Sitting of 13 March 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ascot District Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill; North East Lincolnshire Water Bill. To be read a second time Tomorrow.
North West London Railway Bill (by Order); Twickenham and Teddington Electric Supply Bill (by Order); Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill (by Order.) Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Millwall Dock Bill. Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
North Metropolitan Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petition from Liverpool, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Leicester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894).
  Petition of the Scottish Poor Law Medical Officers' Association, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Ballam; Bleasby; Bolton (two); Clitheroe; Colne; Eccles; Long Framlington; Oldham (three); Out Rawcliffe (two); Ribby with Wrea (two); Shaw; Stacksteads and Newchurch; Treales; Whalley; Wiswell; and Withington; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report on Franciscan Manuscripts preserved at the Convent, Merchant's Quay, Dublin [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Emigration Statistics of Ireland for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Return showing the names of all constabulary officers now in receipt of pensions, of all head constables, sergeants, and constables, and of all widows and children to whom pensions have been granted since the Constabulary Estimate for 1905–6 was prepared, with the amount and date of pension in each case [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Return showing the expenditure from the grant for public education in Scotland in the year 1905, with Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, MARRIAGES, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of the fifty-first annual Report on the births, deaths, and marriages in Scotland for 1905, and forty-first annual Report on Vaccination [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of correspondence relating to disturbances in British Guiana [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Bridlington Piers and Harbour.—Copy of Abstract of the general annual account for the year ending 26th July, 1905 [by Act].
  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "in respect of labourers' cottages in Ireland, showing (1) County; (2) Rural District; (3) Valuation of Rural District; (4) Number of labourers' cottages (a) built, (b) in course of construction; (5) Amount of loans (a) sanctioned, (b) received; (6) Amount required to be raised annually in repayment of loans sanctioned; (7) Amount which would be raised by the maximum rate of one shilling in the pound allowed for purposes of Acts; (8) Rate per pound required to raise amount specified in Column 6; (9) Present poundage rate levied on Rural District for Labourers Acts purposes; (10) Amount of Exchequer Contribution for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1906; (11) Amount of rent received from tenants of cottages and plots during year; (12) Unissued balance, if any, of County's share of Exchequer Contribution; (13) Totals per County and Province, and for all Ireland; (14) The Return to be made up to the 31st day of March 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 188, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Flavin.)

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "in respect to Labourers' Cottages in Ireland, showing the number of Cottages applied for in every Poor Law Union in Ireland under the latest completed Scheme in connection with the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, together with the number of applications for extra half-acres to Cottages already built under the Acts under said Scheme;

  1071
  how many of these applications for Cottages and extra half-acres were sanctioned; the amount of Expenses connected with such Scheme; and in what way applied. The Return to be made up to the 21st day of March, 1906."—(Mr. Flavin.)

  ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
  Address for "Return showing the names of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued and whose Oaths of Allegiance have, between the 1st day of January, 1905, and the 31st day of December, 1905, been registered at the Home Office, giving the country and place of residence of the person naturalised, and including information as to any Aliens who have, during the same period, obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 106, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES).
  Address for "Return of Charges made to Candidates at the General Election of 1906, in Great Britain and Ireland, by Returning Officers, specifying the total Expenses of each Candidate (both exclusive and inclusive of Returning Officers' Charges) delivered to the Returning Officers pursuant to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1883, and the number of votes polled for each Candidate (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 352, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Lamont.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Postal Porters and the Post Office Wages Committee.
  MR. WILES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to include within the reference of the Select Committee of Inquiry into the grievances of postal servants that portion of the staff known as porters; but, if not, will he investigate their claims in common with those of the stores and engineering staff, as promised by the late Postmaster-General.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It will be for the Committee to decide
  1072
  whether they will consider the porters as one of the principal classes of Post Office servants.

  Training of Subalterns in Royal Marines.
  MR. BELLAIRS (Lynn Regis): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the mean proportion of subaltern's time that has been associated with the division in the case of the ten junior captains, Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry, in view of the statement in Lord Cawdor's Memorandum that only a few subalterns have ever been associated with the division.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) In the case of the ten junior captains, R.M.A. and R.M.L.I., the mean time spent on shore while attached to their divisions, during the period of their service as subalterns, including instructional training, was: Lieutenants, R.M.A., two years 341 days, out of a total service of five years 101 days. Lieutenants, R.M.L.I., two years 182 days, out of a total service of six years 153 days. All subalterns are attached to the various divisions as their headquarters, and the statement referred to had reference to the small proportion of subalterns available for duty at the divisions.

  Post Office Night Messengers—Full Pay for Sick Leave—Good Conduct Stripes.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can see his way to allow to night messengers full pay while on sick leave, and to grant them the right to earn good-conduct stripes and the accompanying payments.
  (Answered by Sydney Buxton.) Adult night telegraph messengers, like other unestablished Post Office servants, receive two-thirds pay during sick absence within limits varying according to the length of their service. The allowance of full pay during sick absence is confined to established officers; and I fear I cannot recommend an exception in favour of night messengers, nor has it been thought desirable to extend to them the privilege of wearing good conduct stripes.

  The Case of Thomas Reilly, Rural Postman.
  MR. THOMAS SMYTH: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will inquire into the case of Thomas Reilly, who has been in the postal service for seventeen years, and at present is rural postman from Mohill to Annaghmore, in county Leitrim; whether he will allow him 3s. per week increase of pay, which has been given to other rural postmen; and if he will grant him the two additional good conduct badges to which he is entitled.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I find that Thomas Reilly would have been entitled to an increase of 1s. 6d. a week in his wages as from the 1st of April, 1905, if his conduct during the preceding twelve months had been satisfactory. Unfortunately the necessary certificate to that effect could not be given; but the question of granting the increase to Reilly will come up again for consideration shortly. Reilly holds one good conduct stripe, and in ordinary course a second stripe would become due to him on the 27th of April next if it could be certified that he had rendered five years' unblemished service since the date of the last award, 27th April, 1901. This certificate, however, cannot be given, and it will be necessary to postpone for a time the award of a second stripe.

  Postal Facilities at South Park, Reigate
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the district of Reigate called South Park is an integral part of the borough of Reigate, and within a short distance of the head post office, arrangements can be made to give the district in question the same postal facilities as the other parts of the borough.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In the case of Reigate, as in many other cases, it is not practicable for the municipal boundaries of the town to be accepted in all respects as the boundaries of the town delivery area, but inquiry shall be made on the question whether South Park should be included in that area, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

  Examination for Post Office Male Learners in Ireland.
  MR. KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state whether there is any set time for holding examinations for male learners in Ireland; whether there is a vacancy in Belturbet, county Cavan, and, if so, since when; and will he say if it is to be filled up, and when.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Owing to the excess of staff generally throughout Ireland, examinations for learners are at present suspended. There is no vacancy for a learner at Belturbet.

  South African Mines—Returns of Persons Employed.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether under the law of the late South African Republic mine managers in the Transvaal were required to render to the Government, on prescribed forms, returns showing the number of persons employed in the mine and the results obtained; whether before the war these records were available to the public; whether since the war some undertaking has been given to the mine owners by which these records are treated as confidential, and are no longer accessible to the public; and, if so, whether the Government will give instructions that these and all similar returns shall again be made accessible to the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The regulations requiring returns from the mines for statistical purposes appear to be the same now as they were under the law of the late South African Republic. The Secretary of State is not informed as to whether or to what extent the present practice differs from that before the war as to permitting access to these records, but will make inquiry. Lord Elgin is clearly of opinion that the fullest possible information should be accessible to the investing public.

  Native Education in Natal.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if

  1075
  he will lay upon the Table the correspondence in which his Department is pressing the Government of Natal for larger expenditure upon Native education.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) In reply to my hon. friend, I have to state that any correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Natal, or between His Majesty's Government and the Government of any other self-governing colony, upon the subject of Native education or upon any other subject, which it may be desirable to present to Parliament, will be laid upon the Table of the House as convenient opportunity may offer.

  Pensions from the Consolidated Fund paid to retired Officials of the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, how many retired officials of the Exchequer and Audit Department are paid pensions out of the Consolidated Fund, the gross amount so received by these officials, and whether this amount is clearly stated in the Estimates.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) There is only one pension so paid. The amount of this pension is £1,333 6s. 8d. The Estimates provide only for payments charged on the annual Votes of Parliament, not for payments charged directly on the Consolidated Fund. The latter payments are shown in detail in the annual finance accounts.

  Director of Public Education in Bengal.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the injury which will be inflicted upon recruiting for the Indian educational service, by the proposed appointment, even though temporary, of a gentleman not belonging to that service to the directorship of public education in Bengal, he can now see his way to disallow such appointment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have, I think, already explained the state of this case. I can only repeat that I have no reason to suppose that the temporary and exceptional appoint-
  1076
  ment in question has had, or will have, any injurious effect upon recruiting, and I do not propose to disallow it.

  Sale of the Rosscarbery Estate.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the sale of the Ross-carbery portion of the Carbery estate, in the early part of last year, an agreement was arrived at between landlord, present occupier (Deane), and Patrick M'Carthy, evicted tenant, to submit his case to the Estates Commissioners for immediate settlement; that the farm was excluded from the area of sale to Deane for the purpose of reinstating M'Carthy; and whether, in view of the condition of the dwelling house, and of the fact that the present tenant, who is not resident, has refused to pay rent to the landlord pending a settlement being arrived at, and that M'Carthy has been for over twelve months an inmate of the Clonakilty workhouse, steps will be taken to accelerate the action of the Estates Commissioners in giving effect to the understanding entered into at the time of sale for the reinstatement of the evicted tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Proceedings for the sale of this estate are pending before the Estates Commissioners, but the farm occupied by Mr. Deane is not part of the estate which is being sold. The Commissioners have no knowledge whether the remaining facts are as stated in they Question, but they intend to make inquiries into Patrick M'Carthy's case as soon as possible.

  Sale of the Mount Shannon Estate.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the sale of the Mount Shannon estate, in the county of Limerick, to the Estates Commissioners, has been completed, and when will the evicted tenants, to whom allotments of the untenanted land on the estate have been made, get possession of the same; and whether they will get grants for the purpose of restocking the land, to enable them to begin life on a sound financial basis.

  1077
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of the estate of Mrs. Nevins, Mount Shannon, but the purchase has not yet been completed. The questions of allocating the lands, and of making grants to evicted tenants who may be allotted holdings, cannot be decided until the sale has been completed.

  Return of Labourers' Cottages, Ireland.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a complete Return up to 31st March, 1906, in connection with Labourers' Cottages (Ireland), similar to Parliamentary Paper, No. 188, issued in session 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Yes, sir.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return, up to 31st March, 1906, in connection with Labourers' Cottages (Ireland), similar to Parliamentary Paper, No. 148, issued in Session 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Yes, sir.

  Withdrawal of Flax Expert at Dromara, County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the services of the flax expert have been withdrawn from the Co-operative Flax Society of Dromara, county Down, at three weeks' notice; whether he is aware that the expert was managing a scutching business, and was in charge of a mill and a seed business, and that his sudden removal will disorganise the whole arrangements, and cause much waste of money, the abandonment of the experiments already instituted, and the dissolution of the society; whether he can state on what ground the Department of Agriculture has decided without notice to discontinue the payment of part of the expert's salary; and whether, in view of the results of the decision, it will be reconsidered.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) On the 3rd instant the Department of Agriculture notified to the society in question
  1078
  that after the 31st instant they would not contribute to the salary of the flax expert who manages the society's scutch mill. The society has received financial assistance from the Department for the past five years, and ought, in the opinion of the Department, to be now self-supporting. It will not be necessary that this year's field experiments, which have been commenced at Dromara, should be abandoned as the result of the Department's decision, for if the society should not retain the expert the Department will undertake the supervision of the trials.

  Sale of the O'Hara-Trench and Ashtown Properties.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the price which Lord Ashtown has agreed to pay for the O'Hara-Trench property, in the county of Galway, was above or below the tenant's offer, twenty-three years' purchase of second-term rents plus the bonus, and, if so, how much; whether Lord Ashtown has yet paid the purchase money; and, in the event of a sale of either the O'Hara-Trench or Ashtown properties, will the Estate Commissioners make inquiry into all the facts of the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the sale referred to in the first part of the Question. No sale has in this case been effected through them. In the event of either of the estates mentioned coming before the Commissioners, they will make all due investigation.

  Soldiers in Civil Prisons.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War why two soldiers convicted of using obscene language, two soldiers convicted of being absent from Militia training, one soldier sentenced to punishment, for incurring a debt, one soldier convicted of being drunk and disorderly, two soldiers convicted of giving a false answer on attestation, two soldiers convicted of fraudulent enlistment, and one soldier convicted of ill-treating a donkey are now confined in civil prisons to

  1079
  undego punishment without such punishment carrying with it discharge from the Army; whether he will cause soldiers convicted of these offences, and sentenced to punishment not involving discharge from the Army, to be incarcerated in military prisons and not in civil prisons; and, if not, will he state the reason for not doing so.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) These men were presumably convicted by the civil power, except in one of the two cases of so-called fraudulent enlistment, and would consequently undergo their sentence in a civil prison. As regards the two classes classified by the authorities as fraudulent enlistment, one was of a man awaiting removal by military escort for disposal by the military authorities, who was therefore not under conviction, and the other was of an army reservist who had made a false answer on Attestation. It must be remembered that a person charged with making a false answer on attestation may be handed over to the civil authorities for disposal under Section 99 of the Army Act, and absentees from Militia training under Section 23 (2) (b) of the Militia Act. It rests with the local military authorities to decide whether a soldier convicted by the civil authority shall be discharged from the service, and each case would be considered on its merits.

  Regular Adjutants with Volunteer Regiments.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many Volunteer regiments in Scotland have an officer of the regular forces attached to them as adjutant.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Of sixty-four Volunteer units in Scotland entitled to adjutants fifty-four have adjutants from the regular forces.

  Army Contracts and the Fair Wages Clause.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the fair wage contract clause is inserted in all Army contracts for boots and clothing, and what action
  1080
  is taken against contractors who are found to be evading its provisions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Yes, Sir. The clause is inserted in all Army contracts for boots and clothing. Any alleged case of evasion is thoroughly investigated, and such action is taken as is held to be appropriate to the particular case, but under any circumstances the contractor is compelled to pay the rate which is in accordance with the clause.

  Support of Regimental Bands.
  MR. LEA: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in some regiments the band is supported partly out of contributions from the canteen fund; and that, as the latter is solely and only the property of the men of the regiment, he will give orders that this practice be stopped at once, more especially as the non-commissioned officers and men of the regiments concerned are not consulted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Nothing is known at the War Office of any case in which the band is supported in any way by contributions from the canteen fund, and under no circumstances should the funds be so expended. Would my hon. friend be kind enough to inform me of any cases in which this has occurred, to enable me to make immediate inquiry?

  Courts Martial in the 16th Lancers.
  MR. LEA: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of general, district, and regimental courts martial held in the 16th Lancers during the twelve months ending 28th February, 1906, also the number of regimental entries in this regiment during that period as apart from those awarded by the courts martial above referred to; and if he will also state what position this regiment occupies as regards crime when compared with the other cavalry regiments serving at Home.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The particulars for the year ended 28th ultimo are as follows:—general courts martial, nil; district courts martial, sixty-nine; regimental courts martial,

  1081
  six; other regimental entries 300. There are no particulars available for the same period for the Army generally, consequently comparison cannot be made, but for the twelve months ended 30th September, 1905, this regiment stood third on the list of cavalry regiments at home as regards the number of punishments awarded by courts martial.

  Court Martial on Gunner H. Flanagan.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the grounds upon which the conviction of Gunner H. Flanagan, X Battery, Royal Horse Artillery, was quashed; the names of the officers who composed the court martial at which Flanagan was convicted; and what punishment, if any, has been inflicted upon these officers for their conduct in this matter.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Gunner H. Flanagan, X Battery, Royal Horse Artillery, was tried by a district court martial for fraudulently enlisting in the 6th Dragoon Guards on 7th February, 1902, and that he was supposed to be a Private Elborne who had actually been guilty of the offence stated; whether, at that trial, the official documents upon which the charge against Flanagan was based showed that Elborne had two tattoo marks on his left forearm, when, as a matter of fact, he had two tattoo marks on his right forearm; whether Flanagan immediately proved he had no tattoo marks on his forearm; whether Flanagan was not permitted to read the documents which were put in to secure his conviction; and whether Elborne was officially described as five feet six inches in height and Flanagan is six feet in height.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Governor of Cork Prison, at or about 9 a.m. on the 23rd December last, read to Gunner H. Flanagan, X Battery, Royal Horse Artillery, a charge sheet and gave it to him officially, at the same time warning him that he would be tried by a district court martial at 11 a.m. the same day; and whether the trial took place on the 23rd December.
  1082
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As I have already explained to the hon-Member, the conviction was quashed because identity with the deserter Elborne had not been proved. As regards the officers composing the court martial, no punishment has been inflicted upon them, nor is it, in any respect, called for. I do not, therefore, see any reason for publishing their names. The trial took place on the 23rd December, and Gunner Flanagan was warned for trial between 9 and 10 a.m. on the 22nd. As regards the other points raised in reference to the court martial proceedings, it would not appear desirable that such details should be discussed through the medium of Question and Answer in the House.

  Brussels Sugar Convention Report.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state why the spring session of the International Sugar Commission under the Brussels Convention has been postponed for two months; and if there is any reason why a report of the sessions, especially when it is so brief as the report of the proceedings in October last (Commercial, No. 3, 1906, Cd. 2813), should not be issued in future more promptly.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The session of the Permanent Commission has been postponed for two months pending the receipt of further information by the Permanent Bureau and His Majesty's Government respecting the Brazilian sugar system. It is not possible to prepare the Report until the final proof of the record of proceedings is in the hands of the British delegate, but every effort will be made to issue it more promptly in future.

  British and Foreign Shareholders of South African Mines.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the records of the Colonial Office bear out the calculation that there are 200,000 British and 55,000 Foreign shareholders in the mines of the Transvaal besides 10,000 in South Africa; and if the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the fact that the, property of these investors, many being

  1083
  persons of small means, has suffered a depreciation of upwards of £20,000,000 since the announcement of the policy of His Majesty's Government in South Africa; and further, if he can indicate what proportion of the real estate in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony is in British hands.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The records of the Colonial Office do not enable the Secretary of State to answer the first part of the Question as to the number of investors, or to add to what is common knowledge as to the second. The Secretary of State is aware that depreciation has taken place recently in the shares in Transvaal mines. These investments are of a speculative nature and subject to considerable fluctuation from time to time. Their depreciation has been constant during the last two years, and has become pronounced since

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  £

  £

  £

  United Kingdom

  906,129

  926,393

  475,638

  United States

  229,200

  187,087

  197,007

  Germany

  121,666

  215,137

  41,003

  Particulars of the countries of origin are not yet available for the year 1905.

  Royal Engineers in Ordnance Survey.
  MR. BELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state how many sappers have been drafted from the Royal Engineers into the Ordnance Survey, and how many civilians on the Ordnance Survey are now being discharged in consequence; whether he will explain why the Ordnance Survey division in Derby is being broken up, and how many men are being discharged in consequence; and whether he can give the ages and service of such men.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The number of sappers drafted into the survey companies during the last twelve
  1084
  the importation of Chinese labour. The Secretary of State is unable to state what proportion of the real estate is in British hands.

  Mining Machinery in the Transvaal.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he is in a position to state the value of the mining machinery imported into the Transvaal between 1st January, 1902 and 31st December, 1905, and to give the proportions imported from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The total imports of mining machinery were as follows:—1902, £1,364,330; 1903, £1,402,681; 1904, £718,832; 1905, £728,350. The proportions as between the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany, were as follows:—
  months is twenty-one, of whom fifteen were employed on the survey as civilians previous to enlistment. No civilians are now being discharged in consequence of the drafting of sappers. The Derby division of the Ordnance Survey is being broken up, owing to the fact that the general revision of the survey of Great Britain is practically completed. The staff of the Survey has been continuously reduced for some time past by not filling up the vacancies that have occurred, the men no longer required being transferred, as far as possible, to other work. It has, however, been found impossible to provide in this way for the whole of the staff of the Derby division, and notice of discharge has been given to seventeen assistants. I shall be glad to supply my hon. friend with a statement of the names, ages, and services of the men to whom notice has been given.

  Establishment of a Telegraph Office at Johnston's Bridge, County Leitrim.
  MR. THOMAS SMYTH: To ask the Postmaster-General if the necessary guarantee is given, will a telegraph office be established at Johnston's Bridge post office, county Leitrim, the distance from Dromod to Johnston's Bridge being only about three miles.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am having inquiry made into the circumstances, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Position of Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that clerks to surveyors of taxes are not treated as part of the permanent staff; whether he will state the number of such clerks at present employed; and the number of such clerks who have served five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, and thirty years in tax offices, with a view to showing the permanent nature of their employment.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The number of the clerks referred to is approximately 590. The information asked for in the last sentence would take some time to collect, and I must ask the hon. Member to give me considerably longer notice on this point.

  The Arrests of Women in Downing Street.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that three women were arrested outside the Premier's official residence on Friday morning last, taken publicly through the streets to the police station, and that, after being detained there some time, were ultimately discharged without any charge being made against them; and whether he will explain why, after being locked up, no charge was preferred against them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Three women were apprehended for disorderly conduct outside the Prime
  1086
  Minister's official residence on Friday morning last. The action of the police was proper, and the women were only released on the personal intercession of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister.

  Administration of Aliens Act.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of aliens excluded from this country since the recent Act came into force were Russian subjects.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Up to the end of February 139 alien immigrants did not receive leave to land; and, of these, it appears that eighty-eight were of Russian nationality, a percentage of 63·3.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the House the names and callings of all persons permitted to attend the meetings of the Immigration Board on behalf of aliens seeking admission; if representatives of British subjects, likely to be injured by such admission, will be authorised, as also of representatives of officers of public health; and if strict rules will be framed to secure the free judicial exercise of their powers by the Immigration Boards.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I can best answer the hon. Member's Question by quoting No. 23 of the rules under the Aliens Act, which runs as follows:—The immigrant (and the master owner, or agent of the ship, if an appellant), the immigration officer, and the medical inspector, if present, shall be entitled to be heard, and the Board may put such questions to the alien or other appellant, and make such inquiries, if any, as they think fit. No other person shall be entitled to be heard without special leave from the Board. Subject as aforesaid, the procedure of the Board shall be such as the Board may determine. A further rule is in draft providing for reasonable facilities to be given to the Press, as I explained to the House on Monday.†
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 916.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what ports Immigration Boards have been established; and if he will take care that no new rule, or any alteration of any rule framed upon the report of an expert committee after full inquiry, is transmitted for the guidance of Immigration Boards, without giving both Houses of Parliament full opportunity of becoming acquainted therewith.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The ports are Cardiff, Dover, Folkestone, Grangemouth, Grimsby, Harwich, Hull, Leith, Liverpool, London (which includes Queenborough), Newhaven, Southampton, and the Tyne ports (comprising Newcastle, North Shields, and South Shields, which are in effect treated as one port). No rules or orders made under the Act are required thereby to be laid before Parliament, and, in the circumstances, I am not prepared to accede to the hon. Member's proposal.
  MR. COATES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will defer the operation of the new regulations under The Aliens Act, 1905, until Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the subject.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I understand from my right hon. friend the Home Secretary that the letter of advice to Immigration Boards and the instructions to immigration officers have already been sent out; that the Order restoring the number twenty for the purpose of defining an immigrant ship has been made and will be gazetted to-day; and that, though the rule as to the admission of the Press to board meetings is still in draft, the intention of it has already been conveyed in the letter to the Boards. In these circumstances I am not prepared to assent to the hon. Member's suggestion.

  Director of Public Instruction in Bengal.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if the Government of Bengal will persist in their proposal to appoint a member of the Civil Service to the position
  1088
  of Director of Public Instruction, in view of the strong feeling that exists against it.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I would refer the hon. Member to an Answer which I gave on this subject on the 1st instant.† I have no reason to suppose that the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal will abandon the intentions which I then explained.

  Condition of Courtown Harbour and Blackwater, County Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the condition of Courtown Harbour and Blackwater, county Wexford; and if he will have inquiry made as to what can be done to assist the fishing population of these districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The attention of the Department of Agriculture has been called to the condition of Courtown Harbour, the entrance to which was cleared of accumulating sand and stone last year. The cost of the operations was provided for by the Department and the county council in equal proportions. The sea outside Courtown is shallow, and an extension of the existing harbour is desirable; but the Department's contribution could only be a small part of the necessary cost, which would be very considerable. About fifteen row boats and a few vessels of about eight tons fish from Courtown. Coal is occasionally landed there. Under any circumstances periodical dredging would be necessary to keep the harbour clean of sand. There is no harbour at Blackwater, and hardly any fishing is carried on at that place at present. As the beach is an open sandy one, the construction of a pier harbour is the only possible project with a view to development, and, if there were a substantial local contribution, the Department would be prepared to further consider the matter.

  Colonials and Army Commissions.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Secretary of State for War to what
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 1301.

  1089
  extent commissions in His Majesty's Army are reserved for the sons of colonists; and whether any reciprocal arrangements have been made by which commissions in the regular forces of the self-governing Colonies are reserved for Englishmen, Scotchmen, or Irishmen.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A certain number of commissions are allotted annually to candidates from the local military forces of each Colony and to students in the chartered universities in the Colonies, but hitherto the number of commissions allotted has not been taken up. I am not aware that any commissions in the regular forces of the self-governing Colonies are reserved in the manner alluded to in the Question.

  Coat of the British Army.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the total cost to the National Exchequer of the British Army, regular and auxiliary forces, during each of the years 1896 to 1905 inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures are as follows:—1895–6,

  Date.

  United Kingdom.

  South Africa.

  India.

  1st January, 1896

  104,396

  3,573

  78,043

  1st January, 1897

  99,066

  7,053

  76,995

  1st January, 1898

  97,539

  8,414

  74,623

  1st January, 1899

  104,873

  9,316

  74,466

  1st January, 1900

  96,094

  103,329

  66,581

  1st January, 1901

  135,591

  162,910

  63,023

  1st January, 1902

  116,918

  165,386

  63,958

  1st January, 1903

  151,617

  47,427

  75,740

  1st October 1903

  128,801

  31,442

  76,380

  1st October 1904

  136,342

  22,127

  76,938

  1st October 1905

  128,954

  19,780

  78,061

  £18,941,650; 1896–7, £18,693,309; 1897–8, £20,051,854; 1898–9, £20,634,186; 1899–1900, £43,655,801; 1900–1, £92,305,792; 1901–2, £93,567,363; 1902–3, £69,673,851; 1903–4, £37,441,598; 1904–5, £29,595,651. These figures include the annuities charged on the Votes in repayment of loans and the estimated expenditure incurred by other departments on Army account, but not the expenditure under loans.

  Strength of the British Army in United Kingdom, South Africa, and British India.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the total strength of the British Army, regular forces, serving in the United Kingdom, in South Africa, and in British India, respectively, for each of the years 1896 to 1905 inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Return of the strength of the British Army, regular forces, serving in the United Kingdom, in South Africa, and in British India, respectively, for each of the years 1896 to 1905 inclusive.

  Relative Cost per Head of the Population of the Army of Great Britain and Foreign Countries.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the cost per head of the population in any recent year of the regular armies of the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and Austria, respectively,
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures are as follow:—The United Kingdom,* 11s. 2d. per head; Germany, † 12s. 0¼d. per head; France,‡ 16s. 6d. per head; Russia,§ 5s. 5d. per head; Austria, 7s. 3¼d. per head.

  War Office Purchases of Land in Essex.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office is in negotiation for the purchase of alleged manorial and freehold rights over part of the foreshore at Shoebury, in Essex; whether he is aware that the fishermen of Leigh-on-Sea, and other places in the district, claim and have long exercised a right of fishing over such foreshore; whether, in the event of the War Office purchasing any such manorial rights and the freehold interest in the foreshore, he will take care that the fishermen in the district are permitted to fish over such foreshore, subject to reasonable regulations in regard to military shooting; and whether he will secure that there is no alienation or exclusive appropriation to any individual or company, by lease or otherwise, of the right of fishing over the foreshore and sands in that district under the control of the War Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The War Department is in negotiation for the purchase in question. The fishing rights which are claimed have been contested in an action at law by the vendors. The litigation is not yet at an end. It is not, therefore, possible at the present time to give any Reply to the latter part of the Question.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Dockyard Labour.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, after the adjustment of the workmen's services in His Majesty's Dockyards, a decreased number of men will be employed.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): No accurate opinion can yet be formed what reduction, if any, is likely to occur.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I cannot tell.

    Naval Volunteer Officers' Outfit Allowance.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the Admiralty have approved the grant to officers of Naval Volunteers for outfit allowance on similar terms to those on which the said allowance is granted to Volunteer land officers.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The question is still under consideration.

    Demerara Labour Troubles.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the action taken by the Governor of Demerara in the recent labour troubles; whether he is aware that the Governor instructed the employers not to negotiate or concede the claims of the transport workers and general labourers, promising, in the event of disturbance, the intervention of armed police; and whether, in future, steps will be taken to prevent the interference of His Majesty's representatives in the Colonies in negotiations between workpeople and employers respecting wages and conditions of employment.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): It is hardly possible conveniently or indeed intelligibly to deal within the limits of an ordinary question

    1093
    and answer with the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have therefore laid Papers before Parliament in which the Governor's action in discouraging compliance with demands for higher rates of wages, his reasons for acting as he did, and the Secretary of State's opinion of his policy are extensively set forth.
    MR. O'GRADY: Has the information been obtained from official sources or did the Colonial Office take care to ask the views of the men's leaders and of the employers?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The information fills a very extensive Blue-book and I think the hon. Gentleman will find it presents a tolerably complete view of these unfortunate occurrences.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Has instructions been given that nothing of the kind must again occur?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I think the hon. Gentleman will find on reading the Blue-book that the position taken up by the Government from the beginning has been to warn the Governor to be careful only to intervene on grounds of the public safety and not to use the forces of the Crown for the purpose of adjusting wages disputes between the workers and their employers.

    Women Franchise in South Africa.
    MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to include the political enfranchisement of women in the constitution which is about to be conferred upon the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

    The Transvaal War Contribution.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the mine owners in South Africa have paid any of the £30,000,000 promised by them; and, if not, what action is contemplated by the present Government to redeem this money.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am unable for the present to add anything to the Answer
    1094
    given to the hon. Member for the Bosworth Division of Leicester on 21st February,† but I would take this opportunity of reminding hon. Members that the arrangement was not entered into by the mine owners only. Some misunderstanding appears to have arisen from confusing the proposed payment of £30,000,000 by the Colony with the undertaking of certain financial houses to underwrite, on stated conditions, £10,000,000 of a loan to be raised by the Transvaal Government for the purpose of the contribution.
    MR. BELLOC: Has any of the £10,000,000 been paid?
    MR. CHURCHILL: One condition of the underwriting the £10,000,000 by the financial houses was that the condition of the market should be favourable to the raising of the loan. That condition unfortunately has not been realised, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman we shall not lose sight of the matter.

    The Souffriere Disaster.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what amount of the fund, raised in 1902 for the specific purpose of relieving distress caused by the eruption of the Souffriere volcano in St. Vincent, remains unspent; and to what purpose it is proposed to apply the balance of the fund.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Administrator of St. Vincent reported on the 9th of December, 1905, that the unexpended credit balance of the fund in the books of the Colony amounted on that date to £30,515 11s. 5d. Expenditure on certain services intended to repair the injury to the island caused by the eruptions has been authorised; and instructions have been given for the retention of the sum of £25,000 as a permanent investment. The interest on this amount will be devoted to defraying the cost of poor relief in St. Vincent, and the principal will be retained as a special reserve to meet any possible recurrence of acute distress in the future.

    Colonial Governments and Chinese Labour.
    MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary
    † See (4) Debates, clii., 338.

    1095
    of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the incompleteness of the information contained in the volumes of correspondence, he will publish, as a Parliamentary Paper, the telegrams of the Premiers of Australia and New Zealand, and the Resolutions of the Houses of Parliament of Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony on the subject of Chinese labour for the Transvaal, and the purport of any similar action taken by any other Colonial Premiers or Colonial Houses of Parliament.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The expressions of opinion to which the hon. Member refers have already been published in Parliamentary Papers. For Australia see page 28 of Cd. 1941 and page 3 of Cd. 2104; for New Zealand page 231 of Cd. 1895, page 28 of Cd. 1941, page 47 of Cd. 2401; for the Cape Colony pages 44, 45, and 54 of Cd. 1895; and for Natal page 3 of Cd. 1986. It would be contrary to practice and rule to reprint these Papers.

    Port-of-Spain Municipal Council.
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there is a strong feeling in the Colony of Trinidad in favour of the re-establishment of the elective municipal council of the borough of Port-of-Spain, abolished during his tenure of office by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; and whether the Secretary of State contemplates any action in the matter.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The question of the municipal government of Port-of-Spain was referred by the Governor to a local committee, who presented an interim report on the 31st of January. They recommended that the existing authorities exercising municipal functions in Port-of-Spain should be amalgamated; but on the question of the constitution of the future municipal authority they were only able to arrive at a negative recommendation, viz., that the proposal that it should be composed partly of elected and partly of nominated members should be abandoned. The Secretary of State is not at present in possession of the Governor's views on the subject, and must, therefore, defer for the present any statement as to future policy. If my hon. friend has
    1096
    special knowledge of this question I should be glad if he would communicate with me, so that I may bring his views to the notice of the Secretary of State.

    Import Duties in Morocco—The Spirit Trade.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Plenipotentiary at the Algeciras Conference voted against the proposal of the Moorish delegates to put a duty of 100 per cent. ad valorem on all spirituous, liquors imported into Morocco; and whether any explanation of the vote can be given.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): It does not appear that any vote was taken on a separate proposal about spirituous, liquor. There were general proposals to raise the duties on all imported trade by duties varying from 20 to 100 per cent. The unanimous opinion of all the delegates was that this would render all trade impossible, and they objected to the proposals as a whole. I hope that special measures for dealing with liquor traffic may be taken before the Conference separates, and, if so, they will be supported by the British delegate.

    British Trade with Siberia.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any consuls or vice-consuls representing the British Empire in any of the ports or cities in Siberia; and whether, in view of our growing trade with that country, he will consider the advisability of establishing a consul at either Omsk, Tomsk, Irkurtz, Vladivostock, or some other city in that country.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: There are no British Consular Officers at present in Siberia; there was a British Commercial Agent at Vladivostock from November, 1902, to March, 1904, and the question of a fresh appointment is under consideration. No representations have recently been made to the Foreign Office by those interested in trade with Siberia in favour of the establishment of consulates at the places mentioned, but the suggestion will not be lost sight of. Their creation

    1097
    would, of course, require the consent of the Russian Government.

    Brussels Sugar Convention.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any statement can yet be made to the House as to the nature of the fresh instructions to be addressed to the British delegate attending the Permanent Committee under the Sugar Convention, in reference to the adjourned subject of the penalisation of sugar imports from Brazil, now postponed from March to May; and whether the protocols of the October sitting can be placed as usual in the Library.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No statement can yet be made as to the instructions to be given to the British delegate. The answer to the second Question is in the negative. The protocols have now been placed in the Library.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance to this country of the decisions arrived at by the Permanent Committee appointed under the Brussels Sugar Convention, he will arrange that, immediately upon the receipt by the Foreign Office of the procès-verbaux of any of its proceedings, they shall then forthwith be printed, either in the original French or accompanied by an English translation, and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: These procès-verbaux are usually bulky. They shall, however, be sent to the Library of the House with as little delay as possible. The last set in the form in which it has been received has been placed in the Library. The bound volume has not yet been issued.

    Commercial Union between Servia and Bulgaria.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the commercial union as originally concluded between Servia and Bulgaria has the approval of His Majesty's Government; and whether any steps have been or are being taken in support of it.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government were not consulted by either country as to the expediency of the arrangement. The Answer to the second Question is in the negative.

    Fifeshire Mine Inspection.
    MR. J. HOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the output of coal in Fifeshire has doubled during the last twenty years, and looking to the number of colliery disasters in the county recently, he will appoint additional inspectors of mines, and make it a condition that one, at least, shall reside in Fifeshire.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The question whether any improvement can be made in the present system of administering the Mines Acts is one of those that are to be referred to the proposed Royal Commission on Mines. The needs of Scotland will, no doubt, be fully considered by the Commission.

    Factory Inspectors' Promotions.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of providing the means of promotion for the assistant factory inspectors by occasionally reserving an appointment as factory inspector for competition amongst experienced assistants only, the appointment to be made after a special examination, arranged with regard to the practical knowledge which such experienced assistants should possess.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I propose to take into consideration the position, generally, of factory inspectors' assistants, including the question of the opportunities to be given them for obtaining promotion. The hon. Member's suggestion deserves and will receive attention.

    Waiters' Hours of Labour.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to limit the hours of employment of waiters, waitresses, and bar attendants; and, if so, can he give

    1099
    the approximate date when such legislation will be introduced.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Under the Shop Hours Act of 1892 young persons, namely, those under eighteen, may not be employed for more than seventy-four hours a week, including meal times, in public houses or refreshment houses. Otherwise there is no limit on the employment of waiters, etc., but I am afraid I cannot make any promise as to legislation on this subject.

    Vivisection.
    MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the uneasiness prevailing in the public mind on the practice of vivisection, he will advise His Majesty's Government to grant a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole system.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The present law was based on the Report of the Royal Commission of 1876. Since then there have been great changes in medicine and the methods of scientific research. I assent to the view that it is desirable that an inquiry should be held, and I will consider what form the inquiry should take.

    Wisbech Vaccination Cases.
    MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to cases before the magistrates sitting at Wisbech on 24th February, when several labourers were summoned and fined for breaches of the Vaccination Acts, although they had previously, in accordance with the provisions of the Acts, pleaded their conscientious objections to vaccination before the same court and had been refused the exemption certificate; and whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to cases where magistrates in North West Norfolk constantly refuse to grant these exemptions, though the applicants lose a day's wages and give other proofs of their conscientious objections.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry in this matter from the County Bench sitting at Wisbech, to which I presume the Question relates, but I find that
    1100
    the facts are not quite correctly stated in the Question. It is reported to me that the five persons summoned to the court under the Vaccination Acts on the day mentioned were not fined, but were simply ordered to have their children vaccinated, and that none of these five had ever made application to that court for certificates of exemption.
    MR. GEORGE WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in several of the cases alluded to the men had costs laid on them to the amount of 10s. 6d., nearly a week's wages?
    MR. CROOKS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make some arrangement by which men without losing a day's work may apply for a certificate?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am quite aware that it presses hard in individual cases, but I have to administer the law as it stands, and I do not see how I can grant relief in the direction indicated.
    MR. CROOKS: Will you make it known to the justices that they must grant certificates where there is a conscientious objection?
    MR. GLADSTONE: A circular was issued two or three years ago to justices' clerks. I will consider if it is desirable to issue another.

    River Wandle.
    MR. ROSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway are sinking a well adjacent to their railway at Carshalton with the intention of pumping water for the supply of their stations in London, and that the result of this action will be seriously to lower the level of the River Wandle, to deprive the mills situate on that river of the water power on which they rely for carrying on their trade, and seriously to endanger the health of a large district; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): The matter would not appear to be one in which

    1101
    the Department have authority to intervene, but I have communicated with the railway company, and have received a reply of which I am sending my hon. friend a copy. I may say that the company, relying upon expert advice, state that there is no possibility that their borings will have the results feared.

    Private Bags in Post Offices.
    MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that it was the recognised custom up to the end of 1905 for private-bag fees to be collected by sub-postmasters, for the fees to be charged according to regulations, for these fees to be retained by the sub-postmasters and not subject to be remitted to the head office, and that the sub-postmasters upon receiving their appointments were assured that these fees would not be interfered with or diverted, he will explain why, in December last, regulations were issued directing these fees to be paid to the head office, thus taking them out of the hands of the sub-postmasters, and say if the whole of these fees will be refunded to the sub-postmasters; and will these fees, in future, be counted as salaries or as emoluments.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SIDNEY BUXTON,): Prior to the 1st of January last all private box and bag fees at sub-offices not paid on the Head Office Scale were collected by the sub-postmasters who retained the fees. It was found that, although the same scale of charges was in force as now, many sub-postmasters did not charge the proper fees, and in some cases made no charge at all. In order to ensure that the fees chargeable should be uniform at all sub-offices and thus obviate complaint from the public it was decided that, beginning with this year, the fees should be collected by the Department direct, and be repaid to the sub-postmasters who were entitled to payment, in the form of allowances, paid at the same time as the salaries are paid. They will be counted as emoluments.

    Perforated Stamps—Dishonest Postmasters.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to
    1102
    the case of a bankrupt postmaster named Braham, who was in the habit of perforating stamps for various large city firms, and who on his bankruptcy owed some £4,000 for stamps so received and not returned; whether he will consider the question of compensation to the firms so defrauded; whether it is his practice to secure a deposit or other security for the honesty of such postmasters; and whether it is his intention to prosecute in this case.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am aware of the bankruptcy in question. Mr. Braham was a sub-postmaster in Tabernacle Street, E.C., who in addition to the business conducted for the Post Office, carried on a private business as a perforating press maker and perforator of postage stamps. The Post Office does not supply the public with perforated stamps, or sell stamps at other prices than those indicated by their face value or on other than cash terms. Mr. Braham's transactions in relation to the perforation of stamps being thus of a purely private character, there is no ground for compensating Mr. Braham's creditors at the expense of the taxpayer. A sub-postmaster is required to find security for his fidelity in that capacity, but not for debts incurred in his private business. So far as the Post Office is concerned no question of prosecution arises.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Cannot the perforating be done at Somerset House?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to press the Question. I remember that while I was Postmaster-General considerable difficulty arose in regard to similar oases. I think the point is worth considering.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes, I will consider it. No doubt people who have bought stamps for perforating have lost money under these cases.

    Customs Department Abstractor Clerks.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the scale of overtime pay now enjoyed by the clerks in the Customs Department will be made to apply to the abstractor clerks in the

    1103
    Statistical Office, who are engaged upon preparing the Board of Trade Returns of Imports and Exports, and of whom many are now paid considerably less per hour for overtime work than for day work, the nature and responsibility of the work being the same.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The abstractors are a class of clerks with a scale of overtime payments common to the whole Civil Service. The Customs Clerks form a class peculiar to the Customs Department. I see no reason in the fact that these two entirely distinct classes serve in the same Department, for giving to the abstractors a higher rate of overtime payment than that which obtains throughout the Service.

    Trades Union Wages Rates in Government Contracts.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total increase of wages which he anticipates will be payable to employees of the Admiralty, War Office, Civil and Revenue Departments, respectively, in consequence of the decision of His Majesty's Government to pay in all cases the local trade union rate of wages; and whether a similar condition will be embodied in all Government contracts in future.
    MR. MCKENNA (for Mr. ASQUITH): I cannot accept the suggestion in the Question as an adequate or accurate statement of the policy of the Government, which was fully explained by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, in reply to a deputation which waited upon them on the 22nd ulto., and in this House by my right hon. friend the Member for Dundee in his speech upon the Navy Estimates on the 1st inst. † I am not at present in a position to estimate the additional charge (if any) which the adoption of that policy will impose upon the Exchequer. The question of what modification (if any) is needed in the form of Government contracts is under consideration.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Am I to understand that the Treasury
    † See (4) Debates, clii, 1374–5.
    1104
    sanctioned this proposal without having any estimate of the cost involved?
    MR. MCKENNA: They could not have an estimate of the cost involved until they knew the amount of work to be done.

    Whisky Prosecution.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the convictions against traders in North London for selling patent spirit as whisky, and what action he proposes to take to prevent the repetition of such sales; whether he will in future allow operations to be carried on in Government warehouses in which patent spirit is bottled in bond, described as fine old Scotch whisky, and exported to our Colonies.
    MR. MCKENNA: My attention has been called to the convictions. The Excise Duty Acts do not discriminate between pot-still and patent-still spirits, and, as the duly upon both is the same, the Inland Revenue officials, whose functions are confined to the protection of the Revenue, have no authority to concern themselves in the matter. I understand that notice of appeal against the decision of the magistrate has been given, so that in any case the matter is still sub judice.

    Graduation of Income-Tax.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is necessary or expedient to have a public inquiry before the income-tax can be graduated and differentiated; and, if so, whether he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject upon an early date.
    MR. MCKENNA (for Mr. ASQUITH): The practical difficulties in the way of graduating or differentiating the income-tax are very considerable, and I am certainly of opinion that some sort of inquiry—probably by a Select Committee, but I am not prepared to commit myself as to this at the present moment—should take place before any definite scheme is formulated. I will make a further statement at an early date.
    MR. CROOKS: What about the Committee appointed by Mr. Ritchie?
    MR. MCKENNA: That Committee reported long ago.
    MR. CROOKS: What was the result.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Oh, this question was excluded from that Committee. What does my hon. friend mean by an early date?
    MR. MCKENNA: That Question had better be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    State Pensions.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how many persons are in receipt of pensions from the National Exchequer, and the cost of such pensions for the last financial year for which the figures are available.
    MR. MCKENNA (for Mr. ASQUITH): The approximate figures for 1905–6 are as follows:—

    Pensioners.

    Cost of Pensions.

    £

    Naval

    45,822

    2,297,635

    Military

    103,542

    3,489,000

    Civil

    22,451

    2,116,734

    Totals

    171,815

    7,903,369

    MR. CROOKS: Would that come off the estimated amount of £26,000,000 if every one over sixty-five years of age had 5s. a week.
    MR. MCKENNA: A certain amount would, but a great deal of it is in respect of persons under sixty-five years of age.

    The Mall Improvement.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether all the lands and buildings, necessary for the completion and opening of the new road from St. James's Park to Charing Cross, have been purchased; when the purchase was completed; and when the foundations of the buildings and entrance to Charing Cross will be completed.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The Answer to the first Question is Yes; to the second Question,
    1106
    1883 to 1885; to the third Question, The foundations ought to be completed by the end of June this year.

    New Government Offices in Parliament Street.
    COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether work has been suspended on the new Government offices at the corner of Great George Street and Parliament Street; and, if so, for what period.
    MR. HARCOURT: No, Sir.

    King's Scholarship Examination.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the xPresident of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the pupil teachers at Northwich entered for King's Scholarships last December, and have now been informed that the result of the examination will not be published until June; and whether, seeing that this decision entails on these pupil teachers loss of salary and prevents them from advertising for places, he can take steps to publish the result sooner.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): The difficulty referred to in the Question will not occur again. The present year is a year of transition, examinations being held both in December last and at Easter; it is necessary to announce the results of the two examinations simultaneously in order that those entering for the examination in December may not have a preference for the Training Colleges.

    Irish Land Commission.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland what statutory authority, if any, has the Irish Land Commission for discriminating between the parties in rent-fixing cases by requiring a tenant serving an originating notice to have a fair rent fixed, or on whom such a notice is served by a landlord, to endorse on his notice or in reply to the landlord's notice a statement of improvements made by him or by his predecessor in title, and for treating as the landlord's improvements not so claimed, though manifestly made by the tenant or his predecessor; and

    1107
    will he explain why is not the landlord subjected to a corresponding requirement.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the practice of the Land Commission Court. Under Rules issued on March 13th, 1899, full particulars of improvements claimed by a landlord are required to be given to the same extent as of improvements claimed by a tenant; and the Rules are the same whether the originating notice is served by the landlord or by the tenant.
    MR. GINNELL: Has any landlord complied with the rule?
    MR. CHERRY: Yes, Sir, I have known cases.

    Mr. Gardiner, R.M.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Gardiner, R.M., who, at the petty sessions at Ardrahan, on the 6th ultimo, admitted evidence on oath which was calculated to expose men to odium and obloquy, without any necessity whatever arising for such action on his part; and whether he will take steps to prevent Mr. Gardiner from following such a procedure in future.
    MR. CHERRY: The resident magistrate referred to informs me that he did not receive any evidence which he did not believe to be pertinent to the case before him. I have no power whatever to control the admission of evidence by magistrates in cases pending before them. This jurisdiction, so far as it exists, is rested in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland.

    Stud Horses in Ireland.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland bought a sire horse named Balsamo in England and sold him to an Irish farmer purchaser for sire purposes; if so, what price did the Department pay for the horse and for what amount was he sold; was there a profit made on the transaction; and, if so, will he state whether it
    1108
    was contemplated, when the Department was created, that it should make a profit out of any business or matter connected with its functions in aid of agricultural development; and will he inquire whether any profits are made by the Department; and, if so, will he take steps to prevent such incidents in the future.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. It is not considered desirable to publish particulars of the prices paid and received by the Department in individual cases. I may, however, state that the Department have made no profit upon transactions in this branch of their work taken as a whole.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Have they made a profit out of this transaction?
    MR. BRYCE: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will speak to him privately.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is it the policy of the Department to make profits on these transactions?
    MR. BRYCE: I think the Department is justified, if it makes a loss on one transaction, in recouping it on another.

    Land Commissioners' Practice.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the increasing number and urgency of complaints against the amounts of judicial rents, he will produce a specimen paper, illustrating the actual practice of the Land Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners, especially their treatment of improvements, the comparative scale of prices of farm produce and of labour in the particular district with which they are dealing during the preceding fifteen years, and the method of using the scale in ascertaining what the judicial rent ought to be.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the practice of the Land Commission and of the Sub-Commission Courts in fixing judicial rents, the treatment of improvements, and other matters referred to in the Question, is governed by the various Land Law Acts, the rules prescribed by those Acts, and the numerous judicial decisions interpreting the law as to the

    1109
    fixing of fair rents. The schedule attached to the order in each case, commonly called the pink schedule, gives the information the hon. Member requires as fully as it can be given. These schedules can be obtained in every case by either of the parties.
    MR. GINNELL: Can hon. Members have a copy of the rules and instructions issued to the Commissioners?
    MR. BRYCE: The regulations have already been laid on the Table and are available to hon. Members, There will be no difficulty about supplying copies of the instructions.

    Irish Land Purchase Loans.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the explanation of the fact that 3,812 loans for £1,459,530 were refused under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts, 1885 and 1888, under which loans for £9,992,536 were issued; that under the Acts of 1891 to 1896, 4,355 loans for £1,300,469 were refused, and £13,190,540 loans issued; while under the Land Act of 1903, under which £9,212,650 loans have been issued, the loans refused only number 61 for £25,371.
    MR. BRYCE: With reference to the number of applications refused under the earlier Acts, I beg to refer to my reply to a Question of the hon. Member for North Westmeath on Thursday last.† The Land Commissioners inform me that the number 61 applications for £25,371 mentioned in the latter part of the present Question, is, as will be seen from the Parliamentary Return of proceedings of the Irish Land Commission during the month of January, 1906, page 9, limited to applications for advances under the Act of 1903 made to the Land Commission other than the Estate Commissioners, which were refused, dismissed, or withdrawn for defects in title, irregularity, insufficiency of security or other causes. The total number of applications for advances under the Act of 1903 (including the refused applications referred to) made to the Land Commission other than the Estates Commissioners was 5,086 for £949,427. Apparently the figures
    †See (4) Debates, cliii., 619.
    1110
    £9,212,650 were quoted in the Question under a misapprehension. It would not be possible within the limits of an Answer to enter upon an explanation of these complicated statistics.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is it not the fact that while advances were refused under former Land Purchase Acts because the inspectors held that the land was not sufficient security under the Act of 1903, although the prices had been raised by five or six years' purchase no refusals had taken place?
    MR. BRYCE: I ought to have notice of that Question. I may say the provisions of the new Act are rather different from those of the previous Act.

    Irish Training Colleges.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the action of the Government in granting out of the Irish Development Grant a sum of £50,000 for buildings for the Government college in Marlborough Street, Dublin, he will secure fair treatment to the Belfast, Limerick, and Waterford training colleges by placing a sum for a free home grant on the same fund.
    MR. BRYCE: I went very fully into this matter in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of Thursday last. Without entering further into the question whether fair treatment has been accorded to the provincial colleges mentioned, it must, I fear, be said that (as I am advised) the Ireland Development Grant Fund is not at present in a condition to bear fresh charges of the nature suggested.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it a fact that fresh charges are being put on this fund while nothing is being put on for educational purposes?
    MR. BRYCE: Some have been put on and others taken off. Charges of different kinds are being constantly put on.

    Queen's College, Belfast.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state

    1111
    when and by whom, and to whom, was the promise made to provide further funds for Queen's College, Belfast; has any public statement of this promise been made; and whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the late Prime Minister, that it was absolutely impossible for him, with decency, to go to the House of Commons and say he wanted £3,000 or £4,000 a year more for Queen's College, Belfast; and to the further statement made by the same Gentleman on April 13th, 1905, that "one thing is certain, this House cannot provide the means; it is impossible for any Government or any Chief Secretary to come to this House and ask for additional funds for Queen's College, Belfast, while leaving wholly untouched the grievances which have been brought forward as to the condition of other educational institutions in Ireland."
    MR. MCKENNA: In 1893 the Treasury refused to sanction certain new works at Belfast on the ground that "the time has now come when grants to the buildings of the Queen's colleges in Ireland should no longer be given unless efforts are made by the localities chiefly interested to meet the grant by Government by a substantial contribution from private sources." The present grant of £5,400 has been placed on the Estimates for 1906-7 in order to meet the local effort which has been made in accordance with this suggestion. I was not aware of the statements of the late Prime Minister to which the hon. Member refers; and the present Government cannot, of course, undertake any responsibility for them. But I think the right hon. Gentleman was probably referring to increases of the permanent endowments of the colleges, rather than to occasional grants for the erection or extension of buildings, such as Parliament has been accustomed to make for many years past whenever a case for assistance has been made out on behalf of any of the colleges.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has the hon. Gentleman taken occasion to read the speech of the late Prime Minister, made on April 13th, 1905, in which he said it was impossible for any Government or any Parliamentary Secretary to come to this House and ask for additional funds for Queen's College, Belfast, while
    1112
    leaving wholly untouched the grievances of other institutions?
    MR. MCKENNA: Since the hon. and learned Gentleman put down the Question I have referred to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am confirmed in the view that I take, that he was only referring to endowments and not grants for buildings, because since that time grants have been made for such buildings.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Are the present or the late Government responsible for the existing system?
    MR. MCKENNA: The actual reckoning of part of the Estimates was made by the late Government, but the present Government is bound to accept the whole responsibility of the Estimates as they are actually presented to this House.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of my Question—by whom and to whom was this promise given?
    MR. MCKENNA: I thought the hon. Gentleman would have interpreted the reply that there was not an actual promise, but an implied promise.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman says he is not responsible for the pledges of the late Government contained in this Question. Is he responsible, or are the late Government responsible for promising this money?
    MR. MCKENNA: The present Government is undoubtedly responsible for placing on the Estimates the sum of £5,400 for buildings for Belfast.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has not the hon. Gentleman said that the reason they made this Estimate was that they felt bound to carry out the promise made last year by the late Government?
    MR. MCKENNA: That is certainly true; but the Estimate, as a matter of fact, is presented to this House by the present Government.

    Evicted Tenants on the Clanricarde Estate.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

    1113
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of evicted tenants at present upon the Clanricarde Estate; Also the number reinstated since 1903; and what steps, if any, the Government propose to take towards the reinstatement of those who are still homeless.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have received 129 applications for reinstatement from evicted tenants on this estate, and three of these have been allotted farms on a neighbouring estate. As regards the remaining cases, the Commissioners intend to proceed in accordance with the Regulations recently issued.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out no hope that these tenants will be reinstated?
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners are doing their best.

    First-term Rents in Tipperary.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Commission, which recently adjudicated in Tipperary county, raised first-term rents in several cases; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction caused thereby because of the fall in the prices of farm produce and increased cost of production since first-term rents were fixed, he will ask the Commissioners to explain on what basis they arrived at their decisions.
    MR. BRYCE: The Land Commission inform me that the answer to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. During the past twelve months, 163 second-term rents were adjudicated upon in Sub-Commission Courts in this County. In 143 of these cases the first-term rents were reduced; in ten cases they were confirmed, and in ten cases they were raised. As I have already explained in other cases, the decisions of Sub-Commission Courts are judicial decisions, and the remedy for any dissatisfaction which may exist is to be found in the right of appeal provided by law. I may, however, add that, as I am informed, the prices of produce and the cost of production are considered by the Commissioners in arriving at their decision.
    MR. CULLINAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners for the grounds of their decision?
    MR. BRYCE: No, they are a judicial body, and I have no right to call on them to explain their decisions.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it intended to keep them in office as a judicial body after March 31st next?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Untenanted Lands.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the action adopted by many landlords of parceling out their untenanted lands, and disposing of their occupation interests, by public auction or private sale, to persons who are led to believe they can purchase such holdings under the Land Act of 1903; and whether, as the practice hampers the working of the said Act, by debarring the Estates Commissioners from purchasing those tracts of land for the purpose of distribution amongst the classes enumerated in Clause 2, and further provided in Clause 8, he will take steps to stop this system, secure the right of option to the Estates Commissioners to purchase such holdings, and save Clauses 2 and 8 from becoming inoperative.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they believe the practice in question has been resorted to in some cases, but that no specific case of the kind has so far been dealt with by them. If any such case should come before the Commissioners, they will have due regard to the provisions of the Act relative to parcels or newly created holdings.

    Galway County Rate.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the county rate demanded of the city of Galway is nearly double what it was in previous years; that the increase is largely due to charges for extra police; and whether, in view of the order and peace that have always prevailed in Galway City, he will take steps to restrict in future the facility which

    1115
    the authorities have of obtaining extra police.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board have ascertained that the amounts of county rate demanded from the Galway Urban District Council for the past four years were £4,580, £5,910, £4,346, £4,431, respectively. The amount for the coming financial year is £6,695. This latter amount includes no charge for extra police. The increase in the demand for the coming year is stated to be caused by increased county charges, including asylum and union charges. I may, however, add that a demand for £557 in respect of extra police for last year is outstanding against nine districts in the county, of which the Galway Urban District is one. The amount payable by that district will, therefore, be comparatively small. The sanction of the Lord-Lieutenant is necessary before a charge can be imposed upon local authorities in respect of extra police, and the hon. Member may rely that no such charge will be made unless the circumstances of the case fully warrant it.

    Galway Bay Breakwater.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has recieved a copy of a resolution adopted by the Galway Urban District Council, calling attention to the negotiations during the viceroyalty of Lord Carnarvon for the construction of a breakwater between the mainland and Mutton Island, in Galway Bay, and the promises then made, pointing out also the urgent necessity for improvements, and praying the Government to proceed with these works of public utility; and, if so, what action will the Government take.
    MR. BRYCE: The project in question was bound up with a scheme for building a Convict Labour Prison in Galway, the intention being that the breakwater should be mainly constructed by convict labour. The scheme, however, was abandoned twenty years ago, and a convict prison at Maryborough has since been established. It is not the intention of the Government to revive the project.

    Irish School Regulations.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
    1116
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether managers and teachers of boys' national schools having the services of duly-qualified assistant teachers are at liberty to enrol pupils under seven years of age0; and, as the Commissioners of National Education have given an undertaking to exclude such schools from the operation of Rule 127 (b), will he recommend the Board to allow the enrolment of pupils as if Rule 127 (b) did not exist.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to a somewhat similar Question put by the hon. Member for West Wicklow on Friday last.† The Commissioners of National Education inform me that boys under seven may be enrolled in a boys' school under a master where there is a qualified female assistant; and of course such boys may also be enrolled in a boys' infant school under a mistress. In the case of other schools for boys only, the terms of Rule 127 (b) are strictly enforced, subject to the exemptions set out in the rule.
    In reply to a further Question Mr. Bryce said he would consider any statements which might be made as to the effect of this rule.

    Irish Piers and Harbours.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the legal difficulties referred to in the Report of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, at page 10 of the Fourth Annual General Report, 1903–4 [Cd. 2509], that prevent county authorities from taking advantage of the offers of the Department to render aid in the construction and improvement of piers and harbours in Ireland; are these difficulties removable by legislation or otherwise; and, if so, will an effort be made to remove them.
    MR. BRYCE: In the case of new marine works to be constructed by county councils the maximum sum which the council can contribute is limited by Sec. 67 of the Grand Jury Act of 1836. (as adapted by the Local Government Ireland Act 1898) to £300. As the section provides that the county can, within this limit, provide for only two-thirds the cost of any such work, it follows that the entire cost of a new work
    † (4) Debates, cliii., 775.

    1117
    to be constructed by a county council under the section is limited to the sum of £450. This difficulty obviously precludes the Department from co-operating with county councils in many cases—such as those in which a larger local contribution should fairly be forthcoming, or where the entire expenditure on a work would exceed £450. The difficulty, I understand, can only be removed by legislation.

    Rent Reductions in County Limerick.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can say what is the average reduction in rents given by the Sub-Commissioners since the passing of the Land Act, 1903, in the county of Limerick; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst the farmers with regard to their decisions; and what are the qualifications of Mr. Croasdale, who fixed such rents.
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member will find full statistics as to the reduction of rents in the appendices to the Annual Reports of the Land Commission. The average will be gathered from these appendices more easily than from any Answer I could give here. The last such Report bears the number Cd. 2648, of 1905. Mr. Croasdale's qualifications are stated in Parliamentary Paper No. Cd. 151, of 1902.
    MR. DELANY: Is not this gentleman's sole qualification for the post to be found in the fact that he is a landlord's son and a major in the militia?
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the matter?
    MR. BRYCE: The whole subject of the Assistant Commissioners will come before me when the new appointments have to be made.

    Irish Fisheries.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Department of Agriculture for Ireland has taken notice of the new methods recently adopted by Norwegian fishermen for the
    1118
    catching and curing at sea of mackerel along the Irish coast; if so, whether the attention of Irish fishermen and merchants has been drawn to such new methods; and whether, seeing that the Irish trade in America in cured mackerel is endangered thereby, the Department will take all necessary steps to bring this industry up to date.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Department that in June last one Norwegian crew came to cure mackerel on the Irish coast, and that the method adopted by the Norwegians was the same as that pursued by the Irish. For over ten years the Norwegians have sent a special class of mackerel, caught on lines and cured at once, to the American market. These consignments were small, and fetched high prices; but the treatment of the fish in such cases is not applicable where large quantities have to be dealt with. The Congested Districts Board have had a Norwegian instructor, expert in this class of curing, on the west coast of Ireland for two years.

    Income-Tax on Irish Land Purchase Agreement.
    MR. COGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a landlord who has entered into an agreement with his tenants for the sale of their holdings under The Land Purchase Act, 1903, and who is receiving interest on the full amount of the purchase price from the tenants until such time as the capital sum may be advanced by the Land Commission, is liable for income-tax under Schedule A; and whether tenants who have paid such income-tax to the collectors thereof will be recouped the amount by the Land Commission pending the completion of the sale.
    MR. MCKENNA: A landlord is liable for income-tax under Schedule A on the annual value of his lands. In the case of sales through the Land Commission, it is the practice of the Inland Revenue Department to accept from the date of the signing of the agreement—the tax on the amount of interest, in lieu of rent payable by the purchaser, in satisfaction of the landlord's liability. It is only in special cases that income-tax could, in such circumstances, be collected from a tenant. But, if it should be so collected, the tenant

    1119
    would be entitled to re-imbursement of the tax paid in respect of the amount payable to the landlord as interest.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked what were the special cases in which the income-tax could be collected from the tenant.
    MR. MCKENNAasked for notice of the Question.

    Galway Post Office.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether be can state what action was taken with regard to the petition presented in February 1905 by the staff of the Galway post office, bearing upon the treatment of the staff, the scale of wages, promotions, and appointments; what was the nature of the Answer sent; and, if none, will he say why.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In connection with this and other memorials asking for a higher maximum of pay, the Department has found it necessary to make detailed inquiries which are not yet completed. Meanwhile no Answer could be given to the Memorialists. The pay of sorting clerks and telegraphists will doubtless be considered by the Select Committee, and I do not therefore propose to deal with individual cases at present. I have recently sanctioned an improvement in the pay of the learners at Galway and elsewhere.

    Keelnabrack (Kerry) National School.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the delay in publishing the new plans for national schools in Ireland is causing dissatisfaction in Ireland; that, in the case of the school at Keelnabrack, Glenbeigh, County Kerry, the National Board now expect the manager to provide additional space for the girls school; and whether, seeing that it is now more than three years since the manager applied for a grant for a new school, and that the publication of the new plans has been delayed for that period, he will state what action he intends to take; and whether the delay in coming to a decision is caused by the Treasury, the National Board or the Irish Government.
    MR. MCKENNA: As to the general Question I must refer the hon. Member
    1120
    to the Answer I gave to him on the 27th February†. The needs of the school at Keelnabrack, which cannot be described as specially urgent, will be dealt with in the general settlement.

    South African Constitution,
    MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what general lines the constitution of the Upper Houses in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony will be established.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I have no statement to make on this subject.
    MR. WALROND: When will the Prime Minister be able to furnish the House with the information I have asked for?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say. The hon. Gentleman seems to know more about it than I do, for he speaks of the Upper Houses of those two Colonies. I have no knowledge whether there will be Upper Houses or not.

    Fiction and Foreign Relations.
    MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether his attention has been called to an advertisement appearing in the morning papers entitled "The Invasion of 1910," and whether the Government can take any steps or express any opinion which will discourage the publication of matter of this sort, calculated to prejudice our relations with other Powers.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was greatly surprised to see the publication to which my hon. friend has referred appearing in some newspapers, even in newspapers of which but a few years ago we were all proud. I do not know what step the Government can take in the matter; I am afraid they can do nothing. We can safely leave it, I think, to be judged by the good sense and good taste of the British people.
    † See (4) Debates, clii., 1028.

  THE ORDER OF QUESTIONS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked the Speaker for an assurance that he was in absolute control of Questions, and that, if he saw that by the system of grouping anything like injustice was done to any one section of Members, he would see that that injustice was remedied, and that Questions were put down in such a way as to give a fair chance to every Member of the House; also, would he see that Questions were put down in their proper place, so as to give a fair chance to everyone?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has endeavoured to invest me with a great many powers which I am certainly not anxious to take upon myself. I will endeavour to do my best to prevent injustice from being done to any private Member or any member of the Government. If any arrangement is come to by the different sections of the House, of course it is my duty to try to carry it out.
  One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

  LABOUR PENSIONS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading To-morrow read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]
NEW BILLS.
  EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (ACCESS TO BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS) BILL.
  "To enable ratepayers to inspect the Books and Documents of Local Education Authorities," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Winfrey, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Massie, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Bridgeman. To be read a second time upon Thursday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
  MARKET GARDENERS'COMPENSATION BILL.
  "To remove certain doubts as to the meaning of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895." Presented by Colonel Long, supported by Mr. Lee, Mr. Channing, and Sir Thomas Esmonde. To be read a second time upon Thursday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]
  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To make provision with respect to the application of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, to the county of Cork." Presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland. To be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 25th May, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  AGED PENSIONERS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 25th May, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection: That they had nominated the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Land Tenure Bill. Mr. Agar-Robartes, Mr. Soares, Sir John Dickson-Poynder, Viscount Helmsley, Mr. Hicks Beach, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. Hay Morgan, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. J. F. Mason, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Newnes, Mr. Nicholls, Viscount Turnour, and Mr. Luke White.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Mr. STUART WORTLEYreported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir James Wodehouse to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to

  1123
  Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure; and Mr. Stuart Wortley to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect to the Notice of Accidents Bill; and Sir Thomas Esmonde to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Mrnufactures, in respect to the Land Tenure Bill.
  Mr. STUART WORTLEYfurther reported from the Chairmen's Panel; hat they had agreed to the following resolution:—That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel be and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place in case of necessity.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

  1. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, 8A, 9, 17, 17A, 17B, 17C, and 20 be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how for such Order has been complied with."

  2. "That, in the case of the Middlesex County Council (Tramways), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  3. "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of 'Electrical Contractors' Association and others,' against the Bill, the said Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

  First Two Resolutions agreed to.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to codify the Law relating to Marine Insurance." [Marine Insurance Bill [Lords.] And, also a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the better Prevention of Corruption." [Prevention of Corruption Bill [Lords.]
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a. Second Time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

  FREE TRADE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12thMarch], "That this House, recognising that in the recent General Election the people of the United Kingdom have demonstrated their unqualified fidelity, to the principles and practice of free trade, deems it right to record its determination to resist any proposal, whether by way of taxation upon foreign corn or of the creation of a general tariff upon foreign goods, to create in this country a system of protection."—(Sir James Kitson.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  Mr. STUART WORTLEYsaid they had often before noticed the kind of foredoomed misdirection of energy with which Liberal Ministries, newly returned to power with large majorities, full of high hopes and charged with serious mandates and drastic missions, had been found in good time expending their force and wasting precious days in debating purely academic reforms and even in purely theoretical discussions. Those Members who had heard the flowers of rhetoric which escaped the Prime Minister the previous night were not surprised to find those obsessions and vicious propensities still in full force. They did not therefore so very greatly wonder why this Motion had been brought on. Of course a precedent had to be sought for, and they were told that it was to be found in Sir Charles Villiers' Motion in 1852. Was that a precedent at all? He did not think it.

  1125
  was a very convenient precedent for the mover of the Resolution, for, against him there were some significant differences between the two cases, differences which he might describe as of a highly ill-omened character. The Villiers' Motion was brought in because, in the first instance, there was a real doubt in the mind of the public as to the attitude of the new House of Commons toward fiscal and economic questions. The House might remember that in that House there were 325 Liberals and 299 Conservatives, and that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives possessed the necessary 327 votes to give them a majority. Consequently, the forty Peelites held the balance between the two parties. The second difference was in the Queen's Speech. In that year the Queen, advised by Lord Derby's Ministry, used words in the Speech about free trade, which were complained of as evasive and even as disrespectful to the House of Commons. Thirdly, the Motion, far from-being engineered and inspired by Ministers, was directed against Ministers and intended as a censure upon them. Another fact concerning Mr. Villiers' Motion was that it was not carried. On the contrary, it was defeated by eighty votes, which was a larger majority than that of Conservatives and Peelites over Liberals, and even of any combination of Liberals with Peelites. Mr. Gladstone himself voted against it. It was defeated, and there was substituted the Resolution which was moved by Lord Palmerston, accepted by Mr. Disraeli and supported by Mr. Gladstone, and which purposely omitted the words "wise, just and beneficial" which the Villier's Motion had applied to the measures known as Corn Law Repeal. Further, by the use of the word "mainly" in a subsequent sentence it purposely refused to recognise unrestricted competition as the sole cause of the improved state of the country, and implied the belief that there were other contributing causes. He might mention also that three days were considered not too much to give to the debate on the subject; and yet they were now told that two days were too much to give to such a subject at this period of the session. On the other hand, in the present case they were given to understand that nothing was more free from doubt than the fiscal views of the Parliament of 1906. They saw for themselves that there were
  1126
  certainly no evasions and nothing disrespectful to the House of Commons in any part of the Speech His Majesty had been advised to deliver. They saw also that the Motion was really moved for the purpose of showing how large a majority the present Ministry commanded in the House, and of course it was not moved as a vote of censure on the Government, but was moved by a much honoured supporter of theirs; it was moved at the instance of the Ministers themselves. These things by themselves marked a good deal of difference between the two cases. But there was something more to which he would ask the attention of the House, something connected more closely with the Amendment which he had to move. Mr. Villiers, when he drew up his Motion, did not by any parenthetical or participial recitals seek to attribute any particular interpretation to the verdict then recently given by the electors of the country. Unlike Mr. Villiers, the hon. Baronet started by postulating that the electors had said a certain thing. He doubted whether the hon. Baronet was better advised than Mr. Villiers in making his preliminary assumption. Mr. Villiers was well advised in not asking the House to do more than to say something for itself, but the hon. Baronet asked the House to say that somebody else had said something. Surely anyone could see that what the electors had said could not be affected by anything that the hon. Baronet might move, or that, after the event, this House might resolve. Thus the hon. Baronet had put in the forefront of his Motion that which clearly distinguished it from that of Mr. Villiers. Those for whom he was speaking not only held that his objectionable recital ought not to have been propounded to them at all, but they objected to being asked, even in a subordinate sentence, to affirm its truth. They found it a very disputable thing to affirm either that the electors did say any one thing as to fiscal policy, or that that one thing was describable by the term free trade. In spite of his dubious preamble, there was, nevertheless, evidence that the hon. Baronet had been aided by some artful advisers in the framing of his Motion, at least as regarded its later and more strictly operative part. Desiring to reduce as much as possible the number of dissentients, he had carefully limited the class of proposals that he

  1127
  asked the House to condemn. He did not condemn all general tariffs, nor yet all taxation of corn; but only such general tariffs and such taxation of corn as were to be the means of "creating in this country a system of protection." So far, the hon. Baronet might have had a chance of carrying with him those Members who might favour a small duty on foreign corn as a means, not to protection, but to some other end. But he had gone further, and had sought to commit the House to a question-begging paragraph, both as to what the late elections meant and as to what free trade meant. Now, though he might agree with the hon. Baronet in condemning measures designed to create in this country a system of protection, he, for one, was not going to be thereby, swept into his net along with those who were ready to swallow this ingenious and unhistorical recital. He called it an unhistorical recital for many reasons, but chiefly because he considered that besides free trade and fiscal policy, there were many contributing causes to the result of the late elections. He should like to ask any gentleman who returned now to his constituents what sort of a reception he would get if he were to say that his appeals in reference to "slavery" in regard to the employment of the yellow man in the mines in South Africa had nothing to do with his success. They all knew that in the late election there was enlisted upon the side of Ministerial candidates that extremely powerful force which was best described as fully mobilised political nonconformists upon the war path. They had those earnest, almost fanatical, men working their hardest for them in the cause of education and possibly also of temperance. The men we knew, the cause we knew, but the tools were Chinese labour, trade disputes, even the Post Office Vote, expenditure, inefficiency, and some rash promises of economy. He did not speak without some texts. There were some very distinguished Gentlemen sitting opposite who took up the position that these were contributing causes. The Minister of Education at Halifax, on February 10th, said that in the election—
  "Education formed the fiercest battle cry."
  Again, the same right hon. Gentleman, who had had so much to do with the
  1128
  education of the electorate, said that no one
  "seems to hare realised the extraordinary unpopularity in all parts of the country of the introduction of labour from the Far East into one of our Colonies. Then in the second place, there was the fiscal question. Thank Heaven they would not talk about the fiscal question in the new Parliament."
  Then there was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, speaking at Six Bells, on January 25th;he said—
  "The country was declaring with no uncertain voice in favour of cheap food, against the Education Act, the Licensing Act, and Chinese labour, and in favour of efficiency of administration and economy in expenditure."
  The Member for Huddersfield, a representative private Member much trusted by His Majesty's Ministers, attributed the result primarily to reckless and wasteful expenditure, and, secondly, to free trade. Then he came to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General. He said, at Cambridge, on February 8th, that if the Liberal Party had any mandate it was that the question of Chinese labour should be justly and faithfully dealt with. Lastly, he came to the chairman of the Labour Party, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who, in a moment of rather natural disappointment after a deputation to the new Ministers, said that—
  "Probably not 10 per cent. of the Liberal Members won their seats without making more or less definite promises in regard to old-age-pensions."
  Then there was the general depravity theory. The Under-Secretary for India had expressed it, and the Prime Minister seemed to have been possessed by the idea. He said—
  "The swing of the pendulum, they say! Why, it was a revolt. It was a great uprising against a doctrine."
  The general depravity of the late Ministry.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Did I use the word "depravity"?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: No. It is my descriptive term, to which I adhere. Proceeding, he said the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "It was a great uprising against a practice in public life, a method of government abhorrent to the conscience and the heart of the nation."

  1129
  He thought that was rather more than depravity.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Different.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Different and worse. Then, he continued, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  As a by-product of the general election we have given protection its quietus for the time, at all events."
  Even if they had none of these causes, they would still have had the striking fact that in many places—he ought to say most places—the only arguments used as to fiscal policy by opponents of fiscal reform were really arguments against a fiscal policy that no one had proposed at all. In most, possibly in all places, the only thing that he could say for sure as to the local verdict on fiscal matters was that the people were frightened at the prospect of dear bread, and registered at the poll their determination not to be carried back to the "starving forties." To say that they did not want to go back to the "starving forties," is not the same thing as saying that they would never change any, even the smallest, detail in our fiscal system. Still less could they say that to cling to our present system, and to refuse to lift a finger to untax our exports, was to advocate free trade. Our present system was not free trade. Hon. Gentlemen opposite when they described themselves as free traders misdescribed themselves. It was very difficult to find a simple phrase to describe a lop-sided thing, and he would defy any man to find any description, if it were true and exhaustive, in shorter words than "unreciprocated free imports." Thus it was that the preamble drove away from the hon. Baronet's respectable and even unexceptionable operative words about "creating a system of protection," adherents who might have been attracted. But there was a further reason why he wished to relieve the hon. Baronet of the embarrassment that he had created for himself. His preamble prejudiced the position and tied the hands of the Ministry in whose interest he was moving. In the election of 1900, and afterward, they were told that because South African affairs were the chief issue they were also the only issue, and that they were thereby debarred from embarking on legislative enterprise almost of any kind,
  1130
  and certainly of the kind that touched such things as education, help to church schools, temperance, and fair play to traders not guilty of any offence. That was what was said by supporters of the present Ministry about the electoral verdict of that day, and he would warn hon. Gentlemen opposite to be careful lest the anti-Unionist reasoning of 1900 was applied to them. They were setting up that fiscal reform was the chief issue at the late election, and it might be argued that it was the only issue. It was in any case not a very progressive ideal, this watching over the immovability of idols. Vigilance might be a great virtue, but vigilance to prevent any, even the smallest change, was not exactly salvation. If these Thibetan or Llama-like duties were to be said to be their chief functions, let him warn them, lest by the anti-Unionist reasoning of 1900 they came to be called also their only functions, lest their education, local option, trade union reform, liberationist and disunionist policies, and all the "isms" and fads for which they claimed popular authority, turned out to be not only the less-wanted policies of sections and mere minorities, but even the not-at-all wanted policies, and disliked really by the people at large. With due respect to the hon. Baronet opposite, he had ventured to put down the Amendment in the hope of doing him a service. He moved it for the purpose of correcting his deviation from precedent, of helping him towards greater unanimity in the reception of his proposals, of removing a needless embarrassment from the path of the Ministers in whose following he held so distinguished and trusted a place, and, possibly, of doing thereby something to save the time of the House. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 1, to leave out from the word 'House,' to the word 'deems,' in line 4."—(Mr. Stuart Worthy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. PAULsaid the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not less interesting or ingenious than his Amendment. Although the Amendment

  1131
  did not object to condemning protection, it did object to praising free trade. The right hon. Gentleman's speech, on the success of which he congratulated him, was a highly skilful attempt to steer clear through the channel of no meaning between the Scylla and Charybdis of aye and no. He was painfully unconscious of his inability to speak on this subject with the qualifications of his hon. friend the Member for the Colne Valley, for he was not a man of business. He had indeed one negative qualification which would go far to redeem himself, if he were not past redemption in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He was not, except by a legal fiction, a lawyer. He might be asked why he took part in that debate. He was peculiarly situated. It had been stated that a great many questions were submitted to the constituencies at the general election. However, the gentlemen of the Conservative persuasion who opposed him and his hon. colleague at Northampton fought on tariff reform, and that alone. There were also two candidates of the school of the hon. Member for Blackburn, there were six of them in all. Perhaps hon. Members opposite would say the scum always rose to the top. At all events, there he was, perhaps the worst representative of bald Cobdenism in its least attractive form which the House possessed. He comforted himself with the reflection that arguments were equally good, whoever used them, and that this House would give them a patient hearing from whatever quarter they proceeded. There was one argument—the numerical argument—which he would not use. It was not very logical or very well bred to say "we are more than you." Majorities were not infallible or everlasting. If the sentiment conveyed to the minds of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side any information which they did not previously possess, he made them heartily welcome to it. He had an incorrigible sympathy with minorities. He belonged to a small, harassed, ostracised minority, whose very existence was described as an intolerable strain upon the feelings of our fellow countrymen. He was one of those people still called in the idiom of an aristocratic centre as Pro-Boers. Englishmen never knew when they were beaten, therefore they were never beaten at all, and he was ready to believe that when tariff reform
  1132
  had been buried in the grave of bimetallism the Conservative Party would again be a great power in the land. He had no sympathy with recent attempts to improve the Sermon on the Mount. He stood in humble reverence by the original version, and he doubted whether it was a standard which they had any right to apply in this House.
  MR. LAMBTON: I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. Gentleman speaking to the Amendment?
  MR. SPEAKER: I see no reason to interfere.
  MR. PAULsaid that they of the rank and file who lived in the world had better keep these sacred maxims not for condemning or judging others but for judging and condemning themselves. For a purely mundane reason he doubted the adaptability of the golden rule. He was not at all sure that it would be for our advantage that other countries should adopt the principle of free trade. Some of the principal manufacturers in Northampton had told him that it was free trade and free trade alone which would enable them to drive the American boot out of the market. He asked what would happen if the United States adopted free trade with all the world. Well, they were Englishmen, and would not admit that they would be beaten; but they said that the struggle would be very fierce, profits would be diminished, hours of labour lengthened, and wages decreased. Cobden had been called a false prophet. He believed there had not been a true prophet since the days of Cassandra, who was in the first place an avowed pessimist, and in the second place an inspired female. He yielded to none in his ignorance of the future, but it seemed strange to him that for one who could tell him what happened fifty years ago there were ten who would tell him what would happen fifty years hence. But Cobden did rest his policy not upon prophecy, but upon reason and experience. He spoke with diffidence, because the Secretary of State for India was not present to confirm what he said, but his belief was that Mr. Cobden desired that other countries should adopt free trade, not for the sake of this country, but for the sake of their own. Cobden was called an international man.

  1133
  He was not only a sincere patriot; he was an ardent philanthropist. So was Mr. Gladstone. He believed Mr. Gladstone considered it positively wrong, absolutely sinful, that we should derive advantage from the foolish system of bounties upon sugar given by foreign Governments, without remonstrating and expostulating with them on the error of their ways.
  MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment having been moved, the debate must be now restricted to a discussion of what occurred at the last general election.
  MR. PAULsaid he would implicitly obey the ruling, but he was trying to prove that what determined the general election was free trade, and he thought he might be allowed for that purpose to show in what sense he used a term variously interpreted by different persons. According to his understanding of it, the Sugar Convention had prevented us from enjoying one of the great advantages of free trade, which was to profit by the economic errors of our neighbours, and he could not rise to the level of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden. He thought we were sensible in taking what we could get by the follies of other countries, and that we were very foolish to deprive ourselves by the Convention of such advantages. Cobden always laid great stress upon foreign nations following our example, but he (Mr. Paul) never did. He always said that if free trade was a good thing for God's sake let us keep it to ourselves. Mr. Villiers knew that free trade in the explicit language of economic science meant a tariff for revenue only, a policy necessarily one-sided, an English policy adopted by Englishmen for the benefit of England, and without regard to the necessities or circumstances of any other country upon earth. When he heard the ingenious speech of the hon. Member for the City of London last night, and when he read with the greatest intellectual pleasure his complicated, elaborate, and sophisticated proofs that protectionists had never understood the meaning of protection and that free traders had never understood the meaning of free trade, his wandering fancy strayed to the convivial
  1134
  orator who began, and he supposed ended, his speech after dinner with the words—
  "I perceive that this company is drunk."
  He wished to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition upon his return, for he had grateful recollections of his personal kindness when he had the honour of sitting in this House many years ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had a famous formula which played a great part in the election, and it was—
  "We have not free trade, we have only free imports."
  That was, he believed, what was called an epigram, and it was very witty and brilliant, but it contained two misstatements. We had a free trade tariff for revenue, but we had not free imports. Tea, sugar, tobacco and wine were taxed. Did the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham drink foreign wine? Did he smoke British cigars? Did he think, like Mr. Seddon, that the gold with which they paid foreign countries was produced in this country? A good deal was said in the course of the debate on the Address about placards and posters, but physical infirmities had made him inaccessible to the charms of mural literature. He did think, however, that he could see a picture, and he had carefully studied all the political cartoons in the windows of Northampton, not for identification but for artistic criticism, with the result that he walked with cheerful confidence into the wrong Committee room, totally unable to distinguish any difference between the advertised pictorial policy of the Free Trade League, the Tariff Reform League, and the Social Democratic Federation. He was received with boisterous enthusiasm as the biggest fool out, but he was afterwards told that he was the biggest fool in. Then "there was the pinch of hunger" argument Sometimes he regretted that the Prime Minister gave authority to that statement about there being 13,000,000 people suffering from hunger, because it rested upon insufficient evidence. It rested upon the examination made in the cathedral City of York, and it appeared in an election book published by the Rowntrees. He thought it was exceedingly rash to make such very large deductions from it as had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. But whether

  1135
  the Prime Minister was right or wrong, he had never been allowed to forget that admission. Free trade was not a panacea; it would not prevent death; it would not cure the toothache; and it had no direct influence upon that portion of our industry that was confined within the limits of our United Kingdom. Tariffs had no direct influence upon home trade. [OPPOSITION cries of " Oh, oh."] He was aware that the hon. Member for Central Sheffield contended that foreign tariffs had a great influence upon foreign trades, but that was quite another matter. They had heard from the President of the Local Government Board that the most depressed trade of all was the building trade, with which foreign tariffs had nothing whatever to do. Foreign trade was, of course, affected by tariffs. Two of the issues which were brought most prominently before the country at the last election were retaliation and preference. The retaliationist was like Falstaff, not only witty in himself, but the cause of wit in other men. Retaliation had been described by the Home Secretary as a weapon with a blunt point and a sharp handle. Retaliation drove even Mr. Gladstone into humour, because he said that the doctrine of the retaliationists was that " because a man smites you on one cheek you are to smite yourself on the other." What was preference? Preference was taxing the people of this country for the benefit of colonial manufacturers. What was this country going to get out of it? Their colonial fellow-subjects were frank and straightforward as they were loyal and patriotic, and they did not profess that they would lower their duties on British goods, although they said that they would raise their duties upon foreign goods. He often thought that an abstract argument was none the worse for a homely illustration. When he was first in Rome there had been some little difference of opinion between His Holiness the Pope and His Majesty the King. The result was that a notice was posted that the Vatican galleries were closed to the public, and especially to officers of the Italian Army. The House would observe that not being an Italian officer he was the subject of a preference, but he could not make out what benefit the special exclusion of Italian officers was to him. Any words he could use would be inadequate to express his sense of the consideration
  1136
  which he had received from hon. Gentlemen opposite while stating his opinions. He presumed it must be because they believed in the sincerity of his convictions just as he believed in the sincerity of theirs. A great man, the latchet of whose shoe he was unworthy to loose, did not shrink from elucidating truth by analogy and even by inuendo. There was an old Horatian tag which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover knew well. Ah! these tags. The clever boy scanned and construed them and thought what a sharp fellow he was. The dull boy boldly maintained that the ancients could not talk sense, and wanted to know why he should be required to learn such stuff. When the boy left college he put away Homer and Theocritus, Horace and Virgil, hoping that he would never open them again; he adopted the popular superstition that Greek and Latin were dead languages, but it would not do. He had been in Arcadia, and some day or other when enjoying or enduring the experiences of life, and when he had gained some knowledge of the world, there came back to him, as in a flash of revelation, some phrase, some line, some part of a line, which he never fully understood before, and then he knew why it had survived the fall of empires and the wreck of creeds. His tag was a very simple one—Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat. So said a wise Roman poet more that 1900 years ago. So, perhaps, a humble politician, Divisus toto arbe Brittannus might venture on his own behalf to plead before this House to-day.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid they had all no doubt been greatly interested in the personal reminiscences and anecdotal history of the hon. Member for Northampton, but he could not see that he (the hon. Member) had contributed very much to the illumination of the question now before the House. The hon. Member had said, speaking in the House a few nights ago, that the seven Members for Birmingham were returned against sense, but he thought the electors of Northampton must be the senseless people, because the hon. Member now said that they had returned him as an opponent of tariff reform, whereas everybody knew that the staple industry of Northampton, was the manufacture of boots and shoes, and it was obvious that they should have

  1137
  some protection against the unfair competition of Americans who were constantly flooding our markets with cheap boots and shoes. It had been demonstrated over and over again in the course of this debate that the statements in the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for the Colne Valley Division were not only inaccurate and misleading, but that most of them were capable of several interpretations. In supporting the Amendment he could not expect to gain much sympathy from hon. Gentlemen opposite, because the attitude they had adopted towards this question during the election was just as severe and uncompromising as that which they took up with regard to Chinese labour, and they showed by their conduct that if any lay figure, even one of their own Chinese coolies in manacles, were dressed up and called free trade, they would vote in favour of it. Since the election, however, hon. Members opposite had somewhat altered their opinion with regard to the question of Chinese labour, and they had compromised with themselves upon that matter, might it not be hoped that they would do the same with regard to free trade? Now that the election was over and there was no further necessity for them to make Party capital out of it, he asked them to banish from their minds, if for one night only, the merely Party aspect of this question. The Members of the Opposition distinctly stated at nearly every meeting they addressed during the elections that they were in favour of free trade and opposed to protection; and therefore for hon. Members opposite to state—had been stating for the last two years and as they wished to affirm in the Resolution—that they desired to abolish free trade and set up a system of protectection showed at all events one thing if it shows nothing more serious and regrettable, namely, that there was a misunderstanding either real or assumed as to the meaning which ought to be attached to these somewhat high sounding phrases. If they were to engage in an argument on any subject with any chance of coming to a just and sound conclusion, it was essential to have a clear definition of the terms to be used. But that was exactly what they had never had with regard to the much-vexed question of tariff reform, or with regard
  1138
  to this Resolution. The result had been that hon. Gentlemen opposite had used the term free trade in a sense in which they had no right to use it and which did not at all accurately represent the system of trade which existed in this country. In the first place, they said that our present system of trade, erroneously called free trade, did not allow us to put any taxes on goods imported from abroad, and that it was especially subversive of that system to put a tax upon any articles of food. But the Leader of the Opposition brought forward several instances yesterday to show that we did already put taxes on a great many articles imported from abroad.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is discussing another question from that raised by the Amendment. He must try to confine himself to the preamble of the Resolution.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid he was endeavouring to show the sense in which the expression free trade was used during the late election. He was going to try to show that the wording of the Resolution was not accurate. We were at present raising as much as £15,000,000 a year by taxation on imported articles of food alone. He would give two illustrations. Leaving out of account the assistance which foreign manufacturers might receive in the way of bounties everybody knew that they had a much larger free market in which to dispose of their goods without having to pay duty upon them which we had to do, and consequently they were able to produce a much larger quantity of goods than they required for their own consumption, and to sell off their surplus production in our markets, amongst others, at considerably below cost price. It might be a great advantage to us to be able to buy these goods cheap so long as it lasted; but it did not, as a rule, last very long; and, as soon as these foreign traders got control of our markets and secured a monopoly, the prices were immediately raised. On the other hand, it might be a great disadvantage to us for our trades to be ruined, and working men thrown out of employment by this unfair competition from abroad. Whichever way it was taken, it was an entire misnomer to call it free trade according

  1139
  to the definition of the political economists. His second example was this, if our traders and manufacturers were to dispose of their goods in foreign markets at a remunerative price, they must charge a price which would not only recoup them for their outlay and yield them a fair percentage of profit, but they must, in addition, charge a further sum to defray the heavy duties, sometimes amounting to 100 or 150 per cent. which they were forced to pay before they could gain admission to these markets. He would not now discuss the question as to the extent to which the producer or the consumer was called upon to bear the burden of these duties. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that in the case of the export duty on coal it was the producer who paid, but when it suited their purpose they alleged that it was the consumer who had to bear this burden. But his point was that whoever had to bear the burden of this duty it meant that the price of goods was artificially raised, and, therefore, they were not interchanged at their natural and legitimate price, and their interchange could form no part of a system of free trade properly so called. Therefore, he maintained that if the electors at the last election demonstrated their unqualified fidelity to the principles of free trade, they declared themselves in favour of an alteration rather than an adhesion to the present position. And the jury of public opinion having been misdirected as to what free trade really was, they were entitled to ask for a new trial. Then they were asked to resist any proposal, whether by way of taxation on foreign corn or a general tariff on foreign foods, which would tend to set up or create a system of protection in this country. But would it not be as well to wait before taking that course until some one had really proposed that we should put protective duties on foreign corn or foreign goods. Here again they came to a question of definitions, and it entirely depended upon what was meant by protective duties. He had heard many speeches and had read many papers and pamphlets on this subject of tariff reform, but he had never heard or read of any one, except his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Central Sheffield, advocating the imposition of protective duties on these foreign commodities. Like the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, he confessed himself to be an unrepentant tariff reformer, and tariff
  1140
  reformers thought that a more equal system of trade with foreign countries should be brought about and that we should have a closer commercial union with the Colonies. If in order to accomplish these ends, which all must admit were most desirable in themselves, it should be found to be necessary to make use of either temporary retaliatory duties or permanent revenue duties, they should not allow any old-fashioned prejudices to stand in the way of their doing so. He would like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite if, in their opinion, these temporary retaliatory duties, or permanent revenue duties could be described—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is anticipating an Amendment on the Paper. The only question now under discussion is what was the action at the last election?
  SIR FEANCIS LOWEsaid that he was endeavouring to put forth the view of tariff reformers at the last election; and if he could show that that view was different from that which was held by hon. Gentlemen opposite, then a different opinion ought to be accepted as to the verdict passed at the general election. If hon. Gentlemen would refer to Adam Smith and other great authorities on political economy, they would find it laid down that neither retaliatory nor revenue duties could be properly described as protective. Take for instance the case of the 2s. registration duty on corn which had been proposed. He should like to ask whether that was a protective duty; and if it was a protective duty, whom did it protect? [An HON. MEMBER on the LABOUR Benches: The landlords.] Hon. Members opposite might say that it would not stop there; that it would be gradually raised until it became protective. That was the old argument of the thin edge of the wedge, and would prevent any necessary reform being carried into effect. What he said was—
  "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
  Then as to the question of a general tariff, the only general tariff he had ever heard of was a 10 per cent. duty on foreign manufactured articles; and he was not at all sure whether that was at present more than a tentative suggestion. But assuming that it was part of the scheme of tariff reform

  1141
  contemplated, could it be called a protective duty? In his opinion it could not be a protection against the surplus stocks of foreign-made goods which were constantly being dumped down in our markets and sold at less than cost price. On the other hand, it would be a very desirable and useful means of broadening the basis of taxation at a time when increased sources of revenue were urgently needed to meet the growing demands upon our national expenditure, and would cause the foreigner to have to do at all events something in the direction of contributing towards the upkeep of our country and the expenses of our Government. It was well known that at the present time our manufacturers had, at a moderate computation, to pay something like 10 per cent. on the cost of the articles they produced, in the shape of rates and taxes, from which the foreigners who used our markets were entirely exempt.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not dealing with the Amendment but with the main Question.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid he would only say in conclusion that surely this imposition of a ten per cent. all-round tariff would be of great advantage to us.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already called the hon. Member to order three times, and I must ask him to discontinue his speech.
  MR. HOUSTONsaid he should endeavour to show that at least a portion of the people of this country had not demonstrated their unqualified fidelity to the principles of free trade. In Liverpool this was a burning question. Unlike the humorous and learned Member for Nottingham, he was a business man, and would endeavour to deal with this question from a business point of view. As this was a question of vital importance to the working classes of the country he would address himself more particularly to the hon. Members who sat below the gangway, and who were euphemistically described as Labour Members. Reminiscences, biography and autobiography had been indulged in in the course of debate, and per haps it might not be out of place if he followed the example of previous speakers He was intended for the Church, but not
  1142
  feeling any call in that direction, and with a view of carrying out his boyish ambition of becoming one of the great shipowners of England, he refused to go to Oxford, and served his apprenticeship as an engineer and shipbuilder. He was there fore in the same position as many hon. Gentlemen occupying positions below the gangway in claiming to be a working man. He was quite sure that during the four years of his apprenticeship he worked as hard as any man in the place. At the present moment he ran lines of steamers from the continent to the colonies and South America and from the United States to the same colonies and to South America, and he was enabled by the experience which that gave him to understand what free trade meant. He had not been dependent upon Blue-books for belated information upon what was taking place in connection with the trade of this country. He might perhaps be permitted to say that he was not a member of the Tariff Reform League, but he wanted our trade with our colonies and foreign countries to be maintained. Trades unionists were the strongest protectionists in this country, and believed in protecting their trades against foreign invasion and non-unionist labour. He endorsed the views of the trade unionist in protecting his trade. He had from the earliest days since he was an employer worked in harmony with trade unions. He had never had a strike of his workmen. If Labour Members desired to know his character as an employer he would refer them to his late opponent, Mr. James Sexton, who was a prominent member of the Trade Union Congress. Therefore, speaking in sympathy with the trade unionists, he should think that in the best interests of the workers of this country they would not think of "demonstrating their unqualified fidelity to the principles and practice of free trade," as the Motion proposed. He had business houses not only in London, and Liverpool, but in New York, Buenos Ayres, and Cape Town, and agencies in every important country in the world. He spent £10,000 a year upon cables, and he practically kept his finger on the pulse of the trade of the world. He was interested besides in the Australian and Indian trades, and ran lines of steamships between the continent and this country as well as to the colonies.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not see what that has to do with the Question.
  MR. HOUSTONsaid that he was trying to prove that so far as his constituents were concerned they had not demonstrated "their unqualified fidelity to the principles and the practice of free trade," for he had pointed out to them during the election the folly of free trade. Would he not be in order in doing so?
  MR. SPEAKER: It depends upon the way in which the hon. Member does it.
  MR. HOUSTONsaid that so-called free trade must be injurious to this country; even the Duke of Devonshire the other day complained that orders for rails had left this country. In connection with the recent election, quite apart from free trade, many other questions were voted on, including that of Chinese labour. As far as the recent election was concerned, the electors of Liverpool had not "demonstrated their unqualified fidelity to the principles and practice of free trade." They did not do so in his division, or in any of the other divisions. In the Abercromby Division, the principal question voted upon was that of Chinese labour. In the Exchange Division the principal question was Home Rule.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that the leading paragraph in his address referred to free trade, but he attacked the policy of Chinese labour also.
  MR. HOUSTONsaid he quite accepted the hon. and gallant Member's statement, but would the hon. Member contradict him when he said that Chinese labour was a prominent and burning question in his constituency?
  MAJOR SEELYagreed.
  MR. HOUSTONsaid in that case there was no need to dispute about it. In the East Toxteth Division the hon. Gentleman was returned more because of his pronounced Protestant principles than because of his free trade principles or his views on any other political question. The hon. Gentleman on one occasion said he was prepared to die for his religion.
  1144
  Lord George Gordon, the instigator of the "no popery" riots, also said he was prepared to die for his religion, but history recorded that before his death he became a convert to the Jewish religion and submitted to the surgical operation of the initial rite. In this House the hon. Member had expressed himself in a mild and temperate manner, but upon the platform he had been known to indulge in vitriolic vituperation of a late esteemed Member of the House, and if he were to repeat his words in the House he did not think they would commend themselves to the Ministerialists, and certainly not to Members on the Opposition side. In conclusion he could only say that a goodly proportion of the people of this country had not "demonstrated their unqualified fidelty to the principles and practice of free trade," nor did he think that the electors of Basingstoke did so. He felt that now that the "terminological inexactitude" with regard to Chinese labour had been disposed of—[MINISTERIALIST cries of "No"]—oh, but it had, on the admission of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies—now that it had been disposed of he believed that at any future bye-election which took place the country would not demonstrate in favour of free trade, but would do as Basingstoke had done.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he represented a city which had suffered very much from hostile tariffs. They returned five Members to this House, and three of them were pledged to tariff reform. He quite admitted, however, that the question of Chinese labour played a part in the election, and he himself was represented as a Chinaman with a pigtail. The hon. Baronet had said that in October last he came down and found them very busy and he thought they were very prosperous. That was quite true, because they were filling orders for the Government for armour plates of ships, in regard to which foreigners could not compete with them. They had not, however, so large a number of men now employed as they sometimes had. The hon. Baronet the Member for Colne Valley had referred to the iron and steel trades, and he (Mr. Roberts) wished to put before the House the arguments which he had put before his constituents. The hon. Baronet forgot, when referring to the prosperity of

  1145
  the iron and steel trade, to tell the House that whereas twenty-five years ago England was the head of the iron and steel trade, she now stood third in the race, if they took the consumption.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to read the Amendment and to consider it. The Question is whether or not at the general election the people of this country pronounced their opinion on free trade, unqualified or in any other manner. That is the only issue before the House.
  MR. DAVID MACIVER: Are we not entitled to consider the Motion as it would read if this Amendment were carried?
  MR. SPEAKER: No; the Question is whether this Amendment is to be made or not, then the Resolution can be discussed. Until this Amendment is disposed of the rest of the Resolution is not open to discussion.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he thought he was entitled to allude to the injury done to the Sheffield cutlery trade by the action of foreign tariffs. If he was not allowed to enter into these questions it was difficult to make a speech at all. [A MINISTERIALIST: It is your own Amendment.] The hon. Member for Northampton spoke entirely on the question of free trade, and if they were not allowed to answer the arguments he brought forward, it did seem unfair [Cries of "Order"]—well it seemed a little bit inconsistent that they should not be allowed to put forward arguments infavour of tariff reform. If Mr. Speaker said he was not entitled to enter into the reasons which had made some of the industries of Sheffield suffer very severely from hostile tariffs he must bow to that ruling. He would raise the Question on an Amendment which he understood would be moved subsequently.
  MR. SPEAKER: As the right hon. Gentleman has appealed to me I would say that the first part of the Resolution deals with the question of fact in the past and the second part as to policy in the future. The Question now before the House is, Did the people of this country or did they not at the last election pronounce finally a verdict upon the question
  1146
  of free trade? If the hon. Gentleman has any arguments that there were any other matters upon which the election was fought—that free trade was not a question to which they gave their unqualified fidelity—the House would be ready to listen to him. The Amendment raises a very narrow issue, and hon. Members must confine themselves to that. [An HON. MEMBER: Withdraw the Amendment and stop running away.]
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid the Amendment was not his. But as to the late election he was quite satisfied with the verdict in his constituency. He won, although his majority was reduced. His colleague also won, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield won with an increased majority. They, won the election in Sheffield on the question of tariff reform, because the workers in Sheffield, who had suffered severely from hostile tariffs, were satisfied that some reform must be made if we were to keep the industries and maintain full employment in this country. The House was aware of the increasing amount of manufactured goods we imported last year. We imported no less than £120,000,000 sterling worth of manufactured goods.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is quite relevant in one sentence, but in the next he strays into paths of irrelevancy.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he would not persevere with his arguments on that occasion. He hoped there would be another opportunity to bring them forward, and he also hoped that as their arguments were put before the country, the working men would come to see that tariff reform was the great cure for all their evils.
  MR. STUARTsaid he thought the best proof of the fact that the country expressed itself in favour of free trade was in the condition of Parties in the House. No one would deny that other questions influenced the electors, but the main question was undoubtedly free trade. Another matter that had had great effect on the electorate was their dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Leaders of the Party opposite, and their incapability of understanding what the

  1147
  Leader of the Party opposite meant. The electors were also dissatisfied with the way the Government had conducted the business of the House. Nobody supposed that free trade was a panacea for all the troubles of this country, but the people who advocated protection put it forward as the means of providing old-age pensions, of meeting the question of the unemployed, and of doing many other things. The questions that had been raised by the Labour Party which affected the working classes were going to be dealt with in this Parliament. In his own constituency free trade was advocated, because the people not only believed in free trade itself but believed that there was no antagonism between that question and social reform, and that the problems of social reform could be easier solved in an environment of free trade than in an environment of protection. He should therefore give his vote for the retention of these words in the Resolution, with the most perfect confidence that in the constituencies that he had seen, at any rate, the views, thoughts, and votes centred round the question of free trade.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that in the Motion they were now considering it was asserted that the people of the United Kingdom had demonstrated their unqualified fidelity in the principle of free trade. He objected to that, for it ought to be put that a majority of the people had demonstrated their unqualified fidelity. If that assertion in the Motion were true, it was equally true that the minority had demonstrated their unqualified opposition to free trade. He thought, therefore, that to make the matter clear they should insert the word "majority." There was a prevailing idea that the agricultural interest—which naturally, and by universal consent, was entitled to take a very keen personal interest in the issue between free trade and protection—as represented by the tenant farmer, had voted largely in favour of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, because they thought that the propositions put forward would benefit them by increasing the price of corn in this country. Anybody who thought that was entirely mistaken, for he did not think it was present at all in the minds of any large number of farmers
  1148
  and certainly not in the case of the more intelligent and thinking members of that class. On the contrary, as far as he was entitled to speak for them—and he thought he knew as much about them as most hon. Members of this House—he knew that the reason they adopted the course they did was not because they expected any benefit from a rise in the price of corn, but because they recognised in the policy of the Opposition the probability of an increased general prosperity, and it was because of the better markets which they expected would result from that prosperity that they supported fiscal reform. It was on those grounds, in his opinion, that the great mass of the agricultural community gave their votes to the Opposition. That contention had been largely maintained. The farmers had been charged with voting for the Conservative Party because they saw a possible rise in the price of their wheat. The farmers were sufficienly wide awake to recognise that the policy suggested from the Opposition side would have the effect of lowering rather than raising the price of corn Therefore he hoped that hon. Members on the Ministerial side, and the country, generally, would acquit the agricultural and farming interests of any such narrow-minded views, and recognise that they were looking to a wider issue on this question, and that it was in the general prosperity of the country that they expected to find their own legitimate advantage and chance of success.
  MR. BERTRAMsaid he wished to say a few words of a more or less personal kind on the actual Question before the House. In common with a large number of hon. Members on the Ministerial side, he should have made no effort whatever to get a seat in the House of Commons but for the tariff reform question which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in the year 1903. He felt sure that Liberal candidates would not have been so successful at the election but for the grave apprehension which was felt by practically all the poor people in the constituencies as to the danger and misfortune which awaited them if the tariff reformers succeeded at the polls. So far as the farmers were concerned, they almost universally supported the

  1149
  tariff reformers, not because they believed that a 2s. duty upon wheat would be a benefit to them, but because, although they expected no immediate advantage from the tax, they saw in it the beginning of a protective system, and that weighed very heavily with them. It had been said that the Ministerialists owed their seats to having pushed forward the question of Chinese labour. [OPPOSITION eries of "Slavery."] Yesterday was given up to a denunciation of Liberal candidates for putting forward this question, but surely it could not be contended that any tariff reformers voted for free traders because they were opposed to Chinese slavery, and that they gave up their great ideal in order to support people who were determined to remove the Chinese labourer from South Africa. Surely it could not be seriously contended that they on the Government side of the House did not represent the policy of free trade with which the original Motion dealt. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would be indignant at his suggestion, but he believed that the right hon. Gentleman was the political father of a great number of those who were now sitting on the Ministerial side of the House, because, but for the raising of the fiscal question which he had two years ago deliberately placed before the country, and which he and his newspapers and supporters had assiduously preached ever since, they would probably have made no effort to enter Parliament. It was therefore of the utmost importance that they should register upon the journals of this House those words which the right hon. Gentleman had suggested should be omitted; and when the time came to vote, he thought they would be practically unanimous against the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You have stated from the Chair, Sir, that the Amendment now before us is narrow in its scope. I need hardly say that I should be the last person in the House to minimise that declaration, and as far as I myself am concerned, and as far as I can speak for my hon. friends, there is no reason why there should be a prolonged discussion on this aspect of the Resolution; and when the Government have thought fit to treat
  1150
  us with that ordinary respect which Governments generally pay to their critics, and to make some reply to the Amendment which has been moved in so clear and able a speech—when they have thought fit to carry out that elementary duty of a Government, it may be an advantage that we should take a decision on the Amendment. May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who, I presume, as the only occupant of the Front Bench, is detailed to offer a reply on behalf of the Government—may I point out that these words which we desire to leave out are a perfectly gratuitous addition to a perfectly gratuitous Resolution? There is no conceivable reason why the Government should ever have brought forward the Resolution. They have brought forward a subject which took six days to discuss on the Address two years ago, six full days, morning and evening; and, not content with bringing forward a Resolution on the fiscal question which in their hands took six days to discuss two years ago, they have loaded that Resolution with an addition which does not strengthen it, which is, as we believe, untrue, and which, whether it be true or untrue, is undoubtedly debateable in the highest degree, and on which they have deliberately provoked every man in this House to show from his own electioneering experiences whether it is a fact or not that the verdict of the country was given on the fiscal question. But really the Gentlemen who have spoken from those benches, with the exception of the Gentleman who preceded me—whose speech was absolutely relevant, for he gave his own experiences—I do not see that Gentlemen on the other side have dealt with the topic before us at all. There has been a long, very interesting, and very discursive oration from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton who told us a great deal about his biography and something about his constituency; but, so far as I remember, he told us nothing whatever which would enable us to make up our minds as to whether he is the elected champion of the constituency of Northampton because he is a free-trader, or whether there was some other natural and proper reason which would induce the constituency to vote for him. And what am I to say of another speech, that of the hon. Member for Sunderland? I listened to that speech with the greatest

  1151
  doubt as to which way the hon. Gentleman means to vote, because he told us that the motives which actuated his constituents were of a most mixed kind, and he did me the honour to explain that the most powerful motive which brought his friends into power was the general detestation of the British public of the speeches, the methods, and the policy which I individually and personally have pursued during the last ten years. That may be a good motive or a bad motive. It may show wisdom or folly on the part of those who held it. It may show a happy discrimination of political motives and an admirable and lucid judgment on political performances. But, whether it be good or bad, whether those descriptions are proper to apply to it or not, this at all events is certain, it is not the motive mentioned in the Resolution; and if the reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite are now enjoying, if that be the word, what are poetically but very falsely described as the sweets of office—if the reason is because of my deficiencies, my positive evil deeds, my shortcomings, then in the interests of truth cut out the words which we desire to cut out, and bring forward a separate Resolution explaining why it is that we are sitting on the left hand of the Speaker instead of the right, on which we shall be able to discuss my performances for ten years with great advantage to myself, the House, and, no doubt, the country as a whole. But is it not folly for a Government to put into a controversial Resolution a controversial parenthesis like the present, and is it not doubly foolish when their own men cannot get up and speak with regard to the reason why they were returned to this House without showing, as indeed everybody knows is the fact, that the motives that actuated the constituencies were of various kinds? Labour questions, personal questions, the demerits of the late Government, the transcendent but hitherto unexperienced merits of the present Government, and many other causes contributed to the great result. Very well, if that be true, at all events in this respect try and make your Resolution conform with facts. You have not been able, with regard to the fiscal aspect of it, either to answer the questions which I and other people have put on the subject as to its true meaning, or to make
  1152
  it clear, lucid, and explicit; but do not at all events, put in the absolutely gratuitous mis-statement to which we object. At all events perhaps the Government will feel that they have taken up quite enough public time by a wholly unnecessary controversy which they have dragged into the middle of their distribution of public business, and will diminish that controversy as far as they can by acceding to the Amendment, and allow us to get on to what I admit is far more interesting, inasmuch as it deals with the future as well as the past, the real discussion on the fiscal question. If so, I do not see why this portion of the debate should not finish with a speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and a division. I make this suggestion in the interests of progress and I hope it will be acceded to by the Government.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,): The suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is one that I am sure the House is very glad to hear. The progress of the debate on this Amendment has not been by any means servicable from any point of view, certainly not from the point of view of conserving and using carefully the time of the House. The Leader of the Opposition has not had the advantage of hearing the whole of the debate on this Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: More than anybody on that bench.
  SIR W. ROBSON: If he had heard the whole of the debate, he would have been, I am afraid, almost pained to observe the difficulties which his followers felt in doing their best to follow out the strategical policy which the Amendment illustrates, and to take up as much time as could be taken up without transcending the rules of order so as to avoid any discussion on the main Resolution. His loyal followers, one after another, rising in obedience to some word of command [OPPOSITION Cries of "No" and "Withdraw"], proceeded to do their very best to deal with the Amendment, and they found themselves unable to utter, may I say, an orderly word on the subject on which they were supposed to speak. The Speaker, with the kindness which he always shows,

  1153
  gave every latitude; hon. Members were allowed to proceed in the hope that they would ultimately develop their point; but whenever they reached it, it was invariably discovered to be out of order. [Cries of "Oh" and "Are you in order?"] To proceed with the main Resolution is what we desire, and what we have been desiring for some time. There is very little indeed to answer in the speeches that have been delivered. I do not think I can pursue them without meeting with the same fate as the speakers themselves; I should inevitably be called to order at every point. There is perhaps one material point raised by the speakers opposite. It has been complained that the election was won upon some leaflets relating to Chinese labour. According to hon. Members opposite, the issue of free trade and protection was almost as irrelevant to the election as it is to this particular Amendment. The only thing apparently upon which the ignorant multitudes of the country were giving their votes was some leaflet or picture relating to Chinese labour in which Asiaties appeared in a suspicious attitude with their hands behind their backs, suggesting to the fervid imaginations of hon. Gentlemen opposite manacles and worse things besides. There is a very easy answer to the suggestion that those leaflets really affected the issue of the election. Do hon. Members opposite suggest that if the leaflets had not been issued, or if they had been issued in a different form, the election would have had a different result? [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes."] Let us see whether these leaflets did the mischief hon. Members suggest. The only fault I can find with them is that they fell far below any adequate portraiture of the true facts of the case. The picture ought to have been one of Chinamen, laid across the block and suffering the lash, Chinamen laid there by the hand of an English Governor.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, as you ruled that several Gentlemen were out of order who did not discuss the actual motives which produced the present majority on the other side of the House, whether the learned Solicitor-General is in order, whether he is not obstructing business by discussing the exact degree to which these outrages on Chinamen have or have not been perpetrated in South Africa.
  MR. SPEAKER: The description of a picture or a placard which was not used at the general election is certainly irrelevant.
  SIR W. ROBSON: Let us examine exactly what the point of the Amendment is. We are not in this Amendment discussing free trade, or the merits of Chinese labour. We are discussing, according to the rule already laid down by you, Sir, whether or not free trade was the main and decisive subject at the election. It is suggested on the other side that free trade was not the decisive subject, but that it was Chinese labour, and that Chinese labour was made the decisive subject by means of misrepresentation which exaggerated the evils attaching to that form of industry. I have shown, and I submit with great respect that nothing can be more in order, that no such alleged misrepresentation could have had the effect supposed. Instead of it being an exaggeration it fell below the true state of things, and if a true picture had been presented it would not have altered the result, but would have been much more detrimental to the interests of hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman says that the words of which he complains are totally superfluous. I am not aware that any of the words referred to by the Amendment have met with strong rebuke, except the words, "unqualified fidelity," which were made the subject of a very witty observation by the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division in a most brilliant, yet not, I think, luminous, speech. That criticism was material not so much to the general subject of the debate as to this very Amendment. The hon. and learned Member complained that he did not understand what the words "unqualified fidelity" meant. I advise him to put the same question in the same satirical tone in the domestic sphere. I imagine that in the home circle he would find that a philosophic attitude or Platonic deviations from unqualified fidelity were by no means welcome. We know perfectly well what the words mean, and I think the hon. and learned Member also was not unaware of their meaning. His speech, as I have said, was brilliant, but not luminous. It is not always the light that glitters, and, beyond the admirable jokes with which he diverted the House, what instance did he give us relating either to the main question or to the

  1155
  particular subject of this Amendment? As one listened to his speech, and, indeed, to many of the speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, one could not help thinking of a Shakespearian parallel. It was that of Falstaffs tavern bill. Hon. Members may remember that when Prince Henry finds Falstaffs reckoning, he reads out the items—Item No. 1, two gallons of sack, five shillings; item No. 2, bread, one halfpenny—and he goes on to observe—
  "Here is an intolerable deal of sack to a very small quantity of bread."
  We have had, in these brilliant speeches, an intolerable deal of sack, and a very small quantity of fiscal bread. I entirely concur with the desire expressed by the Leader of the Opposition that we should pass from the Amendment, that we should now take a vote upon it, and proceed forthwith to deal with the main subject of the debate.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the terms of the Amendment made it imperative that those who fought the elections, not with free trade as the main issue, should make their position clear. When they were to be called upon to vote for or against the Amendment they did not desire their vote to be misinterpreted or misunderstood. In his own case and that of the bulk of his colleagues they accepted free trade as an existing fact, and their constituents in the main favoured it. They did not waste time discussing a point upon which they were agreed. Neither free trade nor protection was with them the main issue. They pointed out that in countries where protection obtained it had not brought any benefit which they could discover to the great bulk of the common people. They showed how in America and Germany—countries which were constantly being held up to us for imitation—despite the fiscal policy, the condition of the people was not a whit better than it was at home. They pointed out that in America, despite its system of high tariffs the condition of the worker was gradually worsening, and therefore they disposed of protection as being in any sense a remedy for the social evils which admittedly existed. But in like manner they pointed to the fact that sixty years of free trade in Great Britain had not
  1156
  solved the social and industrial problem. It must be admitted that whilst in America great cartels and trusts were accumulating under protection, in our own country under free trade great cartels were existing and great combines were being formed. He and his friends, therefore, reasoned that the distinct issue was what means should be taken to improve the condition of the people apart from what was to them the settled question of protection versus free trade. One point which most of them made was that whilst upholding free trade as applied to our trade and commerce, they discarded utterly, as every party in the country had discarded, the main body of the doctrine underlying the free trade movement. It was a quarter of a century since Mr. Gladstone was taunted in the House with having banished political economy to Saturn. From that day to this not only in Ireland, but in connection with the factory legislation and trade legislation of various kinds, they had abandoned the idea that the individual was free to do as he pleased with his own. That was an essential part of the doctrine underlying the free trade movement. He and his friends pointed out to their constituents that it was no longer safe to leave the individual free with the old free trade theory, that if each were left free to do as he pleased that each would find his proper place in society. They pointed out that the State had interfered to remove restrictions which the law had imposed on trade and commerce, but they claimed that there was now an equal duty on the State to impose restrictions upon those who by reason of ownership and the abuse of ownership of land and capital were imposing hardships on the great majority of the common people. They believed in free trade, but held that in itself it would not solve the problem of providing for the necessities of the aged poor. He was in this difficulty, that the Motion as drafted would commit them to vote for or against the assertion that free trade was the one issue before the country at the last election. He entered a caveat against time being given for this Motion when the Premier was first questioned on the subject. He repeated that to-night with increased emphasis. They had wasted a day and a half in discussing an issue which was a foregone conclusion. The time might have been

  1157
  profitably spent in redeeming some of those promises upon the strength of which the Government won so handsomely at the late election. But there was no mistaking the fact that free trade was one of the issues, and a prominent one, in the contests lately concluded. Whilst he and his friends would vote against the Amendment he wished it to be understood that by so doing they did not commit themselves to the statement that free trade was the issue on which they won their elections. It was an incident, but the great question which won the election was the condition of the people and the need for having a Party in the House which was tied neither to free trade nor to protection, but was free to use its power in any way necessary to bring about social reforms.
  MR. HUNTsaid the hon. Member for Northampton did not appear to be able to say whether we had free trade or not. It seemed to him that free trade was quite a wrong name. We had not even free imports, because we were obliged to tax certain commodities.
  MR. SPEAKER: The speech of the hon. Member is not relevant to the Amendment before the House.
  MR. HUNTsaid he was sorry if he had said anything which was not in order. He thought at all events he might be allowed to speak on the question of how Gentlemen opposite won the late election. The Solicitor-General had said that the question of Chinese labour had not much to do with it. He understood that the pictures of how Chinamen were alleged to be treated in South Africa were taker, for the purpose of being sent home to help the Radical cause at the election The only real cases of cruelty that they proved were got in that way. In his own constituency a picture was displayed showing a Chinaman chained round the neck. His opponent declared wherever he went that the Chinese in South Africa were slaves. He had not the slightest doubt that such representations had a great deal to do with the result of the elections throughout the country It was probably the most misleading political cry that had ever been used,
  1158
  and he hoped it would not be repeated in future. They had even gone as far as this, that a speech was made in one of the border towns of Wales, that if the people voted for him their children would be burned. He had been trying to disabuse the people in his constituency of these extraordinary inexactitudes which had been told them all over the country by Liberal canvassers—both ladies and gentlemen. These canvassers went into the cottages and said, "Do you know what a quarter is?" The reply was a quarter is a quarter of a cwt. or 28 lbs.; and then the canvassers said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was going to put a tax of 2s. a quarter on wheat which came into this country. That was in the local papers, and he did not think there was much doubt about it. His opponent at one of his meetings told the audience that the proposed tax on wheat would increase their cost of living in one family by 4s. 6d. per week. But the proposal of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was to impose a tax of 2s. a quarter, which was 496 lbs., and a quarter would make at least 120 loaves.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must come more closely to the subject matter of the Amendment.
  MR. HUNTsaid he was going to show the difference between the facts and the pictures of the Radical candidates which he had in his possession.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is certainly not in order.
  MR. HUNTsaid he regretted that he could not tell the House what it was possible for a 2s. duty per quarter to bring about. The Opposition candidate in his division was running the big loaf for all it was worth; and he wanted to show that even supposing—which was most unlikely that the consumer paid the whole of the tax—
  MR. SPEAKER: As I have already twice called the hon. Member to order for irrelevance, I must now direct him to resume his seat.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 445; Noes, 118. (Division List No. 12).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Agnew, George William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cherry, R. R.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Alden, Percy

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gardner, Col. A (Herefordsh. S.

  Armitage, R.

  Clough, W.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Asquith. Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gill, A. H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Ginnell, L.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Glover, Thomas

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grins'd

  Grant, Corrie

  Barker, John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Grove, Archibald

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cox, Harold

  Gulland, John W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hall, Frederick

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crombie, John William

  Halpin, J.

  Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne

  Crooks, William

  Hammond, John

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cullinan, J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Benn, John Williams (Devonp't

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets. S. Geo.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Bertram, Julius

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Delany, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Harwood, George

  Billson, Alfred

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dickinson. W. H. (S. Pancras, N.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Boland, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire. N. E.

  Dillon, John

  Hazleton, Richard

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Brace, William

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hedges, A. Paget.

  Branch, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brigg, John

  Duckworth, James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Duffy, William J.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brunner. J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Bryce.J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Hodge, John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Elibank, Master of

  Hogan, Michael

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Erskine, David C.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hooper, A. G.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Hope, W Bateman (Somerset, N

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

  Byles, William Pollard

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Cairns, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hudson, Walter

  Caldwell, James

  Ferens, T. R.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Cameron, Robert

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Field, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Jackson, R. S.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Morrell, Philip

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Morse, L. L.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rowlands, J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Murphy, John

  Runciman, Walter

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Murray, James

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Joyce, Michael

  Napier, T. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Kelley, George D.

  Nicholls, George

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncas'r

  Scott, A. H. (Asthon under Lyne

  Kilbride, Denis

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sears, J. E.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Norman, Henry

  Seaverns, J. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seddon, J.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shackleton, David James

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

  Lambert, George

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow, W.)

  Sheehy, David

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  O'Dowd, John

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Grady, J.

  Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Snowden, P.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Malley, William

  Spicer, Albert

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Paul, Herbert

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Luttrell, Hugh Courteney

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Perks, Robert William

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Sullivan, Donal

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Summerbell, T.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Maclean, Donald

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  M'Arthur, William

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset. E

  M'Crae, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thorne, William

  M'Kean, John

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Tillett, Louis John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Reddy, M.

  Torrance, A. M.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Toulmin, George

  Maddison, Frederick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rees, J. D.

  Verney, F. W.

  Mansfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Mansfield, H. Randall (Lincoln

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Vivian, Henry

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n

  Wadsworth, J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Richardson, A.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Massie, J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wallace, Robert

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Menzies, Walter

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roberts, John H. (Deabighs)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Mond, A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Wardle, George J.

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Robinson, S.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  1162

  1163

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders'd

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Young, Samuel

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Yoxall, James Henry

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nield, Herbert

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease. Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'r Ham.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Haddock, George R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield. Ecclesall

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Aber H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm's

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Starkey, John R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staffs)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J W.

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

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn.Victor C. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord J. P. J. (Stamford)

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

  Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

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

  Lee Arthur H. (Hants Fareham

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Clarke, Sir Edward (City London

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Liddell, Henry

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

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

  Lockwood. Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Younger, George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cross, Alexander

  Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)said he rose to move to leave out from "proposal" to the end of Motion, and to insert "involving artificial protection against legitimate competition, but, with that reservation, is prepared to consider any scheme framed to secure more equal terms of competition for British trade and closer commercial union with the Colonies, or for purposes of revenue." He said that the House
  1164
  must see that it would be well advised to omit the latter part of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Colne Valley. Those words would entail three consequences. In the first place, the House would be bound from the present time until the next election not to create a system of protection either by a duty on foreign corn or by setting up a general tariff. In the next place, the House would be free in the same period to create a system of protection by any other

  1165
  method—for example, by imposing a tax on colonial corn, or by setting up a discriminating tariff. A general tariff meant a tariff operating equally against all other countries, and after the passing of this Resolution the Government would be precluded at any future time from putting on a general tax on luxuries and manufactures, but they would not be precluded from imposing such a tax, provided that it discriminated unfavourably against three or four nations. In the third place, the House would be free to impose a tax on foreign corn or to set up a general tariff if it were held that neither measure amounted to a system of protection; this was where the ambiguity of the Resolution came in. The President of the Board of Trade last night admitted in terms that a small tax on corn would not necessarily create a system of protection. He had been credibly informed by persons conversant with these matters that no duty less than 15s. a quarter on corn would have any protective effect, would bring into cultivation any greater area of wheat in this country. Therefore the shilling tax, once imposed by this House, or even a tax of two shillings, could not approach to setting up a system of protection. Did the present Indian tariff create a system of protection? The question threw a great deal of light on what was considered proper by orthodox political economists. The finances of India were ultimately under the control of the House of Commons. India had a tariff of 5 per cent. on a very large number of articles; but the tax on cotton was lowered against the wishes of India to 3½ per cent., and in that case only, in the sacred name of free trade, an Excise duty of exactly corresponding value was imposed. Very much the same condition of affairs was reproduced in Egypt. There there was a general tariff of 8 per cent.; but in the case of cotton alone it had been thought due to the sacred cause of free trade to place an Excise duty of 8 per cent. on the manufacture of cotton in Egypt. That was not protection, and therefore the House would be free to imitate the system which obtained in India and Egypt. The Prime Minister had said last night that this Resolution was quite intelligible, and in one sense it was. If it was read as he had read it, with the care demanded by that which had been obviously given to its composition, then it yielded the sense
  1166
  he had given. This House was bound not to create a protective system by these two means, but it was free to create a protective system by any other method, and free to adopt these methods if they did not create protection. There was one other sense in which this Resolution might be understood—that after the House had passed the Resolution the Government reserved to themselves the right to maintain the existing differentiation in the case of tobacco and cocoa, or to add new taxes to the list which were included in the present fiscal system. But if gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were ever to advocate for purposes of revenue or any other purposes the imposition of taxes which deviated from the custom to which the country had become inured, they would be charged with a breach of faith. The Resolution left a great deal to be inferred. The electorate who read it would continue to think that any tax of a novel character—than any departure from the established habits of Budget-making which had obtained since Mr. Cobden's tariff—was a lapse into protection, and having been regaled with the pictures of the "big loaf" and having been instructed in accordance with historic methods, they understood that protection meant a recrudescence of those distressing circumstances which were described by Macaulay, though not by Emerson, as "the hungry forties." It was bad enough that the Opposition should be charged on no just ground with contemplating any policy which could reproduce the condition of "the hungry forties." But it was worse to be accused of a breach of faith simply for having departed from the routine of Budget-making. On these grounds he submitted that the words which he proposed to leave out should be omitted. But he proposed to substitute other words which would embody the views of the Opposition on many aspects of a very important problem. He and his friends repudiated any intention of bolstering up home industries against legitimate foreign competition, and without great discourtesy hon. Gentlemen opposite were not entitled to challenge the sincerity of that repudiation. They believed that these objects were expedient, and apprehended that they might become vital. They preferred to say so, in order that their language might not be open to misconception. There

  1167
  was a case for reconsidering the customary Budgets of the last forty or fifty years. Some, he knew, affected to believe that the only kind of Budget which they had had for many years was the concrete embodiment of scientific truths universally and eternally comparable only to the Principia of Newton, and also of moral obligations no less binding than those in the Decalogue. That was the view which had been studiously inculcated into the people of this country. The House, he knew, was always impatient of theory, hut when a theory of this kind in political economy was embodied in our present fiscal system, any departure from it was a breach of universal law, the old guard was brought up, practical considerations were shattered, and they were entitled to invite the House to listen to a few words on theory, at the peril, of course, of emptying the House. No political economist in recent years had ever alleged that the objects to which they were accustomed were the embodiment of these high canons or principles, or even that these principles were eternally true and universally applicable. Most of them were prudent enough to talk about English political economy. If he took a popular writer, Walter Bagehot, who tried to explain to Englishmen that these were not great scientific truths and moral laws, he should avoid, he hoped, being too theoretical. That writer declared that at the base of this view there lay the transferability of capital, and the transferability of labour, but when people wrote in that sense they did not contemplate the transfer of capital from this country to other countries. They did not contemplate that capital had been transferred to an amount which would almost daunt their imagination, for no less than £1,200,000,000 of English capital had been invested abroad in recent years, and a financier had told him that the official Return was well within the mark, and that £2,000,000,000 was nearer the sum. So long as capital was transferred from Ireland to England, so long as labour was transferred from Ireland to the United States, they watched the operation of these supposed eternal laws with the equanimity which became philosophers. But it did not end there. Those who dealt with the transferability of capital and labour contemplated still less that other countries, while
  1168
  accepting our capital in these enormous sums, would accept the best and reject the worst of our labour, would take the strong and healthy men, and return upon us the old men and the impoverished. They contemplated still less that other countries would reject the most highly finished products of labour. So long as our large cities were manned with cheap labour, so long as it was only a question of cheap food to keep that labour cheap every one was delighted; but now the markets of the world, like a monster lobster pot, accepted and retained all the best we had to give and refused and returned the worst upon our hands. There was another process at work. The same author declared that these so-called truths were not universally applicable, that they were not applicable to any country in which slavery existed. If it were true that the presence of real slavery in any country prevented the operation of these laws on which their practice was founded, then it was to a great extent true that the immigration of aliens, the importation into the country of goods which were "dumped" below their cost value, or goods produced by "white slaves," interfered also with the proper application of those principles to the conditions of life in this country. There used to be an elegant dining-room trick whereby one glass was filled with wine, and another glass with water; by the aid of a card the one glass was superimposed upon the other, and it was difficult to trace exactly what was going on; but the end of the trick was that the wine in one glass had gone into the other. Thus it was very hard to prove, nay, impossible to prove, by figures exactly what was going on now in this country. But he believed that the rejection by other countries of the worst men from the labour point of view, the rejection of the best products of labour from the labour point of view, and the gradual reabsorption of the worst form of labour and the worst products of labour had been something very like this dining-room trick. Was the existing system adequate to meet all the exigencies of the conditions under which we lived? It did not attain many of the objects which they, at any rate, believed to be desirable objects. They had been told that they could not do a number of things at the same time, that the same tax would not provide

  1169
  revenue and elicit better terms in foreign countries and give stability to the productions of the home markets, and that it could not at the same time assist in arriving at a closer union with the Colonies. The existing system, which they were warned on no account to touch or tamper with, did not attempt many of the changes—such as closer commercial union—that had been advocated, and it did not attain any of them in a manner satisfactory to any class in this country. Take the growing difficulties experienced in selling our goods in foreign markets. The present system did nothing to help us to get better terms for our goods in these foreign markets, and when complaint was made of this foreign treatment the people were told that it did not matter, because the volume of trade was so immense. They might examine that volume of trade and show that the best kind of trade went year after year more readily into the neutral markets of the world—such as China and Argentina—and went less readily into the great protective markets of the world. Because it went less readily the profit upon it was cut down. The manhood of a country could not live on the volume of trade; they must live on the profit of trade. Besides profit they had to consider security. It was necessary both to the employer and the working men that they should know whether they were likely to get a profit which would exist over a period of years. It was not worth while for the employer to put capital into a business, or for an artisan to train up his child to a skilled trade, unless each knew that for ten or a dozen years there was likely to be a return for the capital of the one, and the industry and skill of the other. The country, however, was given another solatium. It was told that there was the most-favoured-nation clause. There was very little consolation in that argument, which had been so frequently repeated throughout the country by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How did it work with Russia? There was no duty on wheat in Russia; but though we were free to export our wheat, every one knew that there was precious little wheat grown by us that we could export. On the other hand, the duty on coal in Russia was almost incredible. It was 2s. on 36lb., and the duty on imported coal in the neighbourhood of the Black Sea,
  1170
  adjacent to Russia's own fuel fields, was 8s. per 36lb. He had addressed a number of meetings of working men, including miners, during the last few months, and he had always found them extremely sceptical that a duty of 1s. a ton at this end of the voyage was a grievous burden, when the same coal had to pay a tax of from 2s. to 8s. per 36lb. at the other end of the voyage.
  MR. CAIRNS (Newcastle-on-Tyne): But Russia pays the tax.
  MR. WYNDHAM: That opinion is not universally held by the working men.
  MR. CAIRNS: But it is true all the same.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Nor is it laid down by the great pundits of political economy. What benefit did we get from the most-favoured-nation clause in other foreign protected markets? Lord Lansdowne's statement had never been disproved, wherein he showed that, under the old conventional tariff with Germany, out of a total trade of £33,700,000 relief was obtained in respect of only £87,620, and no relief was obtained under the most-favoured-nation clause in respect of £33,612,000. It was true that Lord Avebury had asserted the value of the most-favoured-nation clause, but its value had not been proved; whilst other authorities equally, perhaps more competent, had given their opinion that it had little or no effect. Upon this question of the most-favoured-nation clause he would quote the opinion of Sir Edward Law. After sketching the manner in which the most-favoured-nation clause worked, he concluded with these words—
  "It simply results in an undertaking that cotton goods coming from England will not be taxed higher than if coming from some other country, it being perfectly well known that England is the only country from which they will be imported; it does not secure any favoured treatment of cotton goods. The real fact is that most-favoured-nation privileges constitute no guarantee against the common practice of showing less favour to British trade than to that of any other nation."
  He was asked to produce evidence and he supposed he would have to turn to the new conventional tariff agreed to by Germany. In respect to cotton yarns our trade with Germany was valued at

  1171
  £2,500,000 a year, £800,000 of which represented yarns above the figure in the new tariff at which there was an increased duty. The whole tendency of the new tariff was to militate mainly, and it would seem almost exclusively, against British industry. In regard to woollen manufactures, Germany bought goods valued on the average at £5,000,000 a year. The duties on articles of our manufacture had been almost uniformly increased. The duties were heaviest in respect of those classes in which there was the largest trade, while in respect of those in which the trade was relatively quite small there was a decrease of duty. What else could we expect? We positively invited this sort of treatment. The French had a saying that the absent are always wrong; and that was never more true than when we absented ourselves from conferences where other people were trying to deal with each other. We almost invited foreign nations to tax us. It was said that onlookers saw more of the game than the players. The onlookers had exulted in what they believed to be the result of the last general election. The election began on the 13th of January, and by the 16th it was seen pretty well how it was likely to go. The American papers were full of comments on what they expected would be the verdict. The Sun exulted that no English tariff was possible, and that the United States and Germany and the other "business enemies of England" had nothing to fear. He should not himself call Germany and the United States the "business enemies of England," because they took advantage of all the opportunity which we gave them, but that was how they happened to describe themselves. Even at home dispassionate observers were not very well satisfied with the present condition of affairs. He was very much struck by one account of those conditions—
  "Industry is burdened, enterprise is restricted, workmen are thrown out of employment, and the poorer classes are straightened still further in their circumstances."
  He believed that was a true description. That was a description which came from the Prime Minister's electoral address. Of course he attributed it to the fault of the wicked Tory Government. What filled the butcher's shop with big blueflies? The Tories. If that was an accurate de-
  1172
  scription, then surely there was a case for not binding the House of Commons for a period of six years. Why had we been, beaten in respect of the motor-car industry by the foreigner? Why had motor-cars of the value of over three millions been coming into this country? And why was a great factory in his part of the country making only the wooden tops of the cars, while all the bottom machinery parts came in from abroad? One reason was no doubt owing to the fact that we did not repeal certain laws in this country so soon as was the case in France, and France therefore got the start in that industry; but he thought that, according to the most orthodox political economy, we should have been perfectly entitled to shelter our national industry during that period, and we should have had a great deal of revenue and acquired skill into the bargain. That was another reason for not binding ourselves solemnly never to discover any change in the principles of Budget-making which prevailed in this country. Turning to our investments abroad, we might regret that less and less money coming from many sources was being invested in this country. He was not one of those fortunate persons who had money of their own to invest, but he was frequently ask to act as trustee for other people. In his capacity as trustee he had to follow the advice given him by English bankers and brokers, and it was a remarkable fact that in recent years, the uniform advice he had received was to invest every penny he could abroad, and above all to invest very little, if any, in English home industries. ["Oh," and a Voice: They are not trust securities.] That was his experience, but it might have been singular. It was very strange that that advice had been tendered to one person three or four times if the same advice had not been tendered to other people in a similar position. In the neutral markets, our trade prevailed as the President of the Board of Trade pointed out last night. But what security had we that any market not now protected would not follow the example of other markets which were protected? The treaty with Rumania, as he happened to know, was not obtained by talking about the virtue of political economy. He had heard on the authority of Sir Charles Kennedy, who had much to do with bringing that treaty about, that we obtained it because in Rumania a belief

  1173
  prevailed that the result of the general election would be different from that which had actually happened. In the Colonial markets we also prospered exceedingly—in fact prospered more than in any other market. But there, again, the question of security arose. Was it wise in respect to any of these markets, foreign, neutral, or Colonial, to trust for our trade to the chance arrangements of other people instead of entering into treaties of our own? Even supposing that by entering into treaties with our Colonies we suffered some slight disability, would it not be better to increase by no great amount the cost of production at home, if for that charge we had the security that tariffs should not be set up against us in markets where they did not now prevail? He knew when they argued in that sense they were told that, after all, the population of the United States was greater than that of Canada. The right hon. the Secretary for India stated during the recent election campaign that there were 80,000,000 of people in the United States and only 6,000,000 in Canada. But our trade with the United States was only 7s.6d. per head of the population, while our trade with Canada was £2 per head of the population. Did any one suppose that the population of Canada was going to remain at the present 6,000,000? Just as the expansion of the United States was the great feature of the nineteenth century, so the similar expansion of Canada might not improbably be the great feature of the twentieth century. Was it, therefore, wise for the House to declare formally that never, under any circumstances, would it even consider—and that was all he urged—any change of plan which might enable this country to secure the advantages which it now enjoyed in Canadian markets? But the matter had a higher aspect. The Unionist Party believed that modifications in our fiscal system might legitimately be made for the purpose of drawing the component parts of the Empire more closely together. It was so regarded in respect to India. It was thought perfectly right to interfere with the fiscal system of India and to put an excise duty on Indian manufactured cotton goods in order that the Lancashire cotton spinners might prosper; but it was thought to be wrong when an alteration
  1174
  was proposed in the existing fiscal system in order to produce similar results in Canada and the other Colonies. It was said that our present fiscal system was the best from the point of view of revenue. But was it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that the 1s. income-tax in a time of peace was too burdensome, that it cut into the reserve of credit to which we must look in time of peace. Well, the existing taxes on food pressed as heavily upon labour as the 1s. income-tax pressed upon capital. Both taxes pressed upon the middle classes, and he believed that if the sources of unemployment were analysed it would be found that much of it was due to the fact that the middle classes were not in a state of affluence. Therefore, it could not be said that the present fiscal system was an ideal one. How was it to be improved? By retrenchment? He wondered what hopes could reasonably be cherished by hon. Members of any great retrenchment on the Army and Navy. They had seen the Estimates; they had heard the pronouncements of the Ministers in charge of these Departments who took a more sanguine view than he was able to entertain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that before diminishing taxation the existing debt should be paid off. But surely that was not relevant to his argument. His point was that the existing system was onerous and ill-adjusted, and one could not reasonably hope to modify it by cutting down the Army and Navy. Besides, the Government had made promises in regard to many admirable objects, every one of which would entail a larger call upon the Exchequer than could possibly be saved on the Army and Navy. Was it therefore unreasonable to ask that the House should keep its liberty to impose new taxes, if necessary, for Imperial defence and domestic reform? If that were a reasonable plea might it not prove to be the case that perhaps by approximating our fiscal system to that of India we might get all the other parts of the Empire to share the burden we bore? Such a proposition violated no tradition of free trade, and was the one put forward by a distinguished South African statesman, Mr. Hoffmeyer. Was this House to say that it would not even consider such a proposition if it were to come from Mr. Hoffmeyer in the future as it came in

  1175
  the past? It was said that the present fiscal system was fair because under it the proportion between direct and indirect taxation was more equal than it used to be in former times. In Great Britain it was fifty-one to forty-seven, but in Ireland it was twenty-seven to seventy-two. He mentioned that not as a plea for Ireland, but because the case of Ireland was typical of all agricultural districts, and to show that the boasted equality between direct and indirect taxation did not benefit the agriculturist. On that account also much could be said for the principle of considering what changes might be made in our fiscal system from the point of view of obtaining revenue without imposing onerous burdens upon any class of the taxpayers. Out of this fiscal controversy he saw two ideals distinctly emerging. One of these ideals found expression in the speeches of the labour representatives. He and his friends could applaud the object of these representatives, though they might have to criticise the methods by which they hoped to reach it. That ideal was that taxation should be imposed in ever-increasing amount upon the accumulated wealth of the country, in order that the standard of life of the less fortunate of our people should, by the indirect operation of that taxation, be raised to a higher plane. The other ideal was the Unionist ideal. That was to enlist, if they could, all classes from all parts of the Empire in a common attempt to secure a fair return for the labour of the workers at home, and at the same time to draw the component parts of the Empire more closely together, a necessary step against the growing menace of other Powers. Their ideal might be called Conservative and Imperial, which now he understood wore terms of abuse. It was based on the experience of the known past and not on an imaginary future; it was Imperial because they looked on the Empire as the beginning of what might be a great organic State. Whichever of those two ideals prevailed, he believed that political controversy in the near future would turn on the clash between those two ideals and upon nothing else, and that would be the line ultimately dividing two great Parties in that House. When that happened, as he believed it would, he ventured to think there would
  1176
  be less and less room for the useful activity of such a Government as that which now sat opposite. The Government seemed to him to claim the right to postpone the realisation of either ideal, because forsooth moderate men and recent converts must not be alarmed. That was Whiggery with a vengeance; it used to be the sacred principle of 1688, it was now to be the sacred principle and practice of free trade. Lest the custodians of that ark of the covenant should be disturbed in the possession of office, labour must be helped, and great care must be taken not to pursue too vigorous a foreign policy! He saw all the signs that marked the inception of a new Whig domination, a domination over open antagonists and their deluded allies, and a new Churchill might lead new hosts of Radicals into a new land of promise flowing with the unctuous adulation of Socialistic experiment. But for anything more substantial the Radicals were invited to wait. Meanwhile timid Tories were assured that any man of vigour and originality who had gravitated into close and loyal alliance with their own leaders was really, like Mr. Disraeli, a desperate fellow, bent on tampering with all that made England what she was. Those, they were to understand, were the sacred principles of free trade, which would not bear investigation, and which could not be intelligibly expressed. Meanwhile, as the guardian of eternal principle, by parity of reasoning, the new Whig claimed permanent office for the purpose of doing nothing in particular. But events moved rapidly in the twentieth century. In the late election a huge vote was given against the fiscal system, and many who voted for it were doubtful of its merits. It was doomed. The English fiscal system was doomed, and when it failed, as fail it must, if for example the nation desists from drinking more alcohol than was good for it; as fail it must if the Government attempted to fulfil the promises it made and satisfy the hopes it had raised—when it failed they meant to be free to construct from its ruins a system deliberately designed to secure fairer terms for the worker at home and foster an organic evolution of the Empire. He submitted that this House would be well advised to preserve its liberty of administration, and to that end he moved the Amendment which stood in his name.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 471; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 13.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Elibank, Master of

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Byles, William Pollard

  Erskine, David C.

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Cairns, Thomas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

  Caldwell, James

  Essex, R. W.

  Agnew, George William

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Alden, Percy

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Fenwick, Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ferens, T. R.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Chance, Frederick William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Armitage, R.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ffrench, Peter

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Field, William

  Asquith. Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cherry, R. R.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Astbury, John Meir

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Findlay, Alexander

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clough, W.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Barker, John

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gardner, Col. A. (Herefordsh. S.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gilhooly, James

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gill, A. H.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Corbett. CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Ginnell. L.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Glover, Thomas

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cowan, W. H.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bell, Richard

  Cox, Harold

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Grant, Corrie

  Belloc, Hiliare Joseph Peter R.

  Crean, Eugene

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Benn, John Williams (Devonp't

  Cremer, William Randal

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Crombie, John William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Bennett, E. N.

  Crooks, William

  Grove, Archibald

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bertram, Julius

  Cross, Alexander

  Gulland, John W.

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cullinan, J.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Billson, Alfred

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hall, Frederick

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Halpin, J.

  Black Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hammond, John

  Boland, John

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire. N. E.)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay Galway

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Brace, William

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Branch, James

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Brigg, John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Dillon, John

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Harwood, George

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

  Duckworth, James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Duffy, William J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in Furness

  Hazleton, Richard

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Henderson. J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  M'Arthur, William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  M'Crae, George

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

  Higham, John Sharp

  M'Kean, John

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester

  Radford, G. H.

  Hodge, John

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Hogan, Michael

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rea, Russell, (Gloucester)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Hooper, A. G.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Reddy, M.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset. N

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launcetons

  Rees, J. D.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Hudson, Walter

  Massie, J.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Richardson, A.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Menzies, Walter

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Mond, A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Jenkins, J.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson. Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Jones, David Brynmor, (Sw'nsea

  Morrell, Philip

  Robinson, S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Morse, L. L.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Jones. William (Carnarvonshire

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Murphy, John

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Joyce, Michael

  Murray, James

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Myer, Horatio

  Rose, Charles Day

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Napier, T. B.

  Rowlands, J.

  Kelley, George D.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Runciman, Walter

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Nicholls, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncastr

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Norman, Henry

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sears, J. E.

  Lambert, George

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seddon, J.

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sheehy, David

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  O'Dowd, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  O'Grady, J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  O'Malley, William

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Mara, James

  Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Snowden, P.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Courteney

  Paul, Herbert

  Spicer, Albert

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesn.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Perks, Robert William

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Maclean, Donald

  Philipps. Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Philipps. J. Wynford Pembroke

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal. E.)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Sullivan, Donal

  1180

  1181

  Summerbell, T.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Thomas. David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Thorne, William

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Winfrey, R.

  Tomkinson, James

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk Mid)

  Torrance, A. M.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Toulmin, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Woodhouse. Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Young, Samuel

  Verney, F. W.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Vivian, Henry

  Whitehead, Rowland

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  Wilkie, Alexander

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Nield, Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Percy, Earl

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J. (City Lond.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Gordon, J (Londonderry, S.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Haddock, George R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorCW

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Turnour, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord J. P. J. (Stamford)

  King. Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Chamberlain, Rt. on. J. (Birm.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

  Clarke, Sir Edward (City London

  Liddell, Henry

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Younger, George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Doughty, Sir George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Main Question put accordingly.
  The House divided: Ayes, 474; Noes, 98. (Division List No.14).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Caldwell, James

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cameron, Robert

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Agnew, George William

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ffrench, Peter

  Alden, Percy

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Field, William

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Findlay, Alexander

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Armitage, R

  Cherry, R. R.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Asquith. Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Astbury, John Meir

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Clough, W.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Gardner, Col. A. (Hereford, S.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Gilhooly, James

  Barker, John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gill, A. H.

  Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Ginnell, L.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Glover, Thomas

  Barnes, G. N.

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grins' d

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Grant, Corrie

  Beale, W. P.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Cox, Harold

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Grove, Archibald

  Bell, Richard

  Crean, Eugene

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gulland, John W.

  Belloc, Hiliare Joseph Peter R.

  Crombie, John William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Benn, John Williams (Devonp't

  Crooks, William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Benn, W. (T'w'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hall, Frederick

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cross, Alexander

  Halpin, J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hammond, John

  Bertram, Julius

  Cullinan. J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Bethell. J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hardie, George A. (Suffolk)

  Billson, Alfred

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness)

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Boland, John

  Delany, William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire. N. E.)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Harwood, George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Halam, James (Derbyshire)

  Brace, William

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Branch, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Brigg, John

  Dillon, John

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Brodie, H. C.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Brooke, Stopford

  Duckworth, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brunner. J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh

  Duffy, William J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bryce. J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor, (Mon. S.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe).

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Elibank, Master of

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hodge, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Erskine, David C.

  Hogan, Michael

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Byles, William Pollard

  Essex, R. W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Hooper, A. G.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Reddy, M.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rees, J. D.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Marnham, F. J.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Hudson, Walter

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Massie, J.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Richardson, A.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Menzies, Walter

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Mond, A.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Jenkins, J.

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Robinson, S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Morrell, Philip

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Morse, L. L.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Joyce, Michael

  Murphy, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Murray, James

  Rose, Charles Day

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Napier, T. B.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Kelley, George D.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Rowlands, J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Runciman, Walter

  Kilbride, Denis

  Nicholls, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford.)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncas'r

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull

  Norman, Henry

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Lambert, George

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Sears, J. E.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Seddon, J.

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehy, David

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Malley, William

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon, David

  O Mara, James

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Snowden, P.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Paul, Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Courteney

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Spicer, Albert

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk'B'ghs

  Perks, Robert William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Maclean, Donald

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pickersgill, Edward

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sullivan, Donal

  M'Arthur, William

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Summerbell, T.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  M'Crae, George

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  M'Kean, John

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford) W.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  1186

  1187

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southamptn

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Wardle, George J.

  Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

  Thorne, William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Torrance, A. M.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Toulmin, George

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Winfrey, R.

  Vivian, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)

  Wadsworth, J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Young, Samuel

  Wallace, Robert

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Walsh, Stephen

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wiles, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Percy, Earl

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry. N.)

  Gordon, Sir W Evans-(T'r Ham.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Beckett, Hon, Gervase

  Haddock, George R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cave, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord J. P. J. (Stamford)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Turnour, Viscount

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Kenyon-Slaney Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. Howard

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Liddell, Henry

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lockwood, Rt Hn. Lt. Col. A. R.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved, That this House, recognising that in the recent general election the people of the United Kingdom have demonstrated their unqualified fidelity to the principles and practice of free trade, deems it right to record its determination
  1188
  to resist any proposal, whether by way of taxation upon foreign corn or of the creation of a general tariff upon foreign goods, to create in this country a system of protection.

  EVENING SITTING.
  [Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER in the Chair.]
  EVENING SITTING.

    LONDON COUNTY BUILDINGS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's,)said that he intended not to oppose this Bill but merely to offer a few remarks and to ask for a little information upon it before it went to its Second Reading. The London County Council, t was true, were extremely badly housed it present as regards the buildings in which they carry on the business of the Council and which they had acquired for he use of the staff. When he was a member of the County Council he supported a scheme for the acquisition of a site in Spring Gardens, and since then other sites had been brought forward, the Parliament Street site, the Adelphisite and the site which they proposed to acquire under this Bill. The resent site had much to recommend it, but he was exceedingly doubtful whether his was an opportune time to incur the expenditure in view of the present and future commitments of the County Council. He agreed that they should have buildings worthy of the work they had to carry on, and certainly should have better municipal buildings than they had in Spring Gardens. This Bill asked for a sum of £655,000, for, he understood, the site on which it was proposed to erect a building or the conduct of the business of the bounty Council and the necessary embankment. That sum did not include the cost of the buildings, which, he understood, would be something like £1,500,000 more. The County Council debt in 1889 was £17,500,000, in 1899 it was £21,500,000, and in 1905, when the County Council lad assumed the control of education in London, it was £33,000,000. He did not desire to oppose the Bill, but he should like to obtain from the hon. Member in charge of it some assurance that this enormous expenditure would in some way or another eventually bring about a saving in the expense to which the Council was at present put in respect of buildings, and that the Council were acting, in the words of Lord Welby, the chairman of its Finance Committee, "prudently, soundly, and in a businesslike way."
    SIR EDWIN CORNWALL (Bethnal Green N.E.)said that this was a Bill to enable the London County Council to acquire under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act certain lands upon which it was desired to erect buildings suitable for the work which the London County Council had to carry on. Under the powers given to the London County Council under the Local Government Act of 1888, they had already arranged to purchase two-thirds of the property upon which it was proposed to erect these buildings, and it was only when they came to the House for powers to acquire the other one-third that his hon. friend desired to know whether they had considered if this was an opportune time for the work to be taken in hand. The hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, based his question on what he described as the debt of the Council in 1889 and the debt of the Council at the present time. His hon. friend had rather misled the House; he should, when stating the debt of the Council in 1889 and the increase at the present time, have taken into consideration the debt of the old School Board in 1889. He would then have found that the total increase in the debt of the London County Council during the last ten years had not exceeded £800,000, which included the cost of the great street from Holborn to the Strand, and also the improvements in Westminster, both of which were expected to work out in the future at a profit, so that there would be no charge upon the rates. There was another debt of £3,500,000 upon the tramways, but that also was a remunerative expenditure. Therefore if the hon. Member had looked carefully into this matter he would have seen that there was no ground for alarm. He did not hold that either Parliament or any other public body should be careless of its debt, and he ventured to draw the attention of the House to the debt of London in March as compared with that of other municipalities in relation to the rateable value. London's total debt in March was 155 per cent. on the rateable value; Liverpool, 300·00; Manchester, 595·3; Birmingham, 546·05 Leeds, 577·90; Sheffield, 519·76; Bradford, 490·02; Salford, 361·04; Cardiff, 328·67; Preston, 498·81; Huddersfield, 730·23. A good deal had been said about the rates in London, but,

    1191
    apart from education, the total increase in the County Council rates in the last ten years, after allowing for the falling off of the Exchequer contribution in net relief of rates, did not exceed 2d. in the pound, so that when there was an outcry about the enormous increase of rates, it would be worth while to look to some other cause of the increase than the Council. The Bill was not one to enable the Council to erect buildings; that power was already given by Parliament. It only authorised the purchase of a site. The cost of the site which had been selected would be about £600,000, and the probable cost of the buildings would be £1,056,000. It was necessary in the public interest that the County Council should not continue to carry on its enormous responsibilities and duties in the present unsuitable premises. It was essential in the public interests that the County Council should provide itself with a proper office to carry out its business. Parliament had devolved upon it tremendous responsibilities involving in maintenance alone £10,000,000 a year. No talk of extravagance or economy would materially alter that figure and make it less or more, and, if they went into the question of the grants which had to be made to various local authorities, the annual amount arose to some £15,000,000 or £16,000,000. He reminded the House not only of the deplorable conditions under which the County Council staff had to work, but of the fact that great public inconvenience arose from the existing state of things. The staff of the Council at the central offices numbered approximately 1,950, of whom 525 were located in the main building, and 1,425 in twenty-five separate buildings at various distances away from the main building, the education offices being as far as 1,530 yards away. There were twenty departments, and some of them were housed in several separate buildings. The architects' department occupied seven buildings, while parts of three more buildings were used to house the architect (education). The Department of the Clerk of the Council was housed in five buildings, the comptroller in four and the engineers in four. For all these scattered premises rent or the equivalent of rent was being paid to the amount of £38,765 per annum, and that sum was an increasing item. During the
    1192
    life of the Metropolitan Board of Works they had been considering sites and ever since. During the last ten years they had considered sites varying in cost from £2,000,000 for two acres down to the cost of the present site of £600,000 for five acres. He thought, indeed, that his hon. friend, instead of asking for further information, ought to have congratulated them on having found so good and cheap a property. For his part he did not know, if they did not secure this, where they were to go and get a site at anywhere near this price. The present site was the best and cheapest which the Council had had before it. It would occupy about 800 feet, facing the river, and would be about two-thirds of the length of St. Thomas's Hospital. It would be a great improvement to that part of London and would be of great public utility. Under the present conditions it was not only the enormous and increasing staff that suffered, but the public itself.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid he desired that the London County Council, which was discharging an enormous public work, should be fitly and economically housed. He quite recognised that the conditions under which it did its work at present were not consistent with economy, and certainly had not the dignity which ought to belong to such a body. The site now chosen appeared to him to be one which would not only give adequate room for the establishment of the Council, but would also be as economical as possible. At present over £30,000 a year was spent by the County Council in rental, and after spending that sum it was housed in a haphazard and inconvenient fashion, the departments being scattered about in different places and working under onerous and difficult conditions. The figure represented something more than interest on the sum it was proposed to the spend upon the building and site. He was not sure, however, that the ultimate expenditure would be within the limits at present indicated by the figures which had been given; but, at all events, it was desirable that in a great place like London—something between a city and a province—with its variety of interests and enormous responsibilities, a great public body discharging public functions should be properly housed. He cordially

    1193
    accepted and supported the Bill before the House.
    Second Reading agreed to.

    IRISH FISHING INDUSTRY.
    MR. BOLANDrose to call attention to the fishing industry in Ireland; and to move—"That the condition of Irish fisheries is unsatisfactory and demands the early attention of the Government." He did not intend, he said, to give a lot of statistics with regard to this matter, but he would give a comparison, first of all, between England, Ireland, and Scotland, as regarded the fishing industry. In England and Wales in the course of ten months up to the end of October, 1905, the fishing represented a value of £5,959,141. In Scotland, for the same period, it was £2,463,531. In Ireland for a period of eleven months, up to 20th November, 1905, the value was only £308,703. That was to say, roughly, the catch of fish off the Irish coast was only one-eighth that of Scotland, and one-nineteenth that of England and Wales. He thought those figures would be in themselves sufficient to prove his contention that the condition of the Irish fishing industry was unsatisfactory and demanded the early attention of the Government. From the last report of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, which Department embraced the fisheries, he found that there were only 25,000 men and boys engaged in the industry, the total number of vessels being 6,235. His first claim was, that in order to put the fisheries of Ireland upon a proper basis there should be done what was done in every other country in the world which properly looked after its fishing, and that was to supply the West coast of Ireland with at least one gunboat or torpedo destroyer to cope with the illegalities carried on by trawlers and foreign vessels. At the present time there were only two vessels, the "Helga" and the "Granuaile," engaged in the work for the whole coast of Ireland, and when he asked the Chief Secretary a few days ago what was the speed of these two vessels, the right hon. Gentleman replied that it was not advisable in the public good to give the actual speed. That was quite sufficient for the contention he was now making. He
    1194
    knew these boats were not sufficiently rapid to keep up with the trawlers which were engaged in illegal practices. Germany, in addition to a special cruiser, had two torpedo boats told off all the year round to look after its fisheries. The least that the British Government could do in return for what Ireland did in the way of keeping up the British Navy was to detach one or two torpedo boats or fast gunboats in order to supplement the two inefficient boats at present engaged in the business. The Fishery Board of the Department of Agriculture was not at present properly manned. There ought to be on the Board a man who was a thorough expert on sea fisheries, and until that was done he did not think that the Board could properly discharge its functions. As a matter of fact there was a great deal of overlapping of functions in the Department of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board. For example, over three years ago the late Chief Secretary introduced the Marine Works Act, under which the sum of £100,000 was allocated to be spent on the West coast of Ireland in building piers and harbours. In Kerry so far not a penny of this money had been spent, although when the Bill was going through the House the late Chief Secretary suggested that a sum of £1,000 should be contributed under the Bill, £1,000 from the Department of Agriculture, and £1,000 from the Congested Districts Board in order to complete a pier at Reenard Point. Nothing had been done, and he put it down to the fact that there were two or three departments in Ireland, and they put people off by one department saying that another department was not ready. If there were on the Congested Districts Board a representative from Kerry and a representative from Cork, Reenard Point would have been put into a satisfactory condition many years ago. He hoped all these departments would now put their heads together and come to some arrangement by which Kerry could take advantage of the Marine Works Act. If there had been a regular expert on the Fisheries Board in Ireland, he believed long before this that country would have had what Scotland had—and he presumed every country in which the fishing industry was looked properly after had—and that was a brand by which

    1195
    cured mackerel and herring was known all the world over. This would repay itself. If a charge, as in Scotland, of 4d. a barrel were imposed for the branding it would probably be sufficient not only to pay the expenses of the inspectors who had to carry out the branding, but also to leave a margin. A particular reason at the present moment for urging this question of branding was the fact that Ireland was going to have a national trade mark for produce and manufactures, although it was a question for consideration whether the brand for cured fish should be the national trade mark, or differently administered. At all events, it was time that a brand should be adopted, to enable Irish cured herrings and mackerel to take their distinct position. There was another matter he should like to bring to the attention of the Chief Secretary, although it was also, he agreed, in the nature of an experiment. A little time ago in Denmark and Norway experiments were carried out in fitting small motors to fishing boats, and the Scottish Office issued in March last year a very interesting report as to the application of motors to fishing boats in Scotland. So far as he knew there had been no experiment of the kind made in Ireland. Denmark and Norway were not only turning out motors for their own fishing boats, but were supplying Germany and other countries, and it was certainly time that in Ireland there should be a Government Department abreast of other countries in regard to these, experiments. He had conversed with a fisherman in Kerry who was quite willing that an experiment should be made with his boats. The report to the Scottish Office on the application of motor power to fishing boats, by Lieutenant Mansfield dimming, R.N., contained the following—
    "In summarising the results of my work in Scotland, I should state that I am of opinion that the adoption of motor power in the present boats would be of great benefit to the owners and the fishing industry in general. I see no difficulty from either the shipbuilders' or engineers' point of view that cannot he got over, and I believe that I have found in Denmark a type of motor suitable in every respect for the work required in Scotland. I trust that it may be found possible to try one or more of these at the earlist opportunity."
    With regard to this question of motors, he made no claim that they wanted in Ireland all fishing boats at present to
    1196
    be worked by motors. It was purely as an auxiliary. If a large fishing boat were fitted with a ten horse power motor, enabling it to go three knots an hour in a calm, it would make all the difference if it were hurrying to catch the fish train. To sum up he demanded assistance from the Navy in the protection of Irish Fisheries, the application of the Marine Works Act to Reenard near Cahirciveen, county Kerry, the institution of a brand for cured mackerel and herring, and the making of an experiment in the matter of motors as applicable to fishing boats. The question of inland fisheries would be dealt with by the hon. Member for Limerick City. He moved, the resolution standing in his name.
    MR. JOYCEin seconding, endorsed what his hon. friend had said with regard to the watching of the Irish coast line. He was surprised the other day when the Chief Secretary for Ireland said it would not be for the public good that the speed of the boats, detailed by the department to watch illegal trawlers, should be known by the men on those trawlers, seeing that they must know their speed perfectly well. He wished to impress upon the Chief Secretary that the coast line of Ireland was 2,200 miles in length, and how could two boats, even if they were fast boats, watch that coast? It would require at least six boats, but they would be content with four; and they should be at least two or three knots faster than any steam trawler, so that there would be no possibilty of escape for the men who tried to trawl illegally. He had seen French mackerel boats with a trail of nets a mile or more in length shot across the mouth of the River Shannon, and he did not think there was an English gun-boat within hundreds of miles, unless it was snugly ensconced in harbour. It was impossible for the coastguards stationed on the West Coast to do the policing of the coast.
    MR. BRYCE: Will the hon. Member tell me whether these French boats were within the three-mile limit?
    MR. JOYCEsaid they were. Although the Shannon was eleven miles wide at the mouth, they were well within the headlands which defined the mouth of the river. He had seen them there

    1197
    dozens of times. Last year the sea fisheries of Ireland produced a sum of nearly £400,000, and the inland fisheries—salmon and trout—about the same amount. With a little trouble, and perhaps some expense, he failed to see why this amount could not be increased to millions a year, in a very short time. He looked upon the sea and inland fisheries as a mine of wealth, if properly worked and looked after. Five years ago he observed that the "Parliamentary Companion," a book which professed to give a description of all Members of the House, said of him that his views on fishing were well known: he would have no close time at all. The gentleman who wrote that, knew very little about his views. He was altogether wrong, and must have got his information second hand. The inland fisheries in Ireland had been dwindling away, the number of men employed in the industry were becoming less and less every year, and one of the reasons was that the law as administered in Ireland was judge-made law, in the interests of the rich man and against the poor man. The Board of Conservators in Ireland were elected from one class only, and that class was the riparian and weir owners; and the elections were carried out in such a manner that the poor fishermen could never get any representation on those boards, because the gentlemen who controlled the elections carried them out by proxy voting, and they could do as was done on the Stock Exchange: bull and bear the market at their will. When the triennial elections came round, these gentlemen by their proxy votes swamped the fishermen's votes. He hoped that, now that they were going to be governed according to Irish ideas, this matter would have the serious attention of the Chief Secretary. There were three phases in this question. One was, what could be done to propagate and renew the fish? He thought that with very little expense that could be done. There were a few hatcheries in Ireland, and he only wished they were at least ten times more in number. There was another thing, and that was the conserving of the fish during the close time and in the proper places. When the fish went up to the spawning they got into the small rivers, where no bailiff could possibly be; and the farmers' servants, boys and girls, went down with pitch-forks, where the
    1198
    water was not twelve inches deep, and pitched the fish, which were not fit to be eaten at the time, on the bank by the score, and they were used to manure the land more than anything else. He suggested that at the mouth of those small rivers there should be a grating erected at a certain time of the year, that it should remain for a certain time, and that one man should be employed to watch it and to clear it, when necessary, of weeds and trees. Thus they would prevent thousands of fish, and millions upon millions of spawn, from being destroyed. Then the public rights of fishing with the rod and line were being filched away by owners of fisheries, which he believed had been bought out long ago from their forefathers by Government money, and which had been allowed by the Board of Works without a word of protest to revert back to their descendants. Poor men who wanted to enjoy a few hours amusement with the rod and line had been driven from the banks of the river at Limerick by the riparian owners, and threatened with legal proceedings if they persisted in fishing where from time immemorial the public had had a right to fish. The question was causing a great deal of excitement in Limerick, and poor men, who had tried to fight the case, when they won in the magisterial courts had been haled before the county court; and if they won there, then the men with plenty of money in their pockets took them from court to court, till finally they could not go any further, and judgment went against them by default. He had asked for a Return in order to prove that these fishing rights had been filched from the public. He was not surprised when the Conservative Government refused him the information, but he was surprised, and not agreeably, when this Liberal, Radical, and Home Rule Government, as they were called, refused it. While the Tory Party was in power they were always looking forward to being robbed of something or another, and when the Liberal Party came into power they allowed the Irish people to recoup a little that they might be ready again for plunder by the next Tory Government. In no case was that more evident than in the case of the Irish fisheries. Speaking on behalf of the fishermen, both above and below Limerick, he said that fifty years ago there were 157 boats and

    1199
    471 men employed in the fishing industry, whereas to-day there were only thirty boats and ninety men employed. What an object lesson of British rule in Ireland that was! There were forty-four families depending upon snap-net fishing for their living, and the men would know the reason why before they were deprived of their livelihood and saw their wives and families starving on the roadside. He would not put it any stronger than that. He asked the Chief Secretary to grant them an impartial inquiry into all the merits of the case and to let right prevail and the truth come out. Let every man who wished be empowered to give evidence, and, if such an inquiry were granted, they hoped to be able to establish the right of the poor working-man to have his pleasure on the Sunday and enjoy himself for a few hours in innocent recreation.
    Motion put, "That the condition of Irish fisheries is unsatisfactory and demands the early attention of the Government."—(Mr. Boland.)
    MR. BARRIEsaid that in rising to address this honourable House for the first time he was glad to find himself in a position to agree at least in some measure with some of the grievances which had been put so eloquently before the House by the previous speakers. In the part of Ireland which he had the honour to represent they also had fisheries; and they also regretted that they were not more flourishing. In his Division they had been subjected from time to time to the visitation of foreign trawlers, and the local fishermen had suffered severely in consequence. If they had had gunboats or semi-gunboats, such as had been referred to, much good would have been done. The present watchboats had always been conspicuous by their absence when they were required. The fishermen had a distinct grievance. It was, however, one the redress of which should not give the Chief Secretary any great trouble or bewilderment. There were a good many torpedo boats which might fairly be detailed for this duty during the fishery season. Although he found himself in sympathy with a good deal that had fallen from the previous speakers, he was not able to agree entirely with them. He was not there to defend the boards of conservators; he did not even know the qualifications of the
    1200
    gentlemen who formed them; but he did know that they had important duties to discharge, and the membership should be closely scrutinised. It was absolutely necessary that the very important revenue with which they had to deal, and the interests they were required to protect, should not be lightly disturbed. They were told that there was now to be a national branding of the products of Irish fisheries and of other products and manufactures of Ireland. He did not gather whether the exact form of that brand had been decided upon, but he hoped it would not be one without the Crown on the top. He thought the branding should be undertaken by the Government in the same way as in Scotland. Anything that could be done by Government branding to raise the market standard of Irish fisheries should be done as soon as possible. He agreed that the shores of Ireland were rich in all kinds of fish, and if the fishing industry there was properly fostered it could be increased to a marvellous extent. He regretted that the fishing industry in Ireland did not give employment to as many men and boys as formerly, but he did not think the fishery laws had conduced to that result. There had been a natural fluctuation in the rivers which had diminished the supply of salmon in recent years, but he was informed that the prospects of the season now opening were excellent. They had been told how enterprising Germany was with regard to her fisheries, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would take an example from Germany in regard to what she was doing to foster the industries of her comparatively small shores. Ireland had more than 2,000 miles of shores, and the amount of the trade was totally disproportionate to the possibilities of that splendid fishing ground. He believed that there was a good deal of overlapping between the new Agricultural Board, the Congested Districts Board, and the Fisheries Board, and the sooner the Chief Secretary brought his influence to bear in regard to the expenditure of these bodies the better it would be for the public purse and the fisheries. The right hon. Gentleman had asked whether this illegal fishing had taken place within the three-mile limit. In the important fishing centre in his constituency this illegal trawling was carried on regularly close in shore by foreign trawlers, and a gunboat

    1201
    had not visited that part during the whole of the season. He did not think that the demand which had been put forward was at all unreasonable. The suggestion to place a trap at the mouths of the different rivers he thought was rather unreasonable, and, indeed, absurd. At the same time he agreed very fully as to the value of the hatcheries to which the hon. Member for Limerick had drawn attention. In the north of Ireland they had a most important hatchery on the river Bann, where millions of salmon were hatched and sent to populate other rivers which were not so rich in fish. The hon. Member for Limerick seemed already to be losing faith in what had been called this Home Rule Government. It was rather early in the day to find the hon. Member's faith in the Government receding.
    MR. JOYCE: I never had any faith in any of you on either side.
    MR. BARRIEsaid he had no doubt that the representations which had been made would receive due consideration from the Chief Secretary. He should always give his support to any reform which he thought was in the interests of Ireland generally. He trusted that Nationalists would continue to indulge in the larger hope of the Government remedying all reasonable and legitimate grievances, and with those and with those only he desired to associate himself.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY (Cork County, S.)said that in the southern constituency which he represented there was a grievance of an acute and far-reaching character which had recently been very much ventilated in the local press. In the Skibbereen Press, letters, interviews, and leading articles had appeared calling attention to a grievance which, to the people in that part of Ireland, was a matter of life and death. Whatever might be said of the previous Chief Secretary, he had the greatest confidence that the present Chief Secretary during the probationary period intervening between the giving to Ireland of the full management of her own affairs would deal in a sympathetic spirit with the accumulation of wrong—doings and grievances which had been transmitted to him by his predecessor at the Irish Office. The grievance of which he
    1202
    complained was the unfair competition to which they were subjected by Norwegian fishermen. Up to about twelve months ago the southern fishermen enjoyed practically a monopoly of the American trade, but within the last twelve months, owing to the adoption of improved methods and a more expeditious system, the Norwegians had been able to secure a monopoly of the trade with America to the almost total exclusion of the Irish fishermen. Another disadvantage at which they were placed was due to the Scotch fishermen coming over to Irish waters a month earlier than they commenced operations on their own coast, and not alone catch herrings in an immature condition, but also mackerel in large quantities, and otherwise disturb and scare away large shoals of fish from the Irish coast. From Questions recently asked regarding this matter he found that a by-law was adopted some time ago with respect to part of the coast, and that it was afterwards withdrawn. But whether it was withdrawn or not made little difference, for it was never observed. With regard to the fishing industry in his own particular district in the south of Ireland, the fishermen plied their trade in open rowing boats and were at the greatest possible disadvantage owing to the lack of accommodation in the way of piers, slips, and other facilities for launching and securing their boats, and enabling them to go in and out at all states of the tide. Many suggestions as to the remedy had been made in the course of the correspondence and interviews to which he had referred. The experts who had made suggestions were not all agreed among themselves. He would suggest to the Chief Secretary the desirability of sending down to Skibbereen and the adjoining towns a competent inspector to interview the local fishermen and fish buyers and others who were conversant with the trade. When his Report was received some machinery could be devised for subsequent action with a view to a remedy. If the inspector would go down to Bishop Ross alone he would get as much information on the subject, both practical and statistical, as he would be able to digest. He was a prelate who took a deep interest, in the growing of early potatoes and violets, the breeding of

    1203
    high-class hunters, and all matters appertaining to the improvement of the locality. Or better still if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to take advantage of the approaching holidays to pay a visit to the district he would have an advantage over some of the inspectors inasmuch as he would be able to converse with the fishermen in their native tongue. Another matter which should be included in the scope of the inquiry was the want of railway accommodation, which was a great obstacle to the development of the fishing and other industries in that part of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman would visit the district he would see the necessity for improved piers and harbours, and he would be better able to devise some plan for enabling the people to grapple with the competition with which they were face to face.
    MR. FFRENCHsaid his constituency lying between Wexford and Waterford harbours, and between the rivers Slaney and Barrow, was almost surrounded by water. Hence they were deeply interested in the development of the Irish fisheries. In his memory the rivers Slaney and Barrow were good salmon streams, but in recent years they had become depleted of the fish. He believed this was also the case in regard to other rivers in Ireland. He had over and over again called the attention of the House to this matter, and as a remedy he had suggested that each of the principal rivers of Ireland should be furnished with salmon hatcheries. He believed that the Board of Agriculture had been making or was contemplating some experiments in this direction. Nothing had been done however, in regard to the rivers bounding his constituency, and he hoped the Board would give some attention to them in future. In his opinion the first reason for the depletion of the rivers of salmon was the destruction of fish coming up the river to spawn and the destruction of the fry of the salmon that happened to escape. He considered it was very easy to deal with this matter. The fishery laws required to be amended so as to make salmon poaching a criminal offence. The police should be able to prosecute on their own initiative without the interference of the conservators. Now that the police were being reduced in Ireland, and many of the constabulary barracks
    1204
    were vacant, there was no excuse for not compelling the police to attend to this business. Nor was there any excuse for not altering the law in the direction of making poaching a criminal offence. If salmon hatcheries were provided on the principal rivers he ventured to say that in a short time there would be a great increase in the salmon in the rivers and this would afford remunerative employment to the poor fishermen. At present the fishermen, out of their slender means, had to pay the water bailiffs, whereas the police might perform the duties. The second reason for the decline of the salmon fishing was that at the time when the herring fishing was in full swing, the young salmon appeared at the mouth of the rivers and they were taken and destroyed by the nets. The same might be said of whiting, cod, and mackerel, which if allowed to mature would afford remunerative employment later on. The remedy for this was to prohibit trawlers and large fishing boats fishing in the vicinity of the mouths of the harbours at this season of the year, and to rigidly enforce the three-mile limit. The piers and harbours in his district were in a wretched state and did not afford sufficient accommodation for the fishing boats. They had no harbour sufficiently deep for boats over thirty tons to come in at low water. The sailing trawlers came close to the coast and fished opposite the harbour mouths, with the result that young fish were destroyed in the spawning and feeding grounds. The three-mile limit should be rigorously enforced in order to prevent the destruction of their fisheries and that more employment might be given to their own fishermen, as well as to others, who fished outside the prohibited limits. He hoped that this Government would do something in the direction of improving the piers and harbours. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if he might be allowed to do so, that in dealing with the Irish he was dealing with a people who had a keen sense of justice. It was not justice that the Irish fisheries should be starved while the fisheries of Great Britain were the recipients of lavish expenditure.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)said it was so unusual for anyone but an Irish Member to take an interest in such matters that he thought

    1205
    he ought to apologise for intervening in this debate. [IRISH MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It always seemed to him a misfortune that when a subject affecting Ireland in a non-political way came before the House it was invariably confined to hon. Members below the gangway and to one or two Ministers on the Treasury Bench. He did not see much change in that traditional state of things to-night, and he hoped the crowded state of the benches opposite on an occasion when a subject of great importance to Ireland was being discussed would be an indication to the representatives of Ireland of the gratitude which the Liberal Party felt to them for the assistance given at the general election. He did not know much about the Irish inland fisheries, but from what they had heard from the hon. Member for Limerick as to the amount of shooting that went on there, he did not know that it was an enviable occupation to fish in these waters. He had some experience of the sea coast fisheries in that part represented by the hon. Member for South Kerry. The hon. Member had, in his moderate and reasonable speech, brought forward some points which required the immediate attention of the Chief Secretary. In regard to the question of gun boats it appeared to him perfectly absurd that a gun boat should be provided which was unable to catch up foreign trawlers which were violating international law. The suggestion that there should be an expert on the Fishery Board was one which ought to be carried out. He was sorry to hear that county Kerry had not received any benefit from the £100,000 which his own Party had granted for the assistance of fisheries in Ireland. He thought the adoption of a brand would be a very advantageous thing for the fisheries of Ireland. He remembered the experience which they had at Baltimore some years ago when instructors were brought from the United States to teach the fishermen there the best way of curing their fish. The result was that the brand of those fish exported to the United States secured a very high price for them. He would suggest that the brand ought to be a local rather than a national one. He had no arrière pensée in making that suggestion. He believed that a local brand for cured fish would encourage a healthy competition in the various parts
    1206
    of Ireland. He had had some experience in regard to the application of auxiliary steam to sailing trawlers, and he could only say that it had generally been found to be a failure in the North Sea, where it had been found that no mean between the steam trawler and the sailing trawler was really useful. Of course, it might be possible to use motors in the way suggested by the hon. Member. The motor was a new invention, and he had no experience of its application to this purpose. The hon. Member for South Cork had complained of the competition of foreign trawlers, particularly the Norwegians. He should like to point out to the hon. Member that the measure of protection suggested to the Chief Secretary was definitely barred by the Resolution passed a few hours earlier to-day, for which he understood the hon. Member had voted. He felt real sympathy with the fishermen on the coasts of Ireland. It had been the custom to contrast the industrial classes in the north of Ireland with the population in other parts which were mostly represented by the Nationalist Members, and to say that the people of the north had greater vigour, self-reliance, independence, and energy. All he could say was that that might be true of people living inland in other parts of Ireland, but in his experience it was certainly not true of those who lived on the long coast line of the South and West of Ireland. The fishermen of those parts were brave, hardy, and industrious men, and in his own experience they had shown in addition certain moral qualities which deserved recognition. They had shown the intention and ability to meet the obligations which they undertook. This had in the result facilitated the development of the fishing industry in those parts. That combination of qualities deserved the sympathy and encouragement of any Government.
    MR. CREANsaid that in 1892 the Government of the day instituted an inquiry into the very matter they were now considering. Their own Commissioners presented a Report recommending certain remedies. The Government were in office for a few years and did nothing. Another Commission afterwards inquired into the subject, and its Report contained sufficient evidence and recommendations to guide the present

    1207
    Government in the action they ought to take. He believed he was not wrong in saying that the largest fishing port on the coasts of Ireland was in his constituency. There were over 500 boats fishing from that port. They came from all parts of Scotland, England, and Ireland They did not complain of that. They welcomed the visitors. What they did complain of was the destruction of fish on the coasts. This was proved conclusively by the evidence given before the Commissioners. The remedy proposed by the Commissioners had not been applied, and the same neglect had gone on for twelve or sixteen years. In answer to a question the other day the Chief Secretary promised another Commission. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to trouble them by sending it down. He had been long enough in this House to know the value of such inquiries. Commissions were sent down simply to do nothing. He hoped the Government had come into office to do practical work. He believed they had, and they had the remedy in their hands. In 1893 the Commission recommended a close season for mackerel, so that herring fishers might be prevented from destroying immature mackerel as had been done in the past. The Commission made that recommendation as necessary for the protection of the other sea fisheries in the south of Ireland. If the Government were honestly inclined to do good to the Irish fishing industry they would extend the area of protection and also the period of the close season. If the fish were disturbed on the feeding grounds they were driven away from that particular portion of the coast and naturally the boats followed the fish. The town of Kinsale, which was at one time the most prosperous town in the south of Ireland, was now impoverished; but it was very satisfactory to those in the south of Ireland to find that, when the Governments of England were neglecting them, a noble lady with instincts of doing good had come to their assistance.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the right hon. the Chief Secretary for Ireland, although he acknowledged that it did not properly belong to him, had arrogated to himself the Department ment of Agriculture and Fisheries. Irish Members had some hope seven or eight
    1208
    years ago when they drew attention to the depressed condition of the fisheries in their country that a Minister for Irish Agriculture and Fisheries should be appointed who would be responsible to this House. A Minister was appointed, but the late Government were unable to secure a seat for him in the House. The present Government, however, could get a safe seat for any Gentleman they might appoint as Minister responsible to the House for Irish Agriculture and Fisheries. He himself had never believed in a Department of Irish Agriculture; he did not think it had added a single blade of grass to the soil of Ireland; but at all events it was something in advance to take from Dublin Castle and the resident magistrates the supervision of the Irish fisheries. He wished to acknowledge that the Department of Irish Agriculture had made some slight efforts to improve agriculture, efforts, however, which the Government had taken no steps to second. The Department of Agriculture had agreed to give a site for a pier at Blackrock in his constituency, if the local authority would give half the money to build it. The county council agreed, but such was the spirit of landlordism even in these days that the owner of the land on which the fishermen lived would not grant a portion of the foreshore for the erection of the pier, and thus the action of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries had been entirely frustrated. He would suggest that when the Crown was willing to render up its piece of foreshore for the purposes of a pier, compulsory powers should be given to acquire the abutment of the lord of the soil, not only for the erection of a pier or harbour, but for cottages for labourers and fishermen, and residences for the schoolmaster and postmaster. A coast without piers was like a land without roads. Three successive Secretaries had promised him—one in writing—that he would have a grant for a harbour in a particular portion of his constituency where boats could come in and discharge their cargoes in safety, but nothing had yet been done. He thought they were entitled to ask, with regard to certain funds which the Treasury had absorbed from the country, that some greater facilities should be given than they had yet got for the erection of piers on the east coast of Ireland. He was glad

    1209
    to associate himself with what had been said as to the intervention in the debate of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, who was one with a special right to speak on the subject; and he entirely agreed that so far as the south of Ireland was concerned, never would the name of the distinguished lady with whom the hon. Member was associated be forgotten, or gratitude for her action fade or perish from the minds of Irishmen.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,)said he had to acknowledge the moderation of tone and practicality which had been observed by every speaker. Many valuable suggestions had been made, some of which, at any rate, he hoped to be able to give effect to. He believed that hon. Gentlemen would find that the Irish Governmental authorities were anxious to carry out the suggestions made to them as far as they could. Of course, he himself could not claim to have any direct personal knowledge of a good many of the points raised by hon. Members on the Irish benches. As to the question of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries raised by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, the present position was a purely provisional one. No decision had been come to as to whether that Department should have a separate representative in the House or not. He hoped to give some thought to that question in the next few months, but it must be understood at the present to be entirely in a state of suspense. He frankly admitted that the whole subject of Irish fisheries was one of very great importance, and that the system was not all that it might be, at any rate in some places. Considering how much had been done for the fisheries on the Scottish coast, more might be done for the fisheries on the Irish coast, and also for the inland fisheries of Ireland. He agreed that the subject was one which ought to engage the attention of the Irish Government, and, on behalf of the Government, he was perfectly willing to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for South Kerry. The first point raised was the question of patrolling in order to protect Irish fisheries within the three
    1210
    mile limit, not only from foreign but from British trawlers. But he must say that the evidence before him did not go to show that these raids by foreign and British trawlers within territorial waters were so frequent or so serious as might have been gathered from what had been said during the debate. He was told that two cruisers were continually patrolling the southern and western coasts of Ireland. The patrol boats reported that they had captured eighteen trawlers between June, 1904, and September, 1905, and in no case had a trawler, once seen, succeeded in escaping. But it was impossible for the patrol boats to be everywhere, and he was inclined to think that there had been a good deal of exaggeration in the complaints made against them. He was, however, not sure that the fines inflicted had always been sufficiently severe. The Agricultural Department informed him that out of twenty-nine convictions in the last five years, the fines, were not sufficient.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Did the Lord-Lieutenant remit the fines?
    MR. BRYCE: Not to my knowledge. He regretted that nothing had been done to build a deep water pier at Reenard Point. He knew the place very well, and it was an important centre to that part of the coast of Kerry. Considerable pressure might be put on the Irish railways in this matter, and he was considering the position of those railways both as to rates on fish, and as to the facilities for providing swift trains for the conveyance of fish to market. He knew what an enormous quantity of fish was sent from the port of Aberdeen by quick trains to the middle and south of England, and he would like to see something done in the same direction by the Irish railways. The provision of better piers and harbours would be an important step in the same direction, and the whole subject would receive his closest attention. He confessed he had been rather surprised to hear that such objection had been made by the landowner at Blackrock in regard to the pier. His contention was that no proprietor, whatever his motive, ought to be permitted to stand in the way of a work of such public utility, and should be

    1211
    compelled to give the land on the foreshore for such public works. If compulsory powers did not exist in such cases they ought to. He thought that the rights which the public and the Crown ought to have in the foreshores of the country had been allowed to be very largely absorbed by the proprietors of the adjacent land; and one of the first subjects on which drastic legislation was needed was this of the public rights in the foreshore.
    MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that a landlord in Kerry ordered me to leave the foreshore where I was walking.
    MR. BRYCE: I do not think the landlord had any right to expel the hon. Member.
    MR. FLAVIN: I may tell the right hon. Gentleman I did not leave the shore.
    MR. BRYCEsaid he would now come to the subject of a herring brand. The herring-branding system had been in operation in Scotland for many years, and although, no doubt, it was theoretically a violation of the doctrine of laisser faire, it had worked well in practice and contributed very largely to commanding high prices for Scottish herrings. The Scottish trade was larger, but still there were now considerable herring centres in Ireland and he did not see why the experiment should not be tried there. Reference had also been made to motor boats, which had been such a success on the coasts of Norway and Denmark. They had had an interesting report from Lieutenant Cumming. Prima facie there appeared to be a strong case. Experiments were being made in Scotland, and, so far, they had been successful. He did not see why a similar experiment should not be made in Ireland, and he hoped and believed it would be made. Complaint had been made by the hon. Member for South Cork of the delays which had occurred in arriving at conclusions
    1212
    in regard to the establishment of a close season, and proper measures for the protection of immature fish. The reason no action had been taken was that the last inquiry disclosed that there was such a divergence of opinion among the fishermen who represented the different parts of the south coast. They could not agree upon any one by-law. Inquiry, however, had only been deferred till May, and if it were found necessary to have a close season no doubt one would be established. The hon. Member would understand that it was an extremely difficult matter. They were only just beginning to apply scientific methods to the development of fisheries. The latest bacteriological investigations in regard to the loss of fish had shown that very many of the conclusions which obtained a few years ago had very small foundation in fact, and that we had yet to obtain much more information as to the movements of fish and their habits of spawning than we yet possessed before we were fully informed on the subject. It would therefore be dangerous to make any by-laws with the certainty that they would not remain very long in force. That, however, was no reason for not making experiments, but it was a reason for calling upon science to assist us. He passed to the subject of the inland fisheries. The hon. Member for Limerick complained that the boards of conservators were not really representative, and that those interested were not abreast of the necessities of the time. He thought the change in the ownership of land in Ireland was itself a reason for considering whether some change in the boards of conservators was not needed. There was every reason why they should take steps to secure a better representation. He could assure the hon. Member that the whole subject of altering the constitution of the boards of conservators was now before the minds of the Irish Board of Agriculture and the Irish Government generally, and they would consider what steps could be taken to bring about boards which would be more

    1213
    genuinely representative and which would enlist a greater amount of popular interest in the work than was given under the present system. The Board of Agriculture said they were not aware that the rights of the public were being largely infringed upon, but he should be glad to have an inquiry in order to see what could be done to prevent public rights being absorbed by private persons. If it was not possible to interfere with the rights vested in particular persons, it might be possible after inquiry to take steps either to give local bodies powers to enforce public rights, or by legislation in the future to prevent public rights being absorbed. But an inquiry he was afraid would not prevent any right which had been obtained by a private person from being maintained. He knew that in many cases public rights against fishing had suffered, and he was sorry to hear that during the last two years that had been the case along the Shannon. He was endeavouring to have a local inquiry on that subject. An hon. Member had asked for information as to salmon hatcheries, and in regard to them he thought he could give some satisfactory information. The Agricultural Department had in the last few years opened seven hatcheries, and subsidised thirteen, having spent £3,000 upon them since 1889."
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked for the names of the rivers.
    MR. BRYCEregretted that he had not them with him. As the result of the efforts of the Department there had been an output of from 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 of young fish. The Department wished him to assure the House that they would go further if they could secure the local co-operation which they desired. He attached very high importance to these hatcheries. They had been very successful in some parts of the Continent and in Scotland He believed that in many rivers and streams of the West and South
    1214
    of Ireland, where the right of fishing with fly or bait was open to the public, it would be of great benefit to the whole country to increase largely the supply of trout. Anglers would be attracted, and hotel business would be promoted. Earlier in the day, in answering a Question, he referred to the subject of the competition of Norwegians in regard to the curing of mackerel. Norwegian instructors were being employed in teaching Irish people, in parts where mackerel were caught, the Norwegian method of curing, and when there had been some experience of the effects of this step he would be glad to give the House further information on the subject. As to the desirability of putting gratings in the mouths of small rivers to prevent fish in spawn getting into shallow water he was afraid there were two difficulties in the way—the considerable expense which would be incurred, and the possibility that such gratings might cause floods by allowing water to accumulate. All the matters to which reference had been made required the expenditure of money, and it was not always possible for the Irish Government to obtain half the money it would like to have for such purposes. He was not at all insensible to the general importance which the subject of fisheries bore in relation to the prosperity of Ireland. There were large parts of the West of Ireland where the people lived on exceedingly bad soil which, where it was fertile, had only been made so by their own labour. These people had been obliged to supplement their earnings by going to England and Scotland to earn wages during part of the year. That being so, it would be a great advantage to them if the fisheries were further developed. He did not wish the Government to be a kind of terrestrial providence to Ireland but every additional opening that could be found for any class of industry besides agriculture ought to receive the attention of the Government; and he believed that Ireland, having suffered from bad legislation in former times and from neglect

    1215
    when much was being done for other parts of the United Kingdom, had a special claim to the help and assistance of the Government in the development of her national resources to the fullest possible extent.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that it was impossible to discuss the question in the few minutes remaining before the adjournment of the House, but he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman was alive to the importance of stimulating local industry in connection with fisheries. There were a number of small industries connected with seafisheries that could be developed with very great advantage to Ireland. A number of those industries were very ancient ones, and included that of boat-building. The right hon. Gentleman could do a very good service and improve an Irish industry if he would use his influence with the Congested Districts Board, and the Department of Irish Agriculture, to induce them to develop these industries. The Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries had for a number of years been supplying fishing boats to Irish fishermen, but a large number of boats had been built outside of Ireland which were not better than the Irish boats. This industry had formerly existed in many places, but was now dying out, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would examine into this matter in regard to the whole of Ireland. Of course they all admitted the paramount claims of the congested districts, but he thought that the question of the encouragement of the Irish fisheries should not be merely considered with reference to them. There was a movement warmly taken up four years ago to obtain an extension of the Marine Works Act to districts outside the congested districts. The then Chief Secretary promised that he would inquire into the subject, and he understood that inquiries had been pursued for two or
    1216
    three years, and possibly the right hon. Gentleman could derive some information from them, and see how far it was possible to extend the provisions of the Marine Works Act to districts which were outside the congested districts. The session before last the Secretary to the Treasury said that when a scheme was put forward he would be prepared to consider it. He thought the only real hope of the development of the fresh water fisheries was by increased popular control, and that powers in connection with them should be largely handed over to the Irish councils. He was quite sure a substantial advantage would be obtained by that course.
    MR. O'DOHERTYsaid he represented a fishing district and was proud to say that he was born and had lived and been educated in the neighbourhood. He knew that some legislation was necessary to improve the unhappy condition of the poor inhabitants. He hoped the Chief Secretary would not forget Donegal, and that he would visit the northern part of the county.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDinquired whether any progress had been made in regard to the suggestion that boats should be provided for the purposes of facilitating the carriage of fish from the Irish fishing coasts to the English markets.
    MR. BRYCEsaid the subject should have his attention.
    Resolved, "That the condition of Irish Fisheries is unsatisfactory and demands the early attention of the Government."—(Mr. Boland.)
    Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT.
Petition of Mervyn Richard Wingfield, Viscount Powerscourt of Powerscourt in the county of Wicklow, in the Peerage of Ireland, and Baron Powerscourt in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
THE LORD LOVAT.
Took the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  GREAT YARMOUTH WATERWORKS AND LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill under circumstances which will be quite familiar to the great majority of your Lordships. But as some possibly may not be aware of them, I will simply state the reasons why I have been asked to discharge this duty. The noble Earl opposite, who is interested in the county, having given notice to move the rejection of the Bill, according to the usual custom which governs the etiquette in this House in these matters the Chairman of Committees does not move the Second Reading. I have, therefore, been asked by the promoters of the Bill to put in very general terms the case for the Bill before your Lordships, and to ask that your Lordships will be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading. In doing so, I shall carefully avoid anything like an argument upon the merits of the Bill, because, whatever its merits, or whatever its demerits may be, the main part of my case is that the contents of this Bill are matter for discussion upstairs in
  1054
  the Committee Room and not in a Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House.
  The object of the Bill is to get an increased supply of water for the two towns of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. The inhabitants number 80,000 or more, I am informed, and in the summer there is a considerable influx of visitors and of fishing population. I need not dwell upon the fact that for great communities of this kind it is of the first importance, on account of considerations of health and general sanitary considerations, that the supply of water should be of the best and the most abundant. The water companies are advised that the sources to which they propose to go under this Bill are the best that are available under all the circumstances. That is a point which can be much better discussed upstairs, where the Committee which I hope your Lordships will ultimately appoint will have the benefit of the best engineering and first-hand evidence, and where that evidence can be tested by examination and cross-examination in the usual way.
  There is no fear of the questions which are at issue in this Bill going by default. I observe that petitions have been presented against it, or against, I should say, some of the clauses, by the Norfolk County Council, the Great Yarmouth Corporation, the Great Yarmouth Court Commissioners, the London Drainage Commissioners, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, and some private persons who think their interests are affected. They make in those petitions various allegations. They allege that the proposals of the promoters of the Bill will interfere with the navigation of the River Bure, with boating and the mooring of vessels, and with, I believe, sailing and water expeditions upon the Broads. Also, the purity of the water is challenged, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners say that their estates and their tenants will be injuriously affected. Those are the facts that are alleged. What substance is, in them I do not know; but, my Lords, I have read through the Bill and through the petitions, and with such experience as I am able to bring to bear on the matter I am able to say that there is nothing whatever in this Bill which is

  1055
  beyond the ordinary practice of Parliament.
  It is possible that the water companies are asking too much. I have known promoters of Bills ask for too much before. I think it is probably very seldom that any Bill comes before your Lordships which is not open to criticism of that sort. It is possible that even the County Council or the Corporation of these towns may be putting their case too high. But my point is this, that these matters can be efficiently and best tested, not in a Second Reading debate in which noble Lords like myself or others will make ex parte statements on second-hand information, but before an impartial and fair tribunal upstairs. That is really the whole of my case. I can see from reading the clauses of the Bill that there are some drastic proposals made. There are proposals for preventing people putting refuse into the river. It seems to me that that is a reasonable proposal, whether you are going to use it for a water supply or not, but certainly much more so if you are going to use it in this way. There are also allegations that the mooring of vessels will be interfered with unduly and navigation interrupted; but my point is that the Town Council of Great Yarmouth may be thoroughly well trusted to bring all these matters to the knowledge of the Committee upstairs before whom I hope your Lordships will send the Bill. There is no fear of injustice being done if it goes there and a thorough examination is conducted into the merits of the Bill and the opposition to it; but I do think your Lordships will be taking, I will not say an unprecedented, but a most unusual course, if you stop investigation at the very beginning in a matter of this kind.
  The broad facts of the case are these, that there are communities of from 80,000 to 100,000 who are desirous of a better water supply, and who come to your Lordships' House and tell you that this is not only the best but the only source of supply available. In these circumstances I move the Second Reading of the Bill. I know that negotiations are going on for the settlement of most of the matters which are alleged in the
  1056
  various petitions. I do not know on what ground the noble Earl is going to oppose the Bill; I do not know whether he is commissioned to act for any of the bodies I have named; the reasons for his action are undisclosed, and therefore I shall say no more on the subject at the present time, but, if it should be necessary, I will ask your Lordships to hear me in reply.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. I am perfectly aware that it is not very usual to move that a Bill of this kind should not be sent for consideration to a Committee. My reason for doing so in this case is this. There is in the county of Norfolk an extraordinarily strong feeling against the water of the Bure being taken away to supply Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. To begin with, Lowestoft is not in the county of Norfolk, and we feel very strongly that as there is a pure river in Suffolk it could very well be made use of to supply Lowestoft with water. I am perfectly certain that the Bill, if it is not thrown out by your Lordships' Committee, should it be sent up to a Committee, will be thrown out in another place when it gets there; and for this simple reason. The Broads of Norfolk are the great playground in the summer months of all sorts and conditions of His Majesty's subjects, and if you take away a very small portion of the water from the River Bure you will inevitably destroy that playground. Many noble Lords know what a charming place the Norfolk Broads are, and if a very few inches of water only are taken from the Bure thousands and thousands of people will be deprived of the delightful holidays they now spend there in the months of August and September. That is one argument.
  There is another very strong argument for not reading the Bill a second time. The Great Yarmouth Corporation have bitterly opposed it. Why? Nobody knows the reason for that action better than myself. The quality of the water is such that it is absolutely unfit to be given

  1057
  to the Yarmouth people to drink. I have been chairman of a rural sanitary authority hard by, and I know that the water of the River Bure is so absolutely impure that it cannot be used for any purpose. It is hardly fit for anything except for sailing up and down on. Many of the wells that have come under my notice as chairman of the rural sanitary authority to which I have referred have been proved to be absolutely impure and full of very bad organic matter. There was a very exhaustive inquiry and everything possible was done to prevent sewage matter running down into the Broads. It is, however, absolutely impossible to prevent the intakes into the River Bure. It is impossible to render it perfectly pure. The water is practically marsh water; it flows on mud. More than that, this is a tidal river and the tide comes up to the point at which it is intended to take the water. I do not think it is fair to propose to supply Great Yarmouth with brackish water, however much you try to filter it.
  At the present time a Royal Commission is sitting on our public water-ways. The River Bure is a public water-way. There is a great deal of trade done on that river, and if you take water from it you will only take it in the summer time, which is the very time when it is wanted, not only for the amusement of the public, but also for trading purposes. The Port and Haven Commissioners are strongly opposed to this. One Commissioner is well known to your Lordships—I refer to Mr. Taylor. He has taken an enormous interest in this matter, and he assures me that if in the summer time we lose two inches of water it will materially affect our trading wherries. Again, if two inches of water are taken, or even if one inch only is taken, we shall be deprived of the facilities we now have for landing stone for our roads, and if we lose these facilities we shall have to convey stone by rail and our rates will considerably suffer in consequence. It may be said that we can dredge, but that is impossible.
  There is another reason why I hope your Lordships will not consent to this Bill being read a second time. The Yarmouth Corporation say in their petition, not only that the water is bad, but that the supply of water—and I agree with
  1058
  them entirely in this—to a large place like the borough of Yarmouth should be in the hands of the local authority, and that no power should be given to a company to interfere with them or add to the price that will have to be paid at a future date on the acquisition of the undertaking by the Corporation. If this scheme is carried out the local authority, when they purchase, as I hope they will, will have to undo all that is done under this Bill. The people of Norfolk do not want to lose the playground which is a source of great income to them; the Port and Haven Commissioners do not wish to see imperilled the wherries that trade up and down; and, more than that, the Great Yarmouth Corporation do not want to have foisted upon them a water supply which I believe, and which they are perfectly certain, is absolutely impure. For that reason I move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' in order to insert at the end these words: 'this day six months.' "—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords. The noble Earl has taken the course, which is not very usual in your Lordships' House, of asking the House to reject this Bill on Second Reading. He has alleged, as a reason for taking that course, that the Bill may interfere materially with the enjoyment of the general public on the Broads of Norfolk, and he has appealed to some of your Lordships who know that country to assist him in rejecting the Bill. The noble Earl said the water was impure. I happen to have had the advantage on more than one occasion of enjoying a cruise on the Norfolk Broads, and I have drunk—at least some of the crew drank—the water of the Norfolk Broads. I cannot charge my memory with what I drank on board the vessel, but the crew drank the water and so far as I know no one was any the worse.
  The noble Earl informed your Lordships that the Bill would be strenuously opposed. By whom is it to be opposed? It is going to be fought by the Norfolk County Council; and I ask your Lordships whether any more proper body could be entrusted with the defence of the

  1059
  interests of the county, and, indeed, of all those who frequent the Norfolk Broads, than the Norfolk County Council. I venture to think that your Lordships, who are not acquainted with all the facts and circumstances of this case, may quite safely leave the defence of the Norfolk Broads in the hands of the Norfolk County Council. The whole of the circumstances will be gone into with the aid of able counsel, and I hope your Lordships will not refuse to allow the Bill to go in the ordinary course to a Select Committee. If it were not opposed by those quite capable of taking care of themselves, my view might be different. But in view of the fact that it is opposed by the Norfolk County Council, who distinctly allege in their petition that it will interfere with the pleasure traffic on the Broads; and by the Corporation of Great Yarmouth, who allege that the water is not of a quality that should be supplied to Great Yarmouth, I think your Lordships may safely allow the Bill to go before a Committee. I ask your Lordships, therefore, not to depart from your usual practice, but to send this Bill for consideration to a Select Committee.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I would ask my noble friend behind me not to press his Amendment to a division. The noble Earl has stated a great variety of circumstances which he thinks tell against the Bill, but I agree with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees that they are just the questions to be inquired into by a Select Committee. It would, I think, be very unusual, if not altogether inconsistent with the ordinary practice of this House, if we were to attempt to intercept this Bill on Second Reading on the grounds which have been brought forward. I venture to hope, therefore, that my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: After what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  On Question, Bill read 2a.
  Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]. Presented; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
  Milford Docks Bill [H.L.]; H. R. Baines & Company Bill [H.L.]; Crystal Palace Company Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
  Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Dover Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Penllwyn Railway and Road Bill [H.L.]; London and North Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Western and Rhymney Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.), E. Verulam, E. Dartrey (chairman), L. Monson, L. Seaton, L. Somerton (E. Normanton); agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday, the 22nd instant, at eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  Mersey Railway Bill [H.L.]; Wirral Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]; Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Holyhead Water Bill [H.L.]; Fulwood Urban District Water Bill [H.L.] Wolstanton United Urban District Council Gas Bill [H.L.]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.), E. Cawdor (chairman), V. Hill, L. Ellen-borough, L. Abinger, L. Northbourne;

  1061
  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  Wallis' Divorce Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). An Amendment made; Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendment to be received on Thursday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Correspondence relating to disturbances in British Guiana.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report on Franciscan manuscripts preserved at the Convent Merchants Quay, Dublin.
  EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report and Tables for the year 1905.
  BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
  Fifty-first Annual Report of the Registrar-General in Scotland for the year 1905, and Forty-first Annual Report on Vaccination.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Return showing the expenditure from the grant for Public Education in Scotland in the year 1905; with statistics.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BRIDLINGTON PIERS AND HARBOUR.
  Abstract of the Annual General Account for the year ended 26th July, 1905. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, this Bill is for the consolidation of the law relating to Naval Prize of War. It has been long desired by the Admiralty, and has been passed through this House I think more than once by the late Government. I do not know why it was that such a useful measure did not proceed further. I hope it will have a better fate this time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  PRIZE COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill in very much the same category as the last. It has already passed this House under the patronage of the late Administration. Its object is to extend the powers under Section 4 of the Commissioners for Oaths Act, 1889, which relates to the appointment of persons, to administer oaths in prize proceedings, so as to enable oaths to be administered abroad by Naval Officers on board His Majesty's ships for any purpose connected with proceedings in a prize court. There is nothing at all of a contentious or political character in this Bill, and I hope it will be passed into law this session.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill of very small scope.

  1063
  Its object is merely to amend the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1894, with respect to the persons in whom the power of making Rules of Court under those Acts is vested, by enabling a provincial solicitor to be added to the Rule Committee. It is very desirable that we should invoke the assistance of someone who has country experience. This is a Bill of very modest pretentions, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  Polling Districts (County Councils) [H.L.] Bill; Polling Arrangements (Parliamentary Boroughs) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON MOTOR CARS.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether, if the Royal Commission on Motor Cars reports before Easter, there will be any legislation thereon during this session. I make no apology for saying a word or two this afternoon on this subject and for asking His Majesty's Government to make some definite statement so that we may know whether or not they have any legislation in view. I understand that the other day, in another place, an answer was given, not in very precise terms, but intimating that so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned they will not this year introduce any legislation. The reply, however, was not given in so clear a form that we could draw an absolute conclusion there-from.
  It is well known that a Royal Commission has been sitting for some time on this subject. It was supposed at the end of last session that the Commission would report in time for legislation to
  1064
  be introduced this session, but we now understand that it will certainly not report before Easter. It is highly undesirable that any legislation should be framed in a hurry on this very difficult question, which requires much time and consideration if the legislation is to be satisfactory to the public and to the mercantile community. The Act under which motorists run their cars to-day was passed in 1903 somewhat in a hurry. Noble Lords will remember that it left this House in one form, and assumed, to its detriment, a totally different form in the House of Commons. It is very desirable that there should be no such hasty and ill-considered legislation this session.
  I would suggest that the present Act, which would otherwise expire this year, should be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We should then have the advantage of plenty of time in which to consider the Report of the Royal Commission. At the same time I would plead that there should be no undue delay, for the present state of the law is satisfactory neither from the point of view of the public nor from the point of view of the motorist. There are complaints every day of misbehaviour on the part of motorists—complaints which, in many cases, are well founded, and at the same time motorists suffer grievances and hardships which were not intended when the Bill of 1903 was introduced and which show that the present legislation requires amendment. But the new legislation should be well thought out, and for that reason I suggest continuing the present Act for another year.
  I understand that the Royal Commission have taken evidence from a great variety of witnesses on both sides, and I would ask whether it would not be possible to issue an interim Report. The reference to the Commission was a very wide one; it comprised all kinds of matters intimately concerned with motoring. Bad driving and the dust question were included, and if the portion of the Commission's Report dealing mainly with these two subjects could be produced it would be of great advantage. These are two very urgent subjects, and I would not suggest for one moment

  1065
  that action upon them should be put off for another year, for in the interests neither of motorists nor of the general public should the present state of things in this direction be allowed to continue. I beg to put the Question standing in my name.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord opposite in his appeal that, whatever happens, there shall be no more hasty legislation on this subject. We have had enough of hasty legislation in the present Act, and, speaking from the point of view of motorists, we suffer considerably in consequence of the ill-considered provisions of the Act of 1903. Though I recognise the improbability of our getting fresh legislation this session, I should be very sorry indeed to see the present Act continued indefinitely. There is one particular blot on the Act which makes its continuance longer than necessary very undesirable. I refer to the insertion in that Act by the other House of an artificial speed limit. Your Lordships took the more sensible view that an artificial speed limit was the very worst way of protecting the public against danger. I think one may fairly say that, although not in the opinion of motorists a wise or useful provision, it has been so administered in the larger part of the United Kingdom as not to cause great hardships; but in certain counties that particular section of the Act is administered without any regard to the object for which it was inserted in the statute. This is much to be deprecated, because it creates bad feeling between motorists and the police, and tends to make the administration of the law more difficult. For that reason I hope that the present Act will not be continued longer than is necessary, and that this point will be dealt with. There are many penalties in the Act which are out of all proportion to those in other Acts for corresponding offences. I hope that the Report of the Royal Commission will not be much longer delayed, as it will require a great deal of careful consideration both by His Majesty's Government and by those who represent motorists.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord opposite that His Majesty's Government fully recognise the importance of the subject he has brought before the House. As the noble Lord is aware, the Royal Commission only commenced their labours in September, and they are unable to give the Government any idea as to when they will be able to report. In these circumstances it is manifestly impossible for the Government to make any pronouncement at all on the subject; but I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no delay or undue haste. As it is almost certain that the Report will be presented so late this year as to make it impossible for any new legislation to be introduced, the present law will be continued for twelve months, and before the expiration of that time we hope that a Bill will be brought in which will be acceptable to noble Lords on both sides of the House.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS (REGISTRATION OF PATENT AGENTS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to patent agents. Was presented by the Lord Coleridge; read la; and to be printed. (No. 30.)
  ELECTIONS (MEETINGS IN SCHOOL-ROOMS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for grating the use of public elementary schoolrooms for the purpose of holding meetings in support of candidates for Parliamentary and other elections. Was presented by the Lord Burghclere; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 29.)
  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time. First Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Thursday next. (No. 28.)

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve on the Standing Committee:

  L. Archbp. of Canterbury

  V. Cross.

  V. Knutsford.

  L. Chancellor.

  V. Llandaff.

  L. Archbp. of York,

  V. Goschen.

  E. Crewe. (L. President.)

  V. Ridley.

  V. Churchill.

  M. Ripon. (L. Privy Seal.)

  V. Selby.

  V. St. Aldwyn.

  D. Bedford.

  L. Bp. London.

  D. Devonshire.

  L. Bp. Hereford.

  D. Northumberland.

  L. Bp. Southwark.

  M. Winchester.

  L. Zouche of

  M. Lansdowne.

  Haryngworth.

  M. Salisbury.

  L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

  M. Bath.

  M. Linlithgow.

  L. Barnard.

  E. Liverpool. (L. Steward.)

  L. Saltoun.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Derby.

  L. Monson.

  E. Denbigh.

  L. Kenyon.

  E. Stamford.

  L. Stewart of Garlies. (E. Galloway.)

  E. Chesterfield.

  E. Jersey.

  E. Lauderdale.

  L. Ribblesdale.

  E. Carnwath.

  L. Harris.

  E. Waldegrave.

  L. Ranfurly. (E. Ranfurly.)

  E. Portsmouth.

  E. Spencer.

  L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

  E. Clarendon.

  E. Cadogan.

  L. Kilmarnock. (E. Erroll.)

  E. Malmesbury.

  E. Westmeath.

  L. Poltimore.

  E, Onslow.

  L. Denman.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. Oranmore and Browne.

  E. Stradbroke.

  E. Vane. (M. Londonderry.)

  L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

  E. Cawdor.

  L. Elgin. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  E. Camperdown.

  E. Lichfield.

  E. Yarborough.

  L. Belper.

  E. Russell.

  L. Brougham and Vaux.

  E. Dartrey.

  E. Feversham.

  L. Kinnaird.

  E. Lytton.

  L. Lawrence.

  E. Ancaster.

  L. Wolverton.

  E. Halsbury.

  L. Sandhurst.

  E. Plymouth.

  L. Reay.

  V. Falkland.

  L. Tweedmouth.

  V. Hutchinson. (E. Donoughmore.)

  L. Monk Bretton.

  L. Herries.

  V. Hampden.

  L. Monkswell.

  1068

  L. Ashbourne.

  L. Ludlow.

  L. Montagu of Beaulieu.

  L. Newlands.

  L. Avebury.

  L. Thring.

  L. Alverstone.

  L. Macnaghten.

  L. Shuttleworth.

  L. Ashcombe.

  L. Allerton.

  L. Newton.

  L. Waleran.

  L. Stanmore.

  L. Knaresborough.

  L. Davey.

  L. Desborough.

  L. Burghclere.

  L. Weardale.

  L. James.

  L. Haversham.

  L. Heneage.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.