Sitting of 15 May 1906

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London and South Western Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Manchester and Milford Railway Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas Bill; Waterford Corporation and Bridge Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Water Provisional Order Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill." To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, the Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1890, and the Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1902, relating to Eastwood and Cathcart and Kilpatrick," presented by Mr. Kearley; supported by Mr. Lloyd-George; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.

1."That, in the case of the Oldham and Saddleworth Tramways (Abandonment) Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2."That, in the case of the Poole Corporation Water, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

3."That, in the case of the Ritz Hotel, Limited [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

4."That, in the case of the Crellin's Patents [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.
London United Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Millwall Dock Bill, without Amendment; North Metropolitan Tramways Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the appointment of a Public Trustee, to amend the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to the administration of Trusts." [Public Trustee Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the transfer to the Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies of certain works authorised by the Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock (South Yorkshire Extension Lines) Act, 1902, and to the Great Central Railway Company of the undertaking of the Rotherham, Maltby, and Laughton Railway Company; to empower the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company to construct a new railway, and to acquire additional lands; and for other pur-
336
poses." [Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company to provide and work steam vessels between the Port of Hull and certain Continental Ports, and to subscribe to the funds of Steamship Companies; and for other purposes." [Hull and Barnsley Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time limited for the purchase of lands and for the construction and I completion of the tramways, street widenings, and works authorised by the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Act, 1903; and for other purposes." [Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for an increase of the share capital of United Railways of the Havana and Regla Warehouses, limited, and for other purposes." [Havana United Railways and Regla Warehouses Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Cambrian Railways Company to acquire additional lands, and to extend the time for the completion of the railway authorised by the Cambrian Railways Act, 1901; and for other purposes." [Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the vesting of the Undertaking of the Donegal Railway Company in the Midland Railway Company and in a Joint Committee of that Company and the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland); to incorporate such Joint Committee and to transfer to that Committee certain of the powers of the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland) in connection with the Undertaking of the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railway Bill [Lords.]
Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [Lords]; Hull and Barnsley Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Havana United Railways and Regla Warehouses Bill [Lords]; Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords]; Great Northern

337
(Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; arid referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Cartwright; Coedymoeth; Dallas; East and West Elliot; Rhymney; and, Wortley and Farnley Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES ) BILL.
  Petition from Dorset, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Aberdeen; Congleton; Downham Market; Faversham; Hexham; Hornsea; Keighley; Kilburn; London; Middlesbrough; Old Colwyn; Porth; St. Ives; Scarborough; Sheffield; Swindon; and, Workington; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration, From Bolton: Grantham; Peckham; Preston; and Tavistock; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Ambrosden; Angle (two); Banstead; Battyeford (two); Black Bourton; Bletchingly; Bournemouth; Chandlersford; Elvetham (two); Gileston; Great Bookhamand Little Bookham; Hampstead; Holbeck; Hooton; Hope Mansel; Hurstbourne Tarrant (two); Ipswich (two); Jordanston; Keyham; Kidsgrove (two); Kilburn; King's Capel; Knight's Enham cum Smannell; Llanmaes; Llantwit Major; Lyonshall; Merton; Mile End; Mirfield (two); Paddington; Pamber Heath; Rhoscrowther; St. David's (two); Sellack; Spittilfields; Stoughton (two); and, Taynton; to lie upon the Table.
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From London and Oxford; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return (presented May 14th) to be printed. [No. 170.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 5, 1906).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and Denmark, providing for the settlement by Arbitration of certain classes of questions which may arise between the two Governments. Signed at London, October 25th, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3585 and 3586 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes providing further instruction for those who have left school, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903 (INVESTMENT OF FUNDS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered May 7th; Sir William Bull]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 171.]
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland providing for the Early Closing of Shops in the Burgh of Airdrie [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICES (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered March 22nd; Mr. Leif Jones]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 172.]
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (ARRESTS).
  Address for "Return of the number of Apprehensions of the Metropolitan Police Force in each of the years 1903, 1904, and 1905, and of the number of cases in which proceedings were taken against members of the force in respect of such arrests, or in which after inquiry they were found not to have been justified by the facts."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
  FOREIGN TRADE (COMPARATIVE GROWTH).
  Address for "Return showing the total imports and exports (special trade) for each of the following years—1854, 1864, 1874, 1884, 1894, and 1904 of the following 12 countries, viz.:—1. France; 2. German Zollverein and German Empire; 3. Belgium; 4. Holland; 5. Russia; 6. Austria-Hungary; 7. Denmark; 8. Sweden and Norway; 9. Spain; 10. Portugal; 11. United States; 12. United Kingdom."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Mr. James Ward and Castlebar Urban Council.
  DR. AMBROSE (Mayo, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. James Ward, who is undergoing a term of imprisonment in Castlebar Gaol for seditious libel, was on April 23rd unanimously co-opted a member of the Castlebar Urban Council; that the clerk to the council immediately proceeded to the prison, with a view to get Mr. Ward to sign his declaration of acceptance of office, and that he was prevented doing so by; the prison officials; is he aware that Mr. Ward was also prevented signing his franchise paper, thereby rendering it impossible for him to be elected a county councillor this year; and will he explain why the prison officials took that course, and why the Prison Board have not given any reason for such action on the part of the officials.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The prison governor informed the clerk of the council that he had no authority to allow him to visit Mr. Ward for the purpose mentioned, but that he (the clerk) should apply to the General Prisons Board for the necessary permission. The clerk applied accordingly, and the board in due course gave the necessary authority to the governor, but, owing to a clerical oversight, for which the board express regret, they omitted to inform the clerk of the council of the result of his application. I am advised that, as Mr. Ward did not accept
  340
  office, another casual vacancy has been created, and there is nothing to prevent Mr. Ward from being again co-opted. I am informed that it is not the fact that Mr. Ward was prevented by the prison officials from signing his franchise paper. The paper was handed to him, but he refused to fill it up, stating that he was not a householder.

  Sale of the Hewston and Harris Estate.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the farm of 195 acres in possession of the landlord, when the latter sold his estate known as the Hewston and Harris estate, of Killmacart, Hacketstown, to the Estate Commissioners, has been divided amongst the smaller tenants; will he s y why one of the tenants, named James Keating, who applied for a parcel of the land, was refused it; and whether any of the 195 acres have been given to persons who had not been tenants on the estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It is understood that this Question refers to the estate of Messrs. G. Hewson and J. E. Penrose, trustees with power of sale. The Estates Commissioners inform me that they offered nineteen acres of the untenanted land to James Keating, but he refused to take it. All the untenanted land has been divided among tenants and former tenants on the estate with one exception, namely, that of a tenant in the neighbourhood of the estate.

  Postal Promotion at Stafford.
  MR. C. E. SHAW: To ask the Postmaster-General with respect to the recent appointment of a junior selected from the Shrewsbury postal staff to the inspectorship of postmen at Stafford if he will explain what are the exceptional qualifications necessary for the appointment to and continued holding of that post; also will he state what educational examination or practical work and experience is doomed essential or necessary; and what facilities and opportunities are afforded to men already on the Stafford postal staff, whereby they may fit themselves for appointment to the post in question.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The necessary qualifications at Stafford, as

  341
  elsewhere, are capacity for control and supervision, and knowledge of the duties performed by postmen. No educational examination is deemed necessary for promotion to an inspectorship. In the Stafford post office, as in other post offices, the postmen who seem likely to make efficient inspectors are given opportunities of proving their fitness by trial on their duties as occasion offers. I may point out that the officer selected for the situation was an assistant inspector of postmen, and was already, therefore, of higher rank than the men over whom he was placed.

  Suggested Diplomatic Representative at Bolivia.
  MR. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering the increasing commercial importance of Bolivia, he will consider the advisability of having a separate diplomatic representative for that country.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) His Majesty's Minister at Lima was, in 1903, accredited as Minister-Resident and Consul-General to Bolivia, and a Consul was appointed who resides at La Paz, with Vice-Consuls at Sucre and Oruro. The present arrangement has been found so far to meet the requirements of the case, and it is not considered that there is as yet sufficient ground to justify the appointment of a separate diplomatic representative in Bolivia. The question will, however, be borne in mind with regard to future developments if such occur.

  Scottish Local Taxation.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if, in view of the distress existing in the Highlands and Islands, largely caused by the high rates imposed for services more or less national, rising up to 20s. in the £, he will take into consideration the separate recommendations of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Blair Balfour appouring in the Final Report on Local Taxation, 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The severity of the present burden of rates in certain parishes of the Highlands and Islands has been engaging anxious attention. An inquiry into the local finance of the Lews
  342
  and the Long Island has just been concluded by the Local Government Board, and the Report will be laid upon the Table. The effect of the separate recommendations appearing in the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, if applied to the parishes under review as part of the whole subject, is receiving careful consideration.

  Bovine Tuberculosis Commission— Publication of Interim Report.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state what is the cause of the delay in issuing the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Bovine Tuberculosis; and whether he can state when it is likely to be issued; and whether a definite result and recommendation to meat inspectors and medical officers of health may be expected from the experiments now being carried on at Stanstead.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) As I have stated on a previous occasion, the Royal Commission have a Report in preparation, together with an Appendix containing the details of a large amount of experimental work. I understand that they do not think it desirable to publish the Report until the Appendix, which is of a voluminous character, is complete. I am informed that they cannot state definitely when it will be issued, but that they are anxious that it should be published as soon as possible. As regards the last part of the Question, I hope that a definite result may be obtained from the experiments at Stanstead, but I cannot at present make any statement on the subject.

  Printing for Royal Commissions.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representative of the Stationary office, whether he is aware that the work of many of the Royal Commissions now sitting is delayed, and expense to the country is caused, through the inability of Messrs. Wyman and Sons, the contractors for Government printing, to complete the printing orders of the Commissions within a period of time which other printers in London would find sufficient; whether he is aware that the delays have been more frequent since the contractors have done the printing of the Commissions' work at Reading;

  343
  whether the contract contained any condition that the Government printing should be done in London, where the London trade union rates prevail, rather than in the country, where the rates are believed to be lower; and, if so, whether the condition as to printing in London can be enforced in order to prevent, as far as possible, the delays complained of.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Two specific complaints have been received from Royal Commissions of delay due to some of the printing being executed at Reading. In one case proofs were delivered in the afternoon of the day instead of in the morning, as requested. In the other, proofs asked for Tuesday were not delivered until Wednesday evening. But such delays are quite as frequent with printers whose work is done entirely in London. As Messrs. Wyman started their works at Reading almost immediately after they secured the contract in 1897, it is not possible to make the comparison suggested. The contract contained no stipulation as to the place at which the work was to be executed.

  Workmen's Compensation Insurance.
  MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.): To ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether he can supply any information to show what will be the estimated additional cost of insurance in the coal and ironstone mining, engineering, shipbuilding, and textile industries, respectively, resulting from the reduction of the qualifying period in Clause 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Bill from fourteen to three days.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have not got this information at the present time, but I will endeavour to obtain it.

  Licensing Regulations
  MR. GODFREY BARING: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent decision of the Hampshire Quarter Sessions with regard to the license of certain premises in the Isle of Wight, the renewal of which, owing to the premises being structurally deficient and unsuitable, was refused by the Isle of Wight licensing justices, he will consider the desirability of instituting legislation to strengthen the powers of
  344
  petty sessions in dealing with cases which depend for their solution upon a full knowledge of local circumstances and. conditions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have considered the report of the case which the hon. Member has been good enough to furnish to me. It shall be noted for consideration with other similar cases bearing on the question of appeals against the decisions of licensing justices in regard to the renewal of licenses.

  The Teachers' Register.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the President of the Board of Education in how many schemes for endowed schools a clause has been inserted to the effect that the name of the head master should be on the teachers' register; and what steps the Board of Education intend to take with regard to such schemes in view of the proposed abolition of the teachers' register.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The number is 123. The Board are giving careful consideration to the point referred to in the second paragraph of the Question, but I am not yet prepared to make an announcement upon it.

  Irish Revenue and Expenditure.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total amount of revenue from all sources derived from Ireland during the financial year ended March 31st, 190G; and per contra the total amount paid by the Treasury during same period towards the maintenance of the public service grants in aid and other-sources of outgoing in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The particulars desired by the hon. Member have been given for previous years in the form of an Annual Return. The latest Return of the series is No. 230, of 1905. The corresponding Return for the financial year 1905–6 will be furnished if moved for.

  Indian Police Promotion.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the supersession of twelve European police officers in Madras by the

  345
  importation from Burma of an official of junior standing, who has been graded above them; whether a transfer of a police officer from one province to another is not practically unprecedented; and whether, having regard to its effect upon promotion and pension prospects, he will take steps to prevent its recurrence and grant some redress to the superseded officials, whose services to date had given complete satisfaction.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have no official information as to the reasons which led the Government of Madras to assign to the officer transferred from the Burma to the Madras police the particular place in the list allotted to him. It is by no means uncommon for police officers to be transferred from one province to another, and it is open to any officer who considers himself aggrieved by the seniority given to an officer so brought into the service to memorialise the Government of India and the Secretary of State on the subject.

  Indian Officials—Transfer from other Districts
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which transfers of territory from one jurisdiction to another excite in India, he will take into consideration the objections of the inhabitants to the proposed transfer of the Namakal Falug from the Salem to the Trichinopoly district.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have not had before me the proposal referred to in my hon. friend's Question, but should it be laid before me I will give full consideration to the circumstances of the case.

  Medical Supplies for Irish Boards of Guardians.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange that the Local Government Board of Ireland shall give to Irish boards of guardians the same discretionary power regarding tenders for chemical and medical supplies as are exercised by English boards of guardians.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In Ireland one-half of the cost of medicines and
  346
  appliances is borne by the Local Taxation Account, and a statutory duty is imposed upon the Local Government Board of seeing that no undue charge is placed on this account. It is the opinion of the Local Government Board that they could not, consistently with their duty, allow boards of guardians to accept without good reason a tender other than the lowest for the supply of these medicines and appliances. It is understood that in England medical officers have generally to provide the drugs under the terms of their appointment.

  Sale of the Thompson (Clonfer) Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state if any reply has been received by the Estates Commissioners from the Scottish Provident Insurance Company, as mortgagees in posession of the Thompson (Clonfer) estate, on the subject of a sale to the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have communicated with the Scottish Provident Insurance Company and have received a reply to the effect that the Company has no mortgage on the property in question. The Commissioners have made other inquiries, but have failed so far to ascertain who the present owners are. If they should be supplied with information as to the owners, they will make further inquiries in the matter.

  Cusack Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whother any further progress has been made in the matter of the sale of the Cusack estate in county Longford.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) On April 27th the Estates Commissioners made an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of this estate, and I am informed that the offer will be brought before the Judge for his consideration at as early a date as possible.

  Evicted Tenants—County Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have recently been able to acquire a considerable tract of land in.

  347
  county Wexford with a view to a further settlement of the question of the evicted tenants in that county; and if he can state when the Commissioners expect to be able to proceed to the distribution of the land.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that, in addition to 1,744 acres of untenanted land in this county already purchased, they have agreed to purchase some 1,900 acres, schemes for the distribution of which are in course of preparation. They are also negotiating the purchase of additional untenanted land in the county, amounting to over 1,000 acres, of which they cannot obtain possession before November next.

  The Royal Canal.
  MR. GINNELL (Westmeath, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will obtain from the Board of Control of the Royal Canal a vouched and audited Return of the aggregate amount received by the Midland Railway Company each year since that company acquired the canal from all persons for use of the canal banks or of the grass or other growth on those banks, along the entire course of that canal; a statement of any action taken by the Board to have that money applied to the maintenance of the canal; if the money has been appropriated by the railway company, a reference to any statutory authority or judicial decision under which this has been allowed; and the intention of the Board of Control with reference to the future disposition of this canal property, in view of the unnavigable condition of the canal.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) As I informed the hon. and learned Member on Wednesday last, † the entire question of the constitution and powers of the Board of Control is under consideration, and I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject of the Question. I would ask the hon. Member to defer further questions in the matter for some little time.

  Desertion of Bernard Collumb, of Granard.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he
  † See (4) Debates, clvi., 1305–6.
  348
  is prepared to extend to Bernard Collumb, of Granard, who deserted from his regiment in 1901, an indemnity from arrest and prosecution on payment of the fine prescribed in cases of soldiers purchasing their discharge.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The reply is in the negative. The Army Council can make no terms with men in. a state of desertion.

  Injuries to Soldiers employed in Quasi Civil Employment.
  MR. COCHRANE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state, either in the form of an Answer or in a Return, the total number of men belonging to the military forces of the Crown employed as artificers, engineers, mechanics, or in other quasi-civil employment, not on active service, who have received injuries in the course of their employment; and what gratuity or other form of compensation has been paid in each individual case during the years 1904 and 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards the numbers injured, the information can only be obtained by calling for Returns from all the commands. As regards the last part of the Question, apart from treatment in hospital, the only form of compensation to soldiers-injured in this way is the grant by the Chelsea Commissioners of pension on discharge.

  Sanitary Condition of Bulford Camp.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the huts at Bulford Camp on Salisbury Plain have been found to be insanitary; and, if so, whether there is any intention of abandoning the camp.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The reply to both parts of the Question is in the negative.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The Navy.
    MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many battleships, armoured cruisers, and

    349
    protected cruisers have been removed from the fighting list of the Navy since January 1st, 1902; and how many of the same classes have been laid down?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): Since January 1st, 1902, the following ships have been removed from the lighting list:—eight battleships, ten armoured cruisers, twenty protected cruisers. The following ships have also been classed as of comparatively small fighting value:—three battleships, sixteen protected cruisers. Since the same date there have been laid down:—thirteen battleships, eighteen armoured cruisers, four protected cruisers.

    Naval Construction.
    MR. COWAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many battleships and armoured cruisers are there now under construction for the: British, French, and German navies re-spectively; and how many additional vessels of these two classes are already sanctioned to be laid down this year by each of these countries.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There are at present under construction, for the British Navy, six battleships and ten armoured cruisers; for the French Navy, six battleships and five armoured cruisers; for the Gorman Navy, five battleships and two armoured cruisers. The programme of new construction in the Estimates now before the House includes provision for four armoured vessels. The German Estimates for the current year include provision for two battleships and one armoured cruiser; and the French Estimates include provision for six battleships.

    Jamaica—Cost of Naval Residences.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what has been the cost of the official naval residence at Jamaica; whether it is now completed; for what purpose is it to be used; and whether it was built on the recommendations of the then Commander-in-chief of the North American and West Indian station.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I assume that the Question refers to the four official residences which were completed during 1905 at a cost of £8,800. These
    350
    residences have been lent to the War Office. They were built on the recommendation of the commodore who was at Jamaica in 1902.

    German Navy Estimates.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what increase in the German Navy Estimates, inclusive of pensions, is provided for under the revised programme for the year 1909 over and above that provided under the naval programme of 1900 for the year 1906, and also over and above the revised programme for 1906.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The German naval programme of 1900 authorised an expenditure in 1906 of £9,877,500. The revised programme of 1906 increased this estimate to £12,318,982, and estimated the expenditure in 1909 at £15,036,693. These figures are exclusive of pensions, the cost of which cannot be stated.

    Permanent School of Cavalry.
    MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the advantages of Netheravon as the site for the permanent school of cavalry have been fully considered, and whether a decision has been arrived at.
    THK SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): The question is still under consideration.

    Military Bands.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the band of the Cold-stream Guards attended on the 9th inst. at the annual meeting of the Liberal Social Council, at the Royal Horticultural Hall; and, having regard to the occasions upon which the voluntary presence of military bands at Unionist meetings has been forbidden in consequence of Liberal objection, he will say why an exception was made in favour of this association.
    MR. HALDANE: The band of the Cold-stream Guards played at the reception of the Liberal Social Council in 1904, 1905, and on May 9th, 1906. The rule which has for some time been followed is that

    351
    a band is permitted to take engagements at any meeting or social gathering provided no political speeches are delivered. On each of the occasions mentioned it was ascertained with very great care that no political speeches would be delivered, and none were delivered.

    Native Revolt in Natal.
    MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, before the outbreak of the present revolt in Natal, Colonel Leuchar's field force destroyed kraals belonging to black subjects of the King and raided 1,000 head of oxen and 3,000 sheep and goats; whether he can inform the House who received the money paid for these looted cattle when they were sold by public auction between March 16th and March 22nd; and whether, in view of the effect upon the rebellion of the suffering and starvation of Zulu women and children entailed by such destruction of dwellings and food supplies, he proposes to take any steps to prevent any further destruction of kraals or food supplies.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,: The hon. Member will see from the papers published last week the circumstances in which Colonel Leuchars took action against the chief Gobizembe, and in which the chief was fined 1,200 cattle and 3,500 sheep and goats for serious acts of defiance The money received for these cattle was presumably paid into the Natal Treasury. There is no reason to believe that there will be any destruction of kraals or seizure of food supplies, except on the ground that such action is necessary to prevent the spread of rebellion; and the Secretary of State is not prepared to take steps in the matter as suggested.

    Irish Emigration to Canada.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Canadian Government pays the sum of £1 (one pound sterling) to shipping agents in Ireland on every ticket they sell to emigrants from Ireland to the Dominion of Canada; and whether, in view of the fact that such encouragement of the Irish emigration evil is injurious to the welfare of Ireland, he
    352
    will make representations to the Canadian Government to have this practice discontinued without delay.
    MR. CHURCHILL: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The hon. Member is right in supposing that the Canadian Government, being desirous of stimulating immigration to the Dominion, pay a bonus of £1 to booking agents in respect of each immigrant from Great Britain and Ireland belonging to certain prescribed classes. This bounty, though no doubt acting as a stimulus, does not appear to be the sole or even the main cause of the excessive emigration from Ireland which now prevails; and the remedy must, I think, be of a more comprehensive character than would attach to such representations as the hon. Member suggests.

    Council of the Government of India —Elected Members.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that there are only four elected members of: The Council of the Government of India, will he consider the expediency of arranging for an increased number of elected members.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): The Regulations, framed under the Indian Councils Act, 1892, provide for five, not four, of the non-official members being elected, while the Governor-General is required to make nominations to the remaining non-official seats, "in such manner as shall appear to him most suitable with reference to the legislative business to be brought before the Council and the due representation of the different classes of the community." I am not prepared to press the Governor-General to modify the Regulations in the manner suggested.

    Debate on the Indian Budget.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to hold; out prospects of an early date for discussing the Indian Budget.
    MR. MORLEY: I hope to be able to introduce this discussion as shortly as possible after Whitsuntide.

    Indian People and Local Self-Government.
    MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the dissatisfaction that prevails in India, arising from the fact that the Indian peoples have no control of the finances of the country, and also because of the fact that their representatives in the legislative councils are unable, by reason of the Constitution, to initiate any measures for the better government of the country, His Majesty's Government are prepared to consider whether some measure of self-government, similar to that which operates in other British Colonies and possessions, may also be extended to British India.
    MR. MORLEY: It would be impossible for me, within the limits of an Answer across the floor of the House, to give an opinion on the far-reaching subjects with which this Question deals. I fully understand the spirit of the Question, but His Majesty's Government are not of opinion that circumstances demand the total reconstruction of the Indian system of government, and are not prepared to initiate the vast constitutional changes indicated.
    MR. O'GRADYasked whether the Government would be prepared to consider proposals at some subsequent date.
    MR. MORLEY: I cannot commit myself further than to assure my hon. friend that the subject is one which engages my attention.
    MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that dissatisfaction does prevail among the Indian peoples on this subject?
    MB. LUPTON: Is it a fact that 50,000,000 of the Indian people never get a full meal from one year's end to another.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

    Presidency College of Calcutta—Proposed Appointment of the Professor of Sanskrit.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to an official
    354
    answer given in the Legislative Council of Bengal, that a proposal has been made to appoint a European officer to be professor of Sanskrit in the Presidency College of Calcutta; and whether, seeing that this proposal has given rise to unfavourable comment in India, and is opposed to the popular, feeling in favour of employing properly qualified Indians to be teachers of Sanskrit in Government colleges, he will take steps to prevent the proposed appointment.
    MR. MORLEY: I understand from the Question and Answer to which the hon. Gentleman has referred me that a proposal to create a professorship of Sanskrit in the Presidency College, Calcutta, is under consideration by the Government of India. When the proposal is submitted for my sanction I will not neglect the point which the hon. Member raises.

    Partition of Bengal.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the administration of the new province of Eastern Bengal is identical in type and character with and similar, as regards the laws in force, the manner in which and; the personnel by which they are administered, to the old province of Bengal before its subdivision: whether he has any official information showing that the dissatisfaction which is manifested by the richer, the upper, and the student classes in Eastern Bengal extends to the masses of the people; and, if so, in what way it is believed that they are affected by the change, and in what manner they have given expression to their dissatisfaction.
    MR. MORLEY: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. I have no official information which loads me to think that the mass of the population of Eastern Bengal regard the recent administrative changes with dissatisfaction.

    Superintendent of Chinese Customs.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the appointment of a Chinese official as superintendent of Customs in China, in violation of the agreement of February, 1898, whereby, in consideration of the withdrawal of the

    355
    British demand for the opening up of Talienwan as a treaty port, the Chinese Government agreed that the post of inspector-general of the maritime Customs should be held by a British subject so long as British trade with China continues to exceed that of any other Power.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury, for Sir EDWARD GREY): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer on this subject given on Friday last,† in which the promise given by the Chinese Government was stated, and it was announced that we have asked for an explanation of the decree of the 9th instant. But I must add that there is no connection between the opening up of Talienwan to commerce and the Chinese undertaking as to the post of inspector-general of the maritime Customs.

    Turkey and Egypt.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the usual channels made use of when official communications pass between the Turkish and Egyptian Governments.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Communications between the two Governments pass either between the Grand Vizier and the Khedive or between the Porte and the Egyptian Government.

    Case of Hannah Smith.
    MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Hannah Smith, wife of Thomas Smith, who, on July 30th, 1894, was convicted of the murder of her child, Hannah May Smith, at Thornton-in-Craven, in the West Riding of York; is he aware that the child was born on May 1st, 1894, and its life taken three weeks afterwards; that it was deposed at the trial that in the opinion of the medical superintendent of the Wakefield Asylum Mrs. Smith was suffering at the time of the murder from homicidal frenzy as the result of puerperal insanity; that Mr. Justice Grantham remarked that every one who had heard the case must sympathise with the prisoner and hope that after a time
    † See Col. 38.
    356
    her mind would recover its power, and: that eventually she would be in such a state that she could return to her friends, and that Mrs. Smith is still confined in Broadmoor Asylum during His Majesty's pleasure; and if he will say whether Mrs. Smith's health of mind and body are now such as to warrant her removal from Broadmoor Asylum and her restoration to her friends.
    † See Col. 38.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I should be glad if I could allow the patient's discharge without risk of relapse and of danger to herself and others, but taking into consideration her present condition and all the other circumstances of her case, I regret that I do not feel justified in authorising her discharge from the asylum.

    Royal Commission on Experiments on Animals.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to make any statement as to the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the working of the Act under which experiments on animals are permitted for the purposes of medical research.
    ME. GLADSTONE: In view of the fact that no inquiry into the subject has-been held for thirty years, it is the intention of the Government to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the working of the Cruelty: To Animals Act in the light of present scientific knowledge.

    Sweated Industries.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the evidence of sweating indicated by the exhibition in London of goods made under sweating conditions, and also the fact that sweating prevails in the cabinet making, glass hovelling, clothing, and boot and shoe industries, he will agree to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the conditions of the trades covered by the exhibition, and also those named in this Question; and, in the event of such Royal Commission being appointed, whether the terms of reference will include the

    357
    question of recommending legislation to remove the evils of sweating.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The question is of great importance and of great difficulty, and it is engaging my attention. But I cannot make any statement at the present moment.
    MR. O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission.
    MR. GLADSTONE: We already have three Royal Commissions and two Departmental Committees dealing with subjects with which the Home Office is concerned, and I am afraid our powers of absorption are limited. I therefore cannot hold out my hope of a Royal Commission.
    MR. O'GRADY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman considers this subject of less importance than those on which Royal Commission are to sit?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say that.

    London Town Clerks as Returning Officers.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that, by the virtue of the provisions of The London Government Act, 1899, town clerks in London prepare the Register of Voters for Parliamentary and other purposes and act as returning officers and deputy returning officers for elections other than elections for Members of Parliament, he will consider the desirability of promoting legislation to appoint them returning officers at Parliamentary elections also, and, pending legislation, of approaching the High Sheriff of the county of London with a view to their appointment under the procedure at present in force.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I may say that the late High Sheriff of London, who had this question brought before him by the Woolwich Borough Council, saw no reason for making any alteration in the appointment of returning officers, as he was satisfied that their duties had been carried out in
    358
    a satisfactory manner. But I shall be happy to consider the hon. Member's, suggestion.

    Overcrowding on London Railways.
    MR. THORNE (West Ham, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers the Board of Trade possess in preventing overcrowding taking place in the railway carriages upon the various railways, and whether the Board has any power in forcing the directors of London District Railway Company to run additional trains between East Ham and Aldgate East between the hours of 5 a.m., and 9 a.m., and between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m., so as to prevent the overcrowding that takes place every night and morning between the hours mentioned.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): The Board of Trade have no statutory powers with regard to the overcrowding of trains generally, but they can deal under the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, with the provision of sufficient trains for workmen between the hours of six in the evening and eight in the morning. Under this Act the Board have recently been in communication with the Metropolitan District and London Tilbury and Southend Railway Companies with regard to the train service between East Ham and stations on the Metropolitan District Railway, and since the electrical working of the line was commenced the number of workmen's trains has been largely augmented. The Metropolitan District Railway Company, to whom a copy of the hon. Member's Question has been communicated, have informed me that they are at present running thirty-six trains from East Ham to Aldgate East between 5 and 9 a.m., and twenty-eight from Aldgate East to East Ham between 5 and 8 p.m. They also state that they are carefully watching the traffic on this line, and have put on two additional trains from East Ham in the morning and two from Aldgate East in the evening since the beginning of the present month.

    Liverpool and Southport Electric Railway.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many persons have been electrocuted on the Liverpool and South-port Electric Railway since March 1st

    359
    last, indicating the number electrocuted at Freshfield Station.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: One fatal accident from electrical shock has been reported to the Board of Trade as occurring on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway since the date referred to. This accident occurred to a man, name at present unknown, whilst trespassing on the railway about a quarter of a mile from Freshfield Station on 8th instant. There have also been in the course of the last two months three fatal accidents to persons crossing the lines at Freshfield Station, but neither of these accidents is attributed to electrical shock, the unfortunate persons killed having been knocked down by trains. The Board are in communication with the company as to the arrangements at the station in question.

    Roads and Motor Car Traffic.
    MR. KING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to complaints by farmers in Cheshire, and other agricultural counties, of the damage and inconvenience which they suffer from the dust raised by the passage of motor cars over country roads in dry weather; and whether he proposes to take any steps to abate the nuisance.
    PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): I have received, and am still receiving, resolutions from a number of local bodies, not only in Cheshire, but elsewhere, referring to the vexatious and damaging nuisance caused by dust raised by motor cars. I have given instructions that these resolutions shall be communicated to the Royal Commission on Motor Cars, who have the subject under consideration.
    In reply to Mr. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford), Mr. JOHN BURNS said he believed the Commission had power to consider the question of road construction as affected by this traffic.

    Scottish Congested Districts Board.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state by whom estates which the Congested Districts Board have purchased were inspected and
    360
    valued, and the qualifications of such officers.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): I can only say that in all cases the Congested Districts Board took the utmost care to obtain the most competent opinion as to value before concluding any purchase.

    Crofters Acts.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the cause of the delay in introducing the promised Crofters Acts Amendment Bill.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I cannot admit that there has been any delay due to lack of desire or effort on the part of the Government. Every endoavour is being made to further the progress of the Bill.

    Stranorlar Evicted Tenant.
    MR. MCVEIGH (Donegal, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that when Patrick Hannigan, of Cappry, Stranorlar, East Donegal, was evicted from his farm in 1899, by the landlady, Alice A. Hayes, that she, by her agents, in 1904, tumbled down his dwelling house and office houses, and burned his furniture therein; and that he is now reinstated to facilitate the sale of the estate under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; and will he advise the Estates Commissioners to refuse to sanction the sale of the estate unless the evicted tenant is compensated for the loss of his houses and furniture.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the matters of fact alleged in the first part of the Question. The owner has given his consent to an inspection of the holding formerly occupied by Hannigan, and this will be carried out in due course by the inspector for the district, and the claims of the evicted tenant reported on.

    Mr. J. D O'Connor's Kilgefin Estate.
    MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): I beg to to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an offer has been made to or negotiations opened up with the Estates Commissioners

    361
    by Mr. J. D. O'Connor, Ballagh House, Roscommon, for the sale of a portion of his estate in the parish of Kilgefin; and whether, before coming to any decision, the Commissioners will consider the necessity of having included in the sale the entire of the tenanted and untenanted land on the estate.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to trace any proceedings in respect of the sale of the estate in question.

    Sir N. R. O'Conor's Roscommon Estate— Tanlagee Farm.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of Sir N. R. O'Conor, situate near Roscommon, was sold in February, 1905, to the tenants on the understanding that a farm known as Tangalee would be divided amongst them, and that this condition has not been fulfilled; and whether he will explain the cause of delay.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the agreements for purchase lodged in connection with the sale of this estate include agreements for the purchase of nine holdings in Tanlagee, The lands comprised in the originating application for the sale of the estate include 162 acres in Tanlagee, which it is proposed to sell to the Estates Commissioners as untenanted land. The estate has not yet been dealt with, but the Commissioners will consider the question of the enlargement of small holdings when the untenanted land is being disposed of.

    Carbery Estate, County Cork.
    Mr. EDWARD BARRY (Cork County, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a settlement has been arrived at for the reinstatement of Patrick M'Carthy in his farm on the Carbery estate, at present in the occupation of Arthur Deane, J.P.; how many evicted farms are occupied by Arthur Deane or his father, B. B. Deane; has the inspector visited those farms; and, if so, with what result.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that a settlement of the case referred to in the Question has not yet been arrived at. The Commissioners
    362
    have had the case of Patrick M'Carthy and the holding formerly occupied by him reported on by one of their inspectors. This report will shortly come before them for consideration. The Commissioners have no information as to how many evicted farms are at present occupied by Mr. Arthur Deane or his father.

    Irish Assistant Teachers.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total number of assistant teachers (male and female) in Irish national schools; their initial and average salaries; the number who have given ten years service and are classed second grade under the old rules; the estimated additional sum which would be required to give those teachers present second grade salary and increments; and whether he will state the average salary paid to Scotch assistant teachers.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that on December 31st, 1905, the number of assistant teachers employed in national schools was 4,338, namely 1,219 male and 3,119 female teachers. The initial salaries of these teachers, respectively, are £56 and £44 per annum, with the addition in each case of the residual capitation grant. Their average salaries, including residual capitation grant, are £73 13s. 10d. and £58 7s. 9d., respectively. The numbers who have had ten years service and are classed second grade are 265 and 745 respectively. The Commissioners estimate that the sum required to provide minimum second grade salaries for all assistants who are receiving less salaries would for the first year be between £8,000 and £9,000. For succeeding years the charge would be an increasing one, but the ultimate amount could not be estimated without an actuarial calculation. According to the latest published returns, the salaries of Scotch assistant teachers are, for men, £120 11s. 8d., and for women, £73 8s. 8d.

    Land Judge and Insolvent Estates.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what action the Irish Government propose to take with reference to insolvent

    363
    property in the Land Judge's Court for sale, but which the Land Judge refuses to sell at the value ascertained by competent inspectors on behalf of the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. BRYCE: I understand that under all the Land Purchase Acts affecting estates in the Land Judge's Court the Land Judge is the supreme determining authority, both in case of solvent and insolvent estates, as to the price. The learned Judge informs me that he arrives at his decision in each case after hearing evidence on both sides, and that there are very few cases in which he has been unable to come to terms with the Land Commission, He has in several cases, under Section 40 of the Land Act of 1896, lowered the purchase price suggested by the Commissioners.

    Royal Irish Constabulary Uniform Contracts.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the clothing of the Royal Irish Constabulary is not of Irish manufacture, either with respect to material or workmanship; whether, in view of the development of manufactures in Ireland, some consideration will be shown hem in respect to the cloth required for such uniforms; and why are they not invited to tender.
    MR. BRYCE: It is the fact that cloth of English or Scotch manufacture was used in the clothing which is now being worn by the Royal Irish Constabulary, but the materials have for several years past been made up by Irish tailoring firms. Irish manufacturers have invariably been invited to tender for the supply of cloth required by the Constabulary, and an experiment is now being made with the object of ascertaining whether Irish manufacturers can supply cloth in all respects fitted for the clothing of the Force.

    Clonakilty Evicted Tenant.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that since the death of Archdeacon McCarthy, the evicted farm in Castleventry, Clonakilty, of which he was nominal owner, is now in the hands of
    364
    the landlord, an inspector has yet visited the farm for the purpose of reinstating Patrick Donovan, the evicted tenant; and, if not, will pressure be brought on the Estates Commissioners to get this farm immediately inspected.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not yet been able to have the case of Patrick Donovan inquired into by an inspector, but that the case, together with others in the same county, will be taken up at the earliest opportunity.

    West Clare Evicted Tenants.
    MR. HALPIN (Clare, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will press upon the Estates Commissioners the necessity of reinstating the evicted tenants of West Clare before next autumn, in order to give them an opportunity of being able to prepare their land for the spring tillage.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they intend to make inquiries into the cases of evicted tenants in County Clare as soon as possible.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to recognise the extreme urgency of this question, as only ten out of some hundreds of evicted tenants have so far been restored to their holdings.
    MR. BRYCE: I am sure the Commissioners are fully alive to the urgency of the matter and will act as quickly as possible.

    Irish Fishery Boards.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if it is within the scope of the instructions to the Committee at present inquiring into the working of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, Ireland, to inquire into the transactions of the Boards of Fishery Conservators, or any one of such boards, for the years 1902, 1903, and 1906 to date.
    MR. BRYCE: The Committee was appointed to inquire into the working of the Department. The transactions referred to would not appear to fall within

    365
    the reference of the Committee, unless and in so far as they wore in some way connected with the working of the Department.

    Merchants Quay, Kilrush.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Merchants Quay, Kilrush, was the property of the ratepayers of the county of Clare prior to 1846, and that in 1846 the late Colonel Vandeleur got permission to extend the quay for the public benefit under the Act of 9 Vic, cap. 3, agreeing that it would still be the property of the Crown; and, seeing that the late Colonel Vandeleur did not complete the extension, and in view of its present condition, whether he will take steps to have the quay given over to the county council as representatives of the ratepayers.
    MR. BRYCE: The question of the ownership of the Merchants Quay, Kilrush, has recently been the subject of legal proceedings in which the Attorney-General for Ireland, on behalf of the Crown, was joined as a defendant. Judgment was given by the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, declaring the plaintiff, Colonel Vandeleur, entitled to the quay, and this judgment has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Law Officers are at present considering the advisability of further appealing to the House of Lords. It is not in my power to have the quay given over to the county council as suggested by the hon. Member.

    Trench Estate—Evicted Tenants.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners intend restoring William Kennedy, an evicted tenant, to the holding of land formerly occupied by his parents at Plover Hill, Lorrha, county Tipperary, on the Trench estate, the farm, at present, being in the possession of the agent, Mr. W. J. Trench, who is a brother of the landlord, and who owns some one thousand acres of land in the same locality as the evicted farm.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they hope to make inquiries shortly into the case referred to in the Question.

    Returns of Irish Agrarian Outrages.
    MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state whether it has been decided to discontinue the periodical Returns of alleged agrarian outrages in Ireland, in view of the fact that no such Returns are issued in regard to England, Scotland, or Wales.
    MR. BRYCE: It is not intended to continue the presentation of these Returns.

    West Cavan Evicted Tenants.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say how many evicted tenants have been reinstated in West Cavan; how many are in process of being restored to their old holdings; have the Estates Commissioners purchased any untenanted land, or are they negotiating for same; and, if so, will he give the approximate figures.
    MR. BRYCE: According to the Estates Commissioners' Returns, 19 evicted tenants have been reinstated in the County Cavan, and seven other cases are in process of settlement. The Commissioners have not yet purchased any untenanted land in the county, but have made an offer for 275 acres.
    MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.): Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the price offered to the landlord and why he refused to sell.
    MR. BRYCE: I have no information as to that.
    MR. KILBRIDE: You ought to have.

    Ingham Estate County Cavan.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what is the cause of delay in putting through the sale of the J. H. Ingham Estate, county Cavan; is he aware that in August 1904 an agreenent was perfected to reinstate Patrick M'Connell, the evicted tenant; and whether, in view of the fact that a friend of the evicted tenant has paid to vendor's solicitor the difference between the sum applied for, £475, and the amount the Commissioners agreed to

    367
    advance, £435, he will see that there is no unnecessary delay in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the advances in respect of the sale of this estate were sanctioned on 26th January last. The intervening time has been taken up with legal matters in connection with the title, and as soon as these are settled the advances will be made. The facts as to the case of Patrick Connell are as stated in the Question. I feel sure that there will be no needless delay on the Commissioners' part.

    Land Commission Courts' Delays.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that John Mannion, Clonaderg, Athlone, caused an originating notice to fix a fair rent to be served on his landlord, Colonel Williams, now four years ago; will he say why this case has not yet been dealt with; are there any restrictions preventing the Land Commission Courts from doing a full day's work in court; and do such restrictions also apply to the lay Commissioners, who systematically only value one or two farms per day.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that the case of John Mannion cannot be traced on their register of outstanding applications to fix fair rents, but the Commissioners are making further inquiries in the matter. There are no restrictions of the nature indicated in the latter part of the Question. Assistant Commissioners are bound, under the conditions of their appointment, to give their entire time to the service of the Land Commission.
    MR. REDDY: How many days do they sit?
    MR. BRYCE: I believe they give their whole working time to the service of the Commission.
    MR. REDDY: Oh ! you believe !

    King's County Evicted Tenants.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of evicted tenants in the Birr Division of King's County who have applied to be
    368
    restored; in how many cases have rein statements taken place or other suitable farms have been supplied; and what quantity, if any, of untenanted land has been purchased in this division by the Estates Commissioners.
    BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that they have received applications from eighty-four persons claiming reinstatement as evicted tenants in the King's County. Of these, five have already been restored by the owners. The Commissioners have purchased some 239 acres of untenanted land in this county, and are in negotiation for the purchase of nearly 5,000 acres more.

    Moystown Petty Sessions.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say by whom, or acting on whose authority, was the petty sessions book signed in the name of the hon. Member for the Birr Division at Moystown petty sessions in April last; and in view of the fact that the order in one of the cases was varied subsequent to the courts adjourning, will he grant a full inquiry into the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the name of the hon. Member was entered in the petty session order book by the clerk of petty sessions. If the magistrates themselves do not enter their names in the book, the clerk is empowered and directed to do so, and in the present instance the hon. Member does not appear to have entered his name. The granting of time to find bail was not part of the formal order of the court, and the order therefore was not varied. I am informed that the hon. Member himself was opposed to the granting of time for the defendant to find the necessary sureties. The other two magistrates, however, gave the defendant three days in which to do so, and subsequently extended this time until May 10th. The hon. Member bad left the court when this extension was granted. The defendant has since given the required bail. I have no power to order an inquiry into any matter concerning the judicial action of magistrates.
    MR. REDDY: If three judges sat in the Court of the Kings Bench in Ireland and made an order, would two of them be

    369
    allowed to vary it after the other one had left.
    MR. BRYCE: Possibly there has been some irregularity, but I gather that no substantial injustice has been caused, although, no doubt, it would appear from the book that the hon. Member had been a party to proceedings which he did not approve.
    MR. REDDY: You say no injustice has been done. But it is the work of the magistrates, who would not give a tenant a single hour's grace.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): How does the right hon. Gentleman justify this irregularity?
    MR. BRYCE: Not having seen the order book I cannot say exactly what has been done.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant a Royal Commission to inquire into this matter? The allegation is that after the court was up and the magistrates had dispersed, two of them went back and varied an order which had been entered in the order book. That is a manifest irregularity, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will have full inquiry made into the circumstances.
    BRYCE: I do not know exactly what did happen. I rather gather the court continued after the hon. Member had left.
    MR. REDDY: I asked the clerk if there was any more business, as is usual in petty sessions, and was informed there was not, so I left.
    MR. BRYCE: I have never sat in petty sessions, and am not acquainted with the practice.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
    MR. BRYCE: If the hon. Gentleman can, of his own knowledge, send me facts on which I can address an inquiry to the other magistrates I will see if I can get to the bottom of the matter.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.): Is not the easiest solution of this difficulty
    370
    to be found in the appointment of another Royal Commission?
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is not this the case concerning emergency men who in the the gaiety of their hearts went through the country firing revolvers?
    MR. BRYCE: I have no information as to that.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Then you ought to have.

    Major Woods, Longwood Estate.
    MR. SHEEHY (Meath, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Major Woods, Longwood, county Meath, has lodged purchase agreements between himself and his tenants with the Estates Commissioners, and that one tenant, Lawrence Hope, is being excluded from the sale; and whether the Commissioners will satisfy themselves, through their inspector, as to the grounds, and their validity, on which Major Woods refuses to sell to this one tenant.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the name of Lawrence Hope appears as a judicial tenant in the schedule of tenancies lodged in respect of the sale of Major Woods' estate, but that no agreement for purchase by Hope has yet been lodged. The circumstances under which Hope has not signed an agreement for the purchase of his holding will be fully inquired into when the other holdings on the estate are being inspected.

    Report on Lunacy in Ireland.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY (Mayo, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say when the Report of the Inspector of Lunacy in Ireland as to the number of returned emigrants now inmates in Irish asylums will be published.
    MR. BRYCE: The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums inform mo that their annual Report for last year, which will contain information on the point referred to in the Question, will be presented before the termination of the session, but they are unable to fix a precise date.

    Dismissal of the Cloonkeen School Teacher.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the case of the dismissal of Cornelius O'Callaghan, Cloonkeen, Leap, county Cork; whether he is aware that O'Callaghan taught for twenty-nine years without any record against him, and that though his manager wrote for an investigation into the sickness that prevailed amongst the children before the annual examination of 1904 this was refused; and, seeing that for the unsatisfactory answering of the pupils in this one year O'Callaghan was got rid of after twenty-nine years' faithful service without either pension or gratuity of any kind, whether he will order a full inquiry into the whole facts of this case without further delay.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 27th March.† I then stated, on the authority of the Commissioners of National Education, that in 1904, and for a series of years previously, the reports on Mr. O'Callaghan's work were of an extremely unfavourable character, and that he had been repeatedly censured and once fined. The Commissioners now inform me that there were, between 1879 and 1904, eleven unfavourable records against this teacher, all on account of inefficiency and the unsatisfactory progress made by his school. I have no power to interfere with the decision of the Commissioners who inform me that they do not intend to re-open the case.

    Kerry Railway and Harbour Guarantees.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total amount of rates levied in all Ireland in the year ended March 31st, 1905, for railway and harbour guarantees; the total amount contributed in relief of those rates from the local taxation account; the amount levied in Kerry for the same period for the same purpose; and the amount that would be required to pay the whole of such rate in all Ireland over 6d. in the £, and over 9d. in the £.
    † See (4) Debates, cliv., 1082.
    MR. BRYCE: It would not be possible for the Local Government Board to give the information asked for in the first part of this Question without obtaining. Returns from all local authorities concerned. The total amount contributed in relief of rates for railway and harbour guarantees from the local taxation account in respect of the year ending March 31st, 1905, was £12,524 19s. 11d. The net amount levied in county Kerry for the same purposes during the year ended March 31st, 1905, was £11,932 4s. 8d., deduction having been made of the amount of refund under Section 58 of the Local Government Act of 1898. The information asked for in the concluding part of the Question cannot be stated with accuracy, as some of the counties concerned have not yet sent in claims for refund in respect of the year in question; but as regards the counties from which applications have been received, the sum required to pay the full amount of such charges over 6d. in the £ would be £25,049 19s. 10d., and the sum required to pay the full amount over 9d.. in the £ would be £15,449 19s. 10d.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Kerry pays more in the shape of these guarantees than the whole of the rest of Ireland?
    MR. BRYCE: I have not the figures before me.

    Bangor Sub-Post Office.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can give an assurance that the sub-post office at Bangor will be properly equipped for telegraph, postal orders, and telephone service.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The new town sub-office which it is proposed to open in or near Ballymagee Street will be properly equipped from the first for the transaction of money order, postal order, and savings bank business; the question of the provision of a telegraph of a telephone service there must stand over until experience has shown what the requirements are in that direction.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Then is the right hon. Gentleman going to wait and see

    373
    what the volume of business is at the office?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am going to wait and see what the requirements of the locality are likely to be.

    Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway.
    MR. T. SMYTH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware of the fact that the manager of the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway Company took out a special train on or about 25th September, 1905, without the staff; that a special train was required to Mohill, and the manager of the railway sent the company's motor trolley, accompanied by two men, for the staff, and, before they returned, the manager allowed the train to proceed on its journey, stating that he would be responsible; that the train ran down the motor trolley on its return with the staff severely injuring one of the men in it; and whether, seeing that the motor trolley was injured to the extent of £70, will the manager of the railway pay this £70, or will the ratepayers in the guaranteeing area have to pay it; and will the Board of Works, for the future prevent a repetition of the offence occurring.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: An accident of the nature described occurred on the 20th October last near Ballinamore on the Cavan and Leitrim Railway with the result that one of the men riding on the trolley concerned in the accident was slightly injured, and the trolley itself was damaged, but not to any great extent. The question of the manner in which the cost of the repairs will be borne is not for the Board of Trade to decide, but it will be pointed out to the railway company that this accident was due to a breach of the rules adopted by the railway companies for train staff working. The reference to the Board of Works in the conclusion of the hon. Member's Question was probably intended to relate to the Board of Trade, but I am sending a copy of the Question and my reply to the Treasury as representing the Board of Works.

    Turkey and Egypt.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can promise that before any hostilities are commenced in reference to the Egyptian frontier dispute, this House will
    374
    be afforded an opportunity of discussing the matter.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, Burghs): The answer to this Question is superseded by the important news announced yesterday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINasked as to the course of business, what Supply would be taken on Thursday, and when the Committee stage of the Education Bill would be set down.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Committee on the Education Bill will be taken on Monday. On Thursday we shall take the Office of Works Vote and the House of Commons Offices Vote.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked when the next stage of the Trades Disputes Bill would be taken.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It does not look as if it would be possible before Whitsuntide.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) [EXPENSES].
Resolution reported; "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses and allowances incurred under any Act of the present session to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1901."
Resolution agreed to.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of the Secretary of State, and of the remuneration and Expenses of Medical Referees and Arbitrators incurred under

375
any Act of the present session to consolidate and amend the Law with respect to Compensation to Workmen for injuries suffered in the course of their employment, and of Compensation to Workmen employed by or under the Crown in pursuance of such Act."—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked what the expense would amount to.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE Leeds W.)said he could not give at the present stage any estimate as to what the expenses likely to be incurred would be. A good deal turned upon what Parliament decided as to the proposals in the Bill. This Resolution was absolutely necessary, and the Government were simply adopting the ordinary course.
COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's Hanover Square)said the action of the Government seemed somewhat premature. The Bill was now before the Standing Committee, only three of the seventeen clauses had as yet been dealt with, and it was quite impossible to say what would be the result of the discussion upstairs. Could not the Resolution wait until the Compensation Clauses of the Bill had been dealt with?
MR. GLADSTONE: We have taken the ordinary course, and it is of some advantage to do so as the Bill proposes to bring in postmen and others, and we may reach the definition clause at any time.
COLONEL LEGGE: I am quite satisfied.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: Will the right hon. Gentlemen bring in soldiers and sailors under the Bill?
MR. GLADSTONE: That is a question of policy which cannot be discussed at this stage.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

RESERVE FORCES BILL.
Order for the Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYasked why the Bill was called the Reserve Forces Bill. He was always under the impression that the Reserve Forces included the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Forces. This Bill dealt entirely with the Army Reserve, which he had always looked upon as our front line of defence. There were very few battalions which could be called out for active service unless the Army Reserve were called upon to fill the gap. In view of these facts he asked if it were wise to call the present Bill "the Reserve Forces Bill;" might it not lead to complications?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington)replied that Acts dealing with the question had always been called Reserve Forces Acts, and although he had no doubt that there was a good deal in the noble Lord's criticism he had abided by the action of his predecessors.
MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)called attention to the fact that on Monday the Prime Minister had announced that the programme of procedure for Tuesday would consist of only a few little Bills. Unfortunately people differed in their opinions as to what things were little and what were large. He should not like to trust the Prime Minister's sense of proportion as to what were small Bills. [Cries of "Order."] He wished to call the attention of the House to Clause 2, and to ask for an explanation. It appeared to him to interfere with the privileges of the private soldier in determining in what branch of the service he should serve, as it repealed the enactment which prevented a reserve man from being called up to serve, without his consent, in any corps in which he had not previously served.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)said with regard to the hon. Member's reference to himself that everyone must form

377
his own judgment as to what was great and what was small. The criticism which might seem to one Member to be of great importance might to another Member appear to be of no importance at all. He had, however, covered any delinquencies of that sort by telling the hon. Member's leader that he should proceed with the Bills in the order they were to be found on the Paper. That would cover any characterisation of a Bill as being either large or small. He might also solve the hon. Member's doubts as to the measure itself by informing him that it was, verbatim et literatim, the Bill introduced by the late Government last year.
MR T. L. CORBETTrose again, but was informed that he had already exhausted his right to speak.
COLONEL LEGGEasked for an explanation as to the class of men to be enlisted in the Reserve. As far as his experience went the Army Reserve was composed of men who had served in the Army and had then been transferred to the Reserve. The Bill before them provided for the enlistment of men in that Reserve, but he was not clear as to what class of men would comprise the Reserve. Would they be men who had served in the Army or not? Would they be civilians?
MR. HALDANEexplained that this was a Bill of the late Government and had been found necessary by experience in the South African war. Men were wanted in the Remount Department, but they could not take men from the Cavalry Reserve, because those men had enlisted only for that particular arm of the service. By this Bill the War Office took power, therefore, to enlist men for any arm of the service and to transfer Reserves from one branch to another. By the Reserve Forces Act, 1890, power was conferred upon the Secretary of State to enlist a man straight into the Reserve, and this power had been found very convenient. Men were given reserve pay to hold themselves in readiness to be called up if mobilisation became necessary.
Question put and agreed.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham)) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
LORD BALCARRESremarked that this was another Bill of the late Government. It proposed to amend the law relating to the falsification of seamen's and soldiers' certificates of service or discharge and to false statements made in connection with entry or enlistment into the naval, military, or marine forces. He wished to ask why the grave crimes of forgery or perjury should under this clause be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one month. If a man forged he ought to be punishable more severely than by one month's imprisonment.
MR. HALDANEstated that this Bill only proposed a summary method of procedure. Proceedings could be taken at common law against a soldier or anyone else for cheating, but it was not always easy to get the jury to take so serious a view of the crime as they should. This Bill provided that the matter could be disposed of by a magistrate summarily and leniently. If a case was so serious that one months imprisonment would be quite inadequate, the offender could be taken before a jury.
LORD R. CECILsaid that from the wording of the Bill it seemed as if the only remedy provided was the remedy of the Summary Jurisdiction Act. He pointed out that the offence in the case of forgery was a very serious thing, as the man would be guilty of forging a document issued by the Crown.
MR. HALDANEsaid his own doubt on that very point had been removed by an examination of Section 33 of the Act of 1889.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2:—
MR. T. L. CORBETT MR. T. L. CORBETT moved the insertion of the word "knowingly" before "makes use of." He said a man might unwittingly make use of a false statement.
Amendment proposed —
"In page 1, line 24, after the word 'forces' to insert the word 'knowingly.'" —(Mr. T. L. Corbett.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'knowingly' be there inserted."
MR. HALDANEconsidered the insertion of the word quite unnecessary, for the Bill showed no crime was committed without scienter. The draft of the Bill had been settled by the Treasury and Parliamentary Counsel and was in accordance with the wording of a long series of Acts, and he did not care to accept an Amendment which would involve a departure from long standing practice.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he could not understand the plea contained in the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, because they had already in effect got "knowingly" in two other portions of the Bill. He thought, however, that it was important that they should have the word "knowingly" inserted at this precise point. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that it did no harm, and it was only on a point of etiquette that he objected to the Amendment. It appeared that if a man made use of a false certificate he was liable to a certain penalty, and if he made use of any statement as to his character and previous employment which, to his knowledge, was false, he was also liable to a certain penalty. If the saving word of the Amendment were inserted, it would be an improvement. The right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that the insertion of the word could do no harm, and it seemed to him that it might do considerable good to a person who was charged under the Bill. Under the circumstances he hoped the hon. Gentleman would press his Amendment.
MR. HALDANEobjected to putting the word "knowingly" in at this particular point, because the fact was that in regard to this particular offence of
380
making use of a false and fraudulent statement, scienter must be proved in the ordinary course of law. The section did provide that in the case of a statement as to his previous character and employment which was to his knowledge false in any material particular, a man should be liable to a penalty. In view of the fact, however, that the law as it stood would involve that a man should be convicted only if he knowingly made use of any forged or counterfeit statement as to his character or previous employment, it was, he thought, quite unnecessary to insert the word proposed.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was certain that the words "to his knowledge" in the later portion of the clause were sufficient to govern the whole of the preceding portion. He thought it should be mad clear that the scienter should be proved. Did not the words "to his knowledge" really come back to a false and fraudulent statement and should they not be applicable to the whole. He feared that the clause as it stood would put trouble in the way of magistrates in the course of exercising summary jurisdiction.
MR. HALDANEthought it was obvious that the words "to his knowledge" only referred to any statement which the man himself made, and not to the use of any forged or counterfeit statement.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he understood that the reason the words "to his knowledge" were put in in the second part of the clause was that a statement as to character and employment was only criminal when it was made falsely, and by means of a forged or counterfeit statement. The distinction was that a man might make a statement as to his character or previous employment without knowing it to be false, but he could not use a forged or counterfeit statement without knowing it. In both cases, however, the statement would be knowingly or wilfully made.
MR. HALDANEsaid his point was that scienter was part of the offence in the first part of the clause as applied to a forged or

381
counterfeited statement, but in the second part there was legally no intention unless it was indicated by the word "knowledge." That passing on from the use of a document where scienter was implied gave the same effect to the clause.
LORD R. CECILsaid it appeared from the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the words "to his knowledge "in the second part of the clause were quite unnecessary. One could not intentionally make use of a false statement without knowing that the statement was false. Therefore, if it was necessary to insert the words" to his knowledge" in the second part of the clause to make the matter abundantly clear, why was it not necessary to make it abundantly clear in the first part as well as the second?
COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's, Hanover Square)thought the Amendment would be a very useful one, and he quite agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord. It was urged against them that this was a Bill prepared by the late Government, but even Unionists might occasionally be able to improve their own Bills. He thought the Secretary of State for War might accept the Amendment because it made the Bill read sensibly. In the first place, it appeared that if a man used any forged or counterfeit statement he should be convicted, but it said in the second place that if he made use of any statement which to his knowledge was false he should be also convicted. It seemed to him that if the amendment were accepted it would make the clause symmetrical in both its parts.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was no harm in the Amendment and to the simple lay mind the word "knowingly" undoubtedly made the clause clearer than it was as it stood.
MR. HALDANEsaid the difficulty was that the word "knowingly" in that position in the clause did nothing, because the law implied that the offence to which it referred must be done wilfully and knowingly. There was a distinction between the two branches of the clause, because it was not necessary to use the word" knowingly" in regard to the first part to constitute an offence, but in regard to the second part, which dealt with false statements, the words, "to his knowledge," were necessary. His predecessor determined to define certain offences. Certain of them were indictable, such as those coming under the first portion of the section, but those under the second portion came under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and there it was necessary to put in the words "to his knowledge." In the indictable offences scienter was implied.
LORD R. CECILsaid that knowledge might enter equally into the use and the making of a false or counterfeited document. Unlesss it was knowingly made, or falsely and fraudulently, there would be no offence.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he should like to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, because it was very important that these matters which were dealt with by courts of summary jurisdiction should be made as plain as possible. Knowledge was as essential in the one case as in the other, and therefore he would suggest that the word "knowingly" should be put in, and it should be allowed to govern the whole section, and that the words "to his knowledge" should be left out. Then it would be clear that knowledge was the essential part of the whole paragraph.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 314. (Division List No. 73.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Rt Hn.SirAlexF.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cavendish,Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Ashley, W. W.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

Balcarres, Lord

Bowles, G. Stewart

Clarke, Sir Edward(CityL'ndon

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Cooper, G. J.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Craig.Captain James(Down,E.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Craik, Sir Henry

Kennaway,Rt.Hn. Sir John H.

Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Starkey, John R.

Doughty, Sir George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareh'm

Valentia, Viscount

Fardell, Sir T. George

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Finch, Rt, Hon. George H.

Liddell, Henry

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Haddock, George R.

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Younger, George

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Pease.Herbert Pike(Darlington

Heaton, John Henniker

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. T. L. Corbett, and Mr. Meysey-Thompson.

Helmsley, Viscount

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gill, A. H.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Ginnell, L.

Adkins, W. Ryland

Clancy, John Joseph

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt.John

Agnew, George William

Clough, W.

Glendinning. R. G.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Clynes, J. R.

Glover, Thomas

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Gooch, George Peabody

Asquith,Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Grant, Corrie

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cory, Clifford John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough).

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Grove, Archibald

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cox, Harold

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Barker, John

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Barnard, E. B.

Crean, Eugene

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Beale, W. P.

Crombie, John William

Hall, Frederick

Beauchamp, E.

Crosfield, A. H.

Halpin, J.

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Crossley, William J.

Hammond, John

Bell, Richard

Dalziel, James Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Bellairs, Carlyon

Davies, David (MontgomeryCo

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Bennett, E. N.

Devlin CharlesRam say (Galway

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

Bertram, Julius

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hart-Davies, T.

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dillon, John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Billson, Alfred

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Donelan, Captain A.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Duckworth, James

Hazleton, Richard

Blake, Edward

Duffy, William J.

Hedges. A. Paget

Boland, John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Duncanl J. H. (York, Otley)

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

Brace, William

Dunn, A. Edward (Cam borne)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Higham, John Sharp

Branch, James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Brigg, John

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Hogan, Michael

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

Elibank, Master of

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

Erskine, David C.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hudson, Walter

Burke, K. Haviland-

Evans, Samuel T.

Illingworth. Percy H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Everett, R. Lacey

Jardine, Sir J.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Jenkins, J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

Ferens, T. R.

Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)

Byles, William Pollard

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Cairns, Thomas

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Caldwell, James

Findlay, Alexander

Jowett, F. W.

Cameron, Robert

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Flynn, James Christopher

Kearley, Hudson K.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kilbride, Denis

Cawley, Frederick

Fullerton, Hugh

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Chance, Frederick William

Furness, Sir Christopher

Kitson, Sir James

Channing, Francis Allston

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Laidlaw, Robert

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gilhooly, James

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

384

385

Lambert, George

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Lamont, Norman

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Law, Hugh Alexander

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

O'Grady, J.

Snowden, P.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N

Soares, Ernest J.

Lehmann, R. C.

O'Malley, William

Spicer, Albert

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.

Lewis, John Herbert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Paul, Herbert

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lough, Thomas

Paulton, James Mellor

Sullivan, Donal

Lundon, W.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Summerbell, T.

Lupton, Arnold

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Sutherland, J. E.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Perks, Robert William

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Maclean, Donald

Power, Patrick Joseph

Thorne, William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Tomkinson, James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Price.Robert John (Norfolk,E.)

Toulmin, George

MacVeigh.Charles(Donegal, E.)

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Callum, John M.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ure, Alexander

M'Crae, George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Reddy, M.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Walsh, Stephen

M'Kiliop, W.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Ward, W. Dudley (South'mptn

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

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

Wardle, George J.

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

Richardson, A.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

M'Micking, Major G.

Rickett, J. Compton

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Maddison, Frederick

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Weir, James Galloway

Massie, J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whitbread, Howard

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robertson, Rt.Hn. E.(Dundee)

White, George (Norfolk)

Meagher, Michael

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradfrd

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Robertson, J. M (Tyneside)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Menzies, Walter

Robinson, S.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whitehead, Rowland

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rose, Charles Day

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Mond, A.

Rowlands, J.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Montagu, E. S.

Runciman, Walter

Wilkie, Alexander

Mooney, J. J.

Russell, T. W.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Morrell, Philip

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

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

Morse, L. L.

Schwann,Chas. E.(Manchester)

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Seaverns, J. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Murphy, John

Seddon, J.

Winfrey, R.

Murray, James

Seely, Major J. B.

Woodhouse,SirJT(Huddersf'd

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncastr

Shackleton, David James

Young, Samuel

Nolan, Joseph

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sheehy, David

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. v

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

SIR WILLIAM ANSON SIR WILLIAM ANSON moved to omit the words "to his knowledge." It appeared to him that knowledge was as essential in the one case as in the other, and that if it could be inferred in the one it could in the other. If the previous Amendment had been accepted it would have made the matter clear, but as the clause stood a distinction was drawn between making use of "any forged or counterfeit statement as to his character or previous employment," which did not
386
carry with it the word "knowingly," and "any statement as to his character or previous employment," which required "knowledge." It was difficult to conceive how a man could use a false statement as to his character or previous employment without knowing it was false. This Amendment was to make the whole paragraph clear and uniform.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words 'to his knowledge.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. HALDANEsaid it was absolutely essential that the word "knowledge" should remain in this part of the clause. The earlier part referred to a forged statement which on the face of it was evidence of guilty knowledge, but in the second case guilty knowledge was essential but was not implied.
LORD R. CECILsaid it was quite clear that in the earlier part of this clause the words, "makes use of any forged or counterfeit statement," meant the use of a statement that was forged or counterfeit to a man's knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman did not contemplate making it an offence unless the person using such statement knew it was a forged or counterfeit statement. There must be a guilty intention to constitute a crime at all, and that was so in the case of a forged or counterfeit statement or in that of a false statement. There was no distinction that he could see between a forged statement and a false statement. In either case the essential part was that it must be known to be forged or false. As the Bill was drafted, however, it would be an offence to make a forged statement even if it were not known by the person to be forged. Just as it was said to be quite clear in the earlier part that the forged statement must be forged to a man's knowledge, so if they left out these words it would be quite clear that the false statement must be false to his knowledge. If they inserted these words they would throw doubt on the meaning in the earlier part of the clause. It would suggest to the court that it was enough that the documents should be forged, whether forged to the person's knowledge or not. He hoped the Government, therefore, would accept the Amendment.
MR. GEORGE FABERsaid the offence in question came under two heads, the man who made use of a forged statement and the man who made use of a false statement. Any alteration such as that now proposed would be wrong.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.)reminded the Committee that this was a Bill which had already passed the House of Lords, where it had been subjected to careful scrutiny. What was the proposal? That it should be an offence for which a man might be summarily convicted to make use of any statement in regard to his previous employment which was false in any particular. That was the effect of the hon. Baronet's Amendment. A man who was perfectly innocent might be convicted, and a more monstrous proposal coming from the front Bench he never heard of. Under those circumstances he hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not aware that this precise point was raised on the previous Amendment. [" No, no."] At least the analogy was close, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said that he saw no objection to the Amendment.
MR. ASQUITH: But this is an entirely different thing.
LORD R. CECILexpressed surprise at the tone adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a cardinal principle of the English law that nobody could be convicted without knowledge that he had been guilty of an offence. Whatever the wording was the courts would always require not only that the facts were different from what the soldier or sailor said they were but that he knew them to be different. Therefore it was quite unnecessary to insert the words proposed in order to safeguard the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think might arise.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he wished to say a word in deprecation of the severity of the tone which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted in dealing with this Amendment. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that any Bill which came from the House of Lords should be received with great respect, but that did not preclude members of the Opposition from considering some

389
of its details and suggesting improvements. Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer intervened, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had informed the Committee that knowledge was a necessary element in both, these offences, and had said he was quite ready to accept the Amendment to introduce the word "knowingly" in the earlier part of the clause. If knowledge was a necessary element in each of these offences either it should be introduced in each case or else left out in each, case, but to deliberately leave out "knowingly" in the earlier part and leave it in as applied to the other offence would cause confusion. He thought the Amendment was quite a reasonable one.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he was sorry if his tone had conveyed any want of respect. He thought there was the plainest possible distinction between the two cases. To omit the word suggested in this instance would be a most dangerous thing, although to insert it in the other case would not have been dangerous but unnecessary.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsuggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in discussing the difference between knowledge as applied to the use of a forged or counterfeit statement, and knowledge as applied to the use of a mere statement that was false he had gone entirely astray. The Committee would find that this was so if they looked not at the legal jargon of the phrase but at the common sense application of the clause. What was the clause? It related to the case of a soldier or a sailor making use of a character or recommendation for his own purposes. It was perfectly obvious that a soldier or a sailor making use of a counterfeit document might do so bona fide. He might have been making use of a recommendation or a character which unfortunately had been forged in the way in which it was signed. They had made it an offence to make use of a document which actually was forged, although the man might be perfectly innocent, and not know that the document was signed in an irregular way. He now came to the
390
case of a man making a false statement. The proposal was to leave out the words "to his knowledge." The Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested that a man might put forward a false statement about his own character, and not know that it was false. Surely a man must know whether a statement about his character was right or not. It was perfectly redundant to retain the words. The words were wanted in the previous clause.
COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's, Hanover Square)appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment. The arguments used on the Ministerial side in favour of the Bill were very peculiar. The Secretary of State for War had recommended the Bill because it was a Unionist Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it ought to be accepted because it came from the House of Lords. He knew that the Unionists were a weak minority, but that was no reason why they should be trampled upon in this way.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
LORD R. CECILsaid the offence of giving a false written statement as to character was a serious one, and he wished to know why it was made a summary jurisdiction offence.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid a portion of the clause might have a deterrent effect upon recruiting for the Army. The previous Secretary of State for War made it a great point that the people recruited for the Army should be of the highest character, and hon. Members hoped that the present Secretary of State for War would carry out that excellent policy. It appeared to him that it was proposed to place a heavy fine on a man who, having been asked to give a certificate of character to a man wishing to join the Army, did not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He wished to know whether anyone would be liable to be haled before the magistrates and fined £20 if in giving a certificate of character to a man who

391
desired to enter the Army he omitted to state that the person had been drunk some night and had not behaved himself properly. On the other hand, if the certificate stated that the man got drunk would the right hon. Gentleman still take him into the Army?
MR. HALDANEsaid the introduction of this clause did not amount to a new principle or policy. For years past it had been part of the law of the land that a person who made a false statement with respect to any person entering the Navy was liable to a penalty. It was absolutely essential that there should be something of the kind in the Army also. Fortunately, the kind of case mentioned by the noble Lord could not arise, because they had been successful in keeping in the words "to his knowledge." As to the necessity for the clause, he would mention a case which actually happened not long ago. It was illustrative of a long string of cases which he could mention. A man presented himself for enlistment, bringing with him a certificate of character to the effect that he had been in satisfactory circumstances for the last seven years. He was enlisted, but, getting into trouble afterwards, it was necessary for the police to inquire into his character. What turned out to be the truth was that the man had been in prison during the seven years. That character had been given to him by his brother-in-law, who wanted to get rid of him. What was asked for by this Bill was the necessary advantage of the rule that it was an offence for a man to give a false character knowing it to be false. That was the justification for this clause.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that he did not understand whether this provision applied to any person seeking employment as a soldier or a sailor. Supposing a boy had been guilty of petty theft, and his master did not think it necessary to prosecute him, or the circumstances of sufficient importance to be included in the written character he might give the boy; and supposing in the course of a year or two that boy wished to enter the Army or Navy, was that master to be liable to the penalty specified in Clause 1?
SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)wished to know whether the auxiliary forces and the reserve were included in the phrase in Clause 2, "His Majesty's naval, military, or marine forces."
MR. HALDANEwas understood to say that they were.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that he concluded from the remarks of the Secretary of State for War that the Navy had already the powers provided in for this clause. He therefore suggested that the word "naval" should be left out.
MR. HALDANEwas understood to say that it was necessary to include "naval" in connection with false statements.
LORD R. CECILasked what there was essentially wicked about giving a false character to a person who wanted to be a soldier or a sailor when there was no penalty of £20 inflicted upon a person who gave a false character to a man who was to be taken into civilian personal service?
MR. HALDANEsaid that the question of domestic service had already been covered by the old statute of 1762; but it had to be covered in regard to recruits for the Army or Navy. He had already quoted the case of a brother-in-law who gave a character to a man who had been seven years in prison.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid that that story did not really touch the point raised by his hon. friend. There was no getting over the fact that many men entered the Army who were not of an absolutely blameless character. If a man could not ask an individual or any member of his household to give him a character so as to allow him to get into the Army, it would tie his hands enormously. One might know that a man had a weak point, just as a man who wanted to sell a horse did not give away all its weak spots. But this man might be a most excellent man for the Army; and yet by this clause an employer such as he had described was to be liable to a penalty of £20 for not having told the whole truth

393
about his former employee. He remembered the President of the Local Government Board making a speech in which he said that he did not think very much of these changes, and that he thought that in many instances some of the Arab boys about the streets would make better soldiers than the boys who attended the Sunday school every Sunday. If an employer or a friend were required to give a boy a character and to tell the whole truth about him, there would be found great difficulty in filling up certain regiments in the Army.
MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that the penalty in the first clause differed seriously from one part of the second clause. The first clause said that the penalty was imprison-
ment not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding £20; and in the case of a second or subsequent offence imprisonment with or without hard labour, and a term not exceeding three months. But in the second clause the penalty was a fine of £20 with no alternative at all.
MR. HALDANEsaid that this was really the creation of a new offence which was not known at common law, and it was thought right to put the penalty under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 332; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 74.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Donelan, Captain A.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duckworth, James

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Duffy, William J.

Adkins, W. Ryland

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Agnew, George William

Buxton, Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Byles, William Pollard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Alden, Percy

Cairns, Thomas

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Ambrose, Robert

Caldwell, James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Armitage, R.

Cameron, Robert

Elibank, Master of

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Ellis, Rt. Hn. John Edward

Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Erskine, David C.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Causton,Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Cawley, Frederick

Evans, Samuel T.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Chance, Frederick William

Everett, R. Lacey

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Faver, G. H. (Boston)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fenwick, Charles

Barnard, E. B.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Ferens, T. R.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Beale, W. P.

Clough, W.

Findlay, Alexander

Beauchamp, E.

Clynes, J. R.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

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

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bell, Richard

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Fullerton, Hugh

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Furness, Sir Christopher

Bertram, Julius

Cooper, G. J.

Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford,S

Billson, Alfred

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Cory, Clifford John

Gilhooly, James

Boland, John

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gill, A. H.

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Ginnell, L.

Brace, William

Crean, Eugene

Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Crombie, John William

Glendinning, R. G.

Branch, James

Crosfield, A. H.

Glover, Thomas

Brigg, John

Crossley, William J.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bright, J. A.

Dalziel, James Henry

Gooch, George Pea body

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Davies,David(Montgomery Co.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Brodie, H. C.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

Grove, Archibald

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Gulland, John W.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Dickson. Poynder, Sir John P.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Hall, Frederick

Halpin, J.

Marnham, F. J.

Seely, Major J. B.

Hammond, John

Massie, J.

Shackleton, David James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Masterman, C. F. G.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (HawickB.)

Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Meagher, Michael

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Sheehy, David

Hart-Davies, T.

Menzies, Walter

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Harwood, George

Micklem, Nathaniel

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Simon, John Allsebrook

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mond, A.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Montagu, E. S.

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

Hazleton, Richard

Montgomery, H. H.

Snowden, P.

Hedges, A. Paget

Mooney, J. J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Soares, Ernest J.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Spicer, Albert

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morrell, Philip

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Higham, John Sharp

Morse, L. L.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Strachey. Sir Edward

Hogan, Michael

Murphy, John

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Murray, James

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hope,W. Bateman(Somerset,N

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Sullivan, Donal

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nolan, Joseph

Summerbell, T.

Hudson, Walter

Norman, Henry

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Illingworth, Percy N.

O'Brien.Kendal (TipperaryMid

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Connor,James (Wicklow.W.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Jenkins, J.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Thorne, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Grady, J.

Tomkinson. James

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Kelly.James (Roscommon,N

Torrance, A. M.

Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

O'Malley, William

Toulmin, George

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ure, Alexander

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

O'Shee, James John

Verney, F. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Joyce, Michael

Paul, Herbert

Wallace, Robert

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Walsh, Stephen

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk,Eye

Walters, John Tudor

Kilbride, Denis

Perks, Robert William

Ward,W. Dudley (Southampton

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Philips,J.Wynford (Pembroke

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Laidlaw, Robert

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wason.John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lambert, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Law, Hugh Alexander

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh Central

Weir, James Galloway

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Price,Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Whitbread, Howard

Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

White, George (Norfolk)

Leese,Sir JosephF. (Accrington)

Rainy, A. Rolland

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lehmann, R. C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Levy, Maurice

Reddy, M.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whitehead, Rowland

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Renton, Major Leslie

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lough, Thomas

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Lundon, W.

Richardson, A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Lupton, Arnold

Rickett, J. Compton

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Ridsdale, E. A.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Robertson, Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee)

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Robertson.Sir G.Scott(Bradfrd

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

M'Callum, John M.

Robinson, S.

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

M'Crae, George

Rose, Charles Day

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Rowlands, J.

Winfrey, R.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Runciman. Walter

Woodhouse.Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

M'Killop, W.

Russell, T. W.

Young, Samuel

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

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Yoxall, James Henry

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

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

M'Micking, Major G.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

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

Maddison, Frederick

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

Mallet, Charles E.

Sears, J. E.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Seaverns, J. H.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Seddon, J.

396

397

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt Hn.Sir AlexF.

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fletcher, J. S.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt,Hon.SirH.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Balcarres, Lord

Haddock, George R.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay. Hon. Claude George

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Heaton, John Henniker

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Helmsley, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bull, Sir William James

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

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

Clarke, Sir Edward (City London

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Liddell, Henry

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Younger, George

Craig, Captain James (Down. E.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Craik, Sir Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Charles Craig and Lord Willoughby de Eresby.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Morpeth, Viscount

Faber, George Denison (York)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3:—
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that in order to understand this clause it was necessary to refer to the Naval Enlistment Act of 1853. He was against the multiplying of manufactured offences. The hundreds of new offences set up by this present clause was only one illustration of how these offences could be multiplied. Under the Naval Enlistment Act of 1853, any person who sought to be enrolled by means of false statements was to be deemed a rogue and a vagabond within the meaning of another Act 5, George IV, cap 83. All the offences were taken out of that Act and were included in 16 and 17 Victoria, and the effect of passing this clause would be to make a man a rogue and a vagaband if he sought to be enrolled in the Naval Reserve by means of a statement not strictly true. What he wished to know was whether this clause extended to such bodies as the Naval Artillery Reserve of South Wales, and other bodies which were not regular but volunteer forces. If so, it was in his opinion a mistake. If the Navy and Army had been carried on successfully with regard to these matters
398
for some hundreds of years, were not the Committee making a mistake in embodying in the statute a fresh set of penalties which were never known before and which were not required. This was a very serious question. In all the great ports of the Kingdom endeavours were being made to supplement the Regular Forces by enlisting voluntary service. If it was intended to penalise a man by making him a rogue and a vagabond because he endeavoured to get enrolled in the service by means of a statement not quite accurate, he thought it was carrying the authority too far and that Parliament should hesitate before it enforced these penalties on the voluntary services.
MR. HALDANEsaid the true use of this clause was this. People entered, with false characters, and by false statements, into the naval as into the military service. That matter was provided for by the special provision contained in Clause 16 of the old Naval Enlistment Act of 1853. But, comparatively recently, the somewhat surprising decision had been given that the penalties for entering the Navy by means of a false character or false statements did not apply to men entering the Naval Reserve. The old theory was to give a soldier or a sailor a long period of service and then pass him out of the

399
service altogether. The present system was to give him a short term of service and then for him to enter the Reserve where he was kept sufficiently trained and was liable to be called out for service of the Crown if necessary. Under these conditions, and by being paid by the Crown, he was just as much in the service as if he were in the barracks or on board ship. It was decided that, as the Naval Reserve was the creature of statute and came into existence after the passing of the old Naval Enlistment Act of 1853, therefore, the man who got into the Naval Reserve by means of false statements could not be punished under that statute. It was owing to a technicality that that conclusion was come to, and this clause was inserted in order to enable a man entering the Reserve under such circumstances to be punished.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to whether the provision applies to such bodies as the old Naval Artillery Reserve.
MR. HALDANE: Not unless they join the Reserve. The Army Reserve Act was an Act by which anybody could be enlisted in the Reserve whether they had been soldiers or not, and in fact many Volunteers were enlisted. It did not matter whether the men entering the Reserve had been Volunteers or old sailors. The question was whether they entered under the Naval Reserve Act.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRANSFER OF TREASURY POWERS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
LORD BALCARRESsaid the House understood that the Orders of the
400
Day were to be taken as they were set down on the Paper. He was not in order in going into that matter now, but there could be no doubt that the procedure now being adopted was in direct contravention of what they had been told by the Prime Minister, and therefore he begged leave to move to report progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Balcarres).
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)said the Prime Minister stated yesterday that the Bills would be taken practically in the order in which they were on the Paper, and he (Mr. Whiteley) emphasised the fact when he moved the adjournment.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that created a very considerable difficulty. A contentious Bill, or at any rate, one of very great substance, was put down to be taken and hon. Members were present in anticipation of a discussion. He was in the memory of the Committee when he said the Prime Minister stated that these Bills would be taken in the order in which they were on the Paper. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would now tell the Committee what departure he proposed to make from the statement of the Prime Minister.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had no right to say there had been any departure from the undertaking of the Prime Minister. He would not allow the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else to say so. The Prime Minister said the Bills would be taken practically in the order on the Paper, and he had emphasised it in the evening by saying they would be taken in practically the same, though not the exact, order. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what Bills it was proposed to take to-day. He would tell him. (The hon. Member then read the Orders).
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he did not accept the rebuke of the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister made a statement which every human being in the House understood to be that the Bills would be taken in the order in which they appeared on the Paper.
LORD R. CECILagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and hoped the Motion would be pressed to a division. He did not understand the distinction that was drawn by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Treasury between taking the Bills in their order and taking them "practically" in their order. What was the purpose of putting these Bills down in an order unless they were to be taken in that order? The Naval Prize Bill was of great importance, and they were prepared to discuss it now.
MB. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he had understood objection was being taken to one of the Scottish Bills being ad-
vanced a stage, and he was not aware that the objection was owing to the passing over of the Naval Prize Bill, which was in the hands of the Solicitor-General, who was ill and had had to go home. They were, therefore, missing the Bill out of the list, as well as the Marine Insurance Bill, which also was in the hands of the Solicitor-General. He regretted that the noble Lord the hon. Member for the Chorley Division did not make it clear that that was what he was objecting to.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the Prime Minister gave a clear and definite pledge that Bills would be taken in the order ors the Paper, and emphasised it by reading out the list of Bills, in which he named the Naval Prize Bill.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 77; Noes, 353. (Division List, No. 75.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood. Rt Hn. Sir AlexF.

Cross, Alexander

Morpeth, Viscount

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dalrymple, Viscount

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

Nield, Herbert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Faber, George Denison (York)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Fell, Arthur

Parkes, Ebenezer

Ashley, W. W.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey- Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Haddock, George R.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Bull, Sir William James

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

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

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareh'm

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cecil Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J.(Birm.

Liddell, Henry

Younger, George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lowe, Sir Francis William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Stanley Wilson and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Meysey-Thompson, E.G.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Ambrose, Robert

Baring Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Armitage, R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barnard, E. B.

Adkins, W. Ryland

Asqulth,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Barry E. (Cork, S.)

Agnew, George William

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Beale, W. P.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Alden, Percy

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Beaumont, Hubert, (Eastborne

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bell, Richard

Elibank, Master of

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Bellairs, Carlyon

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Kilbride, Denis

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

Erskine, David C.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Bennett, E. N.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Bertram, Julius

Evans, Samuel T.

Laidlaw, Robert

Billson, Alfred

Everett, R. Lacey

Lambert, George

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Law, Hugh Alexander

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Fenwick, Charles

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Boland, John

Ferens, T. R.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington

Brace, William

Findlay, Alexander

Lehmann, R. C.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Branch, James

Flynn, James Christopher

Levy, Maurice

Brigg, John

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Bright, J. A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lough, Thomas

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lundon, W.

Brodie, H. C.

Gardner,Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

Gilhooly, James

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bryce,Rt.Hn.James (Aberdeen

Gill, A.H.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Ginnell, L.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Glendinning, R. G.

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Glover, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Crae, George

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Buxton.Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Killop, W.

Cairns, Thomas

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Cameron, Robert

Griffith, Ellis J.

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gulland, John W.

M'Micking. Major G.

Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Maddison, Frederick

Cawley, Frederick

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mallet, Charles E.

Chance, Frederick William

Hall, Frederick

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Halpin, J.

Marnham. F. J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hammond, John

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Massie, J.

Clancy, John Joseph

Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r.)

Meagher, Michael

Clough, W.

Hart-Davies, T.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Clynes, J. R.

Harwood, George

Menzics, Walter

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mond, A.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

Montagu, E. S.

Cooper, G. J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Montgomery, H. H.

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E. Grinst'd

Hazleton, Richard

Mooney, J. J.

Cory, Clifford John

Hedges, A. Paget

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

Morrell, Philip

Crean, Eugene

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morse, L. L.

Crombie, John William

Higham, John Sharp

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Crosfield, A. H.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Murphy, John

Crossley, Wlliam J.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Murray, James

Dalziel, James Henry

Hodge, John

Napier, T. B.

Davies,David(Montgomery Co.

Hogan, Michael

Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncastr

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nolan, Joseph

Devlin,Charles Ramsay(Galw'y

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

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

Hudson, Walter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

Dillon, John

Illingworth, Percy H,

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Duckworth, James

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Duffy, William J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea

O'Malley, William

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Shaughnessy, P. S.

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Shee, James John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Joyce, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

404

405

Paul, Herbert

Schwann, Chas.E.(Manchester)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Sears, J. E.

Wallace, Robert

Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk,Eye)

Seaverns, J. H.

Walsh, Stephen

Perks, Robert William

Seddon, J.

Walters, John Tudor

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Seely, Major, J. B.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shackleton, David James

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Wardle, George J.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sheehy, David

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wedgwood, Josiah C

Price, Robert John(Norfolk.E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Weir, James Galloway

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

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whitbread, Howard

Radford, G. H.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

White, George (Norfolk)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Rea, Walter Russell, (Scarboro

Snowden, P.

White, Patrick (Meath North)

Reddy, M.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whitehead, Rowland

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Soares, Ernest J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Spicer, Albert

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Rees, J. D.

Stanger, H. Y.

Wilkie, Alexander

Renton, Major Leslie

Stanley, Hn. O. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

Steadman, W. C.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Richardson, A.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

Rickett, J. Compton

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn

Ridsdale, E A.

Strauss, E. E. (Abingdon)

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Sullivan, Donal

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

Summerbell, T.

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

Robertson, Rt. Hon. E. (Dundee

Sutherland, J. E.

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

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Winfrey, R.

Robinson, S.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

Woodhouse, SirJ.T.(Huddersfd

Rowlands, J.

Thomasson, Franklin

Young, Samuel

Runciman, Walter

Thorne, William

Yoxall, James Henry

Russell, T. W.

Tomkinson, James

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Torrance, A. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Toulmin, George

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Verney, F. W.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.) moved to omit the words "except the London County Council." He said that he had put this Amendment down from a spirit of inquiry, because he felt that the Committee were entitled to some further information. This Bill was another example of legislation by reference, and he never saw a measure with so much reference and so little Act.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'except the London County Council.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,explained that whilst the Treasury desired to hand over to the Local Government Board all its powers with regard to other authorities, it made an exception in the case of the London County Council, because that body was a lending autho-
406
rity itself and advanced loans to other authorities in London. Therefore it was necessary that the Treasury should retain its statutory control in the case of the London County Council, although it was desirable that in the case of the other authorities they should come under the Local Government Board.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory if it happened to be an explanation of the clause. As a matter of fact, it was obvious that the county council had no powers in regard to baths and wash-houses, and inasmuch as the county council had no such powers, it was not necessary to transfer to the Local Government Board any powers in reference to the London County Council.
MR. CAVEpointed out that there were Acts of Parliament under which other county councils had power to borrow

407
money and lend to minor authorities. If the London County Council was excepted the other county councils should be treated in the same way. He could not see why a special privilege should be given to the London County Council. He hoped some further explanation would be given.
MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool had omitted to remind the Committee that the powers exercised by the London County Council were under the control of the Local Government Board and did not enter into this Bill at all.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked whether it would not be better for the Minister in charge of the Bill to give some particulars of what the powers were. Was the Committee to be called upon to pass a section of such a sweeping character without any explanation? One of the powers was as to approving or not approving of the sale of real estate.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the London County Council was excepted.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Exactly. He took it that except in the case of the London County Council the power was to be transferred to the Local Government Board. He asked why, in the name of all that was reasonable, powers were to be vested in the Local Government Board in regard to all the other authorities in the kingdom, while in the case of the London County Council similar powers were to be exercised by the Treasury.
COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's,said he was sorry he could not agree with his hon. friends. Speaking as a former member of the London County Council, he thought there was nothing unreasonable in this clause. He, therefore, would not be able to support the Amendment.
MR. NIELDsaid he had listened with astonishment to the remarks of the previous speaker. He could not understand why, whenever legislation was proposed in this House
408
the London County Council was made a special exception. He spoke as a novice, but not as a novice in county government. He had as much experience in county government as most right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought he might make that claim, as he had been appointed an alderman in his county. That was an indication that, at any rate, he had done something to deserve the position. He objected to the London County Council being excepted, on the ground that it was perfectly obvious that the Treasury in the past had not exercised that amount of control over London County Council finance which it ought to have done. Therefore the sooner this power passed into the hands of the President of the Local Government Board the better. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the practical Members of the Government, and there was abundant reason why the Local Government Board should have complete control over purchases and sales of property by the London County Council. He spoke for Middlesex, a populous county which, ought to have the same rights. What was good for the London County Council was good for the Middlesex County Council. Could any hon. Member say that the finances of the London County Council were in such a condition that the control of the Treasury should be any longer continued? If it was to the advantage of the bodies governed by Sub-section 1 to have the control transferred to the Local Government Board a fortiori it should be in the case of the London County Council, whose financial programme had been so lamentably disastrous from the point of view of the London ratepayer. When they considered the many speculations, and the enormous sum of money flung away annually in the promotion of hopeless. Bills in Parliament and in opposing every conceivable kind of other Bills, he submitted that if any body ought to be under practical management it was the London County Council, which was the spendthrift of all local authorities.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that, seeing a number of Members of the London County Council among the hon. Members opposite, he was surprised

409
that no one had risen to explain the reason which had led the Government to adopt the position they had done. He hoped some light would be thrown on the subject.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he saw no reason why the London County Council should be treated differently from the other county councils in the country. No proper explanation of the powers to be conferred by the Bill on the London County Council had been given. The London ratepayers were daily being bled, and it was due to them that the strongest possible opposition should be offered to increased powers being given to the county council. He did not like to mention the words "steamboats," "Kingsway" and "Aldwych." Kingsway was beautiful, but it was one of the most useless streets London possessed.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the remarks of the hon. Member have any connection with the Amendment. I must ask him to speak to the Amendment.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid his remarks could be connected with the Amendment in this way. The Committee had not much information before them as to the powers sought, to be given to the London County Council.
MR. MCKENNA: No new powers are given to the London County Council. They are to remain exactly as they stand now.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid his contention was that for the purpose of endeavouring to curb the expenditure and horrible extravagance of the London County Council they should do all they could to carry this Amendment.
MR. DICKINSON (St. Pancras, N.)said the London County Council performed some very useful services; but the newest of its services was that it enabled hon. Members on the other side to prolong the debates of the Imperial Parliament. It was rather a curious thing that the one member of the London County Council on the other side who
410
knew anything about the subject at all had announced his intention of separating himself from his Party on this question. The London County Council with regard to its finances stood in a different position from that of any other county council, and for the very simple reason that all its dealings with capital came under the review of Parliament every year. Every year a Money Bill had to come before Parliament on which the whole of the council's actions with regard to finance were reviewed, and the Treasury very properly retained to itself the right to advise Parliament on the subject. If the Government had been ill-advised enough to include the London County Council in the Bill they would have had a very long debate indeed. He hoped with this explanation they might pass on to some I matters of more Imperial concern.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he should not have intervened in the debate but for the speech of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras, which was absolutely uncalled for. He had made an attack on hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House who declined to fall down and worship the London County Council. He spoke, not as a member of that body, nor as an alderman of Middlesex, but as a business man and a lawyer. He wanted to know why the London County Council should be treated exceptionally as compared with other local authorities. He had grave doubts whether it was necessary at all to I transfer these powers to the Local Government Board, but he should have thought if it was required anywhere, it I was in the case of the London County Council. No one could doubt that, compared with any other local authority, the London County Council acted in a most extravagant way. Everyone knew perfectly well that in regard to their steamboat service there was a want of requisite supervision. He had heard no real reason given for treating the London County Council differently from other county councils. The only reason alleged was that the London County Council lent as well as borrowed money; but, not being a Member of a county council, he protested against this privilege being given to the London County

411
Council, which was in no way superior to any other county or district council.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,said that the hon. Gentleman had fairly asked for, and was as fairly entitled to, some explanation as to why the Treasury differentiated between the London County Council and the other county councils. He would supply that information with pleasure. The size of London, its population, the large amount of money it had to borrow and to spend, differentiated it from the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the ordinary county councils. The London County Council had powers conferred upon it, derived from its predecessors, not only of spending money but of lending money to local authorities, such as the old vestries, the borough councils, the old school board, the Thames Conservancy, etc., under the sanction of the Treasury. Therefore, the London County Council was entitled to differential treatment, That power was clearly recognised by Mr. Ritchie in the 1888 Act; and the late Government brought in what was practically a replica of this very Bill, and if they had remained in office he believed that his hon. friend the late Secretary of the Treasury would have been doing exactly what his hon. friend the present I Secretary of the Treasury was doing. It was only right that his hon. friend should explain what power Parliament had over the London County Council by virtue of its being a spending and a lending body. Every sum of money which it lent had to be embodied in a Bill which had to come within the purview of Parliament, and that Bill generally passed sub silentio. At any rate, he had never heard any discussion j upon it. The Treasury hail very frequently to put loans on the money market for £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 for Imperial purposes; and supposing such an Imperial loan to synchronise with a London County Council loan for a big drainage or tramway or waterworks scheme, the Treasury would not get its money as cheaply as it might do. These arrangements as to raising loans, more over, were in the interest of sound finance, wise control, and honest administration by both the Treasury and the London
412
County Council. He trusted that with good temper and the information he had been able to give to the Committee hon. Members would allow this Bill to pass.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHwished to take the opportunity of making an explanation. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said that he was responsible for the Bill of last year. In introducing that Bill he was only following in the footsteps of his predecessors since the year 1888. But last year the House was certainly informed that if the late Government attempted to press that Bill they would be met with the opposition of hon. Gentleman who were now supporting this Bill. At the same time he hoped that his hon. friend would not press his Motion.
MR. MITCHELL - THOMSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, but in doing so he wished to take exception to the remarks of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)said that he was very pleased to hear that there was some compromise between the Treasury and the London County Council. There were many men who had a deep-rooted suspicion in regard to the expenditure of the London County Council; and he still maintained that the London County Council should not have exceptional powers conferred upon them which were not granted to Liverpool, Manchester,Leeds and other great provincial cities.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman keeps on talking about the powers of the London County Council, but his Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the London County Council.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he wished to put these towns on the same footing as London under the London County Council. That was why he moved that towns containing over 200,000 inhabitants should enjoy the same privileges through their council as were enjoyed by the London County Council.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, after the word 'Council,' to insert the words 'or any Corporation of a town containing over two hundred thousand inhabitants.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said he rose to a point of order. The hon. Gentleman proposed to remove certain powers from the Local Government Board, and he wished to know if the controlling authority was taken away from that body upon which body it would rest.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsubmitted that that was not a point of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.
MR. MCKENNAsaid that the hon. Member had not understood the purport of the Bill. There were certain powers at present exercised by local authorities, and the sanctioning of those powers rested in nearly every case with the Local Government Board. There were certain exceptions to that rule, however, and in some few instances the sanction was given by the Treasury. The purpose of the Bill was to transfer from the Treasury to the Local Government Board the power of sanction in those exceptional cases, and the questions raised by the hon. Member as to the extravagance of local authorities and as to the misdeeds of the London County Council had nothing to do with the subject dealt with by the Bill. This Bill merely referred to the sanctioning of borrowing powers, and therefore all the questions raised by the hon. Member did not arise on this clause. He hoped that after that explanation hon. Members would allow them to have this very simple and very small Bill passed.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he wished to deal with this question from the point of view of such a place as Liverpool, where he had occupied the highest position that it was possible for a citizen to fill, namely that of Lord Mayor. This
414
clause purported to hand over powers in respect of borrowing from the Treasury to the Local Government Board. [Cries of "No."] If the clause did not mean that it did not mean anything. He took it that if this clause was passed and if this Amendment was not adopted, in all these cases in which the City of Liverpool had now to go to the Treasury for their consent for whatever they wanted to do, they would have to go in future to the Local Government Board. The sanction in question was sometimes needed to enable the corporation to dispose of some property. It might be only two or three square yards in order to effect a public improvement. Sometimes, of course, however, it referred to the disposal of several acres. In each of these cases they now had to ask for the permission of the Treasury, and no property could be disposed of in fee simple without the consent of that body. He had challenged the Secretary of the Treasury to give an example of the way those powers were exercised, but he had not done so. His point was that as a matter of democratic fairness one authority should be treated in exactly the same way as another. They had 650,000 people in Liverpool, and with the exception of the County Council of London they had the chief municipality in England. Why, therefore, should they have their powers and jurisdiction summarily handed over under this clause from the Treasury to the Local Government Board; and why should the London County Council be expressly excluded from the provision? He submitted as a matter of fairness that the same exception should be made in regard to all other large municipalities. The Secretary of the Treasury had said that the London County Council was a lending authority. All the great authorities of the country were lending authorities, and in Liverpool they lent over £100,000 a year. He approached this question from a different standpoint from some of his hon. friends, and did not wish to throw any reproaches on the London County Council.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not now talk about the London County Council. The question is not

415
one referring to the London County Council, but is whether the words "or any corporation of a town containing over 200,000 inhabitants" shall be inserted.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid his only reason for mentioning the London County Council was that another city with which he had been connected for years was treated in an exceptional way, whereas his contention was that it ought to be treated in the same way and receive the same privileges, and they should not in a Bill of this sort single out one authority for absolutely exceptional treatment. If the provisions applied to the Metropolis were good, surely they were equally good for large and important and well-governed cities in other parts of the country. For these reasons he desired to support the Amendment.
MR. MCKENNAsaid he wished to point out that the City of Liverpool was for these purposes under the Local Government Board.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that was exactly what he objected to.
MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. member might object to it, but this Amendment would not alter it. This Amendment proposed to except from the transfer of powers from the Treasury to the Local Government Board corporations of towns containing over 200,000 inhabitants. The truth, was that those towns were already under the Local Government Board. Under the Local Government Act of 1888 there were certain exceptions, provisions in regard to which were left out by inadvertence, so that that Act did not apply to certain old local Acts, and it was in relation to those old local Acts and the provisions in regard to baths and wash-houses and in regard to the Burial Acts that this Bill proposed to transfer the powers of the Treasury to the Local Government Board. The whole argument of hon. Members, although no doubt very valuable in itself, was based upon a misapprehension of the facts.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 67; Noes, 347. (Division List, No. 76.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.SirAlex F

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

O'Neill, If on. Robert Torrens

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Faber, George Dension (York)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

Forster, Henry William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George R.

Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cave, George

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Cecil, Evelyn, (Aston Manor)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Valentin, Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kennaway, Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham

Liddell, Henry

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Craig, CaptainJames (Down,E.

Mason, James F. (Windsor

Cross, Alexander

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Bull and Mr. Charles Craig.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Doughty, Sir George

O' Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Armitage, R.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Asquith, Rt.Hon.Herbt. Henry

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Adkins, W. Ryland

Astbury, John Meir

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Alden, Percy

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barnard, E. B.

Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Barnes, G. N.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Beauchamp, E.

Erskine, David C.

Laidlaw, Robert

Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Evans, Samuel T.

Lambert, George

Bell, Richard

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lamont, Norman

Bellairs, Carlyon

Everett, R. Lacey

Law, Hugh Alexander

Benn, JohnWilliams(Dovonp'rt

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

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

Fenwick, Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bennett, E. N.

Ferens, T. R.

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Berridge, T. H. D.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lehmann, R. C.

Billson, Alfred

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Findlay, Alexander

Levy, Maurice

Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Boland, John

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Fullerton, Hugh

Lough, Thomas

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Gibb, James, (Harrow)

Lundon, W.

Brace, William

Gilhooly, James

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Brarasdon, T. A.

Gill, A. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Branch, James

Ginnell, L.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brigg, John

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Glendinning, R. G.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down.S.

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

Glover, Thomas

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Bryce, J. A. (InvernessBurghs)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Crae, George

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Buras, Rt. Hon. John

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Kenna, Reginald

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Griffith, Ellis, J.

M'Killop, W.

Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

Gulland, John W.

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

Byes, William Pollard

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Micking, Major G.

Cairns, Thomas

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Maddison, Frederick

Carr-Gomm, H- W.

Hall, Frederick

Mallet, Charles E.

Cawley, Frederick

Halpin, J.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Chance, Frederick William

Hammond, John

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Channing, Francis Allston

Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Marnham, F. J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r.)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hart-Davies, T.

Massie, J.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Harwood, George

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cleland, J. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Meagher, Michael

Clough, W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Median, Patrick A.

Clynes, J. R.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Menzies, Walter

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hayden, John Patrick

Micklem, Nathaniel

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Hazelton, Richard

Mond, A.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Helme, Norval Watson

Montagu, E. S.

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montgomery, H. H.

Corbett, CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.

Mooney, J. J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon.,S.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Higham, John Sharp

Worrell, Philip

Cowan, W. H.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morse, L. L.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Crean, Eugene

Hodge, John

Murphy, John

Cremer, William Randal

Hogan, Michael

Murray, James

Crombie, John William

Hooper, A. G.

Napier, T. B.

Crosfield, A. H.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Crossley, William J.

Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N

Nicholson, Chai'lesN.(Doncast'r

Dalziel, James Henry

Horniman, Emslie John

Nolan, Joseph

Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

Hudson, Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nuttall, Harry

Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Jackson, R. S.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Dillon, John

Jenkins, J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Duckworth, James

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

O'Grady J.

Duffy, William J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) j

Jowett, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Kearley, Hudson, E.

O'Shee, James John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Parker, James (Halifax)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kilbride, Denis

Paul, Herbert

Elibank, Master of

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

418

419

Perks, Robert William

Seddon, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Seely, Major J. B.

Walters, John Tudor

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shackleton, David James

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Ward, W.Dudley(South'mpton

Pollard, Dr.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wardle, George J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sheehy, David

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan}

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

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

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Waterlow, D. S.

Radford, G. H.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Weir, James Galloway

Raphael, Herbert H.

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

Whitbread, Howard

Reddy, M.

Snowden, P.

White, George (Norfolk)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Soares Ernest J.,

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Spicer, Albert

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Rees, J. D.

Stanger, H. Y.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampt'n

Stanley, Hn. A. LyuIph(Chesh.

Whitehead, Rowland

Richardson, A.

Steadman, W. C.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Rickett, J. Compton

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ridsdale, E. A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wiles, Thomas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wilkie, Alexander

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Stuart, James (Sunderland

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Robertson, Rt.Hn. E.(Dundee)

Sullivan, Donal

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Summerbell, T.

Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Sutherland, J. E.

Williamson, A.(Elgin andNairn.

Robinson, S.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Rose, Charles Day

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Rowlands, J.

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Runciman, Walter

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

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

Russell, T. W.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk,Mid

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Tomkinson, James

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Torrance, A. M.

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersfd

Scarisbriek, T. T. L.

Toulmin, George

Young, Samuel

Schwann, Chas.E.(Manchester)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Scott, A.H.(Ashtonunder Lyne

Ure, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Sears, J. E.

Verney, F. W.

Seaverns, J, H.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R.,said he desired to omit the words referring to the Baths and Wash-houses' Acts, partly in order to obtain information, and partly because it seemed to him that this was an instance of very-careless drafting. He had gone to the trouble of investigating the Acts, and he found in Clause 9 of the Act of 1878, which was the Act governing the others, that the approval of the Local Government Board should be substituted for that of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury in all cases where money was borrowed for the purposes of the Act. It seemed to him, therefore, that these words were hardly necessary.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words 'the Baths and Washhouses Acts. 1846 to 1899.'"—(Mr. Lane-Fox.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. MCKENNAsaid the proposal here did not deal with powers regarding; loans, but with other powers. The local authorities disliked very much having to go to different offices for practically the same purpose, and it was in the interests of the local authorities themselves that this provision was proposed.
MR. LANE-FOXasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
MR. LANE-FOX MR. LANE-FOX moved to omit Sub-Section 2, which ran—
"Such power exorcised before the passing of this Act by the Treasury or the Local Government Board shall be deemed to have been duly-exercised."
That implied that certain powers had been exercised without authority, and the Committee required some explanation of this. Very considerable issues might rest upon the Sub-section, because if such powers had been illegally exercise,

421
and they were found out later on, the local authorities might wish to take advantage of the illegality.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, Hue 14, to leave out Sub-section (2).'—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause."
MR. MCKENNAsaid he agreed that this clause also required some explanation. It was not known that any case had arisen, but the sub-section had been introduced for the security of local authorities. Powers having been exercised sometimes by the Treasury and sometimes by the Local Government Board, it was conceivable that there might be cases in which the local authority had not received proper sanction. It was not known that such cases existed, but as an act of indemnity to the local authorities this clause had been inserted.
LORD BALCARRESsaid it was very remarkable that the hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to tell the Committee that there were any cases of illegality which had made the insertion of this sub-section necessary. It was apparently a roving commission. It made him very suspicious; of course, he did not mean it in any offensive way, hut he could not see why the sub-section should be put in. He thought it would be a dangerous precedent to insert in an Act of Parliament an indemnity for certain offences which in the opinion of the responsible Minister had never actually taken place.
MR. CAVEsaid that if there had been no error committed clearly the sub-section was not wanted. If there had been any illegality then this sub-section might interfere with the lights of private persons who were not present to be heard. If there were a
real case of hardship brought before the House it might be met by a bill of indemnity. But to legislate in the dark was entirely new; if not new, it was time it should be stopped.
MR. MCKENNAdid not think that by the course they were pursuing hon. Members opposite were acting in the interests of local authorities, who might have done acts under the sanction of the Local Government Board when they should have had the sanction of the Treasury, and under the sanction of the Treasury when they should have had the sanction of the Local Government Board. This Bill was a measure dealing with the transfer of these powers from one authority to another. In order to relieve local authorities from anxiety in these matters he hoped the Committee would pass this sub-section.
LORD HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R.,said lie could not see the force of the hon. Member's argument. Surely there was another point to be considered, namely, whether it was likely that such cases would occur when they had such watchful offices as the Treasury and the Local Government Board. It was rather a reflection upon the work both of the Local Government Board and of the Treasury to contemplate that, under the very able officials of those Departments, sanction had been given to proposals of local authorities when, as a matter of fact, under Act of Parliament they had no right to give that sanction.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid that after the unsatisfactory explanation which had been given he could not withdraw his Amendment. This was a wrong form of legislation, and they were simply legislating; in the dark.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 298; Noes, 37. (Division List, No. 77.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Adkins, W. Ryland

Armitage, R.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Allen, A, Acland(Christchurch)

Astbury, John Meir

Acland, Francis Dyke

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Evans, Samuel, T.

Lundon, W.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lyell, Charles Henry

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Barnard, E. B.

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.

Barnes, G. N.

Findlay, Alexander

M'Callum, John M.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Crae, George

Beauchamp, E.

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Bell, Richard

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Killop, W."

Bellairs, Carlyon

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Micking, Major G.

Benn, John Williams(Devonp'r

Gill, A. H.

Maddison, Frederick

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

Ginnell, L.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bennett, E. N.

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Glover, Thomas

Mainham, F. J.

Billson, Alfred

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Massie, J.

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Boland, John

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Meagher, Michael

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

Gulland, John W.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Menzies, Walter

Brace, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bramsden, T. A.

Hall, Frederick

Molteno, Percy Alport

Branch, James

Halpin, J.

Mond, A.

Brigg, John

Hammond, John

Montagu, E. S.

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Montgomery, H. H.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hart-Davies, T.

Morrell, Philip

Burnycat, J. D. W.

Harwood, George

Morse, L. L.

Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Byles, William Pollard

Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Murphy, John

Cairns, Thomas

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murray, James

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Napier, T. B.

Chance, Frederick William

Hazleton, Richard

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Channing, Francis Allston

Helme, Norval Watson

Nolan, Joseph

Cheetham, John Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

Nuttall, Harry

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Clancy, John Joseph

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)

Cleland, J. W.

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Clough, W.

Hogan, Michael

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Clynes, J. R.

Hooper, A. G.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

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

Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N

O'Malley, William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Mara, James

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

Hudson, Walter

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Shee, James John

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cowan, W. H.

Jackson, R. S.

Paul, Herbert

Crean, Eugene

Jenkins, J.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cremer, William Randal

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Crombie, John William

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Crossley, William J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pirie, Duncan V.

Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.

Jowett, F. W.

Pollard, Dr.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Joyce, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

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

Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

Kennedy, Vincent Paul.

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

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Kilbride, Denis

Radford, G. H.

Dolan, CharlesJoseph

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rainy, A. Rolland

Donelan, Captain A.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Duckworth, James

Laidlaw, Robert

Reddy, M.

Duffy, William J.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lambert, George

Rees, J. D.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lamont, Norman

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Rickett, J. Compton

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Ridsdale, E. A.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lehmann, R. C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Elibank, Master of

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Levy, Maurice

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Erskine, David C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lough, Thomas

Robinson, S.

424

425

Roe, Sir Thomas

Steadman, W. C.

Weir, James Galloway

Rose, Charles Day

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Rowlands, J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Runciman, Walter

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Russell, T. W.

Sullivan, Donal

Whitehead, Rowland

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Summerbell, T.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Sutherland, J. E.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wiles, Thomas

Scott,A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilkie, Alexander

Sears, J. E.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Seddon, J.

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

Williams, W. L. (Carmar hen)

Shackleton, David James

Tomkinson, James

Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn)

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

Torrance, A. M.

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

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Toulmin, George

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

Sheehy, David

Ure, Alexander

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Verney, F. W.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Vivian, Henry

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

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wilson, W. T. (Weathoughton)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walsh, Stephen

Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk,Mid.

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

Walters, John Tudor

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Snowden, P.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Young, Samuel

Soares, Ernest J.

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton

Spicer, Albert

Wardle, George J.

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

Stanger, H. Y.

Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

Stanley, Hon.A. Lyulph(Chesh.

Waterlow, D. S.

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt,Hn.SirAlex.F

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rawlinson, John Frederick P_

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Doughty, Sir George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool).

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyle, Sir Edward

Haddock, George R.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Meysey-Thompson, E.C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Cave and Mr. Lane-Fox..

Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Craig, CaptainJames(Down,E.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cross, Alexander

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD moved an Amendment to leave out Subsection 3. He pointed out that the Committee, by adopting Sub-section 2, had determined that all acts done before the passing of this Bill by the Treasury or by the Local Government Board should not be capable of being questioned as to irregularity. It was right, therefore, that the Committee should consider the circumstances under which this clause would be applicable. If any question arose as to its applicability it would arise in a Court of justice, and he could imagine a case in which the Court of Appeal might be asked to determine whether this particular Act applied to the conditions referred to in some other Act or Acts. He had in the
426
course of the last few minutes made a. computation, and he found that the enactments referred to by this subsection amounted to several hundreds. All kinds of questions were bound to arise from time to time in regard to matters that would hardly appear at first sight to have a direct connection with the subject matter of such a sub-section as this. It was proposed under this perfectly new clause to substitute for the Courts of Law the Treasury as the judicial authority which was to give an absolute decision without any appeal, and without any provision for the case being argued on either side. It struck him that this proposal was absurd, mischievous, and novel from almost any point of view.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present.
House counted and forty Members being found present,
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that of all the clauses he had seen in the different. Acts they had to deal with this was about the most astonishing. He thought the only sensible thing the Committee could do was to leave out Sub-section 3.
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.

MERSEY RAILWAY BILL [LORDS]. (BY ORDER.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. VIVIAN, in moving the rejection of the Bill, explained that the special objection of the Birkenhead Corporation was to Clause 5, which empowered the company to run motor-omnibuses within the borough of Birkenhead. There were two aspects of this question—the special and local aspect, and the general aspect of the application of this principle to similar companies throughout the country. With regard to the purely local aspect, this company had not been in a good way since it was established, and the Birkenhead Corporation had had considerable difficulty in getting some of the liabilities of the company met. In the Bill empowering the company to act, Parliament allotted the corporation £50,000 compensation for the injury done to the ferry service of that body, and of that sum £20,000 only was paid, and they had to take the remainder in five per cent, debentures which, however, made no return. They agreed to the reduction to three per
428
cent., but not even that was forthcoming, and it practically meant that Birkenhead had lost the best part of £30,000 on that transaction. Since that time, in order to grapple with the necessities of the increasing population, Birkenhead had spent £300,000 on their trams, and there was not a point in Birkenhead that was more than a quarter of a mile from a tram route. Therefore public convenience in no way demanded the facility which the railway company now sought. Further, Birkenhead streets were already sufficiently congested. There was no petition from Birkenhead in favour of this clause and there was no demand for it. There was not even any evidence to show that these motor omnibuses were desired by people in Birkenhead. Under such circumstances he thought due consideration should be given to the attitude of the corporation whose views he was presenting. With regard to the general argument on this matter, it was not desirable for the House without very careful consideration to confer powers indiscriminately on existing monopolies to run their motor omnibuses all over the public roads. On general grounds competition was not objected to, but the indiscriminate conferring of these powers would ultimately lead not to healthy competition, but merely to an extension of the existing monopoly of a great railway company which, like other railway companies, had means of utilising its power really to the detriment of healthy competition. He was supported in his argument by the fact that the most important corporations in the country took the same view, and therefore he asked the House to adopt the Resolution standing in his name.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he had been asked by the Tramways Committee of the Corporation of Sheffield to second the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. The Corporation of Sheffield feared if these powers were granted to monopolies of this character it might form a precedent for future Bills. They had in Sheffield a very complete system of tramways, thirty-five or thirty-six miles in length, upon

429
which the corporation had spent very nearly a million and a quarter of money. It would be an injustice to them if an outside body like a railway company were allowed to come in and run motor omnibuses in competition with them, and to run those omnibuses not only to and from the stations, but to catch the general traffic, picking up and setting down in the streets. He did not know that there would be so much objection to their running to and from their own stations simply, but that was not the point. Here the railway company wanted to run in competition with the local authority. In support of his argument he would quote the following Resolution passed by the Municipal Tramways Conference some time ago—
"That in the opinion of this Conference it is desirable that the omnibus clauses in the Railway Bills now before Parliament should be deleted from those Bills so far as regards running omnibuses by the railway companies in any city, borough or district in which the local authority runs or works tramways, and that all practicable steps be taken with a view to bringing about this result."
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Vivian.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,said he did not propose to deal with the merits or demerits of the Bill. He understood that the principle which was sought to be established by this debate was that where tramways were municipally owned they should be exempt from competition by railway-owned omnibuses. If the House rejected this Bill now, however, they would be withholding consideration of the matter from the properly constituted authority that the House had set up, viz., the Select Committee. Before that Committee all interests could be considered, and he thought that it would be contrary to the best interests of Parliament if they came to a final decision on the Bill now. He might point out that
430
this Bill had been before a Committee in another place and that they had not objected to it. Surely it was not for the House of Commons to say on a matter of this kind that they would decide the Bill upon the Second Reading and hold that it should not go upstairs. His advice was that the Bill should be read a second time and sent to a Committee. He had no bias in the matter and held no brief either for the Bill or against it, and it was his duty as a representative of the Board of Trade to put before the House that very simple proposal.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he could not support his hon. friend who moved the total rejection of the Bill, and he should advise him to withdraw that Motion and to proceed with his instruction to the Committee to delete the objectionable clause. In his opinion, Parliament having imposed certain conditions upon tramway promoters in connection with the powers conferred upon them, and the tramway companies having spent large sums of money in providing accommodation for the district, railway companies should not be given unrestricted power of competition and afforded facilities for running motor-buses without specifying where the working was to begin or end. Moreover, the money which the railway company would have to spend upon this project was raised for other purposes. He thought that it was not a businesslike proceeding on the part of the House to sanction such competition. While he did not object to legitimate competition, he did say that such action would not be fair on the part of the House. For these reasons he thought the House ought not to allow this kind of clause to be put in Railway Bills, although he admitted that in country districts, where no accommodation had been authorised by Parliament, it might be right that such powers should be given to railway companies. But he thought that care should be taken that in Railway Bills this power was confined to districts in which Parliament had not already authorised tramways
MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that perhaps the House

431
would allow him to say a word or two on this Bill, because he was thoroughly familiar with all the local circumstances. This was not the case of a rich railway company, but it was the case of a struggling company, who wished to improve the connection between the two sides of the River Mersey. The company had never paid a dividend, and their line was simply a tunnel between the two sides of the River Mersey. Both the ferry and the tunnel were doing good work between Liverpool and Birken-head. The subject of these motor omnibuses which were now in question was one upon which there had been a good deal of difference of opinion. The railway company wished to improve the through traffic, and began to run omnibuses in connection with their trains; but the Birkenhead Corporation stepped in, and there was litigation. The corporation sought to restrain the railway company from running these omnibuses which they regarded as competing with their steamers and trams. It was not quite true to say that the Birkenhead Corporation were altogether unanimous against the Mersey Railway Company. Many people in Birkenhead thought that it would be a great advantage if the tunnel connection was improved, and extended by the use of motor omnibuses. There were, however, some people in Birkenhead, and although he was not a property owner in the borough he sympathised with their view, who thought that the running of motor omnibuses in certain out-lying portions of Birkenhead would have the effect of depreciating the value of property. What he wanted to say, however, was that opinion in Birkenhead was so divided that he thought the Bill ought certainly not to be rejected upon imperfect information. While he objected to the total rejection of the Bill, he objected also to the proposed instruction to the Committee with reference to this particular omnibus clause. He thought the whole matter ought to be considered in the usual way by a Committee upstairs, and that the House would make a great mistake if they accepted either the Motion for the rejection or the proposed instruction.
MR. VIVIANinquired whether, in the event of his withdrawing his Motion
432
for the rejection of the Bill, he could move his instruction.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that course will be open to the hon. Member.
MR. VIVIANsaid in that case he would wish to withdraw his Motion for the rejection of the Bill and move his instruction.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn? [Cries of "No."]
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)doubted very much whether the House ought to permit the withdrawal of the Amendment, which it was obvious would not succeed, in order to allow the hon. Member to take another course. The Amendment was deliberately intended to stop the Bill, and a beat up had been made to obtain Members to support it, but now when it was obvious that it could not succeed the hon. Member wished to withdraw it and move an instruction. It was clear, however, as the Secretary to the Board of Trade had said, that a discussion in the House, upon a question, of this kind must be a very perfunctory one. Moreover, hon. Members who had been dining and had not heard the debate would, without a sufficient knowledge of the question, be called upon to decide it. The practice was to send Bills of this kind to Committees upstairs, and he thought such proceedings as had been taken in regard to this Bill should not be encouraged. He protested against the attempt which had been, made to prevent this Bill going to a Committee.
Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed.
MR. VIVIANsaid lie now desired to move the instruction that stood in his name. All the arguments that had been used in the previous discussion were practically the same as he would use in

433
moving this Resolution, and under those circumstances he would not detain the House but formally move the instruction.
MR. SUMMERBELLformally seconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 5 of the Bill." —(Mr. Vivian.)
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid the contentions which had been suggested in regard to this particular clause were not such as ought, in his opinion, to weigh with the House. It was said that this monopoly interfered with that which the corporation possessed. That was to say that one species of monopoly was to be urged as against the setting up of another species of monopoly. The hon. Member had attacked the monopoly of the railway on the ground that the monopoly of the corporation should be maintained. He (Mr. Cross) did not address himself to the consideration of this Bill from the point of view of any monopoly whatever. The question to his mind was how this was going to serve the public in the matter of the transport of passengers. He did not think the case of a monopoly could be made out. If the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that this railway came to Parliament for powers to start a service of motor buses to compete with the cars in the city they were mistaken.
MR. VIVIANsaid that as a matter of fact these buses had been running in the heart of the city.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid that hon. Members opposite seemed to regard Birkenhead as a busy and populous place, but he did not regard it as such a busy place as to make this a serious matter. He regarded Birkenhead as simply a suburb of Liverpool.
MR. SUMMERBELL: Have you ever been there?
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid there were two questions which he wished to ask the House to consider. This was a matter of competition to serve the public. It was a competition between the railway and the tramway. He understood that the ferry to Birkenhead belonged to the Corporation of Liverpool and there they kept up a very good service of tramways. He understood that they did not own the ferry at Seacombe, and because they did not own it they gave no such efficient service of tramways. Then the railway came along and tunnelled below the river and, having got to the other side, asked for those facilities which a corporation ought to give both to railways and to steamers. Every attempt was made to prevent the giving of those, facilities. Then came the invention of motor buses, and they asked leave to put on a service of those buses through the tunnel. This was not allowed. Something was said about the noise they made, but the real reason why the facility was not given was that these buses would enter into competition with the tramways owned by the corporation. But the corporation having entered into a trading competition must, he submitted, take the consequences of the competition. Notwithstanding the fact that tramways trenched upon the monopolies of railways, the House had sanctioned the construction of tramways and would continue to do so. This new system of motor buses had come along, which was far better than the system of tramways. Tramways were costly to construct, and when they were constructed the trams could only go in certain directions, whereas motor buses were cheaper to construct, could move in and out the traffic, and could be taken off one route if it was found not to pay and put upon another. To say that because this system was going to trench upon another monopoly it should not be established was absurd. He asked the House to look at this Bill from the point of view of the interest not of the corporation, but of the public. The history of the Committees of Parliament had always led one to the conclusion that it was the public interest that was regarded. If a man wanted an impartial and careful tribunal that tribunal was to be found in a Committee

435
of the other place. He said that without fear of contradiction. Next to that he put the Committees of this House. Though we might alter the system we should never get more impartial tribunals. This Bill had to fight its battle there, and the battle it would have to fight was not whether it was going to trespass or touch another monopoly, but whether it was going to serve the public. The Bill was to open up a new route and to deposit men at their own doors, and the opposition to it was an attempt to stop the progress and prevent the development of science to which the public were entitled. He hoped, on the ground that this was really a defence of a monopoly, a thing which this House always resented, and upon the ground that this House, was not a tribunal which could decide the merits of the case, the instruction would be rejected, and the Bill allowed to go complete to the Committee upstairs.
MR. HARWOODsaid he was sure that this was a matter for the House and not for a Committee to decide. There were many cases which were matters for instruction, but this was not a matter of that kind, because it was a matter of principle which would apply to many other cases. Therefore it was a matter which this House could and ought to settle. The case as to mutilation put forward by the hon. Gentleman was mere nonsense. Then it was said that the question ought not to be decided by a few Members while other Members were dining, but that was exactly the way the business of the House was done. All its business was done while some were dining and smoking and others were talking. If every one came and talked in the House, no business at all would be done. It was the providential way in which some Members stayed away that enabled business to be transacted. These matters had been before Parliament before. The feeling of the House was expressed in the North Eastern Cables Bill which came back from
436
a Committee without that having been done which the House thought ought to have been done. This Bill had been before another assembly, but the fact that they had let it go through made the House of Commons still more afraid. There were two places where it had gone through, and therefore this House should make a stand. To say that a Committee should settle this great principle was not a proper thing. They were right to raise the question of principle, and this was the place in which to raise it. His hon. friend had made out that it was a case of free competition. If they were going to adopt that principle they should adopt it all round; but did railway companies submit themselves to free competition? This House might say they were in favour of free competition for everybody, and it might be fair and logical, but that was not the policy on which they acted. They were constantly giving monopolies, and they were bound in honour to guard this policy if it fulfilled the conditions unless they took up another policy. If they had it in the tramways let them have it in the railways as well. Parliament had encouraged the municipalities to spend money on this enterprise. Could they now open the floodgates of free competition whilst it guarded the railway companies? If they were going to break down the safeguard of Parliament, and, after encouraging these communities to spend the money of the ratepayers in giving facilities for communication, expose them to the open competition of a rich body of monopolists whose monopoly would be guarded, the House would put itself in a very ridiculous position. The House ought to say quite distinctly that whilst it did not interfere with the ordinary freedom of a Committee, this was a point of principle on which it was not only justified but compelled to give an instruction as to the line that ought to be taken.
MR. WALLACEsaid the speech of his hon. friend who had just sat down illustrated the inconvenience of dealing with a question like this in the House itself. The most contradictory statements had been made on both sides without the slightest opportunity for Members to investigate the truth. It would be a monstrous thing to reject the Bill, four-fifths of which was unopposed, because of this one clause. The hon. Member for Bolton had talked about destroying a monopoly which the House of Commons had created. His hon. friend could not be aware of the facts of the case. There was no proposal to enter into competition with the tramways ["Yes" and "No."] Those interruptions showed the futility of the House trying to decide a question of this sort. Hon. Members were being asked to act judiciously without the slightest knowledge of the facts. They ought not on ex parte statements to reject a Bill which might be of the utmost importance to the public at large. This Bill had been before the House of Lords, and a Committee of the House of Lords had unanimously recommended that the clause in question should be passed. If this House began without evidence to reject clauses which had been passed by the other House there was a process of retaliation which might be employed by the House of Lords in regard to Bills passed by this House. Although he admitted that his statement, like that of others, was an ex parte statement he would give his version of this case. As he understood, this was an attempt by the Corporation of Birkenhead to thwart the wishes not of a railway company merely, but of Liverpool and district. There was no proposal to give
438
to the Mersey Railway any monopoly of any kind. There was nothing to prevent the Corporation of Birkenhead from carrying tramways along the same route as the motor buses. It was an attempt by the Corporation of Birkenhead to refuse facilities to the people of Liverpool to get out into the country by quicker and more convenient means than by the Corporation's own ferry boats. The Corporation of Birkenhead were acting the policy of the dog in the manger by refusing to lay down tram-lines themselves along the routes which would serve the people. His version might not be correct. His argument, however, was that the only way to get at the truth was to send the Bill to an impartial tribunal like a Select Committee. His hon. friend had said that these buses might go roving to Birkenhead in competition with the tramways of the Corporation. Nothing of the kind. They were restricted as to their routes, and if further safeguards were required the Committee upstairs could insert them so as to protect every interest, and to ensure that the 'buses were only used for the purpose for which they were desired to be brought into existence. He strongly urged upon the House to stand by some fixed procedure, and not to get into the habit of allowing partisans on every side to make statements without there being any opportunity to investigate them; but to send such Bills to an impartial Committee. Even if the Committee reported in favour of the clause, the House would be entitled to reject the recommendation and decide for itself.
MR. W. H. LEVER, speaking as the representative of the Wirral District Council, said that that

439
body were strongly opposed to these motor omnibuses.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid they had heard a good deal about monopolies, but what monopoly was there in this Bill? It merely sought to give the Mersey Railway power to run motor omnibuses, and that was not a monopoly. The measure did not prevent Birkenhead seeking to get similar powers in the same district. They were merely asked to give this railway company the right to run motor 'buses wherever they were suitable and to extend the Mersey railway, which had been one of the greatest boons to Birkenhead and Liverpool. Perhaps the House was not aware of it, but it was a fact that neither the shareholders nor the debenture holders in this railway had had any return for the money which had been spent and which had given great advantages to the two cities of Birkenhead and Liverpool. At present there was no possible means of any person going from Liverpool into Cheshire except by the ferries and the tramways of the Birkenhead Corporation. Now the Mersey Railway desired to tap that district by going underneath and giving facilities for the people of Liverpool to go under the river. They desired to increase these facilities by taking their motor omnibuses through Birkenhead and out into the pretty country surrounding it. The Corporation of Birkenhead were dictating to the people of Liverpool and were saying, "We will not allow you to have those facilities, and we will stop you on the way, and we will ask for the monopoly ourselves in order to keep in our hands entirely this means of communication." He resided in the
440
Birkenhead district himself, and as an inhabitant he should be sorry to see the motor buses coming into his locality, but as an unselfish man, and as one who thought that other people should have access to the beauties of nature as well as himself, he objected to barriers being placed in the way of free access from one place to another, whether by municipalities or anyone else. He could not understand the action of the hon. Member who had moved this Instruction, for lie was a gentleman who talked about the liberty of the subject, and now he was standing in the way of the enjoyment of the people of Liverpool and supporting the monopoly which the Corporation of Birkenhead was trying to set up. He trusted the ordinary rule would be followed and that this Bill would be sent to a Committee where all sides could be heard in order that justice might be done.
MR. BEALE (Ayrshire, S.)said that this Bill involved a point which would certainly be raised in other localities in connection with similar undertakings. The clause referred to conveying passengers and passengers' luggage generally, and there were no words in the clause confining its operation to passengers and passengers' luggage in connection with transit on this railway. There was all the difference in the world between giving companies further facilities with reference to their own traffic, and allowing them to enter into the business of carrying passengers and luggage inside the region where some other company or corporation was already engaged in the carrying trade. As no such restrictive words as he had mentioned had been put into this clause he thought the Committee ought to be plainly instructed that these

441
motor-bus facilities should be limited to transit in connection with the railway. Subject to that limitation he should be very sorry to see any impediment put in the way of the Committee considering and deciding upon the facts.
MR. MORTONsaid he wished to enter his protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Perth that they must not consider these Bills on their Second Readings. That
was one of the few rights which were left to Members, in this House. He hoped independent Members would not listen to such special pleading but do what was right to their constituencies and pass, amend, or reject as they thought fit these Bills on their Second Reading.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 78.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Duffy, William J.

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness

Lehmann, R. C.

Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire,Wirral)

Alden, Percy

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Levy, Maurice

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lundon, W.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fenwick, Charles

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.

Findlay, Alexander

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.

Barnard, E. B.

Flynn, James Christopher

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

Barnes, G. N.

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Callum, John M.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Gilhooly, James

M'Crae, George

Bell, Richard

Gill, A. H.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Benn, W. (T'wrHamlets,S.Geo.

Ginnell, L.

M'Killop, W.

Bennett, E. N.

Glover, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Griffith, Ellis J.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Billson, Alfred

Hall, Frederick

Massie, J.

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Halpin, J.

Meagher, Michael

Boland, John

Hammond, John

Meehan, Patrick A.

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

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

Micklem, Nathaniel

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Hart-Davies, T.

Mond, A.

Brace, William

Harwood, George

Montgomery, H. H.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mooney, J. J.

Branch, James

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brigg, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Morse, L. L.

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophats

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

Hazelton, Richard

Murphy, John

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hedges, A. Paget

Murray, James

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Napier, T. B.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Nicholls, George

Byles, William Pollard

Hodge, John

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Cairns, Thomas

Hogan, Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Clancy, John Joseph

Hooper, A. G.

Nuttall, Harry

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Clynes, J. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hudson, Walter

O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jenkins, J.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Cox, Harold.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Crean, Eugene

Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Malley, William

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Mara, James

Devlin,CharlcsRamsay(Gawlay

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dillon, John

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Shee, James John

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Parker, James (Halifax)

Duckworth, James

Kilbride, Denis

Paul, Herbert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Walsh, Stephen

Pollard, Dr.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walters, John Tudor

Power, Patrick Joseph

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wardle, George J.

Pr'estley, W. E. B.(Bradford,E.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Waterlow, D. S.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Weir, James Galloway

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Reddy, M.

Snowdon, P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Steadman, W. C.

Wiles, Thomas

Redmond, William (Clare)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wilkie, Alexander

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Sullivan, Donal

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Robinson, S.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rowlands, J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

Young, Samuel

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Thomasson, Franklin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Vivian and Mr. Arthur Henderson.

Scott,A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

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

Seddon, J.

Thorne, William

Shackleton, David James

Toulmin, George

NOES.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Fletcher, J. S.

Rees, J. D.

Armitage, R.

Forster, Henry William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Astbury, John Meir

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Rickett, J. Compton

Balcarres, Lord

Glendinning, R. G.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gulland, John W.

Robertson,SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Beauchamp, E.

Haddock, George R.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Berridge, T. H. D.

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

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bertram, Julius

Haworth, Arthur A.

Seaverns, J. H.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Sheehy, David

Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Bull, Sir William James

Higham, John Sharp

Strachey, Sir Edward

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Strauss, K. A. (Abingdon)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N

Sutherland, J. E.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jackson, R. S.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Chance, Frederick William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Kennaway,Rt.Hn. Sir John H.

Tomkinson, James

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Ure, Alexander

Cleland, J. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Verney, F. W.

Clough, W.

Lambert, George

Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Lamont, Norman

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lever,A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Ward, W. Dudley (South'mptn

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lewis, John Herbert

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lupton, Arnold

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Cowan, W. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Whitehead, Rowland

Craig,Captain James(Down, E.)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Crossley William J.

M'Micking, Major G.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Davies,David(Montgomery Co.

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Marnham, F. J.

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

Doughty, Sir Geo.

Menzies, Walter

Wodehouse,Lord(Norfolk,Mid)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Elibank, Master of

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Wallace and Mr. Alexander Cross.

Emmott, Alfred

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Pearson,W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Everett, R. Lacey

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Fell, Arthur

Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

WIRRAL RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. SPEAKERasked whether the hon. Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire intended to oppose the Bill.
MR. W. H. LEVERsaid he did.
MR. SPEAKER: Then it cannot be taken now.
Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRANSFER OF TREASURY POWERS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he had no desire to add any observations to those he had already made in support of his Amendment to omit Sub-section 3.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 17, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Mr. Watson- Rutherford.)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the clause."
THE CHAIRMANrose and was pro-eeding to put the Question to the Committee, when
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD, interrupting, said he hoped that before the vote was taken a reply would be given on behalf of the Government. He had refrained from repeating his questions and arguments with the object of saving the time of the Committee. He hoped the Financial Secretary of the Treasury would take the opportunity of giving the Committee the explanations to which they were entitled.
MR. MCKENNAsaid that he did not consider the hon. Member had meant the Committee to take his argument seriously—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh !']—but if he had been mistaken, he would endeavour to reply to the argument. The hon. Gentleman's statement
446
was to the effect that if any question arose on this clause, instead of its being taken to an ordinary Court of Law, a new authority, viz., the Treasury, would be called in to decide the point. The hypothesis upon which the hon. Member had based his argument against the clause was altogether illusory, and the result which he had described could not arise. The class of case which would arise would be between a local authority and the Local Government Hoard or the Treasury, and the Treasury would be the deciding authority in the dispute.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman had hardly been fair to him in reference to his Amendment, and the observations he was obliged to make upon it. He took objection to the clause seriously, and not from imaginary reasons. He thought that a discussion of a clause in such a Bill which might bear different interpretations would be useful. As a matter of fact, between 300 and 400 Acts of Parliament could be dealt with under this sub-section. He could put a case to the hon. and learned Member which would show that the difficulty to which he referred was not imaginary. Let the Committee suppose a question arose as to a sale of land in Liverpool, the Corporation of Liverpool could not dispose of any of that land without the consent of the Treasury, which consent could only be obtained by presenting a memorial to the Lords of the Treasury. But as he understood this Bill, that consent, instead of being obtained from the Lords of the Treasury would in future be obtained from the Local Government Board. That, he believed, might involve expensive litigation as to whether the

447
Treasury or the Local Government Board had consented to the sale. He thought the Clause most objectionable, and he strongly opposed it.
Question put.
Committee divided:—Ayes, 303; Noes, 17. (Division List, No. 79.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Higham, John Sharp

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Agnew, George William

Cory, Clifford John

Hodge, John

Alden, Percy

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hogan, Michael

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cowan, W. H.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Crean, Eugene

Hooper, A. G.

Armitage, R.

Crombie, John William

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Astbury, John Meir

Crosfield, A. H.

Horniman, Emslie John

Atherley-Jones, L.

Crossley, William J.

Hudson, Walter

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hyde, Clarendon

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jackson, R. S.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Devlin,Charles Ramsay(Galw'y

Jenkins, J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Barnard, E. B.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

Barnes, G. N.

Duckworth, James

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Duffy, William J.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Beale, W. P.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Joyce, Michael

Beauchamp, E.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kekewich, Sir George

Bell, Richard

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Benn,John Williams(Devonp'rt

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kilbride, Denis

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

Elibank, Master of

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Bennett, E. N.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Laidlaw, Robert

Berridge, T. H. D.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Bertram, Julius

Everett, R. Lacey

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Billson, Alfred

Fenwick, Charles

Lambert, George

Black,ArthurW.(Bedfordshire

Ferens, T. R.

Lamont, Norman

Boland, John

Findlay, Alexander

Law, Hugh Alexander

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Flynn, James Christopher

Lehmann, R. C.

Brace, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lever,A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Brigg, John

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Levy, Maurice

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Gilhooly, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Brooke, Stopford

Gill, A. H.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Ginnell, L.

Lundon, W.

Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Lupton, Arnold

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Glendinning, R. G.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Burke, E. Haviland-

Glover, Thomas

Lyell, Charles Henry

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Gulland, John W.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Baxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Hall, Frederick

M'Callum, John M.

Byles, William Pollard

Halpin, J.

M'Crae, George

Cairns, Thomas

Hammond, John

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Killop, W.

Cawley, Frederick

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

M'Micking, Major G.

Chance, Frederick William

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

Maddison, Frederick

Channing, Francis Allston

Hart-Davies, T.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Harwood, George

Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R- R.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Marnham, F. J.

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Massie, J.

Cleland, J. W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Meagher, Michael

Clough, W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Clynes, J. R.

Hazleton, Richard

Menzies, Walter

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hedges, A. Paget

Micklem, Nathaniel

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Helme, Norval Watson

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Mond, A.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Montagu, E. S.

Montgomery, H. H.

Rees, J. D.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, B.

Mooney, J. J.

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

Thomas.David Alfred(Merthyr

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Rickett, J. Compton

Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset

Morse, L. L.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Thorne, William

Morton, Alpheua Cleophas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Tomkinson, James

Murphy, John

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Toulmin, George

Murray, James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Ure, Alexander

Napier, T. B.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Verney, F. W.

Nicholls, George

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

Vivian, Henry

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Robinson, S.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Nolan, Joseph

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wallace, Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Rose, Charles Day

Walsh, Stephen

Nuttall, Harry

Rowlands, J.

Walters, John Tudor

O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wardle, George J.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Weir, James Galloway

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Seddon, J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Shackleton, David James

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Mara, James

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sheehy, David

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Shee, James John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Parker, James (Halifax)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wiles, Thomas

Paul, Herbert

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilkie, Alexander

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Snowdon, P.

Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk,Eye

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Stanger, H. Y.

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

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Pollard, Dr.

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Price,C. E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Woodhouse,Sir J.T.(Hudd'rsfid

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

Sullivan, Donal

Young, Samuel

Radford, G. H.

Summerbell, T.

Rainy, A. Holland

Sutherland, J. E.

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

Raphael, Herbert H.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Reddy, M.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

NOES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

Doughty, Sir George

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George N.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Fletcher, J. S.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Boyle, Sir Edward

Haddock, George R.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Carlilc, E. Hildred

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanurk)

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Valentia, Viscount

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kennaway,Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Craig,Captain James(Down,E.)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

Cross, Alexander

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Dalrymple, Viscount

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Whiteley)— put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time and passed.

ALKALI, ETC., WORKS (STAMP DUTY).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of a Stamp Duty of Five pounds on Certificates of Registration in the case of Alkali Works and of Three pounds in the case of any other Work in pursuance of any Act of the present session to consolidate and

451
amend the Alkali, &c, Works Regulation Acts, 1881 and 1892, and the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of salaries and remuneration and of expenses incurred in the execution of such Act.—(Mr. John Burns.)
Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
Amendments proposed—
"In page 1, line 22, after the word 'discharge,' to insert the words 'whether directly or indirectly.'"
"In page 1, line 23, and page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'whether directly or by a chimney or other outlet.'"
"In page 2, line 6, after the word 'other,' to insert the word 'final.'"—(Mr. John Burns.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:—
Amendments proposed—
"In page 4, line 14, after the word 'discharge,' to insert the words 'whether directly or indirectly.'"
"In page 4, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'whether directly or by a chimney or other outlet.'"
"In page 4, line 21, after the word 'other,' to insert the word 'final.'"
452
"In page 4, line 26, after the word 'other' to insert the word 'final.'"—(Mr. John Burns.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:—
Amendments proposed—
"In page 4, line 41, after the word 'works,' to insert the words 'or in any works in which sulphide ores, including regulus, are calcined or smelted (hereinafter called "smelting works").'"
"In page 5, line 9, after the word 'cement works,' to insert the words 'or smelting works.'"—(Mr. Arthur Stanley.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 postponed.
Clauses 11 to 31 agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (No. 2) BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th May], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Question again proposed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes after Ten o'clock.
Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Poole Corporation Water Bill. Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
Channel Ferry Railway and Quay Bill [H.L.]; Railway Clearing System (Super-animation Fund) Bill [H.L.]; Crediton Lighting and Power Bill [H.L.]; Thornton Urban District Gas Bill; Rugby Subordinate School Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Carlisle Corporation Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
Scottish Provident Institution Buildings Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with an Amendment.
Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
London County Buildings Bill; Peterborough Gas Bill; Southampton Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons; read;1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Sheffield Assay Office Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kesteven, etc.) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Brought from the Commons and read la; to be printed and referred to the Examiners. [No. 86.]

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LONDON SQUARES AND ENCLOSURES BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I venture to ask my noble friend to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill, which contains a very dangerous and very important principle. This is a Bill introduced by the London County Council to prohibit or restrict the erection of buildings or structures on certain lands in the Administrative County of London, and for other purposes. I think your Lordships will see that there is a large principle involved, for these things extend throughout the country. So far as I can make out there is no compensation or purchase proposed. I venture to think it would be a dangerous principle to accept this without further consideration, and I suggest that the Bill be postponed for a week.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, this Bill is really one with which your Lordships must be very familiar. It was before the House last session, and was thrown out by the Committee of your Lordships' House to whom it was referred. It has been down for Second Reading on several occasions during the present session, and has been postponed from time to time. My noble friend has had ample opportunity of considering it.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I did not know it was down.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid that is because my noble friend has not looked at the Order Paper. It is essential at this period of the session that we should get on with Bills, and I therefore regret that I cannot fall in with my noble friend's suggestion. I would, however, point out to him that the Second Reading stage of a Bill of this character is not one which it is usual to challenge. There will be other stages of which the noble Earl can take advantage if he desires to offer any opposition.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My noble friend says there will be other opportunities, but my recollection is that the principle of a Bill is agreed to on the Second Reading, and that when a Bill is read a Second Time its principle is passed. I shall certainly avail myself of

  307
  the further opportunities referred to, but I advise your Lordships in the meantime to look into this far-reaching principle under which a public body takes possession of unbuilt-upon land without compensation and without purchase. I shall call attention to the matter later.
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 1.)BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  [The EARL of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
  LOKD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I have an Amendment in the shape of a new clause after Clause 4. This is a Bill to enable the London County Council to acquire compulsorily land for sites of schools, and, of course, the land is to be acquired under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. The Amendment which I propose is a very usual one, and it is that Section 92 of that Act should not apply to this particular case. The section is to the effect that no party shall be required to sell part only of any house or other building or manufactory, if such party be willing to sell the whole thereof. It is found that this proviso in some cases acts injuriously, and it is proposed on this occasion to do away with it. I understand that the Board of Education agree that the section should not apply.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:'Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the council may take such part of the lands, houses, and premises shown on plan No. 6, and distinguished thereon by the Nos. 1 to 21, and of the land, house, and premises shown on plan No.8, and distinguished thereon by the No. 2, and described in the schedule to this Act, as they may require without being required or compellable to purchase the whole or any greater part of any such lands, houses, and premises. The provisions of this section shall be stated in every notice given there under by the Council to sell and convey any premises." —(Lord Monkswell.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Before the Question is put, I should like to point out that this Amendment does not appear on the Paper.
  LORD MONKSWELL: It has been down some days. Perhaps I ought to state that the notices to the owners have all been drafted on the assumption that this Amendment will pass.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not want to offer any opposition to the Amendment at this stage. But is this the usual course to take in such cases? If it is the usual course there is nothing to be said against it, but if it is not I think it is necessary that your Lordships should have this Amendment before you. I do not know whether noble Lords have I seen it. Personally I have not, and I reserve my right, if it is inserted now, to move to omit it at a later stage of the Bill, if necessary.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I shall be very glad to show my noble friend the plan, and he will be able to judge whether the clause is necessary or not.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I understand that the Amendment has been circulated about a fortnight. I do not know whether the noble Lord who has moved it will agree to take it at a later stage of the Bill.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I am entirely in the hands of the House. The Board of Education have seen the Amendment and also the plans on which the whole matter turns. The notices to the owners have been drafted on the assumption that this Amendment would pass. There has been abundant notice of it.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: The noble Lord says that the notices to the owners have been drafted on the assumption that this Bill will he passed. Is it correct to say that? Have the owners consented? I understand that the Amendment, which I have not seen, enables the county council to take part of a property without taking the whole.
  LORD MONKSWELL: The land proposed to be taken contains houses that have gardens attached to them which, under Clause 92 of the Act of 1845,

  309
  would have to be taken with the houses, but this land is going to be cleared of houses altogether. The houses are in course of being demolished, and consequently it will shortly become ordinary building land without any gardens, and Clause 92 would not apply.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Is it to be cleared of these buildings after the county council have got hold of the land? Have; the owners agreed to that course?
  LORD MONKSWELL: Yes, I believe the owners have agreed.
  LORD HENEAGE: I think it would be much better that we should have an opportunity of seeing this Amendment and looking into the matter. It is curious that we should be told that notices have been sent out on the presumption that your Lordships would do what you were asked to do. I think we should have some opportunity of saying whether we approve or not.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I understand that this Amendment has been in the possession of the House for the last fortnight. So far as the Board of Education are concerned I have no direct interest in a matter of this kind. All that we have to do in the selection of sites of this description is to see that the Standing Orders are properly complied with, and that the site in question is suitable for a school. But, of course, all points as to the right or wrong of taking certain land are matters for the House. In this case no petition has been presented against the Bill, and consequently, so far as the Education Board are concerned, we are quite willing to agree to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would like to point out that this Bill has not been circulated to your Lordships.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: These Bills never are circulated.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Why is the Amendment circulated if the Bill is not? Perhaps the noble Lord will explain.
  LORD MONKSWELL: When an Amendment is circulated it draws the attention of noble Lords to the Bill, and if they are interested they can go to the Paper Office and get a copy of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I prefer to have the Bill sent to me rather than to have to go to the Paper Office for it. The question I ask is, Is this the usual way of proceeding?
  LORD MONKSWELL: Yes.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Has it frequently been done before?
  LORD MONKSWELL: Yes.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: At the same time it is to be observed that the Department to which we look was absolutely satisfied without this Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I agree with what has fallen from the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. So far as the Board of Education are concerned, it is not a question into which they are drawn. Judging from the conversation which has taken place on this question, it does seem extraordinary that he Bill has not been circulated, whereas the Amendment has been in the hands of your Lordships during the last fortnight. I would suggest that in the circumstances the Amendment should be deferred until the Report stage, when the Bill will be in the hands of your Lordships.
  LORD MONKSWELL: There is no Report stage. I really do not see the difficulty suggested by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess has been long enough a Member of this House to know that these Bills are not circulated. Noble Lords get notice that an Amendment is going to be moved in Committee, which is the proper time to move them. I adopted the usual, and, I venture to say, the convenient course of moving the Amendment in the Committee stage, and if noble Lords, notwithstanding the fact that they received notice of the Amendment, did not go to the Paper Office and get a copy of the Bill, I do not see why the Amendment should be put off.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): I think my noble friend has followed the usual course in this matter. I understand that these Bills are never circulated. My noble friend has done all he could to conform with the usual practice in this matter, and I cannot see why the Amendment should be postponed.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Apart from any question whether or not the noble Lord who complains might have procured a copy of the Bill, surely there is no particular urgency in this matter. There would be no difficulty in postponing the discussion or taking the Amendment on the Third Reading, by which time noble Lords interested could have seen the Bill.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I am entirely in the Hands of the House. If the noble and learned Earl opposite wishes the Amendment to be taken on Third Reading, I have no objection, but I would point out that a discussion of this kind cannot take place on Third Reading.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think this is a matter which requires a little attention. It is not a mere matter of form. It is one of substance—namely, whether your Lordships in coming to a decision on this clause have really an opportunity of knowing what the clause means. If noble Lords come down and tell your Lordships that, as a matter of fact, not having the text of the Bill in their hands, and therefore not being able to compare the Amendment with the text, it is impossible to judge what the effect of the Amendment is, it seems to me to stand to reason that the obvious course is that the discussion should be postponed until noble Lords have had time to make themselves acquainted with the points at issue. I therefore suggest that the noble Lord should move that the debate be now adjourned.
  LORD MONKSWELL: As noble Lords seem to make a great deal of this matter, and it seems to be the general desire that it should stand over, I beg to move that the Committee stage be adjourned.
  Moved, "That the Committee stage stand adjourned." —(Lord Monkswell.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools: Of parents and guardians of children attending schools at Ulcy; Standish; Great Lever; Long-grove; Of teachers in schools at Standish; Great Lever; Longgrove; Of inhabitants of Standish; Longgrove Read and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND.)
  Code of regulations for continuation classes providing further instruction for those who have left school, 1906.
  TREATY SERIES No. 5 (1906.)
  Convention between the United Kingdom and Denmark providing for the settlement by arbitration of certain classes of questions which may arise between the two Governments; signed at London, 25th October, 1905. (Ratifications exchanged at London, 4th May, 1906.)
  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAMS.)
  Indenture supplemental to agreement of 2nd February, 1905 between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company Limited.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3585. United States (Texas.)
  No. 3586. France (Havre.)
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 4th May, 1906, providing for the early closing of shops in the burgh of Airdrie. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Education of Defective Children (Scotland) Bill. Brought from the Commons; and read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 85.)
  Notice of Accidents Bill. Order for Second Reading on Monday next discharged.
  Life Insurance Companies. The Lord Grimthorpe discharged from serving on the Select Committee, and the Lord Wolverton added to the Committee in his place.
  Conveyancing Bill [H.L.]; Settled Land Bill [H.L.]; Married Women's Property Bill [H.L.]. The Lords following were named of the Select Committee, viz.: —

  E. Halsbury,

  L Stanley of Alderley,

  V. Knutsford,

  V. Selby,

  L Macnaghten,

  L. Davey.

  The Committee to meet on Monday next, at Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it will, I am sure, be generally admitted that it is desirable as far as possible to have one law, at any rate for the United Kingdom, if not for the Empire. The Bills of Exchange Act did something to assimilate the laws of England and Scotland as regards Bills of Exchange, but so far as the procedure on unpaid Bills of Exchange is concerned, they are still very different. The Scottish people are, I understand, quite satisfied with their system, and would resist any change. In England the contrary is the case. We consider the Scottish law preferable to our own, and I have brought in this Bill at the request of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, which comprises practically all the Chambers. It is also supported by the bankers, and I understand the Irish banks will also welcome it. Those who have had experience of both systems seem to be unanimous in desiring the change. The Scottish system is simpler, more expeditious, less expensive, and there is one other difference which is still more important. In England and Ireland the liability on bills is sometimes disputed, not because there is any real defence, but simply to gain time, in which perhaps
  314
  property may be secreted or made away with. Under the Scottish law, in such circumstances security has to be given. This removes the great temptation to dilatory proceedings, which, as a matter of fact, are so rare as to be almost unknown. The Scottish system which we desire to adopt was introduced as long ago as 1681. At first it was confined to foreign bills, but was found so useful to merchants that in 1696 it was extended to inland bills, and subsequently to promissory notes. We now desire to extend it to England and Ireland, which, moreover, will have the collateral and additional advantage of assimilating and co-ordinating the law of the three kingdoms. I trust your Lordships will grant a Second Reading to the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(Lord Avebury.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I hope my noble friend will be content to allow this Motion to stand over for a short time to allow an opportunity for conference between himself and those who agree with him and representatives of His Majesty's Government. The Bill is intended to assimilate the law of England and Ireland to that of Scotland. That would not necessarily give rise to any objection, but there are points where I foresee difficulties may arise.
  LORD HEMPHILL,My Lords, as I come from Ireland perhaps your Lord, ships will excuse my saying a few words on this Bill. The Bill seems to have a very extensive operation, and I am not aware that there has been any demand for the proposed change on the part of anybody in Ireland, either the bankers or the Chambers of Commerce. If I am wrong in that the noble Lord will correct me. The circumstances in Ireland are somewhat different from those in England and Scotland, and though I approve very much of the general argument that it is desirable to assimilate as far as possible the laws of the three countries and should be glad to see that universally adopted, still, in this particular case I would not like to make a beginning. In the remote parts of Ireland there is a very numerous class of moneylenders in a small way who are known, in the language of the country, as "gombeen" men, and the

  315
  effect of this Bill would be to enable them to take execution against debtors suddenly and without giving them ample opportunity of raising their defence. The Bill enables a protest bill or a promissory note, no matter how small, to be registered, and on that registration execution to be issued, and the consequence is that the unfortunate debtor who, in the stress of circumstances, may have agreed to pay a most usurious rate of interest, will be sold up before he knows anything about it. As it is there is a very summary method in Ireland as well as in England in the Supreme Court of enforcing bills of exchange unless there is some good defence. But under this Bill everything would depend upon an affidavit being made after the mischief had been done. On the whole, therefore, I think it would be premature to pass such a comprehensive measure as this affecting Ireland without any knowledge on the part of that country. Until I saw the notice on the Paper and took up the Bill, I had never heard from anyone in Ireland that so comprehensive a change in the law was about to be made. I therefore trust the House will not assent to the Second Reading without, at all events, further inquiry and investigation into the merits of the proposed change.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I think that what my noble and learned friend has just said in reference to this Bill is entitled to every consideration. I understand that one of the objects of adjourning the Second Reading, which was suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, was to enable the attention of the country to be directed to the proposals in the Bill before they are passed. I am generally in favour of assimilation of laws for the United Kingdom, though I think some further consideration should be given to this proposal. If the Second Reading is adjourned the provisions of the Bill can be looked into and considered in Ireland and elsewhere, and we shall be able to judge whether this would be an appropriate change in the law.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, in reply to what was said by the noble and learned Lord opposite, I should like to point out that there are a good many Chambers of Commerce in Ireland very ably represented at the meetings of the
  316
  Associated Chambers of Commerce. They have always supported this measure, and there has never been any opposition from any of them. On the contrary, they have given it their hearty support, and I venture to think he will find that in Ireland as well as in England there is a desire that the law should be amended. I quite feel that the Bill is not one which ought to be hurried, and I shall be glad to fall in with the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and allow the Second Reading to stand over for a short time.
  Debate adjourned to Tuesday next.

  ELECTIONS MEETINGS IN (SCHOOLROOMS) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, there are no Amendments down to this Bill, but there may be some verbal Amendments necessary. In these circumstances, I think it would be better that they should be taken in the Standing Committee if the noble Marquess opposite will agree to that course.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I offer no opposition to the course which the noble Lord proposes, provided that the verbal Amendments which he intends to propose do not essentially affect the the principle of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment, to the House, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I do not think that in submitting this Bill to your Lordships I need trespass on your attention for any length of time. I think it will be accepted that in the consideration of this Bill it is not

  317
  necessary to enter upon the controversy as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister, which has provoked a considerable amount of discussion in this House, and discussion sometimes characterised by a good deal of difference of opinion. This Bill, I think it is agreed, does not affect that question. It does not on the face of it alter the marriage law of this country, or, I may say, of any part of His Majesty's dominions. It arises from the fact that the position of the law in different parts of the Empire has created an inequality. It is the object of this Bill to remove that inequality, an inequality which may be said to be a consequence of this difference in the marriage laws, but not an inherent part of the laws themselves. Still, as they are felt oppressive by subjects of His Majesty, His Majesty's Government have thought it desirable to bring in a Bill on this subject.
  There is another reason why I think I may be brief on this occasion, and it is that my noble friend opposite, Lord Strathcona, brought in Bills on this subject in 1898 and 1900, which, if not substantially the same, were at any rate on similar lines to that which I have the honour to introduce to-day, and on both occasions, though exception was taken in this House to the principle of the Bill and divisions were claimed, the Second Reading was carried by a large majority. I think, my Lords, that under these circumstances, though perhaps it is necessary for me to set forth briefly the objects of the Bill, I may count on the general knowledge of Members of the House, and, perhaps, on their sympathy in so doing.
  Marriage with a deceased wife's sister has been legalised by Acts of the Legislature in all the self-governing Colonies except one, and those Acts have been approved by the Sovereign. They are of considerable standing in many cases. I find that the first of the Australian Acts was passed in 1871, and the last, that of Queensland, in 1878. New Zealand followed in 1880, Canada in 1882, Natal in 1888, and the last was the Cape in 1892. In addition to that, there are Acts or Ordinances in many of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates—altogether there are, I believe, about twenty Acts or Ordinances on this subject; and I may remind your Lordships that, so far from this question
  318
  being a Party one, eight of those Acts were sanctioned when a Liberal Government was in office and the remainder when the Party supported by noble Lords opposite were in power. It is, therefore, the fact that a very large part of the Empire has Acts of this description, and has been long interested in the matter.
  I find that on previous occasions it has sometimes been used as an argument that there has been an absence of agitation on the subject, and it has been held that that shows either a want of interest, or that there is no real grievance. My noble friend Lord Strathcona, in proposing the Bills in 1898 and in 1900, showed that there was no ground for that view. My noble friend spoke strongly himself, and he is recognised not only as the trusted representative of Canada, but I might also say as a representative of colonial feeling throughout the Empire. In addition, at that time a petition was presented to this House, signed by the Agents-General, in favour of the Bill; and since then, in November, 1904, a despatch came from the Governor-General of the Commonwealth, of which I will read the last sentence—
  "I am assured that the anomaly is seriously regarded in Australia, and my Ministers most earnestly desire that the grave hardships and personal degradation arising from the existing conflict between British and Colonial law in this respect should be removed by Imperial legislation."
  I might also, perhaps, appeal to a number of noble Lords in this House who have acted as Governors in the various Colonies of the Empire. All of them, I believe, will agree with me as to the feeling on this subject in the Colonies, and that it is in the interest of our connection with the Colonies that their grievance should be removed.
  I think that an examination of the nature of the anomaly to which I have referred will show by itself the justice of the complaint. As I have said, there is no proposal in this Bill to make an alteration in the law of marriage. The title of the Bill is—
  "An Act to declare the law with respect to a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister domiciled in parts of the British Possessions where such a marriage is legal."
  The Bill is no longer, as it has been on some former occasions, a Bill to amend the law of marriage. It has been practically accepted in the latest discussions

  319
  that, even as the law stands, such a marriage, if it was contracted under the conditions which are described in this Bill, namely, between two persons who at the date of the marriage were each domiciled in a part of the British Possessions in which such a marriage was legal— is even now legal throughout the British Empire. Such a marriage, I believe, is a valid marriage in the United Kingdom, and the children of that marriage are legitimate children. But, although that may be so, a difficulty has arisen, and it arises not as regards the marriage itself, but as to the succession afterwards to real property and to honours and dignities. I should have been diffident in making a statement on such purely legal matters in the presence of noble and learned Lords in this House if I had not been confident that that was a position which had already been accepted. The debates on the more recent Bills have been more a defence with reference to the law of real property than with reference to marriage with a deceased wife's sister. I am not competent to discuss the reasons for making distinctions of this kind, but if it is the case that this is the real issue, I think there cannot be a stronger case for the Bill which I have the honour to lay before your Lordships.
  We have no longer to deal with questions of ecclesiastical law or of morality. The Bill is intended to remove a bar which prevents a person who has been honourably united in legal wedlock within the Empire from enjoying the rights and privileges in this part of the Empire which we ourselves enjoy. It seems to me to be contrary to a just conception of the Imperial connection to deny to our fellow-subjects in the Colonies this claim; and if we turn to a less sentimental reason I cannot see that anything but loss could result if we wore to throw an obstacle in the way of the colonist who desired to return home to take up his abode in this country and to add to its resources the wealth which he had accumulated in other regions. Nothing would be more contrary to the feeling of real kinship and of Imperial unity and solidarity.
  It is a matter of no small importance also that there should be a removal of restriction in the matter of honours. We have been proud to welcome in this House Members from the Colonies. Some have dreamt, and I have some sympathy with
  320
  their imaginings, that it would perhaps be possible to find in the future some solution of many Imperial problems of administration and action in the further expansion of that system. But, whether for that purpose or otherwise, I do not sec how we can fairly offer our Colonial brethren less than we possess ourselves.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Davey pointed out in one of the last debates that we had not only in this country to look to new creations, but also to the possibility that sons of Members of this House might go to the Colonies, and that in course of time they might have descendants tracing their descent from marriages such as those with which this Bill deals, and their descendants might thereby be debarred from succession to the honour in this House. From whichever way you look at it, it appears to me that in this matter of honours and dignities it is in every way desirable that we should not place those who succeed to them and are of Colonial descent in any inferior position to that which we ourselves occupy. I consider myself fortunate that I have been the first to present a Bill on this subject on behalf of the Government, and I hope it will be accepted by the Colonies as a proof that we are animated in this matter by a spirit of justice and sympathy. I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Elgin.)
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this Bill, if it becomes law, will do two things. It will introduce a fundamental change in the English law of inheritance in respect of real property; and it will make the right of succession depend upon the law of the Colony in which the claimant was born, and not on the lex loci, the law of England, where the property in question is situated. Moreover, it will enable the inhabitants of the United Kingdom who desire to do so to break the existing marriage law of England with absolute impunity.
  I would ask your Lordships' permission to say a few words on these two points. First, as to the Colonies. I am the last person in the world to desire to thwart the Colonies in the management of their

  321
  own affairs. On the contrary, I think they ought to be allowed to manage their own affairs free from interference from home. Your Lordships know how disastrous I have felt the action of His Majesty's Government to be in this respect in relation to South Africa. But it is no reason, because the Colonies should be free, and entirely free, to manage their own affairs, that therefore they should be allowed to interfere in ours. It is one thing to sanction the laws they choose to make for themselves; it is quite another to alter our laws at home in order to bring them into conformity with the laws passed in the Colonies.
  It is urged, on behalf of this Bill, that it is a hardship in respect to the succession to real property in the United Kingdom that the children of certain marriages, legal in the Colonies, are regarded as illegitimate by the laws of England and cannot inherit such property by descent. This is a misleading statement of the case. They can inherit such property by will, and the only case in which they would not inherit would be where those from whom they inherit die intestate. Is that any great hardship? Those who own landed property very seldom die intestate, and the case of colonists holding land in England who die intestate is rarer still. In fact, the noble Lord Lord Strathcona, and those responsible for a similar measure to this introduced on a former occasion, were challenged to produce a single case where hardship had occurred under the present law, and they were not able to produce one.
  I venture to say that this question of inheritance has no real substance in it, and that the real object of the Bill is not primarily to alter the law of inheritance, but by a side wind to facilitate an alteration of the existing marriage law of England. Now, in regard to that law, it is said to be a grievance that those who are considered legitimate by the law of the Colonies should be considered illegitimate by the law of England. Are your Lordships aware that precisely the same thing applies to Scotland? By the Scottish law, subsequent marriage legitimatises the children born before wedlock; by the English law it does not. Did ever any one hear that it was a grievance that children considered legitimate in Scotland, and capable of inheriting by
  322
  descent in Scotland, are considered illegitimate in England, and incapable of inheriting by descent in England? Did any one ever propose that the law of England should be altered and assimilated to the law of Scotland in that respect? It was, indeed, proposed once in early English history, and what was the answer this House gave then? The answer was—
  Nolumus antiquas leges Angliae mutari.
  What the barons of England said then I think their successors should say to-day. We do not choose to alter the ancient laws of England because our Colonies have made laws for themselves which conflict with the principle on which the whole of our immemorial marriage law is founded.
  In all these matters you must act on a principle. Is it proposed to legitimatise the issue of a marriage between a man and his niece? That is a marriage allowed in some of our Colonies. If the principle of this Bill is sound, why not? Is it proposed to legitimatise the issue of marriages contracted after a divorce because- the husband or wife is an habitual drunkard or has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than three years? Yet such marriages are legal, and the issue of them legitimate, in the Colony of Victoria, My Lords, there is no principle in this Bill except that of setting all principle at defiance.
  I turn to my second objection to the Bill. Under it a man or a woman will be able to go to the Colonies, profess to get domiciled there, contract a marriage illegal in England, and later on return to England legally married, and with a marriage which could not be questioned by English law although it is one which the English law forbids. Was there ever such a violation of reason and of principle, such a temptation to collusion and dishonesty, and, I will add, to immorality, or one so calculated to bring, not merely the marriage law, but the whole law into contempt? My Lords, in respect of all these matters, in regard to the growing and increasing scandal of the divorce laws, in regard to the injury they are doing to morality, in regard to the confusion and increasing confusion which attaches to the whole of our existing marriage law—a law which is different in England, Scotland, Ireland, and the Colonies, there is only one sensible thing

  323
  to do. It is that His Majesty's Government should appoint a Commission to inquire into the whole of the marriage and divorce laws, and should consider the question of making, as is the case in almost all other countries in Europe, civil marriage compulsory everywhere and upon all. If this were done there might be some hope of seeing principle and peace and reason prevail in regard to these questions. As it is there is none, and I am obliged to say that this Bill is only another step in the direction of making in regard to all these matters our present confusion worse confounded.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I only desire to interpose for a very few moments in this debate, and I feel I ought almost to apologise for doing so, considering that, as the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary has pointed out, the Bill confines itself entirely to the legal question of succession, and makes no interference of any sort or kind with the law of marriage either in England or in the Colonies. The noble Earl emphasised that point more than once in his speech, and it is on that ground that I feel no inclination to press to a division any objections which we may entertain to legislation of this character, because of its indirect bearing, as we think, upon the possibilities of change in the English marriage law at home. I think, however, that the point to which the noble Viscount has just referred is worthy of note, that whereas the Colonial Secretary has told us that the object of the Bill is to remove inequalities between England and the Colonies and that such inequalities where they exist are, I think he said, a just hindrance to the Imperial spirit, these inequalities will not really be removed by this Bill if it passes in its present form.
  It is not my wish to increase the exceptions to or variations from the English law which are to be legalised in this country supposing the marriage to have been contracted in the Colonies. I know that there are Colonies in which a woman may marry a deceased husband's brother, and that there are other Colonies in which a man may marry his widow's niece. I believe there are other Colonies in which there are still further variations from the English law. What this Bill
  324
  proposes to do is to pick out from among those anomalies one particular variation and to give an imprimatur here in England to that special form of variation. It may thus be said to give, in an indirect way, a kind of sanction here to the theory that that particular kind of marriage is harmless or desirable, whereas such a marriage as that of a man with his widow's niece is undesirable, inappropriate, and ought not to be legitimatised in England, or, rather, that succession ought not to be possible in England to a marriage so contracted in the Colonies. That does not seem to me exactly to bring, about equality; but those are questions which are so intricate that I do not desire to follow them out in detail.
  My main objection to any change-whatever in the existing marriage law of England is that I have seen no proposal made which would not have the effect of reducing the whole thing to a condition of confusion and chaos; and it must not be said hereafter that, because we do not, on this question of succession to property, press our objections to a division, we have abated our objections to such a change as has sometimes been proposed in our own law and which may conceivably come before Parliament again. We still object as strongly as ever to the expediency of such changes; but, because we feel that this is a question of property, some of us are prepared, reluctantly, to acquiesce in a change which has been declared by the colonial authorities to be in their opinion essential. That is the attitude which I personally shall take on the subject; but I am anxious that a protest should be made on our part to-night, lest there should afterwards be some misunderstanding as to our position.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am in a somewhat different position in this House from that occupied by the noble Lords I have the honour to address, in that I represent in England the Dominion of Canada. I am therefore outside Party politics and I feel that I can be at home in the House on one side or the other. This is a measure which ought to be regarded wholly apart from politics and I have much pleasure in congratulating Lord Elgin on the introduction of this Bill. It is most appropriate that it should be

  325
  brought in by him, not alone because he is Secretary of State for the Colonies, but also because of his intimate connection with the outlying parts of the Empire he has served so well.
  It is appropriate for another reason that this Bill should be introduced by the noble Earl, because his illustrious father was Governor-General of Canada. He also served in Jamaica at a time of great difficulty there; and we know also that in India he distinguished himself as a statesman and an admirable representative of the Crown. The noble Earl's grandfather on the maternal side was also Governor-General of Canada, and it was in a great measure owing to his memorable report that responsible Government was extended to Canada and to the other Colonies. And, lastly, we in Canada are proud of the fact that the noble Earl was born in Canada, and that we are, therefore, able to include him as one of Canada's sons.
  I can assure the noble Earl that the introduction of the Bill under the auspices of the Government will give the utmost satisfaction in Canada and in all the Colonies of the Empire. It has been regarded as a great grievance by our Colonists that, while they may legally contract a marriage with a deceased wife's sister in their Colony, when they come to the mother country, their home, if they happen to do so, their marriage is looked upon as illegal and their children as illegitimate. Let me ask any noble Lord to imagine himself in that position, and to think what his feelings would be in the circumstances. This is but a measure of justice to the Colonists; and I hope that, now that the Bill has been taken up by the Government, it will be passed into law, and that the Colonists will have the satisfaction of knowing that their marriages legally contracted place them at no disadvantages, and that their privileges and rights are equal in all respects to those enjoyed by their fellow-subjects in this country. I trust that this Bill will be passed unanimously, and am sure that it will be another stop towards the closer union of the different parts of the Empire.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as is well known to your Lordships, no one speaking from this Bench (the Front Opposition Bench) can say
  326
  I that he represents all who sit on this Bench on either side of this question,, because, though on nearly every subject we are agreed, on this subject we are not wholly agreed. But this, however, I think I can say, that no one in your Lordships' House desires to throw any kind of difficulty in the way of the Colonies, much less do we wish to throw obloquy on any of our Colonial fellow-subjects. But I am amazed to hear this Bill advocated, as it was by the noble Lord who has just sat down and by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the plea of equality. This Bill will establish not equality, but inequality; it will enact an absolute inequality between those British subjects who reside in the United Kingdom and those who have been domiciled in the Colonies whose legislatures have passed enactments legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister.
  It is not true to say that those of us who view this Bill with disfavour are in favour of inequality. We are anxious to give our colonial fellow-subjects every privilege which we ourselves possess. At present an Englishman does not possess the privilege, if it be a privilege, of marrying his deceased wife's sister, and, so far as our law is concerned, our colonial fellow-subjects stand on precisely the same footing as we stand ourselves. May I say that equality of the kind which the Colonial Secretary and the noble Lord who has just sat down advocate —that is to say, a state of things under which whatever has been enacted in a colonial legislature should have effect in the United Kingdom—is impossible of achievement. In the course of this evening's debate it has been pointed out to your Lordships that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is not the only variation between the marriage law of this country and that of the Colonies. In some Colonies marriage with a deceased husband's brother is legal, and in others marriage with a deceased wife's niece. So that the ostracism of which the noble Lord spoke with so much feeling, if there be such ostracism, will still be applied to colonists living in this country who have come from Colonies in which these exceptional forms of marriage are permitted.
  But, my Lords, what I think is the most significant feature of to-night's

  327
  debate is the announcement by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies that in his view—and I presume he speaks on behalf of the legal advisers of His Majesty's Government—this is merely a question as to the succession to property. Are we to lay it down that whenever the law of succession to property differs in the Colonies from our own we 'are so to modify our law that colonists coming into this country may take advantage of their colonial law in regard to the succession to property in this country? That is what it comes to. I think it will be found, if the legislation of the Empire is studied, that there is every conceivable variation of the law of succession to property, including, I believe, though I speak with some trepidation before all the legal luminaries in your Lordships' House, the French law, which gives a widow an absolute right to a part of the property of her deceased husband. We could not alter our law in that respect.
  If it is argued that a woman who has certain rights under colonial law should have those rights secured to her by British law when she comes to this country, we should have to grant the franchise, which is conferred on women in New Zealand. The mere fact that Colonial law differs from our own is not a reason why any modification should be made. But if it be contended that such should be the case there ought to be reciprocity, and laws under which we live in this country ought similarly in the case of persons going from the United Kingdom to the Colonies to be acknowledged in the Colonies. Is that the case? Your Lordships know that it is not the case. Under the common law of England every British subject has a right to come into England, Indeed, we let almost everybody in, and it was with the greatest reluctance that we excluded even undesirable aliens. Is; it over suggested that because that is the law of England the colonial legislatures should therefore modify their law and allow every British subject to enter the Colonies? Nothing could be more resented in the Colonies than a suggestion of that kind.
  I need not repeat what has already been stated in this debate, that within the ambit of these islands there are differences in the law; but never has it been contended that the law of Scotland
  328
  should govern the law of England. In my opinion it is not the question of succession to property that gives the motive power to this Bill. I believe it to be absolutely true to say that what is really intended is, by a flank movement, to give strength to the case for the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. If the Bill were one for legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister in England then it would be our duty to give reasons for, or against, that proposal; but I do think that to try and carry such a fundamental change in the marriage law of this country by a flank attack is an unworthy method of procedure. Let those who are in favour of marriage with a deceased wife's sister say so, and come forward with a proposal that can be discussed on its merits. I certainly concur in the protest which has been uttered against this Bill.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, feeling strongly as I do that justice requires that this Bill should be passed, I desire to notice several matters that have been mentioned in the course of this debate. The suggestion has been made, both by the noble Viscount and by my noble friend who has just spoken, that this is a flank movement in support of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The answer to that is very plain to those who know the facts. Who are the persons promoting this Bill? Nominally the Government, but they are not the real promoters. The promoters of the Bill are the Colonial representatives who have again and again demanded this legislation in the most emphatic way.
  In 1897 every Colonial Prime Minister saw Mr. Chamberlain at the Colonial Office and demanded this Bill. Do you charge them with being accomplices in a flank movement to secure marriage with a deceased wife's sister in this country? At the time of the Coronation the Colonial Prime Ministers were again in this country, and renewed their application for this Bill. The Bill was again asked for in the despatch which my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies read from Lord Northcote, who spoke on behalf of the whole Commonwealth of Australia. Is the Governor of the Commonwealth to be included as an accomplice in this act of political duplicity? Then there was the speech of my noble friend the representative of Canada in this country. Is he a culprit

  329
  and an accomplice in this matter? Surely such an argument as that cannot prevail.
  I now turn to the merits of the Bill. The indignation of the noble Viscount rests merely upon the difference in regard to succession to leasehold and freehold property. A child of such a marriage is entitled under the Statute of Distribution to leasehold property of 999 years, but the noble Viscount is shocked that he should be able to inherit freehold property. Let me point out how absurd this law is. A man comes to this country after having married his deceased wife's sister in the Colonies, and dies disposing of freehold and leasehold property by will. Thereupon his representative in making a return would declare that, A B having made a will leaving to his son C D, lawfully begotten, certain leasehold property, that property should pay 2 per cent. duty. Then he would go on to say that the same A B having left the same C D, not born in lawful wedlock, certain freehold property, the latter being stranger in blood, should pay 10 per cent, duty; such is the inequality in the law the Bill is intended to remove. It is a constant grievance, a slur, and an insult.
  I remember some thirty years ago hearing Mr. Disraeli, in the House of Commons, depict the career of a successful colonist. Great enterprise and great industry had secured to him great wealth, and he became, as Mr. Disraeli said, a lord of flocks and herds. This lord of flocks and herds, according to the picture, returns to this country. He obtains possession of a country house, he becomes Member for his county, he becomes high sheriff, and finally he attains the honour of a seat in this House. That was the picture Mr. Disraeli drew. It may be a picture that many a colonist may reproduce. But, if he has married his deceased wife's sister, over that picture a dark shadow must be cast, for if he comes to this country and dignities are conferred upon him, the father's honour is the son's shame. The slur of illegitimacy is cast upon his son, and he could not succeed to the honour which the Sovereign had given to his father. If he went to a public school he would not be Mr. So-and-so. I have only to add that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne is unhappily called away by family bereavement, but I am authorised by him to say that it was his intention to have supported this Bill.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will feel that it is difficult for an unpractised layman like myself to put in any word upon this matter in a manner against what has fallen from one to whom we look with such respect as to Lord Strathcona, and from the noble and learned Lord who has just addressed the House, but I cannot help feeling what a remarkable discrepancy there is between the arguments which have been used, and the conclusion to which we are brought. The pictures which have been drawn for us of persons who suffer, or who are put in an unwelcome or unpleasant position, are pictures which do not apply to the particular case we are asked to deal with. The noble and learned Lord who spoke last said that he-would apply the principle to this particular case, because it has been asked for in this case and not in others. But that is rather an uncertain ground for a-distinction of this importance.
  It is said that the object of the Bill is to remove the inconvenient effects upon a Colonist which come from his having married a deceased wife's sister; but though it is very perplexing to a lay Member of your Lordships' House to ascertain exactly what position such a person stands in, whether his marriage is valid or invalid, it would appear from what we have heard to-night that he suffers no disability except that his children are unable to inherit real property. At any rate, it does not bring us to the conclusion that by passing the Bill we shall remove the difficulties under which he labours.
  While the Bill singles out and deals with a particular case, the argument for it covers a number of cases. It is not desirable that I should indicate to the House how many cases the argument might cover—some of them of a questionable character occuring even within the Colonies. That being so, it is not surprising that those who feel strongly upon the main question of the marriage laws should be anxious as to the use which may be made of this precedent at some later period when we are asked to make a change which we greatly deprecate. I would like to know whether the legal advisers of the Government have;

  331
  considered the possibility of the evasive use of the powers which the Bill gives by persons going out to the Colonies to do there what they cannot do at home.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can assure the right rev. Prelate that there is no danger of any evasion. The principle on which the Bill rests is the recognition only of certain marriages between persons domiciled outside the United Kingdom. The right rev. Prelate appears to be animated in this matter by the disapproval in which he holds another proposal of a different character. It would not be logical or reasonable to use anything done in connection with this Bill as an argument for or against another. We are now concerned with a particular Bill dealing with a particular and limited subject. We are asked why we have not got the courage of our opinions, and why do we not say at once that we would recognise as valid here marriages that are valid in the Colonies. We are not likely to make or assent to any such proposal and I do not believe what noble Lords who make such a suggestion have in mind the multifarious marriage laws of the Empire.
  The Hindu marriage laws, for example, allow marriages which are revolting from our point of view. He would be a wise man who would be able to say he could give a ready answer to many of the problems relating to the international conflict of laws connected with marriage. Accordingly I would say, "Never take a step forward or backward in regard to the marriage law without knowing exactly where you are going, or you will step into a quicksand." There is no law more full of quicksands. That is why this Bill assumes the modest proportions it does. I wish to dissipate the notion that in voting for this Bill we are committing ourselves to something else beyond the limits of the Bill.
  The law at present I believe to be that this country recognises as valid all marriages abroad or in the Colonies, unless they are ropugnant to the common religion of Christendom, if they were contracted by persons domiciled in the country where the marriages wore legal. Accordingly, I believe that these marriages are valid now for all purposes except for one class of law, and that is
  332
  the law relating to the land itself and to the honours and dignities which descend like realty. That I believe to be the law generally accepted by authorities. I am not aware of an express decision on the subject, and there may be a doubt in the minds of some; and for that reason there is inserted in the Bill the phrase "for removing doubts." The only exception is that in the case of real property in England the English law of succession does not admit as a capable inheritor any person who would not be legitimate according to the law of marriage in England itself. It is a peculiar rule limited entirely to real property.
  The Bill does not propose to alter the law of succession to real property; it proposes to alter the incapacity of certain persons to come within the law of succession. The law of succession will remain as before, only a person who in every other sense as I believe, and most legal authorities believe, is legitimate at this moment will have the same legitimacy in the line of inheritance to real property. It seems to be rather a strong thing to say that when we have had the sanction of both sides of the House to Acts of Parliament passed by British Colonios legalising unions which they and many people in this country regard as perfectly legitimate, we should, for no public object that I can see, affront the sense of self-respect of our Colonial brethren by refusing to place them on the same footing as their own countrymen place them, and as we ourselves place them except with regard to one class of property. The present state of things might easily be regarded as an absurdity, and the sooner we comply with the reasonable demands of our fellow countrymen in the Colonies the better.
  On Question, Bill road 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I should like to ask the noble Earl when he proposes to take the Committee stage.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: I have not yet fixed the day, but I shall be glad to moot the noble Duke's convenience.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I only desire that we should have sufficient time to consider Amendments.

  THE UNEMPLOYED PROCESSION.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether it was with the knowledge and approval of the Home Office that a banner inscribed "Work or Riot" was carried through the streets at the head of the unemployed procession on Monday. It appears to me, and I think it will appear also to your Lordships, that it is neither right nor prudent that such a banner, bearing an incitement to a breach of the peace, should be allowed to be carried through the streets of London. I quite appreciate the fact that these processions and the speeches which are made at the meetings are regarded as a useful kind of safety valve. Wild words which may be spoken before a few hundred idlers in Hyde Park may, however, do little harm, but a seditious banner carried through the streets with the apparent sanction of the authorities, and which may be read by thousands of people, may be productive of great mischief. It is clear that the authorities did not regard this procession with indifference, since yesterday a very large force of police were drafted into the West End. It seems curious that this force should have been employed while a banner inciting to riot was allowed to be carried. I have great sympathy with the genuine unemployed, but it was clear that the procession in question consisted for the most part of the unemployable, public-house loafers and members of the criminal classes. I trust that in the interests of the public safety the Government will see that in future no banners of a seditious or inflammatory character are allowed.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it is true that such a banner as the noble Lord has described was carried in yesterday's procession. Both the procession and the meeting, however, were perfectly orderly, and no necessity for intervention arose. The Homo Office had no previous notice of the matter, and were, therefore, unable to take any stops. I venture to think that the noble Lord's melancholy
  334
  prognostications as to the future are not likely to come true.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I should like an Answer to the Question whether the Government will in future endeavour to see that such banners are not carried in processions.
  [No Answer was returned.]
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.