Sitting of 1 May 1906

Preamble
The House met at 2.45 p.m.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill. Read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
Mr. NUSSEYreported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee, "That, in the case of the Sutton District Water, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—;That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolution agreed to.
London County Buildings Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Preston, Chor-
378
ley, and Horwich Tramways Company to acquire lands for road widenings; to abandon a portion of their authorized tramways; and to construct other works in lieu thereof; to extend the period limited for construction of works and land purchases; to authorise the Corporation of Wigan to purchase portions of tramways; and for other purposes." [Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for purchasing lands; and for the construction and completion of certain tramways, street widenings, and works authorised by the South Lancashire Tramways Acts 1900, 1901, and 1903; and for other purposes." [South Lancashire Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Sheffield District Railway Company to enter into and carry into effect working and other agreements; and for other purposes." [Sheffield District Railway Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to effect a fusion of the life assurance and annuity business of the National Assurance Company of Ireland with the undertaking of the Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company; and for other purposes." [National Assurance Company of Ireland and Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company Bill [Lords.]
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]; South Lancashire Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]; Sheffield District Railway Bill [Lords]; National Assurance Company of Ireland and Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petition from Fareham, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, ETC., (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Carlton Main; Church Lane; Frystone; Glasshoughton; Leeds Central (B); Lochgelly; Monk Bretton; New Oaks; Pontefract; Radstock; South Heindley; and Wythemoor Pits Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: From Alburgh; Aldeburgh on Sea (two); Alton (four); Alverstoke (two); Badwell Ash (two); Bailbrook; Barnsloy; Barnstaple and Sherwell; Barton; Bentley; Bentworth (two); Bexhill (two); Bigby (two); Bodiam; Bradford; Brancaster (two); Brierfield; Broadwater Down (two); Broughton; Buckland Dinham; Buckland St. Mary; Buriton; Burmarsh (two); Caundle Purse (two); Charlynch; Cheetham (three); Cheetham Hill; Chilton Moor; Clevedon; Closworth; Combe Down; Creech St. Michael (two); Crookham (two); Crowborough; Dalton le Dale; Denham (two); Eastham; East Mailing (two); Easton in Gordano; East Winch (two); Eastwood; Eppleton; Evershot; Ferry Fryston; Foleshill; Frome (three); Frome Selwood; Froxfield; Froyle; Gayton le Marsh; Godman-chester; Greatham; Great Tew; Haver-fordwest (three); Hepworth; Herrington; Hersham (two); Holborn; Holcombe; Huddersfield (two); Llanrhian (two); London (three); Lumley; Marnham (two); Morley St. Botolph; New Basford; Nutley; Old Alresford; Paddington (four); Peasemore; Penshaw (two); Playden (two); Ripponden; Rishworth; Rotherfield; Roxby cum Risby; Ryhope (two); Salford (three); Shedheld (two); Silksworth; Southwark (three); Spaxton; Spitalfields; St. Athan (two); St. Marylebone; Stockport; Stoke Ash; Tenby; Thorn Faulcon (two); Toppesfield; Trent (two); Tunbridge Wells (two); Vaynor (two); Warblington; Waterloo Ashton; Westend; West Hatch; West Mailing (two); Weston Bath; Whitechapel;
  380
  Whitestaunton; Wingfield; Winnick; Winterton; Wolborough; and, Yaxley (two); to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT (1893) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MILITARY EXPENDITURE (UNITED KINGDOM, COLONIES, AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return [presented 27th April] to be printed. [No. 148.]
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND PENSION FUND.
  Annual Accounts presented, of Receipts and Payments for the year ended 31st December, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales, 1904. Part II. (Civil Judicial Statistics), edited by Sir John Macdonnell, C.B., LL.D., Master of the Supreme Court [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th April; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 149.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3567 to 3570 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TURKEY (NO. 2, 1906).
  Copy presented, of further Paper respecting the affairs of South Eastern

  381
  Europe (in continuation of Turkey (No. 1, 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CASUALTIES TO SHIPS ON THE NAVY LIST.
  Return ordered, "of Casualties to Ships on the Navy List, viz., (1) Casualties to Ships; (2) Casualties to engines, during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1905, showing the date, the name and class of the ship damaged, the nature of the accident, time under repair, and the result of any inquiry that may have been held into the circumstances, specifying if a court-martial was held (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 338, of Session 1905)."—;(Mr. Bellairs.)
  LOCAL OPTION (COLONIES).
  Address "for Return of the provisions in Colonial Laws by which powers of Local Option in regard to the issue or renewal of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors are conferred upon the inhabitants of British Colonies, showing (1) the licensing authority; (2) the licensing area; (3) the different Options submitted to a popular vote, with the proportion of votes required to carry each Option; (4) the persons entitled to vote; (5) the periods at which elections are held."—;(Mr. Leif Jones.)
  GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
  Return ordered, "relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom, other than those of Local Authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of December, 1905 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 320, of Session 1905)."—;(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered, "relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to Local Authorities for the year ended the 25th day of March, 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 321, of Session 1905)."—;Mr. Lloyd-George.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Estate Duty and Probate Register.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is
  382
  aware that in twenty-three towns in England where Probate Registers exist, at an annual cost in salaries of about £14,000, there are also located in the same towns offices of collector of Inland Revenue; will he state the necessity for this duplication when collectors of Inland Revenue are authorised to deal with the same taxes; will he also state what arrangements are made and what staff is charged with the duty of preventing evasions of estate and other similar duties in the country districts as well as in towns.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The collection of duty on probate of wills is only one incident in the process of probate and is always performed by officers of Inland Revenue who, however, could not conveniently be charged with the whole business of probate, including custody of wills. There is no staff charged specially with the duty of preventing evasion of death duties, against which the principal protection lies in the conditions which the law imposes on interference with the property of deceased persons, and the opportunities thus afforded of access to the particulars of such property.

  Medical Officer for Downpatrick Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if arrangements will be made, and when, for the appointment of an official medical officer in connection with the Downpatrick post office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Up to the present a suitable candidate for the post in question has not been forthcoming.

  Railway Construction in West Africa.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will grant a Return showing the railways constructed or in course of construction by the Crown Agents on the West Coast of Africa since 1900 inclusive, their mileage, the original estimate of their cost, and the actual cost of construction per mile so far as known.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The Crown Agents for

  383
  the Colonies do not construct railways. The manner in which the Government railways in West Africa have been constructed is explained in the Paper relating to the construction of railways in Sierra Leone, Lagos, and the Gold Coast [Cd. 2325], which was presented to Parliament in December, 1904, and in which will be found also the particulars for which the hon. Member asks.

  Superannuation for Temporary Civil Assistants of the Ordnance Survey.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is in a position to make any statement in regard to the claims of the temporary

  Estimated Expenditure.

  £

  In 1896, 178 Bills were introduced by private Members 16 became law

  660

  In 1897, 192 were introduced 15 became law

  708

  In 1898, 184 were introduced 18 became law

  769

  In 1899, 164 were introduced 16 became law

  673

  In 1900, 162 were introduced 15 became law.

  826

  In 1901, 153 were introduced 4 became law.

  565

  In 1902, 168 were introduced 15 became law

  678

  In 1903, 166 were introduced 12 became law

  759

  In 1904, 146 were introduced 11 passed into law

  683

  In 1905, 167 were introduced 6 became law

  754

  In all 1,680 Bills were introduced by private Members, of which 128 passed into law, at a total cost of £7,075.
  384
  civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey to the rights of superannuation.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I regret that it has not been found possible to arrive at a decision on this matter at present. It is still under my consideration.

  Private Members' Bills.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the number of Bills brought in during the last ten years by private Members, and the estimated expenditure in printing them; and how many have passed into law.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.)

  Overtime Pay of Assistant Clerks.
  Mr. COLLINGS: To ask the Secretary of the

  385
  Treasury if he will state on what grounds he declines to grant to assistant clerks (new class) a rate of overtime pay equivalent to one and a quarter times the rate awarded for their ordinary work, and thus applying to that body of civil servants the rate laid down by the Tweedmouth Commission of 1896 with respect to postal servants and acted upon by the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The "time and a quarter" rate, in force for certain classes of Post Office employees, has never been applied to the clerical staff in public departments; the conditions of employment in which are not comparable with those in the Post Office.

  German Lottery Circulars.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received copies of circulars which have been posted through the United Kingdom in connection with a German money lottery; and if he will explain why special facilities are given by the postal department for their delivery.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have received copies of circulars relating to the German money lottery referred to, and I have drawn the attention of the police to the matter. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that special facilities are given by the Post Office for the delivery of lottery circulars. On the contrary, when they are sent in open covers and so can be detected, they are withheld from delivery.

  Report of Motor Cars Commission.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Commission on motor cars will issue its Report.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that the preparation of the Report is in course of progress, but I am unable to say when it will be issued.

  Reorganisation of General Register and Record Office of Shipping Seamen.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the reorganisation of the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and
  386
  Seamen; and, if not, whether he will appoint a small Committee constituted of Members of this House to inquire into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No, Sir. I am not prepared to propose the appointment of a Committee of Members of this House to inquire into the comparatively small questions that have arisen in the branch of the Board of Trade to which the hon. Member refers. These questions are receiving the attention of the Treasury and the Board of Trade, and I think for the present (at any rate) that that is quite sufficient.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the limits of the Port of London, as defined by Treasury Order of August 1st, 1883, are from Teddington Lock to the entrance of Havergore Creek in Essex, and that the situation of the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen at Westminister is within those limits, he will now take steps to retain the office at its present address.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Since the office of the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen has been removed temporarily from the City to Westminster, many complaints have reached the Board of Trade, and definite pledges have been given that other offices more suitable for seafarers would be provided. That decision will be adhered to, and I hope that an office on Tower Hill will soon be available. The Treasury Order to which the hon. Member refers was made under the Customs Consolidation Act, and applies to Customs matters.

  Recruiting of British Seamen for Foreign Ships.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that for the past two weeks the sailors and firemen at the ports of Hamburg and Bremen, in Germany, have been on strike to obtain an advance of wages; whether he is aware that German shipping agents have employed unlicensed persons in England to supply and engage seamen; whether the Board of Trade will take steps to prevent such unlicensed persons from engaging and supplying seamen, as

  387
  provided for by Sections 110 and 111 and following sub-sections of the Merchant Shipping Act; and whether he is aware that it has already been decided in the English Courts of Law that it is an offence under the Merchant Shipping Act to engage and supply seamen for foreign ships in ports of the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am aware of the strike to which the hon. Member refers, and I am making inquiries as to the circumstances under which seamen are being engaged in this country to take the place of strikers on some German ships. Perhaps the hon. Member will send me particulars of any cases of illegality that come to his notice. I am also aware of the legal decision to which reference is made in the Question, and shall not hesitate to take any steps that may be found necessary in order to enforce the law.

  Religious Instruction in Schools.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether in the time tables now in force in any, and, if so, how many, non-provided schools more than two-fifths of the time allotted to religious instruction is devoted to the teaching of the doctrines peculiar to any religious denomination.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have no information on the subject.

  Belfast Postal Staff.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether it is the intention of the Department to reduce the established female telegraph staff at Belfast by three appointments; whether he is aware that there are at that office five female learners and one substitute, who have been waiting for appointments from two and a half to three and a half years; and whether he will give instructions that the lapsing of any appointments that may become vacant shall be deferred until those now waiting have been placed on the established staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will have inquiry made with regard to the staff at Belfast, and I will let the hon.
  388
  Member know the result as soon as possible. I cannot, of course, create appointments not warranted by the work in order to provide places for learners, however much I may regret that in certain circumstances their promotion is very slow.

  Education Grants to Schools in Highland Crofting Districts.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the payments in aid of the provision of a properly qualified teaching staff under Section II., Sub section D, of the Education (Scotland) Minute of March 19th, 1906, will he state what sum would be allocated to schools in each of the crofting counties, taking as a basis the average number of school children on the roll during the school financial year ending between February 28th, 1905, and January 31st, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The sum which would be allocated to schools in each of the crofting counties under Section II., D, of the Minute of March 19th, 1906, on the basis stated in the Question, provided that the conditions prescribed in such section were fulfilled, would be as follows:

  £

  Argyll

  5,990

  Caithness

  2,090

  Inverness

  6,350

  Orkney

  2,170

  Ross

  4,200

  Shetland

  2,300

  Sutherland

  1,380

  £24,480

  It must be understood, of course, that this is merely a possible payment, the actual amount to be paid depending upon the number of schools which are found to have fulfilled the conditions of the Minute.

  Ballyshannon, Derrygonnelly, Killeter and Ballinamallard Loan Funds.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Ballyshannon, Derrygonnelly, Killeter, and Ballinamallard Loan Funds; whether he is aware that a number of poor persons in Fermanagh

  389
  have invested their savings in the debentures of these loan funds, but owing to recently discovered defects in the law money due cannot be recovered; and whether, in view of the number of the borrowers impoverished by interest and fines, and of the fact that the Irish Loan Fund Board is seriously to blame for the present state of things, it is proposed to take early action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that the law, as regards loan fund societies in Ireland, requires amendment, in the interest of depositors in the societies, and my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General for Ireland has already announced that it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation on the subject this session, if time should permit. I do not think it can reasonably be said that the Loan Fund Board is responsible for the existing state of the law.

  Disturbance at Stewartstown.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 10th March last a drumming party was stoned from behind the houses at the Hibernian Lodge, in Stewartstown; and whether, seeing that the disturbance took place in the presence of the police, to whom many of the offenders are known, he can say if any arrests have been made; and, if not, what action does he propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The occurrence in question took place at 10 o'clock at night. The drumming party was passing through a quarter occupied by the opposite party when some stones were thrown over the roofs of houses, apparently at the drumming party, but little harm was done. The police have no evidence against the offenders, whom they did not see. No action, therefore, is possible.

  Establishment of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to make any reduction in the number of assistant inspectors general and county inspectors in the Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether it is contemplated to make any
  390
  adjustment in the establishment so as to compensate the various ranks for the stoppage of promotion which reduction has entailed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) No reduction in the number of assistant inspectors general or county inspectors is under consideration. The existing statutory law requires that there shall be a county inspector for each county. The Answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.

  Conduct of Sunday Footballers at Stewartstown.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the disorderly conduct of footballers at Stewartstown on Sunday 1st ultimo, and on other occasions, and to their use of obscene language to persons leaving divine service; and whether, seeing that football playing during divine service on Sundays in this town has become a nuisance to the inhabitants, he can see his way to put a stop to the practice, or confine the players to a quarter where respectable persons will be protected from such treatment in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that on Sunday, 1st April, a party of football players from Cookstown drove through Stewartstown, both when going to and coming from Coalisland, where a football match was played. Four policemen, who accompanied the party, have reported that their conduct was good, and that no obscene language, or language of any kind, was used by them to persons leaving divine service. The game of football is not played on Sundays within a quarter of a mile of Stewartstown, and no complaints of disorderly conduct by football players have been made to the police authorities in regard to the 1st April or any other occasion.

  Irish Land Purchase—;Investments.
  MR. WALTEE LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the investments of purchase moneys, under the Irish Land Act of 1903, are confined by operation of the Land Commission rules to a small

  391
  minority, not specially qualified, of the Dublin Stock Exchange, to the injury of the public and of the other members of the Dublin Stock Exchange, who find themselves precluded from transacting the business offered to them by their own clients; whether he will lay upon the Table a statement issued by the Dublin Stock Exchange on the subject detailing the above grievance and suggesting the remedy; and whether he can see his way to take some steps with a view to removing this monopoly.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Under Rule XXII. of the Rules of March, 1897, made by the Land Commission under The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, the purchase money of estates sold to the tenants under the Act of 1903 is invested, pending completion of the sales, through the stockbrokers appointed by the Lord Chancellor to carry out the investment of funds under the control of the Supreme Court. Under Rule 28 of The Public Trustee Rules, 1904, made by the Land Judge and the Land Commission, and approved by the Lord-Lieutenant, the investments of the public trustee are made through the same brokers. The qualifications of these stockbrokers are no doubt fully considered by the Lord Chancellor, who appoints them. The question whether a change in the system would be of advantage to the public is one on which there is considerable difference of opinion, though, no doubt, such a change would benefit the other members of the stock exchange. If the right hon. Member should think that any good purpose would be served by laying upon the Table the statement on the subject, which has been issued by a special committee of the Dublin Stock Exchange, I will offer no objection, if he should see fit to move for the Return. I do not propose myself to lay the paper upon the Table, as my doing so would imply that I have some responsibity in the matter. As the right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware, from his official acquaintance with the matter, the question at issue lies outside my sphere of action, and I am advised that my interference is not called for, especially as my predecessor brought before the notice of the rule-making authorities the representations which had reached him.

  Appointment of Assistant Irish Land Commissions.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of men who have been appointed Assistant Commissioners to the Land Commission in Ireland under the system of examination adopted in 1899; and what system has been substituted for the examination to which previous candidates wore called upon to submit themselves.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The number of persons appointed Assistant Land Commissioners who had qualified under the system of examination adopted in 1899 was twenty-one. The Irish Government satisfied itself that the gentlemen recently selected possessed the statutory qualifications required for the post and had experience which would have made it quite superflous to subject them to examination. The rules do not require examination.

  General Election—;Attempts to Illegally Influnence Votes.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the number of alleged cases of dismissal of employees, and of the withdrawal of custom from tradesmen on political grounds, which occurred during, and subsequent to, the recent General Election, and which, if proved, would constitute offences under the Corrupt Practices Acts, he can see his way to instruct the Public Prosecutor to institute an informal inquiry where desired by individual Members of Parliament, with a view to prosecution in those cases which appear to justify such a course.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) It is my duty as Attorney-General to give such directions as occasion may require to the Public Prosecutor with reference to the discharge of his duties. Shortly after the General Election he brought the subject under my notice, and I directed that he should entertain and thoroughly investigate all complaints of the character referred to, with a view to vindicating the law in all cases in which it had been sought to influence votes by threatened withdrawal of custom or employment, or where such withdrawal had followed upon votes given during the election. To my knowledge searching

  393
  investigation was made in several cases by the Public Prosecutor, who is quite ready to continue to investigate all complaints of the kind brought before him. While there is little doubt that intimidation has been used and resentment shown in a number of instances, it is, unfortunately, also true that legal evidence, adequate to carry conviction of the offence under the statute, is but rarely obtainable. I am most anxious that a provision of the law essential to the freedom of election should be enforced, and will take care that whenever a prima facie case can be established a prosecution shall be instituted At present there are two prosecutions under Section 2 of The Corrupt Practices Act, 1883, awaiting trial.

  Promotion in the Army Pay Corps.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether commissions could be granted to the Army Pay Corps, which is at present the only unit having no outlet in the way of quartermasters.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Five warrant officers of the Army Pay Corps have recently been promoted to posts in the Army Accounts Branch equivalent to commissioned positions in the Army Pay Department, entry to which has ceased.

  Afghan War, 1879—;Prize Funds.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any prize money in existence from the Afghan War of 1879 still unissued to the troops engaged; and whether he is aware that Lord Roberts in General Orders said that the prize money would be distributed as soon as possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am not aware of the existence of the General Order referred to by the hon. Member. The Division Order issued by Lieutenant-General Sir F. Roberts on November 20th, 1879, which authorised the formation of a prize committee and the preparation of prize rolls, expressly warned the troops that its appointment in no way entitled them to claim the prize. Subsequently the prize was
  394
  taken over by the Government of India and the issue of donation batta was sanctioned.

  Case of Mr. H. Rovedine, late Draughtsman at Tidworth Barracks.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the case of Mr. Harry Rovedine could be reconsidered and employment found for him, seeing that this man had been draughtsman at Tidworth Barracks for five years, and was under orders to proceed to London to work under the officer of Barrack Contracts, when he was re-engaged under the Royal Engineers on the understanding that his employment would continue, and that he was then suddenly thrown out of employment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Will the hon. and gallant Member kindly refer to a reply to a Question put on April 30th† by the hon. Member for the Thornbury Division of Gloucestershire, which deals with the case of this draughtsman.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Royal United Service Institution Lectures.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty on how many occasions since 1893 have proposals for lectures submitted by the Council of the Royal United Service Institution been vetoed by the Admiralty; and whether the lecturer in each case was an officer on full pay.
  SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): Since 1893 there have been two cases in which the Admiralty have refused, in the interest of the public service, to permit an officer to deliver a lecture at the Royal United Service Institution. In both cases the officer was on full pay.

  Naval Volunteers—;Uniform Grant.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state
  † See Col. 225.

  395
  how long the question of a grant towards the cost of uniforms of Naval Volunteers, on the same terms as to officers in the land Volunteers, has been under consideration, and on what grounds Naval Volunteer officers do not receive the same treatment as their brothers in the land Volunteers.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I hope to be able to make a statement on this point when Vote 7 is under discussion.

  Royal United Service Institution Lectures.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions since 1893 have proposals for lectures submitted by the Council of the Royal United Service Institution been voted by the War Office; and whether the lecturer in each case was a regular officer on full pay.
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Each case is dealt with on its merits as it arises, by the particular Department concerned, but no combined record is kept of the various cases. I am not therefore in a position to supply my hon. friend with the information he requires.

  The 3rd Seaforth Highlanders.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the commanding officer of the 3rd Seaforth Highlanders (Ross-shire Militia) was unable to secure a special steamer for the conveyance of the militiamen from Stornoway on April 3rd, and that the number of notices issued to militiamen in the island of Lewis placed within his knowledge the number of men who would have to travel from Stornoway, will he state why the owners of the Stornoway mail steamers were not communicated with in order that the number of men for whom accommodation could be provided at each sailing might be ascertained; and, seeing that a number of men were unable to secure passage from Stornoway on the date on which they arrived in the town, will arrangements be made for each man to be advised in future of the date of the sailing of the steamer by which he is to travel.
  MR. HALDANE: As the notices are sent to the addresses given by the men at the previous training, and as many of them are often employed elsewhere, the number issued is no guide to the number likely to travel from Stornoway. The numbers that could be accommodated at each sailing were ascertained from the owners of the mail steamer. As regards the last part of the Question, the method to be adopted in future will be carefully considered by the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: In consequence of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I shall on the earliest possible opportunity call attention to this matter.

  The Royal Dragoons.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why the recently vacant majority in the Royal Dragoons has been filled by the appointment of an infantry captain, although not a few cavalry captains are actually on the list of officers noted for accelerated promotion.
  MR. HALDANE: This appointment was made on the advice of the selection board, who considered that the claims of the infantry captain were the best.

  Cost of Rifle Manufacture.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, in the year 1901–2, the Government factories produced 107,642 rifles at a cost of £2 10s. each, whilst the War Office bought from the trade 137,030 rifles at an average cost of £3 15s. 5d. each; that in the year 1902–3 the factories produced 81,377 rifles at a cost of £2 11s. 0d. each, and the Government bought 90,000 more at £3 10s. each; and will he give the number and cost of rifles manufactured at Enfield in the years 1903–4, 1904–5, and 1905–6, and also the number bought from the trade, and the price of them, in the same years.
  MR. HALDANE: The figures quoted are substantially correct. It must be observed, however, that the low prices referred to were for long rifles, now no

  397
  longer made, and the cost of the special machinery for the production of these rifles has been charged and recouped in previous years. This has not hitherto been the case with the short rifle, but similar causes are now reducing the cost of the short rifle also both to the trade and to the factories. The Ordinance factories manufactured the following rifles in the years referred to, viz.:—;

  £

  s.

  d.

  1903–4 14,805 long rifles at

  2

  13

  8

  1904–5 67,180 short rifles at

  3

  18

  5

  1905–6 51,378 short rifles at

  3

  15

  8

  During the same years 135,000 short rifles were made by the trade at an average cost of £4 9s. 6d. For the current year both the trade and the factory prices are below the figures above quoted, and there is not likely to be any considerable difference between them.

  Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
  MR. BARBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now say if the Government arrangements for facilitating the return of the Chinese labourers in South Africa to China have been communicated to the labourers.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): It has not yet been practicable to make a communication to the labourers, for the reasons which I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Newbury on Thursday last.† I have already stated that I hope to be in a position to communicate the terms of the notice to the coolies to the House on Thursday next.

  The Flogging of Chinese Coolies in South Africa.
  SIR H. COTTON): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any statement regarding the charges of cruelty and torture to Chinese coolies which have been brought against Li-Kiu-Lu, who was a Chinese police sergeant at the Langlaate or Crœsus mine in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It was reported to the Superintendent of Foreign Labour
  †See Col. 21–23.
  398
  that Li-Kiu-Lu, police sergeant at the Consolidated Langlaagte Mine, was in the habit of flogging coolies, and in one case tied a coolie up by the thumbs: he was also accused of selling opium and gin. The superintendent had good reason to believe the report and took steps to cause Li to be repatriated. It was difficult to get the coolies to give evidence, as they were afraid of Li and of the Chinese controller, under whose directions it is believed Li was acting. The controller, a man named Witthauer, has been dismissed, and another appointed in his place, and the superintendent reports that in consequence the state of things is more satisfactory. Li was sent to Durban in course of repatriation, but was brought back to the Transvaal by order of the Supreme Court on his application for a writ of Habeas Corpus against the superintendent. He has now instituted an action against the superintendent for damages for false imprisonment and cannot be repatriated pending that action.
  MR. BELLOCasked by whom the expense of sending Li to Durban was borne.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the expenses of coolies repatriated for misconduct under the Ordinance were borne by the importer.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether any prosecution was to be instituted, seeing that this controller, Witthauer, had in the presence of witnesses admitted to the Superintendent of Foreign Labour that he had ordered the flogging of Chinese.
  MR. CHURCHILLthought the circumstances conveyed in his Answer would suggest that the machinery of justice in South Africa worked very independently both of Government and other influences; but Lord Elgin had directed an inquiry to be made whether there was a case that would justify a criminal prosecution.
  SIR HENRY COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to give any official information regarding the truth of the charges of torture and cruelty to Chinese coolies which have been publicly

  399
  made against Messrs. Wilson and Sutherland, compound manager and police officer respectively, employed on the New Kleinfontein Mine in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has received the following information in a telegram from Lord Selborne: "An enquiry was at request of the acting lieutenant-governor held last month by Buckle, first civil magistrate, Johannesburg, into certain charges of flogging coolies of the New Kleinfontein mine. The enquiry was held on the mine and lasted three days. Johnson, who made charges, was given every opportunity of supporting them. All the Chinese coolies were marched past him, so that he might identify those he says were flogged. He selected eight. He gave the names of twelve European witnesses to Buckle, who, he said, could corroborate his statements. Eight of these were examined; the other four could not be traced. The eight examined flatly contradicted Johnson's statements. Of the coolies identified by Johnson as having been beaten, five entirely denied having been beaten or having either seen or heard of anyone else being beaten; the other three contradicted one another. Wilson and Sutherland were also examined, and stoutly denied the charges against them; other white employees on the mine were examined, and denied that any flogging had taken place. Mr. Buckle, in his Report, says that there is no corroboration worth considering of Johnson's charges of assault, while there is a considerable body of evidence contradicting them. He also says that from the demeanour of the coolies who gave evidence before him, he is satisfied that they are not terrorised into silence by fear of the compound authorities, and further that in his judgment Wilson is not a man likely to be guilty of brutality." Lord Selborne is transmitting Mr. Buckle's full Report to the Secretary of State by mail.

  Cotton Growing in British Colonies.
  MR. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the progress of cotton growing in British Colonies, and any statistics showing the quantity of cotton grown under the auspices of the British Cotton
  400
  Growing Association; and whether the House may rely on the Government giving all the assistance in their power to the furtherance of the object of this, association.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will lay on the Table a Paper containing the complete statistics of cotton growing within the British Empire so soon as the returns for last year are complete. Meanwhile I shall be very glad to send my hon. friend the figures at present available for this year and the last four years. For the sake of brevity in an oral Answer, I will only say now that in 1902 the amount of cotton exported from British Colonies to the United Kingdom comprised only 827 bales, of the value of £4,742. In 1904 the amount had risen to 9,438 bales, of a value of £52,026; while the amount exported to all other countries, which in 1902 was 2,093 bales, of a value of £11,467, rose in 1904 to 12,037 bales, of a value of £61,475. The figures for 1905 are not yet complete. The amount of cotton grown under the auspices of the British Cotton Growing Association was in 1903 approximately estimated at 1,900 bales, of a value of £29,000; in 1904 this had risen to 6,000 bales, of a value of £80,000; and in 1905 to 14,200 bales, of a value of £190,000. The estimate for 1906 far surpasses all previous records, and the total crop is computed at 20,000 bales of a value of £330,000. I think these figures which exceed an arithmetical progression are highly remarkable and encouraging especially considering the brief period during which the experiment has been made. The multiplication of the sources of cotton supply cannot fail in the course of time, by averaging climatic risks, and consequently preventing unusual shortages to exercise a steadying influence upon cotton prices, with a resulting restraint upon cotton gambling. The Secretary of State is warmly interested in the work of the British Cotton Growing Association. The policy initiated under the late Administration will be maintained and I trust pursued. The Government is in cordial co-operation with the Association in the furtherance of its work, both by means of monthly conferences held at the Colonial Office with representatives of its council, and through the assistance which is given to its objects by

  401
  the Imperial Department of Agriculture in the West Indies, and by the Governments of African Colonies and Dependencies.

  The Native Rising in Natal.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement made on behalf of the Natal Ministry that Natal declines to seek the assistance of the Imperial Government in the settlement of the Native troubles; and, if a settlement is effected, by armed force, whether such settlement will be submitted for the consideration of His Majesty's Government and the House of Commons.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think I can with advantage add anything to the replies which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Blackpool yesterday.†

  Tibetan Indemnity.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Secretary of State for India if the 2,400,000 taels to be paid by China as the cost of the Younghusband expedition will be allocated to the Indian Exchequer, as the cost was borne by such Exchequer; whether, having regard to the fact that a special commissioner was to be sent to Calcutta to negotiate a treaty of settlement with China on behalf of Tibet in the matter of the Younghusband expedition, he will say why such treaty was signed in Pekin instead of Calcutta; whether the Grand Lama of Tibet is still alive; and whether, as the result of the present treaty of settlement, the Grand Lama, if still alive, will be restored to power and place by the British Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): (1.) The indemnity payable under the Tibet Convention will be allocated to the Indian Exchequer. (2.) The negotiations conducted at Calcutta by the special Chinese Commissioner, having proved abortive, they were renewed at Pekin at the instance of the Chinese Government, and the Treaty has accordingly been signed there. (3.) As far as I am aware, there is no reason to doubt that the Dalai Lama is still alive. (4.) Neither the Tibet Convention nor the
  † See Column 233.
  402
  Treaty with China gives the British Government the right to interfere with, the form of the Government of Tibet.

  Processions in India.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the recent suppression of the Bengal Provincial Conference at Barisal, by the police and to the arrest and fining of Surendra Nath Banerjee lately a member of the Legislative Council, for taking part in the conference and a procession, at which national songs were sung; and whether he proposes to restore the right of public meeting and of orderly procession in the province.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I understand that the case in which Mr. Surendra Nath Banerjee was fined is now under appeal to the High Court at Calcutta, and until the appeal is decided I can make no statement as to the propriety of the action taken against him.
  MR. J. WARDasked whether native songs and processions were absolutely prohibited in India.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I do not think that Question arises. Undoubtedly it is not true, so far as I can learn, that processions are altogether prohibited in India; I do not for a moment believe it.
  SIR H. COTTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam had issued a circular declaring such processions, and the utterance of the national song, "Hail Motherland," to be illegal.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I understand that there is a judgment of the court—;I am not quite sure at the moment what court it is—;that it is an illegal proceeding. Whether that is a sound piece of policy or not is another question, and I am considering the whole case of these processions and proceedings.

  Indian Excise Revenue.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed at the

  403
  second All India Temperance Conference at Benares, on December 26th last, complaining of the rapid increase of the Government revenue from intoxicating liquors and drugs, which has arisen from £1,250,000 in 1870 to £4,076,681 in 1901–2, i.e., had, quadrupled within thirty years; and whether he will do all in his power to gradually substitute other forms of revenue, and cause the Government of India to seriously contemplate the gradual abandonment of the actual system of farming out the sale of such commodities by the Government, and the more immediate reduction of such revenue by restricting the number of liquor and opium shops and dens, and by discountenancing the licensing of such places near factories and schools and at religious and civil fairs, and by giving weight to the memorials and protests of the inhabitants of localities in India, averse to the drinking and drug-taking habits amongst its people of nearly every race and religion. The lion. Member further asked if the revenue had not now gone up to £5,500,000?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The revenue from the excise of liquors and drugs was £2,374,000 in 1870–1 and £4,076,000 in 1901–2 in sterling at the exchange rate of each date. As no accurate statistics of consumption exist, it is impossible to say to what extent the increase in revenue represents increased consumption. The population of British India has increased by 25 per cent., the duties on liquors and drugs have been frequently increased and the excise administration has boon made much more efficient against smuggling. The settled policy of the Government of India, as stated by them, is to minimise temptation, and in that policy they are pledged to subordinate all considerations of revenue. A committee is now sitting in India to consider the administration of excise in respect of intoxicating liquors and to promote reforms. Opium and other drugs have been similarly examined, and I understand that various measures have been taken to suppress abuses.

  Turkey and Egypt.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the territory claimed by the Turkish Government in the Sinai Peninsula is confined
  404
  solely to Tabah and neighbourhood or extends to the whole of the Peninsula, encluding the important quarantine station of Tor.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The demands put forward by the Turkish Government have extended far beyond Tabah and its neighbourhood, and have rendered it necessary that there should be a joint delimitation of the whole frontier on that side, and that pending a general settlement the Turkish forces should retire from Tabah. This is what His Majesty's Government have asked from the beginning, but what the Porte has hitherto declined. The Porte is now being urged again to agree to it. I cannot say anything further as to the course of the negotiations at this moment.

  Egyptian Boundary Pillar at El Arish.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Turkish troops have removed boundary pillars placed to mark the frontier between Turkish and Egyptian territory in the neighbourhood of El Arish; and, if so, what steps are being taken to maintain the rights of the Egyptian Government in this district.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: After this statement appeared in the press, His Majesty's Ship "Minerva" was ordered to proceed to El Arish to ascertain what has happened and to bring back a report, but it has not yet been received. Sir N. O'Conor has been informed by the Grand Vizier that a Commission will be despatched to make enquiries, and if the pillar has been disturbed to repair and replace it.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask if there are any Papers regarding the delimitation of boundaries between Egyptian and Turkish territory since the British occupation of Egypt that can be laid on the table?
  SiR EDWARD GREYasked for notice of the Question.

  Hague Conference.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign

  405
  Affairs, whether he can now inform the House of the probable date of meeting of the second Hague Conference; who are likely to be the British delegates; and what subjects for discussion will be included in the programme submitted by His Majesty's Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Some of the Powers have pointed out objections to holding the Conference in July, and it has been suggested that a later date should be chosen which would give more time for the consideration of the programme, which it is proposed to discuss. The programme is submitted by the Russian Government, who are the Conveners of the Conference. I cannot yet say what subjects may be added to the programme already published. The British Delegates have not yet been selected, but preparation is being made for a full consideration by His Majesty's Government, before the Conference meets, of the subjects, which will be, or are likely to be discussed at it.
  MR. BYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the last Conference the subject of an international agreement for the reduction of armaments was definitely left to the Signatory Powers to give—;
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, that does not arise out of the Question.

  Motor Bus Accidents.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the skidding of a motor bus, on the afternoon of the 24th April, in Seymour Street, Euston Road, which resulted in the wrecking of three four-wheeled cabs, the killing of a horse, and injury to a cabman; and will he state whether, in the interests of public safety, he can take any steps to require the owners of motor buses to provide serrated or roughened tyres to prevent side slips.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): I have made inquiry and find that the facts are as stated in the Question. The Metropolitan Police do what they can in this matter under their existing powers as to the licensing of omnibuses; but they cannot
  406
  insist on the adoption of any particular form of tyre; and it would be most undesirable to do so in the existing state of knowledge and while manufacturers are actively experimenting with new forms of tyres. The whole subject comes within the reference of the Select Committee of this House on Cabs and Omnibuses.

  Irish Local Government Building Experts —;Case of Mr. Francis Quinn.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say on whose recommendation Mr. Francis Quinn has been appointed building expert to the Home Office for the Belfast and North of Ireland districts; what experience has Mr. Quinn had of building and contract work generally, other than the building of small dwelling-houses; whether Mr. Quinn is a member of the Builders Association in Belfast; and whether Mr. Quinn's standing amongst builders in Belfast is such as to inspire confidence in his appointment amongst those whose work may have to be criticised and reviewed by him.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension. There is no such post as that mentioned in the Question, nor has Mr. Quinn received any appointment from the Home Office. What has happened is this. It has been necessary on two occasions in the North of Ireland to call in expert advice on building matters; and the gentleman who was then employed being now dead. Mr. Quinn made an application recently that his name might be accepted and noted for similar employment when occasion arose. He was informed that his name would be noted, but no promise of employment was given him, and inquiries would of course have to be made as to his qualifications before he was engaged. I may add that the occasion on which it is found necessary to call in export advice on these matters are very rare.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Quinn did not produce testimonials from eight leading Unionists—;professional Gentleman—;in the city of Belfast?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Administration of the Vaccination Acts.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the manner in which the Vaccination Acts have been administered, and the treatment to which some conscientious objectors have been subjected, mainly owing to lack of uniformity in administration, he will, in the circular he is about to issue, give instructions as to the manner of examination of poor applicants, and arrange that whatever ameliorative administrative improvements are issued shall be made applicable to Scotland, where, recently, respectable citizens have been imprisoned because they held conscientiously that this practice was not only useless but dangerous.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In the circular which I am about to issue I propose to draw the attention of magistrates to what I am advised is the real meaning and intention of the Act, and to suggest considerations which may properly be taken into account in dealing with applications; but I have no authority to give any instructions in the matter. The Act does not extend to Scotland, and the latter part of the Question should be addressed to the Secretary for Scotland.

  Dock Regulations.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether he is aware that the dock regulations for the protection of life and limb on board ships in docks and harbours, which came into force on January 1st, 1905, are being generally evaded; and, if so, will he take the necessary steps to secure their efficient administration.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is no doubt the case that less progress has been made as regards compliance with the precautions prescribed by the dock regulations in the case of ships than in the case of the docks themselves; but it must be remembered that the difficulties are much greater, and I must also point out to the hon. Member that regulations 6 and 8 so far as they require structural alterations of a ship do not come into force till 1908. I am taking steps to strengthen the inspection of docks, and I would refer
  408
  him on this point to my previous Answers of March 5th† and April 2nd.‡

  New Spanish Tariffs.
  MR. W. PRIESTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Spanish Government propose from July 1st next to increase by 75 to 100 per cent. the import duties on woollen and worsted manufactures imported from this country, mainly from Bradford, and that it will be difficult for British merchants and manufacturers to complete existing orders by that date; that the new duties will be payable in gold instead of in silver as heretofore, involving a further increase of duty of from 15 to 30 per cent., according to the rate of exchange; and whether, in view of the effect on the textile manufacturing centres, and especially Bradford, he will state whether he proposes to take any steps to secure a modification or remission of the new tariff.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I am aware of the proposed new Spanish tariff which has been carefully examined by the Board of Trade in consultation with their Commercial Intelligence Committee and the Chambers of Commerce. Steps have been taken to bring to the notice of the Spanish Government the views of the British trading community as to the effect likely to be produced by the proposed tariff on British trade.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French newspapers are protesting that the new Spanish tariff will have the effect of excluding French goods?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The tariff no doubt hits other countries just as hard as it does Great Britain.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, the total value of imports of food and drink into the United Kingdom, from Foreign countries and British Colonies respectively, during 1905.
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 74.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clv., 170–1.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The value of the imports of food and drink (excluding tobacco) from Foreign countries in 1905 was £169,274,128 and from British Possessions £59,121,711.

  Stafford Postmen's Promotion Grievance.
  MR. C. E. SHAW: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why the appointment of inspector of postmen at Stafford has been given to a man who was at Shrewsbury post office, whose age is about thirty years, and whose length of service is about eleven or twelve years; why about twenty men at Stafford post office have been passed over, some of whom have been in the postal service from twenty-five to thirty years; whether the usual custom and rule of promotion in such cases has been strictly adhered to; and, if not, will he say why it has been departed from.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): There was no postman at Stafford fully qualified to perform the duties of inspector of postmen. I therefore felt it necessary to select an officer from another office in accordance with the usual practice in such cases.
  MR. C. E. SHAW: Is it not the fact that one of the local staff was appointed pro tem to fill the position for fifteen months?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Possibly he may have been tried temporarily, but not successfully. I have not the facts before me.

  Sub-Post Offices.
  MR. DUNCAN SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General how many sub-offices were closed during the year 1905, and for what reasons.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: During the year 1905, sixteen sub-offices were closed—;eight through lack of suitable candidates, four through lack of business and two in consequence of re-arrangements. Of the remaining two, one was a temporary office and the other was abolished when the whole village was removed for the construction of a new reservoir. I might add that the total number of sub-post offices is nearly 22,000.

  Merionethshire Education Inquiry.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give the result of the inquiry he instituted in Merionethshire. I beg also to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the barrister he employed to hold the inquiry in Merionethshire insisted upon knowing the income and expenditure of the managers of every intermediate school in the county for the last six years, the number of pupils at each school during those years, and an estimate of the expenditure for the current year; will he explain why all this costly information was necessary; and how accounts for the last six years can have anything to do with the new conditions arising out of the Act of 1902.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The Merioneth county council desire to increase the grants from the county fund to the five secondary schools in the county which were established prior to the coming into operation of the Education Act, 1902, and consequently that the amount which may be raised in any year out of the rates for the purposes of Part II. of the Act shall be extended. The inspector who held an inquiry on the subject of this extension considered that it was material to know the income and expenditure of the schools in previous years, as well as the estimated expenditure for the present year, before he made his Report. The giving of the information should not, I think, be costly. Most of it was received on Friday last, and the rest has been promised. When it is received the inspector will complete his Report, and as soon as practicable afterwards a decision will be arrived at with regard to the subject matter of the inquiry.
  In reply to a further Question Mr. Burns was understood to say that in his opinion, the inspector would not have been doing his duty had he failed to call for the information referred to.

  Education—;State Building Grants to Voluntary Schools.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the

  411
  years during which State grants were made in aid of the building of voluntary schools; the aggregate of State grants made during that time; the total number of voluntary schools, by denominations, in the building of which the State rendered assistance; and how much was the aggregate of building grants placed to the credit of each class of voluntary school.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH): I must refer the hon. Member to the Blue-book presented to Parliament in 1902, which gives full information on the subject. Building grants were first granted in 1833. No applications were received after December 31st, 1870, and the last grant was actually paid in 1881. Grants amounting to £1,766,854 were paid to 6,765 schools; 5,965, national or Church of England schools received £1,515,205; eighty-seven Roman Catholic schools received £50,579; 713 Wesleyan, British, and other schools received £201,070.

  Schools Transferred to School Boards.
  MR. MASSIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what number of schools held upon educational trusts have been transferred to school boards or county councils under Section 23 of the Act of 1870; whether any money consideration has been paid for the transfer; and, if so, how much.
  MR. LOUGH: The records preserved in the Board's office show that previously to 1902, 1,383 voluntary schools were transferred to school boards under Section 23 of the Act of 1870. The records are, however, almost entirely confined to cases in which building grants had been made. Many of these transfers were for very short periods pending the erection of a school board building in their place. Of the 1,383 schools only some 600 are now used as public elementary schools. Since the Act of 1902, 180 transfers of voluntary schools under Section 23 have been sanctioned, and of these 161 have been completed. It was always hold by the Education Department that only a nominal consideration could be paid for the transfer of a school under Section 23,
  412
  except in the case where a debt was charged on the premises of the school. I do not know how many payments of this kind were made by school boards, but I believe they were few. Since 1902 the Board have sanctioned the payment of debts in thirty-six cases, and in those cases the transfer would be completed under Section 23. Of these cases thirty were British and undenominational schools, one Wesleyan, and five Church of England, the total amount involved being £14,437. In twenty-one cases the Board have sanctioned by scheme the alienation of school buildings, or an interest in school buildings, subject to educational trusts, to the local education authority for valuable consideration, but in those cases the transfer of the school would be completed under Section 19. In thirteen of these cases the transfer was effected by lease and in eight cases by sale; the purchase money, amounting to £12,026, was mainly expended in payment of debts.

  Schools Grants.
  MR. MASSIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what is the total amount of public money that has boon paid to the managers or promoters of voluntary schools for the maintainance or building of such schools from grants and from rates respectively.
  MR. LOUGH: As regards the period up to the end of 1902, the total maintenance grants from the Exchequer in respect of voluntary schools amounted approximately to £82,750,000 sterling; but it must be remembered that a considerable number of the voluntary schools in respect of which those grants were paid are not now in existence as voluntary public elementary schools. During that period no grants to such schools were payable from the rates. As regards the period since 1902, separate records have not been kept of the Exchequer grants paid to local education authorities in respect of voluntary as distinct from council schools; and I have no information as to the amount expended from local sources in respect of the maintenance of voluntary schools. The total building grants paid from the Exchequer to voluntary schools amounted to £1,766,854. But of the 6,765 schools which received those grants, only some

  413
  5,000 are believed now to be in existence as voluntary public elementary schools.

  House of Commons Refreshment Depart- ment—;Pensions for Old Servants.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if any provision has been made for pensions for waiters who have been in the service of the House for twenty-one years or over, or if he will consider the advisability of making such provision.
  MR. JACOBY: No provision has been made for pensions for waiters who have been in the service of this House for twenty-one years and over. I have recently been engaged in considering a pension scheme for the permanent staff of the refreshment department. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the initial difficulty of a pension scheme is that of pounds, shillings, and pence. Subject to our financial position being favourable, and with the sanction of the Kitchen Committee, I hope to commence making provision for the purpose this year.

  Ashdown Forest.
  MR. COWAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that large areas in Ashdown Forest have recently been devastated by incendiary fires; and whether, having regard to the frequency of these fires and to the injury they are causing to one of the largest and most beautiful tracts of common land within easy access of the metropolis, he will take steps to induce or enable the Conservators of Ashdown Forest, by legislation or otherwise, to more efficiently discharge their duty of preserving it from wanton damage.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: My hon. friend has asked me to answer the Question. No communications on this subject have been received, and the Board of Agriculture have no jurisdiction in the matter. The control of the forest is vested in the conservators, who have ample power under the award to make by-laws for the prevention of incendiary fires. The hon.
  414
  Member for South Somerset asks me to say that he will be glad to supply my hon. friend with a copy of the by-law at present in force on the subject. I may add that the annual election of four of the conservators gives an opportunity to the commoners to enforce their views if they think the precautions already taken are insufficient.

  Consumption in Crofting Counties.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the statement contained in the public health circular of March 10th last, entitled Administrative Control of Pulmonary Phthisis, will he state whether arrangements will be made for the notification of the disease in each of the six crofting counties.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The question whether the Infectious Disease (Notification) Act should be extended to include consumption is one for the decision of the local authorities concerned. The procedure required to be carried through is sot forth in Section 7 of the aforesaid Act. I have also to refer the hon. Member to Part IV. of the Local Government Board's Circular of March 10th last to which he alludes.

  Local Taxation in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the incidence of local taxation in the island of Lewis have yet completed their inquiries; and, if so, will he state when the Report will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The inquiry is now being concluded in the island of Lewis, and the Report will be laid on the Table as soon as it is received and considered.

  Scottish Fishery Statutes.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether arrangements have yet been made for penalties recovered for broaches of fishery statutes to be placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board.
  MR. SINCLAIR: A Bill has been prepared and will shortly be introduced.

  Continental Gipsies in Scotland.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the alarm excited in various districts in Scotland by the incursion of bands of continental gipsies; whether they are permitted to land as political refugees; whether more are arriving in detachments of nineteen or less, so as to comply with the new regulations under the Aliens Act; and whether the Government will take steps to provide for the safety of the public, to expedite the departure of the bands now in the country, and to prevent similar incursions in future.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The gipsies referred to by the hon. Member are not, so far as ray information goes, correctly described as political refugees. They state that they are merely passing through this country with an eye to business on their way to Italy. No question as to their admission or exclusion has arisen, as they have come in parties of less than twenty, the minimum limit affected by the Aliens Act. The Government are alive to the inconvenience caused by such immigrants, and have taken all possible steps to watch and control their proceedings. As regards the future I understand my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, in whom the administration of the Aliens Act is vested, is making inquiries, and is prepared to take any steps competent under that Act.
  COLONEL LEGGE: Is there much "business" to be done in the districts the gipsies occupy?
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether the light hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary would take into consideration the question of dealing with these gipsies under Section 3 of the Act as undesirables.
  MR. SINCLAIR: No doubt that question will come before my right hon. friend.
  MR. GULLAND: Cannot these people be dealt with by the ordinary courts if they break the law in any way?
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will point out to them the advantages of Meigle and Forfarshire as places of residence.

  Vaccination Prosecutions in Scotland.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that in the administration of the Vaccination Acts in Scotland prosecutions and imprisonments of respectable citizens have recently occurred because of their conscientious objections to have their children vaccinated; and will he issue an order that, pending the promised inquiry on this matter, these prosecutions and improvements will be suspended.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have no information as to the particular cases to which the hon. Member alludes. The parish councils in Scotland have no power to make exception in the case of conscientious objectors. Prosecutions and imprisonments could not be suspended without alteration of the law. The Local Government Board for Scotland has from time to time advised parish councils that they may exercise a reasonable discretion in the matter of enforcing the statutory penalties, both in the case of a prosecution for failure to vaccinate a second child, and in the case of a second prosecution for the same child. In giving this advice, the Board has pointed out that, as default generally arises from negligence rather than from conscientious objection on the part of parents, it will be the duty of parish councils to use the most careful discretion where they relax the strict letter of the law in any case which may be brought before them.

  Removal of Belfast Policemen.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what specific complaints were made against the two police witnesses in the Farrell case, which resulted in their removal from Belfast, and by whom those complaints were made; whether any animadversion was passed upon them for their evidence in the case referred to; whether they were afforded any opportunity of replying to any complaints; and whether he will now direct a reconsideration of the transfers or an independent inquiry.
  THE SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Inspector-General informs me that no complaints were made by anyone against the two police witnesses in question, and that no animadversion was passed upon them for their evidence in the case referred to. The Inspector-General, when arriving at his decision that it was desirable in the public interest to transfer these men from Belfast, had before him their evidence given at the Court of Inquiry; and in both cases he was satisfied from that evidence alone that they had failed in the zealous performance of their duties. In these circumstances, the Inspector-General, in the exercise of his discretion, considered it unnecessary that any formal complaint or charge should be preferred against the men, and consequently they were not called upon to answer any complaint. The question of transferring men of the Royal Irish Constabularly from one district to another is one for the decision of the Inspector General, and I am not aware of any reason why I should interfere in the matter.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Are we to understand the Inspector - General removed these constables without any complaints being made against them?
  MR. BRYCE: He removed them in consequence of the evidence.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman think anybody will believe that?
  MR. BRYCE: I really do not know the limit of human belief. I have stated the facts.

  Colonel Symthe's Estate, South Westmeath.
  MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland were the holdings and the tenants on Colonel Smythe's estate, in South Westmeath, seen by any inspector on behalf of the Estates Commissioners before the sale was sanctioned; how did the Commissioners come to sanction an agreement which an intermittent lunatic tenant was induced to sign to purchase a farm consisting mainly of a swamp at the price fixed on; will the Commissioners have this particular holding inspected before suing for pay-
  418
  ment of annuities; and if the price and the bonus have been paid to Colonel Smythe, will the Commissioners take any action to recover the excess?
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that agreements for purchase in respect of the estate of Colonel James Smyth of Gaybrook were lodged with them in August, 1905. The holdings comprising the estate have not yet been inspected, and it is not anticipated that the inspection will take place this year. The Commissioners are unable to identify the holding to which the Question refers, but if full particulars should be furnished to them they will have the matter inquired into when the inspection is being made.

  Colonel Irwin's Estate.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations have been proceeding since August, 1904, between Colonel Richard Irwin and the Estates Commissioners, for the sale of the county of Roscommon estate of the former to the latter; will he say whether any definite offer has been made by either party; whether he is aware that three of the tenants, namely, James Gibbons, James Owens, and Nicholas Fahey, whose first statutory term rents were fixed out of court so far back as 1883 and 1885, and who have- been, since that time, receiving voluntary abatements of from 20 per cent, to 25 per cent., have lodged originating notices to have there rents revised by the county court; and that, at the instance of the landlord, their applications have boon transferred to the Land Commission; and, whether, in view of the character of the existing rents, he will secure for these applications an early hearing by the Sub-Commission, so that they may be decided before the purchase of the estate.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that the estate referred to in the Question is at present being inspected with a view to their making an offer for purchase under Section 6 of the Act of 1903. There are sixty-one tenants, and there will be a considerable quantity of untenanted land for distribution if the estate should be purchased. No definite offer has yet been made.

  419
  The three tenants named served applications in February last to have fair rents fixed. A Sub-Commission Court heard cases in the district in January last, and no further sitting has yet been arranged. The decision as to when it may be possible to hold a further sitting rests with the Land Commission, who are obliged to have regard to the claims of other districts.

  Lord Longford's Rathwire Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how the sale of Lord Longford's Rathwire estate came to be sanctioned without any provision having been made for the occupants of cottages there; will the sale of another estate of the same landlord be availed of to remedy this omission; and will a different inspector be sent to examine the condition of those cottagers.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the cottages referred to in the Question were not included in the sale which has already taken place on the estate mentioned. The Commissioners, however, are at present in communication with the vendor's solicitors as to the manner in which it is proposed that these cottages should be dealt with, and the matter will be duly considered by the Commissioners when the sale of the second portion of the estate is before them.

  Irish Railway Rates.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any investigation into the rates charged by Irish railway companies for the transit of goods has recently taken place, and, if so, what was the result of such investigation; whether he is aware that preferential rates to Ireland are extended to British and other manufacturers, thus enabling them to undersell the Irish manufacturers, while no preferential rates from Ireland are extended; whether his attention has been called to the rates of charges for the carriage of the smallest parcels in Ireland and their effects upon all classes of the community; and if he will state what steps he proposes taking to remedy this condition of affairs.
  MR. BRYCE: No formal inquiry into Irish railway rates has recently been held, but information on the subject is being constantly collected by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and inquiries are made by the Department into all complaints respecting railway rates which they may receive. Information on the subject will be found in the Department's fourth and fifth Annual Reports. There are numerous exceptional through rates for manufactured articles between Great Britain and Ireland, but no instance has come under notice in which these rates do not apply in both directions. The rates charged by railway companies for the carriage of small parcels by passenger trains are regulated in each case by the company's special Act. The Department has, however, been instrumental in having included in several recent Acts provisions limiting the charges for such parcels to half the maximum rates for ordinary parcels traffic by passenger trains. I may call the hon. Member's attention to the reductions in parcels post charges which were stated by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, as tending to alleviate the evil complained of; and I may add that the whole question of Irish railways is receiving my consideration.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rates charged on Irish railways are higher than those charged in other countries?
  MR. BRYCE: I am not aware, but I should like notice of the Question.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I will give it.

  Irish Local Government Auditors.
  MR. MOONEY: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the Local Government Board acted in creating an entirely new and redundant office, carrying a salary of £900 a year, to an official who is charged with the duty of inspecting the judicial work of sixteen auditors, who are supposed to act independently and without supervision even by the Board itself; and whether, when sanctioning this rate of salary, the Treasury had before them the terms on which inspection of the same nature has

  421
  been provided in England, where the work to be inspected involves the employment of more than seven times as many officials as are employed in Ireland, namely, eleven senior auditors, thirty-nine auditors, seven assistant auditors, and eighty-nine clerks, and where the present inspector, who was appointed to this office only last year, is in receipt of no more salary out of the Votes than his Irish counterpart.
  MR. BRYCE: It is not a fact that a redundant office has been created, but a new office, namely, that of Inspector of Audits, was sanctioned by the Treasury as the result of a Departmental inquiry ordered by them in 1903 into the audit system in Ireland. Neither is it a fact that auditors are supposed to act independently without supervision by the Local Government Board. It is the function of the Board to assign to the auditors their respective duties, and to endeavour to secure uniformity of system and practice, but in arriving at decisions as to the legality or otherwise of expenditure, the auditors are required to act independently of the Board because the Board are constituted a Court of Appeal from such decisions. The Departmental Committee had before them full information as to the system of audits and the constitution of the audit staff in England. In fact one of the members of the Committee was the then inspector of audits of the English Local Government Board. I have no information as to the terms under which the present English inspector of audits holds office, but according to the Estimates for the current year the scale of salary is higher than that for the corresponding Irish officer.

  Irish Local Government Board, Audit Department.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Report of the Departmental Committee which was appointed two years ago to inquire into the working of the Audit Department of the Irish Local Government Board, and of the correspondence which followed upon that Report between the Local Government Board and the Treasury; and will he say whether it was part of the bargain made on that occasion with
  422
  the Treasury that, if they sanctioned an increase in the number and value of the appointments in the gift of the Board, the Board would make up some of the increased outlay by assessment on the resources of the local authorities over whom they have statutory powers in the making of these assessments.
  MR. BRYCE: The Report of the Departmental Committee referred to is a confidential document, and it would be contrary to the established practice to publish such a Report or the confidential correspondence concerning the reorganisation of departments. The Answer to the latter inquiry is in the negative. The fee charged for each audit depends upon the volume of work done and the time occupied at the audit, quite irrespective of the number of auditors on the Local Governmet Board's staff.

  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, from the Standing Committee on Law, &c, with Amendments.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 150.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 150.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 182].

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Workmen's Compensation Bill:—;Sir Benjamin Stone, Dr. Macnamara, and Sir Edward Clarke; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Cory, and Sir Robert Ropner.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill:

423
Mr. Osmond Williams, and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Owen Philipps.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  "To continue and amend The Light Railways Act, 1896," presented by Mr. Lloyd-George; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT Oldham) in the Chair.]

  TEA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That there shall be charged, on and after the fourteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and six, until the fourteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and seven, in lieu of the duty now payable on tea, the following Customs import duty on tea (that is to say):—;
  Tea the pound fivepence."—;(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,) said that when he was dealing with the proposed reduction in the tea duty yesterday in his Budget statement he suggested that it should take effect from July 1st, that being the day from which his predecessor in office dated the corresponding reduction of last year. But representations had come to him from various quarters which he had had the opportunity of considering in concert with his expert advisers, and which satisfied him that in the interest, not only of the consumers, but of the trade, it would be well to accelerate the reduction; and therefore the Resolution which was read from the Chair gave the date of the reduction as from May 14th, which was practically the middle of the quarter. That would give the consumer the benefit of the reduction of the duty at an earlier date, and enable the trade to prepare for the situation by leaving unhampered their operations in
  424
  the latter part of the quarter, while the loss to the Revenue would, he hoped, be very slight indeed.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say what exactly the loss to the Revenue would be from the acceleration, and whether it would also affect the date of the Budget next year.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that, according to the best estimate which could be formed, the maximum loss from the acceleration would be £80,000; but he hoped it would be considerably less. The acceleration would not affect the date of next year's Budget.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he understood that it had been arranged that the general discussion on the Budget and the broad issues raised thereby should be taken on this Resolution. It had been customary for the Irish Members to seize the opportunity afforded by the Budget to raise the question of the over-taxation of Ireland, and of the financial relations between that country and Great Britain. He did not intend on the present occasion to open in detail the whole question, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the first to recognise that in a new House of Commons it was but natural that the Irish Members should seize the opportunity to raise the question, at any rate on broad lines. The financial provisions proposed by Mr. Gladstone in his Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893 were considered by those who had studied the question so unsatisfactory, and based upon such loose and inconclusive evidence, that a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the whole matter. He might recall briefly how the matter stood historically. It was provided by the Act of Union that Ireland was to contribute to Imperial expenditure only in proportion to her resources, or, in the words used by Lord Castlereagh in promoting the Union—;
  "The ratio of Ireland's contribution will never exceed that of her relative wealth and prosperity."
  The Commission was appointed to see whether Ireland's contributions had been, as promised by Union statesmen and provided by the Union, in direct proportion to her relative taxable capacity. It was a remarkable Commission; the

  425
  majority were British; it was presided over by an admitted financial authority, the late Mr. Childers, an Ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and included amongst its members such men of unquestioned fitness as the late Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, Mr. Bertram Currie, Sir David Barbour, and others; while the evidence submitted came from all the great financial experts of the country. The Commission reported that for the year 1893–4, Ireland had been overtaxed to the extent of £2,750,000. That finding was accepted by the Liberal Party in the main, and on July 5th, 1898, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself voted in favour of a Resolution, which declared that—;
  "The disproportion between the taxation of Ireland and its taxable capacity as compared with other parts of the Kingdom, disclosed by the evidence of the Royal Commission constitutes a grievance, and demands the early attention of the Government with a view to proposing a remedy."
  Moreover, the finding was not universally rejected by the Conservative Party. It was supported by some of the ablest Members of that Party, the senior Member for the City of London, (Sir E. Clarke) in particular having made a series of remarkable speeches in support of the view of the Commission. Irish Unionists were unanimous on the matter, and even the Conservative Government did not put forward an absolute contradiction. What they said was that the investigation was not full and complete, that there were other aspects of the question which the Commission did not inquire into, and they suggested the appointment of a further Commission. But though the Conservatives remained in office ten years, that further Commission was never appointed, and hence he was entitled to claim that the finding to which he had referred held the field. In the fifty years prior to that Commission the taxation per head of the population in Great Britain had been reduced by one half. In Ireland it had been more than doubled. The population in Great Britain had increased by many millions, in Ireland it had diminished by 4,000,000, or 50 per cent. Exactly the same process had been going on during the ten years which had since elapsed. The population had further diminished by 250,000, and taxation had increased from £7,500,000 in 1893–4 to £10,500,000. This additional taxation
  426
  had fallen on all classes of the population, but in a special way upon the poorest of the poor. One of the things that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had some reason to be proud of was the fact that they had aimed at equalising the direct and indirect taxation of the country, and in Great Britain at present the two classes of taxation were about equal. But in Ireland the indirect taxation was about 75 per cent. of the whole, and an enormous proportion of the additional £3,000,000 of the taxation had been raised from the necessaries of life of the poorest of the poor. Had Ireland benefited in any way by this additional taxation? What was the cause of the increase? The simple fact that Ireland, a poor country, was tied up in a financial partnership with one of the greatest and richest Empires of the world. They were often told that they ought to be proud of the fact that though they were a poor country, at any rate they were in partnership with a rich one. But the direct effect of that partnership upon Ireland was that she was forced against her will to bear an excessive share of the cost of the enormous and bloated armaments of the Empire and of the periodical insane and wicked wars undertaken by the Empire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the previous day had drawn an appalling picture of the exorbitant expenditure into which the Empire had been plunged of recent years. But, after all, the representatives of Great Britain had some consolation. In Great Britain there had been a remarkable increase of population, and a growth of prosperity in practically every department of commerce and industry, so that although there had been such an enormous and unjustifiable increase in expenditure the people of Great Britain were more numerous and better able to bear it than they would have been ten years ago. But that was not the case in Ireland. One fact alone would be sufficient to show the cruelty of this additional taxation upon Ireland. During the ten years, the British Parliament had been obliged on three occasions—;in 1894–5, 1897–8, and 1904–5—;owing to acute distress over large portions of the country, to pass relief of distress Acts to save large numbers of the population from starvation. The truth was that Ireland was being taxed to death, and it was small consolation or sympathy they were in the habit of

  427
  getting from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last year the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made an extraordinary defence when he undertook to prove that Ireland's grievance was disappearing or had almost entirely disappeared. The right hon. Gentleman said—;
  "Although you are paying £3,000,000 a year more, still the proportion which you are contributing from Ireland to the general expenses of the Empire is less."
  The reason of that was perfectly plain. It was because in Ireland they had reached that danger point where taxes produced less and less the more their nominal value was increased. By that argument it only needed another war for Ireland's grievance to disappear entirely. It seemed to him that so long as the amount which Ireland had to pay towards the general expenses of the empire was not a fixed amount, but a fluctuating amount which depended from year to year upon the adventures and enterprises of successive Governments in this country, so long it would be impossible totally to remove this injustice. He remembered that Mr. Gladstone proposed—;he thought it was in one of his Bills—;to make the contribution of Ireland towards the general expenditure a fixed sum. He thought it was to be £2,000,000. The Irish representatives protested against that as an excessive estimate. They thought then, and they thought now, that it was excessive, but supposing it had been fixed, how many millions would it have saved Ireland during the last ten years? They were linked, they were told, with a great and rich empire, and that ought in itself to be of enormous advantage to them. It had not been of advantage to them. It had been the cause of their ruin. They were bound to pay a large share—;more than their fair share according to the Act of Union—;of the expenses of the enormous Army and Navy; they were bound to pay a share of the cost of the punitive expeditions which were constantly cropping up in all parts of the world, and more than their share of the cost of all the mad wars into which this country might be rushed.
  What did this Budget do for Ireland? He was one of those who voted against the coal tax when it was proposed, and therefore he
  428
  was not going to make any complaint that the right hon. Gentleman should take it off. But he could not help remembering that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was looking round for taxes to take off, the one he first selected was the only tax of which Ireland paid none at all, for they had no coal to export. It was worth noting that the right hon. Gentlemen, instead of removing a tax which would have helped Ireland in some degree, only removed one, no portion of which that country paid. As to the tax on tea, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with it, but he regretted that it had not been more thoroughly dealt with. He would have preferred that the right hon. Gentleman had spent the whole of the surplus in taking the tax off tea. A penny off tea was very small, almost inappreciable, but as far as it went it would be a boon to the poor, and therefore in Ireland to the poorest of the poor. He made no complaint. But that was the only benefit Ireland got directly or indirectly from this Budget, unless the right hon. Gentleman was serious when he said yesterday that Ireland would get some material benefit from the lowering of the rates for the parcels post. He desired to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course he did not expect, he was not so foolish as to expect, the right hon. Gentleman to give them all they would like to remedy the injustices in Ireland at once, but there was one thing which he could do, and do immediately, which would be of enormous value to Ireland. He could modify and change the traditional attitude of hostility of the Treasury. Anybody who had ever had to do at all with Irish administration—;the Chief Secretary was in his place, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear out what he was saying—;knew that the Treasury had stood in the way of every Irish reform. His own belief was that the Treasury made money out of every penny it lent to Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken on the previous evening of the enormous increase in the cost of education in this country; he had said that the total increase in the amount spent on education in the last ten years in the United Kingdom was 60 per cent. That

  429
  was about seven millions of money, but practically the whole of it had been spent in England and Wales. The amount of the increase of expenditure on education in the last ten years in England and Wales had been about six millions, in Scotland £787,000, and in Ireland £292,000. He had some very Interesting figures, the accuracy of which would not be disputed, showing how the total expenditure on education was divided between England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The figures in regard to population he presumed were taken from the last census. The population of England was 34,152,977, and the amount of education grants was £12,652,548, or 7s. 4d. per head of the population. The figures of these grants were taken from the Estimates of 1905–6. The population of Scotland was 4,676,603, and the grants were £1,817,290, or 7s. 7d. per head of the population. The population of Ireland was 4,390,208, and the grants were £1,391,721, or 6s. 5d. per head of the population. That was to say, on these figures of last year's Estimate if Ireland got grants in proportion to the population of the country she would on the Scotch scale get £314,000 per year more and on the English scale £234,000 more than she did. He saw, looking at figures of the Estimates which had just been issued for the year 1906–7, that there was a net increase in education grants, amounting in England to £490,224, in Scotland to £154,838, and in Ireland to £1,502. Why was the basis of population, so dear to the heart of the Leader of the Opposition when he dealt with the question of Irish representation, abandoned in calculating these grants? He would tell the House why. Because of what he called a Treasury device which had operated is this way. In the year 1892 he thought the Treasury devised a rule that these education grants should be divided up in the proportions of eighty for England and Wales, eleven for Scotland, and nine for Ireland. They said that that was based upon the amount of Exchequer contributions received from the three countries during that year. He knew of no reason in justice why this ratio should come into
  430
  the matter at all. It seemed to him that the fair and honest way of dealing with the matter would be to give equal education grants per head in England, Scotland and Ireland. Let him go a step further. Not content with having made this unfair rule whereby Ireland was robbed of hundreds of thousands of pounds in comparison with what was obtained by England and Scotland, the Treasury did not allow Ireland to get its due even under that ratio. He would give an example of what he meant. In 1902, when the Education Act was passed in that ratio of eighty, eleven, and nine, Ireland was entitled to £185,000 a year as equivalent grant. What became of that? Did it go to education? Was Ireland allowed to obtain the benefit of it, or did the Treasury keep its clutches off? No, it was put into the new fund called the Development Grant Fund, and the first thing that happened was that the Treasury put its clutches upon it and drew out of that fund—;away from education altogether—;large sums to make up the loss on the flotation of stock in connection with land purchase, so that even the money they were entitled to on the false ratio of eighty, eleven, and nine, was not allowed to reach education in Ireland. Let him give another sample of the way in which the Treasury treated Ireland. It was a small matter in itself, but he would like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to it. There was a most admirable system in Scotland of industrial schools. These institutions necessitated a small State subsidy of, he thought, £2,000 or £3,000 a year. But the amount was every year put upon the general Estimates and voted to Scotland. A number of philanthropic people in Ireland endeavoured a year or two ago to establish similar day industrial schools in that country. It was found that a State subsidy of £2,000 a year would be required. Did the Treasury consent to that? No; they would not give a farthing. They turned round and said, "You have got your Development Fund Grant—;take it out of that." That was to say, Scotland got her equivalent grant in full; Ireland got hers, but it was liable to all sorts of claims. Then charges like that for day industrial schools were sought to be

  431
  shifted from the shoulders of the Treasury and put upon those of the Irish educational fund. In the same way at every hand and turn the Treasury was engaged in trying to rob Ireland. [An HON, MEMBER: "Oh, oh."] He could assure his hon. friend the Member for Bolton that if he were as well acquainted with the Treasury proceedings as regarded Ireland as he was, the hon. Gentleman would admit that his language was exceedingly moderate. He was only stating facts. It had been the habit of the administration of the Treasury to make a special grant for the building of the national school houses in Ireland. That grant amounted to £35,000 a year; but suddenly, two or three years ago, the Treasury stopped paying it. It had been brought within his knowledge from many correspondents that the greatest inconvenience and injury had been caused by the fact that this grant was not forthcoming. In the county of Limerick a number of clergymen had told him that they had had plans of school houses prepared and that they had been waiting for three years, but were unable to go on with the building because of the want of the grant.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The sum of £35,000 is available.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it on the Estimates this year?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): It is on the Development Grant Fund.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he could not contradict the hon. Gentleman, but he had been looking into the matter and he found that the money had not been paid for several years past. This year a sum, not of £35,000 but of £15,000, was put not on the Education Estimates but on the Development Grant Fund. Not one sixpence of that ought to be on the Development Grant Fund. That was money which had formerly always been sanctioned and put on the Education Estimates. The Irish Development Grant Fund was now to be used to save the Treasury from the
  432
  necessity of putting this money for school buildings on the Education Estimates from year to year. He maintained that that was a swindle. The Development Grant Fund was being used not for the purposes for which it was intended, but to save the Treasury from paying the sum which it had paid for years on the Education Estimates. Then what had been the action of the Treasury with reference to the administration of the Land Purchase Act? Everybody knew that that administration had been cramped and thwarted for many months through the Treasury's refusing to provide office accommodation and a sufficient staff to work the Act. Then nothing had been done in the way of the restoration of the evicted tenants to their holdings. He did not blame the Chief Secretary, but that right hon. Gentleman was omitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the list of his Ministerial colleagues who were insistent in their demands on the Treasury.
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot allow that remark to pass without contradiction. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is one of the worst of the whole lot.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that that did not satisfy him. The Chief Secretary had been beaten by the Postmaster-General and by the Minister for Education. Even at the best the Chief Secretary could only stand third, and he certainly ought to be first. Why was the evicted tenants question not proceeding more rapidly? It was not the fault of the Chief Secretary or of the Estate Commissioners. It was the fault of the Treasury, who, he was informed, would not give the necessary staff of inspectors to carry on the work.
  MR. BRYCE: I may tell the hon. Gentleman that these inspectors are going to be given.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had prevailed with the Treasury and had got the necessary assistance to the Estate Commissioners, but he complained that this demand had been refused for some time. Another thing of which he

  433
  complained was that the Treasury staff of its own motion and without the request of anybody connected with Irish education, had ordered the National Board of Education to withdraw the £12,000 for fees for teaching the Irish language. The teaching of the Irish language was one of the subjects in which the people were much interested, and to allow the great national literary revival like that going on in Ireland to be hampered and interfered with by the action of a few officials at the Treasury was a proceeding which could not be defended. The period was drawing very near when some decision would have to be come to. There was the keenest anxiety to know whether in this particular the Chief Secretary had been successful with the Treasury. The one piece of legislation promised by the Government for Ireland this year was a Labourers Bill to provide facilities for the erection of decent habitations for the working rural population of Ireland. General Gordon had said that, having travelled all over the world and seen squalor and misery in every land, he had not come across anything so bad as the labourers' homes in Ireland. The success or failure of the Chief Secretary depended absolutely on the Treasury. Unless cheap money could be got for this purpose such as was obtained for the settlement of the land question it would be impossible for the Chief Secretary to bring in a satisfactory Bill. He begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into his serious consideration the hard and unsympathetic attitude which had always been maintained by the permanent officials of the Treasury in reference to every Irish proposal. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not do anything more at present, he could inspire in his Department a sympathetic feeling towards Ireland and afford those financial facilities which the Chief Secretary was asking for to enable his Bill to be a success. Certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to exert his enormous influence to do what he could for the poorest, and by far the most heavily taxed, portion of the United Kingdom.
  MR. ASQUITH: I rise to respond to the appeal which the hon. Gentleman
  434
  has made with so much force and moderation. He was quite right, though it was unnecessary, to remind me that I voted in favour of the Resolution which he has quoted, and I have not receded one inch in opinion or sympathy from the attitude which I took upon that occasion. I hope it is not necessary for me to assure him that within the limits of my possibilities and opportunities it will be my most earnest desire to give effect to that vote by translating it into concrete action. The hon. Gentleman has framed an indictment against the Treasury which I believe could be framed with equal sincerity and equal warmth by the representatives of England and Scotland; but I can assure him that from my short experience in the Treasury he is wrong if he supposes that that Department is animated with special hostility to Irish claims. The Treasury is a much abused Department, but it is the only watch-dog which this country possesses to guard the revenues of the country against inroads. I do not think that it is possible that a more invidious, unwelcome, and ungrateful task could be cast upon a body of men than that which falls on the officials in the Treasury of refusing demands or curtailing demands with which they themselves are in complete sympathy. For myself, as long as I have the honour to represent that Department in this House, I shall maintain that in this respect they do no more than their duty in the situation in which they are placed. But I am sure hon. Gentlemen will agree that the responsibility in the long run does not rest with the officials, and it is most unfair to put it upon them. It rests with us, and when I say us, I mean the Gentlemen who sit upon the Treasury Bench. The officials do their duty, but the entire and undivided responsibility for the decisions come to rests with those who represent the Department and the Government in Parliament. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that that is the true constitutional principle in this matter. Therefore I take upon my shoulders the responsibility for everything that has been done or left undone since I came into office. As regards the Development Grant, that is not a creature of our creation; it is an incident of legislation for which we are not

  435
  responsible, and I am not prepared to say that I look either upon its constitution or the regulations with regard to its expenditure as in any sense ideally satisfactory. But I will give hon. Gentlemen from Ireland this assurance that so far as my legal powers allow, I will see in educational matters particularly, where I think that Ireland has a real grievance, Irish funds are not encroached upon and that the Imperial Exchequer shall contribute all that can be expected from it upon any principle of justice having regard to fairness to the parts of the United Kingdom contributing to the Development Grant. The hon. Member knows, and indeed he stated in his speech, that the large automatic growth in the education grant for England and Wales is largely due to a circumstance which unhappily is not paralleled in Ireland, viz., the growth of the school population. The school population in Ireland has, however, been diminishing, while in England and Scotland it has been increasing. No doubt that is one of the circumstances of which hon. Members for Ireland naturally complain.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: And more per head of the population is given.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have not the figures in my head, but I will look into the matter. And with regard to education generally I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not find anyone more sympathetic with the general desire he has expressed for a full and generous settlement than I am myself. With regard to the teaching of Irish, the Chief Secretary and I have come to the conclusion that the discontinuance of the grants was not due to us but to the cessation of the scheme under which it was taught. There have been criticisms, and I admit legitimate criticisms, as to the manner in which money was expended. My right hon. friend has framed a scheme which, I am sorry to say, owing to the pressure of other matters during the last week or two, I have not had time to consider, but I hope it will give satisfaction to everybody concerned. On the more general question I should like to point out, with regard to the figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted in the
  436
  early part of his speech, what the facts are according to the most recent returns. I am quoting the return of 10th July, 1905—;"Imperial Revenue; collection and expenditure in Great Britain and Ireland.' I find from that return that the revenue contributed by and collected in Ireland in 1899–1900 was £8,664,000. In 1904–5, having risen in the interval during the war to £10,205,000, it had reached £9,753,000, and you must subtract last year at least £200,000 from that, leaving the amount collected in Ireland about £9,500,000.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is more than £2,000,000 over that.
  MR. ASQUITH: I think the hon.. Gentleman quoted the figure £10,500,000.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That was during certain years.
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes. It is true of 1902–3, but I think the hon. Member mentioned that as the present amount.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is only half a million less.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is nearly a million less. Then if you come to that amount contributed by Ireland in Part III. of this return, you will find there is a considerable diminution. I am not saying what was the cause of it, I am stating the fact. In 1899–1900 the contribution to Imperial revenue by Ireland was £2,676,000, and in the last year with which the return deals it had fallen to £2,186,000. The hon. Member will of course reply that that is not due to the fact that a smaller amount of revenue has been collected, but that local expenditure has been enormously increased. That is perfectly true, and it is an arguable question how much of that has gone to benefit Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is not a question at all.
  MR. ASQUITH: At all events the actual amount is not a question.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: It is a mere trick of book-keeping.
  MR. ASQUITH: Perhaps my hon. friend will substantiate that statement. At all events there has been a large increase of local expenditure, amounting I think to £2,500,000. That is a matter which calls for serious inquiry, and I can give this assurance on behalf of the Chief Secretary and myself, and the Government as a whole, that we intend during the next year—;in the course, I hope, of the next few months—;to go carefully into this matter, and see how far it is possible to deal with it. I hope the hon. Member will not expect any specific pledge as to time and form at this moment, but we intend seriously with the best will in the world to investigate the whole of this expenditure, and see how far it is possible to adjust on a fairer basis what, I admit, is the unsatisfactory and inequitable financial relations between the two portions of the kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that assurance for the present, which is given with the greatest sincerity and the full intention of redeeming it.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid the late war could not have been avoided and the expenditure on it was necessary, but though the National Debt stood at the same figure as in 1871 the wealth of the country had increased, and the Debt was consequently lighter. He agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in his wish to reduce it as quickly as possible, though the fact that he was able to do so was mainly due to his predecessor. He (Sir Robert Ropner) was one of those who approved of the coal tax and agreed that the basis of taxation required widening. The tendency lately appeared to be to reduce indirect taxation, while making no effort to reduce direct taxation. The income-tax pressed very hardly upon a great many people. A Committee was being appointed, but in the meantime a great many people would think that instead of taking off the coal tax something ought to have been done for the income-tax payer. The coal tax, after all, affected only a certain class, and the hon. Member for Wansbeck, he thought, was entirely mistaken in presuming that the working collier would gain anything by its removal. He was certain that the
  438
  tax was mainly paid by the consumer, and what was not paid by him was paid by the shipowner and the coalowner. Even if that were not so he thought, before taking off taxation which would affect only a certain class in the country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have tried to take off taxes which affected the whole of the people, and mainly the working classes. Speaking personally, he, as a shipowner, having to buy coal largely in foreign markets, would be a gainer possibly to some extent, but the matter ought to be looked at as affecting the whole country, and from that point of view he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of trying to benefit one class only, might have taken taxation off such things as sugar or tea to a larger extent, thereby benefiting a larger number of persons. Of course, the coal industry would be pleased, and the great influence they could bring to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought him to see the matter from their point of view. In his constituency the question had not been raised during the recent election, and that had been the case in other Durham constituencies. He shared the view expressed by other hon. Gentlemen that the reduction of the tea duty by one penny would not benefit the consumers. It would no doubt benefit the producers, who had complained of being unfairly and very hardly treated by the imposition of the war tax on tea. They no doubt would be very pleased with the reduction, because they would derive the whole benefit. But in his opinion it would have been much better if instead of taking off this penny the right hon. Gentleman had taken off the whole of the war tax of 2d. If the right hon. Gentleman had ret lined the coal tax and had reduced considerably the taxes on tea and sugar he would have done something for the benefit of the people of the country.
  MR. COWANsaid that those who sat on the Liberal side of the House were pledged to economy, but they were also pledged to a number of far-reaching reforms which were inconsistent with any large reduction of the expenditure of the country. The House had committed itself among other things to the principles of old-age

  439
  pensions, of the supplying of free meals to school children, of a large increase in the cost of education, and the payment of those Members of Parliament who were not in receipt of a salary as members of the Government. These schemes all required money, and it was impossible that they could be carried through concurrently with any large decrease of expenditure. It was true that they had pledged themselves to retrenchment in the great spending departments, but they could not delude themselves into believing that it was possible by those means to obtain sufficient to cover the additional expenditure which the social reforms to which they were pledged would throw upon the country. He therefore desired to ask the Committee to consider the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the light of the pledges made by the majority of the Members of the House. They might make considerable economies in the expenditure on the Army without decreasing its efficiency, and some small economies in the Navy, but they could not hope to make such economies as would provide sufficient means for such reforms as those to which he had referred. Therefore it was necessary to consider the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman in the light of the possibility of this increased expenditure. Coming to the proposed remissions of taxation, he considered the abolition of the coal tax a needless throwing away of a valuable source of revenue. The coal tax was not a protective tax except in the special sense that it was designed to protect our coal deposits. The Report of the Royal Commission which considered that question had shown that the coal deposits were larger than had been supposed and would last much longer than had been anticipated. At any rate, they would outlast our time and that of our children, and inasmuch as posterity had done nothing for us he supposed we should do nothing for posterity. However that might be, the fact remained that this was a very special tax, because it was the only tax paid by the foreigner. That was admitted, because if the tax was not paid by the foreigner why should he insert in his contracts a clause that if it was withdrawn he should have the benefit of the
  440
  1s., and why should the producer allow such a clause to be put in if he himself paid the tax? In view of the expenditure we had to meet, he thought that the coal tax should have been retained, but the tea duty ought to be reduced by at least 2d., so as to confer a tangible benefit on the poorer classes of the population. Whatever the sugar tax might have been when it was first imposed, everybody must admit that it was now a revenue tax, and therefore, much as he would like to see it reduced, he thought everyone must agree to its continuance, because of the revenue necessitated to meet the extraordinary expenditure which the programme put before the country would entail. But in all these matters, having regard to the fact that they were dealing with an increasing expenditure, the remission of taxation was necessarily very difficult indeed. It was only on those grounds that he approved of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's not reducing the income-tax. An income-tax of anything above 8d. in the £ was a war tax, and it should be reduced as soon as possible, but a reduction from 1s. to 11d. would satisfy nobody. The right hon. Gentleman had agreed to appoint a Committee to consider the question of a graduated income tax. Every one would vote in favour of such a measure, but he thought that the Committee should have larger powers and should consider the whole question of taxation with a view to broadening the basis of taxation consistently with free trade principles. Whether we liked it or not, we should require in times to come not a reduced but an increased revenue, and in his opinion the time had already come to inquire as to the sources from which the revenue should be derived. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman would deal with the larger question when appointing this Committee he would find himself in happier case when in some future year he had to meet this Committee and make another Budget statement. Unless the right hon. Gentleman looked forward and considered the possibility of attacking new sources of revenue, he would have to make a very disappointing statement indeed. He respectfully urged the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter into his consideration.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: If I intervene in this debate it is in consequence of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few minutes ago in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Irish Party, who brought before the House the ancient controversy with regard to the relative burden of taxation thrown upon Great Britain and Ireland respectively. I do not think any question can be more important in connection with the Budget, because on the view which the Government to-day take on that question must depend their financial policy. I confess I should have listened with great interest to the exposition of the views of the Government which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been expected to give in answer to the hon. Gentleman who initiated the debate, and I hoped to hear from him what his views were of the general problem of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. I think he will be the first to admit that in connection with that very great issue he really gave no answer at all. He was extremely sympathetic—;rightly sympathetic—;to Irish financial difficulties. He made a declaration of Ministerial responsibility with which everybody will agree; he defended his subordinates at the Treasury in the spirit in which we all expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to defend them; but on the really crucial issue raised by the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Nationalist Party he was significantly silent. What is the issue in reality raised by the hon. Gentleman? The Members from Ireland take the view that, under the Act of Union, as interpreted especially by a Commission which sat some years ago, Ireland ought not at that time to have paid more than a twenty-first part of the total Imperial expenditure of the country. The proposition was laid down that to make Ireland pay more than that was to infringe the spirit and even the letter of the Act of Union; and though I do not think the Commission made any specific proposals which found general acceptance they certainly left an impression among a large part of the British community, which was eagerly endorsed by every Irish representative of all Parties, that Ireland was most unjustly treated in her financial relations. I want to know
  442
  whether the Government do or do no agree with that general proposition, and it they do agree with it how they propose to remedy a grievance the existence of which by hypothesis they grant. I remember when this subject first came up for discussion in the House of Commons there was a great division of opinion among those who agreed that there was a grievance as to how that grievance should be dealt with. Some said it could be adequately dealt with if only a sufficient number of supplementary grants were made from the Imperial Exchequer for Irish purposes; others, including Sir William Harcourt, I think, said the method of grants was a demoralising method; another school thought that, even, if you gave grants to Ireland and however large those grants might be, they were altogether outside the original provisions of the Act of Union, which dealt not with grants, but with taxation, and that the only possible method of remedying the grievance was so to adjust taxation in Ireland as to make it fit with what the Commission called the relative taxable capacity of the people of that country. Those, I think, are the only two solutions possible if you concede that there is a grievance. The Government, as I understand, do concede that there is a grievance. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer correctly, he adhered to a vote which he gave in 1898 by which he and his friends affirmed the reality of this Irish grievance, although they did not then say how they thought that grievance ought to be dealt with. They had the right to refuse at that time any constructive responsibility for dealing with this subject; they were then in Opposition, and they were justified in maintaining on that aspect of the question an attitude of reserve, and in posing as critics merely, instead of offering any solution of the difficulty. But the circumstances have changed. They are now in a responsible position; they now have control of the finances of the country; they still hold, if I understood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman correctly, that there is a grievance which the Commission found, and which the Irish Members have insisted upon year after year for the last seven or eight years. But we have had no hint from the right

  443
  hon. Gentleman how that matter is to be dealt with. All he has told us is that, in common with the Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, he proposes to look into the manner in which the existing grants to Ireland are used and distributed, and if he finds they are distributed in a manner which is either uneconomical, inexpedient, or contrary to Irish opinion, he will do his best to readjust matters and remedy proved wrong. But that does not even touch the fringe of the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford. The Member for Waterford restated his old contention with all his old force; he has not abated a hair's breadth of his old demand; and his old demand went, I believe, as far as to say that a different method of taxation or a different degree of taxation should be imposed upon Ireland from that which is imposed on the wealthier portion of the United Kingdom—;England and Scotland. Do the Government agree with that view, or do they not? If they agree with that view, if justice does indeed cry out for that readjustment of taxation, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer has before him in future Budgets a task of unexampled difficulty. He will have to adopt a system which has been repudiated by every Chancellor of the Exchequer since the Union, and when he deals with indirect taxation—;the spirit duties, sugar duties, or tea duties—;he will have in each year to bring forward a Budget not based simply on the necessities of the United Kingdom, but a Budget modified so as to suit the capacity to pay of England and Scotland on one side and Ireland on the other. That will involve, if the Irish contention be correct, indirect taxation levied at different rates in the two portions of the United Kingdom. While tea, for example, is to be at 4d. in one country, it will have to be at 3d. in the other. That is the only method I can imagine by which an inequality of taxation can be remedied when you are dealing, as in the case of Ireland, almost wholly with the burden of indirect taxation. It is the indirect taxation which is the grievance, if there be a grievance; and the grievance can only be remedied by assessing indirect taxation at different rates on the two sides of St. George's Channel—;[AN HON. MEMBER: Abolish it altogether]—;or abolishing it altogether.
  444
  At all events, you will have profoundly to modify the system of taxation which has been adopted in this country for 100 years and more. You will embark upon an entirely new financial career, and I think will have before you difficulties of the greatest magnitude. I had hoped that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to reply to the reasoned speech of the Member for Waterford he would have given some clear and explicit view, on behalf of himself and his colleagues, as to the policy which they think ought to be pursued in future with regard to the alleged injustice we annually commit towards our Irish fellow-subjects. The late Government, for reasons it was my duty on more than one occasion to explain, held that there was no injustice. The present Government voted when in Opposition that there was an injustice; they have not receded, as I understand, from the views they held in Opposition. How are they going to remedy that injustice? Merely for the right hon. Gentleman to consider with the Secretary for the Lord-Lieutenant how the existing grants in Ireland are distributed is to do nothing whatever to reach the root of this difficulty. If the Government are going to remedy the grievance by blind increases of the grants to Ireland they would, I think, be embarking upon a course which most thinking Irishmen will regard as intrinsically demoralising to their country. If, on the other hand, they are going to deal with it by manipulating the indirect taxation of the country, then I see nothing before us but the great difficulty that will arise from a different rate of indirect taxation in the two countries, which carries with it the inevitable consequence of a customs barrier between England and Ireland. You will require custom house officers in England to see that the tea or sugar, or whatever is taxed in Ireland at the Irish rate, is not smuggled over for the benefit of the English consumer, and you will adopt a machinery so costly, so clumsy, and so embarrassing to trade that I cannot believe any Government would seriously endeavour to deal with the situation by that machinery. As the question has been raised, as you have allowed, I am sure rightly, this debate to be started on the Budget of the year, we ask from

  445
  the Government a clearer view of their policy than anything which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to give on the present occasion; and I trust that when he comes to reply on the general subject he will do something more than he has already done to satisfy the Committee upon a question with regard to which curiosity must be greatly aroused by the short debate which has just occurred.
  Whilst I am on my legs may I press the right hon. Gentleman a little more upon a point I raised yesterday, and upon which, I think, he has made no reply? He laid down yesterday, I think for the first time, the principle that no naval or military works shall ever be constructed out of borrowed money. I think that a deplorable position. I should like very much that the right hon. Gentleman should justify, if he can, laying down a view of such wide extent, and which may have such important bearings. I entirely agree with him that a system of loans, like all systems, is open to abuse. I entirely agree with him that a Government may be tempted to embark upon undertakings which have been rendered, as it were, unduly easy by the fact that they are to be carried out by borrowed money, and that the burden of carrying them out will be thereby spread over several years, during some of which years they may, perhaps, no longer be responsible for the conduct of public affairs. I make that admission because I do not wish to overstate the case. Will the House just consider the other side? I think it possible that in the last ten years we have carried out all the great works which are absolutely necessary for naval and military efficiency—;that is, either they have been carried out or are in process of being carried out, and there may be, therefore, in the next few years no necessity for again dealing with millions in the construction of new dockyards, new barracks, and all the rest of it. But the mere fact that the late Government did its duty is really no ground for the present Government's laying down the principle that is to bind themselves and, so far as they can, their successors if great works should have to be constructed. I do not believe these great works can be constructed except on the principle of loan, and if you
  446
  attempt to construct them upon any other principle I believe you will find the work will be done in the most extravagant manner possible. Just consider what will take place. The First Lord of the Admiralty may come down and say: "It is absolutely necessary that we should have a great harbour at such and such a point." The Chancellor of the Exchequer says: "If that is to be done, the yearly work must be paid for out of the yearly income. Are my colleagues prepared to put an additional penny on the income tax, or add something on to tea and sugar?" His colleagues in the Cabinet are unwilling to incur the unpopularity of such a proceeding, and unwilling to dislocate trade by putting on a tax for a temporary purpose. They say either that the work shall not be carried out at all—;and that is dangerous to military and naval efficiency—;or they say: "We will carry it out by small annual instalments." Instead of spending in each year as much as the works themselves will bear and finishing them in three years, the works will take perhaps from nine to twelve years to finish. Both of these courses are open to grave objection. The first involves danger, but the second is the most extravagant course you could possibly adopt. The method of dribbling out payments year by year to contractors is exceptionally ineffective, and no good business man who knew his business would ever consent to it. It is as extravagant a policy when pursued by the nation as when pursued by an individual or a corporation. Therefore there is no other possible course for executing great works than proceeding by loan; and I do earnestly press upon the Government that they should modify the official declaration of policy laid down yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he chooses to say that in the opinion of the Cabinet the great works which the country requires are, so far as the present Government know, either completed or in process of completion, and that they see no immediate necessity for carrying out further great works, we should all welcome that statement, and for my own part I have no reason to think I should dissent from it. But when we see how naval distribution, the sizes of ships and guns, and the costly and ever varying appliances of naval warfare

  447
  change from year to year, can any of us look forward with security to a lengthy period of time when some great capital expenditure will not be required by this country? Until such a time comes it would be a most unbusinesslike departure to say that the rapid, and therefore economical, carrying out of great works is to be abandoned because the chiefs of the Treasury are afraid that if you once permit the system of loans to be adopted you have no further control over the spending departments. There are Gibraltar, Portland, Dover, Malta, and Keyham Dockyard, at which works are necessary, and they cannot be carried out except by an expenditure of millions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not envelope himself in a cloak of financial virtue because his predecessors in office, unwillingly indeed, but purely on patriotic and public grounds, felt it their duty to bring these great establishments up to the level of our Imperial needs. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last year, and with general approval, that, so far as the works in hand were concerned, he proposed to deal with everything that had to be dealt with out of current taxation. I think he was right. All I complain of is that the principle should be laid down in regard to an unknown future—;a future which may bring with it great unknown contingencies which could only be dealt with by capital expenditure, and which it would be folly for us to attempt to deal with out of the taxation of the year. Therefore, I press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer these two questions. The first is as to the policy of the Government with regard to bringing to an end what they consider erroneously is an injustice to Ireland in the matter of taxation; and the second, whether they really mean to lay down in the absolute manner the right hon. Gentleman yesterday suggested that never under any circumstances are loans to be made for carrying out great works of public necessity
  MR. DILLONsaid he would only trouble the House for a few moments to deal with the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had put forward to-night the old demand which had been made from the Irish
  448
  Benches for many years without any alteration. That was absolutely true. The only alteration was that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was now able to address his criticism and questions to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had voted for a Resolution in favour of the findings of the Royal Commission. What was the old demand? It was that the grievances of Ireland as advanced in the Resolution passed in 1898 should be taken into consideration by the Government, and that the demands of that Resolution should be complied with. One of the strongest motives he had in rising was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to accede to the request of the Leader of the Opposition, and not to-night to go into the sea of complications which would arise if he had to face the problem of how he would meet that grievance, and to say what alterations in taxation he contemplated proposing if he intended to deal with the grievance in that way. They at least made no such unreasonable demand. What they demanded was that the right hon. Gentleman should give the matter his fair and honest consideration, and apply his mind to devising a remedy. They were prepared to give him time to consider the problem which they all admitted was a difficult one. The Leader of the Opposition had also said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had evaded most carefully, and was significantly silent on, the crucial points put by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. He had sought to confine the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a promise that he would consider how the present grants were allocated, and see how they could be improved. They placed no such interpretation upon what the right hon. Gentleman had said. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised was that he would consider the problem, and that he hoped to propose some remedy for the grievances of Ireland. No attempt to alter the allocation of the local grants in Ireland could possibly supply a remedy for this admitted grievance. He would like to emphasise the warning already given by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford against the policy of so-called economies in Ireland. Some years ago, he supposed partly as a remedy for the financial grievances of Ireland, Lord St. Aldwyn introduced the system of development grant as a remedy for some of their

  449
  grievances. The idea was that a system of economy could be devised under which the economies would be for the benefit of Ireland. Lord St. Aldwyn, who was an astute financier, thought by this ingenious device to enlist the Irish representatives and people in the cause of economy. He had often complained that he never got any support from the Irish representatives. That was perfectly true, because this device would only be another instrument for relieving the British Exchequer at the expense of Ireland. What had happened? This grand scheme of economy did to a certain extent, as was anticipated, enlist some of the Irish people in support of economy. When the Development Grant was set up they were led to expect great results. It was immediately fastened on by the Treasury, and burden after burden and charge after charge which had been borne in the past by the Treasury was shoved on to the Development Grant, and the Irish people very soon found that their economies were all stolen from them. He therefore warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer that any attempt to develop on these lines would be met by strenuous opposition on the part of Irish Members, because they had already learned the lesson that they had nothing at all to expect from economies of that kind. To his amazement the Secretary of the Treasury had attempted to traverse the statement of the hon. Member for Waterford in one of these matters. For thirty or forty years, in spite of the injustice admittedly done to Irish education, they had had a regular grant of about £35,000 from the Treasury for the building and repairing of the national schools. That was stopped two or three years ago, and the Irish Members had been bombarded with letters from all parts of Ireland where the schools were not fit to be used, and with requests to be informed why these building grants were being stopped. In the year 1902 a Committee was appointed and made a secret report, and for two years before that this question had been under the consideration of the Treasury and of the Board of Education in Dublin, and yet, in reply to a question, he was told last month by the Chief Secretary that the matter was of a very complicated character and that they were not yet able to come to a conclusion with regard to it. Last year when he
  450
  raised this question the then Chief Secretary said they were going to do something generous, that they would grant a considerable sum in addition to £15,000 for the schools. He then asked him whether that was a substitute for the £35,000 and he could not tell. The right hon. Gentleman first said one thing and then another, but he himself had since discovered that they intended to give Ireland the £120,000 in order to get rid of the permanent charge of £35,000 a year. That to them was the result of this six years consideration. He would like to know was it or was it not true that the Treasury were endeavouring to get rid of this permanent charge, and was the Secretary to the Treasury prepared to get up and justify the way in which education was treated in Ireland, and would he defend the way in which these finances had been dealt with? It was by proceedings of this character that their faith in grants as a remedy for the waste by the Irish Government was destroyed, and in his opinion until there was some authority responsible to the Irish people no economy of expenditure in Ireland could be effective of the good that they looked for What benefit to the country could it be to plan economies, and then give the funds to Dublin Castle to be distributed? Those in touch with the popular mind should have some voice in the distribution of the Development Grant. But there had been none. It was all settled in the Castle behind their backs, and therefore he said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not in that direction that relief could be found. They were gratified by the tone of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day. They were perfectly content to give him time to consider the whole matter, and they trusted that when he had had time to go into it fully his consideration would bear some substantial fruit to the people of Ireland.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLANDsaid he was glad to have the opportunity of supporting the Budget proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday. Considering the resources which were at his disposal it was clear that it would have been impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose anything that might be described as heroic

  451
  finance. He thought the surplus would have been larger if the home trade had been as good as the export trade. The Board of Trade Returns showed that the figures were highly satisfactory last year in regard to exports and imports. Our external trade left absolutely nothing to be desired, but there appeared to have been a shortage in the home trade. He was glad to think that the home trade was now distinctly better than it was a short time ago. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree that it was unfortunate that they had not reliable statistics available by which the exact position of our home trade could be ascertained. He was glad that the President of the Board of Trade was now making proposals that there should be taken periodically an industrial census. He hoped the traders of the country would support the right hon. Gentlemen so that the census might be made complete and accurate. If we had an adequate census as other countries had we should have material upon which to form from time to time a reliable opinion as to the condition and growth of the home trade. They were under a debt of gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very full account he had given of the nature and extent of our national indebtedness. The Budget was particularly well balanced, and he had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would next year make more sweeping proposals to reduce indebtedness and maintain British credit. There was a certain literary family of whom it was said that the mother wrote novels which no one would buy, that the daughter wrote poetry which no one would read, that the son wrote plays which no one would act, and that the father wrote cheques which no one would cash. There was no danger of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being in such a position. He would always be able to cash his cheques, but u less our credit were well maintained he would not be able to cash them on the most favourable terms. In view of the regrets which had been expressed in various quarters of the House that the coal tax had been swept away he wished to say that he strongly approved of the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that matter. He thought the choice was a wise one. Indeed, sitting as he did for a mining constituency he had pledged himself
  452
  to support the repeal of the tax. He was quite prepared to argue the case on the merits. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not proposed the repeal of the tax he would have undertaken to move an Amendment to get rid of it. He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had saved him the trouble of doing anything of the kind. The removal of the tax would confer substantial benefit on labour, and, in his opinion, the inevitable result would be fuller employment for those engaged in the trade. The tax had been a hindrance to trade, and if the Government could not do anything to help the coal trade, let them leave it alone. An hon. Member opposite had quoted figures to shew that there had been no injury to the coal trade on account of this tax, and had stated that there had been a slight advance in the amount of the exports of coal. But he submitted that the question was, how much greater would have been the increase of those exports had it not been for the existence of the coal tax? Its effect was exactly as if our Government had insisted on every other country in the world putting an import duty on all coal received from the United Kingdom, but allowing it to come in free when it was received from any other country. The idea was ridiculous. It would not bear arguing. Therefore it was high time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should come forward and sweep away such an unfair tax. They were told that it was a tax which was paid by the consumer, and not by the producer. The consumer would not pay an import or export duty if he could help it, but he could escape paying the export duty by buying from other countries. That was proved by the fact that coal contracts had gone to France and Germany and that employment in our own coal industry had been diminished in consequence. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring in as speedily as possible the Bill which he had promised to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Industrial Alcohol, so that it might have a chance of passing this session. He sat on that Committee and they investigated the whole question with the greatest care and diligence.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to have the opportunity of saying a few words on the

  453
  general aspects of the Budget which has just been presented. At the outset I would like, on behalf of my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, to express my sincere appreciation of the very kind and courteous way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer noticed his enforced absence. My right hon. friend, who has suffered very severely from a most painful, if not a dangerous, indisposition, had hoped to be present at our debates. He is much disappointed that he cannot be here, and I am sure he will be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kindly way in which he spoke of him. The Budget itself I am inclined to characterise as a whole in the terms which seem to be common to the appreciations in the Press this morning. It is a humdrum, a commonplace Budget. That by no means necessarily implies any condemnation. On the contrary, in the case of a Radical Government, I am not certain that it is not the highest praise. When I think of all that has been said on the subject of our financial extravagance and of the incidence of our taxation, and when I think of all the promises that were made at the election, and before the election, by the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, and even, I think, by some of his colleagues, if not by himself, I really think we are very well out of it. The terrible things that we were led to anticipate have, fortunately, not been presented to us; and I for one am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman that, being as he is the master of so many legions, he has been so merciful to his opponents and those who have differed from him, and has in fact produced a Budget which we are unable seriously to oppose, for, indeed, it is our Budget. The surplus is ours. We provided it, it cannot be doubted for a moment, by the extremely conservative Estimates of my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who refused to take advantage beforehand of what was apparent even at that time, that we were on the eve of a period of increased prosperity, and framed his Estimates on a very moderate scale, and has allowed his successor to reap the advantage. The surplus is ours, and these Estimates, it appears, are ours. I must call the attention of the Committee to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He began by deploring his own incapacity—;I do not mean his personal or intellectual in-
  454
  capacity, but his own inability—;to deal as he would have liked to do, with a free hand, with the finances of the country. "No," he said, "we found ourselves in fact committed by our predecessors by their Estimates. We have only had four months to consider those Estimates, and in that time we have not been able to alter them." He pays us a great compliment, but he does not do sufficient justice to himself and his own powers. I deny absolutely that he, at any rate, has found himself in this position of enforced inability to alter our Estimates. I have always understood that the preparation, the natural and particular preparation, for the Budget by any Chancellor of the Exchequer is a matter of three or four months. The right hon. Gentleman had three or four months, and in the course of that time there was not an Estimate that was made by the late Government which he had not in his power to alter. I am very glad he did not alter them. I have never had any hesitation in supporting the Estimates and the financial policy of the previous Government in the circumstances in which they found themselves. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot appeal for credit to those below the gangway both for his reforming instincts and intentions and pretend that he is unable to give effect to them because this wicked Government has disappeared from the scene not more than four months ago. No, sir, the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters, who went up and down the country, had no hesitation while the late Government was in office in criticising our estimates. They did not want time. They knew exactly where to make economies. There were so many millions to come off the Army, so many millions to come off the Navy, and the Civil Service was to be cut down. There was not the slightest profession then of inability. On the contrary, the country was informed that, if only they could take our place at once, without any further inquiry these great changes would be made, and these splendid opportunities would be offered, of which the Government would take advantage, in order to carry out the series of gigantic social reforms for which they professed the country was pining. I observe that even in the course of this debate, languid as it has been, there are some hon. Gentlemen on the other side

  455
  who are sufficiently consistent, whose memories are long enough to go back three or four months when they wore making these professions, to repeat them in the House of Commons. And we have been told accordingly that there is, naturally, some discontent that a system of old-age pensions, which was to cost only the mere trifle of £30,000,000, has not been at once put before the House of Commons by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say you cannot have it both ways. I do not object in the least to the claims of the right hon. Gentleman that four months is not long enough to make these great changes in the financial arrangements of the country. I do not complain that he should ask for more time to consider what he would do with the increased surplus which he anticipates next year, and with the increased revenue upon which also he appears to be counting; and I am quite prepared to accept his view that the Budget for which we are all waiting, the sensational Budget, we must not expect till next year, when the right hon. Gentleman has had time to make himself acquainted with the simple facts of the case. But, then, from that it follows that he was not acquainted with the simple facts of the case at the time that he and his colleagues professed to know everything about it, at the time when he was offering these tremendous temptations to the country.
  MR. ASQUITH: What temptations?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Old age pensions. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that neither he nor his friends offered the temptation of old age pensions?
  MR. ASQUITH: I never did.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not share the views of the hon. Members below the gangway?
  MR. ASQUITH: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know my views on the subject, I can refer him to a speech I made in the House about a month ago.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am extremely sorry to say I think I could not have been present when that speech was delivered, and in those circumstances
  456
  I am unable to take advantage of the information the right hon. Gentleman has conveyed. I can only go back to what I said. I gather that whatever that speech was, it did not indicate on the part of the right hon. Gentleman an assent to those views which were put forward during the election by so many of his supporters, which have been put forward during the present debate and which suggest and practically promise a universal old age pension of 5s. a week at the age of sixty, a proposal which would cost £30,000,000. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite think it courteous to interrupt me, and apparently they think it accurate to suggest that at all events if they made these promises they had the excuse that I had made them before. Well, I do not think that is a good excuse because if I, by hypothesis, made such a promise and was not justified in making it, it is no excuse for their falling into the error, the fault or crime which they attach to me. But now I say emphatically, and I defy them to prove to the contrary, that I never have, in the whole course of my political life, made any promise of old-age pensions whatsoever. That is the first thing. And, moreover, I go beyond that when I say that whenever I have had an opportunity of dealing exhaustively with this subject, whether it be in the House of Commons or on the platform at the time of elections, I have warned both Members of the House of Commons and also my friends or opponents in the country that no such promise could be honestly made by any one who was acquainted with the facts of the case. I have been led into a vindication which is apart from criticism of the Budget; but I repeat, all I have done in reference to this matter is to express my own sense of the necessity of enabling the industrious working people to make a better provision for old ago, and to put before the working people of this country one or two circumstances, two plans in particular, which I have said, and which I maintain are perfectly simple and clearly to be understood, which are within the reach of the working classes of this country, and which are practical schemes which could be considered with some chance of giving effect to them by the present House, or even by past Houses of Commons. That is my part in the matter, and I still think

  457
  that this better provision ought to be and should be made by the House of Commons. But it is not, and never will be so far as I am concerned, a proposal for anything in the nature of a universal old-age pension, which I believe is impracticable from the point of view of its expense, and which I believe is immoral and undesirable from the point of view of its influence upon thrift and industry.
  When I was interrupted I was pointing out the conclusion at which I arrive, that if the present Estimates of the Government are extravagant Estimates, then let the Government have the courage to take full responsibility for them. They cannot throw the responsibility for the Estimates which they have presented to the Committee upon the shoulders of a defunct Government which died four months ago, and since whose decease they have had ample time to revise, improve, and amend the Estimates if they thought such amendment and improvement desirable and necessary. If they will take the responsibility of these Estimates on their own shoulders, I rejoice—;I am glad to find that all this flurry and electioneering method is disappearing in the presence of greater responsibility—;that promises which they and those acting on their behalf were so ready to make are found now by confession to be unreasonable or impracticable, and have to be postponed till further inquiry, which is to take the form of personal inquiry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and further inquiry by committees and commissions, of which you may have any number as long as this Government continues in office.
  Now, having admitted that the Estimates are wholly the work of the present Government [MINISTERIAL laughter]—;wholly the work (OPPOSITION cheers)—;what did the country give you a majority of 350 for if it was only to accept without question the proceedings of the late Government which you believed to be wrong? If you believed them to be right then, of course, you are right in accepting them though they come from your opponents; but you cannot in the same breath declare them to be wrong and not take any steps to alter them. I say that not merely is the surplus ours, not merely are the Estimates ours, but practically the policy of the Budget is ours; substantially not entirely. What was the opening of the right hon.
  458
  Gentleman's speech, a most elaborate opening, which occupied a very considerable period, and filled me with hope? It was to point out the terrible position of this country in regard to its Debt, and the obligations made by the war. To do the right hon. Gentleman justice, he is not one of those who lay the burden, the blame of that war entirely on the late Government. And let me say in passing, though it is not relevant to the argument and it is not necessary for me to deal with it at length, but in view of what has been said, do let our friends on the other side understand that not in the slightest degree, not by one atom, have we changed from the position we took up before the war and during the war. We regret the loss of life in the war and the loss of treasure; but we believe, as many hon. Gentlemen on the other side and the right hon. Gentleman also, believe, that the war was forced upon us, and that it was absolutely necessary if we were to preserve our hold on South Africa and the union, respect, and loyalty of the Empire. The expenditure on the war was enormous, and it enormously increased the Debt of the country, and the right hon. Gentleman dealt with all this. I confess I make one criticism upon his language. I think he is too pessimistic. After all, we are a very rich country; after all, we are very much more powerful than we were; and I think it is a mistake, considering what may be said outside this House and in other countries, to exaggerate the sacrifices we have been called upon to make. I think of the sacrifices that were made by our ancestors in previous war, in the great Napoleonic wars, for instance; and I say that any sacrifice we may be called upon to bear in reference to the South African war is a mere flea-bite compared with what our ancestors were subjected to in order to maintain their position. But what conclusion did I draw from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's rather gloomy disquisition? I remember my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the occasion of the late Budget, also dealt with the subject, perhaps a little more hopefully, but he did lay it down as an essential part of the future financial policy of the country that a serious effort should be made largely to reduce the Debt, and especially to reduce the floating debt; and I say authoritatively

  459
  that if it had fallen to my right hon. friend to deal with his own surplus he would have made a much larger reduction than the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposes. And after all we have heard about the importance of restoring the finances of the country, to conclude with a miserable, paltry subscription of £500,000 a year towards the Sinking Fund seems to me to be a most inadequate conclusion. It is true the right hon. Gentleman played with the figures in a way that might confuse any House less experienced in fiscal matters than the present. He talked about making up £1,000,000 as additional contribution to the Sinking Fund. A million? £500,000 is all that comes in any sense from taxation. The other £500,000 is the repayment of Debt by the Chinese Government as the indemnity for the massacres and Boxer disturbances which cost us at the time several millions of money. And as my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said, with the universal consent of the last House, that money, which we anticipated for this year, is ear-marked, and must of necessity go—;no Chancellor of the Exchequer could think of doing otherwise that allowing it to go—;to the reduction of the particular debt against which it is set as an indemnity. I say it is rather playing with terms, therefore, to introduce that as if it was a sacrifice we were making.
  MR. ASQUITH: I never said it was a sacrifice we were making.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is perfectly clear that the only sacrifice which the Committee is called upon to make on behalf of the taxpayer is to give up £500,000 of the anticipated surplus to the reduction of the Debt. But the condition of affairs is not nearly as bad as the right hon. Gentleman represented it, or else he has not had the courage to follow his convictions and to make the contribution towards the reduction of the Debt which he ought to have made. But we all know perfectly well he wanted money to meet, as far as he could, the claims made upon him, and to distribute, as much as he could amongst these several claims. As to the selection he has made: he has abolished the coal duty. I believe I am right in saying that my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated his
  460
  opinion that the coal duty was one of the first imposts which ought to go in any redistribution of taxation. [Cries of "When?"] He said it in a speech to a deputation from the coal-owning interests, which waited upon him during his term of office. In the regrettable absence of my right hon. friend I cannot say what were the reasons which brought him to that conclusion. However, as I say, when we come to the details of the policy of the Budget we find that we are engaged in considering a policy which in its main principles is the policy of the late Government. But I should like to know very much, especially after the criticisms of the hon. Member for Rotherham, what is the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the incidence of the coal tax. Does it fall, in his opinion, upon the consumer in Germany, or does it fall upon the producer in this country? I rather gather from the language which the right hon. Gentleman used that, in his opinion, it falls upon the producer in this country, because he represented that owing to the tax the producer in this country has been put to a disadvantage as compared with the producer in Germany, and accordingly his object in remitting the tax is to benefit at the same time the the producer in this country by increasing the demand for his product and the consumer in foreign countries by giving him his coal at a lower price.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not care about the consumer in foreign countries at all.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, I am so glad to hear that. Again, may I call the Committee to witness, this is our policy? Nothing could have given me greater pleasure than that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite sure that my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, had he been here, would have entirely shared the feeling of the right hon. Gentleman; and if he had attempted to deal with this tax it would also have been in order to benefit the producer in this country. Of course, I hope the abolition of the tax will inure not merely to the benefit of the coal-owners—;who usually are not objects of very great compassion in cases of this kind—;but to the benefit of the working people who are employed in the mines. Then if it is the case that this export tax

  461
  is paid by the producer, why, in the circumstances, cannot the right hon. Gentleman conceive of a case in which an import tax upon coal or upon corn should not also be paid by the producer? The hon. Member for Rotherham, who has just sat down, feels that this is a very reasonable inquiry to make, and he thinks he has got a very satisfactory and complete answer to it. The hon. Gentleman says that in the case of the export duty on coal it is the producer who pays, because the consumer has a choice in the matter; that is, instead of paying more for his coal by buying from this country, he buys from Germany. Very well. Then why does not the same thing result if you put an import duty on corn? The hon. Gentleman replies, "Oh, in that case the consumer has no choice." But, pardon me, in that case the consumer would have two choices, which, together at any rate, ought to be sufficient to enable him to make a selection. In the first place, he would have the choice of the home-grown article, and, secondly, he would have the choice of the corn coming from those parts of the British Empire which would not be subject to the duty.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: Both are not nearly sufficient.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a matter of opinion. Then the right hon. Gentleman proposes to reduce the tea duty. I confess that here I part company from him. I agree with him that probably there is no tax which more deserves attention than the tea duty. Indeed, the only exception I would be inclined to make is the tobacco duty. Undoubtedly the tax upon tobacco is a most unfair one in that sense, that the charge upon high priced tobacco bears no proportion at all to the charge upon low priced tobacco. Therefore, it is a choice as between tobacco and tea. But tea, at all events—;first, because of the amount of the duty in proportion to the value of the article, and, secondly, because of the large consumption in this country—;is an article which undoubtedly deserves the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Still, I would ask, why does he choose tea? What reason does he give for making a reduction which will go wholly into the pockets of hon. Gentlemen inside and outside the
  462
  Committee who act as retailers and wholesale dealers in tea? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh"] That is my opinion, and I think I have as good a right to express it as any hon. Gentleman here has to argue his case. In my opinion, the reduction of one penny on a pound of tea will not go into the pockets of the working classes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself evidently thinks there is some weakness in his position, because he was careful to tell us that, if the reduction did not go into the pockets of the working classes in the shape of a diminution in the price of their tea, they would get the benefit of it in the way of quality. I have heard that argument before from the retailers of tea; but I ask the working classes to recognise that the Committee desires to give them a reduction of a penny in the pound on their tea and to take care that they get it, and not to to be misled by any allegation that the quality of their tea is so much better. But to my mind, however, the smallness of the reduction is an objection to dealing with tea. If you could not take off at least 2d. on the pound, it would have been much better to leave it alone. It is the old story with the right hon. Gentleman. He finds it difficult to keep King Charles' head out of his memorial, and accordingly the fiscal question comes in even in the course of his Budget speech. I did not say that fiscal questions come in. Of course they could not be excluded. What I did say was—;the fiscal question comes in. It comes into the duty on tea in this way. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to explain that one of the advantages in favour of selecting tea was that it showed the people of this country that a reduction could be made in tea without the imposition of a corresponding tax on something else. But allow me to say this. If we were to go into the details of the question it could be shown that it was not a miserable penny on tea that would be taken off, but 4d. off tea, something like half the duty on sugar, and a large reduction also in the cost of tobacco. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman did not strengthen his case by the use of two incompatible propositions. To take 1d. off tea is a good thing, but it is not to be compared to changes which would involve vast reductions in the cost of articles of consumption besides other benefits of immense importance.

  463
  So far I have dealt with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. But there is one minor matter upon which I must ask for some further information. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to upset the conclusions of his predecessors in office with regard to the duty on tobacco, or, rather, not so much as to upset those conclusions as to alter and reduce the difference between strip and leaf tobacco from 3d. to ½d. The right hon. Gentleman has given no reason whatever for the change, which he says will make no difference to the revenue, based upon the working of the proposals of his predecessor. My right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer gave two reasons for his alteration in the taxation on tobacco as between strip and leaf. He said, in the first place, that the manufactured article ought to be more highly taxed than the raw material, in order to maintain the proportion between raw material and the manufactured article; and secondly, by taxing the manufactured article the manufacture would be kept in this country, and thereby a large number of people would obtain employment who, otherwise, would lose that source of work. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that he did not care about the foreign consumer. I hope he will admit that he does care about the British producer, and especially about the industrial classes who are employed in production. I am assured that the change in the taxation between strip and leaf made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the two effects which my right hon. friend contemplated. It established an equality as between the manufactured article and raw material, and it added very largely to employment in the trade. In these circumstances I should like to know what is the supreme reason which induced the right hon. Gentleman to make this change in the case of tobacco, for I must assume that he has some good reason which he has not yet disclosed rather than the desire to prove his originality by altering the policy of his predecessor. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why, agreeing as he does that there ought to be some difference between strip and leaf, he has selected a halfpenny as against threepence as the precise sum by which to establish the true proportion.
  464
  The effect of all these changes is that the surplus at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman is gone, and he has nothing to give to income-tax payers except a Commission. There, I think, we come to an important difference between our policy and the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman says that the income-tax at a shilling in the pound in time of peace is a most unfortunate position. Of course it is. I say that when you talk of the financial credit of this country, to my mind a moderate income-tax which could largely be increased in time of war is of infinitely greater importance to us as a resource in a serious national emergency than oven a considerable reduction in the Debt. I have always agreed with those financiers who called the income-tax the sheet anchor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in time of war. But in order that we may without hesitation make the greatest demands upon it—;and remember that we have not seen the greatest demands upon it which would be called for in the case of a really great and serious war—;but in order to justify the call which would be made upon it in such an emergency it certainly ought not to exceed a very moderate sum in time of peace, and therefore I do not at all like this proposal to postpone still further the consideration of the demand made by the ordinary income-tax payer for relief. Of course some people when they talk of the income-tax payer have in view only the large capitalist, who is supposed to be able to pay anything. In my opinion, of all classes of income-tax payers there are none so hardly treated by the tax as the small income-tax payers. In my opinion it is very hard upon persons of moderate incomes that they should pay their full proportion of indirect taxation while at the same time they pay their very heavy direct taxation. I think if the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to give them relief this year, it would have been better if he had held back instead of exciting expectations until he was in a better position, and he should not have given doles to classes, as he has undoubtedly done, with the not unnatural object of gaining more popularity for an otherwise very undistinguished Budget. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that in the current year he expects good trade and an increase of income. I have every hope, if

  465
  we keep out of war, that the income of the country may automatically increase. But a Chancellor of the Exchequer, prudently dealing with the finances of the country, must not, even if he is the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a Radical Government, rely absolutely and certainly on being able to keep out of war. What has happened? If in any part of the world there was any disturbance during the ten or twenty years the Unionists have been in power, remember it has always been attributed to some deliberate wickedness on our part. Of course there could not have been a war if a Radical Government had been in power! I observe there are still some gentlemen who hug that delusion. How long will you entertain it? How long with your peace at any price Government are you going to keep out of war? What have we seen already? In four months you have had a punitive expedition in Nigeria. In four months you have had a disturbance in Natal [Several HON. MEMBERS: Your fault], the seriousness of which we all feel. While I hope and honestly believe that there is no reason at the present moment for grave anxiety, yet we know that there is no prophet yet born who can say positively that this country may not be led into trouble in connection with the unrest in Natal. Of course I do not impute any blame to the Government. When Lord Lansdowne went out of office there was not a cloud on the horizon. The late wicked Government, therefore, left, in appearance at any rate, the prospect of absolute peace to its successors. But already in four months, besides the two matters to which I have referred, you have this difficulty in Egypt, as to which I will only say that there is no one here who will dare to predict the ultimate outcome. In these circumstances it is not quite safe to rely, even with a Radical Government in power, upon that continued increase of prosperity which alone justifies sanguine expectations for the future. The right hon. Gentleman has been four months at the Treasury, and he has seen nothing to justify him in making any substantial change in the expenditure of the country. It may be that four months more will give him the information which would justify him in making reductions. That also will depend a good deal on the state of Europe and of the world. There is only one thing
  466
  certain—;and it is quite as certain under a Radical Government as under a Unionist Government—;and that is demands for more expenditure. This new Parliament has been here for only three months, and what has happened already? The vast majority of the House has indicated its willingness to increase the wages of all the industrial portion of the Civil Service of the Crown. More money is wanted for education. There is an item of something like a million—;and this, I expect, will be vastly increased before we are done with it—;for the endowment of a new religion. You have voted in favour of a Resolution to give effect to which would involve an expenditure of £300,000 for the payment of Members of Parliament. It means a great deal more than that, because, whether we intend it or not, the vote carries undoubtedly similar salaries to Members of the other House of Parliament, who stand quite as much in need of it as Members of this House; and, therefore, you must count on a sum to come from the Chancellor of between a half and three - quarters of a million. You have taken, with a great nourish of trumpets, a penny off the tea duty. Oh, yes; but not all this year. You have allowed a great part of that to fall on the Budget of next year. So with the coal duty. The coal duty also is not to come on the Budget of this year, but is to fall on the Budget of next year; and, therefore, while this Budget is undoubtedly a humdrum and commonplace Budget, I believe, looking to the future, it will be found to be a very improvident one.
  MR. ASQUITH: I shall not attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman in that remarkable passage in the concluding part of his speech in which, with such patriotic forethought, he foreshadowed possible, if not probable, disturbances, and even breaches of the peace, which might be expected to result from the advent of a Radical Government to power. He actually blames me for not having made provision in this Budget against contingencies such as that. I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman's, example by attempting to draw invidious distinctions in this respect between one Government and another. The right hon. Gentleman said—;why, I do not know—;that when Lord Lansdowne

  467
  left office there was not a cloud on the horizon. Has he forgotten that when Lord Lansdowne left office—;I am not blaming him—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not blaming you.
  MR. ASQUITH: Lord Lansdowne was a most admirable Foreign Minister—;there was one most embarrassing European difficulty which was to be confronted—;the difficulty of Morocco, which occupied the Conference at Algeciras for the best part of three months, and the emergence of Europe from which was due, in no small degree, to the tact and ability with which my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary conducted the negotiations? But what was the object of introducing topics like that into the discussion of the Budget, which certainly does not give any fair occasion for it? The right hon. Gentleman has told the Committee, I think three times, that this was a very commonplace Budget—;so commonplace, he seemed to think, that it might almost have been framed by the late Government. I quite agree. It is a commonplace Budget. It has no pretension to be anything else. For reasons which I thought I explained, in the circumstances in which we found ourselves, it could not be otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman says—;Why do you pretend that you are bound by the Estimates of your predecessors? I have never been more surprised in the course of my experience than at that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He knows perfectly well how and when Estimates are framed. The Estimates for the spending departments are framed in the autumn. When we came into office in the middle of December they were practically all ready. The late Government even took the precaution, in view of the possible advent of a general election, to do a thing which, I believe, has never been done before—;namely, to publish the Navy Estimates as an electioneering tract to show what wonderful economists they were; and by a curious want of consistency and even-handedness they neglected to publish the Army Estimates, which, as the Committee knows, in the form in which my right hon. friend found them, showed a very considerable increase. Now is it not absurd to say that Estimates framed under these conditions, when the
  468
  members of the Government were occupied during the great part of January in trying to keep or win seats at the general election, and when the Estimates had to be submitted in February—;is it not absurd to say that either the heads of the spending departments or the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any real control in the matter? The Estimates are the Estimates of the late and not of the present Government. And remember we came into office before the general election and not after. I made I do not know how many speeches to my constituents and to electors in other parts of the country, and on behalf of the new Government I disclaimed all responsibility for these Estimates. We were elected, and the electors gave us their mandate on that understanding. The Estimates of this Government will be seen when they are presented to Parliament next year, and not before. I will not go into the somewhat audacious digression of the right hon. Gentleman about old-age pensions. He tells us, not for the first time, that he never promised old-age pensions. The last time that we had a little controversy across the Table about the subject the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me by declaring that he did not promise, but that he only proposed old-age pensions.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not accept that statement.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid, however, that it is recorded in Hansard.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Quote it.
  MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not give a promise, but only made a proposal. I remember the statement because I also remember the answer that I gave to him in return. This view is corroborated by what the right hon. Gentleman said as to his most simple alternative suggestion, and the proposal or the proposals, I think, took the first place in the electioneering programme of the Unionist Government as far back as 1895. But there is not much relevance in that topic to the consideration of the Budget on which we are ostensibly engaged. I come to the right hon. Gentleman's specific criticisms on what I have proposed. First of all as to the debt whose increase in the main, it is alleged, is due to the war. Yes, but not by any means entirely. The

  469
  capital liabilities, which have risen in ten years from £4,000,000 to £45,000,000, have little or nothing to do with the war. Here I may interpose two or three observations in reply to the late Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that I have laid down in the Estimates as a proposition that in no conceivable circumstances would the present Government regard the raising of money by loan for works of a permanent character, of a naval or military character, as justifiable. I did not say so. I guarded myself from saying so. On the contrary, I said that cases must and would occur in the history of all countries which would make it necessary to resort to temporary borrowing for works of a permanent character. But I also said that the system of the late Government was a system so full of abuses that it was time it was brought to a final close, and that we intended to bring it to a final close at the earliest possible moment. The right hon. Gentleman says that these naval and military loans were necessary for great Imperial purposes. I have two observations to make about that. In the first place, a not inconsiderable proportion of the works appearing in the schedule and which have been constructed and erected by borrowed money are works which are now, by the admission of all responsible strategists who are alive to the real military and naval necessities of the Empire, obsolete, worthless, and wasteful. In every direction you will find evidence of that wasteful policy. Not only is that the case, not only were the works properly described, if they had been well conceived, as works of a permanent character erected by borrowing, but, what I conceive to be still worse, works which have no claim whatsoever to be so regarded as belonging to this category, and the cost of which in no circumstances were defrayed out of the Estimates of the year, were so treated. I have here an instructive Return which will illustrate the point. It was presented to Parliament in 1903, and it is a statement showing the allotment of £170,000 provided in the military works loans for the purpose of assisting the Volunteers in connection with the expenditure on rifle ranges. This is what it says—;
  "Grants to Volunteer corps in aid of expenditure on rifle ranges;—;1st Ayr and
  470
  Galloway, £4; 2nd Volunteer Battalion Royal West Surrey Regiment, £6."
  And there are other items of the same sort. These sums were borrowed, and the repayment with interest was spread over a period of thirty years, because it was said that there was no other way so economical to discharge your Imperial responsibility.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never suggested that such a use of borrowed money is an economical way of dealing with it. I said that if you wanted to construct great works economically you should construct them rapidly, but the difficulty of producing the large expenditure out of the Votes was such as to make it a better plan to spread the expenditure over a large number of years. I was referring to expenditure on land and permanent works.
  MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman has laid down a principle in favour of which a good deal might be said. But I here produce a loan raised by the right hon. Gentleman's own Government under the very Act we are now considering, figures presented to Parliament in 1903, which shows that however excellent may be the principles in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, in point of fact these things will inevitably happen when you resort to this policy of borrowing for works that are to be carried on. I have also a quotation from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman which causes me surprise that he should have uttered the criticism of this afternoon. As late as July 19th, 1905, the late Prime Minister assured an hon. Member and the Committee—;
  "Of the desire and intention of the Government to close up this system at the earliest opportunity, and to bring any additional expenditure which might be necessary either in connexion with the works mentioned in the Bill or works which might be possibly required in future as far as possible in the ordinary Naval Vote, or, in other words, in Vote 10."
  What more have I said?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman laid down the proposition that he was never going to borrow. My argument is that when you have to deal with great constructive works which may be necessary you cannot follow the policy of carrying them on out of revenue.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had been quoting from a speech which he delivered.
  MR. ASQUITH: I was premature, and I am afraid the hon. Member is right. But I will quote from the late Prime Minister himself. ["Oh, oh!"] I am sorry if I have attributed to the right hon. Gentleman what was said by one of his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman, in one of his speeches, indicated that it was the intention of the late Government to abandon the loan system for the normal method of placing sums on the Votes, that the situation at the time justified the loan system coming to an end, and therefore the Government proposed to revert to the system of defraying the expenditure from the annual revenue.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  MR. ASQUITH: Then we are in agreement. The late Prime Minister made an appeal to me on the subject of Ireland. The answer that I was about to give to that appeal has been given by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I was careful, rightly careful, not to commit myself to any precise statement as to the method in which the Government proposes to deal with the financial relations between the two countries; and I do not propose to be drawn into doing anything more than to repeat what I said. The matter is receiving, and will continue to receive, on the part of the Chief Secretary and myself, the most careful consideration, and I hope to be in a position to make a more definite statement next year. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham spoke about the war debt, and he sneers at the paltry contribution of half a million towards increasing the Sinking Fund. It may be party, but let us see what we are doing this year in respect of the Sinking Fund. We have inherited a large surplus of £3,500,000. We are able to set aside for the debt £9,000,000 or £12,500,000, and, in addition, I propose to give £500,000 out of the Sinking Fund, taking advantage for the first time of the China indemnity to the extent of another £500,000. The result is that I shall apply this year in reduction of the dead-weight debt £13,500,000, which is largely in excess of any sum
  472
  hitherto applied to that purpose in the financial history of the country. I do not think that, in the circumstances of the year, I was justified in demanding from the taxpayer a greater sacrifice. At one time I thought of doing so; but in the result, when I added up the sums and looked at the impression they would make on the outstanding debt, I came to the conclusion that £500,000 was as large a sum as I was justified in setting aside. I am perfectly content to stand by it.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman's position with reference to the coal tax is one which I do not profess to understand. He seems to think that the tax would have been repealed by my predecessor if he had remained in office. But he took the opportunity of putting a question which I am glad to have the opportunity of answering, as to the incidence of an export duty like that of the coal tax, compared with the incidence of an import duty on, say, foreign corn. He says, "You admit by your argument and action, that the export duty on coal falls upon, the British producer; otherwise you would not say that it was in the interest of the trade to remove it. Why, then, do you not make a corresponding admission with regard to an import duty which may be paid here on corn produced abroad?" The question is not very difficult to answer; but I will answer it if I may in a couple of sentences. An export duty like that on coal is put on at the port of exit, whence the commodity starts on its voyage to the foreign market. It is only, therefore, the supply which is sent out of the country which puts the duty on the price. The rest of the supply is not taxed. Therefore, if a sufficient supply can be got from countries which do not put on that duty, it is evident that the foreign market can so supply itself. Therefore, if the producer of the country which puts on this export duty is to compete in the foreign market, he must sell his coal at his competitors' price and pay the duty himself. Now, an import duty is put on at the entrance to the market, and not at the port of exit. Suppose, as would be the case under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, the whole supply from foreign countries were to be subject to an import duty. It follows that, unless the untaxed supply—;that is to say, the home-grown supply plus the preferred supply—;is sufficient, as it is not,

  473
  to satisfy the wants of the market, the foreign corn must come in; and as there is only one price for the same article in the same market, the whole price in that market will he the price of the foreign corn. I apologise to the House for this digression into the elements of economic science, which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is difficult to exclude altogether even when discussing the Budget.
  One word, and only one word, on the subject of tea. The right hon. Gentleman says that in his opinion this 1d. which I am remitting will go into the pockets of the producers and middlemen. I do not think it will. I can assure the Committee that when I found that my resources were not sufficient to reduce the tax by 2d., as I should have liked to do, the first question I asked of my expert advisers—;and I have access to the advice of the highest possible authorities—;was, will this go to the consumer or not? They said that it would, and for reasons some of which I gave yesterday. First, the tax on tea is so enormous in proportion to the value of the article—;90 per cent.—;that when you reduce it, as you do here, by considerably over 10 per cent. you are making such a substantial reduction in the total cost that the force of competition must compel the producer to give the larger part of the benefit to the consumer. Secondly, while it is perfectly true that a small reduction of duty in the case of many commodities, like tobacco, for instance, maybe intercepted or long delayed in the various intermediate operations between the importation of the raw material and the retailing of the finished commodity, yet in the case of tea there are no such intermediate operations. It comes here in the form in which it is distributed, and nothing but the work of distribution remains to be accomplished; and for that reason I am advised that the whole of this reduction of duty will benefit the consumer, and also, indirectly, the British producers in India and Ceylon, who have been so largely handicapped by this duty in the past.
  As to tobacco, the right hon. Gentleman asks me why I change the existing scale. Again, the answer is a simple one. I change the scale first of all because it is cutting off the supply of
  474
  strips. Next, because it is not going to bring in any revenue to the Exchequer. It is true that the effect of the scale which my predecessor devised led to the growth of a small protected industry in this country—;the industry of stripping. But I have chosen a halfpenny as the difference between strips and leaf because it will bring them on a level, and will make all the allowance that can fairly be made for the manufacture of the leaf, for the small processes of handling, and for the extra weight of the moisture and sand in the leaf. Without desiring in any degree to curtail the discussion, I hope the House will now consent to give us the Resolution.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, that there shall be charged, on and after the fourteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and six, until the fourteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and seven, in lieu of the duty now payable on tea, the following Customs import duty on tea (that is to say):—;
  Tea the pound Five pence.—;(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  [WAYS AND MEANS [30TH APRIL]—; REPORT.]
  [MR. EMMOTT, the Deputy Speaker, in the chair.]
  Resolution reported.

  ALTERATION OF DUTY ON STRIPPED TOBACCO AND OF DRAWBACKS ON TOBACCO.
  1. "That for the increase of three pence per pound payable on stripped tobacco under section two of The Finance Act, 1904, there shall, as from the first day of May, nineteen hundred and six, be submitted an increase of one halfpenny per pound; and that the drawbacks allowed by the same Act on tobacco of the following description shall, as from the twenty-first day of May, nineteen hundred and six, be reduced by the substitution for the ordinary rate set out in the Table of Rates of Drawback

  475
  in the schedule to the said Act of the rate following (that is to say):—;

  In the case of cigars - the lb.

  3

  1

  In the case of cigarettes - the lb.

  3

  0

  In the case of cut, roll, cake, or other manufactured tobacco - - the lb.

  2

  11

  In the case of snuff, not being offal snuff - - the lb.

  2

  10."

  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL CUS- TOMS DUTIES ON TOBACCO, BEER, AND SPIRITS.
  2." That the additional Customs duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by sections two, three, four, and five of The Finance Act, 1900 (including any increased duties imposed by section five of that Act), shall continue to be charged until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and seven."
  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL EXCISE DUTIES ON BEER AND SPIRITS.
  3." That the additional Excise duties on beer and spirits imposed by sections six and seven of the Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until the first day of July, nineteen hundred aud seven."
  PERMANENT ANNUAL CHARGE.
  4. "That the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year be twenty-eight and a-half instead of twenty-eight million pounds."
  CHINA INDEMNITY.
  5 "That it is expedient to authorise the application in like manner as the new sinking fund is applied of any sums paid into the Exchequer on account of the China Indemnity."
  INCOME TAX.
  6. "That Income Tax shall be charged, for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and six, at the rate of one shilling in the pound."

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  7. "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution."
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid that he found that one-tenth of a penny would represent the real difference between strips and leaf, and therefore the new differentiation would still give some small protection to the stripping industry. It was also a great temptation to the manufacturer to use stalks in the cheaper sorts of tobacco. It would have been better to meet the case by a larger drawback instead of by a differential duty, so as to induce manufacturers not to use stalks at all.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to; Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. McKenna.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2:—;
  "In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'if otherwise qualified.'"—;(Mr. William Rutherford.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words' if otherwise qualified' stand part of the clause."
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the reason why this Amendment was pressed when the Bill was last before the Committee was that there could be only two kinds of qualification for a Justice of the Peace—;the possession of estate and residence. The Committee, by adopting Clause 1, had abolished the qualification by estate; and inasmuch as the wording of Clause 2 dealt with the question of residence it was obvious that there could not be any kind of qualification to which the words "if otherwise qualified" could be said to refer. To leave these words in the clause would only lead to confusion; and ill the

  477
  interests of perspicacity he thought the Amendment should be accepted.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said that Clause 1 abrogated the qualification by estate, and Clause 2 stated that a man might be qualified by residence in the county or within seven miles of the county. The words "if otherwise qualified" were necessary.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he desired, after that explanation, to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CAVEsaid that in the Municipal Corporations Act there were enabling words which qualified a man as Justice of the Peace for a borough who occupied a house or property in the borough. Why should not these words be applied to a county? As they were enlarging the field of choice of Justices in counties by allowing them to reside seven miles out of the county, he thought it desirable that they should be put on the same footing in this respect also as in the boroughs. He moved to insert at end of Clause 2, line 10, the words—;
  "Or occupy a house or other property in the county."
  Amendment proposed—;
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'thereof,' to add the words 'or occupies a house or other property in the county."'—;(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM ROBSONsaid he did not think the Amendment was of much importance one way or the other; but it was undesirable to enlarge the scope of the clause as suggested. If a gentleman occupied a residence he should be qualified, but he was of opinion that it was not desirable to introduce a temporary residence as a qualification.
  SIR H. AUBREY-FLETCHERsaid that he had taken a great interest in this Bill, and he believed that it would be improved if the Solicitor-General accepted the Amendment.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid that the Amendment would raise another property qualification, and he hoped the Solicitor-General would not accept it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 44; Noes, 305. (Division List No. 56.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, RtHn.Sir Alex.F

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith,Abel H. (Hertford,East)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Maylebone, E.)

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Valentia, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Liddell, Henry

  Younger, George

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Craik, Sir Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;Sir Henry Aubrey-Fletcher and Mr. Cave.

  Duncan, Robert (Lana'k, Govan

  Percy, Earl

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

  Barker, John

  Beale, W. P.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Benn,John Williams(Devonp't

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bertram, Julius

  Findlay, Alexander

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Crae, George

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Kean, John

  Billson, Alfred

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Killop, W.

  Black,Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Ginnell, L.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Boland, John

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Grant, Corrie

  Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsay)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Massie, J.

  Brace, William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Meagher, Michael

  Branch, James

  Griffith, Ellis, J.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Brigg, John

  Gulland, John W.

  Menzies, Walter

  Bright, J. A.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Rrampton

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Brodie, H. C.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hall, Frederick

  Mond, A.

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

  Halpin, J.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Bryce,Rt.Hn.James (Aberdeen

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Montagu, E.S.

  Bryce,J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morse, L. L.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murphy, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Myer, Horatio

  Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Napier, T. B.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholls, George

  Causton,Rt.HnRichard Knight

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncas'r

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hodge, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Clough, W.

  Hope,John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hope, W.Bateman (Somerset,N

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Grady, J.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Kelly,James (Roscommon, N

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Malley, William

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

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jenkins, J.

  Perks, Robert William

  Cowan, W. H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Philipps, Owen C. Pembroke)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Crombie, John William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crooks, William

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Delany, William

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lambert, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dillon, John

  Lament, Norman

  Rees, J. D.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alexander

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Richardson, A.

  Duckworth, James

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Erskine, David C.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'd

  480

  481

  Robinson, S.

  Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Summerbell, T.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Sears, J. E.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Seddon, J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Torrance, A. M.

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Winfrey, R.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Ure, Alexander

  Wodehouse,Lord(Norfolk, Mid)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Young, Samuel

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wallace, Robert

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Snowden, P.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southamptn

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;Mr.Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Spicer, Albert

  Wardle, George J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODobjected to the general application of the system under which gentlemen residing seven miles from the county might be appointed. He knew that there were many cases in which it was necessary to take that step to secure a quorum, but he thought the general application of the principle was a mistake. He thought the Court of Quarter Sessions would rather have justice administered by gentlemen who resided in the county and knew the needs of the neighbourhood than by people who resided in another county and were brought from seven miles off. Why should the peaceful folk of Somersetshire have men brought in who were ignorant of their customs and, in many cases, of their language? A man who resided in Rutland, who was appointed a magistrate, would be qualified to serve in the four neighbouring counties. That gentleman might have strong views on the game laws either in favour of or against the poacher; he might have strong views on the licensing question either in favour of or against the licensed houses. It seemed to him against the principle of any Radical Government to put all these discretionary powers in the hands of one man. It also seemed rather curious that on the eve of the
  482
  day upon which the Plural Voting Bill, which included, he apprehended, the principle of one man one vote, was to be introduced they should be discussing the principle of a man who could only vote in one county in an election being able to exercise his magisterial functions not in one but in four counties. It was on these grounds that he opposed the clause.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman was apparently oblivious of the fact that the vote just given would enable a gentleman to be a magistrate in any county. The reason for this seven mile-limit was a very practical and proper one. It was this: there were many districts, especially industrial districts, where persons qualified to act as magistrates had large interests in a particular district but had their residences outside that district, and it was thought that the same rule should apply to them as that which already applied in the case of boroughs.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he joined his right hon. friend in his opposition to this clause. The Committee had already heard what the effect of it would be in a small county. The effect was to give a special qualification to a man to be appointed a magistrate who resided, not in the county in which his magisterial duties were exercised, but seven

  483
  miles outside the borders of that county. In a large county the effect would be that any man who resided on the strip of land seven miles wide adjoining another county would be eligible for election to the magistracy of that other county. One curious result of the clause would be that whereas if a man resided eight miles from the border he would be eligible to serve as a magistrate in only one county, if he resided on that strip of land fourteen miles wide, seven miles each side of the border, he would have a double qualification. He thought there should only be one qualification. They should either abolish the qualification and put everyone on an equality, or,
  if that could not be done, and there must be a residential qualification, they should take care that no one had more than one residential qualification. It was quite clear that this clause was a mistake. It established privileges and gave rights to individuals who lived in an arbitrarily selected territory and was for that reason highly objectionable. Therefore he hoped the Government would see their way to omit it from the Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 289; Noes, 35. (Division List No. 57.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Causton, Rt.Hn.Richard Knight

  Gill, A. H.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cave, George

  Ginnell, L.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Glover, Thomas

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Grant, Corrie

  Barker, John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Grey Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clough, W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Beale, W. P.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hall, Frederick

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Halpin, J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp't

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

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

  Cory, Clifford John

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Bertram, Julius

  Cowan, W. H.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Crooks, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Billson, Alfred

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies,David(Montgomery Co.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Boland, John

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Delany, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

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

  Hodge, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Brace, William

  Dillon, John

  Hooper, A. G.

  Branch, James

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset, N

  Brigg, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bright, J. A.

  Duckworth, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brodie, H. C.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Hudson, Walter

  Brooke, Stanford

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hyde, Clarendon

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

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bryce,Rt.Hn.James (Aberdeen

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Bryce,J..A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Jenkins, J.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Erskine, David C.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Essex, R. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jowett, F. W.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Joyce, Michael

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Cairns, Thomas

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lambert, George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Spicer, Albert

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

  Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Grady, J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Malley, William

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Mara, James

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lundon, W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macdonald, J. M. Falkirk B'ghs

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Torrance, A. M.

  MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Toulmin, George

  M'Crae, George

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Killop, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wallace, Robert

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Rees, J. D.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Ward, W.Dudley (Southampt'n

  Marks, G.Croydon (Launceston)

  Richardson, A.

  Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney

  Massie, J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Meagher, Michael

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Menzies, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Robertson,Sir G. Scott(Bradf'd

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mond, A.

  Robinson, S.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Montagu, E. S.

  Roe, Sir Thomson

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morse, L. L.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

  Murphy, John

  Scott,A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Murray, James

  Sears, J. E.

  Winfrey, R.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Seddon, J.

  Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)

  Napier, T. B.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Stackleton, Davin James

  Young, Samuel

  Nicholls, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;Mr.Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Smeaton, Donald Macknezie

  Nuttall, Harry

  Snowden, P.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn. Sir H.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hon.Col.W

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Liddell, Henry

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;Mr. Watson Rutherford and Sir William Bull.

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  Clause 3:—;
  MR. CAVEthought they ought to have the words "if qualified" after
  486
  the word "solicitor." The Solicitor-General was very careful indeed to have such words in Clause 2, but as Clause 3 read now a solicitor might

  487
  be appointed although not qualified at all. He certainly thought they should be just as careful here as in the other case, and he therefore moved that the words "if qualified" be added after the word "solicitor."
  Amendment proposed—;
  "In page 1, line 11, after the word 'solicitor' to insert the words 'if qualified.'"—;[Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'if qualified' be there inserted."
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the words were quite unnecessary as the solicitor must be qualified.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he could not understand why, if the words were necessary in Clause 2, they were not necessary in Clause 3. After all a person was not substantially different from a solicitor, and if there was a danger in the one case of an alien being appointed, why not also in the case of a solicitor?
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid the Amendment would make the clause perfectly clear that a solicitor could not be appointed unless he were qualified.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he could not support the Amendment. He was a solicitor himself, and he took it that if this clause became law he or any other solicitor might be appointed a justice of the peace for any county. The questions of qualification by estate or residence would not arise. It would be sufficient if he were a solicitor. The result of passing this clause in its present comprehensive form would be that any solicitor practising in London could be appointed a justice of the peace for Devonshire, or any other county. He did not know whether that was the intention of the Government, but on behalf of the profession to which he belonged he heartily welcomed this tardy measure of justice, and he recognised that it was an attempt on the part of the Government to make up for the injustice to which the profession had been subjected for so many years.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONthought that the Amendment as it stood might give rise to some confusion. He would suggest that the words "if otherwise qualified" should be substituted. That would put the two clauses on all fours, and solicitors would not be placed on a completely different plane from all other members of the community.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid it was perfectly clear that the words "otherwise qualified" in Clause 2 were put there only for the purpose of keeping alive certain existing disabilities.
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  CORK CITY RAILWAYS AND WORKS BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. J. J. O'SHEEexplained that the measure was brought in for the purpose of constructing a new link line across the city to join up the existing railway. There were three Bills to promote this object. The Bill to which he would call the attention of the House was promoted by the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Company. This Company intended to provide a new and competitive through route with the Great Southern & Western Railway to Cork and Dublin, and also with the same company to Cork and London and the South of England. A necessary part of that through route was that a line should be constructed from Cork to Dunkettle and Fermoy. The Treasury undertook to put at the disposal of the Hybrid Committee the sum of £93,000, which was a mortgage on the County of Waterford Railway, that sum having been required in addition to

  489
  the original capital of £280,000. The capital was insufficient to complete the construction, and the Irish Board of Works advanced £93,000 by way of mortgage. That line was acquired by the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway, and it was forty-three miles long. In order to complete the through route it was laid down that a line should be constructed from Fermoy to Cork. In 1873 through the Grand Jury it was agreed that the ratepayers of the county of Waterford should be taxed to the extent of 5 per cent. on the original capital, representing £14,000 a year, in order to secure the construction of the railway. In 1898 an offer was made to wipe out the whole guarantee of £14,000 a year payable by the ratepayers of Waterford upon the Treasury agreeing to remit their mortgage of £93,000 upon the railway. But the hybrid Committee would not accept this offer, which was made by the promoters of the Bill, and they suggested that the Cork and Fermoy Company should complete the route with a view to securing competition with the Southern and Western Railway, and the Waterford ratepayers were offered relief to the extent of £7,000 a year. The position now was that the company which undertook to construct the Cork and Fermoy direct line had failed to carry out its obligations and, therefore, the county of Waterford ratepayers claimed the benefit of that money in justice to the people of the county of Waterford who had made such enormous sacrifices for their railway. Last year a Bill was brought in for the construction of these lines in Cork City, and he believed it was thrown out by the Committee because it was promoted by a private syndicate. The Cork City Council were willing to guarantee 4 per cent., and the Treasury at that time agreed, in case they were satisfied with the financial part of the scheme, to accept it, but when they came to investigate it for themselves the Treasury were not satisfied with the financial basis of the Bill.
  On behalf of his constituency in the county of Waterford who had been paying an average rate of 11¼d. in the £ on the entire valuation of the county, and also on behalf of the city of Waterford, which had been paying £1,600 a year in respect
  490
  of the guarantee, he strongly protested against any part of this money being used for constructing link lines or bridges across the Lee so long as there was any possibility of its being used for the purpose of making a substitute for the Cork direct line. Last year it was agreed that a sum of £33,000 of the entire sum of £93,000 should be allocated towards buying out the old toll bridge at Waterford; and as representing the ratepayers and the county of Waterford, he had no objection to that, because the city of Waterford ratepayers during the same period had been giving the £1,600 a year to which he had referred. On the contrary, he approved of that decision of the Treasury. The Bill that came before the House last year was thrown out because the Committee decided that they would not be a party to enabling the Great Western Company to evade their obligations of 1898. This was not the first attempt to evade those obligations. The position remained the same to-day, and these companies, the Great Southern and Western and the Great Western, ought not to be allowed to stand behind a Bill of this kind, as the promoters said they did stand behind it. They attempted in 1901 to evade their obligations. In that year they approached the Secretary of the Treasury, and it was practically arranged that money should be given to the Great Western Company for the building of this line. The whole Irish representation got up and protested indignantly against that course, and the Leader of the House at the time, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, would not allow the arrangement, which had almost been completed,, to be carried into effect. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the House ought not to permit obligations which should be regarded as sacred to be evaded two or three years after the obligations were undertaken. When the question of allocation came on, he hoped the House would determine that the money should be used for the benefit of the people who had made such enormous sacrifices in the past, and by whose means the people of Cork were able to talk to-day of this link line through the City. It was monstrous that these railway companies should ask the Treasury for a

  491
  grant which should not be devoted to the work at all. This Cork City Railways Bill was really for the construction of a tramway. The proposal of the Cork and Waterford Railways Bill was for high level connecting links and swinging bridges across the Lee. The Committee to whom these Bills would go would no doubt be able to deal with these matters. He had only risen to enter his protest against the £60,000 being allocated directly or indirectly to the construction of these works in the city of Cork, and to claim on behalf of the ratepayers of Waterford that when the allocation came to be considered the House would determine that as far as possible the money should be used in the way he had indicated.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsubmitted that the discussion as to the share of the grant of £93,000 was irrelevant to the only question before the House, which was whether a Bill for bridging over the Lee and connecting the railway system with the rest of the country should be referred for consideration to the Committee. He thought he was entitled to call attention to the fact that the Bill did not in any way propose to appropriate this £93,000, or any proportion of the money. An arrangement was come to by the late Government and endorsed by the present Government for a certain allocation of this £93,000 between Cork and Waterford, and if that agreement was to be disturbed, obviously it was with the Treasury that the matter would have to be discussed hereafter, and the promoters of this Bill did not propose in any way to prejudge the question. They proposed that not only their own Bill, but the two alternative schemes, should all go together upon an equal footing before the Committee for consideration and investigation and evidence, and it would then be for the Treasury, by the light of the evidence given before the Committee, to say which of these projects was the more likely to fulfil the conditions under which this £60,000 was reserved for a satisfactory arrangement with Cork. He thought the hon. Member rather did an injustice to the very able Member for Waterford in thinking Waterford had done
  492
  very badly in connection with these matters. On the contrary, he thought Waterford had fared remarkably well in comparison with Cork. In the first place the ratepayers of Waterford had been relieved of £7,000 a year, and the Waterford portion of the connection had been completed while the Cork connection had not been touched. In the next place Waterford was to have £33,000 for its bridge. He did not envy Waterford, but he was entitled to point out that was a purpose not contemplated at all in the original scheme before the Committee, which merely stipulated for a footbridge. Waterford was in the splendid position of having an alternative route to England, and a free railway bridge, while the purpose for which this £90,000 was set apart had never been touched. These were all details which, of course, had much better be dealt with by the Committee who would go into the whole matter. It was absurd and irrevleant to ask the House to determine the matter just now. What they wanted was to give evidence in support of the claim which commanded the approval of the representatives of the corporation and of the Harbour Commissioners, and the support, not merely of the Great Southern and Western Railway, but of every railway which traded with the port. This Bill did not in the least interfere with any project for supplying an alternative route from the south of Ireland to Dublin. By bridging the Lee, it offered the best prospect of bringing into the railway connection a vast district in the west which was now absolutely cut off from the rest of the country. He might be allowed to say that this scheme would cost less than a half of the Links Railway and less than one-third of the other scheme, and that it proposed to lay down sidings to the deep water quays. The promoters of the Bill were perfectly willing that all three schemes should go before the Committee upstairs and be dealt with on their merits.
  MR. POWERsaid he could not allege that his constituents were interested in this matter to the same extent as the constituents of the hon. Member for West Waterford; but at the same time they were deeply

  493
  interested in it. The hon. Member had stated that the railway companies had offered to relieve Waterford of the guarantee of £14,000 a year. The representatives of Waterford were anxious to close with that offer, but the late Mr. Hanbury, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, stated that a competitive route would be of greater value to Waterford than the entire guarantee. He thought that the treatment which Waterford had received from the railway company had been downright disgraceful in regard to the competitive route from Cork to Fermoy. The present Leader of the Opposition on July 18th, 1901, was reported to have said—;
  "There is no doubt that this company are pledged to construct the line from Cork to Fermoy, and the Treasury neither have the power, nor would they exercise it if they did possess it, of sanctioning any escape from that Parliamentary obligation."
  And on the 23rd day of the same month the Leader of the Opposition said—;
  "His opinion was that once a railway company came before a Committee of that House and got a Bill for value received it ought to carry out its obligations. It might be that the obligations ought not in the interest of Ireland to have been entered into. It might be that the money to be spent on this line had much better have been spent in carrying out other railway works in the south and west of Ireland. Upon that point he did not offer an opinion, though he inclined to the opinion that the money probably might be better spent. That did not, however, alter the fact that a bargain had been made in the most solemn manner before two Committees—;a Committee of this House, and a Committee of the House of Lords—;and that it was in consequence of that bargain that the railway company obtained from this House the privileges it now enjoyed. He thought they must distinguish that question from the question of expediency, and he did think that the railway company were bound to carry out the bargain into which they had entered."
  These were the words of the right hon. Member for the City of London, when he was First Lord of the Treasury; and it was to be hoped that the present representative of the Treasury would adhere to these sound views, and would say that if this money was to be spent, it should be spent in providing an alternative route, and not in constructing tramways or railways in Cork. He hoped that the whole matter would be fairly thrashed out before a competent Committee upstairs, and he would seriously impress
  494
  on the Gentleman in charge of the finances of the Treasury that Waterford had a prior claim to the Treasury grant.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he would not move the motion which stood in his name, that this Bill should be read a second time that day six months. While he did not wish to detain the House, he wished to explain his reasons for taking this course. The House had before it three separate and distinct Bills, and in regard to each of them it was asked that it should be taken in preference to the others. The importance of these Bills was very great, and it was on the ground of their importance that he urged that all three should go upstairs and be dealt with by a Committee. He wished to say that in taking this course he had done so with the assent of his hon. friends, and consequently, speaking on behalf of his Ulster colleagues, he wished to say that they desired, as far as they possibly could, to impress upon the House the necessity that the questions raised by the Bills should be carefully considered. Some of them dealt with overhead railways; in others the trains were to run along lines upon roads which were to be adequately protected, and some of them presented little outside schemes such as the seventeen mile road railway between Youghal and Cappagh. On occasions like this it was, in his judgment, the duty of the House to send all three Bills to the Committee. Let them be thrashed out, and then their united virtues might be embodied in a Bill which would satisfy the claims of Waterford, Cork, and Youghal. In withdrawing on behalf of the Ulster Party their objections to each of the Bills, he would like to say that they (the Ulster Unionist Party) met with very different treatment on a certain occasion recently and they hoped that the fair dealing which they now accorded to the South of Ireland in regard to these three most important railway Bills might on another occasion be extended to them. He had in common with other Members received circulars from the promoters of these various undertakings, and he would point out that although they naturally differed in substance, all of them respectfully asked that the Bill dealt with should be read a second time and referred to a Committee. In the case of the

  495
  Rathmines and Rathgar Bill, the Chairman of Ways and Means, it would be recollected, failed to instruct the House as to what should be done with private Bills of such a very contentious nature, namely, that the proper course was that of allowing them to go upstairs to be dealt with by a Committee. The Ulster Party in withdrawing their opposition did so in the interest of the eventual outcome of these measures, which he presumed would be the best of the three amended and improved. He hoped it would be considered that the minority to which he belonged were deserving of respect for the course which they had pursued.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid he had no intention of going into the respective merits of the three Bills so far as the railways terminating in the City of Cork were concerned. Neither had he the least desire to oppose any scheme calculated in any way whatever to benefit the people of West Cork, but he would point out that the only scheme which appeared to strike a through route between Cork and Dublin and thence to the South of England was that contained in the Cork and Waterford Bill. He considered that that Bill was deserving of the most support, and his Queenstown and Cork constituents were of the same opinion. The railway monopoly had been a source of great injury to the South of Ireland, and anything which could be done to break up the monopoly should, in his opinion, be eagerly adopted. In 1898 the Committee recognised the evils which railway monopoly inflicted upon the South of Ireland and recommended that a connection should be made between Cork and Fermoy, keeping the Rosslare route and preserving the connection between Dublin and the South of England. The Great Southern and Western gave a pledge that they would make this con-
  496
  nection, in consideration of a grant of £93,000 from the Treasury, but they broke their pledge and these were the companies who would be placed in control of the railway system of Ireland, if nothing was now done beyond connecting the railways which terminated in the City of Cork. It was proposed, by the scheme contained in the Cork and Waterford Bill, to form an independent company, to construct a link between Cappagh and Youghal, and thus carry out the intention of Parliament and relieve the South of Ireland from railway monopoly. It was for this purpose that the grant of £93,000 was offered to the Rosslare Company in 1898, and he thought under the circumstances that the Cork and Waterford scheme had the best claim to the balance of that sum which still remained in the hands of the Treasury. That, however, would be a question for the Committee to consider, for he presumed that these three Bills would be referred to a Committee and that their merits would be investigated in the usual way, but he strongly hoped that the suggestion thrown out by his hon. friend that the Treasury should give some intimation as to the desirability of allotting this balance to the construction of a competitive road, would be followed. He had no connection with the financial arrangements of the promoters or with those in opposition to this scheme, but he strongly supported the Cork and Waterford Bill in the interests of healthy competition and of emancipating the South of Ireland from railway monopoly.
  MR. MOONEYsaid he had no interest in any of these schemes, but he was a Member of the Committee which sat last year upon the Cork Junction Railway, and perhaps he might be permitted to intervene in the debate. It was said that that Committee would not allow the railway company to evade its responsibilities and for that reason threw out the Bill, although it

  497
  was urgently impressed upon the Committee that there was an urgent necessity to adopt some scheme. What that scheme was he did not know, and he did not care, but he did know that the Committee were unanimously of opinion that some scheme should be evolved which would do away with the extraordinary system which existed in Cork at the present moment under which a large portion of the county of Cork was cut off from communication with the rest of Ireland. The finance of the particular scheme before them seemed to be unsound and the Committee adjourned the consideration of the Bill over Whitsuntide for the purpose of enabling the promoters to produce a better financial basis. When the promoters came back to the Committee the latter did not see their way then to accept the financial details of the Bill. He was perfectly sure that any Committee would carefully inquire into and give a very deliberate decision upon this matter. He therefore hoped that these Bills would be given a Second Reading and sent upstairs to a Committee in order that they might decide which was the best Bill. The Committee unanimously decided that the conditions of railway communication in Cork were disgraceful, and the sooner a remedy was found the better it would be for everybody.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTon behalf of the Ulster Party congratulated the hon. Member for East Down on the fair and generous spirit he had shown in withdrawing his opposition to the Bill. He hoped that that feeling would be reciprocated by the Nationalists when other Bills came before the House. The same spirit was not manifested a few weeks ago when a Bill vitally affecting the health of a district in Ireland was under consideration. Sanction to send that particular Bill to a Committee was then refused. It seemed very harsh treatment. The representatives of Ulster constituencies did not desire to inquire
  498
  into the religion or politics of the people affected by the group of Bills now before the House. They only desired to do what was best for the district. By consenting to send these Bills to a Committee the Ulster Unionists were heaping coals of fire on the heads of hon. Members below the gangway. They had no desire to perpetuate the spirit shown by Nationalists a few weeks ago.
  MR. SHEEHANsaid that all the interest he had in this matter was that a link should be made. For that reason he asked that these three Bills should be sent before a Committee. He did not think it was necessary for him to enter into a discussion as to the merits of the Bills, although it would be as easy for him to state his views as anyone in the Committee. His only desire was that these three Bills should be referred to a Committee.
  MR. LONSDALEdrew attention to the fact that all three Bills had the same object in view, and submitted that they ought to receive careful inquiry and consideration by a Select Committee. He had no doubt that they would be able to examine them in such a way that the best scheme would emerge.

CORK AND WATERFORD RAILWAYS BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  CORK LINK RAILWAYS BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Read a second time, and committed.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee,)
  [The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN, Mr. Caldwell (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair].
  Amendment proposed—;
  "In page 1, line 11, after the word 'solicitor' to insert the words 'if qualified.'"—;(Mr. Cave.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. F. E. SMITH, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say he had hoped the hon. and learned Solicitor-General would accept this Amendment without discussion. It was perfectly clear that as the business of the House was conducted at present it was the duty of the Law Officers to scrutinise very carefully the draughtsmanship of the Bills the Government presented, and it was the duty of the Opposition to attempt to give as much assistance as they could in all matters affecting draughtsmanship. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had seen his way to accept these words he would have made this Bill a more consistent and intelligent measure than it was at present. If these words were inserted after the word "solicitor" a very great ambiguity would be avoided. If the Committee gave its attention to the words of the section, they would see that the section at first sight was worded in a singular way. If the section was draughted without the words "if otherwise qualified" no reasonable person accustomed to construe Acts of Parliament would imagine that it related to any other disability. They had already swept away every other disability, and no one would consider that if these words were omitted the provisions contained in Clause 2 would be construed so as to override the existing disabilities. But the position had altogether changed, and he submitted that as the clause at present stood it was open to misconstruction and to possibilities of litigation, which he was sure the Solicitor-General would be the first to wish to avoid in the interests of the measure to which he had attached his name.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the Committee was entitled to some reply from the Solicitor-General. As the clause stood, a solicitor
  500
  could be appointed to be a magistrate in any county of England. Was that intended? If the restrictive words were excluded they would introduce into the clause a certain element of right for solicitors to be appointed all over the country, which was distinctly and avowedly excluded by the preceding clause. If the Solicitor-General preferred that the Amendment should not be taken at this point, it could be inserted after the word "county" in line 2. It would equally meet the point, and save the hon. and learned Gentleman's face.
  MR. NIELDsaid he was glad that after so many years the Government were ready to rehabilitate the lower division of the legal profession by placing an unlimited confidence in solicitors which neither in fiction nor in real life had been shown them in years past.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the Question was that the words "if qualified" be inserted.
  MR. NIELDsaid he was suggesting that the words in the Bill showed such satisfaction on the part of the Government in solicitors that their qualification was of no moment, and they were to be permitted to be appointed to any bench in any county without apparently the qualification which other persons were required to have.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he had informed the hon. Gentleman that he was out of order, and he must confine himself to the Amendment.
  MR. NIELDsaid with all possible respect he ventured to submit that his observations were directed to show that the proposal of the Government was that no qualification was necessary at all and in criticising this exhibition of confidence

  501
  he was speaking to the Amendment, the direct purpose of which was to make it clear and free from ambiguity, so that while extending the opportunities for a solicitor being appointed the same qualification should be required from him as from other persons.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he had intended to move an Amendment to the Amendment to insert after "if" the word "otherwise." He hoped his hon. friend would accept his Amendment, which he now moved with the permission of the Committee.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—;
  "To insert after the word 'if' the word 'otherwise.'"—; (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the word, 'if otherwise qualified' be there inserted."
  LORD HELMSLEYsaid there was no doubt that solicitors would be admirable adjuncts to the Bench, but the question whether they should fulfil those functions whether qualified or not gave rise to a very grave consideration. He failed to see why solicitors should be chosen for particular mention while other professions equally respectable and equally admirable in all their qualifications were absolutely unmentioned. The Committee were entitled to the opinion of the Government as to why the words had been omitted. The drafting of the Bill was certainly of a very loose character, and the Solicitor-General would be hardly treating the Committee with respect unless he told them why these words had been omitted in this clause and inserted in Clause 2.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 47; Noes, 297. (Division List No. 58.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn SirAlex.F.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Liddell, Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn. Sir H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  O'Niell, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Herny William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Hills, J. W.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hon.Col. W

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Sir William Bull.

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Craig, Captain James (Down,E.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Barker, John

  Agnew, George William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Armitage, R.

  Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  M'Crae, George

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  M'Kean, John

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Erskine, David C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Killop, W.

  Bell, Richard

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Benn,John Williams(Devonp't

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Bertam, Julius

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Massie, J.

  Bethell,J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford,S

  Meagher, Michael

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Billson, Alfred

  Gill, A. H.

  Menzies, Walter

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Ginnell, L.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Boland, John

  Glover, Thomas

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

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

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Mond, A.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Grant, Corrie

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brace, William

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Brigg, John

  Gulland, John W.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Bright, J. A.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hall, Frederick

  Morrell, Philip

  Brooke, Stopford

  Halpin, J.

  Morse, L. L.

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Bryce,Rt.Hn.James (Aberdeen

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Murphy, John

  Bryce,J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Murray, James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Myer, Horatio

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nannetti, Joseph P

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Napier, T. B.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nicholls, George

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncas'r

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cameron, Robert

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow, W.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hope, W.Bateman (Somerset,N

  O'Grady, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

  Clough, W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Malley, William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Mara, James

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

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Collins, Stephens (Lambeth)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Radford, G. H.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Cox, Harold

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Redmond, John E. Waterford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crooks, William

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Rees, J. D.

  Crossley, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Richardson, A.

  Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamont, Norman

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Delany, William

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Devlin,Charles Ramsay(Galway

  Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

  Robertson,Sir G. Scott(Bradf'd

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Robinson, S.

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

  Lough, Thomas

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lundon, W.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Dillon, John

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rose, Charles Day

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rowlands, J.

  Duckworth, James

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Russell, T. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  504

  505

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Schwann,Chas. E.(Manchester)

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Summerbell, T.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Seddon, J.

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Tomkinson, James

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Torrance, A. M.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ure, Alexander

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Snowden, P.

  Verney, F. W.

  Young, Samuel

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Spicer, Albert

  Walsh, Stephen

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;Mr.Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  [The Chairman (Mr. EMMOTT) here took the Chair.]
  MR. JOHN RUTHERFORDasked, on a point of order, whether solicitors who were Members of the House had a right to vote in the division which had just taken place. He believed that some fifteen solicitors had voted. The rules were very particular in regard to hon. Members voting upon any matter in which they were directly interested.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is not a question of special or pecuniary interest, and under those conditions I think a solicitor has a right to vote.
  MR. COURTHOPEdid not think the Government could possibly intend to give those special advantages which were expressly taken away from every other class of the community. He begged to move to insert the words "in which he resides."
  Amendment proposed—;
  "In page 1, line 12, after the word 'county,' to insert the words 'in which he resides.'"—;(Mr. Courthope.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. F. E. SMITHsuggested that the object of his hon. friend would be achieved if in the earlier section of the Bill he moved to insert—;
  "That a solicitor may be appointed a justice of the peace for any county in or within seven miles of which he resides."
  He suggested that this was a matter on which the Opposition were entitled to some guidance from the Solicitor-General as to whether under the clause as drafted there was or was not any geographical limitation of the right of a solicitor to act as a justice of the peace. As a matter of legal construction would it not be possible for a solicitor to be appointed a justice of the peace for a county in which he had no residential or geographical qualification?
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid he desired to remind the Committee that the Bill did not profess to code the law relating to justices of the peace. It proposed merely to amend the law in one or two definite particulars, the main particular being to

  507
  abolish the qualification by estate. That was the subject matter of the first clause, but it left the rest of the law with regard to justices of the peace standing. There was a residential qualification in the case of county magistrates imposed under statutes of Henry V. The qualification by estate was removed by this Bill, but the old residential qualification remained. Having explained the law on this matter, he hoped the House would not think that he was at all lacking in respect if he refrained from getting up and explaining it again and again if hon. Members opposite insisted upon putting the same questions repeatedly.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid it was very desirable that hon. Members who had not the legal knowledge of the luminaries on the front bench opposite should get all the information they could on the different points in the Bill before they gave their assent to the measure. The Solicitor-General had stated that the law with respect to the residential qualification of a person appointed as a justice of the peace was passed during the reign of Henry V. In the case of a solicitor it was now proposed that there should be no residential qualification. He thought it was a very serious matter that they should be called upon to make this extraordinary change in the law on behalf of one class of the community. He would support the Amendment because it seemed to him very desirable that the residential qualification which was considered necessary in the reign of Henry V. should be maintained now.
  LORD DALRYMPLEsaid this Bill was to apply to Scotland as well as England, and according to the Solicitor-
  508
  General it was necessary on account of some law passed in the reign of Henry V. His knowledge of history was limited, but he had not yet heard that there was any king of Scotland called Henry V.
  MR. MITCHELL - THOMSONsaid the Solicitor - General was not entitled to found his case for Scotland on any law passed for England in the reign of Henry V. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider very seriously the Amendment which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Rye.
  LORD HELMSLEYsaid he had received with great gratitude the explanation of the Solicitor - General, but that explanation only showed that the clause was badly drafted. A Bill of this kind ought to be plain, and understood by an ordinary layman. He maintained that not one layman in a hundred could understand it, and that the only people who would benefit from it would be lawyers.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it was not necessary either for the hon. Member or his constituents to understand any of these Acts of Parliament. He should vote against the Amendment for the same reason as he had voted against the previous Amendment. If he understood the explanation which the hon. and learned Solicitor-General had given it was that although every solicitor was a person and would come within the clause which related to residential qualification, yet every person was not a solicitor. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn because the whole object of the Amendment had been tested in a previous division. It was quite clear

  509
  that so long as a man was a solicitor, no matter where he resided or where he practised, he was entitled under this clause to be on the county bench.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid he certainly hoped that the Committee would not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool who had now gone below the gangway and had told the Committee he was an interested person. They were grateful to the Solicitor-General for his explanation, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had not explained one of the points raised, and that was why this disqualification should not be taken out of this particular clause.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was not discussing the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid he was anxious to bow to the ruling of the Chairman, but he wished to press the point that the hon. Member for Liverpool was a prejudiced person, and should not be allowed to mislead the House.
  MR. COURTHOPEexpressed the hope that the Solicitor-General would see his way to accept his Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 54; Noes, 317. (Division List No. 59.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.Sir Alex.F.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn.HughO

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Ashley, W. W.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Rasch Sir Frederic Carne

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hn. SirH.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford John (Lancashire)

  Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(City Lond.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Beach,Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hervey,F. W. F.(BuryS.Edm'd

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Younger, George

  Coates,E. Feetham(Lewisham)

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

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Mr. Courthope and Sir William Bull.

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Liddell, Henry

  Craig, Captain James (Down,E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Billson, Alfred

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barnes, G. N.

  Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Boland, John

  Agnew, George William

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Armitage, R.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Brace, William

  Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bell, Richard

  Brigg, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Brodie, H. C.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

  Brooke, Stopford

  Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

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

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Bryce,Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen)

  Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bertram, Julius

  Bryce,J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Barker, John

  Bethell, J. H.(Essex,Romford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Cameron, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morse, L. L.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight

  Hazleton, Richard

  Murphy, John

  Cawley, F ederick

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murray, James

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Myer, Horatio

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Napier, T. B.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Clough, W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nicholls, George

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

  Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncastr

  Coats,SirT. Glen (Renfrew,W.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Corbett,CH(Sussex, E.Grinst'd

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Grady, J.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Malley, William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Mara, James

  Crooks, William

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Crossley, William J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester).

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Delany, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Lambert, George

  Raphael, Herbert N.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lamont, Norman

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro

  Dillon, John

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Lever,A.Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Rees, J. D.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Duckworth, James

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lough, Thomas

  Richardson, A.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lundon, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee

  Erskine, David C.

  Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Essex, R. W.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Robinson, S.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacVeagh,Jeremiah(Down,S.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Crae, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Kean, John

  Rowlands, J.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Russell, T. W.

  Gardner,Col.Alan (Hereford,S.

  M'Killop, W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Gill, A. H.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ginnell, L.

  Mansfield, H.Rendall (Lincoln)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Glover, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Sehwann,Chas.E. (Manchester)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Marnham, F. J.

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton underLyne

  Grant, Corrie

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Sears, J. E.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Massie, J.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Seddon, J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Menzies, Walter

  Shackleton, David James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Hall, Frederick

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

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

  Halpin, J.

  Mond, A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  512

  513

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Tomkinson, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Torrance, A. M.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Snowden, P.

  Toulmin, George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Spicer, Albert

  Ure, Alexander

  Wiles, Thomas

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Verney, F. W.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Woodhouse,Sir JT(Huddersf'd

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Young, Samuel

  Summerbell, T.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—;

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he rose with mingled feelings to move the Amendment which stood in his name, which was to leave out all the words after county in Clause 3. He had feelings of gratitude in the first place that the public at large and a beneficent Government had at last awakened to the proper position of the members of the solicitors' profession to which he had the honour to belong. For hundreds of years solicitors, simply because they were solicitors, had been debarred from acting as magistrates. They had always resented it and very properly considered that such a bar was an insult to the profession. There was no reason why a solicitor should not be a magistrate. But the reason he moved this Amendment was that the Government had only gone half way. The Bill said that solicitors might act as magistrates, but at the same time it said it should not be lawful for any solicitor being a justice of the peace to practice either by himself or his partner before any justice in that county. A barrister could practise anywhere, and he felt certain that when this Amendment was put the members of the senior branch of the profession present in the Committee would support it. Another argument why a
  514
  solicitor should be allowed to practise was that a son often practised for his father. Then there was the case of a solicitor practising before his father. The Solicitor-General having thus far rid solicitors of disabilities he should have the strength of his convictions and free solicitors from all the barriers and restrictions from which they had suffered for so many years.
  Amendment proposed—;
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'county,' to the end of the Clause.'"—;(Mr. Charles Craig.)
  Question proposed, "That the word? proposed to be left out, to the word 'or,' in line 13, stand part of the Clause."
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was quite sure that solicitors generally would make no objection to this very limited disqualification. They would not regard it as an insult to be asked to abstain from practising before justices for the county or of a borough within the county for which they were appointed justices. If they took up a judicial office they ought to accept with it conditions that would sustain the public confidence, and he was sure that the bulk of the solicitors in

  515
  the country would welcome any provision in that direction. The clause had, of course, nothing to do with a solicitor practising before a partner. The clause was that a solicitor who was a justice might not directly or indirectly practise before the justices. He thought that would commend itself to the fairness of the Committee.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked the Solicitor-General whether, in the event of the clause being passed, he would give consideration to a case which was within his knowledge in which a solicitor in a certain town, who was clerk to the justices, was asked to become chairman of the urban council. If he accepted that office he became ex offcio a magistrate, and as such could not act as clerk to the justices. He suggested that a solicitor in that position might be allowed to refrain from taking the office of magistrate, otherwise a hardship would be done.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman had put very fairly before the Committee a particular case, he would not say of hardship, but in which a disadvantage was incurred by a particular person. It was impossible, however, to frame or remove a disqualification without giving rise to some such case as that suggested. He was afraid that the only thing the Gentleman referred to could do would be to decline the honour offered him.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the question was of rather more importance than the Solicitor-General appeared to realise. No one doubted that it was very desirable that those who acted as magistrates should not practise before the
  516
  bench of which they were members; but this was a question whether it was desirable to put that as a positive disqualification into an Act of Parliament. It appeared to him to be a very unnecessarily insulting provision. A barrister was entitled to be a magistrate and also practise before the bench of which he was a magistrate. Why should they make this distinction between solicitors and barristers? He could not conceive any reason why they should not consider a solicitor to be as honourable and respectable as a barrister.
  Mr. LUPTONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid that upon this Amendment he was in full agreement with the Solicitor-General. What was a solicitor? He was a person who could not possibly give an unbiassed opinion. The local solicitors knew the secrets and the skeletons in every cupboard, and they knew the business of almost all the people living in their district. The effect of this Amendment would be very serious, and he could not support it.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that every solicitor had to give an undertaking in the words of the present clause, and he thought that it was a proper provision to make. He would suggest that it should be made stronger.
  MR. SOLICITOR-GENERALrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 310; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 60.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hudson, Walter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cox, Harold

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Agnew, George William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Armitage, R.

  Crooks, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  Armstrong, W. C. Neaton

  Crossley, William J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Delany, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galwy

  Joyce, Michael

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras N

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barker, John

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Barnard, E. B.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Duckworth, James

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Beale, W. P.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lambert, George

  Beauchamp, E.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lamont, Norman

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Bellairs, Caryon

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Benn, John Williams (Devonp'rt

  Erskine, David C.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

  BennWT'w'rH'ml'ts S.G'orges

  Essex, R. W.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Levy, Maurice

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bertram, Julius

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex,Romford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lundon, W.

  Billson, Alfred

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Black,ArthurW.(Bedfordshire

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Boland, John

  Gardner,Col.Alan(Hereford,S.

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Gill, James (Harrow)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Ginnell, L.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Brace, William

  Gladstone,Rt.HnHerbert John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Brigg, John

  Gooch, George Peabody

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Crae, George

  Bryce,J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Kean, John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Killop, W.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Halpin, J.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Buxton, Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

  Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Harwood, George

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire

  Massie, J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Menzies, Walter

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Clough, W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mond, A.

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morse, L. L.

  Collins,SirWm.J. (S. PancrasW

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cooper, G. J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murphy, John

  Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

  Hooper, A. G.

  Murray, James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N

  Myer, Horatio

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robinson, S.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Nicholls, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rose, Charles Day

  Tomkinson, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rowlands, J.

  Torrance, A. M.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Runciman, Walter

  Toulmin, George

  O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Russell, T. W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Verney, F. W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Vivian, Henry

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O'Grady, J.

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

  Walsh, Stephen

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

  Sears, J. E.

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Malley, William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Mara, James

  Seddon, J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  O'Shee, James John

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shackleton, David James

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Snowden, P.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Spicer, Albert

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Rees, J. D.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Woodhouse,SirJT.(Huddersf'd

  Richardson, A.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Young, Samuel

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—;

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Summerbell, T.

  Robertson,Sir G. Scott(Bradf'd

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.SirAlexF.

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Arnold-Forster,Rt, Hn.HughO.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albeit

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Hervey, F.W.F. (BuryS. Edm'ds

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Honeage

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Liddell, Henry

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—;

  Craig, Captain James (Down,E.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sir William Bull and Mr. Charles Craig.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E.C.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the
  The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 318; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 61.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Armitage, R.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Agnew, George William

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lambert, George

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

  Duckworth, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lever,A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Barker, John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Levy, Maurice

  Barnard, E. B.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lough, Thomas

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Erskine, David C.

  Lundon, W.

  Beale, W. P.

  Essex, R. W.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Beauchamp, E.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lynch, H. B.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk Bghs

  Benn, John Williams(Devonprt

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford,S

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Bertram, Julius

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Bethell, J.H.(Essex, Romford)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Billson, Alfred

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  M Crae, George

  Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Kean, John

  Boland, John

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Killop, W.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Brace, William

  Gulland, John W.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brigg, John

  Hall, Frederick

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Halpin, J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harwood, George

  Menzies, Walter

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Carr-Goram, W. H.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mooney, J. J.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cave, George

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morrell, Philip

  Cawley, Frederick

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Morse, L. L.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murray, James

  Cleland, J. W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Clough, W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W

  Hope,W. Bateman (Somerset,N

  Nicholls, George

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hudson, Walter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cooper, G. J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.

  Corbett,C.H(Sussex,EGrinst'd)

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jenkins, J.

  O Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Cory, Clifford John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cox, Harold

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Grady, J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N

  Crooks, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Malley, William

  Crossley, William J.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shee, James John

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Delany, William

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dickinson, W.H(StPancras, N.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

  522

  523

  Radford, G. H.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Seddon, J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Verney, F. W.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Shackleton, David James

  Vivian, Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Walters, John Tudor

  Rees, J. D.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wardle, George J.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Richards, T. F.)Wolverh'mptn

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Richardson, A.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Snowden, P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Spicer, Albert

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Stanger, H. Y.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.

  Robertson, SirGScott(Bradf'rd

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Robinson, S.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rose, Charles Day

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Rowlands, J.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abindgon)

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Runciman, Walter

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E(Dundee)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Young, Samuel

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—;Mr.Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Schwann, Chas.E. (Manchester)

  Tomkinson, James

  Scott, A.H. (AshtonunderLyne

  Torrance, A. M.

  Sears, J. E.

  Toulmin, George

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn.SirAlexF

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn H. O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn.Sir H

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N

  Hervey,F.W.F.(BurySEdm'ds)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Beach, Hn. Michael H. Hicks

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Keswick, William

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Liddell, Henry

  Craig, Captain J. (Down, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—;Sir William Bull and Mr. Charles Craig.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E.C.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan

  Nield, Herbert

  word 'or,' in line 13, stand part of the Clause."
  And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the business.
  Whereupon Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL claimed, "That the Question 'That the
  Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 304; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 62.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Agnew, George William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Armitage, R.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Beale, W. P.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Barker, John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford,S

  M'Crae, George

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Kean, John

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Benn, John Williams(De vonp'rt

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Killop, W.

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets,SGeo.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Glover, Thomas

  Maddison, Frederick

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bertram, Julius

  Grant, Corrie

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Billson, Alfred

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Black, A. W. (Bedfordshire)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Marks, G.Croydon (Launceston

  Boland, John

  Gulland, John W.

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Massie, J.

  Brace, William

  Hall, Frederick

  Meagher, Michael

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Halpin, J.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Brigg, John

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

  Menzies, Walter

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mond, A.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

  Harwood, George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morse, L. L.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murphy, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murray, James

  Causton, Rt Hn.RichardKnight

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nicholls, George

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Clough, W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Malley, William

  Cory, Clifford John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Mara, James

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Shee, James John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jowett, F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Crooks, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Crossley, William J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh,Central

  Delany, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Radford, G. H.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lambert, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Duckworth, James

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  Rees, J. D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Levy, Maurice

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lough, Thomas

  Richardson, A.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lundon, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Robertson, Sir GScott(Bradf rd

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Robinson, S.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Ferens, T. R.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rose, Charles Day

  526

  527

  Rowlands, J.

  Spicer, Albert

  Wardle, George J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Russell, T. W.

  Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Steadman, W. C.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Weir, James Galloway

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Summerbell, T.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Seddon, J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Torrance, A. M.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Toulmin, George

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Hudd'rsf'd

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Verney, F. W.

  Young, Samuel

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Vivian, Henry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;Mr.Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Snowdon, P.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood,Rt Hn Sir AlexF.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO.

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Ashley, W. W.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH

  Forster, Henry William

  Remnant, J. Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool,Walton

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

  Keswick, William

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos, H. A. E

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Liddell, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Craig, Captain James (Down,E

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E.C.

  Question put accordingly, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 295; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 63.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Bryce, J. A. (InvernessBurghs)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Agnew, George William

  Benn,John Williams (Devonp'rt

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Armitage, R.

  Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bennett, E. N.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Chas.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Billson, Alfred

  Cairns, Thomas

  Baker, JosephA.(Finsbury,E.)

  Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire

  Carr-Gomm, H.W.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Boland, John

  Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle ofWight)

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

  Cave, George

  Barker, John

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brace, William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brigg, John

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brodie, H. C.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Beale, W. P.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Clough, W.

  Beauchamp, E.

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

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Malley, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead

  O'Mara, James

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

  Johnson, W. (Nuneatoii)

  O'Shee, James John

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Corbett, CH (Sussex,K.Grinst'd

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Philipps, Owen, C. (Pembroke)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Joyce, Michael

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cowan, W. H.

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Price, C.E. (Edinburgh Central)

  Crooks, William

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Radford, G. H.

  Crossley, William J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Delany, William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Lever, W.H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Richardson, A.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lough, Thomas

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duckworth, James

  Lundon, W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robinson, S.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Erskine, David C.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Essex, R. W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.

  Rowlands, J.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Callum, John M.

  Runciman, Walter

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Kean, John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Samuel, S. M. Whitechapel)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Killop, W.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Gardner, Col.Alan(Hereford,S.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Gill, A. H.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Schwann, Chas.E.(Manchester)

  Ginnell, L.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Sears, J. E.

  Glover, Thomas

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Grant, Corrie

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston]

  Seddon, J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Shackleton, David James

  Gulland, John W.

  Massie, J.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hall, Frederick

  Menzies, Walter

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Halpin, J.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mond, A.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Snowdon, P.

  Harwood, George

  Mooney, J. J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall

  Spicer, Albert

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Murphy, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hazelton, Richard

  Murray, James

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Straus, B. S, (Mile End)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Basset law)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholls, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

  Summerbell, T.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.

  Tomkinson, James

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Toulmin, Goorge

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Grady, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  530

  531

  Vivian, Henry

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Walsh, Stephen

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Wardle, George J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Woodhouse, SirJ.T.(Hudd'rsf'd

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Younger, George

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;Mr.Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Williams, J. (Glagmoran)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beach, Hn.MichaelHughHicks

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'd

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, SirClement(Shrewsbury)

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;Mr. Lonsdale and Viscount Helm- sley.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

  Liddell, Henry

  Craig, CaptainJames(Down,E.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E.C.

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Covan

  Nield, Herbert

  Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he desired as a matter of order to ask whether under the new rules the House was not supposed to rise at 11.30, and if so whether it was in order to proceed now with any further business.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it will be desirable to follow the same practice as in the last Parliament. The practice was that in case the House sat after one o'clock the Orders of the Day were gone through.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Does that also apply to Bills moved and read a second time and not objected to?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  MR. MOONEY: The Standing Order lays down that unless it is a Bill origina-
  532
  ting in Committee of Ways and Means it shall not be proceeded with.
  MR. SPEAKER: The practice uniformly was as I have described, that is to say, if by reason of divisions or for any other reason the House sat after one o'clock the Orders of the Day were read through, but if the Orders were reached before one o'clock when one o'clock arrived the House rose. That was the interpretation placed on Standing Order No. 1, and I think it will probably be desirable to continue that practice.

  DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—;Bill withdrawn.
  And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The Lord Privy Seal (M. Ripon) acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Earl of Onslow Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor. The said Commission was read.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The Lord Privy Seal (M. Ripon) acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Lord Loreburn Speaker of the House; in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Onslow, the Earl of Halsbury, the Earl Waldegrave, the Lord Ribblesdale, and the Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The said Commission was read.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate—;Petition for a Private Bill; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English judges.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—;Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1.) [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kestevon, etc.) [H.L.]. Watford Gas.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Clacton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
370
Shrewsbury Corporation Water Bill Ritz Hotel, Limited—;(Petition for Bill) Crellin's Patents—;(Petition for Bill), Poole Corporation Water Bill, Sutton District Water Bill. Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]. Petition for additional provision; of the Scottish Union and National Insurance Company under their Common Seal together with the proposed amendments annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 12th of March and the 3rd of April last discharged, and the Bill committed.
Crediton Lighting and Power Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the orders made on the 12th of March and the 3rd of April last discharged, and the Bill committed.
Scottish Provident Institution Buildings Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a.
Midland Railway Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Kidderminster Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments; the said amendments considered and agreed to.
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899. Report from the Committee of Selection, that the following Lord be proposed to the House as a member of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.: Duke of Argyll, agreed to; and the said Lord appointed accordingly.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Devon, etc.) Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts 1870 to 1903,

371
to enable the councils of the adminisstrative counties of Devon and the West Riding of Yorkshire to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts. Was presented by the Lord President (Earl Crewe); Read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 61.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TURKEY, No. 2 (1906.)
  Further paper respecting the affairs of South-Eastern Europe (in continuation of Turkey, No. 1. (1906).

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3567. France (Calais).
  No. 3568. Portugal (Beira).
  No. 3569. Turkey (Beirut and the Coast of Syria).
  No. 3570. Denmark (Iceland).

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND.)
  Annual Report for the year 1905.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December 1905, and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) PENSION FUND.
  Account of receipts and payments in respect of the capital and income of the above fund, for the year ended 31st December 1905.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the table.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  NOW

    PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (BUILDING BYE-LAWS) BILL [H.L.]
    Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next
    372
    and Bill to be printed as amended (N° 60.)

    POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) BILL.
    Order of the day for the Second Reading, read, and discharged.

    THE THIBETAN AGREEMENT.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to ask the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice—;namely, whether the Chinese Government have given their adhesion to the Thibetan Agreement of September 7th, 1904, and, if so, whether he is able to inform your Lordships as to the terms upon which that adhesion has been given.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZ-MAURICE): My Lords, in reply to the question which has just been put to me, I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that the negotiations which have been for some time proceeding, partly at Calcutta and partly at Pekin, in regard to the adhesion of China to the Convention between this country and Thibet have proved successful. The convention between Great Britain and China was signed at Pekin on April 27th, and it secures the adhesion of China to the Convention established with Thibet in 1904. The text of the Convention has not yet been received, but it will be laid before Parliament in due course. The Convention, however, does not alter the arrangements arrived at under the Convention of Thibet as confirmed by the Government of India. It contains an engagement on our part not to encroach on Thibetan territory nor to interfere in the government of Thibet, the Government of China undertaking on their part not to allow any foreign State to interfere in the government or internal administration of Thibet. It also states that we do not seek for ourselves any of the concessions mentioned in Article 9 of the Convention of Thibet which were denied by that Article to any other State or to the subjects of any other State. The convention with China does not alter the amount of the Thibetan indemnity in any way.

    MACEDONIA.
    LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, of which I have given him private notice, with regard to the situation in Macedonia. Your Lordships will recollect that just before Easter the noble Lord the Under-Secretary stated that the Sultan had not yet sanctioned the Iradé for the Macedonian Budgets. The Question I wish to ask is whether the Iradé has since been issued.
    LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, I am glad to be able to inform my noble friend that the Iradé has been issued. The authorities in Salonica received information on the 1st of April that it had been issued. I believe the exact date of its issue was the previous day.

    SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I desire to say only a few words in explanation of the necessity for introducing this Bill during the present session. In consequence of the failure during the autumn of 1904 of the potato crop in certain parts of Ireland, the late Government authorised the Local Government Board to put into operation, with the aid of Board of Works loans, a scheme for the supply of seed potatoes similar to those adopted in former years. This, I believe, is really the business of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, but at the particular time this scheme was put into operation it was not equal to the task of distributing these seed potatoes. The duty, therefore, devolved upon the boards of guardians. In all, some 14,000 tons of seed potatoes were distributed, and the total amount of the loans issued was over £70,000. Last session a Bill was introduced by the late Government authorising these loans and the taking of the proceedings necessary for the working of the scheme, but the Bill was withdrawn at the end of the session. This Bill is brought in to validate the loans made by the Board of Works and the pro-
    374
    ceedings then taken. In short, it is really a measure to legalise the action of the late Government. In the short debate which took place on the Bill in the House of Commons, Mr. Walter Long, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, expressed his approval in marked terms, and he earnestly hoped that the measure would receive the support of all sections in the House. The necessity for the pressing of the Bill is urgent, as county councils in Ireland are about to strike their poor rate for the ensuing year. I may mention that in future all schemes of this kind will be taken in hand by the Department of Agriculture and will not be thrown on boards of guardians.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—;(Lord Denman.)
    LORD ASHBOURNE: The noble Lord has very clearly and fairly stated the provisions of this Bill and the necessity for its passing. Prom time to time such measures have been needed in Ireland, and they have generally passed on a fair statement of the necessity for them. I can see no objection to your Lordships according the Bill a Second Reading, though it is quite possible that one or two Amendments will have to be considered in Committee.
    On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

    INSURANCE COMPANIES' FUNDS.
    THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I beg to move, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that the Motion standing in my name be agreed to.
    Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report what steps should be taken, by deposit of funds or otherwise, to provide adequate security for British policy holders in Life Insurance Companies which have their chief office outside the United Kingdom, but which carry on business in this country."—;(The Earl of Granard.)
    LORD ASHBOURNE: I suppose the terms of the reference have been very

    375
    fully and closely considered. It is most desirable that such an inquiry should take place, and recent events have rendered the necessity for inquiry more apparent; but on reading the Motion I was disposed to think the terms of reference somewhat narrow. They certainly might have been made wider with advantage, but I presume the Board of Trade are of opinion that the object aimed at will be attained under this reference.
    THE EARL OF GRANARD: I can assure my noble and learned friend that the terms of the reference were very carefully considered by the President of the Board of Trade and other members of the Government before the Motion was placed on the Paper.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    Moved, "That the Lords following be named of the Committee; L. Balfour, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. St. Oswald L. Grimthorpe, L. Burghclere."—;(The Earl of Granard.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    The Committee to meet on Monday next, at half-past Three o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

    EGYPTIAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
    LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Reay I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Turkish troops have removed the boundary pillars between Egyptian and Turkish territory near El Arisch, and if he can make any statement in regard to the boundary dispute between the Egyptian and Turkish Governments near Akabah and the increase of the garrison in in Egypt.
    LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend I have, in the first place, to state that in 1904 the strength of the Egyptian garrison was reduced. Lord Cromer is now of opinion that, in view of the unrest which exists in Egypt and which is in some measure due to the action of the Porte in connection with the frontier, it is desirable to
    376
    reinforce the garrison. I am informed by my noble friend who represents the War Office in this House that what has been arranged is this—;one battalion goes to Egypt from Malta, three companies go from Crete, and one cavalry regiment and one Horse Artillery battery go from home. A battalion at Malta is also held ready to go if wanted. After the statement had appeared in the Press that Turkish troops had removed the boundary pillars set up by Ishmail Pasha about three miles from the sea shore at El Rafeh and thirty miles to the northeast of El Arisch on the Mediterranean coast, which is part of Egypt, H.M. ship "Minerva" was ordered to proceed to El Arisch to ascertain what had happened and to bring back a report, but that report has not yet been received. Our Ambassador at Constantinople, however, has now been informed by the Grand Vizier that a Commission will be despatched to make inquiries, and, if the pillar is found to been have disturbed, to repair and replace it. Tabah, which is five miles by sea and about nine miles by land from Akabah, following the coast line, and one or two other posts in the Sinai Peninsula, have also been recently occupied by Turkish troops. It is considered that these posts are within the territory which is within the limits of Egyptian administration. The Turkish title to Akabah itself has never been in dispute. I wish rather to insist on that point, because incorrect statements in regard to that matter have been made. The Sinai Peninsula itself has remained in the effective and undisputed possession of the Khedive, though not forming a portion of Egypt proper, from a date many years previous to the accession of Ishmail Pasha. The demands put forward by the Turkish Government have, however, extended far beyond Tabah and its neighbourhood, and have now rendered it necessary that there should be a joint delimitation of the whole frontier on that side, and that, pending a general settlement, the Turkish forces should retire from Tabah. This is what His Majesty's Government have asked from the beginning, but what the Porte has hitherto declined. The Porte is now again being urged to agree to it. As the negotiations are continuing, it would not be desirable

    377
    at present that I should go beyond the statement which I have just made. I may, however, just add this further observation on the point which I mentioned at the commencement of my statement, that El Rafeh is considered to be within Egypt proper, while, as I have explained, the Sinai Peninsula, though not in Egypt proper, has remained under undisputed Egyptian administration.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.