effect. It was the result of a powerful and magnetic personality. This was the resolution—
  "This meeting, consisting of large taxpayers resident on the Witwatersrand, expresses its approval of the principle that the colony should make a voluntary contribution to the Imperial Government of £30,000,000 towards the cost of the recent war, and that this sum be a debt on the public revenues of this colony, the amount to be provided by a 4 per cent, loan raised in three yearly instalments of £10,000,000 each, commencing January, 1904."
  That is the arrangement. [An HON. MEMBER: But that is not a guarantee.] I thought I had made the matters of the guarantee clear to the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me. The guarantee was £10,000,000, to be issued at 4 per cent., secured on the revenues of the Transvaal, This is £30,000,000. Will hon. Gentlemen be kind enough to keep these two things separate? That is the promise made by leading residents on the Witwatersrand. My right hon. friend the late Colonial Secretary, in recounting the circumstances and the conditions on which this loan was made, enumerated them with great precision. It is perfectly true he did say that the £30,000,000

  559
  of war contribution was part of the arrangement of the £35,000,000 guarantee. But he said also that we have always laid down two conditions on which we thought it possible to obtain this assistance. I agree that was part of the arrangement whereby the guarantee of £35,000,000 was made, but what are the other conditions? There were three other conditions. First, that we did not intend to impose any additional taxation in the Transvaal beyond the 10 per cent, profit tax we had put on the mining industry. Secondly, that we should not put upon them any obligation which would hinder a prompt and sufficient development of the country. That has always been a cardinal feature of the policy of the Government. And the third condition was "that any contribution which is to be made should be made willingly, voluntarily, and not be enforced or imposed upon them by the superior Power." There was a further engagement which I should notice, namely, "that the loan should not be issued when market conditions were unfavourable." Please let the House consider this matter, as I only wish to put the abolute facts before them. I have read my right hon. friend's words. If we now exacted this loan of £30,000,000 are we in a position to say that we should not enforce or impose it by the superior Power? I pointed out at the beginning of my speech that there was only an equilibrium of revenue and expenditure, and that we were not in a position to make such a demand at any time, and more particularly when the whole right of our obligation arises from an arrangement made, and that arrangement is on the terms that the contribution is only to be made willingly and voluntarily. Can it be said that the imposition of this obligation now would not hinder the proper and sufficient development of the country? I say it would take away for some years the entire surplus revenue of the colony; and everybody knows that when a colony is in the condition of the Transvaal development works are exceedingly urgent; and if you wish to make a good thing of the colony, if you wish results from the Transvaal such as have been seen in many of the self-governing Colonies, I say, Do not ride the horse too
  560
  hard at the beginning. Let him get on his legs. Do not gallop him on deep ground. Treat him gently; he will gallop well enough when you get him on the straight afterwards. I wish to ask this question seriously, is anybody who follows me in a position to say, were we to issue this £30,000,000 loan at the present moment, that it could be done without imposing fresh taxation, without hindering its proper and sufficient development, or without imposing the will of the superior Power on the Transvaal, and not voluntarily by the Transvaal? If he cannot affirm these three propositions, then in asking the House to issue this loan he is asking it to break the conditions which were made. [Cries of "Oh."] Yes, he is asking us to break the conditions which were made by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, and which were stated with the utmost lucidity to the House of Commons.
  I ought to mention that the debt of the Transvaal, with a population of 300,000 men, is £35,000,000, and that debt has been undertaken and provision made for the payment of interest on the debt within three years of a long and desolating war. If you add £30,000,000 more you would have a debt of £65,000,000. The figures of population must not be pressed too far, because you have an industrial population of Kaffirs and Chinamen also, which amount, I daresay, altogether to six or seven times that number. It would not be right to treat it as a matter affecting the whites only, because you have a great deal of industrial potentiality; but still, if you were to multiply that 300,000 by six or seven, such a debt would be a very heavy burden at the present moment. I venture to think it ought not to be imposed at a moment when we are on the eve of granting them representative government. I am endeavouring to place the exact facts of the case before hon. Members. They may possibly not accept them. The hon. Member for Camberwell and the hon. Member for East Perthshire stated that legislation is required before this debt of £30,000,000 can be imposed. Legislation is required, and I do not deny that if we were to exercise our powers at the present moment, and if we were to force the vote through the

  561
  present Legislative Council by the us of the official vote we could possibly pas that legislation.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Like the Ordinance.
  MR. LYTTELTON: If the hon. Member's memory was as good as I thought it was he would remember that the official vote was not used on that occasion.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The Ordinance was carried by twenty-two to four, and the total membership, official and nominated, is twenty-seven.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member appears to think that is an answer. If his memory was as good as I thought it was, he would know that specific injunctions were given from home that the official members were to vote as they pleased.
  MR. EMMOTT: Did any vote against? [Cries of "No."]
  MR. LYTTELTON: Yes, I think four did. I do not wish to pursue that interruption. It is not germane to what I am saying. If we were to force the necessary legislation through by the use of the official vote, instructing every membèr of the Government that he must vote for it or resign his seat, I am not at all sure that we would get it through, but we should have a chance of getting it through. But, assuming that we should get it, do hon. Members think such a course would be wise or in conformity with the traditions of colonial administration in this country? On the eve of the grant of a large measure of representative government—yes, and upon a very democratic franchise—do they think it would be wise to exact from a moribund Assembly a contribution of £30,000,000, plus the £35,000,000 already upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of the Transvaal? I say it would be most unwise, and I should be surprised if any Member of the Party opposite got up and said that it would be otherwise than most unwise and impolitic co force such a vote through a moribund nominated Assembly.
  Now, I have endeavoured to show that the Government are fully justified
  562
  in abstaining at the present moment from forcing this contribution, so to say, at the point of the bayonet from the Transvaal. I have pointed out the circumstances of their financial condition. I have pointed out the conditions on which my predecessor obtained this concession from the capitalists of the Transvaal. I have pointed out the circumstances of the finances of the colony at the present moment, and the financial equilibrium. These are all against the immediate imposition of this war contribution loan. Now let me say why I consider—avoiding anything like undue optimism—that we have an excellent chance of obtaining in due time, and in the near future, this contribution. In the year 1905–6 the Premier Diamond Mine falls into, so to say, profitable uses. At present, as hon. Gentlemen who are familiar with the country know, all the revenue of the mine is carried to capital account, to pay for the working expenses and plant. But that ceases, as I have said, in the present financial year. So far as my information goes, the share of the profits of the mine to which the Transvaal Government are entitled, will bring them in between £400,000 and £500,000 a year, and £400,000 would be sufficient to pay the interest on the first £10,000,000. But that is not all; although I do not wish to put this too highly. I do not think the full profits of the gold mines which have resulted from the introduction of Chinese labour have yet begun to fructify, although at the end of 1905–6 they will have made up the leeway. Still, I believe that in the course of this financial year the return of 10 per cent, of the profits which go to the Transvaal Government will on that account be much larger than they are now. If I am right in what I have said about the mines, and if the rest of the country continues to expand in prosperity at the same rate as it is progressing now, the colony will soon be placed in a position in which there will be some ground, at any rate, for saying that there will be a surplus revenue sufficient to serve the interest on the loan of £10,000,000. Of course, we must all recognise that the profits of the diamond mines to which I have referred, would be, to a prudent investor,

  563
  of a somewhat speculative and conjectural kind. Still, there they are, and there is every hope that they will expand.
  In the next place, our fellow-subjects in the Transvaal ought to remember, and I believe they do remember, that we have fulfilled our part of the bargain which was made with them by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. That is to say, as the first part of the arrangement whereby they promised us £30,000,000, we guaranteed them £35,000,000 as a development loan. Our fellow-subjects must remember that they have obtained a large sum, not by any means all used up in development but also in the repatriation of the Boers, and the reconstruction of farms, on undoubtedly easier terms than they would have had without our guarantee. I think hon. Gentlemen familiar with this matter fully admit that they obtained that loan 1 per cent cheaper than they would have got it without our guarantee and had they had to rely upon their own resources. Just think what that means. That means that as a result of that guarantee, which was, no doubt, given to them as part of the arrangement, they are richer by £350,000 a year than they would have been had we not given the guarantee. Our friends in the Transvaal ought to remember that. I have not the slightest doubt they will remember it.
  Now let me review for a moment the financial position, and pray let the House remember I am only giving the results of estimates on the present figures. On the diamond mines alone at the present rate of production the probable accretion to the Transvaal revenue is something like £400,000 a year. The result of our guaranteeing the £35,000,000 betters the position of the Transvaal by £300,000 a year. That surely gives us a right to say, "Consider how we have treated you with consideration in not pressing you at a time when your revenue did not exceed your expenses. We have not pressed the loan when we might have done so, because we believed it would be more in consonance with the traditions of this country to wait until elected representatives should willingly take on themselves this debt rather than that we should rely on an undertaking which was got in the circumstances I
  564
  have narrated." Above all, we can say to them, "Remember your better position. Remember the bargain that some of your representatives made. Remember the fulfilment of every tittle of the bargain that we made on our side. Lastly, remember the immense sacrifices which this country has made. Yes, not as has I been often said, for the gold mines, but remember the immense sacrifices we have made for the British Empire in South Africa. Of those sacrifices you among others have obtained the benefit. When you are in a position, without, adding to your taxation and without arresting the development of the country, to fulfil the bargain you made, then we may surely rely upon you to fulfil that which has now become a debt—not a legal debt, but a debt of honour—such as all honourable men desire to discharge."
  Now, let me just review in a few sentences the arguments I have endeavoured to put before the House. I think it would be most wrong of me to keep back any facts, so far as they are present to my I mind, and I wish the House to be fully seised of all the facts. We admit that at the present moment it would be competent to the Government to force through legislation and to raise £10,000,000 of money. We agree that that is possible, though the revenue shows no excess over expenditure at the present moment. We agree that in the next financial year sufficient revenue may possibly accrue to pay the interest on that sum. But we deliberately refrain from forcing legislation through a nominated Assembly. We are, above all, most anxious to avoid any appearance or any colour of exaction or compulsion. We most earnestly desire, and I believe hon. Members opposite earnestly desire it also, in no way to arrest the progress and development of the colony. We desire not to impose any undue taxation upon its inhabitants. We are, indeed—I do not hestiate to say it, and I hope our successors will not forget it—we are all most anxious to obtain a contribution towards the heavy cost of the war; but we are even more anxious, and we trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite also will be more anxious, that that contribution should be paid in the willing spirit in which it was promised, and which represented the unabated desire of those

  565
  who promised it to share the burden cast on the Motherland.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Perhaps the House will allow me to intervene for a short time in this debate, because I feel I have some special responsibility with regard to the matter now under consideration. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had to make proposals to the House from time to time to raise funds for the prosecution of the South African War, I often had occasion to allude to the portion of the cost of that war which it might be possible to recover from the Transvaal; and though I never named a sum, and though I do not think my anticipations were very sanguine, yet I always held out an expectation that there would be a substantial sum recoverable by way of indemnity from the Transvaal. I was, therefore, very glad when, I think nearly two years ago, my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, after his return from South Africa, on introducing to this House a Bill for the guarantee of the loan of £35,000,00 for the Transvaal, stated that he had made an arrangement by which at any rate those who could then speak with some responsibility for the Transvaal agreed to accept a debt of £30,000,000 from the Transvaal to this country as an indemnity, so to speak, towards the expenses of the South African War. I remember very well that my right hon. friend rather minimised at the time the amount of that contribution. He said that more might have been expected, that if we had left the matter open possibly more might have been received, but that it was for the advantage of all that the matter should then be closed, that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, or words to that effect, and that we had better take the £30,000,000 instead of expecting an indefinite and larger sum. Well, Sir, on the faith of that statement and, as my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary has said this evening, as part of that arrangement, Parliament guaranteed the loan of £35,000,000 to the Transvaal, an act which has never before been done by the Parliament of this country for any colony throughout all our possessions, but which was perfectly justifiable and perfectly necessary as part of the general arrangement after all that had
  566
  happened in the South African War. Sir, this House accepted that arrangement as a whole. And although I remember I ventured at the time myself to express some little doubt as to whether the first ten millions would be forthcoming and as to whether the second and the third ten millions would be forthcoming at the time when they might be expected to fall due, yet it was generally expected that that arrangement, that that bargain with Parliament, as I call it, would be thoroughly and completely fulfilled—that in fact, on guaranteeing the £35,000,000, Parliament might expect on behalf of the taxpayers of this country the contribution of £30,000,000 from the Transvaal.
  Well, Sir, the first ten millions of that loan was due more than a year ago. It was not issued, and it was rightly not issued, for the only effect of its issue would have been to impose a liability at that time, not upon the taxpayers of the Transvaal, but on the taxpayers of this country for the interest of that debt. Any one who has followed the progress of the revenue and expenditure of the Transvaal will have seen that the optimist expectations of two years ago were disappointed and that it was absolutely impossible that the Transvaal revenue should pay the interest upon that £10,000,000; and therefore. Sir, my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and His Majesty's Government were absolutely justified, and are still, in my opinion, absolutely justified, in declining to take any steps towards the issue of that first £10,000,000. But, Sir, what I want to know is this. We passed here an Act of Parliament guaranteeing that £35,000,000. Why was not the Transvaal Legislature asked at the same time to pass an Ordinance imposing on the Transvaal the £30,000,000 which His Majesty's Government proposed to this House as part of the bargain? I really do not know why this necessary step was not taken. My right hon. friend says that it is not well that it should be attempted now. Well, I admit that there is force in his argument. For reasons which, no doubt, seem adequate, His Majesty's Government have decided to confer representative government upon the Transvaal. I must say I hope it is not premature; but at any rate it is for

  567
  them, not for me, to judge. But in conferring representative government on the Transvaal, and within a few weeks from the time of conferring it, I admit there is force in the argument of the Secretary for the Colonies that it would be unpleasant to force through a nominated Legislature a Bill or Ordinance for imposing a debt of £30,000,000 upon the Colony. I admit that. Well, but, Sir, let me pursue this a little more. I do not propose to dwell upon the question of the guarantee of the war loan. I think a great deal too much has been made of that from both sides. If the Transvaal credit was good it was perfectly obvious that that guarantee was really worth nothing at all; but if the Colonial Government felt bound to issue that £10,000,000 at 4 per cent.—and they would be foolish if they did—the mine owners might put a very handsome little profit into their pockets. But I do not wish the loan to be issued a moment before the Transvaal revenue is sufficient to pay the interest upon it, because I do not want that interest to fall on the taxpayers of this country. His Majesty's Government have decided to confer representative government on the Transvaal, and that would presumably give to that Government full control of the revenue of the Transvaal from whatever source it is derived—from taxation, from mining receipts, from every source of every kind.
  Now my right hon. friend says quite rightly that my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, when he put forward the conditions upon which, in his opinion, this charge of £30,000,000 should be imposed on the Transvaal, said, in the first place, that it should not require additional taxation; in the second place, that it should not interfere with the proper development of the country; and, thirdly, that it should be willingly undertaken. Well, it was willingly undertaken two years ago. There is no question of imposing additional taxation to bear the interest of this debt; and my right hon. friend has said this evening that he anticipates that the profits from the Premier Diamond Mines to the Transvaal revenue in 1905–6 will amount to £400,000, while there are other mining rights he has referred to as matters that will largely increase the Transvaal re-
  568
  venue. I would earnestly beg His Majesty's Government to consider whether, in giving I representative government to the Transvaal, they may not—whether they ought not to—take security for this debt of honour to this country, a debt which was part of the bargain made with this House on the whole matter, by retaining in their power when they give representative government this revenue from the Premier Diamond Mines and other mining rights in the country. That is imposing no new taxation on the Transvaal; it is not injurious to the development of the country; it is merely taking ordinary, proper, business-like security for the payment of a debt of honour when giving representative government. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I do not find any fault with His Majesty's Government for what they have done; but I do hope that certain allusions in the speech of my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary to the burden of this £65,000,000 of debt and the necessity to devote funds to the development of the Transvaal do not portend a breach of faith with the House, do not portend a readiness to tell us at some future time that we are to allow the new representative Assembly to wipe off this debt altogether, after all that has passed.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he had no wish to detain the House after the speech to which they had just listened from the right hon. Member for West Bristol. He desired to say, in the first place, that he believed the House of Commons knew, when the; arrangement was made, that it was a two-sided arrangement—on the one side that this country was to guarantee the loan of £35,000,000 and on the other side that we were to receive £30,000,000 as a war indemnity. In other words the arrangement was one compacted body of agreement. He had to thank, quite seriously, the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary for the first full statement giving the truth of the matter which the House and country had ever had. He believed that the country would now realise that this House had been deluded by the imposture originally perpetrated upon it at the inception of this loan business. His view in regard to the matter was that the taxpayers had

  569
  a bargain fully laid before them, expressed in the language of the letter of Mr. Eckstein, embodied in the Bluebook—
  "His Majesty's Government would not desire to make any profit out of the premiums on the loan; the arrangement being that the British public should receive a definite sum of £30,000,000 in relief of the war burden on the British taxpayer."
  That definite sum for the relief of war taxation was gradually disappearing. The Colonial Secretary had stated the difficulties of the situation; but he failed to see that the state of affairs now existing in the Transvaal, which was the same as the state of things that existed when the arrangement was made, should be used as an argument for postponing the fulfilment of that undertaking. They were never informed that this loan was only to be issued when they were assured that the chances were excellent in a speculative gamble upon diamond mines because that was what it came to in the present situation. He sympathised with the view that it was altogether out of the question to attempt to force this loan upon the Transvaal at the present time, He feared that for many years that colony would be, unable to face the burden of its debt; and therefore his hope with regard to the raising of this money was of the most shadowy description. He did not say the time had come to forego our claim; but, if these discoveries as to the repayment of the loan had been made at the time the arrangement was initiated, he doubted whether the electors of the country, or the Members of that House, would have assented to such a transaction. The House of Commons should not be treated in this manner.
  With regard to the Orange River Colony, he did not think that the House had sufficiently considered that part of His Majesty's dominions. It was universally considered that before the war it was governed with the greatest harmony. He had before him a memorial signed by burghers in the neighbourhood of Bloem-fontein who had surrendered their arms and obtained protection under the proclamation issued by Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener. These memorialists, who complained of the manner in which their claims for compensation had been dealt with, were confronted with a complete non possumus on the part of the
  570
  Governor of the Orange River Colony and were informed by Sir H. Goold-Adams that there was no hope of his being able to grant what the petitioners asked for. They stated that claims had beer paid on a basis of compensation varying from 15 per cent. to 2½ per cent., and that it was impossible to understand the reasons which influenced the Commissioners. Receipts which were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to be as good as Bank of England notes remained still unpaid. In Kroonstadt, too, there was a feeling of absolute disgust with what I was considered the breach of faith on the part of the British Government in regard to payments under receipts given by British officers. Would the House of Commons believe that the answer given by Sir H. Goold-Adams, in reply to a representation from the municipality of Wynberg, was that a great many of the memorialists might be thankful that they had not had all their goods confiscated, or that they not had been shot, because a proclamation had been issued that every one who did not come in on September 1st would be regarded as a rebel and his property confiscated, and that every person breaking his oath would be shot. That was a senseless taunt, which had pierced the heart of these people, and had created a strong feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction. The time had come when there ought to be a very much fuller inquiry into the whole position of affairs in South Africa. They must get rid of prejudiced testimony on either side. They must have an impartial inquiry into how matters stood, not only on the labour question, but also on the general question of finance and upon the necessity for a further grant in order to enable the honourable word of Great Britain to be fulfilled, otherwise they would never have peace in that part of His Majesty's dominions.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that the Colonial Secretary, referring to the £30,000,000 loan, quoted from his predecessor's speech of 6th May, 1903, a certain condition, viz., that the contribution should be a voluntary undertaking. He should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that his predecessor, during his tour in South Africa,

  571
  spoke of £70,000,000 or £100,000,000, which he considered was due by the colonies; and he proceeded further to claim £30,000,000. Therefore the argument of the Colonial Secretary fell to the ground; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was perfectly justified in speaking as strongly as he did in the matter. What they had to complain of was not a breach of faith between the Boers and this House, but between the Government and this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham asked directly and plainly for £35,000,000 as a loan on the distinct understanding that the first instalment of the £30,000,000 would be received in 1904, and other instalments within a period of three years. He was quite sure that it was that assurance that induced the House to pass the proposal. He wished to ask the Colonial Secretary a question with reference to £1,250,000 due on account of the railways which were handed over to the civil Government at the end of the war. The matter was discussed twelve months ago, and they were then told by the officials of the War Office that it was au acknowledged debt, and that Lord Milner had acknowledged that this amount was due to the Home Government. Notwithstanding this, the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering a Question of his, had said that the Home Government had only received £500,000, and that that amount had been accepted in full settlement of the claims. On what ground did the Colonial Government base their repudiation of that debt? Why should such a large sum be put on the shoulders of the British taxpayers in order to relieve the colonial taxpayer? The English taxpayer had to bear a heavy burden enough; and it should not be made heavier by these continual remissions on the part of the Colonial Office.
  MR. LYTTELTON: That debt has never been acknowledged by the Transvaal, and it has never been acknowledged by me: £1,250,000 was claimed by the War Office from the Transvaal in respect, if I remember aright, of certain accretions to the value of the railway. If somebody said it was acknowledged—
  MR. WHITLEY: The Government said so.
  MR. LYTTELTON: They may have said so, but it is not so. The claim of the War Office was put forward on the footing that it had taken possession of the railways in the Transvaal during the war, and added to those railways certain rolling stock and made certain branches which had increased their capital value. The value of those accretions was claimed as £1,250,000, and that was acknowledged. Perhaps sufficient precaution was not taken in stating that the word acknowledged meant that the sum of £1,250,000 was acknowledged to be the sum due in respect of those accretions, unless there was any set-off against them. Now there was a set-off against them. It was that during the progress of the war the railways—for which the Transvaal Government had paid something like £14,000,000 on a footing that they were in perfectly good order—became by military user damaged to the extent of a very large sum of money. The position ultimately was that on the one side the War Office were asking for all benefit which accrued to the railways during their tenure, and on the other side were denying the burden which attached to them by reason of their damage. I do not think any reasonable man would admit that that was a solid position. Therefore a compromise was made, and the claim of £1,250,000 was reduced to £500,000, on grounds that I think were absolutely sound.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the Committee was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his clear explanation of the position. He wished to ask whether the guarantee of the mineowners rested merely on the resolution of the meeting, or was it ever reduced to any formal shape? Was it obligatory or voluntary, joint or several, or both? In the event of death or failure occurring among the guarantors, would the residue remain liable for the whole amount? In short, what was the status of the guarantors?
  MR. LYTTELTON: In my opinion—but the hon. Member is as well able to judge as I am—this is not a legal obligation. It is a voluntary obligation which

  573
  would not, were the Government disposed to sue, be one which we could enforce in law.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Is it in writing?
  MR. LYTTELTON: It is not in writing beyond that set forth in the Blue-book.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that the result of the debate showed that the taxpayer had been done out of £30,000,000, and the House of Commons had, under false pretences, been induced to vote a guarantee of £36,000,000. The moral was that they ought not to send a gentleman to discuss with the Transvaal who was a special friend of the Transvaalers when he had to look after the interest of the taxpayers, although he might have a powerful and magnetic mind. It was his sole business to look after the taxpayers and not be humbugged by those people in Park Lane. He did not believe any business man in that House would give more than £5 for the chance of their getting any of that £30,000,000. He intended to divide the House, after they had got that Vote, against the whole Vote as a protest against the way the Government, in whom he had no confidence whatever, were getting that money. If the Vote was bona fide to be devoted to the Civil Service it would carry the Government on for five months, when the House would be breaking up; but
  when the money was to be spent on naval and military matters that was in itself a sufficient reason for opposing the Vote. His confidence in the Government was not a question of millions, it was not even a question of half-a-crown, and he would therefore fall back on the old constitutional procedure that when a Member had no confidence in a Government he should do his best to turn them out.
  *MR. AINSWORTHsaid he thought that the money spent on the railways should be refunded. Further there were a large number of claims for damage, even from persons who fought with us during the war, which were still unpaid. There was one case to his own knowledge in which a colonist of standing, who fought on our side, had not yet been compensated for the destruction of his two farms by our own troops. He hoped that case would be settled without delay.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote.
  Question put, "That Item, Class 2 Vote 6 (Colonial Office), be reduced by £100."
  The Committee divided; Ayes, 143; Noes, 206. (Division List No. 66.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crombie, John William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry

  Delany, William

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

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

  Bell, Richard

  Duffy, William J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Benn, John Williams

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Boland, John

  Edwards, Frank

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Brigg, John

  Ellice, Capt EC(S Andrw's Bghs)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Johnson, John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Joicey, Sir James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Burns, John

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Caldwell, James

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Campbell, John (Armagh S.)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lamont, Norman

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Channing, Francis Allston

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

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Levy, Maurice

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harrington, Timothy

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Lough, Thomas

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Lundon, W.

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tomkinson, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Toulmin, George

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roche, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Crae, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Kean, John

  Runciman, Walter

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Moss, Samuel

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Murphy, John

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Norman, Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wills, Arthur W. (N. Dorset

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

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Wood, James

  O'Malley, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Young, Samuel

  O'Mara, James

  Sullivan, Donal

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Causton.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Allbusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Hunt, Rowland

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Denny, Colonel

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dorington, Rt Hn. Sir John E.

  Kerr, John

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir H

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Keswick, William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bigwood, James

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bill, Charles

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Bingham, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bond, Edward

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gore, Hon S. F. Ormsby-

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Butcher, John George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gretton, John

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. HnJ. A. (Wore.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chapman, Edward

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nerry

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Colomb, Rt Hon. Sir John C. R

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords N. W

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow

  Helder, Augustus

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  576

  577

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Tuff, Charles

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Turnour, Viscount

  Myers, William Henry

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

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

  Percy, Earl

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, HC (North'mbTyneside)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Purvis, Robert

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

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Randles, John S.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Stock, James Henry

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Stroyan, John

  Wylie, Alexander

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Renwick, George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Viscount Valentia.

  Original Question put—
  The Committee divided; Ayes, 200 Noes, 138. (Division List No. 67.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Helder, Augustus

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Arrol, Sir William

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Denny, Colonel

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn Sir H.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dorington, Rt Hn. Sir John E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col W.

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kerr, John

  Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Keswick, William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R

  Bigwood, James

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Bingham, Lord

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Bond, Edward

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick. S. W

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brodrick, Rt Hon. St. John

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Butcher, John George

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Chapman, Edward

  Gretton, John

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Massey-Mainmaring, Hn. W. F.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Renwick, George

  Tuff, Charles

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Myers, William Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sackville, Co. S. G. Stopford

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

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Percy, Earl

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Plummer, Sir Walter R

  Smith, H. C. (North'mbTyneside

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Randles, John S.

  Stock, James Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Rankin, Sir James

  Stroyan, John

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Viscount Valentia

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norman, Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Bell, Richard

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Benn, John Williams

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boland, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Mara, James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

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

  Reddy, M.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caldwell, James

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredrk.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roche, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Johnson, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Runciman, Walter

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lamont, Norman

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Sheehy, David

  Crombie, John William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Slack, John Bamford

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Duncan, J, Hastings

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Frank

  Lundon, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ellice, Capt. EC.S, (Andrw'sBghs

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan., E.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Toulmin, George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Trevelyan Charles Philips

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Ure, Alexander

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Murphy, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  580

  581

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Wills, Arthur Walters(N. Dorset

  Lough and Mr. John Wilson

  White, Luke (York, E R.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  (Durham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Wood, James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Young, Samuel

  Question put, and agreed to.

  And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon Wednesday; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  TRACK MARKS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)moved that the Committee of Public Accounts consist of fifteen members; that Sir F. Banbury, Mr. Blake, Mr. Gibson Bowles, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. V. Cavendish, M. Cohen, Mr. C. Corbett, Sir T. Esmonde, Mr. Goddard, Sir B. Gurdon, Sir A. Hayter, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Sir R. Mowbray, Mr. Pym, and Mr. Yerburgh be members of the Committee; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that five be the quorum.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee of Public Accounts do consist of Fifteen Members."
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of, Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Blake, Mr. Gibson Bowles, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Victor Cavendish, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Goddard, Sir Brampton Gurdon, Sir Arthur Hayter, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Sir Robert Mowbray, Mr. Pym, and Mr. Yerburgh.
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  "That Five be the quorum."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he did not wish to oppose the Motion; but would ask whether, after the appointment of this Committee, an opportunity would be given for an early discussion of the stores question. Would the Committee discuss the stores account and give the House an early Report upon it?
  *SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that, as regarded the discussion by the whole House, the Prime Minister had already promised a day for the discussion of the Report. As regarded the way in which the discussion was taken before the Accounts Committee, that was a matter for the Committee to settle themselves.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the discussion on the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General—
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the present discussion was not in order on this question. The hon. Member had better ask a Question of the Leader of the House on the subject to-morrow.
  *SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that the Public Accounts Committee would probably take a considerable time to examine the accounts and report to the House. But he understood that the Prime Minister did not intend to withhold from the House the opportunity of discussing the subject until the Committee reported.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Public Accounts do consist of Fifteen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Blake, Mr. Gibson Bowles, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Victor Cavendish, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir Thomas Esmonde,

  583
  Mr. Goddard, Sir Brampton Gurdon, Sir Arthur Hayter, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Sir Robert Mowbray, Mr. Pym, and Mr. Yerburgh.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

NEW BILLS.
  NURSES AND PRIVATE NURSING HOMES (REGISTRATION).
  Bill to provide for the better training and registration of Nurses and for the voluntary registration of Private Nursing Homes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Claude Hay, Sir Arthur Bignold, and Mr. H. D. Green.

  NURSES AND PRIVATE NURSING HOMES (REGISTRATION) BILL.
  "To provide for the better training and registration of Nurses and for the voluntary registration of Private Nursing Homes," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.''—(Sir A, Acland-Hood.)
  *MR. JOHN ELLISsaid he concluded that, as the House had let the Public Accounts Committee pass, it was quite understood that the Prime Minister would give a day for the discussion of the commissariat scandals independently and without waiting for the Committee's Report.
  MR. SOARESsaid he wished to ask whether on Wednesday evening the Government intended to give a definite decision
  584
  —aye or no—on the Resolution of his hon. friend the Member for Argyll. He had asked a similar Question with reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham, and the Patronage Secretary complained that he had not received notice of it, and could not, therefore, reply. On this occasion, however, he had been given notice; and he trusted the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be able to give a definite and straightforward reply. The Government had three courses open to them. They could leave the question open; and, as it was a private Member's night, and private Member's Motion, the House of Commons might be permitted to give a decision on the matter. If that course were adopted—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the Motion on the Paper.
  MR. SOARESsaid he would not press the matter further; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would give a definite reply.
  *SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that if the hon. Member was in his place on Wednesday he would learn the intentions of the Government.

  SOMALILAND.
  *COLONEL LEGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any information regarding an agreement said to have been concluded between the Italian Government and the Mullah, Muhammed Abdullah, and if so whether he could communicate the terms of such agreement to the House.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): Yes, sir, we have received a telegram from General Swayne informing us that the Mullah has sent a deputation to Berbera to conclude peace.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.

The Earl of Darnley took the oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Leven's Patent—(Petition for Bill).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
McConnell's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Witnesses ordered to attend on Tuesday the 28th instant.
Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 7th instant, discharged, and Bill committed.
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 Hay (E.Kinnoul) be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl Beauchamp; read, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  General report by the Chief-Inspector of the Northern Division of Scotland, for the year 1904.
  NAVY (NEW SCHEME OF NAVAL TRAINING). SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR NOMINATION AS NAVAL CADETS.
  Further reports of members of the Interview Committee.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of January, 1905.

  AFRICA (No. 2), 1905.
  Report on the possibilities of cotton-growing in the East Africa Protectorate for 1904 (in continuation of No. 606. "Miscellaneous Series").
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS, 1897 AND 1900.
  Paper respecting Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of Friday last), and to be printed. (No. 32.)
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Bill (on Motion) (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  TRAINING COLLEGES IN SCOTLAND.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to "call attention to the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, of date January 30th, 1905, providing for the establishment of committees for the training of teachers; and to ask the Vice-President of the Committee whether the transference of training colleges indicated in Article IX. will, in all cases, be permanent and irrevocable; and, if so, what is to be the

  399
  guarantee for the permanence of the policy outlined in the Minute; whether any more definite indication of the principles by which payment for purchase or rent of premises dealt with in Article IX. will be determined than is set forth in that article can be given; whether, under Article XII., the representatives will be chosen by the constituent body described as a 'church or denomination' or by the committee, and what relative proportion they will bear to the total number of the committee; whether the regulations indicated in Article XVII. of the Minute have been drafted and have received the sanction of the Government, and whether they can be laid on the Table of this House; and to ask whether, under all the circumstances, the Government will agree to suspend any action under the Minute until the Scotch Education Bill has become law. "He said, My Lords, I do not think any apology is needed on my part for bringing this matter before the House, because I think I shall be able to convince your Lordships before I sit down that very important issues are involved, or at any rate may be involved, in the policy of the Scotch Education Department which is outlined in this Minute. I have put down a series of Questions on the Paper which look somewhat formidable, but I can assure your Lordships that they cover the whole of the ground which I shall traverse to-night, and that there is nothing in my mind which is not shown by the Questions on the Paper. Before I actually say a few words in explanation of them I would like to observe that I am not quite certain whether your Lordships really understand the technical position in which the House is placed by the presentation of this Minute. As I understand, it is the claim of the Scotch Education Department that over the policy outlined in this Minute Parliament has no power, except what may be given by the financial control of the other House; in other words, I do not suppose that any vote on the part of this House would have the slightest effect in changing the policy outlined in the Minute.
  As I understand, the Minute is not laid on the Table of this House in pursuance of any statute or of any obligation whatever imposed on the Scotch Edu-
  400
  cation Department either by direct enactment or even by custom. The Minute is laid on the Table solely as an act of grace on the part of the Department, and simply to inform Parliament and the public of the policy they desire to pursue. If I am correctly informed in that, it seems to be a very large demand indeed on the part of the Department, and very greatly to accentuate the importance of the new departure which is being made in this way; because it follows, if the Department as now constituted can outline this new policy of its own motion, that Parliament, or at any rate this House, has no real guarantee that the policy which is laid down now for the first time in this Minute will be of a permanent or even of any enduring effect at all. So far as the general policy of the Minute is concerned, I have no fault to find with it in so far as it is intended to improve the facilities for the training of teachers, and to bring that training in even more close connection with the Universities than it at present is. It not only has my hearty support, but I claim that it is only in that respect developing and strengthening and, perhaps, improving the policy which I myself had the privilege of laying down and acting upon during the years that I was in control of the Department itself.
  I venture to say also that probably very few of your Lordships are really aware how far this connection between the Universities and the training of teachers has already gone in Scotland. I believe I am not wrong in saying that of those who are passing through the curriculum to fit them for the training of teachers, both male and female, a very large proportion are now receiving part of their training in University classes—I believe so far as the males are concerned, not fewer than 75 per cent. In the past that has been done in connection with the training colleges, as they are maintained by the various churches interested in religious education, and, therefore, under their control and with their guarantee for the fitness of the religious training which is given to those teachers. Now I come to the Minute itself. So far as the first eight Articles are concerned, they deal with the University side of the training of teachers. From Articles No. IX.

  401
  to No. XI. the question of religious instruction is dealt with, and from No. XII. onwards there is nothing but the machinery for carrying out the previous Articles of the Minute. It is in connection with Article No. IX. that I raise the point of the permanent security which we have for the continuance of the policy outlined. Let me read that Article. It is as follows—
  "In the event of the body of management of any existing training college or colleges revolving to demit its powers of management in favour of any of the committees constituted under this Minute, and to transfer to the said committee the college premises and equipment, the committee shall have power to receive the same, and to pay therefor such purchase money or annual rent as may be agreed upon, provided always that no payment shall be made for the purchase or rent of any premises which are held in trust by the said body of management for the purpose of training teachers."
  Now, my Lords, you may apparently transfer the training college on one of two conditions—either once for all on payment of such lump sum as may be agreed upon, or on the payment of an annual rent. The first Question which I desire to be informed upon is whether it is intended that the transference when once made, whether by the payment of a lump sum or an annual rent, will in all cases be a permanent and final transference. In the first of these alternatives it must obviously be so, but is the payment of an annual rent to convey the idea of a lease under which, if the policy is not successful, the, church may hereafter resume its control over the training college?
  The second Question which I put deals with funds. The Article I have quoted states at the end that no payment shall be made for the purchase or rent of any premises which are held in trust by the said body of management for the purpose of training teachers. On the face of it that looks perfectly reasonable and fair, but I think we require some further definition of what is really in the mind of the Department than is given here. I am anxious to know whether the rules which are contemplated in one of the later Articles of the Minute have as yet been drafted, and whether before the Department acts upon this Minute we shall have an opportunity of seeing what those rules are. The
  402
  funds for the provision of training colleges come, so far as I know, from one of three sources. They have either been provided during a long series of years by church collections or donations from individual members of those churches, or they have been provided by savings out of the fees or the grants paid by the Government to the churches. So far as the first of these sources is concerned, it is perfectly clear that the church is entitled to full payment for all that it has paid out for these colleges. In regard to the second source, if any savings have been accumulated it seems equally clear to me that the church would not be entitled to expect repayment for money which had been given by Government for the very purpose for which ostensibly these buildings are still to be used. But, my Lords, with regard to the third source, that of legacies, it seems to me that the words of the Minute are not perfectly distinct and clear, and that you will have, at any rate—and I wish to know whether this is the idea of the Department—to go into an exhaustive inquiry into the terms of the will of the man or woman who has left the legacy in every case in order that you may see whether the legacy in general terms to the church has been devoted to this purpose, or whether the money has been particularly destined to the training of teachers apart and distinct from the religious training of those teachers. I am very anxious to know what is said about that important matter in the rules which are promised, and I think we ought to see the rules before the Department acts upon this Minute.
  There is one small Question I would ask with regard to the terms of Article XII. The phraseology seems to me peculiar. The Article speaks of a "Church or denomination." I want to know what is the difference between a church and denomination. I think the word "denomination" is strange in a Scottish Minute. I hope I should not be misunderstood by your Lordships when I say that if the word denomination is right I do not understand why, in contradistinction to the word Church, it should be spelt with a small "d." I do not wish to develop that further, and I

  403
  might be misunderstood it I were to do so, but I do not understand what is intended in Scottish matters by the word denomination. I know all the churches that have training colleges. There is the Church of Scotland, to which I belong, which has three colleges, which I suppose is allowed to be a Church; there is the Roman Catholic Church, which has a training college in Glasgow, only, I think, for female students; then there is the Scottish Episcopal Church, which has a college in Edinburgh for both sexes. Those, I presume, are Churches. The only other body which has colleges is one of those two bodies who were brought prominently before your Lordships' notice in the appeal case heard in your Lordships' House last session. I suppose these colleges now belong to the Free Church, but whether or not, I do not understand the use of the word denomination in this connection as regards Scotland. It seems to me a borrowing of a phraseology which I do not at all approve of—a sort of ecclesiastical slang—from south of the Tweed. Article XII. provides that—
  "Where a training college is transferred as set forth in the preceding section, the accepting committee shall co-opt, as fully privileged members, representatives of the said Church or denomination, as provided in the annexed schedule."
  What I want to know is whether the Church is to be allowed to elect its representatives, or whether the committee at its own sweet will is to take gentlemen or ladies who are members of the Church. There are varying degrees of confidence placed in various members of the different churches, and I for one shall be extremely dissatisfied if the committee—perhaps a hostile committee—are to be those who are to decide who are to be the so-called representatives of the Church. It seems to me that the churches themselves should be entitled to select representatives in whom they themselves have confidence, and I hope that that matter will be made perfectly clear before we leave the subject.
  I come to one other matter, and this is really the kernel of the whole question. I am not sure whether under this Minute we have any guarantee that those to whom is committed the duty of training
  404
  the teachers will be always thoroughly qualified to give the instruction in those sacred subjects with which they will have to deal. Of course, I may be told that the whole question of religious instruction in our public schools depends upon the will of the people of Scotland. That is absolutely and perfectly true, and with that guarantee I for one am perfectly satisfied. I have confidence that the people of Scotland will not depart from their traditional policy, but in that respect we have got statutory security. The preamble of the Act of 1872 recites the fact that religious instruction shall always be given in Scottish schools, but there are in the clauses of that Act provisions securing to the majority in any district power to decree what religious instruction, if any, shall be given in the schools. With all that I am perfectly satisfied.
  The question I am raising is this, What security is there for the fitness of the teachers who are in the future to give that instruction? It is no use to say that there shall be religious instruction if the people want it, if there is a monopoly in the training of teachers on the part of the State, the State in its accepted policy for many years having said it will have nothing whatever to do with the religious side of education. I believe that to be a settled policy, and whether I agree with it or not is not the question. The point is that is a settled question, and concurrently with the promise that the people of Scotland shall have a continuance of religious instruction in their schools. Hitherto the different churches have been allowed to train their teachers, and it is because I am not sure of the security given by this Minute for religious instruction that I have placed this Question on the Paper. Your Lordships will see that this is an important matter. We have in Scotland no real quarrel in this matter. The great majority of us agree that the two churches that are in the minority have in the main their own schools, and are able to train their own teachers under conditions which heretofore have been, if not absolutely fair, at any rate as fair as I believe it is possible to make them. If there is any loss of security for this religious instruction we are, I

  405
  think, cutting very deep into the policy which has been pursued in Scotland in this matter for many years past.
  I am entitled, I think, to rely upon agreement with the main lines of what I have been saying on the part of His Majesty's Government, because I noticed that in his speech at Manchester the other day the Prime Minister said that the principle that parents were entitled to the full control of the religious education given to their children was the fundamental principle which ruled all education. The right of the State to see that children are educated is undeniable, but it is a right which seems to me universally admitted to be exercised by the State only on behalf of the parent, and in accordance with the wishes of the parent. I believe it to be the desire of the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland to have adequate security for religious instruction. I do not like to think that by this side wind there is a risk of this principle being cut into so deeply as I think it may be under this Minute. I regret to have detained your Lordships so long, but I am sure you will agree with me that the importance of the subject and the insidious way in which this policy is put before us justifies my bringing the matter forward. The only other Question I have to ask is whether in all the circumstances, and having regard to the fact that there is a Scottish Education Bill before the other House of Parliament, it would not be wise on the part of the Government to agree to postpone action on this Minute until that Bill has passed into law, and until we have an opportunity of securing some statutory guarantee for the permanence of the policy which I believe is outlined and intended to be carried out in this Minute. I beg to put the Questions standing in my name.
  *LORD REAY: My Lords, through the courtesy of the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland, I am allowed to put certain Questions of which I have given him private notice, but before doing so I wish to express my approval of the policy embodied in this Minute. I believe it is a wise step in advance, and that it secures the training on national
  406
  lines of teachers in Scotland, for elementary as well as for secondary education. I cannot share the anxiety of my noble friend opposite, whose administration of education in Scotland has been so beneficial that by this Minute the religious training of teachers will be in danger. I believe that the various churches are quite capable of ensuring the religious training in the transferred colleges of their adherents, and I do not think that any large body of students educated in those colleges will desire to withdraw from the facilities which certainly will be given by the Government for religious instruction. The people of Scotland attach importance to the religious instruction given in their schools, and no difficulty arises with regard to this instruction. I endorse the regret which the noble Lord expressed at the appearance in this Minute of a word around which such great controversies have centred in England, and of which fortunately in Scotland we have heard hitherto very little. My noble friend the Secretary for Scotland will be well advised in future not to introduce the expressions "denomination" and "denominational" into the educational vocabulary North of the Tweed, as they do not indicate any existing cleavage in the character of the Board schools.
  I now come to the Questions of which I have given the noble Marquess private notice. In the first place, I wish to ask him whether the purchase money mentioned in Article IV. of the Minute, and the capital expenditure mentioned in Article XV., will be raised by loan or be provided from the balance of the grant mentioned in Article XIV. A distinction is made in Clause 32 of the Bill which has just been introduced between grants-in-aid of capital expenditure and of other thin capital expenditure. My second Question is, Has the committee power to erect premises if no suitable premises can be acquired by purchase or lease? I am glad to see in the Minute that the establishment of a training centre at Inverness is contemplated as a possible contingency. In that case it might be deemed opportune to erect a training college instead of acquiring one by purchase or by lease. The third Question I wish to ask is, Are the maintenance

  407
  allowances and the fees mentioned in Articles IV. and V. subject to the approval of the Department? My fourth Question is whether the courses mentioned in Article 91 (d) of the Code are to come under the control of the committees created by the Minute. Those are the courses given by county councils or other local authorities, and it will require careful consideration whether county councils and school boards can be placed under the control of these committees. My fifth Question, which I suppose my noble friend will answer in the affirmative, is, Will a training college which does not "demit its powers of management" receive grants under the Code? My sixth Question, of which the importance will not be denied, is, Where the training college is held in trust and is transferred by the trustees to the committee, is the accepting committee bound by the trust deed, and can no legal objection be raised to such transfer by members of the church—I do not add or denomination—whose representatives hold the training college in trust? My seventh Question is, Are the representatives of the church or denomination mentioned in Article XII. fully privileged as regards all matters to be dealt with by the accepting committee, or only as regards those relating to the transferred training colleges? My final Question is, Will the funds mentioned in Article XIV. and the fees mentioned in Article V. be sufficient to provide for the training of teachers for secondary and elementary schools as regards capital and other expenditure, and, if not, are there any other sources of income which can be made available?
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LINLITHGOW): My Lords, I think it would best meet your Lordships' convenience if I give categorical replies to the somewhat long list of Questions put to me by the noble Lord behind me and the noble Lord on the front Opposition Bench. I will first deal with the Questions asked by Lord Bal-four of Burleigh. In reply to his first Question, I have to say that the transference of a training college under Article IX. of the Minute is a voluntary transaction. A church or religious denomination
  408
  may therefore (1) retain the property in any training college in which it is vested and conduct exactly as at present; or (2) while retaining its property and providing for religious instruction therein, according to its own views and under its own direction, it may grant the use of the college buildings to the committee for all other purposes of the training of teachers; or (3) it may divest itself of all rights in the property in favour of the accepting committee upon the conditions, inter alia, that the stipulations of Articles XI. and XII. of the Minute are observed. In the last case the conditions of transference would presumably be embodied in a legal instrument, and would have all the permanency that can be given to them by a legal contract, whether the present Minute remained in force or was superseded.
  In reply to the second Question, I have to say that for buildings erected by funds received from the State or from profits on the management of training colleges arising directly or indirectly from the proceeds of Government grants or from sums specifically given for training of teachers there could be no compensation granted. But a claim for payment of a money consideration in respect of contributions from general church funds or other sources not expressly destined for the training of teachers would be considered. The noble Lord next asked whether, under Article XII., the representatives will be chosen by the constituent body described as a "Church or denomination," or by the committee, and what relative proportion they will bear to the total number of the committee. The use of the word "representatives" in this Article, in the opinion of the Department f sufficiently indicates that the persons so designated must be chosen by the transferring church, and not by the accepting committee. What the number of these representatives in any particular case shall be must be a matter of agreement between the transferring church and the accepting committee, and it is not possible to say what proportion they will bear to the whole number. The terms of the Minute secure that there shall be at least two. I have to say, in

  409
  reply to the fourth Question, that the regulations have not yet been drafted. They will deal with the whole question of the training and certification of teachers as in Chapter IV. of the Code and in the existing special regulations of the Department on the subject. When drafted they will be laid before Parliament. With reference to the last Question which my noble friend asks, I regret that I cannot give a reply in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government cannot undertake that the operation of the Minute shall be indefinitely postponed, but it will be observed that under Article XV. of the Minute no expenditure can be incurred by any committee until an estimate of their expenditure has been submitted to and approved by the Department, and I undertake that no such expenditure shall be authorised until the subject has been discussed in both Houses of Parliament.
  I now come to the Questions put to me by the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, and of which he gave me private notice. He asked, in the first place, whether the purchase money mentioned in Article IV. and the capital expenditure mentioned in Article XV. will be raised by loan or be provided from the balance of the grant mentioned in Article XIV. I would inform the noble Lord, in reply, that any sums necessary will be found by the Department, provided they have been included in the estimate to be submitted to and approved by the Department in terms of Article XV. In reply to his second Question, in which he inquired whether the committee have power to erect premises if no suitable premises can be acquired by purchase or lease, I have to state that it is not considered that the erection of new premises will be necessary for the present. Should the necessity arise, the terms of the Minute may be altered as provided for by Article XVIII. The noble Lord next asked whether the maintenance allowances and the fees mentioned in Articles IV. and V. were subject to the approval of the Department. These items will naturally be included in the estimate of expenditure to be approved by the Department under Article XV.
  410
  In reply to the noble Lord's fourth Question, in which he asked whether the courses mentioned in Article 91 (d) of the Code are to come under the control of the committees created by the Minute, I have to reply that it is proposed that courses for the further instruction of teachers already in employment should ultimately be conducted by the committees instituted under this Minute. But so long as county councils have power to conduct classes under Article 91 (d) of the Code, their conduct of these classes will not be directly controlled by the committees. The noble Lord next asked whether a training college which did not demit its powers of management would receive grants under the Code. My answer to this is, certainly. Next, the noble Lord inquired whether where a training college is held in trust and is transferred by the trustees to the committee, the accepting committee is bound by the trust deed, and whether no legal objection could be raised to such transfer by members of the Church or denomination whose representatives hold the training college in trust. No trustees could act in breach of a trust deed, but it is impossible to give a more definite answer without having the precise terms of such a trust deed before one. The noble Lord also inquired whether the representatives of the Church or denomination mentioned in Article XII. are fully privileged as regards all matters to be dealt with by the accepting committee or only as regards those relating to the transferred training colleges. When representatives of a church are added to a committee in accordance with the terms of Article XII., these representatives become members of the committee, and will be entitled to take part in any business thereof.
  Finally, the noble Lord asked whether the funds mentioned in Article XIV. and the fees mentioned in Article V. will be sufficient to provide for the training of teachers for secondary and elementary schools as regards capital and other expenditure; and, if not, whether there are any other sources of income which can be made available. My answer to that Question is that it is believed that the funds mentioned will be sufficient for the present

  411
  for the purposes specified. My noble friends behind me and my noble friend opposite raised an objection to the term "Church or denomination." Of course it must be known to your Lordships that this Minute is not a child of mine, but I accept full responsibility for it now. I have looked up the Education Act of 1872, and I find that the term "denomination" is a good term in educational matters. Section 68 of the Act of 1872 refers to "children of all denominations." I should be very sorry indeed if a mere term imported into a Minute of this kind were to drag us into any of those difficulties which I fear have been not unknown on this side of the Tweed. I thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to me, and I trust that the answers I have given will prove satisfactory.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I venture to join in the approval of this Minute which has been expressed by my noble friend on the front Opposition Bench. I merely rise to make one remark with regard to the first Question asked by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Balfour—namely, whether the transference of training colleges indicated in Article IX. will in all cases be permanent and irrevocable, and, if so, what is to be the guarantee for the maintenance of the policy outlined in the Minute. I do not think that the Department could possibly have gone further than it has gone with regard to the colleges which may be transferred. Your Lordships might suppose, from what was said, that this was an absorption of the colleges by the University committees, and that the transfer was not being made at the will and desire of the churches to which the colleges now belonged. If your Lordships will look at the Minute you will see that it is only in the event of a body of management resolving to demit its powers of management and transfer to the committee the college premises that any transfer can take place; and, moreover, when you look at the terms of the Minute and at Article XI., you will see that any church which may choose to act in pursuance of this Minute will have
  412
  made a remarkable bargain for itself. The Minute provides that—
  "When a training college so transferred is the property of, or is held in trust by, the representatives of any Church or religious denomination, it shall be a condition of such transference that provision shall be made therein for religious instruction in accordance with the views of the said Church or denomination, to an extent not less than that which is at present customary in the college so transferred."
  That means that when a college which has hitherto belonged to a Church is transferred to a University Committee it will be supported out of public funds, and will receive the same amount of religious instruction which it is receiving at the present time. It seems to me that nothing further can be desired.
  On behalf of the church it is asked, What guarantee have we for the permanence of this? Well, in the first place, it would be impossible for Parliament or the Department to bind its successors. We know that at the present time the church is treated very liberally from the religious point of view, and there is an obvious way in which the church may protect itself. It is perfectly within the power of any church which desires to transfer its college to insert in the deed of transfer a condition that should at any time less religious instruction be given than had been given hitherto or than is bargained for under Article XL., then the college and all its property shall revert to the church. It seems to me that in a safeguard of that sort the church has a most satisfactory security. Those who know anything about this question in Scotland are aware that the reason for a church's possible desire to transfer these colleges is that if the University Committees were to establish training colleges in competition with those of the churches, the larger number of the teachers in training would probably go to the national training colleges; but, anyhow, there would be very considerable difficulty in keeping up the training colleges connected with the churches. It is for that reason that the churches, very wisely, I think, have entered into a sort of arrangement with the Department to transfer their colleges. That is a very wise and sensible thing, so far as my judgment goes, for them to do; but to go further and ask for a guarantee

  413
  that the same amount of religious instruction is always to be continued is to ask something which is not reasonable, and which it would not be in the power of Parliament or the Department to concede. Therefore, I think the policy laid down in the Minute is as favourable to the churches as it possibly could be.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hope I shall not be intruding if I venture to say a few words on this subject. Although I have no personal connection with education matters north of the Tweed, yet the subject with which this Minute deals concerns in an indirect way English as well as Scottish interests. I associate myself entirely with the position taken by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in the speech with which he introduced this question to your Lordships. Like my noble friend I desire to express complete sympathy with the general policy which so far as I understand it underlies the Minute in question. I do not think we have real ground for regarding the interests which we care for most as being imperilled by this Minute; but, at the same time, I for one am grateful to my noble friend for having introduced this subject and emphasised the need for caution and the provision of safeguards against the peril that such a transfer as is now proposed might weaken the religious basis upon which the training colleges have from the first rested. It is perfectly true, as the noble Bad opposite (Lord Camperdown) said, that no training college is under compulsion to transfer itself; but there are other processes besides direct compulsion which may practically produce the same result. It is easy to see how an establishment endowed with all the resources of the State may practically bring about the decease of the colleges by under-cutting the existing religiously-grounded institutions and so compelling them to close their doors. But I see no reason at present to apprehend anything of the kind.
  What has fallen from the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland and from the noble Lord on the front bench opposite (Lord Reay) reassures us all as
  414
  to there being practically no difference of opinion on this subject amongst those who have really at heart the interests of educational matters in Scotland, and the control, directly or indirectly, of the policy that is to be pursued. I am anxious merely to say how cordially we emphasise, from the English standpoint, the position taken by Lord Balfour of Burleigh as to the care that is necessary in this matter lest we allow the principle to drop upon which the training colleges were started—a principle which we believe to be inherent to their health today, namely, that religious teaching shall form an essential part of what goes on there. We feel that that needs to be safeguarded by those who are concerned in any such transfer as is at present contemplated. It is true to say that the initial stimulus in educational matters as regards training colleges must be assigned, not to the State, but to the bodies which had specially at heart the religious teaching which was to accompany secular teaching. Gradually the State has dissociated itself further and further from the religious side of the instruction given either in the training colleges or in the schools to which those who are there trained go as teachers, and in proportion as the State dissociates itself from the supervision of religious teaching in any form, it becomes the more essential that those of us who care for the religious as well as for the secular side of education shall see that the religious side is not forgotten or impaired. It is because we believe that that branch of education will be considered and remembered by those who are responsible in Scotland for the transfers that are about to take place under this Minute that we can express our general approval of the policy which seems to be foreshadowed.
  We care, first, that the teacher who is being educated in the training college shall learn himself or herself that religious knowledge which is afterwards to be imparted; and, secondly, that he or she should adequately learn to impart that knowledge to little children. The two things are not identical, and there is no branch of educational science more difficult to acquire than the power of imparting to little children that religious knowledge which we believe

  415
  practically all the parents on both sides of the Tweed desire should be imparted to the children in the schools to which those teachers thus trained are to go, It is just because we care for that so greatly that we are anxious to remind those who are at this moment responsible, and those who may hereafter be responsible, that it is in consequence of the assurance which has been fairly given to us that such is the intention of those who are promoting the change that we feel able now, as I for one cordially do, to support the policy here laid down, and to say that we wish it all success.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I should like to add a few words on this subject. It is notorious that our system of training in Scotland has been very defective in the past, and that those colleges which have been essentially denominational colleges, have failed to supply a sufficient number of teachers, or to teach them satisfactorily. There are one or two points in this proposal to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. It has not been distinctly stated how far in these new colleges, when they were transferred, religious or denominational Instruction is to be given to the teachers. It does seem to me that there is a great deal of danger in not defining this clearly, for there is no doubt that heretofore the colleges have given religious instruction in accordance with the views of the particular denomination to which the training college belonged. When these colleges are transferred to the Universities they will practically become national training colleges, and it does seem to me that in national training colleges denominational teaching should not be given. The only safe way to deal with the question would be to let the teaching in such colleges be secular teaching, and leave the training of the teachers, so far as religious views are concerned, to the churches themselves.
  There is another point. As I understand, the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland pointed out that this is in a large measure an optional arrangement. There is no compulsion on the training colleges to come in under this system; they are quite at liberty to stay out and
  416
  continue as in the past. I trunk that is a little unfortunate, because what we really want to see is a national system of training teachers established in Scotland. It should be done in connection with the Universities in a national way. When it is a question of a considerable transfer of property of this sort it is doubtful whether it is competent for the Department to carry it out by a Departmental Minute. It appears to me to be a matter much more suited for an Act of Parliament, and I should like to put it to the noble Marquess whether to give full effect to the objects of the Minute the proposals should not be put into a Bill and have the authority of an Act of Parliament. I think it will be difficult to find a precedent in which so great a transfer of property has been proposed to be made by a mere Minute of a Department.
  I should like to say a word upon the last Question put to the noble Marquess by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I would urge that delay is desirable, first, because we have not sufficiently full information with regard to the method in which, and how far, religious teaching is to be given; and, secondly, because I think it is almost a stretch of power to deal with so large a transfer of property by means of a Minute. Moreover, it does seem to me that the fact that there is now before Parliament a proposal to deal with education in Scotland which must largely affect this question is a further argument in favour of delay. As I understand, under the new-proposals provincial councils are to be set up throughout Scotland. It does seem to me that the question of the training of teachers is essentially one which ought to be brought within the work of the provincial councils, and I think it will be found that these councils, when they are set up, will more and more be entrusted with work of this sort. That being the case, is it advisable to set up a system of committees, which at best can last but a few months, when there are certainly many open points yet to be discussed and decided. I would urge that in the meantime it would be desirable to postpone any further action in this matter.
  *THE LORD PEESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords,

  417
  I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that no Member of your Lord-ships' House is more qualified to speak on Scottish matters than my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who for s many years occupied the position of Secretary for Scotland with credit to himself and to the admiration of all classes o the community in Scotland. Consequently, when he raised this very important question to-day your Lordship, naturally listened to him with the greatest interest, and I think the noble Marques; who replied on behalf of the Scottish Office clearly and explicitly answered in detail the Questions put to him. The great fear which Lord Balfour entertains as to the effect of the Minute is that religious education in Scotland will be weakened. Occupying the position I do I am bound to be, so far as that is possible, strictly impartial, but no one has a greater respect for religious instruction in schools than I have, and if I thought for one moment that the Minute was likely to weaken religious instruction in Scotland I should not be standing here to-night to defend that Minute. I cannot believe for one moment that the Minute will have that effect.
  The most rev. Primate and my noble friend laid great stress on the fact that teachers ought to be absolutely imbued with the views that they have to impart to the children under their care, and I agree entirely with all that was said on that point. I do not think that education of any kind can be properly imparted to children unless the teacher is specially trained to impart that knowledge, and I cannot, for one moment, believe that the change which is proposed will result in the teachers receiving less religious instruction. The change undoubtedly is to a certain extent a great one, but, whatever takes place under it, there is no compulsion of any sort or kind on denominational colleges, nor need they have the least fear that they will have to abandon their present position if such a course is contrary to their wishes. It is possible for them, if they choose, to remain absolutely independent, and not only that, but to receive in the future those grants from the State which they have received in the past.
  418
  Apart from the position of the exist in training colleges each committee is empowered to provide, whether in University classes or otherwise, courses of instruction suitable for the training of teachers, and it is especially laid down that these courses may include, if the committee so determine, instruction in religious subjects. It may be said, "Yes but that ought to be compulsory. It ought not to be left in the power of the committee to decide whether it should or should not be given." I honestly confess that I do not think there is any need for apprehension on that point. Religious instruction of a denominational character has always been given in Scotland in the past, and I cannot see why there should be any fear that it will not be given in the future.
  My noble friend Lord Balfour of Butleigh alluded to a speech made by the Prime Minister at Manchester, in which my right hon. friend rightly declared that the religious instruction given to children should be in accordance with the wishes of their parents. That is what we have tried to do both in England and in Scotland. The committees which will be appointed will comprise members who have occupied prominent places on the local authorities in various districts, and if religious instruction of a denominational character has been given in the past in the schools over which they have had control, I do not see why any fear should be entertained on that score in the future. In England denominational instruction cannot be given in the provided schools, but in Scotland no such difference exists. That being so, I cannot see why there should be any apprehension on account of the proposed change.
  The rights and privileges of the colleges that may be transferred are thoroughly safeguarded in the Minute. Article XI. provides that when a training college so transferred is the property of, or is held in trust by, the representatives of any Church or religious denomination, it shall be a condition of such transference that provision shall be made therein for religious instruction in accordance with the views of the said Church or denomination to in extent not less than that which is at

  419
  present customary in the college so transferred, which instruction may either be provided by the accepting committee or the transferring Church or denomination, as may be agreed between them. And Article XI. goes on to say that where the accepting committee undertake to provide such instruction on their own behalf, it shall be a condition that they also undertake to afford adequate facilities for the periodical inspection of the said instruction by duly accredited representatives of the transferring Church or denomination under conditions to be determined by the Department. That being the case, I really do not see how there can be any apprehension as regards the future of religious education in these colleges should they be transferred to the committee.
  My noble friend opposite, Lord Tweed-mouth, suggested that the matter should be more fully threshed out before the Minute became operative. My noble friend the Secretary for Scotland has permitted me to say that he has no objection to the question being discussed as often as your Lordships choose. But I do not think my noble friend Lord Balfour will have any cause to complain of the categorical answers so clearly given to his Questions by the noble Marquess.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I am very well aware that those who dwell on the other side of the Tweed do not like the interference of Englishmen in Scottish questions, and it is a very reasonable feeling on their part. Your Lordships, therefore, will not be surprised when I say that I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the details of this matter at all; but I do think that the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which has been supported by my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth, that this Minute should not be brought into operation until after both Houses have had an opportunity of discussing the Education Bill which we understand is shortly to be introduced, is one deserving of the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government. There are some portions of this Minute which, as suggested by Lord Tweedmouth, seem to me to require legislation, and I do not think they 'can be carried out by a mere Minute. But,
  420
  apart from that question, as we are going to have a Scottish Education Bill this year, I would press on His Majesty's Government that they should not deal with the question partly by Minute before the Bill is brought in, and partly by Bill, but should deal with the subject as a whole and by Bill as being the best means of securing complete discussion by Parliament.

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LINLITHGOW): My Lords, this is practically the same Bill which passed through your Lord-ships' House in August of last year. On the occasion of the Second Reading of that measure my noble friend Lord Kintore, who was last session in charge of Scottish matters in your Lordships' House, made a very able aud comprehensive speech explaining the whole of the proposals very fully. I do not think it is necessary for me to recapitulate what he said. I would only remind your Lordships that the Bill is founded on the Report of a Committee appointed by my predecessor, and that it has three objects in view—(1) the protection of the inhabitants of the districts near the whaling stations from nuisance and danger to health; (2) the protection of fishermen in the pursuit of their lawful industry; and (3) the protection of the whaling trade against itself. I believe that if the Bill is passed the whaling industry may become a very useful one, and be prosecuted without injury to the fisher-folk and with advantage to the people living in the neighbourhood of the whaling stations.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.