Sitting of 15 April 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Manchester Ship Canal (Various Powers) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Byrne's Divorce Bill [Lords]; Galwey's Divorce Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill,—As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Central London Railway Bill,—Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Hucknall Torkard, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against;—From Arbroath; and Hamilton; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Vale of Leven, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Ayr, Cambusnethan, Camelon, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Holm, Kilsyth, Kirriemuir, Renton, Rothesay, Stenhousemuir, and Thurso; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petition from Camberwell, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for the Preliminary Instruction of Elementary School Teachers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF-YEARLY STATEMENTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 11th March; Dr. Macnamara]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 108.]
  ARMY.
  Copy presented of Interim Report of the War Office Committee on the Provision of Officers (a) for Service with the Regular Army in War, and (b) for the Auxiliary Forces. Minutes of Evidence, with an Appendix, on the Conference between the Committee and the Sub-Committee of the Head Masters' Conference [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BARONETAGE.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into certain matters connected with the Baronetage. Report and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS AT PRICES OF 1900.
  Copy presented, of Tables showing for each of the years 1900–6 the estimated Value of Imports and Exports of the United Kingdom at the prices prevailing

  571
  in 1900, with an introductory Memorandum [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Local Loans Fund, Accounts of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the capital and income of the Local Loans Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1906, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 109.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Expenditure on Law and Justice in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the total sum provided in the Estimates for Law and Justice is £2,454,886 for the United Kingdom and England, £2,405,374 for Ireland, with one-tenth the population, and £388,699 for Scotland, with a population equal to that of Ireland; that the total cost of local government is £284,884 for England, £102,524 for Ireland, and £18,359 for Scotland; that the Departments of the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary for Ireland cost £83,084, and that of the Secretary for Scotland £42,792; that the office of the Registrar-General costs £9,062 in Scotland and £17,543 in Ireland; that the Board of Agriculture for England receives £199,633, and the Department of Agriculture for Ireland £238,979 a year; and whether, in view of complaints of the scale of expenditure in other Government Departments in Ireland, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The figures quoted in the Question would require much adjustment before they could be made the basis of comparison. For instance, in Ireland the cost of police is borne on the Votes of Parliament, while in Great Britain it is paid for out of local funds; many of the services borne upon the Vote for the Department of Agriculture, &c, Ireland, in the case of
  572
  England form a charge on the Vote for Education, and, similarly, the Vote for the Lord-Lieutenant has to bear expenditure of a kind met in England out of the Civil List, and entirely unlike anything that is provided for in the Vote for the Secretary of Scotland. These are examples only, but there are many respects in which the sums set down for comparison do not represent analogous services. I do not know whether the hon. Member's object is to suggest a reduction of the voted provision for Ireland, but in any case I do not consider a discussion of this kind suitable for treatment by Question and. Answer.

  Morality of Chinese on the Rand.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has any Report regarding the morality of the Chinese upon the Rand other than that of Mr. Bucknill, the publication of which is undesirable; and whether he can see his way to obtain from the Transvaal Government any such Report from the Rand Free Church Council, which is stated upon the authority of the Right Reverend J. T. M'Clure, D.D., Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of South Africa, to have found, presumably after inquiry, that the morality of such Chinamen is superior to that of the Kaffirs.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has no further Report on the subject of Chinese morality, but the subject will no doubt engage the attention of the Transvaal Ministry.

  Expenditure on Police in England and Wales.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the total amounts received and expended by local authorities in England and Wales on police during the last financial year, including grants from Parliament or Local Taxation Accounts, and the rate per head of the population as enumerated at the 1901 Census.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Taking the financial year 1905–6 for the Metropolitan Police, and for other police

  573
  forces the nearest year for which their accounts are made up the Answer is—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total cost of police

  5,743,023

  0

  0

  Cost per head of population according to 1901 Census

  3

  6¼

  If the estimated population of 1905 is taken the cost per head is 3s. 4¼d.

  Simon's Bay Dockyard.
  MR. PIKE PEASE:To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the total sum reserved for contingencies in the original estimate of the Simon's Bay dockyard extension; and what are the nature and cost of the buildings which the Admiralty now proposes to abandon.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The total sum reserved for contingencies in the original estimate of the Simon's Bay dockyard extension was £369,000. The erection of buildings of the nature of coal sheds, workshops and stores, estimated to cost about £100,000, has been deferred for the present.

  Expenditure on Naval Shooting Prizes.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what has been the net expenditure during the last three years on prizes for shooting in the Navy.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The expenditure on prizes for good shooting to petty officers, seamen, boys and marines during the three financial years immediately preceding 1906–7 (for which the figures are not yet available) was as follows:—

  £

  1903–4

  5,879

  1904–5

  6,144

  1905–6

  5,765

  Navy—Special Service Vessels.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, and if no great trouble is occasioned by compliance, he will state the number of battleships, armoured cruisers, cruisers, and destroyers which belong to the class hitherto known as in special reserve, which are manned with reduced nucleus crews, and which
  574
  are considered as about to fall obsolete, though still available for subsidiary purposes in war.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The hon. Member presumably refers to the special service vessels which are shown each month in the Navy List, and in the April issue will be found on page 270. They include ten battleships and seven cruisers, but no armoured cruisers or destroyers at present.

  Pay of Customs Watchers.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Customs watchers were paid at the rate of 8d. per hour for overtime work prior to the reorganisation of their class in 1896, and that 6d. per hour for overtime work is being paid to a certain number of watchers who perform duties identical with those who are paid at the higher rate; whether he is aware that the rate of 8d. per hour was paid to the outdoor officers employed on the lockers' duties now performed by the watchers; that 8d. per hour is the overtime rate paid in the Post Office and other Government Departments to men receiving the same wages as Customs watchers, viz., 24s. per week; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a uniform rate of 8d. per hour for all overtime attendance given by Customs watchers.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The class of Customs watchers was instituted, not reorganised, in 1896. The rate of overtime pay allowed to permanent labourers (the first appointees to the watcher class) was 8d. an hour, but they were not entitled to overtime pay until after a service of seventy-two hours in a week. The rate of overtime pay for watchers is 6d. an hour, but it is allowed after a service of forty-eight hours in a week. A certain number of watchers appointed to the post from that of permanent labourer in 1900 were, however allowed to retain their old rate of overtime when employed at merchants' expense, but their number is decreasing and they will in time disappear. The overtime rate of 8d. an hour was formerly paid to outdoor officers who performed

  575
  when required, the lockers' duties now assigned to watchers, but when the outdoor officers' duties were divided between assistants and watchers the overtime rates were fixed for the former at 1s. per hour as against 6d. for the watcher class. It is only in London that watchers are paid at the fixed rate of 24s. per week. At the out-ports (including Tilbury, Gravesend, and Queenborough) the rate is 21s. per week, one-fourth of the total number of watchers being allowed to proceed to 24s. by annual increments of 1s. per week. The Board of Customs do not recommend the introduction of a uniform rate of 8d. an hour for overtime in the case of watchers.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificate—Case of Mr. Charles Hill, of Spaxton.
  MR. MONTGOMERY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Charles Hill, of Spaxton, near Bridgwater, has been twice refused exemption by the Bridgwater petty sessional magistrates under the Vaccination Acts; that in October, 1906, an order was made by the same magistrate directing him to have his child vaccinated and to pay 8s. 6d.for costs; that these he paid; that recently he was again prosecuted for disobedience to that order, and that although the justices have been advised by the Home Office that in such cases they may use their discretion, Hill was fined 12s. 6d. and costs; and whether, as Hill has no furniture upon which distraint could be levied and will eventually be committed to gaol, he will, under the circumstances, remit the fine.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The case has not previously been brought to my notice, but I will make inquiry and let the hon. Member know the result.

  Income Tax—Unassessed Duty recovered by Inland Revenue Department.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is possible to give information to the House as to the amount of duty which, having escaped Income Tax assessment, has been subsequently recovered by the Inland Revenue Department.
  576
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The unassessed duty recovered by the Inland Revenue Department in the year 1905–6 amounted to £401,323.

  Cost of Irish Police.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total cost in the last financial year of the Irish police, including the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and the rate per head of the Irish population as enumerated at the 1901 Census.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The net cost of the Royal Irish Constabulary for the year 1905–6, as borne upon the Votes, was £1,319,852, and the cost to local authorities was £22,908 (Belfast £20,347, Londonderry £1,134, Counties for extra police £1,427). The net cost of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, as borne upon the Votes (excluding £5,209, the average annual net cost of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Courts Establishment) was £102,131, and the cost to local authorities was £42,446. The total cost, therefore, was £1,487,337, namely £1,421,983 borne by the State and £65,354 by local authorities, and the total cost is equivalent to 6s. 8d. per head of the population as shown by the Census of 1901.

  Irish School Teachers and Public Meetings.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the principal teacher of the Ballymote national school, county Sligo, was recently fined £5 by the Commissioners of National Education for making a speech at a meeting in connection with education at Ballaghadereen, county Sligo; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of the observations made by the teacher to which exception was taken by the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have fined this teacher £5 in respect of a speech made by him at Sligo, on October 27th, 1906, and have warned him that any repetition of such

  577
  conduct would lead to his instant dismissal. The Commissioners have forwarded to me a newspaper report of the speech, from which it appears that the teacher imputed improper motives to the majority of the Commissioners and to many of their inspectors in regard to the dismissal of teachers for inefficiency.

  Irish Education Grants.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a Resolution passed by the general synod of the Church of Ireland, on 10th April, expressing the opinion that the Government should, by supplemental Estimate or otherwise, bring the grants for education in Ireland up to a level with those for England and Scotland; and whether he will press this matter upon the consideration of the Treasury.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My attention has been called to the Resolution referred to. The question of obtaining additional funds for primary education in Ireland is constantly before the Irish Government.

  Arrears of Rent on the Blennerhassett Estate.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, although negotiations for the purchase of the Arthur Blennerhassett estate, near Killorglin, have been opened, a wholesale issue of civil bills for arrears of rent has been made; and whether, in view of the increase in the rents made since 1877, he will use his influence to have these proceedings stayed in order that purchase negotiations may be concluded.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that purchase agreements in respect of the Ballyseedy portion of this estate have been lodged with them, but that no proceedings in respect of the Killorglin portion of the estate have been instituted before them, and they have no knowledge of any negotiations for the purchase of that part of the estate which may be proceeding. I will ask the Commissioners to consider whether the case is one in which they
  578
  might, with advantage, offer their services as conciliators under Section 8 of the Lord-Lieutenant's regulations.

  Value of Volunteer Drill Halls and Ranges.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated capital value of the buildings, drill halls, and ranges, belonging to the Volunteer forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The official Returns from the Volunteer corps on the 31st March, 1906 (the latest available), show the estimated value of the property as follows:—

  £

  (a) Vested in Officer Commanding or his successors

  1,080,000

  (b) Vested in trustees, etc.

  92,000

  The estimated value is in most cases based on the cost rather than the commercial value.

  Transfer of Volunteer Liabilities from Public Works Loan Board to War Office.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he has obtained the consent of Volunteer regiments that their financial liabilities should be transferred from the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the War Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The consent of the Volunteer corps was not obtained because it was not in any way necessary. The mortgage deeds mortgage the property to the Public Works Loan Board or to its assignees.

  Appointment to Postmastership of Birr.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether Mr. C. A. Simon, overseer, Southport, has been appointed postmaster of Birr; how many applications were received from Post Office officials serving in Ireland for this position; what is the length of Mr. Simon's service in the Post Office; what is the length of service of each of the unsuccessful applicants in Ireland; whether all, or nearly all, of the applicants in Ireland were possessed of proficiency certificates in postal and telegraph duties; and whether he will explain in what way

  579
  Mr. Simon's qualifications for this post-mastership were superior to those of any, or of all, of the applicants in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Yes, Mr. C. A. Simon, overseer, Southport, has been appointed postmaster of Birr. In my Answer to the hon. Member's Question of 20th March I indicated my reasons for selecting Mr. Simon, and I have nothing to add to that Answer. It is not customary to publish particulars of the applications received.

  Promotion of Irish Postal Officials.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the length of service of each of the four Post Office officials in Ireland who during the year 1906 were promoted or transferred to postmasterships or salaried sub-post-masterships in Great Britain, the length of service of each of the two Post Office officials in Great Britain who during the year 1906 were promoted or transferred to similar posts in Ireland, and the annual salary or wages of each of the six immediately prior to and subsequent to such promotion or transfer.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Burton.) It is not usual to publish such particulars as those asked for by the hon. Member, nor do I see that any good purpose would be served by so doing.

  Irish Postal Order Business.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the British postal orders paid in Ireland amount approximately to less than 5 per cent. of the total orders paid there, and vice versa, and that it would be more economical to have all the details of Irish postal order work checked in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of issuing Irish orders with a separate series of numbers and a distinctive colour in the printing, and have all the details checked in Dublin instead of in London, as at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not able to confirm the figure given by the hon. Member, and I am not aware upon what he bases it. The issue of a separate series of postal orders for Ireland would considerably complicate the work-
  580
  ing of the system and interfere with its simplicity without securing any corresponding advantage.

  Irish Postal Stores.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the value of engineering stores used in Ireland in 1905 amounted to £11,500, of which only £500 was spent in Ireland, that nearly all the other Post Office stores used in Ireland are imported from Great Britain that the upkeep of the Irish portion of the-Post Office Savings Bank in London costs approximately £30,000 a year, that the Savings Bank deposits and withdrawals-in Ireland made through British deposits books amount approximately to only 1 per cent. of the total and vice versa, and that the present system is inconvenient to Irish depositors and less economical from a public point of view, he will consider the advisability of transferring to Dublin the Irish Savings Bank work which is now done in London.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not able to confirm the hon. Member's figures so far as they relate to the Post Office Savings Bank. The question of transferring to Dublin the administration of the Irish business of the Savings Bank has been considered on several occasions, and it does not appear that there would be any economy in keeping the Irish Savings Bank accounts in Dublin. I may point out that any inconvenience that may be caused to Irish depositors by the present arrangement has been much diminished by the system of withdrawal on demand for sums not exceeding £1.

  Postal Facilities in County Mayo
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at Achill Sound and Mulrany Post offices, County Mayo, there is only one post inwards and one outwards each weekday and none at all on Sundays, though at each there is a railway station, while at many smaller post offices in Mayo-remote from railway stations there are two posts each way daily; that the limited mail train of the Midland Great Western Railway arrives at each of the stations, Achill Sound and Mulrany, daily, but carries no mails for them; and that the up

  581
  limited mail leaves Achill Sound and Mulrany about mid-day and carries letters from more fortunate places to catch the evening mail boats from Dublin, but inhabitants of Achill Sound and Mulrany have to entrust their letters to the guard and ask him to post them when he reaches some place with better postal facilities; can he say why the mails from Achill and Mulranyare sent over 20 miles by road parallel to the railway on a one-horse car, although the railway has been open for traffic more than ten years; and will he endeavour to arrange more up-to-date postal facilities for Achill and Mulrany.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a report on this subject, and on its receipt I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Great Southern and Western Railway—Examinations for Clerkships.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the examinations for clerkships on the Great Southern and Western Railway one of three languages, Latin, French, or German, is compulsory; and whether, as these subjects are not included in the curriculum of national or primary schools, he will ask the directors whether they will consider the advisability of modifying this regulation, and also of including Irish as one of the subjects which may be taken.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) This is not a matter with which I can interfere.

  King's Bench Division Clerkships—Open Competitions.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether steps can now be taken to fill future vacancies in King's Bench Division clerkships by open competition; and whether those at present exercising the patronage have any objections to such an arrangement.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Lord Chancellor informs me that all appointments to junior clerkships in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland are made by open competition, except in cases in which
  582
  existing rights of patronage have been preserved by statute to certain judges. The Lord Chancellor has consulted the two judges who still possess these statutory rights, and they have informed him that they do not consider it expedient, and will not consent, to make the change suggested in the Question.

  Irish Stone for New College of Science, Dublin.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it has yet been decided that the new College of Science in Dublin will be constructed of Irish stone; whether he is aware that Irish stone, containing over 70 per cent. of silica and less than 2 per cent. of carbonate of lime, is available, whilst Portland stone contains only about 10 per cent. of silica and 80 per cent. of carbonate of lime, and that the Irish stone is free from flints and fossils; and whether, as the Irish stone is therefore better able to resist atmospheric changes and is more durable, he will see that it is used in the construction of the college.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education to a similar Question on the 7th November last. †

  Report of Committees on Employment of Domestics in the Navy and Ratings.
  Mr. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state if the Departmental Committee that inquired into the question of the employment of domestics in the Royal Navy has concluded its labours; and when it is probable that the decision of their Lordships in reference thereto will be made known.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state if the Ratings Committee appointed by their Lordships last year has yet made its Report; and when he hopes to make known such Committee's recommendations and their Lordships' decision thereon.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Both Reports have been received, but I
  †See (4) Debates, clxiv., 565.

  583
  am not at present in a position to state when it will be possible to promulgate the Admiralty decision.

  Issue of Stokehold Boots.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will, state whether the stokehold boots have been found satisfactory in practice; and, whether it is possible for the issue to be made to each man personally annually, so as to avoid the unpleasant consequences which sometimes arise in the use of the boots by different men.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) These boots are not yet in general use, but they have been found quite satisfactory in the ships in which they have been tried. It has not been considered necessary so far to adopt the method of issue suggested by the hon. Member, and it is proposed to await further experience in the matter.

  Children Emigrated to Canada.
  MR. W. HOPE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of children emigrated to Canada by boards of guardians during 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) During the year 1906 the Local Government Board issued orders authorising expenditure by boards of guardians in respect of the emigration to Canada of 441 orphan or deserted children. Expenditure in respect of the emigration to Canada of 255 other children was authorised during the year by orders relating to the emigration of persons with their families.

  Boarded-out Poor Law Children.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of Poor Law children boarded out within and beyond the union at the date of the last Return.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The most recent Return relates to 1st January last. On that date 6,806 children were boarded out within the union and 1,853 beyond the union.

  Nottingham University College — Constitution of Court of Governors.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the President of the Board of Education what is the constitution of the Court of Governors of Nottingham University College; and whether the Board of Education approved of the constitution of this body before the charter was granted.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Charter provides that the Court of Governors shall consist of the President, the Vice-Presidents, and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Nottingham acting by the City Council. The Answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

  Rewards for Snake Killing in India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India still offers rewards for killing snakes; and, if so, whether, in view of the effect of such expenditure in encouraging professional snake charmers to breed poisonous snakes for the sake of the reward, and that any otherwise unexplained death is generally returned as due to snake bite by the village registrar, and in view of the efforts being made by the Government of India to discover an antidote against the snake venom, he will consider the propriety of inviting that Government to save the money spent upon such rewards.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) Rewards for the destruction of snakes are not offered by the Government of India, but local Governments are authorised to offer them to such extent as they think fit. As the total amount thus spent from Government funds throughout India does not usually exceed £200 per annum, I do not think there is any occasion to interfere with this discretionary power.

  Irish Evicted Tenants — Case of Mrs. E. Crawford of Mullaghgarrow.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if the Estates Commissioners have received a claim from Mrs. Eliza Crawford, of Mullaghgarrow, county Fermanagh, an evicted tenant,

  585
  for restoration or provision of a new holding; and whether the Commissioners have yet made any decision on her claim.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The application referred to was only received by the Estates Commissioners on the 3rd instant. No decision has yet been made in the matter.

  Irish Loan Fund Board Auditors.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Loan Fund Board of Ireland has been called to the fact that some of the loan societies have appointed relatives of directors as auditors; and whether, with a view to checking abuses, some qualification for auditors can be insisted upon, as well as the publication in a local newspaper of the annual statement of accounts.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Loan Fund Board are not aware that any loan fund society certified under 6 and 7 Vic, cap. 91, has appointed relatives of directors or any other persons as auditors. The only official having power to audit the accounts of such societies is the Loan Fund inspector appointed under the statute referred to.

  Condition of Road from Parkmore to Red Bay.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the condition of the road from Parkmore to Red Bay, county Antrim; whether he is aware that the Midland Railway Company ascribe the failure to provide adequate motor connection with the railway to the bad condition of this road; whether the damage to the roadway is done by raction engines, the owners of which pay nothing to the repair or upkeep of the roads; whether he can state the annual cost of keeping this road in repair; and whether, having regard to the effect upon the development of Red Bay and Cushendall, the Local Government Board will say what steps, if any, can be taken to make the owners of the traction engines liable for the damage done to the roads.
  586
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board inform me that the road in question has at times been in bad condition owing to the destructive traffic in iron ore from the Parkmore Mines to Red Bay Pier. This traffic is carried on partly by traction engines and partly by farmers' carts, the owners of which contribute nothing towards the cost, about £815 per annum, of maintaining the road beyond their ordinary contribution as ratepayers. As the law at present stands in Ireland, owners of traction engines cannot be made liable for damage done to roads. I have no information as to the second portion of the Question.

  School Fees in Irish Model Schools.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, what amount of money was paid in school fees through the central model schools in Dublin in the past year; how much was refunded to the teachers of these schools, and how the balance of the amount was distributed; and whether such distribution was by direction of the Treasury or the National Board of Education.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) School fees amounting to £257 19s. l0d. were received from the pupils attending the central model schools during the year ended 31st December, 1906. The entire amount of school fees received from the pupils of the Board's model schools during the year 1906 was distributed amongst the model school teachers according to rules sanctioned by the Treasury. These rules are set forth in the reply given to to the Question of the hon. Member for South Belfast on 21st March, 1906.†The shares of the teachers of the central model schools for the year 1906 amounted in the aggregate to £136 18s. 3d.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Rosyth.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any intention of making an
  †See (4) Debates, cliv., 356.

  587
  increase, in the near future, in the staff of men working at Rosyth dock, which now consists of nine men.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that from John o' Groats to Dover there is no dock able to take battleships of the "Dreadnought" class, he will consider the urgency of constructing a suitable dock at Rosyth without delay.
  THE SECRETAEY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Edmund Robertson,): A statement on the subject of both these Questions will be made in the course of the debate on Vote 10, which I anticipate will be taken at an early date.

  Officers appointed from the Ranks.
  MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many officers were appointed from the ranks from 1st January, 1898, to 1st January, 1903, not including riding masters and quartermasters and how many of these officers were serving in the Regular Army on 1st January, 1907.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The number of officers appointed from the ranks (exclusive of quartermasters and riding masters) to the Cavalry, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Infantry and Army Service Corps from 1st January, 1898, to 31st December, 1902, was 136, and the number serving on the 1st January, 1907, was 86.
  MR. LEA: Do these figures include district officers of the Royal Artillery, and officers of the Coast Brigade Royal Engineers?
  MR. HALDANEasked for notice of the Question.

  Appointments of Officers.
  MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many officers were appointed from 1st January, 1898, to 1st January, 1903, not including riding masters and quartermasters; and how many of these officers were serving in the Regular Army on 1st January, 1907.
  MR. HALDANE: The number of officers (exclusive of quartermasters and riding masters) appointed to the Cavalry, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Infantry and Army Service Corps, including those appointed from the ranks, from the 1st January, 1898, to 31st December, 1902, was 6,082 and the number serving on 1st January, 1907, was 4,091.

  Under-Age Recruits.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of a soldier named Henry Hartney, No. 8,404, G Company, 2nd Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers, who was born on the 13th July, 1889, and enlisted before he was seventeen years of age, and to the fact that his widowed mother has claimed him on account of being under age, and has sent his baptismal certificate to the commanding officer when claiming his discharge; will he say what is the legal age for enlistment in the Regular Army; and whether, under the circumstances, this boy will be discharged and handed over to his mother.
  MR. HALDANE: The age for enlistment in the Regular Forces is eighteen. The circumstances under which any individual having mis-stated his age on enlistment can obtain discharge are fully set forth in paragraph 1805 King's Regulations. The power of deciding these cases is vested in the local military authorities, with whose discretion I am not prepared to interfere.
  MR. JOYCE: If the limit of age is eighteen and the baptismal lines of the recruit enlisted show that he is under seventeen, has the boy's parent or guardian power to secure his discharge?
  MR. HALDANE.When the recruit is very young we do not hold him by his act, but when he is nearly the age we give certain powers of discretion to the commanding officer to say whether or not he shall be released.
  MR. JOYCE: But why take advantage of fraud committed by persons who are considered infants by the law?
  MR. HALDANE: It is not a case of taking advantage of fraud at all. It is

  589
  not right that a youth should be enlisted at his own request, and then when he finds he does not like it claim his discharge on a technicality.
  MR. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend the military authorities to discharge this boy and send him home to his widowed mother?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Volunteer Drill Halls and Rifle Ranges.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if lie can give a general estimate of the total amount of capital liability incurred by Volunteer regiments in providing drill halls and rifle ranges; and what proportion of that liability had been paid off.
  MR. HALDANE: A general estimate of this amount may be formed from the following figures. In the Returns furnished by Volunteer Corps on the 31st March 1906 (the latest available) the estimated value of the property was as follows:—(a) Vested in officers commanding and successors £1,080,00; (b) vested in trustees, etc. £92,000. Of this some £65,000 was contributed by the Government in aid of rifle ranges. On that date there were mortgages on this property outstanding as follows:—(a) £526,000; (b) £17,000. The estimated value is in most cases based on the cost rather than on the commercial value, and I cannot pledge myself to the accuracy of the figures.

  Woolwich Arsenal Discharges.
  MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State forward whether he will suspend the further discharge of men from Woolwich Arsenal until the Committee of Inquiry which has been appointed has reported.
  MR. HALDANE: I am afraid that it would not be practicable to adopt the suggestion put forward by my hon. friend. It will be imperative to carry out some discharges, and, while every endeavour is being made to reduce the number as much as possible, complete suspension of discharges could not be conceded.
  MR. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman hurry the inquiry?
  MR. HALDANE: It is being pushed on as rapidly as possible.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman put down the Vote for the Ordnance Department prior to the discharge of these men, so that the House may have an opportunity of discussing the whole question?
  MR. HALDANE: That Question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

  Bombay Municipal Elections.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a letter addressed to the Bombay Government by three members of the Legislative Council, complaining of the interference by the commissioner of police and other officials in the Bombay municipal elections; and whether, looking to the Government of India Orders of 12th June 1902, which declare that officers of Government interfering with the free choice of elective bodies will be severely dealt with, and to the fact that the Bombay Government has declined to take action, he will cause inquiry to be made into the complaint of the three honourable members of Council.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The letter to which the hon. Member refers has been privately brought to my notice. Officials are not prohibited from offering themselves as candidates at municipal elections, and if they do, it is obvious that they must canvass; but I am confident that if any instance is brought to the notice of the Government of Bombay in which a candidate has made improper use of his official position to influence votes, they will act entirely in the spirit of Lord Curzon's letter of 1902.

  Lord Kitchener's Command.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Lord Kitchener has been offered and accepted an extension of his term as Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army.
  SIR H. COTTON: At the same time may I ask the Secretary

  591
  of State for India whether Lord Kitchener has been offered and has accepted an extension of his period of service as Commander-in-Chief in India.
  MR. MORLEY: The duty of recommending for the office of Commander-in-Chief belongs to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. With the approval of my right hon. friend I addressed a preliminary inquiry to Lord Kitchener whether a further extension for two years would be agreeable to him, and expressing my own wish that he should accept. He has replied in the affirmative. My light hon. friend will take the proper steps in due course.

  Mayo College.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether boys receiving their education at the Mayo College are to a great extent financed by the Imperial Government; and, if so, whether in regard to boys of the class concerned, there is any sufficient reason why they should be assisted from the public purse.
  MR. MORLEY: The Government of India give an annual grant to the Mayo College, the cost of the foundation of which was met partly by contributions from the Rajputana Chiefs, partly by a Government grant. The attention of the Government of India has been called to the question of charging fees.

  Australian State Premiers and the Colonial Conference.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table the correspondence relating to the exclusion of the State Premiers of Australia from the Colonial Conference.
  THE UNDER-SECRET ARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I refer the hon. and gallant Member to the correspondence printed in Cd. 3340.
  SIR. WILLIAM BULL: Is the correspondence complete?
  MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to reply in the affirmative.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Are we on this side in possession of all the correspondence published in Australia in connection with this matter?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know, but if there has been any correspondence published in Australia and not yet published here and my attention is drawn to it, the documents shall be laid before the House.

  Orange River Colony Constitution.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what has occurred to delay the issue of the Letters Patent embodying the provisions of the Constitution for the Orange River Colony; whether a register of voters has been formed and a Boundary Commission appointed, as declared in his speech made in this House on the 17th December last;† and whether he adheres to the belief then expressed by him that the new Parliament of the Colony might assemble in Bloemfontein some time during the coming autumn.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The preparation of the Letters Patent is being pressed on and they will issue in the course of the next few weeks. Thereupon the registration of voters and delimitation of constituencies for which all is in readiness will proceed. No change either in point of time or method has taken place in the policy of His Majesty's Government upon the Constitution of the Orange River Colony; and no delay that was not expected last December has occurred. I see no reason to doubt that the new Parliament of the Colony will assemble in Bloemfontein in the autumn according to the anticipation which I then expressed to the House.

  Judicial Powers in Nairobi.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what punishment is the magistrate at Nairobi empowered to inflict on natives for insulting white women; and, in view of recent occurrences, is it proposed to add to his powers.
  †See (4) Debates, clxvii., 1078.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, which is in force in the East Africa Protectorate, an insult to the modesty of a women is punishable with imprisonment for one year and with a fine. The law, of course, applies irrespective of the colour or race of the offender. The Secretary of State is not aware that any offences against this law have recently occurred, and he does not see any reason to increase the penalty
  MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether the alleged insult to a white women by natives consisted of language, gesture, or anything approaching personal insult or personal outrage?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that from the information telegraphed the Secretary of State formed the impression that nothing in the nature of an insult to the modesty of the lady in question took place, but for the complete particulars they must wait until the account by mail arrived.
  SIR C. HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether prior to the occurrences which led to the imprisonment of Captain Grogan and others, the Colonial Office had received any representation from the Colonists' Association at Nairobi, alleging that the local authorities are powerless or unwilling to deal effectively with cases in which the white population are exposed to insult or danger from the coloured inhabitants; and, if so, what is the date of such representation, and what reply was sent to it.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The only representation of the kind which has been received at the Colonial Office is in the address of the Colonists' Association to the then Secretary of State, dated the 23rd of August, 1905, in which representations were made as to the alleged danger of a native rebellion and it was recommended that white troops and police should be substituted for the existing native forces. In replying to this address the present Secretary of State, while welcoming the assistance of the white colonists in maintaining order and trusting that they would render such assistance by joining the Volunteer Reserve, expressed the opinion that the general substitution of white troops and police
  594
  was impossible not only on account of their greater cost but also because at least they would be less suited to operations in the tropical parts of the Protectorate. At the same time the Secretary of State expressed his conviction that just treatment of the natives was the surest safeguard of the settlers, and that, if this were accorded, the settlers would have no cause to fear them.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Was the memorial referred to the same as the joint petition to this House?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot say until I have had an opportunity of perusing the documents.

  Jamaica.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make any statement in regard to the application for loan and grant to Jamaica.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: At the same time, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state what requests for the provision of financial assistance have been received by the Government from the Jamaican representatives now in England; and what assistance by grant or loan the Government propose to give.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has only during the last day or two had an opportunity of listening to the statement of the Archbishop of Jamaica, who has introduced a deputation from the Colony. The consideration of the case is not yet concluded.

  Opium Traffic in Ceylon.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Singhalese people grew the poppy in Ceylon or used opium under their native kings, or during the Portuguese or Dutch rule, or until the middle of last century, when the British Government established licensed shops for the sale of opium in towns and villages; and whether, seeing that the importation of opium has increased from 1,000 lbs. in 1850 to 20,000 lbs. in 1905, and that the

  595
  Buddhist High Priest, Sumangala, and the Singhalese representative on the Legislative Council, Mr. Obeyesekera, have appealed to the Government to close the licensed shops, His Majesty's Government will take steps to suppress the opium traffic in Ceylon.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot undertake at this moment to dispute nor to confirm the facts which the hon. Member has assembled; but the increase of the imports of opium into Ceylon under British rule has already formed the subject of official inquiry and correspondence, and is engaging the serious attention of the Secretary of State.

  Persian Customs Control.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information to the effect that the Belgian Directors of Customs in Persia have been dismissed; and whether, if any fresh appointments of the like character are contemplated, he will endeavour to arrange that directors acceptable to this country and favourable to the development of its commerce are appointed in the Persian Gulf.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Sir EDWARD GREY): The Minister of Customs in Persia, Monsieur Naus, and his Assistant, Monsieur Priem, have resigned. My right hon. friend has no information of the resignation or dismissal of any of the other Belgian Customs Officials in Persia, or of any contemplated change in the Belgian staff in the ports of the Persian Guff.

  Turkish Customs.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Porte have yet been notified of the formal assent of Great Britain to the three per cent. increase in the Turkish Customs.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Answer is in the negative.

  Duty on Chocolate.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the extent to which manu-
  596
  factured chocolate is imported into this country; what is the amount derived by the Exchequer as the result of the protective duty; and whether he has any information as to the advantage such protective duty has been to British manufacturers.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. ASQUITH): Taking the figures for the five years from 1902 to 1906 inclusive, the average annual import into the United Kingdom of cocoa or chocolate ground, prepared, or in any way manufactured and confectionery containing chocolate, has been 10,914,000 lbs., of which the average quantity entered for home consumption has been 10,307,000 lbs. The average total amount of duty received thereon was £85,340; but I am not prepared to say what proportion (if any) of this receipt results from the alleged protective character of the rates of duty, or to make an estimate of any advantage which may accrue to British manufacturers by reason of those rates.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether it was not a fact that the duty payable on raw cocoa was from 2s. 3d. to 8s. 6d. per cwt. less than the duty charged on the product of the same quantity of raw material imported in the manufactured form.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid if that the right hon. Gentleman would put his Question on the Paper he would have the figures verified.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN furtherasked whether there could not be presented to the House the calculations on this subject made by the Chairman of the Board of Customs in October, 1904, for the information of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. RUNCIMANreplied that he would be glad to communicate this desire to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Financial Statements.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in presenting to the House the printed financial statement for 1907–8, in continuation of Paper 147

  597
  of Session 1906, he can see his way to exhibit the respective items of out Imperial revenue and expenditure in such manner that, while they make the facts clear as to the gross income and outgo of the postal and telegraph business, the gross figures of those businesses are not brought into the totals to make it appear that the national expenditure is much larger than is actually the case.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The rearrangement which my hon. friend suggests would not be a very convenient one, regard being had to the general form of the public accounts. Anyone wishing to readjust the figures in the manner suggested can readily do so upon the material furnished by the Return in its present form.

  Death Duties.
  CAPTAIN WARING: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue authorities have applied for the payment of Death Dutiesin cases where no duty was exigible, thereby putting unnecessary expense on trustees or executors in resisting these claims; and, if so, whether provision could be made for recouping trustees, executors, or others for any expense to which they may have been put in connection with such claims when ill-founded.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Such cases may sometimes occur with this or any other tax. But my information is that they are rare; and it does not seem to me to be desirable that any general provision should be made for conferring on trustees or others a title to claim reimbursement of expenses incurred in consequence. Where there are special circumstances the Board of Inland Revenue are ready to consider them.

  Buxton Brewster Sessions.
  *MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the Buxton brewster sessions on 9th February, when a provisional full licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors was granted to the secretary of the Buxton Garden Company, Limited, in respect of a building known as the Old Theatre; whether he is aware that the grant was
  598
  made by a narrow majority of the justices, in the face of opposition from Buxton residents, including property owners and licensed victuallers; that certain of the justices voting for the grant were until recently shareholders in the Buxton Garden Company, Limited; whether the justices declared that there was no monopoly value in the licence for which payment should be made by the applicant; whether the chairman of the bench on this occasion ceased to be a member of the company the day before he adjudicated, having transferred his 127 shares in the company to the magistrates' clerk who acted as magistrates' clerk while the case was heard; whether another of the justices acting also ceased to be a member of the company the day before the application was heard, having transferred into the name of his wife the twenty-one shares he held in the company: whether these justices had taken part in the meeting of shareholders of the company at which the question of applying for a licence was discussed, and the chairman had, before the application was made, pronounced strongly in public in favour of the grant of the licence; and whether, under these circumstances, he will take stops to prevent the confirmation of the licence.
  *THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): The Secretary of State asks me to say that he has no information as to this case, but he will make inquiries into the allegations contained in the Question. It cannot, however, in any event lie with him to take any action in regard to the confirmation of the licence. It is open to any person who opposed the grant and to no other person to oppose the confirmation.
  *MR. LEIF JONES: If the statements in the Question are confirmed by the inquiries, will the attention of the Lord Chancellor be drawn to the action of these justices, who evidently formed a biassed tribunal?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: We must await the result of the inquiries before deciding upon the policy to be pursued.

  Railway Company's Contributions to the London Municipal Society.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London and South Western Railway Company assisted in financing the London Municipal Society; whether he will make an inquiry into the extent and circumstances of the subscription; and whether he has yet decided what steps to take, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent the recurrence of subscriptions by companies created by Act of Parliament to associations which take an active part in contested elections.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I have received the following letter from the London and South Western Railway Company:—
  "London and South Western Railway,
  "General Manager's Office,
  "Waterloo Station,
  "London, S.E.
  "12th April, 1907.
  "Sir,
  "With reference to your letter of the 9th instant, and to the question which Mr. Trevelyan proposes to ask the President of the Board of Trade in the House of Commons on Monday next the 15th instant, I would explain that this Company did contribute to the funds of the London Municipal Society in July, 1906, the sum of £100.
  "In so doing, the Directors acted under the belief that the Municipal Reform movement was not connected in any way with Party, and entirely in the desire to assist a society whose object was to reduce the rates, which pressed very severely on railway companies, who are in the anomalous position of not having any voice in the election of those who make the rates.
  "This Company has never subscribed to any association having a political object, and does not propose to do so.
  "In order to show you the anxiety of the Directors to avoid, as far as possible, any political influence being exercised among their employees, or on their premises, I take the opportunity of sending you copy of a letter which was
  600
  circulated prior to the last general election—following the course frequently adopted on previous occasions.
  "I am, Sir,
  "Your obedient Servant,
  "CHARLES J. OWENS.
  "The Assistant Secretary
  "(Railway Department),
  "Board of Trade,
  "7, Whitehall Gardens, S.W."
  With regard to the last part of my hon. friend's Question, I am not yet in a position to make any statement, but the matter is receiving the careful attention of His Majesty's Government.
  MR. MYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the other letter? [Cries of "No, no."]
  SIR EDWIN CORNWALLasked whether in view of these disclosures and others of a similar nature, the right hon. Gentleman would consult with the Prime Minister with a view to annulling the recent London County Council election.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked whether it would be competent for a shipping company to give a subscription to a political Party which included shipping subsidies in their programme.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a purely hypothetical question.

  Redditch Signalman's Duty.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many hours the signalman, John Canning, worked at Redditch on 1st April; how many trains passed his signal-box from the time he went on duty to the time he left; whether he received any assistance; what time was allowed for his meals; was he permitted to leave his box during the day; what wages he earned whilst on duty; and whether any allowance is made by the railway company to his wife during the illness of John Canning brought about by the strain of work.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am informed by the Midland Railway Company

  601
  that the signalman in question was not on duty on the 1st April. He was on duty from 8 p.m. on Saturday the 30th March until 7 a.m. on the following morning, his usual Saturday night turn of duty, during which time twenty-four trains passed his cabin. No assistance I was given during this period, nor could he leave his post, but there were ample intervals for meals between trains. This signalman is paid 23s. a week wages with an annual bonus of 50s. and during absence from duty through illness he receives 12s. a week from the Midland Railway Friendly Society to which the company contribute.

  Merchant Shipping Bill.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his intention to deal with the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage Deduction for Propelling Power) Bill as if it were a Private Bill, necessitating appearance by counsel and agents of those; opposed to the measure; and if he is aware that this will entail great expense on the opponents of the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The matter to which my hon. friend refers is having my careful consideration in all its bearings, and I have asked gentlemen representative of the interests concerned to confer with me with regard to it. At the moment I am not in a position to make any definite statement as to the procedure I shall recommend to the House.

  London Brighton and South Coast Railway—Lighting of Trains.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a second class carriage of the train leaving Pulborough at 12.3 p.m. on the 18th March was not lighted when passing through tunnels between that station and Victoria; and seeing that frequent complaints are made that the carriages of trains running between Pulborough and Victoria are not lighted during their passage through the tunnels, will he communicate with the railway company on the subject.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have communicated with the railway company in this matter and will inform my hon. friend of the result.

  Imports of Dutiable Articles.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the value in 1906 of the total imports into the United Kingdom of all articles upon which revenue duties are now imposed from each of the self-governing Colonies.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The total value of dutiable articles imported from each of the self-governing Colonies in 1906 was as follows:—Cape of Good Hope, £12,677; Natal, £4,187; Transvaal, £30; Australian Commonwealth, £106,537; New Zealand, £163; Canada, £15,368; Newfoundland and the Coast of Labrador, £289. These figures are classified according to the Colony from which the goods were consigned to the United Kingdom.

  Lighting of the Devon and Cornish Coasts.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent wrecks of the "Suevic" and the "Jebba" off the Devon and Cornish coasts, he will cause inquiry to be made into the sufficiency of the lighting arrangements in that neighbourhood with a view to the increased protection of shipping against disaster.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Any inquiry into the sufficiency of the lighting arrangements of the coasts of Devon and Cornwall would be a matter for the consideration of the Trinity House as the General Lighthouse Authority for England and Wales, and the Elder Brethren, whom I have consulted regarding the hon. Member's Question, inform me that in their opinion it would be premature and possibly prejudicial for them to express any opinion on the subject pending the formal investigations which will shortly be held into the casualties to the "Suevic" and "Jebba."

  The Patents and Designs Bill.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause to be printed and circulated, before the Second Reading of the Patents Bill, a memorandum, similar to the memoranda circulated on other Government Bills this session, showing its effect on existing legislation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already made arrangements for a memorandum of the kind described by the noble Lord to be printed and circulated before the Second Reading of the Patents and Designs Bill.

  Vaccination in Workhouses.
  *MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is a practice for medical officers of workhouses to vaccinate every person entering those institutions at all ages, varying from three days up to eighty years; and what was the cost of vaccinations performed in workhouses during the year 1906.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns,): So far as I am aware, there is no such practice as is referred to in the first part of the Question. The cost of vaccination in workhouses is not shown separately in the Returns, and I am not able to state what it is.
  MR. LUPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to the practice?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Primary Vaccination.
  *MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Local Government Board Order of the 18th October, 1898, Third Schedule, Section No. 7, which states that in all ordinary cases of primary vaccination the public vaccinator must aim at producing four separate good-sized vesicles or groups of vesicles not less than half an inch from one another, and that the total area of vesiculation resulting from the vaccination should not be less than half a square inch, is still in force, or have the medical advisers of the Local Government Board come to the conclusion that there is no advantage in large vesiculation; and, if so, will he issue a fresh Order.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The instruction in the Order is still in force, and the medical advisers of the Local Government Board do not recommend that it should be altered. They have not come
  604
  to any conclusions in this matter opposed to the views expressed in paragraphs 294, 295 and 297 of the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination.
  *MR. LUPTON: Is it not the fact that Dr. Copeland of the Local Government Board has stated that the formation of large marks or any marks is not essential to good vaccination, and that the marks are caused by organisms other than the vaccine microbe.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I must not be held responsible for any medical opinion.

  Kettering Urban Council and Phthisis.
  SIR F. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has now received and considered the statement of the Kettering Urban Council and the Report of their medical officer in support of their resolution, under Section 7 of The Infectious Disease (Notification) Act, 1889, to apply that Act to phthisis; whether he is aware that this resolution was moved by a direct representative of labour, has the general assent of the working class in Kettering, and was passed unanimously by the council; whether he is aware that throughout the shoemaking towns the spread of the disease in the factories is specially dreaded, and that, while the sanitary arrangements of Kettering have reduced the deaths in Kettering from zymotic diseases to 25 per thousand, there is an average of forty-nine deaths per annum from phthisis, or a mortality of l·28 per thousand; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will now signify his approval of the resolution and allow compulsory notification of phthisis in this urban district area.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received the statement of the District Council and the Report of the medical officer of health referred to. They have only reached me within the last few days, and they are now under consideration.

  Compulsory Notification of Phthisis.
  SIR F. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has obtained authoritative Reports of the working of the compulsory notification of phthisis, under the provisions of private Acts, in

  605
  the county boroughs of Bolton and Sheffield; whether such Reports show the system to be working satisfactorily and without serious objection; whether he has obtained, from or through the Local Government Board for Scotland, Reports as to the working of compulsory notification of phthisis in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other Scottish towns in pursuance of orders approved by that Board on the express ground that phthisis is now regarded as infectious; and whether such Reports show that this system is working satisfactorily and without serious objection.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: There have been statements in the Annual Reports of the Bolton and Sheffield medical officers of health on this subject, but I am not aware that any authoritative Reports have otherwise been made with regard to it. Nor have I received any Report from or through the Scottish Local Government Board as to the working of compulsory notification of phthisis in any towns in Scotland. Dr. Bulstrode, one of the Medical Inspectors of the Local Government Board, has, however, for some time past been engaged on an inquiry as to phthisis sanatoria in England and Wales, and incidentally he has acquired much information as to the working both of voluntary and of compulsory notification of pulmonary phthisis. This information he is embodying in a Report which is now in the Press.

  Inspection of Dairies.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what was the number of the local authorities to which the tuberculosis circular of the Board of 11th March, 1899, adverting to the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, and enclosing copies of model regulations for the control and inspection of dairies, was sent; and how many of such authorities have since made regulations or revised existing regulations in accordance with the views expressed by the Board in the circular.
  I beg also to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the possible danger to the public from the sale of tuberculous milk, if the Local Government Board have any power to compel a local authority, within the
  606
  meaning of the Dairy, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order of 1885, to make regulations for the inspection of cattle in dairies contemplated by Article 13 of the Order; and if there are any, and if so, how many, local authorities in England and Wales which up to the present have made no such regulations.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no power to compel the making of regulations under Article 13 of the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order, but regulations under the Article are in force in all except about 340 out of some 1,800 urban and rural districts. The precise figures will appear in a Return now in preparation which was moved for by my hon. friend the Member for the Brentford Division. The regulations usually contain an article as to the inspection of cattle in dairies. The Circular of 11th March, 1899, was sent to the councils of all urban and rural districts. Regulations under the Order have since been made by 906 of these councils, and they have generally been based on the model regulations issued by the Local Government Board.

  Slaughtering of Animals.
  *MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will bring in legislation in order to carry out the unanimous recommendations of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty in 1904 to consider the humane slaughtering of animals.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I will give consideration to the subject, but I cannot promise to introduce legislation with regard to it during the present session.
  *MR. G. GREENWOOD: Will the Government give facilities for the Bill which has passed its Second Reading in another place, with the support of the President of the Board of Agriculture, to enable public authorities to establish public slaughter-houses?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will consider that.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: If the right hon. Gentleman,

  607
  in view of the state of public business, feels it impossible to introduce legislation dealing with this subject, will he consider the desirability of issuing a circular to local bodies calling attention to the unanimous recommendations of this Committee, and of doing what he can by means of Departmental regulations?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I shall be pleased to consider that suggestion sympathetically, knowing that the hon. Gentleman has taken special interest in this matter. May I add that the Report with which his name is associated, has advanced the subject very much more than he may be disposed to think?

  Canadian Postage Rates Reduction.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the arrangement that he has been negotiating with the Dominion Government with reference to the postage on newspapers, magazines, and trade journals from this country to Canada has been brought to a conclusion; and if he can state what is the nature of the arrangement.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am glad to say that I have been able to come to an arrangement with Mr. Lemieux, the Dominion Postmaster-General, by which the postage rates on newspapers, magazines, and trade journals going to Canada will be very materially reduced. Perhaps I need not trouble the House with the details of the arrangement, as a statement in regard to the matter will appear to-morrow morning. Substantially the effect of the arrangement is this: The present postal rate on the articles in question is approximately 4d. per pound, which will be reduced to 1d. per pound per packet. But a very substantial portion of the loss involved by the reduction of 3d. per pound will be borne by the Dominion Post Office and only a portion will therefore fall upon the British Post Office. The Dominion Government will relieve the British Post Office, and themselves bear the cost of ocean transit on the articles in question in ships under contract with Canada. This represents a relief to us, in respect of the matter conveyed on those ships, of a little over 2d. per pound. The arrangement just concluded will put
  608
  this country in future in a more favourable postal position towards Canada in respect of newspapers, magazines, and trade journals than that occupied by any other country. We are sanguine that the reduction thus given, and the improved postal facilities granted, will lead to increased postal communications, and to the circulation on a large scale of British newspapers, magazines, and trade journals in Canada. I desire to state emphatically, however, that this particular postal concession is based partly on the consideration of the very special and peculiar position, geographical and otherwise, occupied by Canada, the result of which is that British newspapers, magazines, etc., have been unable to obtain a footing in Canada, and do not reach the Canadian citizen, and partly in consideration of the very material contribution to the cost made by Canada herself. This concession must not in any way be held to form a precedent for a reduction in other cases where similar conditions do not prevail. The arrangement, being experimental, is limited at first to four years. I hope to be able to bring the new rates into force on 1st May.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether trade catalogues and circulars will be included in the reduced rates? May I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman upon having arrived at this arrangement?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Perhaps it will be better if the right hon. Gentleman will wait to see the regulations about to be issued.

  Woodlands St Mary Post Office.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is the intention of the postal authorities to order the removal of the Woodlands St. Mary post office, in South Berks, from the central position it now occupies to a position on the extreme edge of the parish, which will involve many of the inhabitants walking upwards of two miles to reach it; and, if so, what are the reasons for the proposed change, and what steps will be taken to meet the inconvenience imposed upon the inhabitants, especially in regard to parcels

  609
  and postal orders, by the proposed change.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As I have explained to the hon. Member by letter in full detail, I believe that the proposed arrangements will be for the general convenience of the district.

  Coigach (Ross-shire) Letter Deliveries.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a petition from the inhabitants of the Coigach district, Achiltibuie, Ross-shire, urging that there should be a daily delivery of letters during the six months of the year from May to October; and will efforts be made to accede to the prayer of the petitioners.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have received the petition referred to by the hon. Member, and I find that there is already a service on six days a week from Ullapool to Achiltibuie in the months of July, August and September. I regret that, owing to the high cost of the existing arrangements compared to the receipts, I should not be justified in affording, during the other three months, a more frequent service than that now given on three days a week. It is possible, however, that a delivery on six days would be justified in some part of the district served from Achiltibuie during the three summer months. I am making further inquiry on this point and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Endowments for Secondary Education.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he would grant a Return showing the endowments available for secondary education which, under Part II. of the Education Bill of 1906, would not have been placed under public control, and also showing the amount of the endowments for national education which is now expended on the upkeep, including cost of buildings, of Eton, Winchester, and Harrow.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The Board of Education do not possess, and I do not think there is in existence, any authentic compre-
  610
  hensive list of endowments available in England and Wales for secondary education, whether those that would have been or those that would not have been exempt under Part II. of last year's Bill. I am, therefore, unable to give the information desired in the first paragraph of the Question, but the Board are making endeavours gradually to compile a list of such endowments. This will, however, be a long and laborious process. As regards the second paragraph, I will direct that a statement shall be furnished to the hon. Member giving, so far as is practicable, the information he desires in respect of that one of the three schools named in the Question, viz., Harrow, about which the Board posses information.

  Elementary School Return.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will issue a Return for 1906, similar to that made in 1900 [Cd. 315], showing, for each public elementary school inspected in England and Wales, the name and denomination of school, the accommodation, the average attendance, the annual grant paid, and particulars of school income and expenditure; and if he cannot give the Return for England will he give it for Wales only.
  MR. MCKENNA: All the information which my hon. friend requires, with the exception of the Annual Grant paid and the particulars of school income and expenditure, will be found in the List of Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales on 1st January, 1906, issued by the Board of Education [Cd. 3182]. The grants are no longer paid to managers responsible for individual schools, but to local education authorities, and are not earmarked as sums to be spent upon the particular schools in respect of which they are paid. Moreover, the expenditure upon each individual school is not separated in the accounts of most authorities. I doubt, therefore, whether it would be possible to obtain the information in respect of either England or Wales, and I am certain the results would not justify the very large expenditure involved. I must also point out to my hon. friend that the conditions under which the Return was granted in 1900 have entirely changed

  611
  owing to the passing of the Education Act, 1902.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Have the Department no official information as to the application of the rates to various schools?
  MR. MCKENNA: The information could be supplied in some cases but not in others.
  LORD R. CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to those local authorities which do not make any payment out of the rates towards the support of schools?
  MR. MCKENNA: No doubt the information could be obtained, but it would take a very long time.
  LORD R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of getting it?
  MR. MCKENNA: Yes.

  Royston School Teachership.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he can state the exact educational grounds on which Mr. Milnes, formerly in the employ of the West Riding County Council, was rejected as a candidate for a teachership at Royston.
  MR. MCKENNA: The jurisdiction of the Board of Education in this and similar cases is strictly limited to determining whether the local education authority withheld their consent on educational grounds. These grounds in the present case are of course within the knowledge of the Board, but it seems unnecessary and, in the interests of the teacher, undesirable to state publicly the precise educational reasons on which the local education authority grounded their decision that Mr. Milnes was unsuited for the post.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: The right hon. Gentleman the other day stated that he was aware of the grounds.
  MR. MCKENNA: I have the grounds, and if the noble Lord wishes I will state them, but I think it undesirable.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: If I ask for them privately can I have them?
  MR. McKENNA: Oh, yes.
  MR. LANE-FOX: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the Board had no jurisdiction if the grounds were educational?
  MR. McKENNA: If educational grounds are alleged for the decision, and the Board are satisfied that the grounds are really educational, the Board has no further jurisdiction.
  MR. LANE-FOX: Did the Board take any steps to inquire if the grounds were really educational?
  MR. McKENNA: Yes.
  MR. LANE-FOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ground on which the appointment was refused was absolutely inadequate and was based on entirely different—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is asking a number of Questions of some of which notice should be given.

  Sharlston School.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board's inspector reported favourably or otherwise on the Sharlston elementary school during Mr. Milnes' tenure of the mastership.
  MR. MCKENNA: The reports on the teaching at the Sharlston school during Mr. Milnes' tenure of the head teachership have been satisfactory.

  National Physical Laboratory.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Tamworth Division of Warwickshire, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give a detailed Return of the receipts and expenditure of the National Physical Laboratory since its establishment; and if he will give instructions for a detailed balance sheet to be published annually in a form available to the Members of the House as distinct from the particulars at present published.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have, with the consent of the Royal Society, directed that the accounts of the Laboratory since 1900 shall be laid forthwith, and that in future a copy of the accounts shall be laid annually.

  British Museum Reading Room.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the closing of the reading room of the British Museum for six months for repainting, and of the fact that on foggy days books only actually inside the reading room are available because the rest of the galleries are not artificially lit, and as in winter the hours of the distribution of books from other parts of the building are necessarily very restricted, he will consider the desirability of lighting the other parts of the library by electricity.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that during the closing of the reading room the books on the shelves of the room have been removed from thence and are available for the readers, who are temporarily accommodated in other rooms of the library. It is not proposed to alter the present system of supply of books from other parts of the library. Readers can secure the use of such books late in the afternoon by giving notice earlier in the day; and on special emergencies such hooks can be, and are, supplied to readers without previous notice even though at some inconvenience to the staff. The trustees, who are responsible for the safety of the collections of the British Museum, state that they cannot consent to instal electric light throughout all the storagerooms and galleries of the library.

  Court of Criminal Appeal.
  MR. STANGER: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he can now say when he intends to proceed with the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): I hope next Wednesday under the Ten Minutes Rule.

  House of Commons Dinners—Vaccinated Veal.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Derbyshire, as Chairman
  614
  of the Kitchen Committee, if he buys vaccinated veal for the House of Commons; and, if not, will he endeavour to purchase some if the price is moderate.
  SIR J. A. JACOBY: No vaccinated veal is supplied to the House of Commons. I am informed that the veal that has the lymph taken from it is very dark in colour and on being cooked becomes quite black. I must decline to comply with the hon. Member's request.

  Meat Inspection in Scotland.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will exercise the power contained in Section 8 of The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, by appointing a commissioner with practical experience in meat inspection, preferably a veterinary surgeon, in connection with the inquiry at present being conducted by Dr. Dittmar into the methods of meat inspection practised by the officers of the different local authorities.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Board do not consider it necessary to associate another commissioner with Dr. Dittmar, whose inquiry will shortly be completed.

  Paisley Licensing Authority.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the remarks made by Sheriff Darling Lyell in regard to the case at Paisley, where two of the local magistrates, one a joiner named M'Naughton and the other a plumber named Kilpatrick, reported on structural alterations necessary at a licensed house, and where the joiner who undertook the reconstruction of the premises was the very Mr. M'Naughton who, in his capacity as magistrate, had ordered the work to be done to his own satisfaction and that of his brother magistrates; and where not only was this so, but the plumber who contracted to do the plumbing work to the orders of Mr. M'Naughton was the brother magistrate who also inspected, reported, and concurred in requiring this work to be done; and, having in view the foregoing facts, will he indicate what action he proposes to take in order to prevent the recurrence of such an incident.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am causing inquiries to be made on the matter referred to by the hon. Member, but they are not yet complete.
  MR. LEA: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the House the result of his inquiries?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question a week hence.

  Elgin Illegal Trawling Trial.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. M'Ewan, the marine superintendent of the Scottish Fishery Board, on the 20th of March, at the trial of Appleyard, at Elgin, that he had reported trawlers in the Moray Firth of the following nationalities, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, in addition to Norwegians; and whether the master or any member of the crew of these vessels has been prosecuted.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the facts referred to by the hon. Member. Trawlers of foreign nationalities in addition to Norwegian have been reported for illegal trawling in the Moray Firth. In all cases when British subjects have been so engaged prosecutions will follow.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask whether any but Norwegian trawlers have been examined at all?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, Sir, the authorities have satisfied themselves of the character of the foreign trawlers.
  MR. PIRIE: How is it possible in the case of German, Swedish or Danish trawlers for the authorities to make sure there are no British subjects aboard?
  MR. SINCLAIR: The authorities have sufficient means for the purpose.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is it not the fact that on board these foreign trawlers the first fisherman is always a British subject?
  MR. SINCLAIR: That is not within my knowledge except in the case of Norwegian boats.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Have there been any prosecutions except against Norwegian trawlers? Is it not the fact there have been none?
  MR. SINCLAIR: That may be so.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that on 20th March, at Elgin, Mr. M'Ewan, the marine superintendent of the Scottish Fishery Board, at the trial of Appleyard, first fisherman of the Norwegian trawler "Lucania," gave evidence that the vessel was British-owned, and that Appleyard was the responsible master, and that on this and other evidence he was convicted and sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment, he will make inquiries as to whether the "Lucania" is a properly registered Norwegian vessel and amenable to Norwegian law; and whether, at the time of the alleged offence against the Moray Firth by-laws, Appleyard was only temporarily in command, by permission of the Norwegian Consul, in consequence of the illness of the Norwegian master; and, if so, whether he will recommend that some change be made in the Moray Firth by-laws.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I do not deem it necessary to make inquiry as suggested by the hon. Member. If the facts regarding Appleyard be as stated no point of doubt will arise As a British subject engaged in illegal trawling he is liable to prosecution. I do not propose to make any change in the by-laws.

  Irish Land Purchase Repayments.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, how many, of the purchasers of land, under the Purchase Acts of 1891 and 1896, have availed themselves of the power given by Section 2 of the Act of 1891 of paying their instalments and redeeming in whole or in part their annuities by transferring to the National Debt Commissioners, through the post office, guaranteed land stock instead of paying

  617
  cash; and will he consider the advisability of calling the attention of purchasers to the fact that, at the present price of Guaranteed Land Stock (£85 to £86), they could obtain a reduction of almost 3s. in the pound on their instalments, or in redemption in whole or in part of their annuities.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Land Commission inform me that there has been no transaction of the nature referred to under Section 2 of the Act of 1891. The publicity given to the hon. and learned Member's Question will doubtless have the effect of calling the attention of tenant purchasers to the fact that, having regard to the present low price of Guaranteed Land Stock, a considerable advantage may be derived from the redemption of their annuities or the payment of their instalments in the manner provided by the section quoted.
  MR, BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a purchaser of land, under the Purchase Acts of 1885 and 1887, who has obtained an advance of (say) £750 for the purchase of his holding, has to pay £30 a year for the first ten years, £27 a year for the second ten years, and £24 7s. 6d. for the last forty-nine years, while a purchaser under the Wyndham Act, obtaining the same advance, only pays £247s. 6d. for sixty-eight and a half years; that the difference, with interest at 2¾ per cent., amounts to £93 10s. 0d. to the disadvantage of the first purchaser; and will the Government consider the justice of assimilating the rates of repayment of the purchasers under the different Purchase Acts.
  MR. BIRRELL: The figures quoted in the Question are only approximately accurate. There is admittedly a difference in favour of a purchaser under the Act of 1903, in the total repayments made in respect of any given advance. This difference is due to the fact that under the Act of 1903 the rate of interest is 2¾ per cent., while under the former Acts it is 3⅛ per cent. I cannot hold out any hope of legislation for reducing the rate of interest payable under the former Acts.

  Irish Government Return.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Return, Government Departments (Ireland), No. 8, House of Commons Papers, 1907, which was ordered by the House of Commons to be prepared on the 12th July, 1906, and which was presented on the 10th December, 1906, and ordered to be printed on 14th February, 1907, has not yet been issued; can he state the cause of this delay; and when the Return will be in the hands of Members.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not responsible for the printing and circulation of Returns to Orders of this House. I have, however, ascertained that the Report to which the hon. Member refers has now been printed, and will be issued in the course of a day or two. The Return is a very voluminous one, and the printing and revision of proofs has of necessity occupied a considerable time.
  MR. MOONEY: Seeing that this Return was ordered nearly a year ago, and we were informed only a fortnight since that it was nearly ready, will the right hon. Gentleman see that we have it in a few days?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not responsible for the printing of Returns, but I am told this will really be out in a day or two.

  Irish Board of Agriculture.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the the working of the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) will be presented.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Chairman informs me that a meeting of the Committee is to be held on this day week for the purpose of considering the draft report. The Chairman is unable to name a precise date for the submission of the Report, but he assures me that it will be presented at the earliest possible date.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the Report be ready for the discussion which is to take place on the 24th of this month?
  MR. BIRRELL: I doubt, very much that it will, but I am doing my best to expedite it. I do not much expect it before the end of the month.

  Irish County Council Land Purchase Grants.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that a letter has been received by the secretary of the Kildare County Council informing him that, owing to the loss on the land stock for the purchase of farms in the county of Kildare, the whole of the Probate Duty Grant, and a sum of £5,507 4s.6d. from the Agricultural Grant, making a total of £8,464 12s. 9d., has been withheld from the county; whether he is aware that the rate for the current year, for county council purposes, was struck before this intimation was received; whether he is aware that this stoppage of £8,464 12s. 9d. means an increase of 1s. 6d. in the pound upon the rates of the county; why it was that two years' loss was allowed to accrue before any intimation was made to the council; will the council now be compelled to go to the labour and expense of striking a new rate and preparing fresh rate books and demand notes because of this delay on the part of the Treasury; and will he explain how these arrears have arisen, in view of the repeated assurances given to this House that there were little or no arrears as to the payment of purchase annuities, or are the Treasury charging to county finances in Ireland liabilities arising out of discount of Irish land stock, which discount was specifically intended and declared to be provided for from other sources.
  MR. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state, for the year ended 31st March 1907, the total amount of deductions made from grants to county councils in Ireland in recoupment of losses incurred by the Irish Land Commission under the Irish Land Acts of 1891 and 1903; is he aware that inconvenience is likely to result from the failure of the Local Government Board to furnish particulars of proposed stoppages before the preparation of rate estimates for the ensuing year; and will he direct the Local Government Board for Ireland to furnish
  620
  county councils with such information as will enable them to check their accounts, and make provision for possible stoppages in future.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutentant of Ireland whether he is aware that a letter has been received by the secretary of the County Council of Longford, informing him that, owing to the loss on land stock for the purchase of farms in county Longford, a sum of £1,200 was stopped out of the half-yearly Estate Duty and agricultural grants to the county; whether he is aware that the rate for the current year for county council purposes in county Longford was struck before this intimation was made, and the applotment of the rate, including the writing up of the rate books and filling of demand notes, is now practically done; whether he is aware that the stoppage of this £1,200 means an increase of 4d. in the pound upon the rates of the county; why it was that two years' loss was allowed to accrue before any intimation was made to the council; and will the council now be compelled to go to the labour and expense of striking a new rate and preparing fresh rate books and demand notes because of this delay on the part of the Treasury.
  MR. BIRRELL: The deductions in respect of land purchase which were made from the grants paid last month to county councils in Ireland amounted to £73,218. These deductions were made by the Local Government Board in pursuance of certificates, under Treasury regulations, from the National Debt Commissioners and the Irish Land Commission. The total of £73,218 comprises £60,144 in respect of the present year, and £13,074in respect of last year. By a clerical oversight in the Chief Secretary's Office, which is regretted, the certificates for last year were not forwarded to the Local Government Board in time for the deductions to be made from last year's payments, and hence have had to be included this year. It will be seen however, that the amount for last year is little more than one sixth of the total, and the situation, therefore, is not seriously affected by the omission. The amounts deducted in the ease of Kildare and Longford were £8,464 and £1,465

  621
  respectively, and these are equivalent to rates of about 6d. and 2¼d in the pound respectively. As to how the deficiencies certified by the National Debt Commissioners arose, I must refer hon. Members to the Secretary to the Treasury. I understand that only a comparatively small portion of the deficiency arises from arrears in the payment of tenant-purchasers' annuities, and that no permanent loss on this head need be anticipated, seeing that the counties are credited with the amounts deducted when the arrears have been paid. Such arrears, I understand, are invariably paid. For instance, more than one-half of the arrears which existed on 1st February in respect of annuities due on 1st December last have already been received and paid over to the National Debt Commissioners. It is a matter for regret that inconvenience should be caused to county councils which had already struck their rates in the expectation that grants of the usual amount would be received. The question whether it may be necessary to strike a fresh rate in any given county is one for the council to determine. In deciding that question it is desirable that the council should bear in mind the possibility of a further deduction to be made next year, in which case a very heavy rate might be necessary, if the present year's burden is not borne at once. I have represented to the Treasury the desirability of considering whether some amendment of the regulations or other change may not be devised so as to make it possible to give notice to the county councils of the deductions before the time for striking their rate arrives.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the £73,000 is for arrears on the payment of the annuities?
  MR. BIRRELL: Well, I cannot say, but it is a very small portion indeed.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I would like Mr. Speaker, with your permission, to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman says he is not in a position to give, as to how this enormous deduction from the grants to local authorities has arisen in connection with the Act of 1903.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot on the spur of the moment. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will see.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I desire to know whether the Chief Secretary is aware that the instalment due by county Kildare in respect of land purchase amounts to only a few hundred pounds; and how, therefore, does it come to pass that there are deductions from the allowance due to the county of £8,000. I should also like to know whether the Irish Development Grant, which is earmarked in the first instance, is still in existence or is it entirely exhausted?
  MR. BIRRELL: The reason why Kildare has to bear this large sum is that under the Act the counties have to bear in proportion to the amount of land purchased and transferred, and the Duke of Leinster's property being in that county is the reason why it has to bear so much. It is done in proportion to the amount of transactions in the respective counties. If a county had no land purchase it would not be called upon in this way. As to the amount of the Development Grant, it is not yet completely exhausted, but I think you will find that under the provision of the Statute the obligation is placed upon the counties in the manner complained of. But when the Treasury conies to look into it you will find fresh regulations will be made to obviate anything of the kind.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I wish just to add one more sentence, for the matter is one of enormous importance—the deduction of £73,000 from this grant. I wish to ask the Treasury whether—inasmuch as we are told that this does not arise from non-payment by the tenants—it is not the flotation of stock, and is it not provided by the Act of Parliament that that loss is to be met by the Development Grant and otherwise, and whether those provisions of the Statute have been, as a master of fact, over-ridden by some regulation of the Treasury of which we hear to-day for the first time?
  MR. BIRRELL: My hon. friend (Mr. Runciman) knows that the loss did not arise from the flotation of stock.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: No; but the right hon. Gentleman knows what the cause is, and he is such a frank man that I am sure he will tell me.
  MR. BIRRELL: I only know in part, and I certainly will not take the responsibility of appearing for the Treasury in this matter.
  MR. LONSDALEasked how much of the Development Grant had been utilised in connection with the working of the Act.
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is it possible to put a stay upon the present quarter until the arrangements have been altered, and can the hon. Gentleman say, when these have been made, will they have a retrospective effect?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: It is quite impossible without notice to give an Answer to a highly technical Question. I can assure the hon. Member that the matter will have the fullest consideration, and that there will be no intention to withhold any part of the information.

  Catholics and Irish Public Appointments.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the bulk of salaries paid under the Board of Works in Ireland goes to the adherents of Episcopalianism; whether he is aware that of £36,493 so paid in a Catholic country only £9,793 goes to Catholics; whether he can explain how it is that, in appointments by competitive examination, Catholic candidates obtained more than half, and in appointments by nomination less than one-fifth; and whether he will investigate the matter with a view to preventing appointments by nomination from becoming a monopoly of a denomination forming barely a tenth of the population.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: As I have already stated on more than one occasion, the Board of Works inform me that they have no information as to the religious beliefs of their employees. Appointments by nomination are made solely on the merits of the candidates, and no inquiry is made into their religion.?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: If the appointments are made solely on merit can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that while in competitive examinations the Catholic candidates obtain one half of the posts, in appointment by nomination they get less than one-fifth?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I can offer no explanation unless it is that more Catholics compete.
  MR. DELANY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a letter addressed by the Secretary of the Board of Works to the Civil Service Commissioners asking for an increase in the number of nominated appointments has been answered, and, if so, what was the reply?
  MR. RUNCIMANasked for notice of that Question.

  Cost of Irish Postal Services.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what was the cost of the Post Office services in Ireland for 1895, 1900, and 1905; and what was the revenue from those services during the same years.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The information cannot be given for the Calendar years, but for the financial years ending on the 31st March, it is as follows:—

  Year.

  Expenditure.

  Revenue.

  £

  £

  1894–5

  800,980

  763,647

  1899–1900

  1,029,120

  877,971

  1904–5

  1,172,264

  1,000,971

  Agricultural Holdings Act.
  MR. W. HOPE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that a landowner in Somerset has sent to his tenants a new clause to be added to their agreements, the practical effect of which will be to cause them to contract themselves out of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906, and in the case of any tenant declining to sign the clause has given him notice to quit his holding; and whether the Government will take action to prevent the intention of Parliament being so evaded.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): The attention of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has been directed to this matter. In his opinion the clause to which my hon. friend refers is open to considerable objection and is likely, if pressed, to give rise to litigation. As I have already indicated, the working of the Act of last session will be carefully watched, and we shall be quite ready to take such steps us may be necessary to prevent its intention from being defeated.

  London Chamber of Commerce and Tariff Reform.
  MR. SEAVERNS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in a recent ballot in the London Chamber of Commerce, in which a majority of the members voting supported a resolution favouring Colonial Preference and Production, the majority of the Chamber declined to express any opinion whatever; whether the number of those supporting the resolution was one-third only of the total membership; and whether, in these circumstances, he will attach such importance to the resolution as it deserves.
  *MR. EVELYN CECILasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the decision was arrived at after a poll in which members could vote by proxy?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware. I have no doubt that my hon. friend's statement is in accordance with the facts, though I cannot say that I have verified it myself. I am quite prepared to attach to the resolution only such importance as it deserves.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the right hon. Gentleman knew if an equal number of members of the Chamber had voted on any previous occasion.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware.

  Woolwich Arsenal Discharges.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the distress caused by the
  626
  dismissal of employees, most of whom have been employed for many years in Government departments at Woolwich; if he is aware that the Colonial Office is recommending those artisans to emigrate; and if he will take steps to suspend the pending notices of discharge until some opportunity has been afforded Parliament for discussing this urgent matter.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am aware of the discharges to which the hon. Member refers, and I am afraid that further discharges are, as my right hon. friend the Secretary for War has stated to the House, inevitable, as there is not sufficient work to keep the present Arsenal staff in employment. I know nothing of the report as to the Colonial Office and emigration. Every step is being taken to supply the Arsenal with work from the Public Departments, and I can only express a hope that as the discharges are being effected at a time when there is an abundant demand for labour in the trades concerned, the workmen will speedily obtain employment elsewhere.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it a fact that a large number of skilled workmen are going to foreign countries to use their skill in the same trades as those in which they are at present employed?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think that arises out of the Question.
  *MR. J. MACVEAGH: Wait till the bloody war comes that Craig has promised, and there will be lots of work in Woolwich.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 110.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 110.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 155].

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Daniel Daniel Sheehan, esquire, for the Mid Cork Division of the County of Cork.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Fitz Gerald's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Byrne's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in each case as desired by this House, with a request that the same may be returned.
NEW BILL.

  PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Public Rights of Way," presented by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald; supported by Mr.
  Cheetham, Mr. Eugene Wason, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Hills, Mr. Abel Thomas, Mr. William Redmond, and Mr. Arthur Henderson; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE) (TERMINATION OF BUSINESS THEREON).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Consideration of the Motion for the termination of the Proceedings upon the Business of the House (Procedure), if under discussion when the Business is postponed, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of Business."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 300;Noes, 96. (Division List No. 113.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Adkins, W. Rayland D.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Arsine, David C.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cameron, Robert

  Essex, R. W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Astbury, John Meir

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Everett. R. Lacey

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Causton, Rt Hn Richard Knight

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fenwick, Charles

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ferens, T. R.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Barker, John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Barnard, E. B.

  Clough, William

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Beale, W. P.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Beauehamp, E.

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

  Gilhooly, James

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ginnell, L.

  Bell, Richard

  Cooper, G. J.

  Grant, Corrie

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Betheil, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Cox, Harold

  Gulland, John W.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Crean, Eugene

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Billson, Alfred

  Crombie, John William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hall, Frederick

  Blake, Edward

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Halpin, J.

  Boland, John

  Davie, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Delany, William

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Harrington, Timothy

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

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Henry, Charles S.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Duckworth, James

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Sohwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Hodge, John

  Money, L. G, Chiozza

  Sears, J. E.

  Kogan, Michael

  Montagu, E. S.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Mooney, J. J.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Morse, L. L.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Myer, Horatio

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Napier, T. B.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nicholls, George

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph

  Steadman, W. C.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Nuttall, Harry

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Mara, James

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Perks, Robert William

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E

  Lambert, George

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Torranee, Sir A. M.

  Lamont, Norman

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Toulmin, George

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ure, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Verney, F. W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Vivian, Henry

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Lough, Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Wardle, George J.

  Lundon, W.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Waring, Walter

  Lupton, Arnold

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Rees, J. D.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Weir, James Galloway

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Whitbread, Howard

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  M'Killop, W.

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. E. (Dundee)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robinson, S.

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

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Winfrey, R.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rowlands, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Massie, J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Pease.

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Menzies, Walter

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Ashley, W. W.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bridgeman, W. (Clive

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchest'r

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

  630

  631

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Keswick, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cross, Alexander

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Liddell, Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Turnour, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Forster, Henry William

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Haddock, George R.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  O'Niell, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hardy, Laurenee(Kent, Ashf'd)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Younger, George

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Percy, Earl

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. E'm'ds

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Viscount Valentia.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE) (TERMINATION OF BUSINESS THEREON).
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPELL-BANNERMAN,), in moving a Motion for the termination of the proceedings upon the Business of the House (Procedure), said he did not imagine that in any part of the House his action in putting down this Motion could have created surprise. One or two alterations in the Rules of Procedure had been introduced to expedite business, to facilitate legislation, to secure the better consideration of measures submitted to the House, and altogether to give better facilities and a better chance for the reforms which hon. Members desired. Everyone knew that i the elements and possibilities which tended to hinder legislation were very great in that House, and perhaps a great many of those elements were not without their uses. The Government, how-ever, were strongly of opinion that they were tremendous, and Members desired to have some change in the Rules in order to improve the character of the House as a legislative assembly. The Government proposed its first Rule. During the first three days of the consideration of the new Standing Order sixteen hours were spent upon it, and the progress made amounted to eight lines; and on Thursday last the whole day of seven hours was occupied and not one
  632
  line or word was passed. The particular part of the Rule now under consideration was that which laid down certain exceptions to the Bills which were to go automatically to a Standing Committee. Hon. Members had put down a series of almost indiscriminate exceptions which really destroyed the main principle and intention of the clause. He had stated quite plainly that the idea of the Government was that, with the single exception of Money Bills, no measure should be excluded from the operation of the Order, but that it was not their intention to send out of the House Bills of a high Party character—great controversial measures. They did not see any advantage in attempting a definition, and, if the House were to go over all the subjects which individual Members might desire to see excluded from the Order, they might sit there almost indefinitely and never come to an end of the matter. In these circumstances, he had expected that hon. Members would not proceed with the Amendments of which they had given notice for adding to the number of excepted Bills, but they had done so, the Amendments being rejected by huge majorities. It became almost farcical to proceed with the Rule under this fire of Amendments—Amendments which, if carried, would have the effect of destroying the Rule. The Government offered an additional day for the consideration of the Rules, and he expected an arrangement would have been come

  633
  to for the convenience of Members, the fact being recognised that a Rule supported as this Rule had been ought to pass. But that was refused. The Government thought the time had now come when they might have recourse to such a Motion as he had placed on the Paper. In moving a guillotine Resolution he could not do otherwise in a certain sense than apologise for it. He recognised that it was a rough, uncouth, and, in many respects, unfair way of forcing business forward. But there was no better instrument available. He hoped there would be a general agreement in favour of some day setting up a Committee of Business to which such a matter as this could be referred. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proceedings on the Motions with respect to Business of the House (Procedure) shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday, the 16th day of April, in the following manner, and subject to the following provisions:—1. At 10 p. m. on that day, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or other Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments or other Motions moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but on no other Amendment or Motion), and on any other Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded; 2. On that day the proceedings to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House; 3. On that day no dilatory Motion, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate; 4. Any opposed Private Business which has been set down for consideration on that day shall stand adjourned without Question put until such other day as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid the right hon. Gentleman, in I the very brief explanation he had given of his policy, on this occasion had stated,
  634
  and with perfect truth, that he made the Motion with reluctance. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in expressing reluctance to make the Motion before the House, but he considered the justification which the right hon. Gentleman had offered to be of the most meagre and jejune description. Never before had it been suggested that Rules modifying the traditional methods of procedure should be forced through the House by means of closure by compartment. When the modification of the Rules was under consideration in 1902 no less than 17 days were occupied in discussing them—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: How many Rules?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would come to that in a moment. The debate on the Rules in 1902 lasted seventeen days. But inconvenient as that expenditure of time necessarily was to the Government of the day, it never occurred to them that they could possibly bring the discussion to an end by the forcible means of closure by compartments. The right hon. Gentleman interjected across the floor of the House, "How many Rules?" It was perfectly true, as he implied, that the number of Rules discussed in 1902 was larger than the number proposed to be discussed now But the right hon. Gentleman was only going to give them five days for their discussion. He noticed with surprise that the right hon. Gentleman himself appeared greatly to underestimate the complexity as well as the importance of the proposals which he had made to the House. It might be true, and he was bound to admit that it was true, that the proposals of 1902 were somewhat more complex than those which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry through by ten o'clock on Tuesday. But these proposals were not, as anyone who listened to the Prime Minister's speech would suppose, confined to the question of the Committee stage upstairs. They included some other propositions of most far-reaching importance, on which the right hon. Gentleman had not so far said a word. What was his alleged justification for the absolutely unprecedented course which he was asking the House to pursue? It was that they had reached a stage of the discussion

  635
  when hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House had the audacity to propose additions to the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman himself had made with regard to the Bills it was proposed to send upstairs. It might be that he thought some of their Amendments would destroy the efficacy of his Rule, and the right hon. Gentleman might perhaps make out a good case for that. But could any human being make out a case that to exclude from the provisions of this Rule Bills which effected great changes m the Constitution of the country would be to make exceptions of a kind which would destroy the efficacy of the Rule? It was preposterous to say so. The truth was that the right hon. Gentleman had greatly added to the difficulty of his task by using very ambiguous and obscure language with regard to these exceptions. He had told them that afternoon, and on previous occasions, that the procedure which he intended to substitute for the traditional procedure of the House would give a better chance of discussing all Bills, and improve the legislative machinery, of the House. If that was really true, why was he going to except all Money Bills, Budget Bills and substantially all first-class Government measures from the purview of the Rule? Were they measures which ought to be imperfectly discussed? Were they measures to which it was improper to apply this improved machinery? No; everybody knew that the machinery was not an improvement. The whole action and policy of the Government showed that they did not think it even an improvement, but that it was absolutely necessary, or at any rate highly desirable, to enable the House to get through more work in the course of the session. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Yes; but they could not have it both ways. Let the right hon. Gentleman be perfectly frank with the House and consistent with his own policy; let him admit that it was a misfortune to have to send Bills upstairs, but that it was a misfortune which they had to submit to if they were to do the whole of the legislative work he desired to see accomplished. The right hon. Gentleman was so fond of his Rule that he advanced in favour of it an argument which his own policy showed to be impossible
  636
  and inconsistent with his scheme. It was because the right hon. Gentleman had held ambiguous and inconsistent language on this point that he had encouraged the Opposition to endeavour to increase the list of exceptions which he himself admitted ought to exist with regard to the general scope of his proposals. He said, then, that the Government had made their position with regard to this Rule more difficult by the fact that they had not held consistent language or unambiguous language in regard to the measures which were to be excepted. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, both in Committee upstairs and in his place in the House, had indicated his view very clearly; he did not believe that measures ought to be sent upstairs in the wholesale manner proposed by the Prime Minister. They did not know in the least what the Prime Minister meant to do with regard to the only Government measure which was at present in process of being discussed on Second Reading. They did not know what he meant to do about the Army Bill, and about other Bills promised, but which so far had not yet been read even a first time, or, as far as they had any reason to believe, got through the hands of the Government draftsmen. But he had a more serious complaint to make. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, had not understood or grasped the number of important questions which must be decided by the House before these Rules were passed. The right hon. Gentleman had actually, as he understood him, laid down the policy that as soon as the Government had declared that they intended to adhere to a particular line, as soon as they had laid down the scope of their own policy, then it became an impertinent waste of time for any Member of the Opposition to be sufficiently audacious to suggest the smallest change in the proposals laid down by the fiat of an omnipotent Government. It was perfectly true that the Government were omnipotent; it was perfectly true that, they could force through these proposals in any shape they chose, however absurd or unworkable; but he had yet to learn that it was part of their duty to bow in humble submission to these exhibitions of arbitrary temper, or to withdraw their Amendments once the Government had announced officially that they did not mean

  637
  to accept either those Amendments or any others of similar importance. No Opposition had ever accepted that rôle. The Opposition which the right hon. Gentleman led for many years with so much courage had never accepted it; he would be the last person to accept it, and the first to regard them as utterly unworthy of the functions thrown upon them if they obeyed the principle which he had laid down. Let him ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had clearly grasped the magnitude of the proposals which were still to be discussed before ten o'clock the following night—if this Rule was to be passed by ten o'clock the following night, he would not say discussed. In the first place, there was a question to which the Government ought to give more thought than they had done up to the present, and that was the publicity to be given to these Grand Committees. They had to consider whether eighty or ninety gentlemen were to exercise their immense powers and privileges in private, unknown to the public, and under the conditions which used to prevail in the bad old times before Parliamentary proceedings were reported. Another question of importance was whether these Grand Committees were to sit when the Whole House was sitting, and whether that would not throw an impossible burden upon the House as well as upon members of the Government. And then there was the important question of separatist and particularist Grand Committees for Wales and Scotland. It would be quite out of order if he were to discuss that proposal, the magnitude of which surely could not escape the attention of any Member of the House. They touched very nearly upon questions to which he would not now more closely refer; but one aspect of the matter he must deal with. What machinery were the Government proposing for deciding whether a Bill was Scottish or Welsh? Was it a small matter to ask Mr. Speaker to decide whether a Bill for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales was purely a Welsh Bill or not? It would be disastrous to hurry through before 10 o'clock the following day a discussion involving matters of this kind without hearing a word from the Government as to their policy. Was it a small matter that they were relieving the Chairman of Commit-
  638
  tees of his work in connection with the Committee stage of Bills in that House, and throwing that onerous duty on Mr. Speaker? That was a most serious proposal, and it required full discussion. He did not think that closure by compartments had ever before been suggested by any Minister on any subject where the House ought to have had a freer and a fuller opportunity for debate, and where less justification for the course being taken had been given. He thought the Prime Minister's method of dealing with the matter had been unfortunate. He had told the House he was going to make one concession to the Opposition by conceding the same freedom of discussion on the Report stage as they now possessed on the Committee stage of a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had not kept his promise in that matter. His statement was clear and explicit, and it was understood in the same sense on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy understood it exactly as they understood it, and he got up and protested against it; in fact, he took occasion to strain the rules of order in order to make a protest against what he understood was the Prime Minister's promise. The Prime Minister sat and listened to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy without suggesting that he had made a mistake, and it never occurred to anybody that the hon. Member had made a mistake. But upon looking at the Paper they found that the Prime Minister had translated that undertaking into language which broke the promise in every particular. If the Minister in charge of a Bill made a promise on one night and broke it on the next, the progress of public business was not likely to be facilitated; and, therefore, in one sense it might be fortunate for the Prime Minister that he had asked the House to continue this discussion under the fetters of a gag Resolution. They were, for the first time, asked to discuss, under guillotine proposals, revolutionary, and possibly beneficial, changes in the principles underlying the management of their business, although there had been no abuse of the Rules, and although the Opposition in opposing those changes had not exceeded what a minority ought to do, or what every minority, including that led by the Prime Minister, had in Parliamentary history invariably done.
  *MR. ELLISsaid he rose not to follow the right hon. Gentleman over the whole ground which he had covered, but to deal with his allusion to 1902, and to mention a few facts connected with what happened in 1902, when certain alterations were made in the Rules of Procedure by the then Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, speaking in the debate the other evening, said that in 1902 the present Leader of the Opposition gave seventeen days, and it was now proposed to give only five days, and he exclaimed: "What an enormous disparity!" What were the proposals of 1902? Evidently the Leader of the Opposition felt that he was on rather tender ground, because he admitted that the proposals of 1902 were different from those now under consideration. It was quite obvious that in this matter there was between the two sides of the House a great gulf fixed. In 1904 the Leader of the Opposition told his followers that he did not mean to trouble them with much legislation, but the present Government meant to legislate, and that was the difference between them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said anything of the kind.
  *MR. ELLISsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman doubted his assertion he could give the words and when they were spoken. The proposals which I the right hon. Gentleman in 1902 placed I before the House occupied a good many pages of foolscap and dealt with twenty-four Rules of Procedure. It was quite true that they had seventeen days to discuss them, but there would have been no need to occupy that period if the debates had been conducted in a Parliamentary manner. Those rules were brought forward, then postponed, and afterwards brought up again, and they never knew where they were from one night to another. The present Standing Order Book showed that one of the orders at present stood without any ending at all; as the right hon. Gentleman once said, "It remained a torso;" and that was an illustration of the manner in which the whole thing was conducted and left. He was almost amazed at the right hon. Gentleman's effrontery. He did not use the word discourteously, but
  640
  it amounted to that. The changes proposed in 1902 ranged over the Order of Debate, punitive proposals of a drastic character, the power of the Speaker to adjourn the House, sittings of the House, priority of business, private business, Standing Committees, Committee of Supply, proceedings on Report, the introduction of Bills and First Readings, the Second and Third Readings of Bills, withdrawal of clauses, money Resolutions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Surely all those matters were not discussed in the seventeen days?
  MR. ELLISsaid he was going to state what they did in the seventeen days. Those were the subjects dealt with by the proposals placed before the House by the late Prime Minister. The House dealt with a large number of those matters; some were agreed to, and some were adjourned, but they all involved, discussion. Everyone was interlinked with the others, and they could hardly discuss propositions of that kind in the House without dovetailing one into another; that was to say, without referring to matters which were not specifically before the House at the moment. His proposition was that five days gave a superabundance of time for what the Prime Minister now proposed as compared with seventeen days for the matters he had detailed to the House. Moreover, the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman in 1902 did not come before the House after the labours of a Committee who had, as in this case, carried the proposals by considerable majorities. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals came of his own will, out of his own head. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, in regard to the time allowed for the discussion of the proposals now before the House would not hold water. There was no more Conservative Member of the House than himself in regard to Parliamentary procedure. He had been reluctantly driven to the conclusion that if the House was going to transact its business they must put in force the principle of the Committee of 1886—devolution. Hon. Members would find that there was much more reason for some of the Standing Orders now proposed than they might be inclined to think at first glance. However that might be, he was perfectly

  641
  satisfied that, if Liberals meant to legislate and to do the reasonable work of the nation — he was not referring to the promises some people had made—they must delegate to and devolve on those Standing Committees a large number of Bills.
  *MR. ABEL SMITHsaid that if the proposals brought forward by the Leader of the; Opposition in 1902 were discussed for seventeen days, surely the proposals made by the Prime Minister should have more than two or three days discussion. He thought the Motion now before the House was calculated to cause surprise. On Thursday last the Prime Minister made the extraordinary state merit that the Government had made up their minds that the Amendments of which notice had been given were not to be accepted, and that it was a misuse of Parliamentary time to move or to discuss any further Amendments. That was a delightful theory. Was that to be the system which was to prevail in the House in future? It seemed to him that it would make all discussion practically a farce. It would have the effect of making it perfectly superfluous to have discussion either in Committee of the Whole House or in the Grand Committees. It would be a very simple process. The Minister responsible for a Bill, or a proposal before the House, would get up at an early stage of the proceedings and say that the Government had determined that they could not accept any Amendment whatever, and that therefore the discussion might as well come to an end at once. When the Prime Minister made the extraordinary statement to which he had referred the Amendment under discussion was that Bills relating to the Army should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. That was a substantial Amendment and deserved a good deal of discussion. The House had important constitutional responsibilities with regard to the maintenance and discipline of the Army. The scheme of the Government was to send all Bills upstairs with certain exceptions. He maintained that the Government gave away their case by the exceptions they had already admitted. If the principle contained in the new
  642
  Rules was a good one, it ought to be applied to all the business of the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not now discussing the Motion before the House. He is now discussing the procedure under the Resolution.
  *MR. ABEL SMITHsaid he bowed to the ruling and would reserve his remarks on the point for a future occasion. He thought that the Motion before the House, looking to the character of the Amendments which they would be prevented from discussing, was a high-handed proposal on the part of the Government. The time allowed for the discussion of the new Procedure Rules was wholly inadequate.
  MR. PIRIEsaid it could not be denied that the Prime Minister had justified the course which he had been obliged to adopt with, he was sure, great reluctance. Every section of the House suffered very materially from what had taken place. Those who had heard the dilatory Amendments which had been moved, and the dilatory talk of those who had moved them, could only come to the conclusion that the deliberate object of hon. Members opposite was merely to waste the time of the House. The Scottish Members would suffer most from the arrangement now proposed, and he suggested that, instead of the guillotine Motion applying in toto, as proposed, time should be apportioned to each Standing Order, so that at least the Scottish case, which was a most important matter, would not be disposed of without being discussed. No question of such magnitude, so far as Parliamentary procedure was concerned, had been before Scotland in the present generation. Mr. Gladstone, speaking in that House in 1888 on the Rules of Procedure, said—
  "I confess I am one of those who during the eight years I have been a Scottish Member—the last capacity in which I am likely to sit in this House—I mean the latest in point of time—I admit that I have felt the greatest difficulty before my assembled constituents in excusing myself and the House of Commons with reference to the handling of Scottish Business. I do not know what the experience of the hon. Member opposite has been; but I have excercised such ingenuity as either nature or practice has given me to make a decent and presentable apology to lay before the people of Scotland for the manner in which their Business—I will not say has been transacted—but let alone.

  643
  He strongly appealed to the Government to allow the Scottish representatives time to discuss this most important subject affecting the interests of Scotland.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid there was one point on which he agreed with the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, and that was as to the extreme importance of the proposals in regard to Scotland. He thought that it was little short of a Parliamentary scandal that those proposals, on which the opinions of the people of Scotland were diametrically opposed, might be passed without discussion. Under the Motion made by the Prime Minister for a time limit for discussing the new Rules of Procedure, it might be that those which were to apply to Scotland would be entirely pushed aside and carried absolutely sub silentio. Was that a method which ought to be approved by Scottish Members? Was that a proof of the great importance which they considered should be attached to proposals relating to legislation for Scotland? On the Notice Paper that day, there were from sixteen to eighteen Amendments put down against the proposals by supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendments put down by Members on the Opposition side of the House required adequate discussion, but they were not so numerous and they did not raise questions so important as those suggested from the Government side. In the Parliament of 1894–5 a somewhat similar proposal was brought forward by Sir George Trevelyan, who was then Secretary for Scotland; it, however, was to be only a Sessional, not a Standing Order; but under that proposal only very exceptional Bills were to be referred to a Scottish Standing Committee, and then by express Resolution, and not automatically. In the session of 1894 the discussion on that one Resolution occupied five days, although it was not nearly so important, or drastic, or intended fundamentally to interfere with the Parliamentary rights of Scotland. That Sessional Order was dropped in 1894. It was in 1895 renewed after two days discussion, and only in regard to a single Bill—the Scottish Local Government Bill. But that Bill was framed almost exactly on the same lines as the English Bill which occupied forty-two days of the time of Parliament in discussion, and
  644
  there was every reason why the Scottish Bill should be discussed with no undue prolongation of debate. He did not think that any Scottish Member would say that the time was wasted in either of those years. It was to be rememberer that the Amendments to the proposed Rules were to be guillotined at ten o'clock, and therefore they might be subsequently passed sub silentio.
  SIR J. JARDINEthought that the proposal made by the Prime Minister was generally approved by the people of Scotland. What they wanted in Scotland above all was a business way of carrying through the business of the country.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was anticipating discussion which might arise at a later stage. He must confine himself to the Motion now before the House.
  SIR J. JARDINEsaid that all he wanted to submit was that he thought the feeling of the Scottish nation was well represented by the proposal now before the House.
  MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that this was clearly a case of chickens coming home to roost. Or, to put it in another way, the reckless I.O.U.'s which the present Government distributed during the general election were now coming in, and a demand was being made for them to be paid. He maintained that to press through these new Rules of Procedure, which were of immense moment, in the short space of time allotted was nothing short of an abuse of the Rules of the House. The comparison between the seventeen days allowed in 1902 by the late Prime Minister for discussion of the new Rules then proposed and the beggarly five days now to be given was very striking. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe had admitted that the alterations made in 1902 were not greater or more important than those now proposed. Moreover, when, in 1902, seventeen days were given for discussion, there was no guillotine. If the present Government had pursued the same course as the Government of 1902, the matter would have come to a conclusion at a proper time. The Members on the Opposition side of the House had no

  645
  desire to delay business, but they did not want to have their mouths closed by the gag and the guillotine.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division had advanced two reasons for adopting this Resolution: first, that although it was true that the debates in 1902 had occupied seventeen days, the number of alterations was really very much larger than that now proposed; and secondly, that, though he regretted it very much, the Government had come to the conclusion that in order to facilitate the business of the House somothing of the sort was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman had added that the late Prime Minister had at one time stated that he was not desirous of passing legislation, whereas the present Government were desirous of legislation. It was quite true that the number of alterations in the Rules was in 1902 greater than was now proposed; but they could not always count the importance of alterations by numbers. For instance, one was that the House should meet at two o'clock instead of at three; another, that there should be a dinner hour from half-past seven to nine; and a third, that private Members' Bills should be taken on Fridays instead of on Wednesdays. All those alterations were made for the convenience of the House; but the Prime Minister was proposing alterations which limited the immemorial practice of having free discussion on the floor of the House. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not in his innermost heart believe in his own case. The next defence advanced was that in order to facilitate legislation something of this sort must be done. They had had three days and not five days as some hon. Members said, and at the end of those three days the right hon. Gentleman announced his intention of moving a guillotine Resolution. At any rate he might, like the late Government, have waited till the end of the seventeenth day before he did anything so startling. They were to be prevented from discussing Amendments, a restriction which was not necessary, as the debates up to that point had not been of a dilatory nature. After ten o'clock all Amendments were to be ruled out of order and not even put from the Chair, with the excep-
  646
  tion of Amendments proposed by the Government. That was to be done by trampling upon the rights of discussion and on the rights of the minority, on the ground that it was necessary to facilitate business. He would like with the permission of the House to read some pertinent remarks from a speech of the late Sir William Harcourt which seemed apposite to the present case. Speaking on 7th February, 1902, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "May I say one word upon a question to which I do not know that any particular rule applies, but upon which a great deal has been said, and which inspires, I think, a good deal of these changes, and that is the intolerance of debate and discussion in this House? I believe that that is founded upon a complete misconception of the function of the House of Commons. I have often heard Mr. Disraeli speak in private on this subject. He said—'I wonder whether those Gentlemen know what the etymological derivation of the word Parliament is? Parliament means a body that talks and discusses. It is not a mere voting machine.' Those who remember Mr. Disraeli will recollect his attitude in this House as the most patient of listeners. He said to me—'I have never understood any subject really until I have heard it well debated in Parliament'—not by ten minutes speaking. We are asked, 'Why do not you conduct yourselves like, business men? Why do not you behave as if you were a meeting of shareholders or a vestry meeting?' We do not, because we are not a meeting of shareholders, because we are not a vestry meeting, but because we are the great Parliament of England, and really these miserable conceptions of the way in which Parliament ought to conduct its business, make me almost despair of the House of Commons managing to appreciate the duties it has to perform. I remember Mr. Disraeli also saying—'I have very often learned more from a bore who understood the subject than from the most brilliant speaker in the House of Commons.'"
  He (Sir F. Banbury), commended these words to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and regretted that there was only one Cabinet Minister in his place on that the most momentous occasion that had occurred for the last fifteen years. So little did the Government regard the rights of the House in the discussion of a legitimate matter that, having brought down these guillotine Resolutions an hour ago, they had not the courtesy to stay and listen to what might be said against them. That was an insult to the House of Commons.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: wished to add his protest against these Rules which the Prime

  647
  Minister had described as being of the utmost importance, being hurried through. He could only re-echo the words of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, when he said that the condition of the Front Government Bench was an insult to the House of Commons. Up to the present time any tampering with the Rules of the House had always been looked upon as a non-Party question. The Government, however, had now made it a Party affair. The proposed alterations created a revolution in the House, and ought not to be passed without full discussion being allowed. The Prime Minister's speech gave no adequate reason for the introduction of the Resolution under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman could not even get up and say that there had been obstructive speeches from the Opposition benches. It had been pointed out that when the late Government brought in their new rules, they allowed the House to discuss them day in and day out for some seventeen days, and what happened at the finish? The right hon. Gentleman would remember what happened at the finish, because if he remembered aright the right hon. Gentleman took considerable part in those debates and some of his speeches might be considered to be of an obstructive character. But at the end of seventeen days the late Government, because they found that, owing to the obstruction of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was impossible to carry the proposed Rules, gave up the task in despair; they left them in the middle of a sentence, and that sentence had never been completed. On Thursday last they came down to the House perfectly prepared to consider the Rules at any length at which the Prime Minister wished to consider them, They were prepared to sit up with him all night and to have a free and fair discussion. The prospect of an all-night sitting, however, rather frightened the Prime Minister, and so he sent them all off to bed and brought forward this closure Resolution. Thus at the conclusion of four days the Rules were to be forced down their throats whether they liked them or not. And that was by a Government which came into office in favour of free speech and the rights of private Members. Well might the Chief Secretary for Ireland make the famous remark that minorities must suffer.
  648
  That seemed to be the policy of the Government. The Opposition might be a very small minority, but they had not the slightest intention of taking this treatment lying down. The country would see that the Government were acting in a manner which was entirely without precedent. They were acting to get an advantage for themselves—to forward their own interests and not those of the House and the country. No adequate reason had been given by the Government for the suggested change. In fact, the real reason was that they were endeavouring to do too much. They gave so many pledges at the last general election that they found it difficult to fulfil them. What happened last session? The Government endeavoured to pass a great number of measures, but many of them had to be dropped, and those which were passed involved an autumn session, and Parliament sat for nine months. As to this session they had also given innumerable pledges. They had promised an Army Bill, a Licensing Bill, a Home Rule Bill, a Roman Catholic University Bill, a Land Bill for Scotland, and a Land Bill for England. How many of them did the Government intend to pass? New Rules of procedure were extremely difficult things to frame. The Opposition had been able to show that there were a great number of flaws in the proposed Rule, and it was only by ample discussion that flaws could be properly dealt with. He wished to add his protest to that of the Leader of the Opposition against the breach of faith of which the Government had been guilty in respect to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Dublin University. The Government had promised to accept the principle of that Amendment, but when he picked up his Notice Paper, to his amazement he saw on it an Amendment entirely different from that which the Government said they intended to accept. It was not the first time the Government had committed a breach of faith with those who sat upon the Opposition Benches, and they felt that they had got to get accustomed to the practice. There were many important Amendments on the Paper, and it would be absolutely impossible to discuss them in the time allotted. He himself had an Amendment on the Paper in regard to

  649
  the reporting of proceedings of the Grand Committees, but as it came last on the Paper he supposed it would be cut out by the closure. That Amendment proposed that an official report of the proceedings of, and speeches in, each Standing Committee should be taken and published in Hansard for the use of all Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman promised that that matter should be thrashed out in a Committee of the House. It was an important Amendment, and he suggested that the only proper course for the Government to take up with regard to it under the present circumstances, having regard to the promise given to him by the Prime Minister, was that the Government should take that Amendment over and put it in their own name. He hoped the Government would reconsider this question, and give the House a little more time. The Government were treating the House in a very harsh manner in closing the debate at ten o'clock. Why could they not allow the House to sit up a few hours and discuss the new Rules amicably? If fair time were offered the Opposition were prepared to accept it. Nobody on the Opposition Benches had the faintest desire to obstruct the progress of the Rule. He appealed to the Government to give another day. The House would then be able to come to an amicable agreement with the Government, and they would be far more satisfied than it was possible to be under the present conditions.
  MR. WALTER LONGexpressed astonishment that the Government had not supported by their own presence upon the Treasury Bench this remarkable Resolution. They had evidently made up their minds not to consider any extension of time which would have made their treatment of the House less oppressive. He had watched the changes of procedure of the House for many years, and he believed this was the first occasion upon which closure by compartments had been proposed by the Government of the day, merely in order to advance their own business, and not to put an end to obstruction and dilatory action on the part of the Opposition. The main grounds on which Amendments to the
  650
  new Rule were moved were the summary manner in which it was proposed that Bills should go to a Grand Committee, and the unsatisfactory manner in which Motions were to be made that particular Bills should be retained in the House. He much regretted that it seemed to be becoming the practice for Members to make a speech and immediately leave the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe had made a speech in which he strongly supported the Motion made from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman had left the House, but they might learn wisdom from his lips. In 1902 the right hon. Gentleman said he regretted that he had ever voted for the guillotine, and went on to say that so long as he remained in the House he would never vote for another such Motion. He further said he was an anti-closure man; that he believed the use of the closure marked the Parliamentary incapacity of those concerned in its use, and that users of it were not entitled to the same respect from the House as were the right hon. Gentlemen who piloted the Finance Bill and the Parish Councils Bill through the House without resort to the closure. The Government had fallen from the high ideals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe, who had given them the most effective support he could to the Motion, but had not thought fit to listen to the comments on it. The Prime Minister said he had moved the Motion with great reluctance, but he had not, like his predecessors in office, shown that the time occupied in discussing the new Rule had been so long and the discussion so fruitless that the Government had no alternative but to resort to the closure. The right hon. Gentleman did not say there had been any dilatory action on the part of the House; he only said they must "get on." Let them get on by all means, but let the House note that for the first time in the history of Parliament a Motion of this kind had been moved by the Government for the facilitation of their own business without any argument being placed before the House in support of their contention. On the last occasion when this new Rule was debated the Government admitted they were not able to answer the questions put to them. What was to be done with the Bills already remitted to

  651
  Standing Committees? What was to be the attitude of the Government with regard to them? Had they thought of that and provided a remedy? Comparisons had been drawn between the Rules of debate introduced by the Leader of the Opposition and those now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and reference had been made to the fact that seventeen days were taken to discuss those of his right hon. friend before the closure was applied. But so far as he was concerned that was not the question. It was enough to say there never was a change made of so far reaching a character as that proposed by this new Standing Order. It would be impossible to resist, the action of the Government, but he did not think any moderate man on the Government side of the House would adopt the cry that the Opposition had attempted to obstruct the Government proposals. The change would not advance, but retard business; there would have to be still further alterations, and he firmly believed the country would say that the Government had no right to pass a Motion of this kind without giving the House time to consider it.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he had listened with interest to his hon. friend the Member for Holderness, who had suggested that the course which ought to have been taken was that the House should have been asked to consider these proposals at a late sitting, probably an all-night sitting. In frankness and candour he wished to say that though he disapproved of the course taken by the Government, he could not himself think that an all-night sitting was a desirable alternative.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I do not mind.
  LORD R. CECILsaid his hon. friend was good enough to say that he did not mind. But that was not the only question. He thought that that particular way of getting through their business, or pretending to get through it, was one that ought never, under any circumstances, to be adopted. But, none the less, he could not regard the present Resolution as a great improvement even on an all-night sitting. He was against all these "methods of barbarism" in dealing
  652
  with the business of the House, methods which had one certain result—they destroyed the prestige of the House. If it was only the present House of Commons he would regard such an event with equanimity. He did not think that they were likely to do much which he would admire, and the less capable the present House was of important legislation the better he would be pleased. He had not that admiration for the principles of the present majority which would lead him to think that their legislation would be beneficial. He was sure that a Resolution of the kind now proposed materially diminished the power of the majority of the House to carry a great Resolution on such a question as the House of Lords. If they were going to attack the House of Lords, they might be perfectly certain that they would not be successful without mature and proper consideration; and if it was to be said that the House was being muzzled, and that their ancient privileges had been curtailed, the country would pay very little attention to the verdicts at which they arrived on that and other questions. There was another great objection to a Resolution of this kind. The legislative functions of the House had already been to a great extent transferred to the Government of the day. He believed that right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House thought that it should be the Government of the day who shaped the legislative action of the House. They put it in that courteous way; but what it meant was that the Government were to decide on the legislation and the House were to sanction that decision. That, he feared, was past praying for. But there was left to them the deliberative power of the House, no less important than the legislative power. Resolutions of this kind, however, shattered and destroyed that deliberative power, and when both the deliberative and the legislative powers of the House had been destroyed, he very much feared that there would not be attracted the most desirable persons to fulfil the high and important duties attaching to Membership of the House. For his part, therefore, he very much regretted this new departure. It would be exceedingly unfortunate if, owing to the operation of this Resolution, the proposal in regard to the Scottish Committee received no discussion at all. It appeared to him that that deserved

  653
  the full discussion of the House. On Resolutions affecting the procedure of the House there was only one opportunity of discussion,. It would be conceded by everyone that the proposal as to the Scottish Committee was of enormous importance. At the present moment, when a Bill affecting Scotland was sent to a Standing Committee, the Committee of Selection put upon the Committee fifteen experts, who would naturally be Scottish Members, who would know something about the subject, and, the Committee would have full advantage of their knowledge on the matter. But the purpose of this Resolution was to prevent any but Scottish Members taking part in the discussion at all. It was an exclusive and not an inclusive Resolution. That amounted to an assertion that nobody but Scottish Members were capable of discussing Scottish affairs. That was a principle of very far-reaching importance—how far, could be seen by the claims from various sections of the House to have the same principle applied to them. There was the Welsh claim, which, since it was backed by a large Liberal representation, the Prime Minister had immediately conceded. There was the London claim. Unfortunately for the hon. Member who was responsible for it, London had, in exceeding bad taste, returned a considerable number of Conservatives and Unionists, and therefore the Prime Minister promptly ignored the claim.
  SIR EDWIN CORNWALL: The claim has not been ignored.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the claim had been absolutely ignored so far as the Prime Minister was concerned, unless the hon. Gentleman had some secret understanding with the right hon. Gentleman. Then there was the case—he must apologise for mentioning it—of England. He was quite aware that under the present administration it seemed to be regarded as axiomatic that Scotland and Wales were entitled to special treatment, but no special privilege of any kind was to be given to England. That, it appeared to him, was one of the questions which might well be a matter for discussion; it was a matter of importance, and one in which the country took some interest. He regretted very much that under this
  654
  Motion such discussion would be practically precluded. There were about three pages of Amendments on the Paper and a fourth page with regard to the Scottish Committee, and as there would not be more than five or six hours for the Amendments preceding those referring to the Scottish Committee, it was incredible that they would reach discussion on the latter question at all. The question of the Scottish Committee had been presented to the House by the Prime Minister in a most perfunctory manner, and was to be voted upon absolutely sub silentio. Therefore, he earnestly pressed the House to support the Amendment of which he had given notice and which he now moved, to the effect that the proposal as to the Scottish Committee should be omitted from the Resolution. He appealed to hon. Members not to assent to the Resolution without some such limitation in order that this important change in their Constitution should not be made without, at any rate, fair discussion.
  *MR. SMEATON, in seconding the Amendment, asked the Government to give it their consideration, for the reason that in regard to the constitution of the proposed Scottish Grand Committee there was a good deal of difference of opinion among hon. Members and also in the Scottish constituencies themselves. The Government had only to look at the Amendments on the Paper by Scottish Members in order to convince themselves of this. Time should be given for full and fair discussion of the matter; but under the present Resolution there would be no discussion at all, and the whole thing would be "guillotined." Many thought, that the question of the constitution of the Scottish Committee required a good deal of sifting and it would be a pity if discussion were stifled. He thought that the Government would do well to give consideration to the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after the word 'Procedure,' to insert the words 'other than so much of such Motions as refers to the establishment of a Scottish Committee.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DALZIELregretted exceedingly that the Government had found it necessary to introduce the guillotine at all. He thought that the Prime Minister was not particularly in love with it himself, and had only introduced it with the intention of expediting business. He did not say where the blame lay, but he could not but regret that they had not more of what there used to be, namely, "deals" with regard to public business. He did not know whether any suggestion had been made on one side or the other, or whether there was a spirit on the other side not to accept any arrangement which would have made this Resolution unnecessary, but there seemed to be an absence of that disposition to come to arrangements which he had seen session after session during the fifteen years he had been in Parliament. He regretted that, in the first place, because it introduced a temper into their debates which was greatly to be deprecated, and nobody suffered from it more than the Government of the day. He was a strong disciple of the Prime Minister when he stood up for the policy of "splitting the difference." He always thought it a good policy for getting business through. He was sorry they were occupying time in discussing this Motion which might have been usefully given to the discussion of the Procedure Rule. Somebody had said the Rules were a Party matter. Certainly they ought not to be. He was afraid he was rather conservative on many matters, and this was one of them. They were setting up, for good or for evil, a form of procedure which would be permanent, unless some future Government interfered with it; and it was of vital importance, therefore, if these Committees upstairs were to have that importance which in his opinion they demanded, that the House as a whole should be parties to the arrangement. They knew what the result would he when the Bills came back from those Committees. He regretted that the Government had regarded the course they had taken as necessary. He did not blame the Government, because they were responsible for the business of the House, but he would have much preferred it if the question had been made a matter of general understanding between both sides of the House, for then the
  656
  time of the House would have been much better occupied. He could not agree with what the hon. Member for Aberdeen had said in regard to what he called the undoubted obstruction which had taken place. The Prime Minister did not make that the basis of his Motion, his ground being that they must get on with public business. He did not think that, in the ordinarily accepted sense of deliberate obstruction, there had been any undue abuse of the rules of debate on this very important question. The immediate question was whether the Motion should apply to the Scottish Grand Committee, or whether that point should be left to be considered on some future day. If they accepted the noble Lord's Motion it would probably delay the consideration of the subject until the end of the session, with no guarantee that they would have an opportunity of considering it at all. He would remind the House that they had before had a Scottish Grand Committee which represented the whole House, and there was no vital difference between that Committee and the one now suggested. He regretted that it had not been found possible to settle the question without the aid of the guillotine, but as he was in favour of setting up a Scottish Grand Committee he should vote against the Amendment.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that the Government had made no attempt to come to an arrangement with the Opposition in regard to bringing the debate on this Rule to a close.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he had not made any such assertion. What he said was that he did not know whether any such attempt had been made.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid there was a way of saying one "wondered" whether any attempt had been made which implied that no attempt had been made. If his hon. friend had been in the House when he introduced this Motion, he would have heard him say that an attempt was made to come to an arrangement with the Opposition in regard to the new scheme of procedure; and it was because they were told that the arrangement would not be accepted,

  657
  that no other arrangement would be listened to, and that the Opposition had determined to fight the thing to the bitter end, that the Government had resolved to take another course. He agreed with the noble Lord as to the importance and the expediency of having an opportunity of discussing the appointing of a Scottish Grand Committee, but why could they not discuss it? Simply because so much time had been thrown away by the Opposition moving unimportant Amendments, by unnecessary repetition, and by other means of occupying time. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no."] Now they were asked to exclude the question of the Scottish Committee from this proposal, and to reserve it until a more convenient season. They wished to get that Grand Committee started because business of great importance was waiting to be referred to it. The time at the disposal of the Government was already mortgaged for other business of great importance, for the carrying through of which the setting up of this Scottish Committee was required. Therefore it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. Without any desire to diminish the authority of the noble Lord in this matter, perhaps he might be allowed to say that he had not been very long in the House, and he had certainly not been a Member long enough to have had much experience of those questions which had been before the Scottish Committee. There was a Scottish Commiteee in 1894 which worked exceedingly well, and passed most useful legislation. It proved an immense success and passed one or two most important measures which had proved a blessing to Scotland over since, and it was because it was not continued that there had been practically no Scottish legislation since. It would be seen that it was upon past experience they were proceeding, and that diminished the necessity that might otherwise have existed for a full and elaborate discussion of the principle of a Scottish Grand Committee. The Government could not make any exception to their Motion. Those who wished to criticise the new Procedure Rule should have confined their Amendments to points of importance; if that had been done there would have been abundance of time for the discussion of the proposal of a Scottish Grand Committee. But that course had not
  658
  been taken, and the Government, therefore, were compelled to make this Motion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Prime Minister had suggested that, because they had a different kind of Scottish Committee established under a Sessional Order thirteen years ago, therefore it was unimportant and of no consequence that they should discuss a proposal to constitute a new form of Scottish Committee this year. That was a declaration which had aroused considerable difference of opinion not merely among the Members of the House, but among people outside. The right hon. Gentleman was so anxious for Scotland's welfare, and so tender of her interests, that he could not find even a single day to discuss an important question on which Scottish opinion was, as the hon. Member had said, so widely divided. [Cries of "No."] Of course, when doctors differed, they must settle the matter among themselves. He had correctly represented what was said by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, and was that not enough to prove his case? It was not only the interests of Scotland that were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman was forced by the precedent which he was in the course of creating to support another sectional or Grand Committee which, by the necessity of the case, must be differently composed from that for Scotland. Was the House to have any opportunity of discussing that? The right hon. Gentleman was in favour of referring all Scottish measures to a Committee in which the Scottish Members would form a majority, and in a Committee of eighty they would form a considerable majority. But Wales, having very many fewer Members, would stand in a wholly different position in the Welsh Grand Committee from that which Scotland would occupy in the Scottish Grand Committee. These were matters which were worthy of consideration. The House ought to know how the Government justified their proposals, but they were to have no opportunity of discussing them. The Prime Minister said he was anxious that the Scottish Grand Committee should get to work at once. On what? No Scottish Bill had passed the Second Reading. There was no reason for this hurry. There had, indeed, been a Land Tenure Bill for Scotland introduced, but

  659
  was not that one of the measures which by the declaration of the Prime Minister it was not the intention of the Government to refer to a Committee upstairs?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: Why not?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was a grave announcement and showed the necessity for full debate. The House had been repeatedly told that it was not intended to send the principal or highly contentious Government measures to these Committees. Was the Land Tenure Bill a principal measure, or was it merely a by-product? It was certainly supposed that such a Bill would fall within the category of those the Government would exempt by motion. If it was intended to send such a Bill upstairs, the proposal became ten times more important. It would be a monstrous infringement of the rights and privileges of Parliament that such a proposition should be put through without discussion on the fiat of the Government. The Government had had the opportunity of carrying out a reform of procedure with the hearty approval of the Opposition; but, having chosen a set of Rules which they must have known to be highly contentious, they had only themselves to thank for the discussion that had arisen. If the discussion of the new rules had taken three, four, or five days more, it would have been a very moderate allowance of time compared with the time spent on the same subject when the Conservative Government was in office At any rate, the particular point to which the present Amendment was directed, namely, the exclusion from the guillotine resolution of the proposal to set up sectional Grand Committees, taking Members from one part of the House instead of from the House as a whole, was one which should be accepted by the Government. If the proposal of the Government were passed without discussion, it would be a scandal, he hoped even this House of Commons would not sanction.
  SIR EDWIN CORNWALLsaid the Government were perfectly justified in proposing the guillotine with respect to the Amendments dealing with the classes of Bills to be exempted from the operation of the Rule. He understood
  660
  from the Prime Minister on another occasion that it was on that series of Amendments the House had taken up sufficient time. He understood the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward the guillotine Resolution to release the House from that difficulty, but the Motion had been moved in a form which would penalise not only the Members who had put down that series of Amendments, but also other Members of the House, supporters of the Government, who wished to have an opportunity of discussing what kind of Grand Committees ought to be set up. He was not speaking with the object of embarrassing the Government in any way. This was not a Party question. He was entirely opposed to hon. Gentlemen opposite taking up so much time on the question whether certain Bills should go to the Grand Committees. That part of the proposal ought to be guillotined, but a fair opportunity should be given for discussing what kind of Standing Committees should be set up. He had taken the trouble to ascertain the number of public Acts passed by this House during the last thirty years. He found that there had been 1,285 passed affecting the United Kingdom as a whole; 132 affecting England and Wales; 204 affecting Scotland; 248 affecting Ireland; seventy-four affecting London; and five affecting Wales. Did not these figures prove that the House before deciding what kind of Standing Committees were to be set up should have full opportunity of discussing the kind of business to be done, having regard to past experience? Great injustice would be done to certain sections of the House if that course was not followed. In the past when Scottish Bills were considered in Committee of the Whole House, and the Scottish Members remained in the House, it was practically a Scottish Committee. If there was a London Bill before the House they could rely that the London Members would remain in the Chamber. Private Bills would not be affected by his proposal: but if General Public Bills applying only to London were sent upstairs to a Committee of eighty Members many London Members would lose the opportunity which they had at present of making a contribution to debate. He had spoken to private Members and even to members of the Government on the matter, and they seemed to think that in making

  661
  his proposal for a Special Grand Committee for London he was not fully justified, because they asked, "What about Lancashire and Yorkshire?" [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed as if he were making a geographical comparison. His comparison was as to the amount of business which the House was called upon to do in regard to the London area. He appealed to the Prime Minister to give his support to the change which he proposed. During the last thirty years Wales had had only five Public Acts applying separately to the Principality; whereas London in the same period had had seventy-four Bills before the House. The proposal was not a fair recognition of the claims of London—more especially when the principles of the Bills applicable to London and the urgency of the problems with which they dealt were considered. He thought that the guillotine Motion should apply to the earlier part of the Government proposals, so that a discussion might be allowed with regard to setting up a Grand Committee for London. If the Bills for the different Grand Committees were not ready at the beginning of the session the arrangements could be altered so that the best use of hon. Members could be made to deal with Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and London Bills.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: understood that a few Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, had complained that he had declined to come to any arrangement with regard to the discussion on the Rules of Procedure. What happened? On Thursday last the Prime Minister proposed to take certain Navy Votes on the following Monday, on Tuesday the Second Reading of the Army Bill was to be taken, and on Wednesday certain minor measures like the Patents Bill. When pressed on that question the right hon. Gentleman said that if the Rules of Procedure debate was not concluded on Thursday night—a proposition which never for a moment appeared to be possible to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House—he would continue the debate on Monday. About eleven o'clock the Patronage Secretary spoke to him behind the Chair and asked him if there was any chance of coming to an arrangement, and he told the Patronage Secretary that the
  662
  only arrangement he could come to was in regard to the Army Bill, and that the Opposition were ready to give the Second Reading of that Bill if a full day were given to its discussion. He could not understand what the Government wanted in regard to the Rules. At that moment the Eleven o'clock Rule was suspended, and he said to the Patronage Secretary that the debate might go on to two, three, four o'clock in the morning, or after, and under those circumstances it was impossible for him to come to an arrangement. Immediately after that, the Prime Minister, instead of taking advantage of the facilities the House had given him of continuing the debate, announced that he would move a guillotine Resolution. It was not likely he would make a bargain after that. There was another thing which the Government had overlooked. At the moment it was attempted to make a bargain on Thursday there stood on the Paper Amendments to the Rules of Procedure in the names of no less than thirty-two of the supporters of the Government, and he was acting not only as trustee for his own side of the House, but in the interests of the House generally. He might tell the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that, until he got orders to the contrary from his leader, he would not make any bargain of a kind which surrendered the liberties of the House, so long as he held the position he now occupied.
  MR. MORTONsaid he quite agreed that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the proposals of the Government. The time taken up in discussing Scottish Bills was generally consumed by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. If Bills were sent to the Grand Committee, Scottish Members would have an opportunity of discussing them which they did not have in Committee of the Whole House. He understood that the Amendment now under discussion was to cut Scotland out of the Grand Committee proposal altogether. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Well, that was how he read it. The main reason for bringing forward the proposal was that they might have an opportunity for discussing Scottish business, otherwise they could not get any Scottish business done at all. For anyone to suggest that there

  663
  was much or any difference of opinion in Scotland on this matter was absurd. In fact what the Scottish people were asking for was something more than a Grand Committee; they were asking for Home Rule, but they were willing to take a Grand Committee as an instalment. There was another reason. Scotland generally was in advance of the rest of the United Kingdom; and Scotland was willing to show by passing legislation for her own people a good example to the rest of the United Kingdom, although he did not know that the rest of the United Kingdom would follow that example very rapidly They had been told by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that England would inevitably get the reforms that Scotland got.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas understood to say that he never said that.
  MR. MORTONsaid he took it down at the time. If that were true, why had England not Sunday closing which was passed for Scotland sixty years ago, or a complete system of national education such as they had had in Scotland for hundreds of years? But was that any reason for Scotland not getting the reforms that were absolutely necessary for the welfare of her people and of the whole of Great Britain? He believed that even now they could discuss the question and come to as intelligent a decision as they could if they were to debate it for weeks. He did not blame the Tory Party for their action in the matter, because they were merely acting according to their nature, and did not want the House to pass legislation. England wanted a good many reforms and so did Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, but the Tory Party said they should not have them. Last year a Bill which affected not only England and Wales, but Scotland, was sent up to the Grand Committee, passed that Committee, and came down to this House and was passed into law.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Gentleman was straying from the question before the House, which was the method of dealing with the Procedure Resolutions. He must confine himself to the question
  664
  before the House; what he was saying had nothing to do with the Rules.
  MR. MORTONsaid he only wanted to point out that if what was mainly an English Land Bill could go before a Grand Committee and be dealt with, surely a Scottish Land Bill could also go there. He hoped that the Prime Minister with his immense majority would insist upon doing some business, in spite of the fact that it was the desire of the Tory Party not to do business. Ministerialists, however, wished to do business, and above all, what the Members for Scotland wanted was the establishment of this Scottish Committee. They were told last session that Scotland must wait, but he thought that they had a right to insist upon the Rules being altered, so that the House of Commons might be in a position to do business and to carry out the many important reforms which were desired by the Scottish people for the welfare of the whole of the population. He trusted, therefore, that the Amendment would not be supported by any Liberal Members on any account whatever, because the main reason they wanted this alteration of the Rules of Procedure was to obtain this Scottish Committee, so that matters affecting Scotland might be referred to Scottish Members and to Scottish Members only.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he must congratulate the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, on having exercised in favour of the facilitation of business those gifts of concise exposition of which they had had such long and pleasurable experience. He himself rose, not to continue the debate initiated by the right hon. Gentleman, but to make an appeal to the Government. Of course it would not be worth making if it absolutely traversed their policy, but he proposed to ask them to do something to remove what he thought they must feel to be the greatest blot upon their proposal. He objected to bringing any debate on the Rules of the House to a violent close, until the necessity had been more amply proved than it had been on the present occasion; but he waived that point now, and asked the Government whether they could not do something to avoid the scandal of making part of the permanent machinery of Parliament a Scottish Committee which had never

  665
  been made a part of their permanent machinery, and of instituting for the first time a Welsh Committee, of which nobody had ever yet heard, and refusing, if those principles were accepted, even to discuss the possibility of an extension to other parts of the country which might have as great a right to such Committees as Wales or Scotland, or a greater right than they had. Would it be impossible for the Government, if they thought a clear and precise limit must be put to this discussion, to exclude from the Rule as printed the subject of the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees, and the Amendments to the proposal for Grand Committees, and, having accepted that Amendment, to add a rider stating that two full Parliamentary days would be given to the discussion of the Amendments to Standing Order 47? If hon. Members would look at their Papers they would see that all these proposals and Amendments came up under Standing Order 47, and he would suggest that two days should be given to their discussion, and when those days had concluded there should be the same form of guillotine as was now proposed. The House would then be relieved of the fear of an unlimited series of Amendments postponing to an indefinite future the conclusion of the discussion on the Government's proposals. They would know exactly the amount of time which could not be exceeded in the discussion of these Rules, and they would have
  avoided the grave inconvenience and scandal, and the unprecedented blot on their debates, of having carried out a revolutionary change in Parliamentary procedure with such an absence of discussion and divisions as was now contemplated. He made this suggestion in a spirit of conciliation.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER, whilst appreciating the spirit which animated the right hon. Gentleman, said it was impossible for the Government to assent to the proposal that two days should be given to the discussion of these Rules. It was impossible to minimise the importance of the Scottish or Welsh Grand Committee question, but a considerable amount of time would be available that evening. [Cries of "Private Bill."] The private Bill was, he understood, unopposed. The Government would be ready to give facilities with a view to placing the time on the following day under the control of the Opposition, practically from four until ten o'clock, for bringing forward the Amendments to which they attached the greatest importance. That was, he thought, a very fair response to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 108; Noes, 314. (Division List No. 114).

  AYES.

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. E'm'ds

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchest'r

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

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

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fell, Arthur

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fletcher, J. S.

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

  Cave, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cavendish. Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Haddock, George R.

  M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Waring, Walter

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Smith. F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Percy, Earl

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

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Starkey, John R.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Younger, George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lord Robert Cecil and Mr.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Smeaton.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  NOES.

  Agnew, George William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gulland, John W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Ambrose, Robert

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Collins, Sir W m. J. (S. Paneras, W.

  Hall, Frederick

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Halpin, J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Astbury, John Meir

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cox, Harold

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barker, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crombie, John William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cross, Alexander

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone. N.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Bell, Richard

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Delany, William

  Hobart, Sir Robert

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

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Hodge, John

  Bertram, Julius

  Dickson-Povnder, Sir John P.

  Hogan, Michael

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Billson, Alfred

  Duckworth, James

  Hooper, A. G.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Black, Arthur, W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Boland, John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brace, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Hudson, Walter

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Branch, James

  Erskine, David C.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Brigg, John

  Essex, R. W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Brocklehurst. W. B.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jenkins, J.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Everett, R. Lacy

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Joyce, Michael

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Findlay, Alexander

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Byles, William Pollard

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Cameron, Robert

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lambert, George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gilhooly, James

  Lamont, Norman

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Ginnell, L,

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Glover, Thomas

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Levy, Maurice

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cleland, J. W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Clough, William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkBg'hs

  Pollard, Dr.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  M'Crae, George

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Killop, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Toulmin, George

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rees, J. D.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Ure, Alexander

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Verney, F. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Vivian, Henry

  Massie, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Menzies, Walter

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Mond, A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robinson, S.

  Wardle, George J.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowland, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Runciman, Walter

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Myer, Horatio

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Napier, T. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Nicholls, George

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'st'r

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scott. A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sears, J. E.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  O'Grady, J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  O'Malley, William

  Snowden, P.

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Partington, Oswald

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Perks, Robert William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Pease.

  MR. LAURENCE HAEDYmoved an Amendment to exempt from the operation of the Rule the proposal with regard to a Welsh Committee, and also the application of Standing Orders 26 and 27 giving power of closure, to Grand Committees. So far as the first part of this Amendment was concerned it did not come under the ban of the Prime Minister, who had desired the House to concentrate their attention on and to discuss the most important of the Amendments. Had the debate on the Rule concluded on the previous Thursday they could not possibly have concentrated their attention on the Amendment just placed upon
  670
  the Paper. There was a strong case for the exclusion of the Welsh Committee, because there had been no opportunity of ascertaining the Government's position on the point. Wales was not in the same position as Scotland, and therefore the question that a rose was entirely different. Wales was to be attached to one of the Standing Committees, and the Motion of the Prime Minister proposed to alter Standing Order 48. Hither to it had been possible for the Committee of Selection to alter the general body of Members who sat on Grand Committees, but the Prime Minister now proposed to make the members of those bodies irremovable. To those bodies were to be

  671
  added fifteen under the Standing Order to which the Welsh proposition was attached. And now having got a Standing Committee the Members of which were irremovable and to which fifteen Members were to be added, it was proposed to add thirty-two more, all of one complexion of politics, a policy which was directly opposed to all the principles of their Constitution. An entirely new principle was to be adopted. That was a condition of things that required and deserved some discussion in the House, but which under this guillotine proposal would be voted on without any debate whatever, and without a single word of explanation from the Government as to how the scheme intended to work. Another matter which ought not to be passed sub silentio was the proposal of the Government under which the whole of the powers of closure were to be given to the Standing Committees. Anybody who looked back to the time when the closure was introduced into that House knew what interest it excited, but it might not be within the recollection of the House that in the last Parliament the Deputy Chairman of Committees, a salaried official of the House, had not the right to accept the closure except on a declaration made to the House that the Chairman was unavoidably absent. They were now proposing to give those powers to Chairmen sitting upstairs. They were giving these Committees power to cut short debates at the very moment they were professing a desire to give greater freedom of discussion. He did not think that this was a proposal which the House should sanction. He urged that before the Standing Order was passed the House should have some opportunity of discussion. It was undesirable that the Standing Order now proposed should be adopted. They had always had Standing Orders which were applicable to the condition of things in the House which ever Party was in power. Let them take the proposal for a Welsh Committee, and suppose the Constitutional Party were returned to power. How would it be possible for the Welsh Committee any more than the Scottish Committee to exist if entirely composed of Welsh Liberal Members? The Members for Wales were generally of the opposite way of thinking to the Unionist Party, and it would be impossible for a Unionist Government to entrust legislation to
  672
  Grand Committees of that nature, because no Government would consent to send legislation to Committees on which they were in a minority. Therefore, they were proposing Standing Orders which must be altered whenever there was a change in the balance of opinion in the House. If, as was suggested, these were made only Sessional Orders, of course the matter could be rectified; but as long as the Government insisted on their being Standing Orders, he earnestly urged that they should at least give an opportunity for discussion of the two very important matters dealt with in his Amendment. He begged to move.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL, in seconding the Amendment, said that in regard to the question of a Committee for Wales the attitude of the Government had indeed been remarkable. Nobody knew that this Welsh Standing Committee was going to be set up at all, but at the last moment the Prime Minister apparently had yielded to the threats of the hon. Member for Swansea and other Welsh Members, and they were now obliged to agree to an Amendment of the Standing Order which would revolutionise the system of procedure as regarded Welsh Bills, without there being the slightest opportunity of full and fair discussion. It was most essential that this Welsh proposal should be exempted from the Resolution. It was unfair to the House that they should be left, in that position, and that a proposal which because it was unfair could not be permanent should be passed by means of the closure. If the Government brought in another Welsh Disestablishment Bill, would it be relegated to this small, and, without offence, he would say packed Committee upstairs, and then when it came down to the House on the Report stage be dealt with under conditions which would allow hon. Members to make only one speech? He did not know what the Prime Minister proposed to do in that respect, but they had all believed and hoped that he would assent to a provision for plurality of speeches on the Report stage. That, apparently, was not to be. It made it all the more unfair that this proposal with regard to the Welsh Committee should not be discussed. As regarded the other portion of the Amendment,

  673
  there were equally strong grounds for excepting it from the guillotine Motion. Formerly, they used to be extremely chary about applying the closure at all, and if its application had been more strongly opposed by one Party than another, he would have thought it was by the Party now in office; yet that Party deliberately proposed not merely that the guillotine should be used in the House, but that it should also be used in Grand Committees upstairs. Much of the valuable work of amending Bills was done in Grand Committee, but if the proceedings were to be subject to closure the value of the work would be very much diminished On the other hand, if the Bill was to be carefully examined and fully amended in all its details, and in all respects properly considered, they must not merely send it up to the Grand Committee, which had proved so valuable in the past, but they must not fetter the discussions in that Committee. He appealed most strongly to the Government and the House to let this matter be thrashed out thoroughly before they altered the Standing Orders, and to except from the Resolution that part which related to the closure.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after the word 'Procedure,' to insert the words 'other than so much of such Motions as refer to the establishment of a Welsh and Monmouthshire Committee and which apply the Standing Orders 26 and 27 (Closure) to the Standing Committees,"'—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the Rules of Procedure introduced by the Leader of the Opposition in 1902 raised no such questions as were involved in the proposals of the Prime Minister. He had only to direct attention to the Amendments to be moved by his right hon. friend the Member for the Hallam division of Sheffield. For instance, Bills to create a subordinate legislature in any part of the United Kingdom, Bills to ratify treaties, Conventions, or other international instruments—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment
  674
  which refers to a Committee for Wales and Monmouthshire.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid his object was to show that matters of great magnitude were involved, and that the question which had been raised by his hon. friend behind him was of even still greater magnitude than those subjects to which he had referred. In that House, so far as the Government were concerned, there were two Parties—one the Labour Members below the Gangway, and the other the President of the Board of Trade. They were both very powerful. The Labour Members had been ably to secure certain concessions, and the President of the Board of Trade had been able to secure for Wales a special Standing Committee. If the Labour Members, or Saul, had slain his thousands, David had slain his tens of thousands. Behind the proposals of the Prime Minister was a process of devolution. He believed that the scheme for a Scottish Grand Committee and a Welsh Grand Committee was a species of devolution intended to lead up to the larger policy of which the right hon. Gentleman was the most distinguished exponent. Presently they would have from the Nationalist Benches a proposal to establish an Irish Standing Committee. [Cries of "Why not."] He had never known Irish Members in that House to miss an opportunity to secure some sort of concession, valuable or less valuable. If they once established the principle of Standing Committees for each portion of the United Kingdom they would be striking a blow at the very union of discussion which when the Union was created it was intended to have. The whole tendency was antipathetic and that was an extremely bad thing. The proposal to establish a Welsh Standing Committee, small as it might seem, taken in conjunction with the Scottish Standing Committee was a blow at general discussion in the House. The proposals put forward by the Government were such as to entitle them to a much longer time for discussion than would be given if this Motion were carried. The question fundamentally affected the rights and obligations of hon. Members. If every Welsh and Scottish question was to be sent upstairs, an evil which they had always deplored would be intensified. Upon one occasion, when he ventured to discuss the

  675
  principle of local option, he was looked upon with perfect astonishment because Scotland only was concerned. The principle involved, however, was one which affected the whole country. If it was considered indiscreet for an hon. Member representing an English constituency to intervene in a Scottish debate, how much worse would it be when these particular questions were sent to Scottish, Welsh or Irish Committees for discussion. By opposing these proposals the Opposition were performing a duty which he was sure would be recognised some day by hon. Members opposite.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKenna,)said the hon. Member who moved the Amendment argued that the Welsh proposal was of such first-rate importance that the House should have the fullest opportunity of discussing it. What was the proposal? It was to include the thirty-four Welsh Members in one of the Committees which had to deal with a Bill which was exclusively Welsh. The Committee of Selection now added fifteen Members to an ordinary Committee. These fifteen Members in the case of a Welsh Bill would form part of the thirty-four Welsh Members. In ordinary circumstances there were five or six Welsh Members on one of the Standing Committees. There remained, therefore, thirteen or fourteen more Welsh Members who would be put on the Committee, possibly in exchange for others. The result was that out of a Committee of eighty Members there would be thirty-four Welsh Members to deal with a Bill which was exclusively Welsh. That matter was considered by hon. Gentlemen opposite of such importance that it should be excluded from the operation of this Resolution. The second point raised was that the proposal to give the Chairmen of these Committees power to grant the closure was so important that it ought to have a special opportunity for full discussion. It was obvious that the powers of the Chairmen at present were inadequate and unsatisfactory, and he would have thought it was the general desire of the House that such a power should be granted. He did not think the proposal of the Government was of such a novel and revolutionary kind as to justify these Amendments.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not realised the real strength of the opposition to his proposals. It was not a mere matter of adding so many members to the Committee. The real question was whether the new Grand Committee was to reflect the opinion and composition of the existing House of Commons, or whether it was to be composed of the Members for that particular part of the country with merely those added to bring it up to the necessary number. The representation of Wales was for the most part in the hands of one Party. Did the Government seriously propose that, in order that the Grand Committee should represent the House, they should add to it a sufficient number of English and Scottish Members to flood the Welshmen and prevent their representing the Principality and giving to the Committee the political complexion that their representation justified? The Government were proposing to overshadow them by the representatives of other parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a small proposal, but the Member for Gravesend had shown beyond answer that it was unquestionably the beginning of a very much larger proposal. It might be that that was the object which the Government had in view. The reason of the closuring by compartments proposal was not factious opposition on that side of the House. The only justification for it was that the Government had got their business into such a condition that they had to pass matters through the House practically without discussion. He thought the principle involved was an extremely bad one, and that it destroyed the whole character of the House. He did not suppose there had been one Amendment moved which had not been genuine and conceived with the desire to make the proposals of the Government more workable. He protested against the arbitrary and tyrannical action of the Government in preventing the discussion of questions which seriously affected the business of the House.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he did not think the House realised the very great importance of the duties to be entrusted to the Chairmen of the Standing Committees, under the proposed regulations. He should be sorry to say one word in disparagement of the

  677
  gentlemen who had filled the Chair in the Standing Committees, and he hoped he should not be acting in a manner showing want of appreciation of their work if he pointed out the great difference in the method of their appointment from that of the Chairman of Ways and Means. If it were proposed to appoint as the Chairman of the Committees of this House a gentleman who was not acceptable, they knew how such a Motion would be dealt with. But the appointment of the Chairman of a Standing Committee was not the act of the Whole House; it was the act of the Committee of Selection, and he could not help thinking that if it came to a case of strain, there might be great difficulty arising out of the fact that the Chairman of a Standing Committee was appointed by the Committee of Selection only. There was this further difficulty. Those who occupied the position of Speaker, or Chairman of Committees, soon gained valuable experience and became more and more influential, but the Chairman of a Standing Committee only occupied his position for a short time. He came and went, and his position was not the same as that of the gentlemen who presided over the House itself. Another objection to the proposed new Rules was the want of publicity in the Standing Committees. When the closure was given in the House it was given before the world. It was given before those who, whether in or out of the House, criticised their proceedings. But the closure when applied by the Chairmen of these Committees would be deprived of the benefit of publicity which was so great a guarantee for safety and impartiality. He was perfectly sure that as time went on the importance of these
  arguments would be appreciated. In regard to Wales, he was not sure that a Bill for the Disestablisment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales was exclusively Welsh business, because the Welsh dioceses were not coincident with any of the English counties. Where a Welsh Disestablisment Bill was discussed years ago that was the great difficulty. If it was a great difficulty then, it would become an impossibility now under the proposed Standing Order, because a Motion with reference to the Welsh Church would not be exclusively Welsh business. He looked with the greatest apprehension on this principle of what he would venture to term disintegration. What he desired to see continued was the United Kingdom—united in sympathy, in policy, and in future prospects. He looked with the greatest dread on these proposals, however innocent they might seem at first sight—proposals which would involve separation in their administrative and legislative business of one part of the country after another, instead of securing a united whole. He deprecated in the strongest manner the idea of disintegration and separation, regarding it as not respectful to the House.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDrose to continue the debate.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 306;. Noes, 90. (Division List No. 115.)

  AYES.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Beale, W. P.

  Brigg, John

  Agnew, George William

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brocklehnrst, W. B.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brodie, H. C.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bennett, E. N.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bertram, Julius

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Barker, John

  Billson, Alfred

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Barnard, E. B.

  Boland, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brace, William

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Branch, James

  Chance, Frederick William

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Myer, Horatio

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Napier, T. B.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholls, George

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

  Clough, William

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Clynes, J. R.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Cox, Harold

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  O'Malley, William

  Crean, Eugene

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Partington, Oswald

  Crombie, John William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hudson, Walter

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Jackson, R. S.

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

  Dalziel James Henry

  Jenkins, J.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Jones, Sir D. (Brynmor(Swansea

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Delany, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

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

  Kekewieh, Sir George

  Radford. G. H.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Duckworth, James

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lambert, George

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

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Elibank, Master of

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Essex, R. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lough, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lundon, W.

  Robinson, S.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lyneh, H. B.

  Rowlands, J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Runciman, Walter

  Findlay, Alexander

  Maclean, Donald

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacVeagh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sears, J. E.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Crae, George

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  M'Killop, W,

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Snowden, P.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Massie, J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Meagher, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Menzies, Walter

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hall, Frederick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Steadman, W. C.

  Halpin, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harrington, Timothy

  Mooney, J. J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Summerbell, T.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morse, L. L.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  680

  681

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'n

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Wardle, George J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Waring, Walter

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Toulmin, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Verney, F. W.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Vivian, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  A. Pease.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  NOES

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Ashley, W. W.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchest'r

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rutherford W. W. (Liverpool)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Haddock, George R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John R.

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W m.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Cross, Alexander

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Sir

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Viscount Valentia.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Fell, Arthur

  Percy, Earl

  Question put accordingly, "That these words be there inserted."
  House divided:—Ayes, 89; Noes, 306. (Division List No. 116.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n,

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewish'm)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchest'r

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Haddock, George R.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Craig, Captain James (Down. E.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.]

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cross, Alexander

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Percy, Earl

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W m.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Younger, George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Tellers foe the Ayes—Mr.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Laurence Hardy and Mr.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Starkey, John R.

  Evelyn Cecil.

  NOES.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Clough, William

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Agnew, George William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gulland, John W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Astbury, John Meir

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hall, Frederick

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Halpin, J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cox, Harold

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Barker, John

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harrington, Timothy

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crombie, John William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bsllairs, Carlyon

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Benn, W. (Tw'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Delany, William

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

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bertram, Julius

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hobhouse Charles E. H.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd

  Duckworth, James

  Hodge, John

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hogan, Michael

  Billson, Alfred

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Black, Arthur W.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Bolnnd, John

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Brace, William

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Elibank, Master of

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Branch, James

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Brigg, John

  Erskine, David C.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Essex, R. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Brodie, H. C.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jackson, R. S.

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

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jenkins, J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Cameron, Robert

  Fowler, Rt, Hon. Sir Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gilhooly, James

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ginnell, L.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lambert, George

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Glover, Thomas

  Lamont, Norman

  Cleland, J. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  684

  685

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)

  Partington, Oswald

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Levy, Maurice

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lough, Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lundon, W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pollard, Dr.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Toulmin, George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Callum, John M.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Crae, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Vivian, Henry

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  M'Killop, W.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpton

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

  Waring, Walter

  Marnham, F. L.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Massie, J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Menzies, Walter

  Robinson, S.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Weir, James Galloway

  Montagu, E. S.

  Rowlands, J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Morse, L. L.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Wiles, Thomas

  Myer, Horatio

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nicholls, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'st'r,

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Smyth, Thomas F (Leitrim, S.)

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Snowden, P.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) '

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N

  Steadman, W. C.

  Pease.

  O'Malley, William

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he desired to move, in line 2, after the word "shall" to insert the words "be taken on Tuesday," and the consequential Amendment, in line 4, to leave out "Tuesday, the 16th day of April," in order to insert, "Wednesday, the 17th day of April." His object was to give effect to the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that an additional day should be given for the discussion of the more important features of the Closure Resolution. He did not think that many words ought to be needed to commend this course to the
  686
  House, because sufficient latitude of time ought to be given to hon. Members to enable them adequately to discuss the many important questions which were raised by the new Rules. Not the least important of these was whether hon. Members were to be allowed to speak more than once on the Report stage of Bills which came down from Grand Committees. Unless that privilege were allowed, he believed that it would lead to the prolongation instead of the shortening of debate.
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business.

  687
  set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. T. L. CORBETT, in moving the rejection of the Bill, said that as one who had been Deputy-Chairman of the London County Council he deeply regretted to oppose it. He naturally felt regret because of the changed character of the London County Council, and its new political complexion. It might be asked what his reasons were for opposing the Bill. He noticed a statement in The Times a few days ago stating that Mr. Boland had been notified by the London County Council of their intention to withdraw from the Bill the clause to which Roman Catholic Members took exception, empowering the police to visit Roman Catholic institutions where lodgings were provided for the poor and destitute, and that the Nationalists would not persist in their opposition when the measure came before the House of Commons for Second Reading. Such an announcement was full of interest at the present time. It threw a good deal of light upon the claims the Roman Catholic Church were now making upon the London County Council. It recalled Lord Beaconsfield's famous saying—
  "I know your Church—you plead for tolerance, but you ask for supremacy."
  The clause to which reference was made was Clause 85 which ran as follows—
  "No premises within the county shall be deemed to be exempt from the provisions of the Common Lodging Houses Act, 1851 and 1853, as amended by the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1902, or part 9 referring to the Common Lodging Houses of the last-mentioned Act or by any Act amending the said Act in which persons are harboured or lodged not for hire for a period not exceeding a week at a time."
  He did not wish to say one word against the good work that was done by members of the Roman Catholic Church among the poor outcasts of London. There were many good and earnest men
  688
  engaged in such work, but he could not help asking why this secrecy was wanted on the part of the Roman Catholics. If there was nothing to conceal, why endeavour to conceal it? The Bill dealt with a very large number of issues, and he thought the House was entitled to a full declaration and explanation in order to make clear what these mysterious arrangements between the County Council and the Roman Catholics really meant. He had worked hard for many years for the party who now governed the County Council, and no one rejoiced more than he at the victory of the Moderate Party, but he could imagine no means better calculated to make the people out of touch with the London County Council than any surrender such as this to a Church, which claimed to dictate to the London County Council, and more often to the people of England as a whole. Where it was based on a claim for tolerance and equality of treatment, they were prepared to grant it, but he thought it was an episode in the history of the County Council that required explanation. He moved that the Bill be read that day six months.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded the Motion, but said he opposed the Bill on broader grounds than the hon. Member for West Down because it seemed to him on looking through the Bill that if it had been necessary to have Clause 85 inserted, there should be some reasonable explanation of why it was being dropped. He could not see why the words referring to the various statutes dealing with common lodging-houses should not be retained in Section 85 as originally set out in the Bill. He agreed that nearly all the safeguards laid down were safeguards which ought to be made applicable to the Bill before the House. If hon. Members would look at the sections of the old Act as regarded common lodging-houses and the precautions to be taken he thought that not one of them would say that any hardship would be inflicted if this provision were retained. Therefore some explanation should be forthcoming as to why the most valuable terms of the old Act were not to be made applicable to this Bill. It was a matter of the greatest importance, and ought

  689
  to be cleared up. At present it looked as if there was something more than appeared on the surface.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave on the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. L. T. Corbett.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *MR. ASHLEYthought that on this occasion his hon. friend the Member for North Down had tumbled upon a nidus eqninus or mare's nest, and he could assure him that his suspicion that those who were responsible for the omission of this clause showed any trace of sectarianism was without any foundation whatever. They had left out this clause because there was a very widespread and general opposition to it, not from one Roman Catholic society, but from a large number of Church of England societies. He thought he was right in saying that six societies petitioned against the clause, and only one was Roman Catholic, the rest being Church of England bodies. Those responsible for the Church of England Homes for Waifs and Strays protested against Clause 85. They did not object to the homes being inspected by the Local Government Board or the Home Office, but it was submitted that they should not be inspected by the County Council except for purposes of sanitation and the provision for escape from fire. They were at present inspected for those two purposes by the London County Council. If this clause was retained a good deal of pecuniary liability would be inflicted upon these charitable societies, who did an immense amount of good work in giving shelter at night to poor people who had no place of their own to go to. The County Council felt that at the present moment they did not wish to rush into hasty legislation which might inflict a deadly blow on these societies, Church of England and Roman Catholic a like, which had done so much to help the poor in the past; they desired to to wait until the whole bearing of the question had been considered. The Parliamentary Committee of the County Council now in power had not had time to consider and decide on this complicated Bill, and the House ought to
  690
  realise that it was not for any sectarian motive that they now asked that the consideration of this clause should be postponed, but for the reason he had given and that reason alone.
  *MR. CLELANDsaid he found himself in the curious situation, as an old member of the County Council, of asking the House to pass this Bill, whilst the hon. Gentleman who was a member of the party now in power on the County Council was heading an attack on the General Powers Bill as modified by the present Parliamentary Committee of Chat body. The Bill now before the House was not the Bill it pretended to be. The new County Council had seen fit to omit a number of its provisions, but he would not ask the House to refuse a Second Reading because some provisions with which he was in perfect agreement were dropped. He regretted that Clauses 32 to 51 (excepting Clause 38) had been dropped, and he regretted that Clause 84 had been deleted; with regard to Clause 85 the action of the County Council was perfectly reasonable. Clause 85 practically altered the law of the land in a way that was bound to give considerable offence to many people who held strict views in regard to benevolent institutions. It was surely undesirable to alter the law of the land in favour of a municipal authority in a matter which excited such a strong feeling in the minds of many people in this country, and that was why he considered the authorities at Spring Gardens were perfectly right in not pressing the subject. Some of the clauses in the Bill, however, were absolutely necessary for the improvement of London. They were clauses relating more or less to matters of internal economy. One was to amend the superannuation fund, to make it easier for the County Council to hand over to the relatives of those who died the money due to them under the superannuation scheme. The whole of the Bill, with the exception of Clause 85, was practically non-controversial, and therefore he asked the House to give it a Second Reading.
  *SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: desired to emphasise the fact that this was not a Roman Catholic question at all, but a question which affected all charitable institutions, who were much grieved at the way they were

  691
  to be treated under the clauses that were now dropped. He was able to speak with authority as a member of the committee of the Refuge and Reformatory Union, whose record of service in rescue and educational work all over the country extended over fifty years. On their behalf he heartily supported the proposal that additional time should be given to consider this question. It was one that should be dealt with in some way, but not in the way proposed in Clause 85, which had now been dropped.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he would be the very last person to wish to subject any philanthropic institution to the inspection of the County Council, but he wished to say on the general principle that the Bill as printed was not the Bill that the House was asked to consider. The hon. Member who moved its Second Reading admitted that. He would not say in what way it was altered although he admitted that Clause 85 was withdrawn. So far as he could gather there was some arrangement in regard to other clauses. He did not object to those arrangements nor had he any objection to the Bill being modified in any way its promoters desired, but he did object to being asked to vote for a Bill blindfold.
  *MR. VERNEY, as one whose name was on the back of the Bill, desired to say that he cordially associated himself with what had been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Honiton Division of Devon. Part 5 of the Bill was left out, and it had been decided to leave out Part 6 together with Clauses 84 and 85. While efficient inspection of some kind was necessary, he thought it was wise on this occasion to avoid, if possible, hurting the feelings of those who did excellent work in connection with charitable institutions. It was not the feelings of only one section of the Christian community that had been hurt but of many sections, including the Church of England. He therefore associated himself with those who desired to drop Clause 85.
  *MR. CARLILEsaid he desired to associate himself most heartily with those who supported the decision to withdraw
  692
  Clauses 84 and 85, but he really rose for the purpose of asking the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for a class of persons whose interests appeared to have been overlooked in Clause 64 which dealt with superannuation. Under the London School Board there was connected with the teachers a superannuation fund to which they contributed. When the London County Council took over the work of the School Board the superannuation fund was still continued, but it was not allowed that new teachers should become members of the old superannuation fund. The result had been that the remaining members of the original fund naturally found that they were becoming older every year and were becoming an increasing burden on the shrinking fund. If the County Council allowed the members of the original fund to come in under their scheme, and provision might be made under Section 64 to enable that to be done, then what appeared to be a very grave wrong would be removed. Under the present arrangement, unless those who died off were allowed to be replaced by those who were coming on — the now teachers —necessarily the original funds must be entirely cleared out, and those who were not allowed to come in under Clause 64, but only allowed to appeal to the previous existing fund, now being ruined, ran the risk of losing the benefit which they ought to have obtained from continuous contributions spread over a considerable number of years. If this subject might have the consideration of the President of the Local Government Board, he was sure that a suggestion to the London County Council would be all that was required, and the chance of this grave wrong being continued would, he thought, at once pass away.
  MR. SLOANsaid Clauses 84 and 85 no doubt had been put in the Bill by the County Council to meet an existing grievance, and apparently it was not a question of whether the Clause was right or wrong, but one of expediency. He did not know whether they were acting out of sympathy with regard to these charitable institutions, some of them Roman Catholic, in reference to which appeals were coming from all sides at present. The question was whether it

  693
  was a just thing from the point of view of the inmates of these institutions to exclude these clauses. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that other clauses were to be deleted. He understood that they were going to pass the Bill as a whole. If the Bill got the Second Reading that night it would be road with the clauses in it, and the deleting of Clauses 84 and 85, with others, would take place in Committee. He would like to know whether the deleting of the clauses was for the purpose of making the Bill more suitable for its objects, or whether it was intended for the gratification of Members of the Opposition. If every Member of the House could negotiate with the County Council in regard to Bills which they promoted and say, "If you do not take out such and such a clause we will oppose it," then they would not know where they stood. He was sure that the Local Government Board would not allow that course to be followed, or if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of that Department did so his opinion with regard to him would be very much changed. When the right hon. Gentleman was on that side of the House, he noticed that one of the things he very often protested against was interference with the rights of the County Council. It was for the London County Council to satisfy the House that there was a further reason for deleting these clauses than the gratification of the hon. Member for Kerry or the satisfaction of the Nationalist Party. If they proved that the inmates of those places were going to be better cared for without supervision and inspection, he thought the House might accept that assurance. It was not fair to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading with certain clauses in it, and that the Bill should then go to Committee where those clauses would be deleted, so that the measure which came from Committee would not be that to which they had given a Second Reading. He asked the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the matter, and not to consent to it because of a threatened opposition from any part of the House.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he had been informed by the promoters of the Bill
  694
  what line they desired to take about it. On every private Bill it was essential that the promoters should negotiate with opponents where they thought those opponents were justified in their opposition. They must be ready, of course, in Committee, to frame the Bill in such a way as on the whole would meet the objects they had in view. They had to consider the Bill as a whole, and they had told certain opponents they intended to strike out this particular clause and other clauses to meet the objections that had been made. Of course, this clause had nothing to do with Roman Catholics especially; the Church of England and Nonconformists desired the exclusion of the clause, but not because they objected to inspection at all. They had no objection to inspection, but they objected to the form of inspection proposed. They thought it was not the right form of inspection to treat these refuges as if they were common lodging-houses, and that to ask a certain kind of inspector to inspect these refuges as lodging-houses would lead to injustice and render the work exceedingly difficult to carry out, while it would cast an unnecessary slur upon the institutions concerned.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Are they willing to accept any kind of inspection whatever?
  LORD R. CECILsaid he was not in a position to speak for them all. He understood that in the case of those with which he had made himself acquainted, they were perfectly willing to have a suitable form of inspection. The County Council had this opposition to deal with, and having a very complicated measure to prepare in a very short time, they had come to the conclusion that it would be better to drop the clause, at any rate for the present, in order that the matter might be reconsidered and dealt with in the future in a more satisfactory way. It was only right to say that the County Council had shown themselves very zealous and hard-working in dealing with this Bill, discussing all its clauses and informing themselves thoroughly, as they had done, as to the provisions of the measure.
  Question put.
  The House divided: — Ayes, 203; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 117.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Partington, Oswald

  Adkins, W, Ryland D.

  Hall, Frederick

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Halpin, J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Asbury, John Meir

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

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Helme, Norval Watson.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barker, John

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hodge, John

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hogan, Michael

  Radford, G. H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N,

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bennett, E. N.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd

  Jenkins, J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Billson, Alfred

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

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

  Boland, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brace, William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

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

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robinson, S.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Runciman, Walter

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Lamont, Norman

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lever, A Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Bernyeat, W. J. D.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Levy, Maurice

  Sears, J. E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Cameron, Robert

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cave, George

  Lundon, W.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Snowden, P.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Maclean, Donald

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  McVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Summerbell, T.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Crossley, William J.

  M'Killop, W.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Maddison, Frederick

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

  Delany, William

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Massie, J.

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Meagher, Michael

  Verney, F. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Menzies, Walter

  Vivian, Henry

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walker, H. De P. (Leicester)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mooney, J. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Napier, T. B.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nield, Herbert

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

  Whitely, John Henry (Halifax)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  O'Malley, William

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Ashley and Mr. Cleland.

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

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

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  NOES.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Fell, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Haddock, George R.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Clough, William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cross,' Alexander

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  T. L. Corbett and Mr. Sloan.

  Erskine, David C.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Essex, R. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE) (TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS THEREON).
  Postponed Proceedings on Question, "That the Proceedings on the Motions with respect to Business of the House (Procedure) shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday, the 16th day of April, in the following manner, and subject to the following provisions:—1. At 10 p.m. on that day, Mr. SPEAKER shall put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or other Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments or other Motions moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but on no other Amendment or Motion), and on any other Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded; 2. On that, day the proceedings to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House; 3. On that day no dilatory Motion, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any
  698
  such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate; 4. Any opposed Private Business which has been set down for consideration on that day shall stand adjourned without Question put until such other day as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine,"—(Sir II. Campbell-Bannerman,)—resumed.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL, continuing his speech in support of his Amendment giving an additional day to the discussion, said that a good many additional reasons had already been brought forward why the Government should allow a little more time for the discussion of the proposed Rules. They had not yet discussed the important question whether an hon. Member should be allowed to speak more than once upon the Report Stage, although the Prime Minister had promised that concession. Instead of carrying out his promise, the Prime Minister had put down an Amendment which practically limited the right of speaking more than once to the Member in charge of the Bill. He considered that the Government had approached very near to a breach of faith in the matter, and that was one of the reasons why they should be allowed more time. They had been discussing for some time the Question of

  699
  allotting Grand Committees to different portions of the United Kingdom, and if the Resolution were adopted that policy of disintegration would be forced through without a semblance of discussion. There were other objections to the course pursued by the Government. One was the want of publicity which would necessarily attend the discussion of Bills in Grand Committees, for those discussions would take place with far less publicity than if they were discussed in a Committee of the House. They had not been told what would happen to the Bills committed to Grand Committees.
  MR. AINSWORTH, on a point of order, asked if the hon. Member was speaking to the terms of his Amendment.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member is arguing that more time should be allowed. Of course, it will not be in order to discuss the various questions for which he is asking for more time.
  MR. JOHN WARDasked if the hon. Member was in order in discussing questions which had already been settled by a vote of the House?
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he was simply enumerating reasons why he thought more time ought to be given to the discussion of the proposed Rules, and he thought he had given three or four very good reasons. He wished to know were the Grand Committees to remain sitting during the ordinary sittings of the House? That was a point which required elucidation. None of the questions he had mentioned could be discussed if the Resolution passed as it stood. Therefore they naturally desired that more time should be given. He was not asking for very much. His Amendment merely asked half a day, Wednesday night being a private Members' night. There was nothing extravagant in his proposal, and it was one that offered some ground for compromise. The Prime Minister himself had said he regretted that they had not in this Parliament been able to make "deals" between the two sides as before. Why did not the Government consent to
  700
  some arrangement? The perpetual determination not to give way or to make any "deal" on questions of this kind was necessarily a source of irritation and unpleasantness, and generally in the long run it could not fail to have the effect of making opposition to the Government proposals more bitter and more strenuous. It was for that reason that he pleaded with the Government to accept his Amendment. He thought it would remove a good deal of bitterness and unpleasantness. The House would then have an opportunity of discussing the important questions he had mentioned, and they would be in better humour with each other, perhaps, for the greater part of the session. He thought the Government had plenty of time. It was understood that the Government had dropped the Licensing Bill. They had to all intents and purposes dropped the Irish University Bill. Two highly controversial measures had, therefore, been removed from the list of Bills to be passed this session. Perhaps he might even say it had been rumoured that there was to be no Home Rule Bill. At any rate, there would be considerable time at the disposal of the Government if they were going to devote the rest of the session to the disintegration of the Army and the destruction of the landlords. There would be nothing like the pressure on the time of the House which certainly there would have been if they had introduced those other Bills. He thought it would be a good omen for the discussion of the measures they intended to proceed with if they would grant the moderate request for half a day more to discuss what were really non-Party matters affecting the procedure of the House.
  SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment. He said that when he addressed a few remarks to the House earlier in the afternoon, he was singularly fortunate in having the pleasure and the honour of being listened to by the President of the Board of Education. That was about five o'clock, and the right hon. Gentleman was then the only occupant of the Treasury Bench, and now at twenty minutes past nine the right hon. Gentleman was still there. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to occupy the position of maid of all work to the Government. He did not criticise the capability of the right hon.

  701
  Gentleman to fill that or any other position, but he rose to call attention to the absence of the Prime Minister. This was the most important question that had been before the House in this generation. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] He was surprised to hear that laughter. The new rules were designed to stifle free discussion. One of the reasons why the Opposition asked for further discussion was that the proposals would put still greater powers in the hands of the Executive, and he would remind the House that on 6th February, 1902, when new Rules of Procedure were then being discussed, the Prime Minister said—
  "We must take cure that we do not, wittingly or unwittingly, exalt the power of the Executive and diminish the control of the House at large. Facilitate the progress of basines as much as you like; make it as reasonable and as easy as you like; but do not do anything which will have the effect of placing the House of Commons more and more at the mercy of the Government of the day."
  They wanted more time to discuss these Rules in order to get assurances from the Government that they did not intend to violate the excellent principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman would not give an extra half-day was that he knew perfectly well that he and his friends were unable to answer the arguments advanced by the Opposition. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the words which he had just quoted, would assent to the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'be taken on Tuesday and.'"—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR HENRY CRAIKappealed to the Prime Minister to consider whether he could not make this concession. He had no doubt there were good reasons for the absence of the Prime Minister from so important a debate, but he would point out that certain grave inconvenience arose from his absence. Arguments were addressed to the Front Bench and especially to the Prime Minister, and in his absence they were entirely overlooked, or when
  702
  he came in at occasional intervals he spoke without the slightest regard to the fact that those arguments had been advanced. The small Amendment which his hon. friend had proposed would give them a little time for the discussion of the important proposal for the setting up a special Scottish Standing Committee. The Prime Minister had said that there was practically unanimity in Scotland in favour of the proposal, but he absolutely denied that.
  *MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid that the question whether or not there was unanimity in favour of the proposal was not now under discussion.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKremarked that in an Amendment of the same character the Prime Minister was allowed to use the argument of unanimity; but he maintained that there was no such unanimity, and a longer time was required to discuss the matter which ought not to be passed sub silentio tomorrow. The Prime Minister had also stated that the new Rule was practically the Resolution passed in 1894 and 1895. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to be present during the debate, he would have heard that argument refuted. The Resolutions passed in 1894 and 1895 were merely Sessional Orders.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member must confine himself to the matter as it affected the question of allowing an additional half day.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKcontended that he had a right to show that it was not a fair argument to limit the time for the discussion of the new Rule that there was absolute unanimity in Scotland, and that it was identical with the Resolutions passed in 1894 and 1895 [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order"]; and he was not going to be stopped by a dozen Deputy Chairmen on the other side.
  *MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was again disregarding his ruling, and he must ask him to keep to the Question before the House.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he bowed to the Deputy Speaker's ruling. He was

  703
  not entitled, as he understood, to bring forward these arguments in refutation of the arguments used by the Prime Minister. He considered that the demand pressed upon the Government was a very moderate one, which, if there was any desire to meet the legitimate claims of Scotland, ought certainly to be conceded.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he desired to support the Amendment for reasons entirely different from those given by the last speaker. The power of closure and of consequential closure to be given to the Chairmen of Grand Committees would, under the arrangement proposed by the Government, be sanctioned without discussion, although it was the most important point that yet remained to be debated. There was a further Amendment on the point of which he had given notice, but which he supposed would be defeated. It seemed to him that the Chairmen of Grand Committees had already ample powers of closure, without this further power of closuring consequential Amendments. They could always rely on the Speaker and Deputy Speaker to take fair and reasonable view as to when conse-
  quential closure might be allowed; but they should not give to the five or six Chairmen of the Grand Committees, who were Party men, and had not the same exalted position as the Speaker and the Deputy-Speaker, the power to rule out of discussion whole pages of Amendments. He objected, as an independent Member, to this great power of consequential closure being conferred upon any Party man who perhaps expected to be appointed as a Charity Commissioner for the manner in which he had carried out his duties as a Chairman of a Grand Committee.
  MR. PIRIEsaid that although he was a sufferer himself from the fact that matters affecting Scotland might not be fully discussed, he wished to protest against the exhibition of dilatory tactics on the other side, by which hours had been wasted that might have been devoted to the discussion of matters in which the whole House was really interested.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 83; Noes, 294. (Division List, No. 118.)

  AYES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Roberts, S. (Sheflield, Ecclesall)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George R.

  Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Smith, F. L. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Linoel

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid).

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Sir

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Henry Craik.

  Cross, Alexander

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lambert, George

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Delany, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Agnew, George William

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Levy, Maurice

  Armitage, R.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Astbury, John Meir

  Elibank, Master of

  Lundon, W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Erskine, David C.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Barker, John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Maclean, Donald

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford) j

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  M'Crae, George

  Beale, W. P.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Beauchamp, E.

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Killop, W.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Maddison, Frederick

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Glover, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romfd

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Massie, J.

  Billson, Afred

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Menzies, Walter

  Boland, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Brace, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hall, Frederick

  Montagu, E. S.

  Brigg, John

  Halpin, J.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Bright, J. A.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Brocklehurt, W. B.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harms worth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Harrington, Timothy

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Myer, Horatio

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harvey, A. G. C. Rochdale)

  Napier, T. B.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nuttall, Harry

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Cameron, Robert

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hodge, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Cleland, J. W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Mara, James

  Clough, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Partington, Oswald

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)

  Jackson, H. S.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Cory, Clifford John

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Cox, Harold

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Crean, Eugene

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crombie, John William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Crossley, William J.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

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

  Dalziel, James Henry

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamb, Edmund E. (Leominster

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  706

  707

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Robinson, S.

  Summerbell, T.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

  Runciman, Walter

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Willams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Williams, Llewelyn (Cramarth'n

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Sears, J. E.

  Toulmin, George

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

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

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G,

  Walker, H. Ds R. (Leicester)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Walsh, Stephen

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Walters, John Tudor

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Snowden, P.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wardle, George J.

  Pease.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Waring, Walter

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 289; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 119.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Davies, W. Howell (Brist ol, S.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Delany, William

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

  Agnew, George William

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Armitage, R.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Byles, William Pollard

  Elibank, Master of

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cameron, Robert

  Erskine, David C.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Essex, R. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barker, John

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Barnard, E. B.

  Clough, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ffrench, Peter

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Beale, W. P.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Findlay, Alexander

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Beck, A. Cecil

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fullerton, Hugh

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

  Cory, Clifford John

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Cowan, W. H.

  Glover, Thomas

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cox, Harold

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough

  Billson, Alfred

  Crean, Eugene

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gulland, John W.

  Boland, John

  Crombie, John William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Brace, William

  Crossley, William J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hall, Frederick

  Brigg, John

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Halpin, J.

  Bright, J. A.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

  Harrington, Timothy

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Massie, J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meagher, Michael

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Menzies, Walter

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Snowdon, P.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hodge, John

  Myer, Horatio

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hogan, Michael

  Napier, T. B.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nolan, Joseph

  Summerbell, T.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hyde, Carendon

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Grady, J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Jackson, R. S.

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Malley, William

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

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Mara, James

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Toulmin, George

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Partington, Oswald

  Ure, Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Verney, F. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Vivian, Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walsh, Stephen

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walters, John Tudor

  Laidlow, Robert

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

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

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Radford, G. H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Lambert, George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Waring, Walter

  Lamont, Norman

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Watt, Henry A.

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richards, F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lundon, W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Flkirk B'ghs

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Robinson, S.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  M'Crae, George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rose, Charles Day

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

  M'Killop, W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Maddison, Frederick

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Ashley, W. W.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Cave, George

  710

  711

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

  Starkey, John R.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R,

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchel-(Lanark)

  Cross, Alexander

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wardle, George J.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Haddock, George R.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Viscount Valentia.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Harrison-Broadley, Co. H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Motions with respect to Business of the House (Procedure) shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday, the l6th day of April, in the following manner, and subject to the following provisions:—1. At ten p.m. on that day, Mr. SPEAKER shall put forthwith the Question or any Amendment or other Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments or other Motions moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but on no other Amendment or Motion), and on any other Question necessary to dispose of the Proceedings to be concluded; 2. On that day the proceedings to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House; 3. On that day no dilatory Motion, nor Motion for Adjournnent under Standing Order No. 10, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate; 4. Any opposed Private Business which has been set down for consideration on that day shall stand adjourned without Question put until
  712
  such other day as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [11th April] to Question [20th March]—"(1) When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to one of the Standing Committees, unless the House, on Motion to be decided without Amendment or debate, otherwise order, and such a Motion shall not require notice, must be made immediately after the Bill is read a second time, may be made by any Member, and may, though opposed, be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business. But this Order shall not apply to—(a) Bills for imposing taxes, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills; or (b) Bills for confirming Provisional Orders. (2) The House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill, commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions. If such a Motion is opposed the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from the Member who opposes the Motion, shall, without further

  713
  debate, put the Question thereon."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Which Amendment was—
  "In line 10, at the end, to insert the words, '(c) Bills dealing with the organisation of the Army or Reserve Forces, or with the Navy.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdesired to ask the Prime Minister if he would inform the House of the principle upon which the Government had founded their proposed Standing Order. They had made particular exceptions. He excluded from the Bills automatically sent upstairs unless the House otherwise ordered on division Bills imposing taxes and certain small Bills. Bills imposing taxation was the important exception. The particular exception they were now asked to make was as to Bills in regard to the Army. He asked the Government why they thought it necessary to retain finance Bills in the House and to refuse to retain Army Bills. He shared the view of his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition that their financial procedure was unnecessarily cumbrous, and that a good deal of it was explicable by our past history. It had no practical reference to our present circumstances. The special jealousy with which the House regarded their financial Bills, and the special safeguards with which they had hedged about their passage, were really the outcome of the time when the House of Commons depended upon its power in two respects—in the first place, its power over money and grants to the Crown; and, in the second place, its power over the armed forces of the Crown. Any student of history would bear him out when he said that the House of Commons in those days regarded with equal jealousy any permanent grant of money to the Crown and any Bill authorising the Crown to maintain a land force or military
  714
  disciplined force. In those days the jealousy of the House was maintained with regard to both the Army and finance. But the present Government maintained all the jealousy with regard to finance, but did not apply it to the Army. If he remembered aright the Army Bill in its preamble began by saying: "It is inexpedient to maintain and contrary to law," and that the powers should be only annual. They were ready to hedge about their financial system with safeguards; why should they be justified in abandoning the same safeguards in regard to military matters? He really asked the question with a desire for information. He had had, as it happened, to do with their financial procedure, though he had had little to do with the Army, except that for a short time he had to find the money to pay for it. He was quite at a loss to conceive any reason for retaining all the safeguards in regard to finance Bills, which did equally apply to Bills dealing with the Army. Therefore he desired to know what distinction the Government drew between the two. Bearing in mind that finance Bills of considerable importance might be brought in dealing with a considerable amount of details, it might be of great interest to future Chancellors of the Exchequer to know what determined the Government at the present time to preserve for finance Bills a series of restrictions which they did not think necessary in the case of any other Bills.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he certainly thought that other people required some enlightenmentas well as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He required some as to the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. Now it appeared that they were doubtful whether there should be any particular sanctity in money Bills. Last week when they were discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, the right hon. Gentleman thought that the Government's proposal for the safeguarding of money Bills was

  715
  not strong enough. Now the Government were asked why they preserved these obsolete and out-of-date precautions.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is not what I said. I asked the Government what was the logic of their distinction. I have logic of my own, but I cannot discover any logic in their proposal.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman said a good deal more. He said that for his part he doubted whether these rules as to money Bills were necessary at all.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I spoke of Resolutions.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, no; the right hon. Gentleman spoke of their treating them as if they were in a separate category altogether. That had always been done. That was the rule of the House. The Hartington Committee, in 1886, recommended—
  "That every public Bill, after the Second Reading, except a Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means, or a Bill for the Confirmation of any Provisional Order, unless the House shall otherwise order, shall be referred to a Standing Committee of the Whole House."
  Among the members of that Committee were Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Bright, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Courtney, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Healy, Mr. Justin McCarthy, Sir John Mowbray, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. W. H. Smith. It was a formidable list of names. Therefore, the Government also thought it was a reasonable thing to exempt these Bills. Now, it was asked, why not make a similar exemption of Army Bills? He did not remember that, in the early seventies, when there was a great reform
  716
  of the Army, the Army Bills were treated in an exceptional manner. He did not know any particular reason why such a Bill should not be sent to a Standing Committee, but if there were such a reason, the House could refuse to send the Bill upstairs. Every Bill must stand on its own footing, but there was no sufficient ground for saying that every measure connected with the Army must be exempt from the ordinary procedure adopted for other Bills. He had answered the questions put by the right hon Gentleman as fully as he could, and he did not think there was much force in the point he sought to make, that if money Bills were exempt Army Bills should be exempt as well.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the only reason given by the Prime Minister for drawing a distinction as to these Bills was that a similar line of distinction had been drawn by the Hartington Committee. But the Hartington Committee did not take any pains when they had the power to turn their Report into an actuality, and some of the most important recommendations of that Committee were being rejected by the Government. Nothing in the nature of a reason had been given by the Prime Minister as to why the distinction between money Bills and Army Bills had been drawn, and what the Opposition pressed for was a reason for the plan of the Government. Surely that was not a very strange request. The Opposition denied the proposition that the distinction should be made because money Bills were important and other Bills were not. But it was not on the point of importance that the exception was made. Could it be on the point of constitutional precedent? If that was the reason, then the sanctity which attached to money Bills also attached to Bills dealing with the forces of the Crown. If the Government contended that in regard to money Bills they were justified in putting them into this exceptional category, they had a right to ask what was the reason for this

  717
  exception and why it should not include other very important matters, one of which they were now discussing, and another of which it would be their duty to discuss immediately. He appealed to every hon. Member who had heard the Prime Minister's speech to say whether the right hon. Gentleman had given a single reason for the exception which he intended to introduce which did not apply with equal force to other measures. He would leave the House to judge whether there had been a complete reply, or any attempt to reply to the arguments which had been put forward by the Opposition.
  *MR. ABEL SMITHsaid they had been told that they were wasting the time of the House in discussing such an Amendment as this. What they were trying to impress upon the Government was that in these revolutionary changes in the Rules of Procedure they should at least be consistent. If it was right to make an exception in the case of Bills imposing taxation, why was it not equally right that exceptions
  should be made in the case of Bills dealing with the forces of the Crown? His hon. friends had pointed out that these two classes of Bills had almost equal historic sanction. They knew how jealous the House had always been with regard to its powers over the finances of the nation. They also knew that ever since there had been a Standing Army, as now understood in this country, the House had always exercised equal jealousy over its control of that force. Now the Government proposed to make a revolutionary change. They were sweeping away what the Prime Minister called archaic safeguards. If they made exceptions with regard to Bills dealing with the finances of the country, they ought also to make exceptions with regard to Bills dealing with the Standing Army, over the strength, finance, and discipline of which the House had always maintained a substantial and annual control.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 301. (Division List No. 120.)

  AYES.

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W m.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Cross, Alexander

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Doughty, Sir George

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eeclesall)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haddock, George R.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cave, George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon Victor C. W.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.);

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc

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

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Simth, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Younger, George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Sir Frederick Banbury and

  Turnour, Viscount

  Willoughby de Eres by, Lord

  Mr. Stanley Wilson.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Agnew, Geroge William

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hobhouse, Charles; E. H.

  Armitage, R.

  Cox, Harold

  Hodge, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crean, Eugene

  Hogan, Michael

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Crombie, John William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crossley, William J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Balfour, Robert, (Lanark)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barker, John

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hudson, Walter

  Barlow, Peicy (Bedford)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Barnard, E. B.

  Delany, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jenkins, J.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Benn, Sir JWilliams (Devonp'rt

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Essex, R. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Bertram, Julius

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bethell, Sir J H (Essex, Romf'rd

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Black, Arthur W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Boland, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Brace, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Brigg, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lambert, George

  Bright, J. A.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lamont, Norman

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Levy, Maurice

  Bryce J. Annan

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Fullerton, Hugh.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  Lough, Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Lundon, W.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Glover, Thomas

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

  Cameron, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  MacVeigh, Charles Donegal, E.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Callum, John M.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Crae, George

  Causton, Rt Hn Richard Knight

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Kenna Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Halpin, J.

  M'Killop, W.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

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

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Clough William

  Harwood, George

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Clynes, J, R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hazel Dr. A. E.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  720

  721

  Massie, J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Menzies, Walter

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Torrence, Sir A. M.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Toulmin, George

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ure, Alexander

  Mooney, J.

  Robinson, S.

  Vivian, Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walsh, Stephen

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walters, John Tudor

  Myer, Horatio

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Runciman, Walter

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Nicholls, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wardle, George J.

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Waring, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nuttull, Harry

  Scott, A. H. (Ashtonunder Lyne

  Waterlow, S. D.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sears, J. E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Whitbread, Howard

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whites, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Grady, J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, Patcick (Meath, North)

  O'Malley, William

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Mara, James

  Snowdon, P.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Partington, Oswald

  Stanger, H Y.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Power, Patrick Joseeph

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Raphael, Herbert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Pease.

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  *MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he wished to move the exception of Bills to create a subordinate legislature in any part of the United Kingdom; Bills to give effect to treaties, conventions, or other international arrangements; and Bills to sanction the cession of any territory forming part of the dominions of the Crown. There were no reasons in favour of the exemption of finance Bills that would not equally apply to the three categories he had mentioned, and, not with standing any impatience the Prime Minister and his
  722
  supporters might display, it was desirable that the Amendment should be moved in order that the Opposition might be able to mark their sense of the imperfections and reckless character of the Government Resolutions. Except by moving this Amendment the Opposition would have no way of getting a permanent record of their protest. As to the first category, Bills to create a subordinate legislature in any part of the United Kingdom, such Bills did not fall within the class of those which took away or modified the powers of this House. In

  723
  all Home Rule Bills, there was invariably the Pharisaical claim that there was a complete reservation of the most absolute powers of the House. But if the Second Reading of such a Bill was assented to and it was sent upstairs to Grand Committee there would be no effective reservation at all. As to the second category, of Bills to give effect to treaties, conventions, or other international arrangements, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would, without such an exception, have sent the Sugar Convention Bill to a Grand Committee upstairs; and under the class of Bills which sanctioned the cession of any territory forming part of the dominions of the Crown, they would have sent to a Committee upstairs the Bill sanctioning the cession of the island of Heligoland to Germany. When the last named Bill was under discussion the late Mr. Gladstone delivered a most powerful address to the House in favour of the view that such matters should not be submitted to Parliament by Bill but if such subjects were to be dealt with by Parliament it ought to be by the House as a whole. He would remind the Prime Minister and those responsible for the new Standing Orders that none of them made it in any way compulsory to keep to be dealt within the House itself Bills which came within any one of the three classes he had mentioned. There would always be a power to submit the familiar Motion to send such Bills to a Committee upstairs unless an Amendment of this kind were agreed to. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 10, at end, to add '(c) Bills relating to the maintenance, organisation, or discipline of the Navy or the naval service; (d) Bills to
  724
  create a subordinate legislature in any part of the United Kingdom; (e) Bills to give effect to treaties, conventions, or other international arrangements; (f) Bills to sanction the cession of any territory forming part of the dominions of the Crown.'"—(Mr. Stuart Worthy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that the Prime Minister earlier in the evening had stated that, if the Opposition had taken the opportunity which was given to them on Thursday last of casting their eyes upon the various Amendments upon the Paper and selecting those which were most vital, this guillotine Motion would not have been necessary. Following that advice, he thought that the most vital Amendment was that which excluded from the consideration of the Grand Committees, Bills to create a subordinate legislature in any part of the United Kingdom. He looked with the greatest possible dread upon Bills of that character being taken away from the Committee of the Whole House. Of course he had in his mind the case of Ireland, and it was in view of the conflicting statements which had been made from time to time from the Treasury Bench that he had no doubt the Prime Minister and the Cabinet contemplated that a number of Bills of this character would be brought before the House for consideration. He believed, however, if it was the intention of the Prime Minister and his Government to lay the foundation stone of Home Rule for Ireland by introducing such a Bill and sending it upstairs to a Grand Committee, where those who were interested might or might not be represented in the proportion which they would like to see, they would inflict the

  725
  gravest possible injury on the Committee work of the House. He had always endeavoured since he entered the House, however imperfectly, to voice the sentiments fairly and squarely of those who returned him, and if this proposal were carried a great deal of the power of representation and many of the privileges which one was supposed to enjoy would be taken away. If Bills of such tremendous purport and moment were permitted to go to a Grand Committee upstairs, where debate was not conducted in the same manner as in the House and where the light of day would not, so to speak, be admitted, hon. Members would not be able to realise as a whole what was being done and how it was being one. He was strengthened in that view by the fact that he learned from various Ministers that it was their intention to introduce legislation which closely affected the people of Ireland. The Prime Minister had stated that it was their intention to introduce very shortly a measure dealing with what he called "the better government of Ireland," or in other words "the association of the people of Ireland with the management of their affairs." If it was the intention of the Government to pass that Bill through without allowing hon. members a fair opportunity of discussing it, he thought it would be a crying shame. Such a policy must inevitably rebound on the heads of those Members of the Government who had engineered this method of dealing with business to the disadvantage of the minority in the House. He was glad, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had moved this particular Amendment which he claimed exhibited great common sense and reasonableness.
  726
  And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

NEW BILLS.
  NURSES AND PRIVATE NURSING HOM ES (REGISTRATION).
  Bill to provide for the better Training and Registratien of Nurses and for the voluntary Registration of Private Nursing Homes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Claude Hay and Sir Arthur Bignold.
  NURSES AND PRIVATE NURSING HOMES (REGISTRATION) BILL
  "To provide for the better Training and Registration of Nurses and for the voluntary Registration of Private Nursing Homes," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

  ADJOURNMENT — EFFECT OF NEW RULES ON EXISTING STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn.—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether, at the conclusion of the debate on the proposal to substitute four new Standing Committees for the existing Standing Committees at ten o'clock to-morrow night, the existing Standing Committees would be automatically abolished. One of those Standing Committees was dealing

  727
  with the feeding of school children, and was to meet to-morrow. He would be glad to know what was the position of the existing Committees and of the Bills before them. It seemed to be absurd that a Committee should meet and attempt to do work on the very eve of their demise.
  MR. HALDANEreplied that in the Standing Orders there were no words relating to the deposition of Committees. It could only be a de facto supersession, and they might pass resolutions as they liked, but, until the Committee of Selection or some other body had set up these new Committees, there was no de facto abolition of the existing machinery, therefore the old machinery went on.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid these Committees were not formally abolished, but the contemplated effect of the new Standing Order was to abolish them. He would like to have the view of the Speaker as to the actual status of the old Committees, as to how the work of the old Committees could be carried on by the new Committees, and as to how a Bill which had been before an old Committee could be suddenly transferred to a new Committee.
  MR. HALDANEasked the Speaker's opinion whether until the new Committees were de facto set up the old Committees had ceased to exist.
  *Mr. SPEAKERsaid he was really not in a position to answer the question. I f the right hon. Gentleman would repeat his question to-morrow, he would endeavour by that time to arrive at a solution.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he should never have thought of raising this question without some previous reference to Mr. Speaker or the Government, but the point was only brought to his attention a few minutes before.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether it would be in order for a Committee to disregard the Order of the House, and whether these Committees would not remain in existence until they had completed the work which had been sent to them by the House.
  MR.STANLEY WILSONsaid there were two Grand Committees now in existence, the Committee on Law and the Committee on Trade, each consisting of eighty members, and yet the Government intended to set up four new Grant Committees which would absorb another 320 Members He would like Mr. Speaker to consider what would be the feelings of Members who were nominated on these new Grand Committees.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not think that question came before him. The question was whether the work of the Standing Committees was to be continued by the new Committees which were about to be set up or whether the Resolution of the House to-morrow would put an end to the old Committees. As he had said, he would consider the matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman would put his Question to-morrow at Question time he would give him the best Answer he could.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Manchester Ship Canal (Bridgewater Canal) Bill [H.L.]; Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]; Borax Consolidated Bill [H.L.];Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [H.L.]; Staveley Coal and Iron Company Bill [H.L.];Society of Apothecaries of London Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Coventry Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]. Petition for additional provision; of the Coventry Corporation under their Common Seal, together with the proposed clauses and Amendments annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Basingstoke Gas Bill; Mitcham and Wimbledon District Gas Bill; Plymouth and North Devon Direct Railway (Abandonment) Bill; Brockenhurst Gas Bill; Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill; Maidstone Gas Bill; Keswick Urban District Council (Water) Bill. Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Byrne's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken before this House, together with the documents deposited in the case. Ordered to be communicated, with a request that they may be returned.
Galway's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Fitzgerald's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the cases, returned from the Commons.
Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]. Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Bill [H.L.]. Coventry Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]. Colne Valley Water Bill [H.L.]. Broadstairs and St. Peter's
562
Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Marquess of Zetland be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Zouche of Haryngworth; read, and agreed to.
Glasgow Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Bill [H.L.]. The meeting of the Select Committee (which stands appointed for Tuesday the 30th instant) put off to Monday the 6th of May next.

PETITIONS.
  JUDICATURE BILL. [H.L.]
  Petition against, of Manchester Incorporated Law Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the following Papers, having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty, had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. CXI., viz.:

  1. Treaty Series, No. 11 (1907). Accessions of British Colonies, etc., to various Treaty engagements between the United Kingdom and Foreign Powers. (March 27.)

  2. Militia Units. Return showing the establishment of each unit of Militia in the United Kingdom, and the numbers present, absent, and wanting to complete at the training of 1906 (in continuation of [Cd. 2697] of session 1906). (March 27.)

  3. Bobbinite (Departmental Committee). Report of the Departmental Committee on Bobbinite: Report and appendices. (March 27.)

  4. Explosives (Explosion of Nitro-Glycerine at Ardeer, near Stevenston, Ayrshire)—Report to the Secretary of

  563
  State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an explosion of nitro-glycerine which occurred at the factory of Nobel's Explosives Company, Limited, at Ardeer, near Stevenston, Ayrshire, on 5th February, 1907. (27th March.)

  5. Colonies (General)—Circular dispatch, dated 15th February, 1907, relative to the part taken by ex-Governors of Colonies in the organisation or direction of companies formed to operate in territories which they were recently administering. (27th March.)

  6. Trade Reports—I. Annual Series.

  No. 3752. Belgium (Port of Antwerp; Shipping and Navigation for 1906).

  No. 3753. Santo Domingo (Trade for the First Six Months of 1906). (4th April.)

  No. 3754. Portugal (Trade of the Azores for 1906). (6th April.)

  No. 3755. Sudan (Trade of Port Sudan for 1906).

  No. 3756. Honduras (Trade for 1905–1906).

  No. 3757. Venezuela (Trade of Ciudad Bolivar for 1906). (10th April.)

  No. 3758. Bolivia (Trade for 1906).

  No. 3759. France (Trade of New Caledonia for 1906).

  No. 3760. Honduras (Trade of Puerto Cortes for 1906).

  No. 3761. Chile (Trade of Coquimbo for 1906).

  No. 3762. Portugal (Trade of Oporto for 1906). (13th April.)

  II. (Miscellaneous Series).

  No. 657. Liquor Traffic Legislation of the United States. (4th April.)

  No. 658. Mexican Isthmus (Tehuantepec Railway). (6th April.)

  7. Egypt, No. 1. (1907)—Reports by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the finances, administration, and condition of Egypt and the Soudan in 1906. (4th April.)

  8. Historical Manuscripts (Royal Commission)—

  I. Calendar of the Stuart Papers belonging to His Majesty the
  564
  King, preserved at Windsor Castle. Volume III.

  II. Report on the manuscripts of the Earl of Ancaster, preserved at Grimsthorpe. (4th April.)

  9. Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905—Report by the Local Government Board for Scotland as to the proceedings of Distress Committees in Scotland. (4th April.)

  10. Mines (Eight-Hour Day for Miners) First Report (with evidence) of a Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to inquire into the probable economic effect of a limit of eight hours to the working day of coal miners. (4th April.).

  11. Railway Accidents—Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st December, 1906, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), together with reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into. Part I. Returns of accidents. (4th April.)

  12. Commercial—No. 3. (1907)—Return of Most-Favoured Nation Clauses in existing treaties of commerce and navigation between Great Britain and Foreign Powers, stating the period when terminable, and showing whether they apply to the British Colonies: In force on the 1st January, 1907.

  No. 4. (1907)—Return of National Treatment Clauses in existing treaties of commerce and navigation between Great Britain and Foreign Powers, stating the period when terminable, and showing whether they apply to the British Colonies: In force on the 1st January, 1907. (5th April.)

  13. Local Government (Scotland). Return of the areas, population, and valuation of counties, burghs, and parishes in Scotland. (6th April.)

  14. Police (Scotland). Forty - ninth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, for the

  565
  year ended 31st December, 1906. (6th April.)

  15. Army—

  I. Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill, 1907. Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War, with tables showing the war establishments and composition of the proposed field force and other particulars. (8th April.)

  II. Memorandum showing how various enactments are affected by the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill. (9th April.)

  III. General Annual Report on the British Army for the year ended 30thSeptember, 1906, with which is incorporated the Annual Report of Recruiting prepared by command of the Army Council. (10th April.)

  IV. Interim Report of the War Office Committee on the Provision of Officers (a) for Service with the Regular Army in War; and (b) for the Auxiliary Forces—Minutes of evidence with an appendix on the conference between the committee and the sub-committee of the Headmasters' Conference. (13th April.)

  16. Education (Scotland)—

  I. General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Southern Division of Scotland, for the year 1906. (10th April.)

  II. General Report by Dr. W. Leslie-Mackenzie on the teaching of school and personal hygiene to students in training as teachers in Scotland. (13th April.)

  17. Reformatory and Industrial Schools. Fiftieth Report for the year 1906, of the inspector of reformatory and industrial schools: Part I. Lists of schools and detailed reports. (11th April.)

  18. Public Records. Sixty-eighth Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records. (12th April.)

  19. Board of Education (Special Grants). Statement showing the amount of the special grants paid during the financial year 1906–1907 in aid of certain local education authorities in England and Wales. (12th April.)

  20. Royal Observatory (Edinburgh). Seventeenth Annual Report of the
  566
  Astronomer-Royal for Scotland. (13th April.)

  21. Marriages, Births, and Deaths. General abstract of marriages, births, and deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1906. (13th April.)

  22. Imports and Exports at Prices of 1900. Tables showing for each of the years 1900–1906, the estimated value of the imports and exports of the United Kingdom at the prices prevailing in 1900, with an introductory memorandum (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 2894], 1906). (13th April.)

  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL, 1907).
  Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War, with tables showing the war establishments and composition of the proposed field force and other particulars.
  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
  Regulations made by the Lord-Lieutenant prescribing the manner in which sporting rights vested in the Land Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act are to be dealt with by the Land Commission.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Return of advances made under the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of June, 1906.
  (Proceedings.) Return for the month of February, 1907.

  BARONETAGE.
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into certain matters connected with the baronetage; report and appendices.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY.
  Amendments to rules for military prisons and detention barracks.

  GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
  Account of all moneys, received on account of contracts for the grant of

  567
  deferred life annuities and for payments on death, and of the disposal thereof; and of the contracts made for the year ended 31st December, 1906.

  EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
  Account up to 31st March, 1907.
  GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
  Account up to 31st March, 1907.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minute, dated 16th March, 1907, removing the office of Assistant to the Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew from the operation of Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1859.
  METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
  Account of moneys received and paid by the Chamberlain of the city of London for the year 1906; also account of extraordinary works executed other than general repairs for the same period.
  IRISH LAND PURCHASE FUND (ACCOUNTS 1905–1906).
  Accounts of receipts and payments by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the capital and income of the Irish Land Purchase Fund, in the year ended 31st March, 1906, together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
  The Postal Order (Foreign and Colonial) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations, 1907, dated 20th March, 1907; (Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post, Rhodesia.) The Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 3) Warrant, 1907, dated 22nd March, 1907.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF ESSEX).
  Order made by council of county of Essex dividing the Bowers Gifford Polling District in the Mid-Essex Parliamentary Division.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  (Borough of Ipswich.) Order made by the council of the borough of Ipswich, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of
  568
  shops within the borough; (Urban District of Wallasey.) Order made by the council of the urban district of Wallasey, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the urban district.

  GAS COMPANIES (METROPOLIS).
  Accounts of the Metropolitan gas companies for the year 1906.
  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
  Return of all loans raised in England under the provisions of any Acts of Parliament, chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended 31st March, 1907, with the rates of interest and total amounts payable thereon, and the date of the termination of each loan, the debt incurred during the half-year, the moneys raised thereby during the half-year, the loans paid off or discharged during the half-year, and the loans outstanding at the close of the half-year; stating, so far as the public convenience will allow, the purpose or service for which moneys have been raised during the half-year.
  COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND).
  Act of sederunt to regulate procedure in the Court of Session.
  NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND ACT, 1906.
  Orders by the Secretary for Scotland: With regard to the establishment, powers, etc., of the new Board of Trustees and the purposes for which certain buildings shall be held; allocating certain sums out of the general fund of the Board of Manufactures.

  LOCAL LOANS FUND (ACCOUNTS, 1905–1906).
  Accounts of receipts and payments by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the capital and income of the local loans fund, for the year ended 31st March, 1906; together with a Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Four o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.