Sitting of 3 May 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill (King's consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
Heckmondwike Improvement Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Grangemouth Waterworks and;Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill. Read a second time; to be considered upon Friday.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Banbury (Rural), Lunesdale(Rural), and Newport Pagnell (Rural), and the Easington and Sedgefield, the Lanchester, and the Stone Joint Hospital Districts," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Carmarthen, Hexham, Liverpool, Lymm, Nantwich, and
810
Widnes," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Belfast,the Belfast,Holywood, and Castlereagh United District, Cork (Rural), Downpatrick (Rural), Newtownards, and North Dublin (Rural)," presented by Mr,Attorney-General for Ireland supported by Mr. Walter Long; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of I Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Baltracey River, the River Lerr, and the Blackwater Drainage Districts, in the counties of Carlow, Kildare, and Meath," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; supported by Mr. Walter Long; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

PETITIONS
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petitions for alteration; from Anstruther Easter; and Leith; to lie upon the Table.
  ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS IN WORKHOUSES.
  Petition from St. Neots, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petitions in favour; from Ardrossan (two); Avoch; Bainsford; Barrhead (two): Berwick-upon-Tweed (two); Birsay; Boddam (two); Borrowstouness; Broughty Ferry; Buckie; Carnoustie; Castle Douglas; Castletown; Coalburn; Coupar Angus; Curron; Dalgety; Denny; Dumbarton; Dunfermline;

  811
  Dunipace and Denny; Dunkeld; Dun-score; Eaglesfield; Edinburgh (four); Edzell; Fairlie; Falkirk (six); Fergushill; Firth; Friockheim; Galston; Glasgow (five); Glengarnock; Glengowan; Gra-hamston; Halfway House; Harthill Hoddom; Holm (two); Hurlford; In-vergordon; Kilbirnie; Kilmalcolm Kilmarnock; Kilmaurs; Kilsyth (two) Kirkpatrick; Kirriemuir (two); Lanark Lanark Middle Ward; Lesmahagow Lochgelly; Longhope; Lowick; Midmar Motherwell; Muir of Ord; Musselburgh Neilston; Newmilns; Newmilns and Greenholm; Newtyle; Nigg; Ochiltree; Perth (three); Port Glasgow (four); Port Gordon (three); Renfrew (three); Ross-shire; Rossie; St. Andrews; St. Margaret's Hope; Saltcoats; Scotstoun; Shotts; Skelmorlie (three); South Shields;Stenhousemuir; Stenness; Stirling; Stonehouse (two); Stornoway (four); Strathayon; Strathmore; Strichen; Stromness; Thornhill (two); Thurso (two); Ullapool; Wellbank; and Wishaw; to lie upon the Table.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL
  Petitions against from Alnwick; Biggleswade; Lindfield; and Nottingham to lie upon the Table.
  MILK DEPOTS (LONDON) BILL
  Petition from Woolwich, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL
  Petition from Sheffield, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL
  Petition from Bewdley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  Copy presented, of Report on the Foreign Trade and Commerce of Newfoundland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNITED FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND AND THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (LITIGATION) (ROYAL COMMISSION TO SIR JOHN CHEYNE)
  Return presented, relative thereto-[ordered 19th April; Mr. Black] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 148.]
  NAVY (GUNNERY)
  Copy presented, of Result of Gunlayers Competition in His Majesty's Fleet, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TURKEY (No. 2, 1905)
  Copy presented, of further Correspondence respecting the Affairs of South-,' Eastern Europe [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos 3359 and 3360 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ULTIMUS HERES (SCOTLAND) (ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES)
  Return ordered, "of Abstract Account of the receipts and payments of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, in Scotland, in the year ended the 31st day of December, 1904, in the Administration of Estates and Treasure Trove on behalf of the Crown."
  "And, of Alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Haeres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer'., Remembrancer, in the same year."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)

  OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing the number and nature of all Outrages and other Offences of an indictable character reported by the Police in each county in Ireland from the 1st day of December, 1904, to the 19th day of April, 1905, inclusive"—(Mr. Walter Long.)

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND)
  Return ordered, "showing, for each County in the Congested Districts, (1) the acreage of Untenanted and Tenanted Lands acquired by the Board since the

  813
  passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, to the 31st day of March, 1905, with a view to the enlargement of small holdings, and the amount of the purchase money for such lands; and (2) the acreage of Untenanted and Tenanted Lands for the purchase of which the Board is in negotiation with vendors."—(Mr. Walter Long.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

  Returns of Public Revenue (Interception) and Gross Departmental Expenditure
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury can he agree to give the Returns of Public Revenue (Interception) and of Gross Departmental Expenditure, which are down on the Paper for to-morrow.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I shall be able to give my hon. friend most of the information which he desires, but I would be much obliged if he could speak to me privately with reference to one or two points in the Return.

  Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will take into consideration, at the earliest opportunity, the advisability of placing the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund on a basis that will ensure similar treatment to that given to disabled teachers in England and Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I cannot undertake to propose any change in the arrangements with regard to the Pension Fund until we have before us the result of the quinquennial valuation which must be held at the end of the present year.

  Accounts of General Lighthouse Fund.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the sums expended by the three Lighthouse Boards, as per Parliamentary Return presented 14th February, 1905, form part of the amounts charged as Head Office Expenses in the General Lighthouse Fund
  814
  Account; and, if so, how the balance of the said amounts, as shown in the 1903–4 Account, is accounted for by each Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Of the sums referred to by the hon. Member the item of £7,000 for Salaries of the Acting Elder Brethren of the Trinity House is the only one that forms part of the amount charged as Head Office Expenses in the General Lighthouse Fund Accounts. The other items are included under the heading Miscellaneous Expenses. The balance of the sums charged as Head Office Expenses consists of the salaries of the staff, printing, stationery, repairs, etc.

  Foreigners holding British Pilotage Certificates:
  MR. LLEWELLYN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will state the number of foreigners holding British pilotage certificates on March 31st, 1905, and their several nationalities.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) In order to obtain the exact particulars up to March 31st, the Board of Trade have found it necessary to address inquiries to seventy-seven pilotage authorities. When replies have been received I shall be happy to communicate the result to my hon. friend.

  Aliens Bill—Religious and Political Refugees.
  MR. H. LAWSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the words "prosecution for an offence of a political character" in Clause 1, Subsection 3, of the Aliens Bill, covers prosecution for an offence of a religious character.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) As the Bill is worded, the Answer to this Question would depend on the facts of each individual case; but whether further definition is necessary is a question that can be discussed on the Amendments already on the Paper.

  Woodford and Wanstead- Proposed Joint Hospital Board
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIETo ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Wanstead and Woodford are adjoining urban districts having populations of 9,000 and 14,500 respectively; that Wanstead has ample isolation hospital accommodation and Woodford has none; that an inquiry was held in November last, under the Public Health Act, 1875, at the instigation of Woodford alone, and in disregard of the remonstrance of Wanstead; that His Majesty's inspector reported in favour of the Local Government Board making a compulsory Provisional Order for the formation of a joint hospital board for the two districts; that a letter from the Wanstead Urban Council and a petition from the ratepayers had been sent to the Local Government Board against the Order being made, Wanstead desiring to retain its own hospital and to maintain its own patients; and, if so,whether he will undertake, under the circumstances, that the Board will decline, at the instance of Woodford alone, and in face of the opposition of Wanstead, to make a compulsory Provisional Order (subject to confirmation by Parliament) for the formation of a ant hospital board for the districts of Wanstead and Woodford combined.
  (Answered by Mr. Grant Lawson.) I am aware of the facts of this case, which are generally as stated in the Question. The matter is now under the consideration of the Local Government Board, but I cannot at present state what their decision, will be.

  Belmullet Police Force
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of police ordinarily stationed in Belmullet, county Mayo, and if this number has been recently exceeded; and, if so, will he state the reason.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The fixed strength of the police in the district of Belmullet is forty-six. The present number is fifty. The increase has been necessitated by the outrages and boy-
  816
  cotting which have recently taken place in the district.

  Rural District Councillors as Extern Teachers of Male Evening Schools
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether any particular disability attaches to rural district councillors as extern teachers of male evening schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Under Rule 88 (b) of the Commissioners' Rules, rural district councillors cannot be recognised as national school teachers. This rule is held to disqualify such persons from recognition as teachers of evening schools.

  Claims of Dutch Burghers for Goods Commandeered during South African War.
  MR. MARKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether complaints have reached him from Orange River Colony that receipts or vouchers given by British officers to Dutch burghers in respect of cattle or other property taken for Army purposes during the South African War still remain unpaid; how many complaints have been received; and how have they been dealt with; and whether he can state the number of receipts or vouchers issued in the colony; the number of them now for any reason remaining unpaid; and the amount of money which such unpaid receipts or vouchers represent.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lytielton.) Complaints of this nature have reached me and, in reply to my inquiries, I have been informed that the great majority of them are based upon no reasonable grounds. As regards the remainder I am st11 in communication with the Governor of the Transvaal. Pending the receipt of the final Report of the Central Judicial Commission which has investigated the claims based on military receipts, I am not able to give the figures asked for by the hon. Member.

  Jamaica Fruit Industry—Subsidy to Elder, Dempster Line.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for

  817
  the Colonies whether he is aware that one of the main objects in subsidising the Elder, Dempster Line of steamers between Jamaica and Bristol, to the extent of £40,000 a year. was to enable the growers of bananas in Jamaica to have an alternative to selling their fruit to the American United Fruit Company, who were the only purchasers, and that this object has been entirely defeated by the Elder, Dempster Line arranging to purchase their fruit from the United Fruit Company, thereby reconstituting the control of the market held by the Americans; and whether, seeing that the small grower of bananas in Jamaica can only dispose of his fruit at 6d. to 9d. a bunch in eon-sequence of the foregoing arrangements, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to secure for the Jamaica cultivator some benefit from the subsidy.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The main object of subsidising the Jamaica Direct Service was to stimulate the fruit trade between the United Kingdom and the West Indies, and the effort has been successful. The contract provided that bananas should be bought for shipment by the subsidised steamers, and this provision is fulfilled. I consider that the Jamaica growers do receive benefit from the subsidy in the form of a market which would not otherwise be open to them, and that there is no reasonable ground for seeking to alter the terms of the contract.

  Mail Contract to the West Indies
  MASTER OF ELIBANK: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state in detail the amount of the annual subsidies paid to the Royal Mail Steamship Company by the Governments of the West Indies and British Guiana respectively, and also whether he will state whether any of these Governments approves the new contracts with the Elder, Dempster Line; and, if so, which Government; and whether such approval was carried by the nominated official vote, acting under instructions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.)The annual contributions at present made by the Colonial Governments to the subsidy paid by His Majesty's Govern
  818
  ment to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company are as follows—

  £

  Trinidad (including a special contribution of £5,000 paid to the company for placing the colony on their main line)

  9,600

  British Guiana

  4,200

  Barbados

  4,000

  Jamaica

  2,100

  Grenada

  1,000

  St. Lucia

  1,000

  Antigua

  1,000

  St. Vincent

  450

  Dominica

  450

  St. Kitts-Nevis

  550

  Montserrat

  200

  Virgin Islands

  50

  I am not at present in a position to answer the remainder of the hon. Member's Question.

  Sandhurst Royal Military College—Cadets reported to the Commandant
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many times the Sergeant-Major of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, has made reports to the Commandant against the cadets in training since January 1st this year; and what was the nature of the complaints made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.)The matters alluded to in the Question are dealt with by the Commandant, with whose discretion I am not prepared to interfere. I cannot, therefore, undertake to give the hon. Member the required information.

  The Jamaica Garrison
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to withdraw any of the British troops at present stationed in Jamaica, or otherwise reduce the military force now quartered in the, colony.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is proposed to withdraw the three companies of British infantry quartered there, and to replace them by four companies of the West India Regiment.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

    Military Expenditure in South Africa
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the account on page 130 of the Army Appropriation Account, 1903–4, showing that under ten Army Votes the military expenditure in South Africa amounted in the year 1903–4 to £7,760,653; whether he is aware that this excludes headquarter administrative expenses, deferred pay and recruiting expenses, non-effective charges, and expenditure under the Military Works Acts; and whether he can say what sum is to be added to the £7,760,653 in respect of these four items, and what the total expenditure for the year was when these additions are made; and can he say what the similar total military expenditure on South Africa was for the year 1904–5, and what it is estimated to be for the year 1905–6.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)A note is appended to the statement referred to by the hon. Member to the effect that the items mentioned in his Question are not included in the statement. It is not possible to say how much of the expenditure incurred in any year on headquarter administration expenses, deferred pay and recruiting expenses or non-effective charges, was incurred on account of South Africa. The expenditure there under the Military Works Acts in 1903–4 was £1,424,000, and that in 1904–5 is estimated at £1,191,000. The probable expenditure under the Military Works Acts in 1905–6 cannot at present be stated.

    Reduction of Tea Duty—Clearances from Bond.
    MR. SLACK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the 1st day of July, 1905, will be a Saturday, and that there will therefore be only four and a-half working hours on that day from the time the Customs House opens at 10 a.m. until 2.30 p.m., when the railway companies cease collecting goods, arrangements will be made whereby the duty on tea at the
    820
    reduced rate of 6d. per pound may be paid at the Customs House on Friday, June 30th, provided that delivery of such tea is not taken till the following day, so as to facilitate those interested in the tea trade in the execution of their orders.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)The hon. Member will probably have learned from the newspapers that the Board of Customs have already instructed their officers that on tea required for delivery on or after July 1st next, the reduced rate of duty, 6d.per pound, may be accepted, as a deposit, prior to that date. Arrangements will be made for the issue early on July 1st of the delivery orders for parcels of tea upon which the duty has thus been deposited.

    West Indian Patent-Still Spirit
    MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to introduce any measures to facilitate the importation of West Indian patent-still spirit into the United Kingdom for industrial purposes; and whether he has any intention of removing the extra duty of 4d. per gallon paid upon same.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not proposed to introduce any measure giving preferential treatment to West Indian spirit. But if the proposals of the Industrial Alcohol Committee are adopted by Parliament, spirit from the West Indies will derive a substantial benefit from the new arrangements, in common with all other spirit, whether imported or home-made.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When will the Bill be brought in?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As soon as it is ready. It is now being prepared.

    Returns of Public Revenue (Interception) and Gross Departmental Expenditure
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury can he agree to give the Returns of Public Revenue (Interception) and of Gross

    821
    Departmental Expenditure, which are down on the Paper for tomorrow.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY Of THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I shall be able to give my hon. friend most of the information which he desires, but I would be much obliged if he could speak to me privately with reference to one or two points in the Return.

    Scotland and the Unemployed Bill.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state on what ground Scotland is excluded from the operation of the Unemployed Workmen's Bill; and whether the Government contemplate separate legislation to extend its provisions to Scotland.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,)The Secretary for Scotland is not satisfied that the conditions prevailing in Scotland at the present time are such as to require special legislation in the direction contemplated by the hon. Member.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it intended to introduce a similar Bill for Scotland in the near future?
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I am afraid I can give no promise.

    Youghal Auxiliary Lunatic Asylum.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if any change has been made in the arrangement which permitted Dr. Kelly, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cloyne, to fit out at the public expense a vacant industrial school at Youghal for the reception of insane patients, and if Dr. Kelly is paid a capitation grant for each patient; whether he is aware that the patients are nursed by nuns who have had no previous training in such duties, that there is no resident medical superintendent, and that the medical cure of the patients is under the control of a visiting physician, who has had no previous training in the diseases of the insane, although visiting physicians have been
    822
    allowed to die out in all the other Irish and British asylums; that the house built at Youghal for the resident medical superintendent is occupied by a chaplain whose chief duty is to look after the spiritual welfare of the nuns; that the Under-Secretary for Ireland has already remonstrated with the Bishop of Cloyne against these irregularities; if so, will he say whether they have the approval of the inspectors; and if he will take such steps as are necessary to restore the lunatics now in charge of the Bishop of Cloyne to proper supervision and control.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of postponing his Answer until the Question is made more intelligible? If it refers to the Bishop of Cloyne it cannot refer to Dr. Kelly, and vice versa.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The inaccuracy to which the hon. Member refers does not make it impossible to answer the Question.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be as charitable to Questions from this side of the House.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In reply to my hon. friend's Question of February 23rd† last, my right hon. friend the Member for Dover made a very full statement on this matter, which substantially covers the ground of the present Question. It is only necessary to repeat that the two points connected with the administration of this auxiliary asylum in regard to which the inspectors have raised objection are, first, the appointment of a visiting instead of a resident medical officer, and, secondly, the resolutions of the committee of management relieving the resident medical superintendent of the Cork Asylum from all responsibility for the discipline and domestic management of the auxiliary. In regard to the first, the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant to the appointment of a visiting medical officer has only been given as a tentative measure which will be open to reconsideration if the arrangement should
    † See (4) Debates, cxli.,1107.

    823
    prove defective and as to the second, the committee have been informed that the resolutions are illegal, and have been called upon to correct the illegality..The Under-Secretary has made representations on the subject to Dr. Kelly, Bishop of Ross, who is a member of the committee. The capitation grant is payable to the county council.
    MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where these lunatics were before they were brought to this asylum, and under what circumstances they were transferred?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: And are the patients confined in this auxiliary asylum the harmless insane?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I believe so.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Was not a clause put into the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1889, the very object of which was that the harmless insane should be treated in such auxiliary asylums?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously I must refer to the clause before I answer that Question. And in order to reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo I must refer to the authorities on the spot.
    MR. SLOAN: As the Bishop has been remonstrated with on this matter, does the Irish Executive intend to reconsider the decision come to?
    MR. WALTER LONG: The arrangement has been consented to by the Lord-Lieutenant as a temporary one, and obviously I can make no announcement of a final decision by the Irish Executive until there has been time to judge the results of the experiment.
    MR. SLOAN: Are you inquiring into it?
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is the business of the Irish Executive to follow the operation.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the arrangements
    824
    in connection with this auxiliary asylum were carried out by the Cork County Council, and have given complete satisfaction? Is he aware also that it is inaccurate to say that the nurses are untrained, seeing that some of them possess certificates?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I must ask for notice of any further Question.

    Manufacture of Alcohol from Potatoes in Ireland.
    MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that millions of tons of potatoes are annually used in Germany for the manufacture of crude alcohol for motoring and manufacturing purposes -and whether, seeing that Ireland is a potato-growing country, the restrictions. on the making of spirit there for industrial purposes can be relaxed in such a way as to place Ireland in a position to-compete with Germany and other foreign, countries.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In Paragraph 4 of their recently presented Report, the Industrial Alcohol Committee stated that they were satisfied. "that in the present agricultural conditions of this country it would not be possible to found a profitable industry on the employment of potatoes as a material for distillation." The evidence on which this conclusion was based will be found in Questions 5656–5854 of the Minutes of Evidence. Briefly, it may be said that it would not pay to make spirit from potatoes unless the potatoes could be purchased at a price not exceeding about £1 per ton. In Ireland potatoes fetch not less than £2 per ton.

    Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the-Secretary to the Treasury if he will take into consideration, at the earliest opportunity, the advisability of placing; the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund on a basis that will ensure similar treatment to that given to disabled teachers in England and Scotland.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid the. Treasury could not undertake to make any change until they had the results of

    825
    the valuation which would be made this year.
    MR. SLOAN: In what month?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: December.

    Government Redistribution Proposals.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he intends to introduce his Redistribution proposals; and whether he intends to proceed by Bill, Resolution, or otherwise.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I cannot fix any date (for dealing with this subject, but I can inform the hon. Gentleman that we propose to deal with it by Resolution and not by Bill, which, indeed, is the only possible method.

    Dursey Island Eviction
    MR, T. P. O'CONNOR: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what were the special circumstances for giving the use of the Government vessel "Storm Cock" for the purpose of conveying an I armed force to Dursey Island for the eviction of one tenant from his holding; what was the amount of rent due; what has been the cost, up to date, of this armed force, and of the transport; whether any offer of settlement was made by the Congested Districts Board to the landlord of this estate before the eviction; and whether under the circumstances he will at once withdraw the armed force from the island, and also withdraw the "Storm Cock" from the service of the landlord for eviction purposes, and will he charge the landlord for the use of the vessel up to the present.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I only received notice of this Question just before the House met. The services of a Government vessel were requisitioned by the sheriff of the county in the execution of a decree of the Superior Court. The Admiralty placed the vessel at the disposal of the sheriff, as they were bound in law to do. The police will remain on
    826
    the island so long as they are required for the protection of the sheriff's officers. I am unable to give the information desired in the remainder of the Question at such short notice and without making local inquiry.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I assume that the facts must have been presented to the right hon. Gentleman before he sanctioned the use of the armed forces of the Crown, and I, therefore, beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the action of the Irish Executive in furnishing a Government vessel for the conveyance of an armed force to Dursey Island for the purpose of assisting the landlord to evict one of his tenants, and the maintenance of the armed force on the island."
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr.DEPUTY-SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
    The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until the Evening Sitting, this day.

NEW BILLS
  COTTAGE HOMES BILL
  "To authorise the provision of Cottage-Homes for the Aged Poor," presented by Mr. John Hutton; supported by Mr. Wharton, Mr. Brigg, Sir Ernest Flower, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Paulton, Mr. Joseph Pease, Mr. T. W. Russell, and Sir William Wilson-Todd; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, May 31st, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend The Education Act, 1902," presented by Mr. Arthur Henderson; supported by Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Bell, Mr. Fen wick, Mr. John Wilson, (Durham), Mr. Johnson, Mr. Broadhurst, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Thomas Richards, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Keir Hardie; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (FEEDING OF CHILDREN) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To make provision for the Feeding of Children in Public Elementary Schools," presented by Mr. Claude Hay; supported by Mr. James Hope, Dr. Macnamara, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Ernest Flower, Mr. Coghill, and Mr. Ridley; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]
WAYS AND MEANS [APRIL 10TH] REPORT.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [April 12th], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution:—

EXCHEQUER BONDS
1. "That for the purpose of paying off any Exchequer bonds issued under the Supplemental War Loan Acts of 1900, any sums not exceeding ten million pounds be raised by the issue of Exchequer bonds to be current, subject to the provisions for the redemption of the total issue, for a period of ten years, and that in each year of that period one-tenth part of the total issue of the new bonds be drawn for repayment and redeemed by the application for the purpose of the requisite part of the new sinking fund, and that the permanent annual charge for the National Debt be increased so as to be £28,000,000. That any expenses incurred in connection with raising or paying off any such sums, and the principal of and interest on any such sums, be charged on the Consolidated Fund, and, as to the interest, be paid as part of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."
Question again proposed
MR. COHENsaid he, personally, did not approve of the manner in which the bonds were issued, because he thought it was not calculated to secure them the most favourable terms. But at the same time he wished to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his action in providing the means, by the present Resolution, of ensuring the absolute automatic repayment of the colossal debt which was now pressing on the finances of the country. Concurrently with expenditure there ought always to
828
be provision for the extinction of debt. Let them spend as much as they liked, but let it be spent out of income and not out of capital. Year after year seven or eight millions were spent in a way which was not legitimate, and since the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of the original sinners in the offence which was committed by the Public Works Loan expenditure he hoped he would now apply himself with all the greater vigour to reforming this unsound method of voting the expenditure of the country.Undoubtedly reform was needed in the present system. He would not stay to inquire whether it was right for the Admiralty or the War Office—
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, Order! The hon. Gentleman is not entitled now to discuss the general financial position of the country. He must confine himself strictly to the question of the issue of these Exchequer bonds.
MR. COHENregretted that he had gone beyond the limit of the debate. He would conclude by saying that the gratitude of the country and of the House was due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the almost new system he was introducing for the repayment of debt.
MR. MCKENNApointed out that the remarks of the hon. Member were a reminder to the House that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making provision on one hand for the repayment of debt, on the other he was incurring debt. But how was it that the House was discussing now this Resolution on Report when the ten millions of bonds had been issued? Had the Law Officers of the Crown been present he would have asked them if there was any precedent for such a proceeding. Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer give any authority for issuing these bonds before he obtained the approval of the House to the Resolution passed in Committee? He believed that no precedent could be quoted. Even if the Resolution, however, were refused by the House it would be now impossible to rescind the contract. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not go into the market and repay the money to those

829
who had subscribed for the bonds. He also suggested that in making these financial arrangements for the issue of bonds the payment of interest should be made the same for all persons who took them. The element of lottery speculation at present introduced was not a wise arrangement. There was to be a ten years currency of the bonds. What was the result? The bonds were issued at 2¾ per cent, and were subscribed at 98. Those which were drawn at the end of the first year would receive repayment at par in addition to the 2¾ per cent, interest; practically they would get a little over 4 per cent, on their investment, while on the other hand the bonds drawn last would produce only about 3¼ per cent. The fact that business men did not approve of these methods was shown by the fait that the subscription for the bonds was so small. He certainly did not think it wise to introduce this lottery system into our financial arrangements.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that the hon. Member was under an entire misapprehension as to the practice governing the issue of loans. It was the practice, when the money was being borrowed, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to act upon the Resolution passed in Committee, and not to wait for its confirmation in the House or in the Bill. The reason for this was obvious. To have the issuing of a loan hanging or an indefinite period over the market was very prejudicial in the public interest. He had himself when at the Treasury acted on the principle indicated, and he believed that previous Chancellors of the Exchequer had followed the same procedure. With regard to the question of the mode in which the money had been borrowed he confessed that he was not quite sure that the proper course had "been adopted. He doubted whether he would have followed the method adopted by his right hon. friend, and he certainly thought that better terms might have been secured had a different method and another moment been chosen for issue. He thought that the amount of interest payable under this system of borrowing was higher than the figure at which the Treasury ought to have been able to borrow. It was not a fair argument to single out for contrast the individual
830
who drew his bonds the first year. The true method of judging the system was to take the average in the proportion which might be drawn every year. He reckoned that the amount of interest paid, taking into account commissions and other matters, was a little over £3 2s. 6d. In his judgment that was rather an extravagant figure for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay, though he knew well the great difficulties which surrounded the subject, and the various opinions which were held as to the best method of dealing with the question. He was certain that his right hon. friend had taken the best advice procurable, and had acted in the way he thought best for the public interest. Personally he did not think that the City believed it to be either the right method or the right time to choose. The money could have been borrowed on somewhat better terms. As to the £10,000,000, he was glad that his right hon. friend had, notwithstanding many temptations to the contrary, adopted a method by which a considerable additional sum would be available for the repayment of debt. It might be thought that he was uttering an opinion contrary to the view he expressed when at the Exchequer; but it must be remembered that at that time there was every expectation that we should receive large repayments on account of the £30,000,000 from the Transvaal. He had acted not only on the strong views held at the Colonial Office at the time, but he was extremely careful to go through all the reports which came from Lord Milner. He was then fully persuaded that the hopes he expressed as to the revenue of the Transvaal would be realised.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman gave an actual pledge that the money would be forthcoming.
MR. RITCHIEdenied that he went so far as that. What he said amounted to much less than a pledge. He merely stated the facts. He attached more importance to the payment of the first £10,000,000 than to the exact period when the other instalments would be forthcoming. Occupying the position he did,

831
it would have been foolish for him not to have expressed a belief that the money would be forthcoming. Unfortunately the money had not been forthcoming, but no one could be surprised at the fact, having regard to the state of finances in the Transvaal. It would be a monstrous thing to saddle the Transvaal with this large debt payment every year when its finances were hardly in a condition to meet the ordinary expenditure of the country. It seemed to him, therefore, that in present circumstances nothing remained for the Chancellor of the Exchequer but to make some other provision for the extinction of debt. His right hon. friend had acted most wisely in seeking to discharge a portion of the Debt in the way he had provided, although, as he had said, he felt that the time was not well chosen for the issue, and more had been paid for the accommodation than ought to ha e been.
MR. BLACKsaid the Conservative predecessors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown a consistent tendency to spoil the Sinking Fund. It was therefore a relief to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a small step in the right direction; but the question was whether the step was large enough, and the point he desired to make was, that in place of this £10,000,000 being met by a further borrowing, a very much larger sum ought to have been met out of current taxation if we were to put ourselves in at all a good position financially. If the South African War had resulted in our acquiring an asset, there might have been something said for deferring the repayment of the debt incurred for that war but instead of it being an asset, we found it a huge liability, for the holding of it implied the employment of about 25,000 soldiers there at a cost of something like £5,000,000 a year. In October, 1899, the light hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham put forward as a reason for engaging in the war that we should avoid having so large a garrison in South Africa if we managed to beat our foes:but, instead of having effected this, we were still obliged to keep up a large garrison there, and the country, instead of being an asset, was a liability.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is allowing himself too much licence. He is not entitled to review the whole policy of the war.
MR. BLACKsaid he hoped he would be in order in pointing out that our indebtedness was not decreasing. In 1904 the Debt amounted to £ 794,000,000 as against £798,000,000 in 1903. Under ordinary circumstances one would have thought that this decrease would have been effected by the operation of the Sinking Fund, but it was not so effected; it was almost entirely due to £3,000,000 recovered from the Transvaal. In 1905 they found the Debt had again increased to £796,000,000, so that during the whole of these years we had not paid off a single penny; on the contrary, we had diminished our assets, while our Debt remained practically the same. What was the position in the current year? We should have only paid off £468,000, and this in the piping times of peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to deal with the matter of national finance as if the nation were a person with a secure title, and perhaps with a mortgage on his estate; and, so long as he paid the interest on the mortgage, kept the repairs, going, and kept the household up, he thought he did well. But this was far from being the position of a nation, and particularly this nation. We were in the position of a person whose title was subject to attack, and who might be called upon to defend his title at a cost that might be greater than the whole value of his estate; and unless this country made due provision in times of peace and prosperity by the reduction of debt or the accumulation of assets we should find ourselves without the sinews of war-when we most needed them. At the present moment our indebtedness amounted to £796,000,000, but to this, there was to be added the indebtedness of local bodies, amounting to very little less than £300,000,000, making a total of something like £1,100,000,000, or more than £25 per head of the population or £120 per householder. How many householders were there possessed of assets to the extent of £120, their rateable quota to the National Debt? He ventured

833
to say there were comparatively few. "With the single exception of France, he thought, too, it would be found that all our neighbours were better off in this respect. Russia, before the war, was only indebted to the extent of some £16 or £17 per householder; Germany £12, France £150, and Italy £80. He agreed that, comparing national wealth with national indebtedness, our position was not quite so bad, but they had to look at what that wealth consisted of. France's national wealth consisted largely of landed property which could not be moved out of the country; but ours consisted to a large extent of fugitive wealth, in the shape of industrial capital, holdings in Colonial or Foreign Government securities, or interests of various kinds in undertakings outside the country which, if taxed too heavily, in sudden emergency would cross the border. Therefore we ought to make provision year by year for our national requirements, and this was exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to realise, even in the provision which had been so much praised. If he had added £5,000,000 to the Sinking Fund it might have come approximately to what was required. There were only two ways of sound finance—either to diminish expenditure or increase income; and he hoped another year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do a little more to put the finances of the nation in a sound position, and so furnish us with what were, after all, the true sinews of war.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESnext rose.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lynn Regis has exhausted his right of speech.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then if I am not to be heard, I presume the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot speak.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Only with the leave of the House.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What occurred on the last occasion was that if a Question was asked one could not get an Answer. The debate was a very short one.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member's speech was a short one, but it
834
occupied half a column of Hansard, and therefore can hardly be looked upon as simply a Question. The hon. Member for Halifax also spoke on that occasion. I have refreshed my memory by looking up the report.
MR. WHITLEYI too have refreshed my memory, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find I merely urged reasons against proceeding with the I matter at that particular moment, and the Chancellor agreed with me.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: But still the speech was made on the Motion before the House.
MR. WHITLEY: I simply appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to proceed with the Motion. I only indicated points which needed to be discussed and said the ten minutes which remained was not sufficient time for the discussion.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It was open to the hon. Member to continue his observations. I am afraid I cannot take into account the quality of a speech. All I can say is that the hon. Member did speak and that his speech is reported to the extent of one-third of a column. He therefore technically exhausted his right.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I speak with the indulgence of the House?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIf the hon. Member has the leave of the House it is not for me to interfere.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLESthanked the House for permitting him to speak and said that in view of that indulgence he felt that his remarks should not be lengthy. He would endeavour to keep to the point of the Resolution—viz., the specific method of dealing with a specific portion of debt. It was proposed to deal with the unfunded portion of the Debt by an entirely new method, by issuing Treasury bonds to the extent of £ 10,000,000 under wholly new conditions. He was not fond of these newfangled methods of finance, he was not an admirer of the new devices. Let

835
them examine this matter upon its merits. He understood that the rate of interest was governed by the War Loans Act of 1900. The rate of interest of these £10,000,000 of bonds was therefore 2¾ per cent., and the price obtained for them was about 98.6.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): £ 98 13s.10d.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Say then 98.7. On an average the holder would receive something over 3 per cent, for his money, although those paid off in the first year would realise over 4 per cent. He had some grievance as to the form of issue. This was the first time in modern financial history that England had trusted to a lottery for raising money. These were eminently lottery bonds, and he was only surprised that they did not fetch a higher price. The right hon. Member for Croydon had partly explained that by intimating that the Treasury made a serious mistake and issued these bonds under wrong conditions at a wrong time. That was a very serious allegation, and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would feel that it needed a serious answer, for if the Treasury existed for anything at all, it was to see that issues of this kind were made at the right time under the right conditions. Another point was that by the War Loans Act, 1900, £13,000,000 of Treasury bills and bonds, which this issue was partially to meet, were to be repaid on April 5th, 1910, but this £10,000,000 was to run until 1915, and therefore the term of repayment was extended of five years.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I be permitted to interrupt the hon. Gentleman? The Exchequer bonds were redeemable within six years, and some of them have already been redeemed. In the Supplementary War Loans Act there is a provision allowing new bonds of a similar amount to be issued for the purpose of redeeming them.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that did not effect his point. The "Rake's Progress" was quite complete. The Treasury issued the bonds and re-
836
paid them by reborrowing.. They were in the position of a man who said, "I owe you half-a-crown: if you will lend me the money I will repay you." He submitted he was right in his contention that this was a renewal of debt with five years longer for repayment. The wiles of the Treasury were numerous; it was not always easy to follow the intricacies of its finance. But the disentangled fact remained. Now this issue was made for the especial purpose of dealing with the Unfunded Debt, and that debt undoubtedly required serious attention. Although the Funded Debt had decreased in the last ten years, the Unfunded Debt had increased enormously during the same period, and by much more than the Funded Debt had diminished, so that the total debt was a great deal more than it was. While the Funded Debt had in the year ending March 31st, 1905, been reduced from £637,600,000 to £635,600,000, which showed a reduction of £2,000,000, the Unfunded Debt of all sorts had been increased in the same year by over £4,000,000, mainly in the loans for Works. So that while we apparently owed £2,000,000 less if the Funded Debt were alone regarded, yet, when the whole debt was considered, we really owed above £2,000,000 more. The Unfunded Debt was the worst form of debt and the most dangerous, and it was increasing alarmingly. The Unfunded Debt stood on March 31st, 1905, at £161,000,000 as compared with £156,700,000 in 1904 and £79,000,000 in 1894, and it was to be increased by at least £8,000,000 this year for what was called capital expenditure on works. The Budget was quite sound, as far as it went it was plain, honest, and straightforward, but it did not go by any means far enough in the direction of retrenchment and of making provision to meet the Debt. He would warn the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to beware of new methods of meeting debt; the only real way to raise money was to have new taxation or to omit taking off existing taxation. If they took the total national indebtedness, quite apart from local indebtedness, they would find that with Funded and Unfunded Debt, contingent liabilities, and guaranteed loans this country was at the

837
present moment under a load of liability which nearly approached £1,000,000,000. He thought the provision for the redemption of the Debt was insufficient. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to deal with the expenditure which the House had accepted or would accept. Hon. Gentlemen opposite pretended to have a monopoly of the desire for peace, retrenchment, and reform. That was not so. He could assure them that on his side of the House there were as good advocates of peace, retrenchment, and reform as any that could be found on the other side. He himself felt very considerable apprehension on this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown the right spirit. The Treasury, he believed, was animated by an absolutely correct view of our finances; indeed, he should call this a sound Treasury Budget. The right hon. Gentle-man was so far entitled to credit, but he begged him to persevere in the right direction, to stiffen his back, to set up his upper lip against the Departments, aid to learn to refuse them all they wanted. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to take to heart the example of the Admiralty which had succeeded, they were told, in increasing the efficiency of the Navy while reducing the expenditure by £3,500,000. That was the direction in which they must primarily look. If that direction was successfully pursued then, and then alone, would they get a reduction of debt.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the debate that afternoon had confined itself to two parts, namely, first, the general indebtness of the country, and, second, the particular manner in which the Exchequer bonds had been created and issued. He did not intend to go at length into the first question, because on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, or in Committee, there would be better opportunities of dealing with that matter than upon a Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon stated that in consequence of the failure of the Transvaal to pay the £30,000,000 of indebtedness, his calculation of two years ago of the annual amount that ought to be provided towards the redemption of the Debt had largely broken down. That was to say, the Debt
838
was not, under the present conditions, being redeemed in the way he had intended or desired. In supporting the proposal to give an additional £ 1,000,000' annually to the reduction of debt, he wanted to comment on the fact that many Members on both sides of the House did not consider that this sum ought to be taken as against the £ 30,000,000 which was expected from the Transvaal. Two years ago, even including the £ 30,000,000, they did not consider that the right hon. Gentlemen was making sufficient provision for the reduction of debt. Quite apart from that question, they would support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in adding £ 1,000,000 to the reduction of debt. The figures given by the hon. Member for King's Lynn were of very serious moment to the country. The hon. Member's statement, broadly speaking, amounted to this. The war had cost £ 260,000,000, and, apart from the war cost, our indebtedness was exactly the same now as it was before the war took place. At the present moment we had not redeemed a single million of the charge which the Debt had thrown upon the country. Before the war the debt charge was £ 23,000,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon increased that to £ 27,000,000, the increase of £ 4,000,000 representing the interest on the war debt. The charge should have been £ 4,500,000. The total net burden to the taxpayer, quite apart from the question of how much went to the reduction of debt or for interest at the present moment, was only £500,000 a. year more than before the war period.
As to the other point—the issue of Exchequer bonds—he ventured to remark: when the subject was before the House at an earlier period that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making a mistake in creating a particular sinking fund in respect of these bonds. In his opinion it was a mistake to make appropriations of particular sums to particular purposes. What would happen? It might very well happen that in the next ten years it might be better finance, and more economical, to apply another £ 1,000,000 to the reduction of debt rather than to the redemption of these Exchequer-

839
bonds, and, therefore, he thought it was a pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had tied his hands and those of his successors as to the way this £1,000,000 might be applied to the redemption of debt. The right hon. Gentleman's chief argument was that it would prevent some subsequent Chancellor of the Exchequer from robbing the Sinking Fund. He could only say, speaking from the experience of the past, that if they had a predatory Chancellor of the Exchequer nothing would stand in the way of his suspending the Sinking Fund and using it another way. The £10,000,000 of Exchequer bonds had, as had already been shown, been issued.at a price which was very costly to the British taxpayer. The price was 3⅛ per cent., whereas the ordinary credit of the country was very considerably below that sum. That was on account of the particular form in which the bonds had "been issued, namely, for ten years with a liability to be paid at any time within the period. That was a distinctly unattractive form of investment and it accounted for the dearer price we had o pay for interest. There was force in what had been stated by one or two previous speakers, namely, that this was the first time since the days of Pitt that we were actually issuing lottery bonds. Some holders would be fortunate enough to have their bonds drawn earlier than others, who might have to go through the full currency of the bonds. He did not think that was a system which was altogether satisfactory to our modern ideas. We had at the present moment too many forms of bonds and complications in regard to the issue of our Debt, and it was to be regretted that another had been created. It seemed to him to be a step in the wrong direction. He did not think this new form would be very negotiable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer deserved full credit for having added £1,000,000 a year to the sum devoted to the diminution of debt, but he did not seem to have been well advised in regard to the method of issuing the Exchequer bonds.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he hoped the House would facilitate the progress of these Resolutions, of j which the one they were discussing
840
was only the first on the Paper. There were one or two points raised in the course of the discussion to which it was necessary for him to make some reply. The first was in regard to the amount which was allocated in his Budget proposals for the redemption of the National Debt. That amount must be judged not merely by the intrinsic sum, but by the proportion which it bore to the Debt for the service of which it was appointed. Judged in that way, he thought the sum set aside this year as Sinking Fund would bear comparison with anything that they had bean accustomed to do in recent years. it was not easy to go back further than 1888–89, because in that year great changes were made in the conversion scheme. In that year, which he might call the heyday of the Sinking Fund, the amount available for the redemption of dead-weight debt was £7,577,000, which was 1.19 per cent, of the dead-weight debt. With the addition which he had proposed to the fixed debt charge of £1,000,000 in the current year, the Sinking Fund now amounted to £8,650,000, which was T14 per cent, of the dead-weight charge, and it would, in fact, bear a larger proportion to the dead-weight debt than it had borne in any but two of the whole series of years beginning with 1888–89. Of course, as the Sinking Fund operated to redeem the Debt it automatically reduced the amount required for interest and increased the Sinking Fund available in subsequent years.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon referred to the anticipation which he had entertained of receiving an earlier payment of the Transvaal war contribution. Supposing that anticipation had been realized and £20,000,000 of that contribution had already been paid, that sum would have been devoted to redeeming some of the floating debt that was costing us on the average 3 per cent, per annum, and there would have been £600,000 less required for interest and £600,000 more available for the reduction of debt than there were before he made his proposals to the House. Against that £600,000 he had set his proposal to vote £1,000,000. Whether that was sufficient or insufficient,

841
he was asking the House to do something more than was contemplated by his right hon. friend the Member for Croydon.
MR SYDNEY BUXTONsaid if the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had been realised, next year the third installment of the contribution would have been paid.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBEELAINsaid he was dealing with the situation as it was at present. If they were to look forward to another year they must consider what was going to happen in the course of that year. He did not propose this addition to the Sinking Fund in lieu of or as an alternative to the Transvaal war contribution. He thought it would have been wrong to ask the Transvaal to pay that contribution in the circumstances of the past year. The Government thought it would be inexpedient and impolitic to impose by the authority of that House in a purely nominated Assembly an obligation on the Transvaal which they expected the Transvaal voluntarily to assume in its own representative Assembly.
SIR KOBEET REID: We are all agreed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was very glad they were all agreed. He would not name a date, but with the returning prosperity of the Transvaal he did not doubt that our fellow-citizens there would make their contribution to the expenses of that great war, and that the contribution would be available, in addition to the effort which he was asking this country to make, for the reduction of the Debt.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was able to compare the net diminution of the entire debt of the country in 1888–89 with the net diminution of the entire debt of the country in the present year.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the figures for 1888–89 were not before him, but he could obtain them if the hon. and learned Gentleman would put a
842
Question on the Paper. The estimate for the special Sinking Fund applicable to the debt outside the fixed debt charge for the year 1905–6 was £1,683,000. If they added that sum to the £8,650,000 included in the fixed debt charge, they would obtain a total of £10,333,000, which was the amount the House was asked to vote in reduction of debt in the current year. In his opinion that was not an inadequate amount for the country to allocates to that purpose in the circumstances of the present time; and he thought that opinion in circles best competent to judge outside that House would support him, not merely in increasing the Sinking Fund, but in the amount of the increase which he had proposed to the House.
The hon. Member for North Monmouth had asked him whether there was any precedent for proceeding with the issue of a loan in circumstances such as those in which the issue of Exchequer bonds was made. There were several precedents for proceeding, before the sanction of the House was complete, at the exact moment at which he had proceeded. In 1901 the Resolution authorising the issue of £60,000,000 of Consols was taken on April 19th, the issue was made on April 20th, the Report of the Committee's Resolution was not taken until April 29th, and the Royal assent was not given until August 17th in the same year. There were obvious reasons, as his fright hon. friend the Member for Croydon had pointed out, why it was frequently desirable to proceed with any issue of this kind as soon as notice of the intention of the Government bad been given. It was no doubt an inconvenience to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury sometimes that they could not proceed at the moment which they themselves would most desire but they were bound to come to the House of Commons before they could invite tenders, and the fact of their having to disclose their intentions to the House of Commons on a particular date, fixed for other reasons, might force them to make an issue at an earlier moment than they would otherwise have chosen. But, be that as it might, the precedent on which he was able to found himself was there.

843
He must say a brief word as to the time and form of the issue. He did not think the time itself was ill-chosen, though he did think the news, over which they had no control and which it is impossible to foresee, which came during the week when the tenders were opened was probably not such as to tend to a favourable result in respect of the issue. As regarded the popularity or unpopularity of the method of drawings, he thought opinion in the City and elsewhere was by no means unanimous. It must be borne in mind that the market for Exchequer bonds was at all times a limited one, and that they were not the kind of security that was very widely held or that appealed to a very large public. But he did not think it was adversely affected to anything like the extent which some hon. Gentlemen appeared to suppose. Investors who tendered for these bonds calculated the price so as to yield them 3 percent, on their money. He thought the result of the issue was not unsatisfactory. "What was the alternative to the course he had taken? He might simply have renewed the Exchequer bonds in the lump for ten years. "Would that have been an altogether satisfactory arrangement? It was an embarrassment to have this large amount of debt falling in in a single year. It necessitated the accumulation of money which they were unable to use in order to be ready to pay off, on the date when the bonds fell due, the whole amount of these bonds. He thought it was more desirable to pay off these bonds by regular annual stages, which would take a million off the market every year without any disturbance either to the market or to the Exchequer.
The hon. Member for Poplar said there was no precedent for such a transaction as this, at any rate since the time of Pitt, and he described the bonds as "lottery" bonds. He did not think the hon. Gentleman seriously suggested that there was a serious element of speculation or gambling in an issue of this kind, but he was quite wrong about the precedent. The precedent had been adopted in at least three cases in recent years in regard to stocks the interest and capital of which this country had guaranteed—a Turkish loan, an Egyptian loan, and a Greek loan, issued under the
844
guarantee of the Government of Great Britain.
MR. WHITLEY: Were they issued at a discount?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied that he really could not say what the terms of issue were, but he should say that most likely they were issued at a discount. They appeared to him to be exact precedents—at any rate they were precedents for all the purposes of the criticism which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar urged against his proposal. Of course there was a certain amount of novelty about the proposal. As he admitted when making it to the House, ha had to consider whether it was on the whole the best proposal, or whether he should have submitted some other suggestion. The hon. Member for Poplar seemed to suggest that if he had made other proposals—that if he had issued Consols—he might have borrowed on very much better terms. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman seriously thought that.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONpointed out that he did not mention Consoles.
MR, AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Member did not mention Consoles, but he mentioned the rate of interest payable on the Funded Debt, contrasted that with the rate of interest payable on these bonds, and said therefore the issue of these bonds was an unbusinesslike transaction. If the hon. Gentleman meant anything he meant that an issue of Consoles would have been a better course to adopt. If he had made a large issue of Consoles, still more, if he had attempted to make a small issue of entirely new stock, he would have depressed the price of Consoles, he would have borrowed upon terms certainly not more advantageous than those he had obtained, he would almost certainly have borrowed further below par, and, therefore, there would have been a larger amount to repay on each £100 of actual money secured than there would be under his present proposal. This system of drawings, though not very frequent in our finance, was very well known to the Money Market, which could

845
easily make its calculations when the amount to be drawn every year was a ·simple division of the total sum, as was "the case in the present instance. It calculated the price at which it tendered on the average life of these bonds. This reduced the element of speculation to a minimum, and was not, he thought, open to the accusation, not pressed by the hon. Member for Poplar, but adumbrated by him, that he was really tempting gentlemen in the City to some wild gambling transaction, foreign to their nature, and depraving to the people of this country. He appealed to the House to treat this matter in a businesslike way, and to facilitate the progress of these Resolutions through their present stage. He thought many points they had to discuss would be far more easily discussed when hon. Gentlemen had the Bill in their hands than they could be on the Report of the Resolutions.
MR. BUCHANANsaid he would not comment upon the particular form of the bonds except to point out that when it was desired to raise £10,000,000 this country had to pay at the rate of 3⅛ per cent. The right hon. Gentleman began his remarks by defending himself and the Government as to the means they had taken under this Resolution for the reduction of the Debt. Looking back on the conduct of the finances during the last twelve years lie (Mr. Buchanan) did not regard that branch of finance as one upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government could pride themselves. They had enjoyed periods of great prosperity, and latterly of exceptional prosperity, but during both periods they had not shown themselves sufficiently alive to the primary obligations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look as his first interest to the diminution of the great burden of debt on the State. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was Chancellor of the Exchequer during a time of great prosperity, and yet was the greatest sinner of the whole lot because he reduced the debt charge by £2,000,000 in order to avoid a deficit. That was one item in the financial career of the Party opposite which least redounded to their financial credit. Then there was the right hon.
846
Gentleman the Member for Croydon who was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the war came to an end, but neither that right hon. Gentleman nor his predecessor nor his successor had ever endeavoured to put before the House and the country any general plan for a substantial reduction of the enormous increase of the Debt caused by that war. There was a strong opinion in the country that it would have been well to have allowed a large amount of the increased taxation due to the war to have remained upon the shoulders of the taxpayers if they could have been assured by those administering the finances of the country that it was to be kept upon their shoulders with a view to making within a reasonably short period a substantial diminution in the war debt. But on that general topic there would be a better opportunity on the Second Reading of the finance Bill of taking up the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman.
There was an obvious fallacy in the comparisons made by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement of what he was doing with regard to the reduction of the National Debt. The proportion of dead-weight debt to the total debt of the country was much larger than in former years, and a comparison founded upon the proportion of the dead-weight debt to the total debt was not a comparison with the reduction of the National Debt as a whole. When they desired to make a comparison between themselves and their predecessors of twenty-five or fifty years ago he ventured to think the legitimate form of comparison was to see how much the taxpayer has been prepared to take upon his shoulders as the debt charge from year to year with a view to the reduction of the National Debt as a whole. He had not been quite able to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the comparison he made between what he was doing now under this Resolution and what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon proposed two years ago, because supposing the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had been fulfilled the position would have been a very different one. The right hon. Member for Croydon anticipated that they would get bask £30,000,000 from the Transvaal, so that in January, 1906, they

847
would have had £30,000,000 wiped off the National Debt, and have had a debt charge remaining at £20,000,030. So far as the present position was concerned they would have £1,000,000 wiped off the Debt instead of £30,000,000, and would have a debt charge of £28,000,000. Had the anticipations of the right hon. Member for Croydon been fulfilled they would have been in an immeasurably better position than could now be the case. It had not, he thought, been pointed out how small the amount was by which it was proposed to reduce the National Debt. £160,000,000 had been added to the Debt for the cost of the war, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to wipe off £10,000,000 only in ten years. That was all that was proposed to be done with a view to the extinction of this extra debt. The right hon. Gentleman at the end of his observations indulged in the hope or anticipation that, after all, some day we might get this £30,000,000 from the Transvaal, but as time went on that hope became more slender, and he (Mr. Buchanan) did not think anybody now looked upon it as a real asset to be depended on by this country. It was summed up in the words of a proverb well known north of the Tweed:" You canna tak the breeks aff a Hielanman." They could not get money out of the Transvaal, and he would be a foolish person who, administering the finances of this country, ever anticipated getting money from that source.
MR. DILLONsaid the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were based altogether on the assumption that no obligation lay on this country to redeem the war debt. Those who could remember the discussions which took place at the commencement of the war would remember that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for West Bristol declared that this country ought to make provision to clear off altogether any debt incurred for the war in South Africa.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That related to the first £10,000,000.
MR. DILLONsaid it was then assumed that the war would only cost £10,000,000, but in the discussion which took place
848
upon the raising of that £10,000,000 the-right hon. Gentlemen's remarks were not directed to the £10,000,000, but to the debt incurred for the cost of the war. The war turned out to be a very different war to what was anticipated by the right hon. Member for West Bristol. His statements and his convictions were-perfectly honest, but they were based on false information just in the same way as were the hopes held out for the twentieth time of obtaining this money from the Transvaal. The principles laid down by the right hon. Member for West Bristol had no application to the £10,000,000 loan, but to the debt due to the war, and it was his conviction that it was the duty of this country to make a special effort to deal with it. That was essential to the credit of this country.
He had listened with amazement to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's justification of the provision he had made for the reduction of the National Debt. After a great war, when an immense deficit had; been made for this country, the right hon. Gentleman thought he was justified if he made a provision not to reduce the extra war debt, but a provision one third less than that which had been made in times of peace before the war. It was a new principle and a principle which struck a most deadly blow at the credit of Great Britain. To a large extent the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, he thought, closed his eyes to the opinion in regard to the credit of this country. The present low price of Consoles was a sign of the diseased state of public health. It was inflicting loss on every interest in the country and was inflicting a most grievous burden on the constituency he represented. It was. inflicting a loss which would amount to millions. The first duty of the State was to raise the price of Consols, and if steps were taken to make a special attempt to redeem the war debt the most proper and effectual way would, in his opinion, be by a purchase of Consols on the market. He was bound to protest against the provision made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the reduction of the Debt, because it was, in his opinion, a most inadequate provision for extinguishing the war debt.
His second [criticism was [that the-Chancellor of the Exchequer had almost

849
ignored the growing operation of the new system of extraordinary budgets for naval and military works. In making comparisons between he proportions existing at the present time and in 1890 between the Sinking Fund and the volume of the Debt, one ought not to leave out of account that new system of special budgets which was unknown until the introduction of Works Bills, and which had been frequently denounced by older And sounder financiers as characteristic of the Budgets of European nations. It had always been contended that to understand the position of European ·countries so long and elaborate a study of the national finances was necessary that it was practically impossible for any others than experts and persons behind the scenes to know how the country stood, whereas in the case of England, through the action of a long series of great financiers, the accounts bad been so simplified that "the man in the street," with no special knowledge of finance, could take up the financial statement and understand exactly the position. During the last fifteen years, however, that had ceased to be the case. As a senior Member of the House, in sitting through financial discussions, he had noticed that the majority of Members were absolutely ignorant as to the financial obligations of the country. At first the Naval and Military Works Acts were for small sums—£3,000,000 or £4,000,000—which, it was said, ought to be spent as capital expenditure, and Members who protested against the beginnings of the system and prophesied that it would expand in an astounding manner were laughed at by the Ministers in charge of the Bills. From that time they had gone on expanding, until now there was in full force the system of extraordinary budgets. Moreover, when the Bills were for small amounts they were introduced early in the session, and ample time was given for their discussion; now, although they increased the debt of the country by £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 a year, they were brought in towards the end of the session when anything like adequate discussion was impossible. He altogether denied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was setting aside £10,000,000 for the reduction of debt. As far as he could make out, there would
850
be no reduction of debt this year at all. because there was being as much borrowed as paid off. What satisfaction was it to the British taxpayer to introduce the ridiculous expression "capital expenditure?" It was debt all the same, aid the charges had to be met. The permanent works carried out under Works Bills were said to be assets of the nation, bat that was not so. The only asset which could be set against borrowing was one bringing in revenue, and, so far from doing that, naval and military works were excuses for and causes of further expenditure, as once the works were constructed further expenditure was demanded for guns, garrisons, and other matters. Under the present system the Sinking Fund was illusory. There was really no Sinking Fund; the debt of the nation was practically not decreasing at all.
With regard to the Transvaal contribution towards the cost of the war, it would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol still believed we should get the £30,000,000. Two or three years ago the right hon. Gentleman expressed in very strong terms his determination to see that £30,000,000 paid. But if it was just to impose the £30,000,000 then why was not security taken for its payment? Personally, he had always expressed his belief that it was unjust to impose the contribution, and that none of it would be obtained, and many Members were now beginning to see that he was a truer prophet than they had thought. He saw little prospect of the money being paid, and as years went on he believed the chances of payment would still further diminish. Would it not be more honest, and wiser from the point of view of Imperial policy, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to draw his pen across this £30,000,000, and not leave it to be a bone of contention in the future. Possibly hon. Members had read General Botha's opinion in that morning's Times, Already the £30,000,000 was becoming a great national issue in the Transvaal, and to say that there would be any more probability of getting the money from the new Council was preposterous. He rejoiced to hear the statement of the

851
Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would have been wrong and impolitic to impose this contribution on the Transvaal by the nominated Council and the authority of this House. That was the view he himself held four years ago, and he believed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would create a profound impression in the Transvaal. If it was wrong and impolitic to impose the contribution by a nominated Council, how could the right hon. Gentleman defend its imposition by a semi-nominated Council and a Government not responsible to the people? Could not the House see that they were giving General Botha and his friends a most popular cry and a great platform on which to demand real self-government for the Transvaal? They would naturally demand that the matter should be left to the free voice of the people, and it was well known what that voice would be. He regarded that £30,000,000 as gone. Those who looked forward to a peaceful and contented South Africa would do well to drop the question before they were forced to do so by a popular agitation, and he suggested it would be more honest for the Chancellor of the Exchequer now, and in the future, when providing for the payment of debt to make no further allusion to a contribution from the Transvaal.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid it was obvious that the financial arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been disturbed by the non-payment of the £30,000,000 by the Transvaal. It was unnecessary to enter into details, but the matter having been left to the new Council, four-fifths- of which would be elected, it was impossible to understand how any human being could imagine that the people of the Transvaal could be so generous as to vote £30,000,000 for this country. Would it not be more straightforward for everyone to admit that it was hopeless to expect to get any part of that £30,000,000 for the relief of the Debt of this country? If the money could be obtained from those who made the war it would be a different story; nothing would give him more profound satisfaction, but that was out of the question. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said he bad been led by the statements of Lord Milner
852
to anticipate the payment of the first £10,000,000 last year."
MR. RITCHIE: What I said was that in addition to the representations made to my Department, I most carefully studied all the despatches from Lord Milner, and I came to the conclusion that,, according to his reports, the Transvaal would be in a position to pay the whole £30,000,000 at the times stated.
SIR ROBERT REIDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman followed up that series of reports by reading the Blue-books containing the falsification of almost every prediction of Lord Milner. All the predictions which had been made in regard to the war had proved 40 or 50 per cent. out. He presumed that Lord Milner was advised by some of the officials around him, but there never had been anything more remarkable than the entire falsification of the predictions contained in the dispatches of Lord Milner in 1903.
Since the year 1899 the direct debt of all kinds in this country had increased from £635,000,000 to £796,000,000. That was the first effect, but the second was that they were now paying off far less debt than before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had displayed great skill in handling figures, but the broad point to be considered was how much richer on capital account was the country at the end of the year 1899 than it was at the beginning; and how much richer would it be at the end of this year on capital account to what it was at the beginning. How much of the total debt had been paid off and not renewed? They wanted to know the net diminution. The Chancellor of the-Exchequer had taken the year 1898–9 to compare with this year. He believed in that year they paid off £7,000,000 of net liabilities, and that was the net diminution on capital account. At the end of this year they would not diminish their net liabilities by more than £1,900,000. 'It should not be forgotten that they had a much greater Debt in consequence of I the war, and yet they were paying it off at an absurdly low rate. That was the j real reason why Consols were down, and j that was the cause of the present position of British credit. One thing had always struck him, and that was

853
that the real point was nearly always forgotten or else not mentioned. A late Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated that £10,000,000 would be the cost of the war in South Africa, but it endel in costing £230,000,000. It was the same story in regard to Somaliland and Tibet; therefore he thought they ought to be a little less credulous in regard to the information given to them. Until they were really prepared, without regard to influences of any sort or kind, to deal with the expenditure upon the Army and Navy, and until they had the courage to deal with both, it was no use asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make more provision for paying off debt. The real remedy lay in the House of Commons taking a closer interest and devoting its earnest attention to finance. Why had they not got the Committee, -which was recommended by the House some time ago, to examine all the items of expenditure, with power to call witnesses, in order to keep some check upon this extravagance, which would lower the credit of this country unless it was stopped?
MR KEARLEYsaid they had just heard the important statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in his judgment, it would be quite improper to exact this war contribution from the Transvaal. He thought it would help them considerably in this matter if they could have the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol on this question, because the House of Commons sooner or later would have to either enforce or abandon this war contribution of £30,000,000. The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a most momentous one.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have not added anything to what I said in my Budget statement when I spoke of the impossibility of exacting this contribution by our authority in a nominated Assembly, which is absolutely moribund and foreign to the people, at a moment when a new representative Council is being formed. If I said anything to convey the impression which my words have had on the hon. Member then it was quite inadvertent.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that he understood what the right hon. Gentleman meant was that at this particular juncture it would not be wise to make any special effort to get the money for this war contribution. That did not dispose of the fact that the £30,000,000 was still in question. There was a growing impression that we were not going to get that £30,000,000, and it was no good playing hide-and-seek in the matter. If they did not anticipate obtaining it, it would be far better to own up to it. He; did not think there was a strong disposition in this country to endeavour to get that money. He hoped that before the debate closed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol would intervene, for his intervention at this moment would be most opportune.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHI am not disposed to respond to the invitation of the hon. Member opposite, because I do not think that this is a proper time to discuss this question. I must say, however, that it does seem to me rather strange that hon. Members opposite should devote themselves to finding fault with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because, in their opinion, he makes no sufficient provision for the reduction of our Debt, and then, almost in the same breath, should do their best to persuade the Transvaal that we do not expect to get this £30,000,000. I think the less said upon this matter at this moment the better. I have never expressed to the House or the country, any more than I think my successors have done, any opinion that a war contribution could be exacted from the Transvaal unless it could be paid out of the mining wealth of the Transvaal. The moment has not come when the mines of the Transvaal are in a position to pay that war contribution. When that moment does come, as we have some reason to anticipate it must come before very long, then a very considerable revenue from mining rights will be received by the Transvaal Government. Then I say, as I have said before, that in my opinion this debt ought to be paid, and I hope nothing will be said in this House, either by the Government or by hon. Members opposite, which will convey to the Transvaal the idea that the people of this

855
country have not a right to ask for this war contribution.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid they had from the mouth of the mining magnates themselves the most emphatic testimony that the Transvaal would be perfectly able to pay the £30,000,000 if British rule were established in the Transvaal. Mr. Henry Hays Hammond, the eminent mining engineer, who was the greatest authority on this subject, had calculated that the substitution of British rule for the rule of President Kruger, the abolition of the dynamite monopoly, and the free importation of labour would mean a having to the mineowners of £4,800,000 j per annum, a sum sufficient to pay both the interest and the principal on £100,000,000, which was the sum he had
always maintained the Transvaal ought to pay. On behalf of hon. Members on his side of the House he protested against anything being said which would militate against the chances of this country getting the £30,000,000 repaid. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated most emphatically in the House that the Transvaal would be able to pay the £30,000,000 from the mining profits. It was a mistake for the Government not to have insisted on payment in connection with the granting of the new Constitution.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 147.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hogg, Lindsay

Allsopp, Hon. George

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Davenport, William Bromley

Hoult, Joseph

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Arrol, Sir William

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hudson. George Bickersteth

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir H.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hunt, Rowland

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Duke, Henry Edward

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Baird, John George Alexander

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Balcarres, Lord

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

Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh)

Baldwin, Alfred

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

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

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

Kerr, John

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fisher, William Hayes

Knowles, Sir Lees

Banner, John S. Harmood-

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bartley, Sir George G. T.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Forster, Henry William

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

Beach,Rt.Hn.SirMichael Hicks

Galloway, William Johnson

Lawson, John Grant(Yorks.NR

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Garfit, William

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bigwood, James

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

Bingham, Lord

Gordon, Hn.J.EfElgin&Nairn)

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Boulnois, Edmund

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

Bowles,Lt.-Col H.F(Middlesex)

Gorst Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bowles, T.Gibson (King'sLynn)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Brassey, Albert

Graham, Henry Robert

Macdona, John Gumming

Krodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Maconochie, A. W.

Brymer, William Ernest

Gretton, John

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Butcher, John George

Hall, Edward Marshall

M'lver, SirLewis(EdinburghW.

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

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

Majendie, James A. H.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Malcolm, Ian

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Marks, Harry Hananel

Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire)

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

Maxwell, W.J. H.(Dumfriesshire

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

Haslam. Sir Alfred S.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Milvain, Thomas

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

Heath, Sir James (StaffordsNW

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Coddington, Sir William

Helder, Augustus

Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants.)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Morrell, George Herbert

Morrison, James Archibald

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Tuff, Charles

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Turnour, Viscount

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Samuel, Sir Harry S(Limehouse

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Percy Earl

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Spear, John Ward

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley,Edward Jas.(Somerset)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

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

Pryce- Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Purvis, Robert

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

Randles, John S.

Stock, James Henry

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Ratcliff, R. F.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Reid, James (Greenock)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

Ridley, S. Forde

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Ritehie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Roberts, Samuel Sheffield)

Tritton Charles Ernest.

NOES

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Helme, Norval Watson

Reckitt, Harold James

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Allen, Charles P.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Ambrose, Robert

Higham, John Sharp

Rickett, J. Compton

Barlow, John Emmott

Holland, Sir William Henry

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Black, Alexander William

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Rose, Charles Day

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Horniman, Frederick John

Runciman, Walter

Brigg, John

Hutchinson, Dr.CharlesFredk.

Russell, T. W.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jacoby, James Alfred

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Burt, Thomas

Johnson, John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Caldwell, James

Jones, Leif S. (Appleby)

Schwann, Charles E.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cawley, Frederick

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Slack, John Bamford

Channing, Francis Allston

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Levy, Maurice

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

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Lloyd-George, David

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cremer, William Randal

Lundon, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Dalziel, James Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

Delany, William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tomkinson, James

Devlin, Jofeph (Kilkenny, N.)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Toulmin, George

Dillon, John

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Donelan, Captain A.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Wallace, Robert

Doogan, P. C.

Mooney, John J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Edwards, Frank

Moss, Samuel

White, George (Norfolk)

Emmott, Alfred

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

0'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Findlay, AlexanderLanark.NE

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Gladstone.Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.)

Wills.Arthur Walters(N.Dorset

Grant, Corrie

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Yoxall, James Henry

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. J. H. Whitley and Mr. John Wilson (Falkirk)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Parrott, William

Harcourt, Lewis

Partington, Oswald

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Philipps, John Wynford

Harwood, George

Price, Robert John

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Lord Stanley)—put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [10TH APRIL] REPORT.
Order read, for further consideration of Second, Third, and Fourth Resolutions.
Resolutions again read.

CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TOBACCO, BEER, AND SPIRITS.
2. "That the additional Customs duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by sections two, three, four, and five of The Finance Act, 1900 (including any increased duties imposed by section five of

859
that Act), shall continue to be charged until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and six."

CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL EXCISE DUTIES ON BEER AND SPIRITS.
3 "That the additional Excise duties on beer and spirits imposed by sections six and seven of The Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and six."
WAYS AND MEANS [11TH APRIL]
Resolution reported.
TEA
"That there shall be charged on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and five, until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and six, the following Customs Import duty on Tea (that is to say), Tea, the pound, Sixpence."
WAYS AND MEANS [12TH APRIL]
Resolution reported.

INCOME TAX
"That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and five, at the rate of one shilling in the pound."
Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Victor Cavendish.

FINANCE BILL.
"To grant certain duties of Customs and Inland Revenue, to alter other duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue and the National Debt, and to make other provisions for the financial arrangements of the year," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE AGREEMENT).
Motion made, and Question proposed—"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Agreement of the 2nd day of February. 1905,between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company, and to report whether it is desirable in the public interest that the Agreement should become binding."—(Lord Stanley.)
MR. DALZIELsaid that he understood an arrangement had been come to that anything outside the Orders of the Day was not to be taken at the present time. There were objections to the constitution of the Committee. There was no immediate hurry for the appointment of the Committee.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,)said he had not the slightest intention of breaking any bargain, and if it was considered that the appointment of this Committee did break an arrangement he should not proceed with it. But, he could not help hoping that the House might consider that this was not a contentious matter and would allow the Committee to be set up.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he was glad to see that an agreement had been come to with the National Telephone Company. The constitution of this Committee had been opposed by some hon. Members for a particular and special reason. It had been pointed out that there were 13,000 employees of the Telephone Company whose interests would be affected by the transfer of the business to the Post Office, and that, in common fairness, there should be one Labour Member on the Committee, who should be specially charged to attend to-those interests. The ordinary channels of communication had been used to make this fact known. The position was that the noble Lord himself had no objection to two new Members being added to the Committee, one of whom should be a Labour Member; and the Whips on both sides had no objection to. that. But, for some reason or another, this addition had not met with favour in some quarter. Could the noble Lord

861
explain to the House why, on a matter on which there was a general agreement, the understanding come to both by the noble Lord and the Whips had not been given effect to? What was the explanation? If the noble Lord could agree to the addition to the Committee of the names suggested all opposition to the appointment of the Committee would be at an end. If his information was correct, the agreement with the National Telephone Company would come into operation automatically early in August whether this Committee was appointed or not; and he thought that, therefore, the Committee should be appointed as early as possible. At the same time, he would rather that no Committee should be appointed unless there was a Labour Member on it. He and his friends felt that in the interests of the employees there should be a Labour Member on the Committee. The Labour Party was fully organised, with Whips of their own, just like the Irish Party, and they should have a representative on every Committee appointed by the House. On those two grounds he hoped the noble Lord would concede the point, and so do away with any feeling on those benches.
LORD STANLEYsaid there was one thing he could not accept from the hon. Member, and that was that this Committee, as constituted, was not perfectly willing and able to look after the interests of the employees. He thought, also, that the hon. Member was under a misunderstanding in saying that there was an agreement as to the inclusion of a Labour Member. The hon. Member came to him on the day the House rose for the Easter recess, and told him that the Whips had agreed together that there should be such a representative.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I did not say "together"
LORD STANLEYsaid he was afraid the hon. Member was rather under a misapprehension. The Committee was formed in the usual way. Those on his side of the House were put on by the Chief Whip, and those on the other side of the House were put on by the hon. Member for West Leeds. He could not possibly
862
alter any of those put on without first consulting with the hon. Member for West Leeds; and therefore he could not agree to the hon. Member's proposal. But at the same time, if the House would allow the reference to go, he would not press the names until he had had an opportunity of consulting the hon. Member for West Leeds.
MR. KEARLEYpointed out that many Members interested in that question were not in the-House at that moment, and in view of the fact that there was an arrangement that no contentious business would be taken after the Orders had been gone through he wished to be assured that there was a thorough agreement on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
MR. DILLONsaid there was a special reason why there should be representatives of the Labour Party on this particular Committee. On behalf of the Irish Party he strongly supported the claim that fair play should be given to the men.
Debate to be resumed To.-morrow.
And, there being no further Business set down for the Afternoon Sitting, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER left the Chair until the Evening Sitting.

EVENING SITTING

  ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 10.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he had always felt that a Motion for the adjournment of the House was a very serious matter. It was a weapon provided by the wisdom of Parliament for the protection of minorities and for dealing with cases of urgency, and it ought to be used with a great deal of moderation and with a sense of special responsibility. It was in that light that he had asked leave to move this Motion, because he desired to bring

  863
  before Parliament a matter eminently suited for the use of that great Parliamentary weapon. The question raised very large and important issues it was essentially an Irish question, but at the same time there were involved national and Imperial interests. It related to the use of the forces of the Crown, and above all to the naval forces of the Crown, and he drew a distinction between the naval and military forces, for reasons which appealed more strongly to Englishmen even than to Irishmen, for he did not know there was any question which would more vehemently appeal to the feelings of Englishmen than one alleging the improper use of the naval forces of the Crown. There, was also associated with this question the relationship of the people of England towards the people of Ireland. This might appear a somewhat swelling prelude to the very modest proportions of the particular question he had to ask them to discuss.
  His Motion dealt with the case of one man and with the case of an island three miles long and two miles broad. The debt involved was one of £40 only, and the peasant in question was the owner of four cows. That seemed a grotesquely small matter on which to arraign the conduct of the Executive of Ireland. The island of Dursey, of which he dared say the Chief Secretary had heard for the first time that day, which he had never seen, and of which he no doubt knew little or nothing, was the battle-ground of the question he was about to deal with. It was, as he had said, three miles long and two miles broad; it was one of the most isolated spots in the United Kingdom; it was only separated at one point by a quarter of a mile from the mainland, and yet that quarter of a mile was almost as impassable a barrier as between Dursey and Cork as the Atlantic Ocean was between Cork and America. This quarter of a mile was a small sound, and because of its narrowness and the peculiar position of the island generally, it was remarkable for being extremely tempestuous and difficult to cross. As a matter of fact, short, as the distance was, it was enough to make communication between the island and the mainland very infrequent, very perilous, and sometimes impossible.
  864
  There was no public-house on the island, a fact which gave legitimate satisfaction to the hon. Member for South Tyrone; there was no post office, but there was a postal service once a week there was no minister of any denomination whatsoever, neither priest nor minister of the Established Church; he believed there was no school-house, and not a single policeman or police barrack on the island, except in cases of emergency. When he came to the economical condition of the island, he found himself in the presence of a strange collection of facts. The island consisted largely of rock. There was not a single rood of land cultivated upon it that had not been laboriously won from rocky stone. There were practically no roads on the island, there was not a farmer's cart, and the methods of cultivation were such as would be considered out of date even in Arabia. It was almost like a page of Oriental history. The loads had to be carried on the backs of donkeys or mules, or in baskets on either side of the animal and when the people had to convey their cows to the fairs or markets on the adjoining mainland they did not employ cattle vessels or boats, but the animals had to swim across.
  There were twenty - five families on this island, and most of the tenants were non-judicial tenants, just as if the storm of agitation and reform which had swept over the country during the last twenty-five years had never occurred. The tenants had not even gone into the Land Courts to get a reduction of their rents, and, in fact, they were rack-rented tenants at will. The island was part of the estate of a gentleman named White. It would seem that a landlord who inherited such an estate should regard it as his chief duty in life, not to collect rents from the people, but to help to save them from starvation. He would like to know if there were any Englishman who, having an estate of that kind, would venture to ask rent;, much less rack rents, from the tenants. He understood that the landlord of this property had a large house in the county of Cork, some distance away from the island, but that he did not dwell very often there, and was, to all intents and purposes, an absentee landlord—one

  865
  of that large class of men without nationality and without a sense of duty, who had been the ruin of Ireland to a large extent, and who had been the secret weakness of England in dealing with Irish questions. The tenants were quiet, industrious, but oppressed people. They were called farmers, but they were not farmers in the real sense of the term—they were not even cottiers. They belonged to that hybrid population which, in certain parts of Ireland, had slum houses on slum pieces of land, and whose real method of gaining a livelihood was by working away from home, some of them coining to England every year to cap the harvest, and returning with the money they had earned to pay rack rents for the miserable cabin in which a beneficent law and a beneficent landlord allowed them to live. But these people of Dursey were not even migratory labourers. Their island was too inaccessible for that. What they really lived on was fishing, and if he wanted to appeal to the emotions of that House, and to the feeling of humanity which he believed pervaded it, he would ask them to have some sympathy for this little cluster of islanders who earned every penny with which they purchased tea and bread for the maintenance of their children at the risk of their lives on one of the most tempestuous parts of the coast.
  These fishermen were blessed, or rather cursed, with the possession of small patches of land and small cabins which a beneficent landlord, protected by the mighty power of a great Empire, let to them at excessive rents. When the late Chief Secretary for Ireland introduced his Land Bill for the purpose of relieving men of this class their hopes ran very high indeed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, in the course of the debates on that Bill, painted many glowing and eloquent pictures of the new life that would result from the transfer of the soil from the landlord to the occupier, and there was no picture he painted more eloquently and more frequently than the change which would be effected in the slum holdings of Ireland. He said he was anxious to pass the Bill for the benefit of the general tenants of
  866
  Ireland, for the good of the country, and for the honour and credit of the Empire, but, above all, he was anxious' to pass it in order to bring relief to the submerged tenth of the Irish congested districts. Did anyone suppose that the Nationalist Members would have consented to many of the provisions of the Bill, especially the zone provision, which had so grossly exaggerated and enhanced the price of the landlords' property, had it not been for the glowing pictures which the right hon. Gentleman sincerely presented to them of the relief which would be afforded to the tenants. The people were entitled to believe that this great Act of Parliament, with all the resources of the richest of Empires behind it, was passed specially to deal with such cases, and the result was that when the Act was passed they immediately began to agitate for the purchase of their holdings. Had the Bill been the right kind of Bill they would not have required to agitate, because any man who knew the real facts of the situation in Ireland would have seen the necessity of compelling the landlords to sell their land to the tenants.. Negotiations were commenced for the sale of the holdings on this island, but they broke down because the landlord demanded what he was pleased to call his "net income "from the island. He did not know what "net income "meant in that particular case. But those who-were engaged in trade in arriving at their net incomes always made an allowance for bad debts. This island was a bad debt. What else could it be? There was a lack rent charged for a few miserable patches of land saved from the rock and paid for by the adventurous-skiffs which went out fishing in the most tempestuous part of the Channel. At any rate he would say that the net-income was represented by a very small sum, far less than that demanded by the-landlord.
  As he had said, the negotiations, broke down in consequence of the attitude taken up by the landlord. But there were other resources left. The present Prime Minister had often been eulogised very highly for passing the Congested Districts Board Bill, and it was a noteworthy fact that it was the habit of British statesmen to claim credit

  867
  for the results of agitation which had been carried on by the Nationalist Members for many years. He would like the House to bear in mind the definition of a congested district embodied in the 36th Section of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1891, and he ventured to suggest that the island of Dursey certainly came within that definition, by reason of the fact that the rateable value fell below 30s. per head of population. The Congested Districts Board at any rate considered that the case was eminently one demanding their attention, and they approached the landlord of the property. Now he founded the statements which he was about to lay before the House upon what had appeared in the Unionist Press—a very risky thing to do perhaps, as was suggested by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. But he thought he was justified in saying it was a prudent and legitimate thing to do in this case. The London Times of April 29th published from their Cork correspondent an account of an interview with Mr. Turner, one of the agents for the estate, and in that interview Mr. Turner stated that it was his intention to remain on the island for a week or ten days, so as to settle with the other tenants. He wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the offer made by the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of the island was so exceedingly low that the landlord could not accept it, and he wished to ask the Chief Secretary, as President of the Congested Districts Board, who, in his short intervals between receiving Orange addresses and other more auspicious occasions, had stated his desire to deal with the problem of congestion in Ireland, what he had to say with regard to the negotiations affecting the island of Dursey. This was the kind of language in which the Chief Secretary addressed the Catholics—
  "Monsignor Hewson and gentlemen, there have been two distinct questions introduced here this evening, one which all must realise who have travelled your country as I have to-day, and that is the isolation of your town from the outer world. That isolation is indeed complete, and must therefore bring in its train serious difficulties to the people who live here. Coming here, as I have today, I can see there are difficulty which might be overcome. The race for life is severer than ever, and in your case it is rendered more
  868
  so when there is no mode of communication with the outside world save by telegraph. I had the good fortune to be accompanied by Sir Henry Robinson today, who, as no doubt you know, has at heart the welfare of Ireland, being connected as he is with several important Government Departments. He called my attention to your isolation, and suggested modes by which it might be remedied. I will not promise anything definitely, but one thing I will promise, and no doubt promises have been made before, and when they are not fulfilled there is left a bitter impression behind them. I am impressed with the urgency of this case, and promise I shall give it my personal and immediate attention, as I am actuated by a sincere desire to help you out of the difficulties under which you labour."
  The Congested Districts Board naturally turned to this island, and he wanted to know from the Chief Secretary, the head of that Board, what was the attitude of the Board in regard to the island. He assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would not abandon the policy of his predecessor, at least in regard to this matter. If the Congested Districts Board approached the landlord of the island with the view to purchase it must have been with the sanction, if not on the initiative, of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the price offered must have been a fair one. He defied the most extreme supporter of the landlord Party in the House to say that the Congested Districts Board offered the landlord a single penny less for the land than he was entitled to receive. An HON. MEMBER: What about the State?] The State was a secondary consideration. The safety of the landlord would appeal much more to the late Chief Secretary than the safety of the State. The fact that the Congested Districts Board offered the landlord a fair price placed the Government in a somewhat difficult position. The problem of the congested districts was one that had appealed to all sections of the House. He had heard the hon. Member for North Armagh speak as warmly in favour of dealing with these districts as the late Chief Secretary. The House of Commons and the House of Lords when the Land Act was passed agreed to give credit to the extent of £100,000,000 in order primarily to deal with this problem. When the problem presented itself in the case of this small island the landlord, as appeared to be conclusively proved, refused to accept the fair price which was

  869
  offered. What did that mean? That meant that against the will and intention of Parliament, against the action of the chief governor of Ireland, for the Chief Secretary was the head of the Congested Districts Board, the landlord stood upon a demand not for a just but for an exorbitant price for his land. The landlord, failing to get the rack rent from the tenants or a fraudulent price from the State, went to the Law Courts and endeavoured to get from them the execution of the letter of the law. Shylock was defeated by Portia, and this landlord was defeated "by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. He understood that the landlord or his agents applied to the right hon. Gentleman for the help of the forces of the Crown in order to exact the rack rents, and to prevent the estate from toeing sold at the just price which was offered by the Congested Districts Board. He made that statement on the authority of the parish priest of the district. The landlord met with a blank refusal, or at least with something clothed in the eloquent euphemisms of the late Chief Secretary which amounted to a blank refusal, and the tenants were not persecuted either by the soldiers or the police. Then -came the change in the Chief Secretaryship, and the aids to his oppression which the landlord had sought in vain from Dublin Castle under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover he was successful in obtaining from the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shook his head. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that he did not wish to press the case one bit too much against him personally. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Ireland was as great as his intentions were good he might then be better able than now to do something for the country, but he was the slave of his environment, and especially of the obscurantist landlord faction which had obtained supremacy. "Whatever might be the secret history of the transaction, the fact remained that the force which was not brought against the islanders in the days of the late Chief Secretary had been brought against them under the present occupant of the office.
  What happened? He ought to say, in fairness to the House, that he was not going to tell a tale of Russia, though, if
  870
  he were to omit names, the House might be deceived into thinking that he was telling the story of a scene in Warsaw. He would tell the House frankly and without concealment that he was speaking of a portion of the British dominions and that the Government he was arraigning was not the Government of the Czar but the Government of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. Decrees were issued against the people of the island, and it was found somewhat difficult to carry out the evictions. On a day in April an astonishing spectacle was seen. There were off the coast two ships of the British Navy, conveying over 200 police. At four o'clock in the afternoon the operations began. The police were marched into the town, and they immediately commenced preparations for what apparently was to be a great campaign. They were supplied with tents, meat, potatoes, and cabbage, and several barrels of porter. How the poor shoeless, hungry, thirsty soldiers of Russia, fighting in Manchuria, if they read this account, would envy the men who were to take part in this great invasion of the island of Dursey. The campaign, so successfully organised, proceeded with the same skilful tactics and successful strategy. They effected a landing. It was the first time in history the British Fleet had made a successful landing on the island of Dursey. Other explorers had tried, many admirals had risked their reputations in the great enterprise, but the fact that this was the first time a landing had been made would always mark the present Chief Secretary's administration. Lest the House should be carried away by the idea that the Fleet showed anything like reckless daring, he felt bound at once to make the humiliating confession that they resorted to strategy. There were two landings on the island. Thirty policemen were landed at the place where the inhabitants were not expecting the first attack to be made, and then the British Fleet wen; round to the other landing and put ashore 200 other policemen. The result was that the islanders found themselves between two fires. He would give particulars of what happened according to a Unionist London journal—
  "As the boatloads of police approached they were met by a fusillade of stones and rocks

  871
  from the human batteries on shore. Then Inspector Armstrong's covering party attacked the islanders from behind."
  His hon. friends must not be surprised at Inspector Armstrong's covering party attacking the islanders from behind. It was not want of courage—
  "They shoved, buffeted, and jostled the defenders, anxious at first to hurt as few as possible. Very quickly the fight became vicious. The parties fell on one another, and the wildest excitement followed. The men in the boats shouted and blew their whistles, and it seemed as if their comrades would have a bad time before they could land. The men fought the police on shore with their fists, while the women and children kept up a running fire of stones on the men in the boats. The police fought at first with their batons, and laid about them vigorously. Some of them fixed bayonets and used them, while others used the butt ends of their rifles. One man jumped into the sea and swam along the shore to escape the batons of the police. Another attempted to grapple with a policeman, and received a terrific blow from a baton on the temple. After this his assailant lunged about him with his bayonet, and the half-stunned man, in attempting to ward off a thrust with his bare hand, received a terrible gash."
  If that were a scene in St. Petersburg, if that were "Vladimir Sunday," and not "Long Sunday," how many homilies there would have been in the British Press in regard to Russian tyranny!
  "At last sheer weight of numbers told. The islanders were overcome, and they were allowed to disperse, with aching heads and limbs. Then the rest of the force was landed, and the all-conquering 200, having vanquished the islanders, advanced to evict Daniel Healy."
  Daniel Healy had nominally a large farm—about forty or fifty acres of land.
  The hon. Member paused on account of conversation on the Ministerial side of the House, and, resuming his speech, said he could understand that the hon. Gentleman who was sitting close to the hon. Member who interrupted should be afflicted with unexploded speech.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I am sorrv to interrupt the hon. Member—[Cries of 'Order."]
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Scotland Division does hot give way the hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: On a point of order—
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I do, Sir. I was accused of interrupting the hon. Member. I had not interrupted him by a single word or sound. Everybody knows this to be a mere farce.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have not heard the hon. Member interrupting. I do not think the last expression ought to be used.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he could not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his strategy. He came now to the case of Daniel Healy. This Daniel Healy had the large fortune of four cows and a farm the extent of which was forty or fifty acres and its valuation £12 per annum. It could be easily understood what splendid land that was! It used to be rented at £13, but a previous agent reduced it to £9 15s. Daniel Healy owed four years rent, or £39 in all, and that was the argument for this great expedition. And what did this great expedition find when they got to Daniel Healy's cabin? They found an old man and an old woman, their daughter and daughter-in-law, a sickly child of three years of age, and a baby in a cradle. Again he would quote from a Unionist Journal—
  "The actual eviction was a pitiful affair, unrelieved by a touch of colour. Healy is an old man living with his wife, his son and daughter-in-law and their two children. The wretched cabin is the only home they have ever known, and they clung to the place with its oozy walls and swimming floor with the inherent devotion of the Celt for his home. The 200 police halted outside the house. The agents of the landlord were the first to enter. Healy approached them and pleaded for a settlement. His proposition was flouted. "The law must take its course," said the agent. "Clear out I everything!" Then the sheriff's men started to remove the furniture. To add to the pathos of I the scene, a steady downpour of rain had set in The young mother gathered her infant from the cradle, while a kindly neighbour took charge of the other child—an ailing mite of three, who had been ill for some time. The melancholy party dragged out of the house crying bitterly, while one by one their few goods were thrown after them and scattered in the rain round about the house. Then the police, having accomplished their work, departed. They left a force of thirty men in charge of the island."
  Now, if he were able to bring before any audience of Englishmen,

  873
  whatever their political opinions and prejudices might be, these facts, and described the blue-jackets and the ships of the Navy employed in such work, he thought there would be a cry of surprise and indignation. That was the story of the invasion of the island of Dursey.
  What was the defence that the Government had to make? The Chief Secretary adumbrated that defence in his Answer to a Question put to him that day. The right hon. Gentleman said that the ship was placed at the disposal of the sheriff by the Admiralty as they were bound in law to do. Now, he entirely traversed that statement. He would not go into the question of how far the Government of Ireland was governed by law when it suited their purpose to break it. In Ireland there was the same system of juries as in England, but that did not prevent the Attorney - General from packing juries. The other day there was an execution in Cork and the coroner, who represented one of the most ancient institutions in the kingdom, sent for the man who had executed the criminal; but the police refused to execute the warrant. Then there was the case when the hon. Member for Cork was arrested and taken away out of Court before the warrant was even made out. What he insisted on was that the Executive of Ireland, in times past, had always held the right, acting within the law, in disputes between landlord and tenant, to tip the balance in favour of the oppressed tenant as against the landlord. He did not expect the Chief Secretary to be entirely acquainted with these facts, even in spite of the rapidity with which he had learned the methods of Irish government; but he did expect him to be acquainted with some Irish history. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had ever heard of Thomas Drummond. He was a Scotchman, and in the days of the tithe war, when all the forces of the Grown were behind the landlords, Thomas Drummond frequently refused to give the assistance of the police to collect the tithes. Drummond often conferred with O'Connell on the subject in those days; but the Ascendency Press in Ireland were very much exercised when Sir Anthony Mac-
  874
  Donnell went down to confer with an Irish priest for the purpose of restoring peace in a disturbed region. Thomas Drummond, he dared say, was beyond the historical knowledge of the Chief Secretary. He would come to modern times. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, was face to face with a very bad case, but not so bad as the case of Dursey; and lie was asked by Lord Clanricarde to be firm in the government of Ireland. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol do? He wrote to Lord Clanricarde—
  "I stated to Mr. Joyce, as I have to many others, my strong objection to anything like wholesale evictions, and my opinion that where it became necessary to proceed to eviction in order to obtain the rights of property, the proper way was to select a few leading cases in which the tenants were able, but declined, to pay, some person being, of course, present at the eviction with full authority from the landlord to accept a settlement at the last moment, if such should be proposed. I then questioned him as to the ability of your Lordship's tenants to pay their rents. He replied that some could do so, but on pressure from me he admitted that he had advised you to make considerable reductions to others. I requested him to inform your Lordship that if you adhered to that decision against the advice of your own agent, and contrary to the general action of the Irish landlords, the responsibility would be solely yours; that you might find such procedure costly and ineffective, and that in the event of application to the Government for the services of constabulary and military on such occasions, compliance with the request would certainly be retarded by the pressure of other claims and duties, and would most probably be postponed to the utmost extent permitted by the law."
  He paused for a moment just to say that in the case of Dursey it was evident that what the landlord wanted was not a fair rent or a fair price for the land, but to force on his tenants exorbitant rents. He would now go on to the remarkable evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, which he advised the present Chief Secretary to keep on his chimneypiece and read daily, as to the principles which should guide the Government in Ireland in deciding when and how far the forces of the Crown should be used in evictions. Speaking of Irish landlords in 1886 the right hon. the Member for West Bristol said—
  "I am quite sure that there is no greater foe to the rights of property than the man who tries harshly to exact his rights and fails to perform his duties."

  875
  Again asked on January 8th, 1887—
  "Do you think a landlord takes a proper interest in his tenants who evicts them for refusing to pay exorbitant rents?"
  His answer—
  "I would not do it myself, and I do not think that a landlord does his duty who would do that. The Government has used all the pressure they could upon landlords within the law."
  And the right hon. Gentleman expressed satisfaction that County Court Judges had put a stay on evictions in certain eases where the tenants could not pay. Had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol been Chief Secretary, the landlord in this Dursey case would not have been able to use the forces of the Empire to evict the tenant for non-payment of an exorbitant rent. Why did the Chief Secretary not follow his eminent predecessor's example, and delay to the last moment the employment of the forces of the Crown?
  There was an English point of view. This invasion of the island of Dursey would cost a considerable amount of money. To inforce a debt of about £39 not less than £700 had been expended. Who was going to pay this? Would it not eventually be the taxpayers of England? He would like to know who sanctioned the employment of the ships of the nation for this purpose. Were they to understand that the landlords and police of Ireland were so omnipotent that they were able to employ the ships of the State without consulting the Admiralty? People here were constantly complaining of what was called the want of loyalty in Ireland, and the feeling which Irishmen had towards England. They said that it was somewhat unnatural and irrational. He would like to know what would be the feeling of an Englishman if he were put in the place of the poor Dursey islander? What did that man know of the liberties and rights of the English nation? All he knew was the bayonets and butt-ends of rifles, and the guns and gunboats sent to drive him out of his home because he did not pay a rent which he could not pay. What loyalty could they expect from such men treated as they were? He would despise an Irishman who was loyal to a nation responsible for such iniquity. This was the kind of proceeding with which the
  876
  present Chief Secretary had inaugurated his rule in Ireland. He charged him, and the class and the policy he represented, not only with gross injustice to these poor people, but with widening and deepening the chasm of misunderstanding and hostility between the people of Ireland and England.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid the duty devolved on him to second the Motion which had just been proposed by the hon. Member with his usual power and graphic ability. He ventured to think that the plain and unvarnished facts showed that this Dursey eviction was one of the most shameful ever brought to the notice of the House. He could not believe this expedition was undertaken merely for the purpose of collecting those rents or evicting those tenants. Some other motive was at the bottom of it. It could not be a coincidence that it took place so soon after the visit of the Chief Secretary to Lord Londonderry. He would like to know whether this plot was hatched at Mount Stewart, and he would also like to know, what Lord Ardilaun, who, he believed, was one of the trustees of the estate, had to say to it. In his judgment he considered that the whole of this transaction was a deliberate attempt to drive the people to desperation and to provoke retaliation. The whole island, if given rent free, could not provide for the subsistence of one family. If rent was to be paid at all it must be drawn from the sea. Under such circumstances an eviction was a scandal. But, as his bon. friend had lucidly explained, the most serious part of this matter was the part the Royal Navy played in it. He had some small acquaintance with the Navy and he ventured to say that when this debate was read by the officers and seamen of the Royal Navy it would cause very indignant reflections which were calculated to affect the Navy very seriously. He believed that the officers and men in the Navy would consider j that their employment in such a transaction was an insult to their flag. This launch belonged to the Royal Navy He had reason to remember how very deeply the employment of certain regiments in connection with evictions in Ireland was resented by the officers and

  877
  men of those regiments, and he fancied I that the employment of the military was j discontinued owing to the fact that the War Office knew of that resentment.. He had reason to think that the same resentment was felt by the naval officers and i men in this case. He asked the Chief Secretary to give them the actual cost of this expedition and also to state whether he would withdraw the gunboat from that service. He feared that if the right hon. Gentleman continued his present course he would find his career in the Irish Office quite as rough and stormy as was the sea around Dursey Island.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  MR. T. L. CORBETTcongratulated the mover and seconder of the Resolution upon the smart Parliamentary manoeuvre by which they had avoided a discussion upon a question which might have been gravely compromising to their friends. They all knew what this Motion really meant, but if they had not known it before, they would have become acquainted with it after listening to the speeches of the mover and seconder, and especially after the usual vigorous, vocal and gymnastic display of the mover.; Not one single fact or argument had; been advanced to prove either the necessity or urgency of this Resolution. He felt inclined to repeat an inadmissible phrase and to say that the whole thing was a mere farce. The one object of moving this Resolution was to burke a discussion upon the Resolution dealing with monastic and conventual institutions.
  SEVERAL HON. MEMBERSBring it on again.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsuggested that his hon. friends should allow him to move the adjournment of the House and give him a chance of bringing it on.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINasked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing a Motion not before the House and in challenging him in regard to it.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the hon. Gentle man had brought the challenge upon himself by intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for North Down.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the object of the Resolution was simply to blame the Government for having used sufficient force to protect the police in the execution of their duty, and to protect them from being wounded and possibly killed. The Government had only used sufficient force to carry out tie law. He could quite understand the simulated indignation of hon. Members opposite because they had become accustomed during the past few months to the operations of the Land League. The new Chief Secretary was evidently determined to do his duty and would earn the gratitude—the lasting gratitude—of all those who did not live upon Irish discontent. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to govern Ireland well he must be served by loyal and trustworthy men and he must remember that those who were serving him were 500 miles away from London. It was too late to hope for the other Resolution to be discussed that evening, and he would content himself by repeating that the object of the manoeuvre was perfectly obvious to the House and would be on the morrow perfectly obvious to the country. He doubted whether such a smart manoeuvre was worthy either of hon. Gentlemen opposite or of the Church to which they belonged.
  MK. MOONEYsaid the last speech had nothing to do with the Motion before the House, but was the speech of an hon. Gentleman who had been disappointed by not having the opportunity of making a speech on a subject which he had taken considerable trouble to make his own. He congratulated the House on the presence of the Chief Secretary, who was absent when the subjects of Irish Universities and the shortcomings of his Department were discussed. They wanted to find out the plans of the Government for the future government of Ireland without attending the annual dinner of the members of the North Down Staghounds, where ho understood the Chief Secretary had laid down his policy for the governing of the

  879
  country. They also wanted to know by what authority and by whose orders the naval and military forces of the Crown were employed upon this eviction in Dursey Island. The right hon. Gentleman was the head of something like forty Boards in Ireland, and was President of every one of them, but there was no such position in Ireland as the Commander of the Naval Forces, and.they wanted to know who put this naval force into motion in this instance. Was it done by the Chief Secretary alone, or by that right hon. Gentleman in conjunction with the Admiralty, and, if so, what branch of the Irish Office was responsible? Perhaps they would be told by the right hon. Gentleman, on the advice of the Attorney-General, that the police were sheriff's officers once the decree had been issued.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): He will not state anything s o unfounded or ridiculous.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that might be, but if he did it would not be the first unfounded and ridiculous statement of law which they would have heard from the Attorney-General, and as long as he continued in his present office they were sure to hear a good many more which could properly be described in the elegant language of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He repeated that they were entitled to know by whose authority the police and naval force were sent to Dursey Island. It looked suspicious when the Chief Secretary went over to Ireland, wandered about the country for a fortnight, and then lectured Irishmen on the social and economic condition of the country. Also that immediately after his visit to Lord Londonderry the marauding expedition was sent. Were the Irish landlords to employ these forces to collect rents which had been declared to be unjustifiable, and which ought not to be paid by the people?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he knew a great deal more of the eviction question twenty years ago than he did now. He had been through these? eviction campaigns, and after having seen thousands of tenants evicted they
  880
  had passed a great measure through the' House, part of the policy of which was to restore to their homes and holdings the very people who years ago were evicted at an enormous cost to the country and an enormous sorrow to themselves. The Estates Commissioners where now charged with the duty of undoing the mischief that was then done. These men were being restored to their holdings, and the Estates Commissioners were absolutely giving them grants of public money to equip the holdings that were wrecked and ruined by the evictors. Surely the people of England took credit for being a practical people, but it was not practical politics to put men out at great cost and suffering and then ten, fifteen, or twenty years afterwards pass an Act of Parliament to restore them and set them up in business again. Every one who had followed the Land question in the South of Ireland knew this particular estate and knew who was behind the scenes making settlement impossible. The Chief Secretary was President of the Congested Districts Board, and the policy of that Board was to buy up estates of this kind and try to make it possible for the poor people to live upon the land which they cultivated. Would the Chief Secretary tell the House whether the Congested Districts Board had intervened in this case and if their offers had been rejected by the landlord? Did they offer a price for this estate? Estate! What farce talking about an estate.It reminded him of the Question put by an Ulster Member recently about an outrage in Galway where seventeen yards of wall had been thrown down in order to allow cattle to stray. Of course English Members believed that was a mason-built wall; instead of which it was a wall of loose stones about a couple of feet high, and if one stepped over it about half of it would tumble down. So when they talked about this Dursey Island as an estate many Members would imagine it was an estate such as they owned in England, whereas no English Member would take it as a present. The Chief Secretary ought to be able to tell the House whether the Congested Districts Board made an offer for this estate and whether it was refused. Now, forsooth, the forces of the Crown, the police, and the Navy of England were being

  881
  used for the purpose of enforcing the claim which the Chief Secretary knew perfectly well the Congested Districts Board believed to be unfair.
  These islands had been troublesome in the past. The story of Clare Island was well known. There was a time when the forces of the Crown could not land on Clare Island to execute a decree. The Congested Districts Board, however, bought out the landlord, and peace and happiness had reigned in that island since that day. The landlord in that case was a reasonable man. He was not a bankrupt landlord backed by Lord Ardilaun. That was the secret of the whole business. Let there be no mistake about that. The Chief Secretary would say, no doubt, that he was bound to give the forces of the Crown to execute a degree of the Courts, and he did not challenge that. But after the Act of 1903 he thought they had advanced somewhat, because of the conciliation proposed in that Act. If it could not rescue Dursey Island from this man's power and tyranny, what was the Act worth? These were the people the right hon. Member for Dover intended to protect. And if in the part of the country from whence he came the question of the evicted tenants did not count for much, he would tell the House that the Ulster farmers were quite as keen to get these questions settled as were the farmers in the South and West. And the Member for North Down would find that the farmers in his constituency would consider this -evening far more profitably spent in discussing this question of Dursey Island -than if they had listened to the Member for North Down on the subject of conventual and monastic institutions.
  MR T.L. CORBETT: Would the hon. Member have sympathised with my Motion.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he should require to hear the hon. Member before he answered the Question. The Chief Secretary was commencing his career in Ire-
  882
  land. Did he think the game worth the candle to put these poor tenants out and then put them back again? Did he think the landlord was right in refusing the offer of the Congested Districts Board? The Chief Secretary must surely see the force of those Questions.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,)ventured to say that among all hon. Gentlemen, whether from Irish or other constituencies, who h-id from time to time addressed that House on the question of Irish land, there was no one who had spoken oftener or with greater energy than the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Yet it was a strange proof of the difficulty of the situation in which the House found itself that that hon. Gentleman had failed altogether to realise what was the actual question under consideration, and what he (Mr. Long) had to meet a; the present time. The hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House had not confined themselves to the actual question at issue, which was a very simple one. It was whether or not the supply of the police and the vessel which carried them over from the mainland to the island, by the Government was a proper proceeding or not. That was the question to be decided that night, but in all the speeches that had been delivered that question had been brushed aside, in a desire which no one could wonder at, to discuss the general land question and the general land policy. As the hon. Member for South Tyrone had said, it was all very well to discuss these technical questions as to whether the action of the Government was legal or illegal. What was the object of passing the Act of 1903? It would be out of order for him to debate the policy and the administration of the Act of 1903; that had nothing whatever to do with the subject before the House. It might be desirable to employ the Act of 1903 to put back the evicted tenants, but that was not the question. It might be the fast that they had evicted tenants before and had now to face the difficulty of their replacement, but that was not the question. The

  883
  question was a very simple one. The mover of the Motion cited precedents and referred to the action taken by Mr. Drummond in regard to tithe collection, and his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol in regard to the Clanricarde case, and the debate had proceeded as if the work of the police consisted in the collection of rent. That was a mistake. The action of the police was to support the sheriff in carrying out the order of the Court. In the discharge of his duty the sheriff was entitled to call upon all citizens to support him, and he was entitled to call upon the forces of the Crown and the police to help him. The passing of the Act of 1903, did not alter the law in the slightest degree, nor did it alter the fact that when a landlord had obtained a decree, and it passed into the hands of the sheriff, that official was entitled to call for as much support as he might require to enforce it, and there was no discretion in the Executive Government whether or not that support shou'd be given. Therefore, to discuss this matter as pari passu with the administration of the Act of 1903, or as a part of the land policy of Ireland was, first of all, to seek to obliterate the real issue, and, in the second place, to drag the administration of the Land Act into a discussion which was more likely to prejudice than to advance its success.
  The hon. Member's account of the invasion of the is'and of Dursey was in part painful and in part amusing. As to visiting the island, probably the hon. Member and he were in the same position, but, if the hon. Member really believed that he had never heard of the island before, why was he indicting him for the action he had taken in connection with it? It was perfectly true that the Congested Dis
  884
  tricts Board made an offer for this inland which was not accepted by the landlord; but that fact did not alter the law which prevailed as much in England as in Ireland. Having, listened to these debates for twenty years in that House, he had often asked: himself why such a story as that told by the hon. Member should move listeners, to it much more than a similar story, which might be told any day, of evictions attended with equal misery and suffering in the East End of London and in the poorer districts of other cities. There were in those districts of England the same abject poverty and misery and the same bitterness of feeling at being turned out of home. H3 did not blame the hon. Member for introducing that aspect of the question, but it had nothing to do with the subject before the House. The law which had been called into operation in Ireland acted with the same force in England. The same right pertained to-the sheriff, an the same duty devolved on the Executive Government. In this matter the Government had no discretion. On more than one occasion the law had been clearly laid down. The right hon Gentleman the Member for Montrose, when he was Chief Secretary, thought that he had a discretion to say in what way the power of the Executive should be exercised, and he sought to establish that position. The case was taken to the Courts, and it was decided that no such discretion belonged to the Executive;but that it was bound to afford to the sheriff such support as he required for the performance of his duty. It was useless, therefore, to go back to older precedents. The action of the right hon. Member for West Bristol was taken in regard to a totally different situation. His right hon. friend then declared that he did not believe in

  885
  wholesale evictions, and attempted to advise the landlords as to what their policy should be. ["Did you in this case?"] No, because he had not had the opportunity, and whether if he had had the opportunity he would have done so was another matter. The application for assistance was made to him after the decree of the Court had been granted; and he had no right or power to make any suggestion.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN:Could you not delay giving the use of the gunboat?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was advised that he had no right to delay; but if he could have delayed giving assistance, would it have been an honest operation? And what purpose would it have served
  AN HON. MEMBER: It would have allowed you to inquire.
  MR. WALTER LONGpointed out that even supposing he had inquired, and found that the rents were exorbitant and that the action of the landlord was cruel, that would not alter the law or the sheriff's obligation to carry it out. The duty of the Executive was clear, and there was no object to be gained by postponing it. He had no power to refuse the requisition of the sheriff, and, if he did, he would be liable to indictment for failure to do his duty.
  AN HON. MEMBER: The Attorney-General would pack the jury for you, and it would be all right.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked what was the difference between the action of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the right hon. Member for West Bristol.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that, in the case of the Clanricarde Estate, the sheriff had made no demand for the assistance of the posse comitatus The landlords had indicated to the Executive their intention to adopt a particular policy and the Minister was entitled in that case to point oat] the difficulties which might follow from that course. But in the present casa there had been no application from the landlord. The usual insinuations had been made and Lord Ardilaun's name had be-n mentioned. There had been no backstairs influence used. The matter had followed the ordinary straightforward course' The sheriff made the demand for the force he required to carry out his duty and the Government had no power or right to refuse that demand. There was really nothing more to be said. The hon. Gentleman gave his own account, a graphic and somewhat coloured account, of the way in which the landing was effected and the work was done. He said that the police fixed bayonets and clubbed their rifle3 in order to deal with the islanders.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that was not his statement. He quoted it from a London Unionist newspaper.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not intend in the smallest degree to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. He quite understood that he was quoting from a London newspaper. Well, the report which he himself received from the

  887
  police.—[Ironical NATIONALIST cheers.] They were at least as likely to know the facts as the London newspaper. The hon. Member had stated there was no post office or telegraph and that it was impossible except under most difficult circumstances to get from the mainland to the island. He thought, therefore, the police report was as likely to be accurate as that of the hon. Member.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he had made no report. He quoted from a Unionist organ which was not likely to err on the side of friendliness to the tenants.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that of course he could not complain if the hon. Member thought it right to resort to Unionist organs for accurate information. He had no desire to conceal the fact that his report was from the police. He had had a short experience of the Irish police force, but it had been long enough to convince him that it did its best in all circumstances, some of them circumstances of difficulty, to do its duty, and that the officers made accurate and reliable reports of the work they carried out. The newspaper report stated that the police fixed bayonets and clubbed rifles. The information given to him, and he stood by it, was that they did nothing of the kind. They effected their landing very much as the hon. Gentleman had described, and they appeared to deserve the credit for tactics and strategy which the hon. Gentleman gave them. Surely no fault ought to be found with them because they had an officer of great ability who disposed his forces so as to effect a landing with the minimum of
  888
  personal violence. if it were true, as he believed it to be, that bayonets were not fixed and rifles were not clubbed, then it was clear that the work was done in a manner which reflected credit on the police.
  It had been said that the Government were lending themselves to the collection of exorbitant rents and to the maintenance of the landlords. He confessed that he had never been very much dismayed or troubled by charges of that kind. The Government had given abundant proof of their desire to settle by fair and just means the land difficulty in Ireland, and he would warn hon. Gentlemen opposite ["Oh,"] that they would not help the successful working of the Act of 1903, from which they and the House had hoped so much, by attacks such as those which they had made that night. The Act was passed with a certain and definite object, and under a definite belief on the part of the British Parliament. The Irish Executive were doing their best to give effect to the wishes of Parliament. ["To destroy it."] To drag in a difficulty of this kind which had nothing to do with the administration of the Act was not calculated to help its administration, or to help the Government to face the difficulties which they had to face and overcome if they were to solve the land question in Ireland. He submitted that no case had been made out for the condemnation it was sought to pass on the action of the Government, and that it had not been established that they had a discretion, that they had any right whatever, to refuse the assistance demanded of them. The Government had acted in this matter constitutionally and with propriety, and on those grounds he asked the House to reject the Motion.
  MR. DILLONsaid he deeply I sympathised with the hon. Member for North Down in the disappointment he had experienced, but probably nine-tenths of the Irish people would regard the question under discussion as of more importance than the subject of the Motion the hon. Member had intended to bring forward. As a private Member, however, he held that it was a grievance and a hardship that the right of moving the adjournment should interfere with the opportunities of private Members, and if any proposal were made to remedy that grievance he would be the first to support it. When the rule was under discussion he warned the House of the danger of such an occurrence as had happened that night, but the hon. Member and his friends gave him no support.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I did not know the hon. Member and his friends so well as I know them now.
  MR, DILLONsaid that was another reason for being glad that his hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division j had brought this matter forward, and when next he stood up in defence of the rights of private Members he should count on the support of the hon. Member for North Down.
  For the first time he had had the pleasure of listening to the new Chief Secretary on Irish affairs. The warning the right hon. Gentleman had just uttered took him back to the days of Mr. Forster and the Land Bill of 1881. The Irish Party were warned then that if they did not behave themselves and did not give up agitation they would not get any of the benefits that this House was
  890
  longing to bestow upon them. They had been constantly listening to such warnings during the last quarter of a century constantly disregarding them, and constantly reaping the reward of that course. He was not one of those who had expected much from the Act of 1903, but although he belonged to the class described in the "beatitude "—blessed are they who expect little, for they shall not be disappointed—yet he had been disappointed, because they had obtained much less than even he had expected. The Chief Secretary had declared that the Executive Government were engaged in endeavouring to extract from the Land Act of 1903 all the benefit they could for the people of Ireland. [Mr. WALTER LONG: Hear, hear!] And with the sublime audacity of an Irish Secretary the right hon. Gentleman cheered that statement. The Irish Executive were engaged to-day in strangling the Act, and that statement would be proved when the Report of the Commissioners was issued. Whatever benefits the Act of 1903 had conferred—experience had shown them to be deplorably short of the hopes held out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover—had been destroyed by the constant and maleficent interference of the Irish Executive. The hands of the Commissioners had been tied, and the present discussion and controversy were largely the direct result of the conduct of the Executive in destroying by their rules and regulations the effect of the Act of 1903. The Chief Secretary had passed over the Questions addressed to him by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, and had concentrated his reply on the old formula that the, Executive had absolutely no discretion but to supply the sheriff with what-

  891
  ever military force he might ask for. If the sheriff had demanded a battleship would the Government have supplied him with it? Did the right hon. Gentleman contend that if the sheriff had demanded a regiment or two regiments of soldiers the Executive had no discretion in the matter, and would have to supply such a demand? When the right hon. Member for West Bristol remonstrated with Lord Clanricarde he told his lordship that, in the event of any application being made for the services of the constabulary or the military, compliance would be retarded by the pressure of other claims and duties and their employment would be postponed to the utmost extent.
  MR. WALTER LONGpointed out that he had also referred to the precedent of the right hon. Member for Montrose Burghs, in which case it was made clear that such action on the part of the Chief Secretary which the hon. Member had just referred to was illegal and could not be maintained.
  MR. DILLONclaimed that he had proved that the right hon. Gentleman's contention was wrong as far as those words were concerned, because the right hon. Member for West Bristol distinctly stated that if the police were applied for their employment would be delayed.
  MR, WALTER LONGsaid his point was that the right hon. Member for Montrose Burghs tried to do the same thing, and it was found that he had not the legal authority to do it.
  MR. DILLONrecalled the time when Sir Redvers Buller was sent over to
  892
  Ireland to take command in Kerry when that part of Ireland was unfortunately more disturbed than it was at the present time, and said that he adopted the same course. When he (the hon. Member) was committed for trial in December, 1887, they summoned Sir Eedvers Buller as a witness, and he gave evidence to the effect that he was so shocked at the conduct of the landlords of Kerry that he required a statement from the agent as to the amount of rent and arrears they required.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Member was ignoring the point he had made that whatever the view taken by Sir Redvers Buller or other Chief Secretaries might be, when it was sought to take the course adopted by the right hon. Member for West Bristol it was laid down by the Courts as illegal.
  MR. DILLONsaid that did not alter the fact that two great officials representing the Government who were sent over to Ireland at a time of great disturbance did lay down that policy and practised it, and they were coerced into taking that extreme course by the misconduct of the Irish landlords. The right hon. Gentleman had passed over some of the main features of this extraordinary case. Was it contended that the Irish Executive were bound, without inquiry into the circumstances of the case, to give a sheriff any force which he in his discretion demanded?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had laid down the law, and he defied the hon. Gentleman to dispute it. Where a sheriff was called upon to execute a decree of the Court, and in order to 'execute it required a posse comitatus, he

  893
  was entitled: to have it, whether it was police or soldiers.
  MR. DILLON: Are we to he told that a sheriff is to get any force he demands?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Of course not.
  MR. DILLONsaid that was the point. "Who was responsible for sending a force of 200 police to carry out the eviction of one tenant on the island? Was any attempt made to carry out the operation peaceably? Did the Chief Secretary address any remonstrance to the landlord, pointing out that he was contravening the policy of Parliament and acting in a manner likely to raise a disturbance without sufficient reason? "What was the cost of the expedition? Probably it would cost £300 or £400 to recover the holding, upon which the debt was £29. How long was the expedition to remain on the island, and what was it doing now?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid a small force remained on the island for the protection of life and property. The police assisted the sheriff in the execution of his duty, and the property was now in the possession of the representative of the person to whom it belonged. A certain number of police remained on the island to see that no injury occurred to life and property there.
  MR. DILLONsaid that was doing the work of the landlord, and not executing
  the decree of the Court. The retention of the police was in the discretion of the Government, and at the cost of £2,000 a year the police were kept there to secure to the landlord possession of a farm worth £9 a year. Such was the absurdity of the system of Irish government.
  A UNIONIST MEMBER: If it was only worth ninepence the owner is entitled to protection.
  MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Member opposite was using the absurd argument that if a landlord wanted possession of a piece of land worth ninepence it would be the duty of the State to spend £2,000 getting possession of it. That was a reduction ad absurdum in connection with Irish government. If the right hon. Gentleman had conveyed a warning to the landlord that in carrying out these operations he would go as far as the law compelled him and not an inch further the eviction would not have taken place. The refusal of the landlord to accept the offer of the Congested Districts Board to buy the island was a proof that the people there could not live and pay their way, and therefore of the unreasonableness of the landlord, of whose conduct there had not been one word of reprobation in the Chief Secretary's speech.
  Question put.
  Tae House divided:—Ayes, 74; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 148.)

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Cork N.E.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  caldwell, James

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brigg, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ambrose, Robert

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Black, Alexander, William

  Burt, Thomas,

  Delany, William

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lundon, w.

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

  Dillon, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northant

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mooney, John J.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merlhyr

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  0'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Ure, Alexander

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hutchinson, Dr.Charles Fredk.

  O'Malley, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Johnson, John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Schwann, Charles E.

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gretton, John

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Gurdon, Sir W Brampton

  Percy, Earl

  Arrol, Sir William

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Atkinson, Rt Hon. John

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Purvis, Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Randies, John S.

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

  Heath, Sir James(Staflords. N W

  Raseh, Sir Frederic Carne

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Henderson, SirA.(Stafford, W.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside)

  Rothschild.Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bathurst.Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hoult, Joseph

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bentinek, Lord Henry C.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bigwood, James

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bingham, Lord

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Bond, Edward

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

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

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Keswick, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Brassey, Albert

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Rt.Hon.Lord (Lanes.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bull, William James

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

  Talbot,Rt. Hn JG (Oxf'dUniv.

  Butcher, John George

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.NR

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham

  Tuff, Charles

  Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

  Tumour, Viscount

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A (Wore.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Walker, Col. William Hall.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Walrond.Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Oossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon g

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maxwell, RtHnSirH.E.lV^igt'n

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maxwell, W.J-H.(Dumfriesshire

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

  Fergusson,RtHnSir.J.(Man'cr.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wodehouse, RtHn E. R.(Bath)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Montague, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart

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

  Montagu.Hon. J.Scott (Hants.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Coi. W. H

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morgan,David J.(Walthamstow

  Forster, Henry William

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.