Sitting of 5 August 1907

Preamble
The House mot at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [Lords]: Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords]. — Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. — Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to — London County Council (Money) Bill; Llandrindod Wells Gas Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to — Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords] Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords] without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law in regard to Debentures and Debenture Stock of Companies. [Companies (Debentures and Debenture Stock) Bill [Lords.]

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Account presented, of Receipts and Payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 286.]
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Forty-third detailed Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Marriages, Births, and Deaths in Ireland, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
  Copy presented, of Return of Tenants (or their representatives) who had been evicted from three "Plan of Campaign" estates purchased or proposed to be purchased by the Estates Commissioners, and who have been reinstated in their former buildings, or provided with other holdings [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1906–7 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Berks), Further Return relative thereto [ordered 28th March, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 287.]
  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session to regulate Whale Fisheries in Scotland (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow. — (Mr. Sinclair.)

  POOR LAW RELIEF (PAUPERS RELIEVED IN A YEAR AND PERIODS OF RELIEF).
  Return ordered, "showing, in respect of each Poor Law union in England and Wales, the total number of persons (excepting lunatics in county and borough asylums, registered hospitals, and licensed houses, and casual paupers) who were relieved by the guardians at any time during the twelve months ending the 30th day of September, 1907, classified according to (a) the aggregate length of time for which each person received relief, and (b) the number of times on which relief was granted to each person, together with the following particulars

  1515
  respecting the persons so relieved: — (1) The number of men, women, and children, respectively, distinguishing (a) persons relieved singly, and (b) heads of families and their dependants; and (2) The number of adults and children, respectively, who received (a) indoor relief only, (b) outdoor relief only, distinguishing persons who received only medical relief, and (c) both indoor and outdoor relief." — (Mr. John Burns.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Amalgamation of Irish Small Schools.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say by whom is the amalgamation of small schools considered a pressing necessity; whether a pair of schools in which there are in daily attendance over 100 children, sixty-two and thirty-nine, as in the case of the Kilmeedy schools, are included in those which it is considered a pressing necessity to amalgamate; and whether he can say how many pairs of separate schools in Ireland have an average attendance of loss than 100.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The view that the amalgamation of many small schools in Ireland is desirable and necessary is held by the Irish Government and by the Commissioners of National Education themselves, and is strongly put forward in Mr. Dale's Report on Primary Education (Cd. 1981, of 1904). The Commissioners have not pressed for the amalgamation of the existing schools at Kilmeedy, but they cannot make building grants for separate new schools to supersede the existing schools. It may not be possible in many cases to effect the amalgamation of existing small schools, however proper that may be, but it is quite another thing to perpetuate the present undesirable system by building new separate schools in such cases. There are about 1,000 pairs of adjoining boys' and girls' schools in which the combined average attendance is less than 100.

  Disorderly Houses — Removal of Girls over Fourteen Years of Age.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home
  1516
  Department whether his attention has-been drawn to the fact that in cases where the police have raided a disorderly house no legal method exists of removing girls above the age of fourteen from their surroundings; and whether he can see his way to include provisions to meet these cases in his proposed legislation affecting children.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Under the existing law a girl found in a disorderly house can be committed to an industrial school only if she is under the age of fourteen. There would be great difficulty in extending this provision to girls above fourteen, as most of them would be girls of a class whom the managers of industrial or reformatory schools would not receive because they would be likely to corrupt the other inmates. I will consider, in connection with the proposed legislation for next session, whether it is possible to do anything in this matter.

  Australian Meat Packing Establishments.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the investigations by the Army authorities into the Australian and New Zealand meat-packing establishments have been completed; and whether the result has tended to prove that the Australian meat is properly prepared in every way.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Queensland Report has been received and is highly satisfactory; the New South Wales Report has not been received, but is expected by every mail.

  Transfer of Military Pay Department from Pontefract to York.
  MR. NUSSEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office contemplate transferring the Military Pay Department from Pontefract to York; if he is aware that the town of Pontefract has made special efforts to afford facilities and conveniences for the depot and its requirements, and that the transference will be a severe loss to the town; and if he will give due weight to these considerations before authorising such transfer.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am not at present in a position to give

  1517
  any information on this Question, but I can assure the hon. Member that the considerations which he suggests will not be overlooked.

  Woolwich Arsenal Medal for V. Chapman and others.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say for what reason the medal usually given to employees at Woolwich Arsenal who have been in the service of the Crown for twenty-five years has been withheld from V. Chapman and others, who have recently been dismissed and who have worked at Woolwich Arsenal for over twenty-five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The conditions attached to the grant of this medal are not under the control of the War Office, but I understand that the twenty-five years service must be wholly pensionable. The case referred to cannot be traced.

  Aerial Flight.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the progress made by Foreign Powers in the solution of the problems of aerial flight, he will consider the desirability of increasing the grant for research on this subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The importance of this subject is recognised and experiments are in progress. It is not considered necessary or desirable to increase the grant of money available this year for this subject. My advisers and I are fully aware of the nature of the work that is being done elsewhere.

  Reserve of Horses for Military Purposes.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increasing numbers of motor vehicles, and the consequent decrease of horses, he can state definitely that necessary steps have been taken to secure that sufficient horses will be forthcoming for military purposes in case of war.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Will the hon. and gallant Member kindly
  1518
  refer to a reply given to a Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire on the 10th June, to which I have nothing to add. †

  Marriage Fees in Malta
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the heavy fees that are exacted in the case of marriages between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Malta; that where British soldiers have married Maltese girls the fees have amounted to as much as five pounds; and whether, seeing that civil marriages are now established in nearly all European countries and throughout the British Empire, he can explain why they are impossible in Malta.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The information before me shows that the Government fee on a marriage licence is one penny only. Some ministers of religion, I understand, collect fees for acting on behalf of the parties in procuring the licence, but I am not aware that the fees have ever amounted to so large an amount as five pounds. I will, however, inquire. I am not aware that there is any serious or urgent case for establishing civil marriage in Malta, and the Secretary of State has no intention of doing so in the absence of strong necessity for it.

  Aliens Deported.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of aliens have been deported from this country since the present Aliens Act came into operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Quarterly returns containing the number of expulsion orders made under the Aliens Act are laid before Parliament, and a statement dealing with the matter for the whole year 1906 has been presented to Parliament. These papers show that 287 expulsion orders were made against aliens in the year 1906, and 93 in the first quarter of the present year. The return for the second quarter of this year is on the point of presentation and shows 71 orders for the three months ending 30th June. I may add that in
  ߤ See (4) Debates, clxxv., 1068.

  1519
  the month of July 25 orders have been made, bringing the total, since the commencement of the Act, up to 476.

  Guns sent to Ordnance Factories for Repairs.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of guns sent to the Ordnance Factory for repair between the 1st July, 1903 and the 30th June 1904, between the 1st July, 1904, and the 30th June, 1905, and between the 1st July, 1906 and the 30th June, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The total numbers, down to and including 4-inch, are as follows: —
  Between 1st July 1903, and 30th June, 1904, 75; Between 1st July, 1904, and 30th June 1905, 125; Between 1st July, 1906, and 30th June, 1907, 81.

  "Ridley" Clerks at the Local Government Board
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many Second Division clerks, appointed under the Order in Council, 21st March, 1890, are employed in the Local Government Board; how many clerks have been promoted to higher posts in the office from this class since its introduction over sixteen years ago; and the date of any such promotion.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The number of Ridley clerks on the establishment of the Local Government Board is at present 113. One Ridley clerk has been promoted to a staff clerkship, and the date of the promotion was 14th August, 1905.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the representations made to him by the deputation which waited on him in May, 1906, and the communications since addressed to him, in which the Ridley clerks of the Second Division serving in his Department pointed out to him their unfavourable treatment as regards promotion compared with that accorded to clerks of their class in other Government offices; and whether he is in a position to give any reply.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The clerks referred to desired that some improvement should be made in their position. I have considered the representations made by them, but I have not at present seen my way to complying with them. I may, however, say that I am always desirous of doing what I properly can for the clerical staff of my Department.

  Fees of Revising Barristers.
  MR. COWAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury from what source are the revising barristers paid for the annual revision of lists of voters in the United Kingdom; what was the total amount paid to revising barristers for the year 1906 for England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively; how much was paid in 1906 to revising barristers for revising the lists of the county of Surrey, including the borough of Croydon; and how much was deducted in 1906 by the Treasury from local taxation moneys for costs of holding revising barristers' courts in England and Wales.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) In England and Wales half the cost of revising barristers is a final charge upon moneys voted by Parliament, and the other half is repaid by the local authorities under Section 9 of the County Electors Act, 1888. In Scotland there are no revising barristers. The work is done by the sheriffs, under 19 and 20 Vic, c. 58, s. 19, and is covered by their salaries, which are paid out of the Consolidated Fund. In Ireland, under Section 1 (4) of The Registration Ireland Act, 1898, as amended by Section 98 (9) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, the additional cost incurred through preparing a local government supplement to the list of Parliamentary electors is repaid by the county councils. Subject to this the revising barristers are paid out of the moneys voted by Parliament. The total amount paid to revising barristers for the year 1906 was as follows, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  England and Wales

  25,462

  10

  0

  Ireland

  3,888

  5

  0

  Total

  29,350

  15

  0

  The amount paid to revising barristers in 1906 for revising the lists of the administrative county of Surrey and the borough of Croydon was £471 16s. 10d. The amount deducted from local taxation moneys for costs of holding revising barristers' courts in England and Wales in 1906 was £12,730 0s. 10d., irrespective of the sum of £1 4s. 2d. which was paid by the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

  Income Tax Rebates.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with regard to the right of income tax payers to claim the lower rate of 9d. in the £, it is proposed that any person who has already made a return, and does not receive the supplementary form, will have to pay 1s. in the £ unless he applies for a supplementary form within the next month (that is, August) to the local surveyor.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) No, Sir. Persons who are entitled to relief in respect of earned income and who have not already made a return of their total income for the purpose of claiming the existing statutory abatements will be required, as provided in Clause 19 (4) of the Finance Bill, to present their claims before 30th September. Supplementary forms for this purpose will be issued by the surveyors of taxes to persons who appear to be entitled to relief immediately after the passing of the Finance Bill, but, as I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Aston Manor on 18th July, it will be advisable for anyone so entitled, who has not received a supplementary form by the end of the present month, to apply to the surveyor for his district, who will see that the omission is repaired.

  Government Purchase of Consols and other Government Stocks.
  MR. HYDE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any objection to the publication, monthly, of the total amount of Consols and other Government stocks purchased in the preceding month for the Government through application of the surplus and sinking fund; and whether, having regard to the value of such information to the investing public, he will direct such information to be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have carefully considered my hon. friend's suggestion, but I do not think that it would be to the public interest that I should pledge myself to the publication of a monthly return of the kind suggested, nor do I think it would be of much real value to the genuine investor.

  Irish Land Commission Book-Keeping.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the books of the Irish Land Commission are kept in duplicate in order to enter up the names, advances, interest, &, of every tenant; and, if so, whether he can arrange that the original registers shall be kept in Dublin, and all the work of the Irish Department done in Ireland as far as possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The books of the Irish Land Commission are not prepared in duplicate.

  Improvement of Slips at Roads, County Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board is now in a position to carry out the necessary improvements to the slip at Roads, county Kerry; and, if so, when will the work be undertaken.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board decided at their last meeting to expend a further sum of £200 upon the provision of a quay and additional boat-yard accommodation at Roads, but their funds will not enable them to undertake the work during the present financial year. The Board hope to have the work done next summer if the weather should permit.

  Reinstatement of Mr. Thomas Brosnan, of Dromulton
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state if the Estates Commissioners have yet succeeded in securing the reinstatement of Mr. Thomas Brosnan, of Dromulton, county Kerry, in his farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The reply is in the negative.

  Irish Education—Appointment of Junior Inspectors.
  Mr. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if one of the successful candidates, in connection with the recent appointments of junior inspector under the Commissioners of National Education, has declined the position; how many applicants were there for the appointment; do the Commissioners propose to fill the vacancy, and at what date; and what are the qualifications required by the Commissioners for this appointment of junior inspector.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. There were 158 applications for the appointment. The vacancy has already been filled by the appointment of the candidate who, in the Commissioners opinion, was next in point of merit. Candidates for the position of junior inspector must be between twenty-three and thirty-five years of age, but in the case of national school teachers the age limit is extended to thirty-nine years. A good general education is required, and experience in the management of schools is considered desirable.

  Report of Belfast Health Commission.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could state the probable date on which the Report of the Belfast Health Commission would be issued; and whether it was proposed to issue any interim Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I understand from the Chairman of the Commission that the Report will probably not be ready before the end of September. It is not proposed to issue an interim Report.

  Irish Government Banking Business.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the statement of Lord Rathmore, chairman of the Provincial Bank of Ireland, that the reason why more of the directors were not Irishmen was that it was not easy to find eligible men in Ireland
  1524
  to go to London to attend board meetings; if he can state whether this bank transacts any of the Irish Government's business; and, if so, whether, in view of the above statement, he will consider the advisability of transferring such Government business to an Irish bank, having an Irish board and its head offices in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I am not aware of any case in which this bank transacts Government business.

  Charge Against Lisiniska Police Constables.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if ho is aware that Head Constable Wilson and a constable from Listowel visited Lisiniska protection post in the month of October, 1904, and that the head constable after that visit reported that his bicycle received sixteen punctures and the constable's bicycle six punctures, and that the constables in the post (Coughlin and Kilcawley) punctured the bicycles or caused or encouraged some other person to puncture them, and that the constables so charged were punished or transferred as a punishment, though the head constable and constable were met by a patrol from Listowel Station that night returning from the post riding at full speed on the bicycles that had received sixteen and six punctures, respectively; whether, seeing that subsequently the fact was brought under the notice of the county inspector that the charge brought by the head constable against the two constables was false, he will say whether the county inspector took any steps to inform the two constables that he had been made aware of the fact that there could be sufficient evidence produced to establish beyond any doubt that they were falsely charged and wrongfully punished; and whether he took any steps to wipe out that punishment so wrongfully inflicted on the two constables, and to have the conduct of the head constable brought under the notice of the Inspector-General for having brought this malicious charge against two innocent men.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Inspector-General informs me that Head

  1525
  Constable Wilson reported that, when at Lisiniska protection post on 10th September, 1904, his bicycle tyres and those of a constable who accompanied him were punctured in a number of places. The head constable, however, made no suggestion as to the persons by whom the injuries were committed. The head constable and constable rode their bicycles to Listowel that night, but were not met by any patrol. Constables Coughlan and Kilcawley were reported for breaches of discipline and for irregular discharge of their duties, and for these offences they were transferred from the protection post. As no charge was made against the constables in connection with the injury to the bicycles the county inspector took no steps in the matter, and there were no grounds for reporting the conduct of the head constable.

  Agrarian Outrages.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho will state the number of agrarian outrages reported from the counties of Galway, Roscommon, Sligo, Leitrim, Tipperary, and King's County, respectively, in the three months ended 31st March and 30th June of 1906 and 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The following statement shows the numbers of agrarian offences for the quarters mentioned: —

  March Quarter, 1906.

  March Quarter, 1907.

  King's County

  2

  1

  Galway, East Riding

  4

  19

  Galway, West Riding

  4

  8

  Leitrim

  —

  5

  Roscommon

  2

  —

  Sligo

  2

  2

  Tipperary, North Riding

  2

  2

  Tipperary, South Riding

  1

  1

  June Quarter, 1906.

  June Quarter, 1907.

  King's County

  —

  3

  Galway, East Riding

  3

  35

  Galway, West Riding

  3

  9

  Leitrim

  2

  2

  Roscommon

  1

  6

  Sligo

  2

  3

  Tipperary, North Riding

  4

  4

  Tipperary, South Riding

  —

  1

  Appointments of Clerks of Irish Unions.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many newly-elected clerks of union have been sanctioned by the Local Government Board during the past eight years and for what unions; how many of these persons were subjected to a written examination in arithmetic, book-keeping, composition, and orthography by the Local Government Board or by someone on behalf of the Board; and whether the present clerks of union for Schull, Macroom, Dunmanway, Mill street, Fermoy, Midleton, Mallow, Castle comer, Callan, Birr, Clonmel, and Athy were subjected to any written examination before their appointment was sanctioned by the Local Government Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The following is a list of the unions in which newly-elected clerks have been appointed with the sanction of the Local Government Board between 1st April, 1899, and 31st March, 1907: —

  Ballycastle.

  Lame.

  Bawnboy.

  Limavady.

  Belfast.

  Longford.

  Birr.

  Loughrea.

  Boyle.

  Lurgan.

  Cahirciveen.

  Macroom.

  Callan (two).

  Midleton.

  Castlebar.

  Millstreet.

  Castleblayney.

  Mitchelstown.

  Castlecomer.

  Mohill.

  Castlerea.

  Mount Bellew.

  Celbridge.

  Mullingar.

  Claremorris.

  Naas.

  Coleraine.

  Navar.

  Corrofin.

  Newtownards.

  Delvin.

  Oldcastle.

  Dingle.

  Rathdown.

  Downpatrick.

  Scariff.

  Drogheda.

  Skull.

  Dromore, West.

  Sligo (two).

  Dublin, South.

  Strabane.

  Dunfanaghy (two).

  Strokestown.

  Ennistymon.

  Tobercurry.

  Glenties.

  Tralee.

  Irvinestown.

  Trim.

  Kenmare.

  Tulla.

  Kilkeel.

  Tullamore.

  Kilmacthomas.

  Urlingford.

  Kilrush.

  In twenty-five of these cases the persons appointed were required to undergo a written examination in all or some

  1527
  of the subjects mentioned in the Question, and in some of the remaining cases an oral examination was held. An examination is not required when the Board are satisfied as to the candidate's knowledge of the prescribed subjects by reason of previous experience in the Poor Law service or otherwise. In one of the unions named in the concluding portion of the Question, the person now holding the office of clerk was subjected to a written examination before sanction was given.

  Evictions on Captain Boyce's Estate near Tallow.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that eviction proceedings are pending in reference to a farm held by Michael Cleary from Captain Boyce, near Tallow, county Water-ford, at the yearly rent of £95; whether the eviction is in consequence of the tenant refusing to agree to the owner's terms as to purchase; whether the rent of this farm and of an adjoining farm are under a settlement applicable for the maintenance of the charity called the Tallow Almshouses; and whether he will call the attention of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests to the proposed eviction with a view to their obtaining the mediation of the Estates Commissioners, so as to enable the tenant to purchase his holding at a fair price and to prevent the loss of income to this charity.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests inform me that the farm in question is not chargeable with any charitable annuity, nor is the rent applicable to any such purpose. It has, however, been ascertained that no eviction proceedings against Michael Cleary are pending, but that proceedings for the recovery of rent have been taken. It is further understood that the landlord would not object to the mediation of the Estates Commissioners upon the question of the purchase by Cleary of his holding. If such mediation should be wished for, the parties to the case should themselves approach the Commissioners on the subject.

  Irish Agricultural Department and Audit Fees.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent decision of Mr. Justice Barton in the case of the Local Government Board against the county Cork Agricultural and Technical Committee, declaring that the charges made by the Board for audit fees are not recoverable; whether such charges have been made in the case of the county Waterford and all other counties in Ireland; how much has been paid for audit fees to the Board by agricultural and technical committees since they came into existence; whether the Board will recoup them the amount of these illegal charges; and whether similar charges have been made against the asylum committees.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The official report of the judgment of Mr. Justice Wright (not Mr. Justice Barton) has been received, and is at present under the consideration of the Local Government Board with a view to appeal. The judgment does not apply to county Waterford or other counties similarly circumstanced. It would involve a prolonged search to ascertain the amount recovered for audit fees from Committees of Agricultural and Technical Instruction since they came into existence, and the information would be misleading, as the majority of them are not in reality affected by the decision, even if it be upheld on an appeal. Asylum committees are similarly assessed in respect of audit fees, but they are not affected by the decision, as their constitution rests upon a basis different from that of Committees of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. It is not the intention of the Local Government Board to recoup the fees paid for auditors' services already rendered.

  Irish Evicted Tenants —Claim of Mrs. Delany.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have been mindful of the claim of Mrs. Delany, the representative of the late John Delany,

  1529
  who was evicted in 1889, by the late John George Adair, from his holding at Roskeen, Cappalough electoral division, Mountmellick Union, Queen's County, for non-payment of two years' rack rent; and can he say, in view of the fact that the planter has not purchased, whether Mrs. Delany is one of the evicted tenants whom the Commissioners propose rein stating in the evicted holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have noted Mrs. Delany's application for consideration in connection with the distribution of such untenanted land as they may acquire, but they have decided to take no action to secure her reinstatement in her late husband's former holding, which is occupied by another tenant.

  Delay in Sale of Estate of Captain Caldbeck.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in the completion of the sale on the estate of Captain Caldbeck, Ballacolla, Queen's County; whether he is aware that the estate has been before the Estates Commissioners for the past three years; and will he use his influence to have the sale expedited.
  (Answered by Mr. Birr ell.) The Estates Commissioners have made a provisional offer for the purchase of this estate, but the owner has not accepted it. The matter is now under the further consideration of the Commissioners.

  Promotion of Irish School Teachers.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the practice, which existed up to April, 1906, of giving promotion to teachers immediately after the award of partial increments of salary has been discontinued; and, if so, whether he car state the reason for this change of policy.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Com missioners of National Education inform me that it has not been the practice at any time since the introduction of the new system of payments to promote teachers immediately after the award of partial increment of salary. In some instances, however, in which the Commis
  1530
  sioners considered that the award of a partial increment did not meet the equity of the case, teachers were advanced to the next higher grade. The necessity for this exceptional treatment has now ceased to exist.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Greenwich Generating Station.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now state the result of the negotiations between the Admiralty and the London County Council with reference to the generating station at Greenwich, having regard to the fact that the Committee appointed to inquire into the matter reported on 17th December last.
    CAPTAIN NORTONfor Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply for him. He regrets that he is not yet able to give the hon. Gentleman a definite reply. Negotiations are still in progress and have not yet reached a point at which any statement can be made.
    MR. ASHLEY: I was asked to put j down the Question for this day. When shall I repeat it?
    CAPTAIN NORTON: This clay week.

    Cavalry Barracks for Scotland.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state how long it will be before he can make any announcement with regard to the building of cavalry barracks in Scotland, or how long it will take approximately to complete these barracks once they are begun.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. HALDANE, Haddington): As I have already informed the House, the question of providing cavalry barracks in Scotland turns on great questions of cavalry policy which are now being worked out. I cannot, therefore, undertake to give the hon. and gallant Member any further information in regard to the points raised in his Question at the present time.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question, as to the time of building?
    MR. HALDANE: That depends on the size.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: A barracks for a cavalry regiment. What would be the cost?
    MR. HALDANE: That depends on whether we get a site given.

    New Cavalry Sword.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the new pattern cavalry sword is satisfactory; and, if so, when it will be issued.
    MR. HALDANE: Three hundred swords of the new pattern are now under trial by cavalry regiments, and reports will be made in September.

    New Bayonet.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make any statement with regard to the selection and issue of the new pattern bayonet.
    MR. HALDANE: No report on the samples sent for trial to India has yet been received. I am not, therefore, in a position to make any statement on the matter.

    Transvaal Loan.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Gravesend, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any portion, and, if so, how much, of the guarantee loan of £5,000,000 to the Transvaal is to be applied to the repatriation of the burghers and to compensation to burghers.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): It is understood that no part of the loan will be devoted to the purposes mentioned by the hon. Member.

    Papers on the Transvaal Loan.
    LORD BALCARRES: On behalf of the right hon.
    1532
    Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to lay the Papers respecting the negotiations for the Transvaal guaranteed loan between His Majesty's Government and the Transvaal Government.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is proposed to lay Papers in connection with the Transvaal loan about the beginning of next week.

    Railways in Northern Nigeria.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: On behalf of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire, I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether any Report, with regard to the problems of railway construction in Northern Nigeria, has yet been received from Sir Percy Girouard; and, if so, whether he can lay the Report upon the Table or make any statement on the subject.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Sir Percy Girouard's Report has been received, and the question of laying it upon the Table will be considered. I have private notice of a similar question from the hon. Member for Clitheroe, and if the hon. Member has no objection I propose to make a short statement in reply to both at the conclusion of questions today.

    Orange River Union.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State has received a despatch from the Governor of the Orange River Colony, containing a Resolution passed at Bloemfontein on the 4th July by the Congress of the Orange River Union, to be laid before His Majesty; whether he can give the terms of the Resolution; and whether the Union is a body representative of a large majority of the British subjects of European race in the Orange River Colony.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The despatch has been received. The terms of the two Resolutions which it contained are as follows: —"The Congress of the Orangia Union, having considered the provisions of the Constitution granted by His Majesty the King to this Colony, begs

    1533
    respectfully to express its thanks to His Majesty for the kindly message of good wishes accompanying the grant. It declares itself in full accord with the views expressed in Paragraph V. of the Report of the Central Committee that the liberal measure of responsible Government granted to this Colony will be warmly appreciated and gratefully received by the people; that the trust reposed by His Majesty the King in this community will prove to be fully justified and will greatly aid in the satisfactory solution of difficult problems, and tend to promote contentment amongst the people and the general welfare of the land. The Chairman is instructed to forward this Resolution to His Excellency the Governor with respectful request to bring the same to the notice of His Majesty the King." Resolution—"The Congress of the Orangia Union avails itself of this opportunity to tender its congratulations to His Excellency Sir Hamilton Goold Adams on his appointment as Governor of this Colony. It feels convinced that His Excellency's abilities and experience, coupled with his proved readiness to further the interests of this Colony, will greatly contribute to promote the welfare of this country and its people. The Congress further desires to assure His Excellency that the people of whom its members are the deputies will at all times be found ready and willing to co-operate heartily with him in all measures tending to advance the progress and prosperity of this Colony in particular and of South Africa. Unanimously resolved at Bloemfontein this 4th day of July, 1907." It is generally admitted that the Union represents the large majority of those of Dutch descent in the Orange River Colony.
    MR. MACKARNESSasked whether the first Resolution was not proposed by ex-President Steyn and seconded by General De Wet.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot say, but probably it is so.

    British Indians in the Transvaal.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the situation in the Transvaal Colony arising out of the refusal of the British.
    1534
    Indian population to submit to registration under the Asiatic Law Amendment Act; and whether, in view of the assurances of both His Majesty's Government and General Botha, His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government of the Transvaal, or take any steps to protect the British-Indian community from imprisonment and deportation.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I can give no information to the House on this question beyond what is generally known. The position is one of unusual difficulty as my hon. friend is aware. His Majesty's Government will take no steps inconsistent with the self-governing Constitution of the Transvaal Colony. But constant inquiry will be made through the High Commissioner.
    *SIR H. COTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the grievance complained of attaches not so much to the Ordinance as to the regulations made under it—especially to the degrading system of identification by ten finger-print impressions, usually applicable only to the registration of criminals in goals?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid that everyone must regret the application of one particular test to one particular race, but the actual system of identification by finger-prints was a highly scientific system of identification, and he would certainly not be prepared to condemn it. As to the regulations being the cause of a great amount of feeling against the Ordinance, he thought that was perfectly true, but he was sure the Transvaal Government would make the regulations as little painful as possible to the Indian community, who were a very influential community.

    Railway Extension in Nigeria.
    MR. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any announcement to make with regard to railways in Northern Nigeria?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. It has been decided to authorise the immediate construction of a pioneer railway of 3 feet 6 inches gauge 400 miles long

    1535
    from Baro, which is the highest convenient point on the perennially navigable reaches of the Niger, to Bida, by Zungeru, and thence to Zaria and Kano. The work of construction, which will occupy four years, will be begun under the general supervision of Sir Percy Girouard, whose experience in building the desert railway in the Soudan is well known. Full estimates based on regular surveys place the cost of such a line at £3,000 a mile, or £1,230,000 in all. In view of the fact that the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria is approved in principle, and will probably be accomplished in the next few years, the money will be raised as a loan by Southern Nigeria, and will form part of the debt of that Colony. The rapidly expanding revenues of Southern Nigeria and its excellent financial position will in the opinion of the Secretary of State enable that Colony to assume this burden without embarrassment, and Sir Walter Egerton, the Governor of Southern Nigeria, fully concurs. But as an off-set the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that the annual contribution of £70,000 now exacted from Southern Nigeria in aid of the finances of Northern Nigeria shall be reduced in any year by a sum equal to whatever interest charge may in respect of this loan be defrayed by Southern Nigeria, and, further, in order that the Colony may obtain its money on the most favourable terms the Treasury have consented that the loan should be made out of the Local Loans Fund in the same way as the loan to Jamaica on account of the earthquake is to be made. His Majesty's Government have been led to this decision by three distinct sets of considerations. First, the enormous administrative and military difficulties of continuing to hold so great an extent of territory as Northern Nigeria without any central line of rapid communication; secondly, the obvious financial disadvantages of paying a grant-in-aid of nearly £300,000 a year for a province whose commercial development is completely arrested for want of such communication; and, thirdly, the immense importance of enabling British enterprise to reach the extensive cotton growing areas of Northern Nigeria, and thus vary and multiply the sources of the supply of so vital a raw material. I should add that the intention to construct the Baro-Kano railway will in no
    1536
    way be allowed to arrest or delay the progress of the Lagos railway, which will be steadily continued till it crosses the Niger at Jebba and ultimately effects a junction with the northern line at or in the neighbourhood of Zungeru. It would not be possible to enter upon argument in answer to a Question, but Papers will be shortly laid before both Houses containing the fullest information both as regards policy and method.
    MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether, in view of the suggested amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria, the Government would keep a watchful eve on the drink traffic in that part of Africa, and prevent its making further strides in that direction.
    MR. CHURCHILLreplied that Lord Elgin was thoroughly alive to the importance of the question.

    Brussels Sugar Convention.
    MR. MOORE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the nature of the guarantees against damage to producing States which are required in connection with the additional Act of the Brussels Sugar Conference relieving Great Britain of the necessity of imposing a penalty upon bounty-fed sugar.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): My right hon. friend is unable to make any statement at present beyond what he told the House on the 1st instant, †

    The Unrest in Morocco.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to protect the lives and property of British subjects in the coast towns of Morocco.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The outbreak at Dar-el-Baida was not directed against any British subjects. His Majesty's Government are informed that the French Government is sending a force to that
    † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 1305 et seq.

    1537
    place which is sufficient to give security. There does not appear to be need for further measures.
    MR. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the protection of the lives and property of British subjects is to be left to the ships and troops of foreign nations?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. We shall take such steps as are necessary.
    MR. ASHLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is serious unrest in Mogador and other coast towns?
    [The reply was inaudible.]

    Charge against Clerkenwell Police.
    MR. RADFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John Thomas Barlow, who was sentenced by Mr. Bros at the Clerkenwell Police Court on 29th July to one month's imprisonment on a charge of assaulting Police Constable Morgan; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the facts of the case, particularly with regard to the prisoner's statement that he was assaulted and given a black eye by a police officer in the cells at the police station between the time of his being charged there and his being bailed out shortly after, and the prisoner's further statement that the officer assaulting him was remonstrated with by another officer for this act of violence.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): My attention had not previously been called to this case, but I find on inquiry that the prisoner's allegation that he was assaulted by a police officer in the police station was made to the magistrate who tried the case, and was investigated by him, and that he found it was not substantiated. No further investigation appears to me to be necessary.

    Passive Resisters
    MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of persons have been prosecuted as passive resisters for non-
    1538
    payment of rates in this year; and what has been the number in the years 1904, 1905, and 1906.
    MR. GLADSTONE: As I have several times explained in answer to Questions in this House, it is impossible to give the information asked for, because there is no legal distinction between a "passive resister" and an ordinary rate defaulter.

    Gateshead Motor Driving Prosecutions.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a decision of the magistrates at Gates-head with reference to furious motor driving or driving to the public danger; and if he will, with reference to future legislation, take the case into consideration with the view of trying motor-driving charges before similar tribunals, as in Scotland.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my hon. friend. I have made inquiry into this case. The police took the number of the car before it disappeared, and the owner, on being applied to, furnished as required by statute the name of the driver. When the case was heard the accused pleaded not guilty, and as there was no one present who could identify the driver the case was dismissed. It appears to me that the justices should in the circumstances have granted a remand, when the owner could have been called to give evidence, and I shall so inform them. I do not, however, see any need to alter the procedure by which charges under the Motor Acts are dealt with by the ordinary Courts in England.

    Scrabster and Scape Mail Boat.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if application has been made to him to permit the mail boat conveying mails from Scrabster to Scapa, and vice versa, to land passengers at Aith Hope or elsewhere; and if, in view of the inconvenience that has followed the granting of this privilege in the past, he will adhere to the promise of his predecessor, Lord Stanley.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): My right hon. friend has received a request that the Orkney mail steamer should be allowed to call occasionally at Aith Hope to land

    1539
    passengers; but, in view of the delay which such calls would entail, he has decided not to alter the existing arrangement under which the steamer is allowed to call for passenger purposes at Switha—but not at Aith Hope—under the conditions described in the letter which Lord Stanley addressed to the hon. Member on the 9th June, 1904.

    Wick and Thurso Mails
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state whether the Highland Railway Company is liable to any penalty for delay in delivering mails at Wick and Thurso at the appointed time; if so, if he will warn the company that the penalties will be duly enforced; and, if there is no enforceable penalty, if he will ascertain on what terms the railway company would convey the mails with punctuality during the months of August and September.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): There is no penalty expressly provided in the mail contract with the Highland Railway Company for loss of time in running the mail trains to Wick and Thurso; but my right hon. friend believes that they make every effort to ensure the punctual performance of the service. As the hon. Member has already been informed, the company have great difficulty in maintaining punctuality on a railway with a single line of rails during the tourist season when the traffic is abnormally heavy, and it can hardly be expected that they could give a guarantee of absolute punctuality during August and September. My right hon. friend adds that the departure of the mail train from Perth is frequently delayed by the late arrival there of the connecting trains from the South, over most of which he has no control. He can assure the hon. Member that a careful watch is kept in his Department on the working of the mail trains, and that the attention of the company is always called to any unsatisfactory working.

    Merionethshire Teachers' Salaries.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the substance of any communication that he has sent to the Merioneth local education authority on the subject of the date of
    1540
    payment of the salaries of teachers; whether he has received any reply; and, if so, what is the substance of such reply.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): The substance of my communication to the local education authority consisted of a request to them to pay the salaries of the teachers in the voluntary schools as soon as possible. I have not as yet received a reply, and I do not suppose the authority have had time to convene a meeting to consider my letter.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had also communicated with the West Riding education authority in regard to the Low Valley School.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid he had communicated with the West Riding education authority, and he hoped the question would be ended satisfactorily.
    LORD R. CECILIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local education authority for Merioneth is not assembled at the present moment?
    MR. MCKENNA: I was not aware of that fact, but I have no doubt a special meeting will be called.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is exercising, or proposes to exercise, his powers under The Defaulting Authorities Act, 1904, to secure that the teachers in the voluntary schools of Merioneth are not deprived of the enjoyment of their holidays by the withholding of the salaries which they have earned until the expiration of the holidays, or whether the council of Merioneth can offer any explanation of the distinction which they make in time of payment between the teachers in council and in voluntary schools.
    MR. MCKENNA: So far as I am aware no question of the exercise of my powers under the Education (Local Authority Default) Act, 1904, can be considered, as the conditions precedent for the exercise of such powers do not appear to have been satisfied.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the duty of the local education authority to maintain the schools within its area and to maintain all schools alike, and that if the local authority declines to do this, either by making direct payments or otherwise, with regard to one class of teachers, that creates a case of hardship which the Defaulting Authorities Act was passed to avoid?
    MR. MCKENNA: The Defaulting Authorities Act requires as a condition of being enforced that the managers should have paid the salaries themselves, and should have appeared to have paid those salaries to keep the schools efficient. In the present case the managers have not paid the salaries, and therefore, there is no ground on which the Defaulting Authorities Act can be enforced.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by informing the local authority of the intentions of the Board when the right thing is not being done he may get the right thing done more promptly than if he waits for the action of the managers in paying out of their own pockets money which ought to be provided by the local authorities?
    MR. MCKENNA: I am not sure that I apprehend the course the hon. Gentleman wishes me to take.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to communicate with the local authority to say that, if they were not treating this class of teachers fairly, the Defaulting Authorities Act would be put into operation.
    MR. MCKENNA: I could make no such communication to the local authority. It would be contrary to the law if I were to attempt to put the Act into force when the necessary conditions have not arisen.
    LORD E. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that if the managers do pay the salaries he will repay them the cost to which they have been put? Has it not been the usual practice of the Education Department in reference to this Act?
    MR. McKENNA: The Answer is no to both Questions.
    LORD E. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to put in force the Defaulting Authorities Act under any circumstances?
    MR. McKENNA: I shall be prepared to state what I will do when the necessary conditions have arisen.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the managers as well as the local authority to ascertain whether this case of hardship has arisen?
    MR. McKENNA: I understand hardship has not arisen. I am informed the salaries have been paid by another party.
    LORD R. CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to the National Union of Teachers? If so, does payment by thorn apply to anybody except those teachers who are members of that society?
    MR. McKENNA: I am informed the teachers have been paid.
    LORD R. CECIL: By whom?
    MR. McKENNA: By the National Union of Teachers.

    Capital Outlay on Church of England Training Colleges.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can indicate the approximate sum which has been expended on capital outlay upon training colleges of the Church of England since the 1st of August, 1895.
    MR. McKENNA: I regret the Board have no complete information on the subject.

    Ardglass Harbour.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, as Ardglass, county Down, is a Royal harbour, he will cause inquiries to be made during the recess as to the cost of removing the Churn Rock in that harbour, in view of the fact that it prevents the development of the harbour, is injurious to the fishing industry, and has been the cause of several boat wrecks and loss of life.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure how far this work is required, but I will as the hon. Member suggests make inquiry.

    Import Jerquing Clerks
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the present number, grades, and salaries of the clerks set apart from the Long Room staff for the work of import jerquing in London; what was the cost of this staff for each of the last five financial years; how many queries were issued; and what additional duty was brought to the revenue as a result of the errors discovered.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I have already explained to the hon. Member that I am unable to give the information he asks for in the first two parts of the Question. The total number of jerquers' queries on all subjects issued in each of the last five years and the amount of duty brought to account as a result of errors discovered were, I learn, as follows: —

    £

    s.

    d.

    1902–3

    3,138

    18

    7

    11

    1903–4

    2,468

    13

    1

    3

    1904–5

    2,793

    10

    10

    11

    1905–6

    2,846

    6

    7

    6

    1906–7

    2,359

    4

    11

    1

    It should be observed that the business of the jerquer is to check accounts, and that the importance of the duties is not to be measured by the amount of additional revenue brought to account by means of his inspection.

    Customs Upper Section Clerks.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many vacancies in the position of upper section clerk in the Customs have arisen during the past twelve months; how many have been filled up; and, with regard to any existing vacancies, when the junior officers will be promoted to fill them.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: During the year ended 31st ult., eight vacancies occurred in the ranks of clerk, second class, upper
    1544
    section. One of the places vacated was abolished in consequence of the repeal of the coal duty. None of the remaining places have been filled, and the Board of Customs do not consider that it would be in the interests of the public service to indicate in advance their intentions in relation to questions involving the promotion of officers.

    Customs Surveyorships Promotions.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, by the terms of Treasury Minute, 24th March, 1891, the Surveyors General in the Customs Department were constituted a standing committee to be directly consulted by the Board in dealing with promotions to surveyorships and promotions within the grade of that rank; who are the officials now responsible for this duty; and whether the sanction of the Treasury was obtained for the alteration.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Board of Customs inform me that they have never failed to consult the Surveyors General with regard to the promotions mentioned in the Question.

    Customs Collectors.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what number of appointments have been made to the position of collector since 1st January, 1905, and how many of this number were appointed from the London staff; what is the age and length of service of the officer recently appointed to this rank; whether he failed to qualify in the test laid down by the Board for the position of first-class examining officer in 1905; what special qualifications he has displayed since that date to warrant his promotion over the heads of many of his seniors; and what immediate increase of salary did he derive from the promotion.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that since 1st January, 1905, fifteen appointments from the general body of eligible officers serving at all ports have been made to the position of collector. Five of the fifteen officers were serving in London at the time of appointment. The age of the officer last appointed is

    1545
    forty-three years, and his length of service is twenty-one years. Early in 1905 this officer was specially selected to fill a position of chief officer, and it is true that he subsequently failed to pass the test referred to in the Question. He, however, attended an examination for examining officer, first class, in April last, at which he took a very high place, and the Board, having regard to this result and to the satisfactory manner in which he conducted the business of his port, as well as his general fitness for advancement, have selected him for the important position of collector. The immediate increase of salary obtained was £77 13s.

    Valuation of Sheep Stocks in Scotland.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Law Officers have yet given an opinion on the valuation of sheep stocks in Scotland under the Agricultural Act, 1906; and, if so, will the Government make known the result.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.): I cannot add anything at present to the Answer which I gave my hon. friend on this matter on the 25th ult. †

    Ailsa Craig Bating Valuation.
    MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland why the Northern Lights Commissioners' property on Ailsa Craig is valued for rating at £100 a year; whether any rates or taxes have been paid in respect of it; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter, in view of the exemption of such property from rates and taxes by Section 731 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): The valuation is made by the local assessor, and the Commissioners have no information as to why it is fixed at £100. The Northern Lighthouse Commissioners' property is exempted from rates, etc., and none have been paid in respect of their property on Ailsa Craig. Under
    † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 145–6.
    1546
    these circumstances I do not propose to take any steps.

    Whale Killing off Shetland.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Scottish Fishery Board has forwarded any recommendations with regard to the whale killing in Shetland and its effect; on the great herring fishery; and whether any members of the Scottish Fishery Board are shareholders, directors, or promoters of whale-killing companies.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Fishery Board have expressed their concurrence in the findings of the Committee who publicly investigated and reported upon the subject of whale fishing in Shetland and upon whose recommendations the Whale Fishing Bill is founded. My information is that no member of the Fishery Board is a director or promoter of a whale-killing company. The question of shareholding is not one into which I consider it advisable to inquire.
    LORD R. CECIL: Did the Fishery Board Report that the existing practice is or is not beneficial?
    MR. SINCLAIR: The noble Lord will find full information in the Report.

    Deportation of Paupers from Scotland to Ireland.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what action he proposes to take with regard to the intended deportation of Edward Farrell from Craiglockhart Workhouse to Newry Workhouse; and whether, having regard to the fact that Scotland has had the benefit of his labour and expenditure from youth to old age, he will represent to the Local Government Board for Scotland the hardship upon the ratepayers of Newry Union of making this old man chargeable on them in the few years that are left to him.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Under the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1898, which provides for an appeal being made to the Local Government Board for Scotland against the removal of a pauper to England or Ireland, no appeal is competent where the pauper has not resided continuously for a year in the parish proposing to remove him. In the case referred to by

    1547
    the hon. Member, I am informed that the pauper has never resided in Edinburgh continuously for more than four or five months, and accordingly the Board have no power to entertain the appeal against his removal made to them by the Newry Union Board of Guardians.

    Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. YOUNGER(Ayr Burghs): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will arrange to take the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) (Application of Penalties) Bill on an early date.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, Sir.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it intended to go further with it?
    MR. SINCLAIR: Certainly, Sir, on the earliest possible opportunity.

    Shetland Herring Fishery.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if, in view of the fact that, owing to the destruction of whales, the herring fishing for sailing boats has practically been ruined on the West Coast of Shetland, and that now the North and East are threatened, he will take power to stop further killing should he find such a drastic step necessary.
    MR. SINCLAIR: My hon. friend is aware of the policy of the Government in this matter, which is dealt with in the Bill now before the House.
    MR. BOWLESasked if it was the view of the Government that the ruin of this fishing was due to the killing of whales?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I think the hon. Gentleman was present at the debate in which I expressed the views of the Government at greater length than is possible by means of Question and Answer across the floor of the House.

    Kilneel Rural Council and the Labourers Acts.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the fact that the Kilkeel Rural Council, county Down, receive only an annual quota per cottage,
    1548
    under the Labourers Acts, and nothing towards annuity or loan, the second scheme promoted by the council being too late to participate in a share of the arrear in March, 1906, and too early to get its 36 per cent. under the new Act and whether, having regard to the fact that the Kilkeel scheme cost less per cottage than the schemes of any other council in county Down, and that other councils in the county have had their whole loans cleared, the Local Government Board can arrange for a payment to the Kilkeel Council from the accumulated arrears lying to the credit of the county.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange; for Mr. BIRRELL): On the occasion of the distribution of the Exchequer Grant in March, 1906, the Kilkeel Rural District Council received £352 7s. 5d. Of this amount £22 went to recoup the expenditure which fell directly on the rates during the year in respect of labourers cottages, and the balance was paid to the Commissioners of Public Works in reduction of the capital liability of the district council in respect of loans for cottages. The Exchequer contribution for the financial year ended in March, 1907, has been distributed in accordance with Section 18 of the Act of last session, namely, in proportion to the number of cottages built on the 1st November, 1906, in each rural district in which loans are outstanding. There is, however, an accumulated reserve of £3,261 to the credit of the county of Down which is not subject to this method of distribution, as it accrued before the commencement of the new Act. The question of the distribution of this balance will shortly be considered, and due regard will be had to all the circumstances of the various rural districts in the county. The statements made in the concluding portion of the Question appear to be correct.
    MR. MOORE: Will a similar course be taken in regard to cottages in county Antrim?
    MR. CHERRY: I should think the same rules would apply to each county.

    Inspectors of Irish National Schools.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to

    1549
    the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that during the past few years various inspectors of national schools in Ireland have had their annual increments of salary refused or postponed; whether he is aware that these refusals and postponements have taken place even in the case of men whose work and conduct are above reproach, and that this was done by the higher officials to whom the Commissioners leave all such matters; and whether, in view of the discontent amongst the general body of inspectors, because of the treatment to which they are being subjected in this and other respects and the consequent injury to education, he will appoint a small Committee to inquire into the working of the National Education Office or into some of the cases of injustice of which it is guilty.
    MR. CHERRY: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that during the past few years they have refused or postponed the award of increments to inspectors in five cases, but it is not the fact that the work and conduct of these inspectors were above reproach or that the Commissioners leave the decision in such cases to the higher officials. As regards the remainder of the Question, I can only refer to the Answer which my right hon. friend gave to a precisely similar Question put by the hon. Member for West Kerry on; 22nd April last. †

    Irish Grazing Dispute.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the suggestion of Mr. Justice Ross in the Land Judge's Court on 29th July that, in cases where intimidation was being used against graziers and the owners of grazing lands, the Estates Commissioners should refuse to advance public money to purchase these lands; and whether, seeing that the measures taken by the executive to suppress this form of intimidation have failed, he will consider the desirability of instructing the Estates Commissioners in accordance with the suggestion of Mr. Justice Ross.
    MR. CHERRY: I have seen a newspaper report of the learned Judge's
    † See (4) Debates, clxxii., 1372.
    1550
    remarks to the effect mentioned in the Question. In Answer to the concluding part of the Question, my right hon. friend desires me to refer to the full reply which he gave on 14th May to the Question put by the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division. †
    MR. MOORE: Is a pronouncement like this by a Judge of the High Court to have no effect on the opinion of the Chief Secretary?
    MR. CHERRY: The Chief Secretary formed his opinion before the pronouncement by the Judge. The Government decided not to refuse to allow the landlord in these cases the right to sell to the Commissioners, but in cases where intimidation has been exercised by individuals steps will be taken to prevent them getting the land.

    Mr. Orpon's Brewsterfield (Kerry) Estate.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the estate of the late R. H. Orpon at Brewsterfield, county Kerry, is still under the Land Judge's Court; if not, has there been an agreement made for the sale to the Estates Commissioners; and will he direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the prices sought to be secured from Thomas Brosnan and some of the other tenants who were never allowed to have fair rents fixed.
    MR. CHERRY: The Registrar of the Land Judge's Court informs me that the proceedings in that Court for the sale of the estate in question have been stayed in order that, if possible, a sale may be carried out through the Estates Commissioners. All the tenants except one have now signed agreements to purchase in the event of a sale to the Estates Commissioners. The matter has not yet come before the Commissioners, but if they should decide to acquire the property, they will have full opportunity of inquiring as to the terms upon which the tenants have agreed to purchase.

    Irish Agrarian Offences Returns.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the offence of cattle driving is included in the official Returns
    † See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 799.

    1551
    of agrarian outrages; and, if so, under what heading of these Returns the offence is classified.
    MR. CHERRY: Separate official Returns of agrarian outrages are not published, but the offence of cattle driving is included in the ordinary criminal statistics under the heading of unlawful assembly.
    *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the threatening letter recently written by the hon. Member for North Armagh to Mr. Commissioner Bailey be included in the Return of outrages issued quarterly, and will the police report this outrage to the going Judge of Assize in Dublin as is usually done in the case of other threatening letters in order that the Judge may make a political speech from the Bench on the criminal state of Ireland?
    MR. CHERRY: I do not think the Commissioner sent it to the police, so it would not be included.

    Agrarian Crime Trials.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of prisoners for trial at the recent summer assizes in Ireland for offences recorded as agrarian; and what were the results of the trials in such cases.
    MR. CHERRY: The number of persons returned for trial at the recent summer assizes, for offences recorded as agrarian, was 167, the number of distinct cases being twenty-three. Three persons were convicted; thirty-one were acquitted; in the case of twenty-three persons the jury disagreed; and as regards the remaining 110 persons the cases were postponed to the next assizes.

    Irish Police.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the strain upon the resources of the existing police establishment caused by the employment over lengthened periods of additional forces of police in several counties of Ireland, and the consequent depletion of the reserve force at the depot in Dublin and of a number of stations throughout the country, he is
    1552
    now in a position to hold out any hope that the Government will afford relief by a substantial increase of the establishment.
    MR. CHERRY: The hon. Member may rest assured that the Government will take any steps which may become necessary for increasing the constabulary. As regards the suggestion that the reserve force at the depot has been depleted, I would remind the hon. Member that the very object with which that force was established was that it should be employed as occasion may require in aid of the ordinary constabulary force throughout the country. But in any case it is not the fact that the reserve force at the depot has been depleted, for a substantial portion of the force is still available at the depot.
    MR. FLYNN: Is not public opinion in Ireland in favour of a large reduction of the force?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Galway Assizes—Crime Returns.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of cases of serious crime included in the Returns presented by county inspectors of constabulary to the judges at the recent assizes for Galway. Leitrim, Sligo, and Roscommon under the following heads, viz., the number of cases since the last spring assizes, and the number of cases in the corresponding period of 1906.
    MR. CHERRY: The figures for the two periods indicated are as follows, the figures for 1906 being seated first in each case; — Galway, E.R., twenty-six and sixty-three; Galway, W.R., thirteen and thirty-two'; Leitrim, twelve and twelve; Roscommon thirteen and sixteen; Sligo, twenty and fourteen.

    Kingston College, Mitchelstown.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will direct the attention of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests to the manner in which the charitable trust known as Kingston College, Mitchelstown, is administered; whether he is aware that this

    1553
    trust was created by James, Baron Kingston, for tenants on the estate who might become reduced in circumstances, but that only two such persons are at present deriving any advantage from the trust, while other persons have been imported from all quarters and enjoy the benefits of the trust, to the exclusion of tenants on the estate; and whether he will consider the advisability of a full inquiry and investigation into all the conditions of the trust and of the preparation of a scheme for the removal of impediments standing in the way of Catholic tenants on the estate having an equal claim with Protestant tenants to all the benefits of the trust.
    MR. CHERRY: The trust known as Kingston College is not quite correctly described in the Question. This trust was created nearly a century and a-half ago by the then Lord Kingston, whose will provided for the establishment of houses or colleges for poor decayed gentlemen and gentlewomen, members of the Church of Ireland as by law established, with preference to such persons as have been tenants upon his estate. The trustees are certain Bishops of the Church of Ireland for the time being. So long as the trust is capable of being administered, and is administered, in accordance with the conditions of the trust, the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests have no power to intervene in the matter. In case, however, of a breach of trust, or if it should be shown that the trust could be no longer carried out according to the intention of the founder, the Commissioners have power to institute proceedings in the High Court. The facts stated in the Question do not appear to suggest that there has been any breach of trust, or that full effect cannot be given to the terms of the trust. If, however, any allegation to the contrary should be made, the Commissioners would doubtless give full consideration to the matter.

    District Inspector Cruise, R.I C.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the constabulary authorities has been directed to complaints concerning the conduct of District Inspector Cruise, Charleville, county Cork, at petty sessions courts and in the discharge of other official duties; are they aware that at the last petty
    1554
    sessions court this officer endeavoured to usurp the magisterial functions, suggested whipping as a proper punishment for a young lad accused of larceny, and stated he would take the skin off the lad's back; that in subsequent cases he continually interrupted the magistrates and solicitors by interposing his views, and was reprimanded by Captain Fitzpatrick, R.M.; and whether the constabulary authorities will require this officer to confine himself to his strictly official duties in future.
    MR. CHERRY: The constabulary authorities inform me that District Inspector Cruise was the complainant in the case to which the Question particularly refers. It was the chairman of the bench and not Mr. Cruise who first suggested that the boy should be birched rather than sent to gaol, and the solicitor for the defence subsequently repeated the suggestion, which was eventually adopted by the Bench. I am informed that it is not the case that the district inspector said he would take the skin off the lad's back. I am also informed that it is not the fact that in subsequent cases the district inspector continually interrupted the magistrates and solicitors. He did, however, interrupt a solicitor for the defence by interposing the objection that the solicitor was putting leading questions. It is the case that the resident magistrate once rebuked Mr. Cruise. The Inspector-General informs me that Mr. Cruise is an active and efficient officer and that he is satisfied that the officer confines himself to the discharge of his official duties. In any case, so far as proceedings in Court are concerned, the magistrates appear to be well able to maintain the authority of the Court.
    MR. FLYNN: Cannot this very efficient officer be sent to Belfast?
    MR. CHERRY: The point is one well worth considering.

    Police and Public Meetings in Cavan.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that an armed force of police, with District Inspectors Sharpe, Vanston, and Davis, and Mr. Sullivan, R.M., attended at Lismacanigan, county Cavan, on 28th July, where a public meeting in support of the reinstatement of the evicted

    1555
    tenants was announced to be held; that the officers in charge of the police stated that they had instructions to prevent the holding of the said meeting; that, after allowing the proceedings to be opened, the police got orders to fix bayonets, but subsequently the bayonets were sheathed, and a baton charge ordered and carried out; that as a result of this action a district councillor named Peter Smith received a serious injury; will he say who was responsible for the appearance of this armed force in a peaceable district, and what instructions were issued to the resident magistrate and police officers on the occasion; is he aware that, on the same day, the police took possession of a platform erected on the land of Mr. Nicholas Sheridan, Omard, who had given permission to the promoters for the holding of a meeting on his property, the meeting being called for the purpose of advising the tenants on the Dungimmon estate on the question of purchasing their holdings under the Land Purchase Act of 1903.
    MR. CHERRY: Meetings were announced to be held on 28th July upon two evicted farms at Lismacanican and Dungimmon, the object of the meetings being to compel the present tenants to surrender the farms. As the object of the meetings was clearly intimidatory and unlawful, the Government directed that no meetings should be permitted on or near the evicted farms, and the promoters were warned accordingly. A force of sixty police under District Inspector Sharpe was assembled to carry out the orders of the Government. Mr. Sullivan, R.M., was merely present as a spectator. Twelve of the police were fully armed, and the remainder carried truncheons only. Forty of the police attended at Lismacanican, where a platform had been erected within forty yards of the evicted farm. About 1,500 persons, with bands and banners, came to the place, and despite the warnings previously given and repeated on the spot, an attempt was made to hold a meeting. The district inspector repeatedly called upon the crowd to disperse, and as they persistently refused to do so he ordered the police to disperse the crowd with truncheons, and this was done, no more force being used than was necessary. No injuries were reported except that Mr. Smith is said to have
    1556
    received a slight injury to the hand. A meeting was subsequently held at some distance from the evicted farm. In the case of Dungimmon, a platform had also been erected near the evicted farm and the new tenant's residence. In that case, however, the police eventually succeeded in persuading the leaders to hold a meeting elsewhere, and consequently no collision occurred.
    MR. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the police in Cavan are armed with deadly weapons while those in Belfast have only truncheons?
    MR. CHERRY: Only a small number are so armed. In Belfast the services of the military have been secured.
    MR. MOORE: Are the tenants of these two farms to be transplanted under the Evicted Tenants Bill as being dangerous to the peace of the neighbourhood?
    MR. CHERRY: That is a hypothetical Question I cannot answer. The Bill has not yet become law.
    MR. MOORE: Have the dispossessed holders of these farms been included in the 2,000 cases dealt with by the Bill?
    MR. CHERRY: I cannot answer that without notice.

    Mr. Reddy, MP., and the Irish Lord Chancellor.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether it was a fact that the hon. Member for the Birr Division of King's County, Ireland, had been removed from the Commission of the Peace in consequence of a speech recently made by him, and whether this action had been taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland without calling on the hon. Member for any explanation of his speech, and whether it was not a fact that the hon. Member had since entirely denied the accuracy of the published report of the speech.
    MR. CHERRY: I am afraid that I can give no information on the matter at present. I have seen a rumour in the papers this morning, but am not aware

    1557
    that any action has been taken by the Lord Chancellor.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not usual in these cases for the Lord Chancellor to ask an explanation before taking definite action?
    MR. CHERRY: I think it is usual, but whether it was done on this occasion I do not know.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: My information is that it was not.

    Small Schools in Ireland.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the fact that the population in Ireland is preponderatingly rural and that consequently a greater need for small schools exists than is the case in England, where the population is largely urban; and, if so, or in any event, will he carefully inquire into the point and consider the expressed views of the Chief Secretary upon it before he decides on the proposals to be made next year as to primary education in Ireland.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): Yes, Sir. I am aware of the facts stated, and I can assure the hon. Member that I shall not take any decision in the matter without full consultation with my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary.

    Labourers Acts Loans and Loan Capital Duty.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Wexford District Council expressing an opinion that it is unjust to charge loan capital duty on loans borrowed from the Government for the purpose of carrying out the Labourers Acts, and that Parliament intended to exclude from stamp duty all documents executed under these Acts; and, if so, will he take steps to have such duty remitted in future.
    MR. ASQUITH: Loan capital duty is chargeable in respect of loans raised by local authorities generally, without regard to the particular purposes to which the loans may be applied; and I am not
    1558
    aware of any intention, either expressed or implied, on the part of Parliament to relieve Irish local authorities from this duty in respect of loans raised for the purposes of the Labourers Acts. I may, however, refer the hon. Member to a reply I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Dublin County on 8th July last†from which he will see that the inconveniences which are alleged to arise from the application of the duty to those and to analogous cases are receiving consideration.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if the right hon. Gentleman intended to carry out in the Loan Funds Bill his promise to introduce legislation lightening the burden?
    MR. ASQUITHreplied that the matter would be dealt with in that Bill which would be introduced in a few days.

    Irish Mail Service Subsidy.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that on the Civil Service Estimates for this year, Class VII., Vote 2, under Sub-head H, there appears a Vote of £6,500 for Irish passenger train service; if this sum has been annually paid to the London and North Western Railway since 1899 for an acceleration of the train known as the Irish mail; if he is aware that this train takes five hours and thirty-five minutes on the day journey to Holyhead, and five hours and thirty-two minutes on the night journey, and that since this subsidy was granted the railway company have run and are running a train in competition with the London and Kingstown route, known as the London and North Western boat train, which does the journey to Holyhead in thirteen minutes less on the day journey and seventeen minutes less on the night journey than the so-called accelerated passenger train; and whether, in view of these facts, it is proposed to continue this annual payment for a train service slower than that supplied by the railway company without subsidy.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: For an explanation of this payment I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26th July last year by my predecessor to the
    † See (4) Debates, clxxvii., 1175.

    1559
    hon. Member for West Cavan; † and may add that the payment has no reference to night mails. The accelerated day service still continues; and I see no reason at present for discontinuing the payment.
    MR. MOONEYasked whether it was not the fact that this payment was for a so-called accelerated service, and that the ordinary train run by the company was a faster train.
    MR. RUNCIMANsaid he believed that statement was correct, but the undertaking given by the London and North-Western Company was that the train should run at a certain speed, and that undertaking had been fulfilled up to the present.
    MR. MOONEY: asked whether it was not the fact that the Treasury were now paying £6,500 a year to the company for a train which was slower than the company's ordinary train.
    MR. RUNCIMANsaid the payment was made in respect of an additional service, and he did not think the hon. Member would wish the company to withdraw that additional service.
    MR. LEIF JONESasked whether the public service would suffer in the slightest degree if this payment were withdrawn.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: It is not only a question of the public service. It is a question of convenience to the traffic of Ireland.
    MR. MOONEY: Is it not the fact that since the subsidy was granted the company have on their own initiative started a train at a later hour which does the journey more quickly?
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that though this money was given to facilitate Irish traffic the way in which that is done is by packing this mail train with people who are booked to intermediate stations on this side only? The Company run a faster train than that, and will he interfere to stop this mail train
    † See (4) Debates, clxi., 1474.
    1560
    from being overloaded with people who are not going to Ireland at all.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not like the service to cease. It is a delicate matter of negotiation and we cannot have a triangular discussion across the floor of the House.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: In view of the fact that it is almost impossible to obtain from the Treasury any subsidy, no matter how small, for Irish industries, for piers or harbours, or anything, will the Treasury see that this money granted for a faster service is not continued now when the ordinary trains run at a faster rate?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I cannot admit the hypothesis of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is absolutely true.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: If he will communicate with me privately I will consider, but I do not think it can be done now.
    MR. REDMOND: It is throwing away £6,000 a year.

    Attack on Leitrim Postman.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether several, and, if so, how many, letters were taken from a postman on the 24th July last near Mullaghboy, county Leitrim, by six men with blackened faces; did any of the letters contain writs, and, if so, do the authorities connect the outrage with that fact; can he explain if any leakage of information occurred from the post office from which the attempted delivery was made; have any arrests been effected in the case; and will he consider the necessity of sending a police escort with postmen on their rounds in such disturbed districts.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (FOR Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): It is reported to me that on the 23rd ultimo the postman from Carrigallen S.O. to Mullaghboy was attacked by three men disguised as women, who took from him live letters supposed to contain writs. I am having

    1561
    further inquiry made into the circumstances of this case, and am considering the best way of dealing with them in future.

    The Companies Bill.
    SIR J. RANDLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Second Reading of the Companies Bill will be taken.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): No, Sir, I cannot yet say.

    Public Accounts Committee's Report.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to give a day for the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee Report.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. friend is apparently unaware that I have answered this question two or three times already. It will be at the very end of the session.
    LORD R. CECIL: When will the session end?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Anticipatory Motions.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now give the House any information as to the steps which he has taken to secure the adoption of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure (Anticipatory Motions).
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sorry to say that on inquiry I find that a new Standing Order could not be adopted without considerable discussion. It is therefore impossible to proceed with the matter during the present session. The hon. Member will remember that my promise in relation to the Question was given on the condition that it would be possible to pass a new Standing Order with the assent of all parts of the House.

    Irish Evicted Tenants Bill Finance.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, seeing that the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill will
    1562
    entail the raising of ultimately about £2,000,000 for the purposes of the Bill, he will state how it is proposed that that sum shall be raised; and whether, having regard to the difficulty in obtaining money now, he will abandon the Bill for the present session.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The money will be raised as part of the amount required from time to time for land purchase under the Irish Land Act.

    Government and the Fall in Securities.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the continued fall in the price of Consols and other Government securities; and, in view of the difficulty which is experienced in raising further money at the present time, whether he will postpone all Bills which entail the finding of large sums of money, in the same way as the issue of the Transvaal loan has been postponed, until next year.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know to which Bills the hon. Member refers. But all the proposals put before the House by the Government have been framed with due regard to all the financial considerations involved.

    The Condition of the Shetlanders.
    *MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the King of Norway has a moral and legal claim on the Shetland Isles, and that the people of the islands are menaced with starvation owing to the failure of the herring fishing, said to be caused by the destruction of whales, that for several years past His Majesty's Government have been unable to assist them, and that the herring are found further and further from the land as the whales are slaughtered, he will consider if the material well-being of the Shetlanders would be better under Norwegian than British rule.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hardly imagine that this Question can be seriously intended.
    *MR. CATHCART WASON: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is seriously intended. I should like further to ask the right hon. Gentleman

    1563
    if it is not the case that if the spirit of the people had not been ground between the upper and the nether millstones of Scottish Land Laws and Scottish tyranny they would have protected themselves as the Norwegians did?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of that Question.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill): Sir Ivor Herbert; and had reinstated on the Committee (previously discharged in respect of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill): Dr. Macnamara.
Report to lie upon the Table.

COMPANIES (DEBENTURES AND DEBENTURE STOCK) BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 301.]

ADJOURNMENT.
LORD ROBERT CECILrose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the failure of the Government to secure the due payment of the salaries of the teachers in the non-provided schools in Merionethshire;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past Eight, this evening.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)moved the Resolution of which he had given notice for the purpose of bringing
1564
the Report stage of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill to a conclusion in three allotted days. He said that this Bill had been about three months before the Standing Committee. Twenty-two days had been absorbed in its discussion by the Committee, the Committee sitting from 11.30 a.m. to 4 p.m. It could not be said, therefore, that the measure had been otherwise than thoroughly considered, if it was presumed that the Committee had applied itself to the honest and straightforward consideration of its provisions. The Committee was composed of the Scottish Members, and, being a Bill relating to Scotland, it ought not to need a very protracted consideration on Report. Of course, he was aware that a prolonged discussion in the Committee was maintained by the English Members, and it was urged in justification of the exercise of their right that the principles involved in the Bill might be extended to England. On the proverbial principle, therefore, they thought that it was desirable to oppose the Bill on its first introduction to Scotland. But, as far as that argument had any force, it ought not to be allowed to override the plain rights of the Scottish Members to have their own law. In addition to that, the Government had introduced another Bill dealing almost with the same subject in England, and the Government were showing that there was a considerable difference between the two countries. It had never been the desire of the Government to restrict the fullest opportunity for the discussion of notable and important points. The group of Clauses 1 to 6 had occupied twelve sittings of the Standing Committee. The first clause occupied four and a half sittings, and he believed that the closure was moved at the end of the fourth sitting. The second clause also took four sittings. Undoubtedly, the first three clauses were the most important in the Bill, for they established the general principles of statutory tenure under which the small holdings were to be held. But the Government thought that so long a discussion, and after such a riddling and sifting in Committee, ought to enable the Report stage to be passed without great difficulty. Clause 4 was also important, in view of the proposals it contained, but the other clauses were comparatively uncontroversial. On the second day the Government proposed to take Clauses 7 to 15. Of these,

1565
Clause 7 would be the most contentious, as it dealt with the procedure of breaking up land into small holdings, whether by agreement or compulsion. Nearly three sittings of the Standing Committee were given to the consideration of this clause. He did not know that Clauses 8 and 9 would give rise to much discussion, or, indeed, that there were any points in the group that were especially contentious, unless it were Clause 15, which was certainly important, as it amended the provisions of the Crofters Act in regard to the taking of land for the enlargement of holdings. On the third day it was proposed to take Clauses 16 to 31. This was a large group, no doubt, but it was one which had been threshed out elsewhere. His right hon. friend had taken steps in Clause 16 to carry out the undertaking that had been given on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the landlord should not suffer if, owing to the operations of the authorities set up by the Bill, the small holdings established or compulsorily taken proved a failure. By this clause the Government thought that they had fulfilled their engagement, and he hoped that it would not need much discussion.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Report stage of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill be brought to a conclusion in three allotted days; and (a) That the new Clauses and Clauses 1 to 6 of the Bill be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; and (b) That Clauses 7 to 15 of the Bill (if and so far as not previously disposed of) be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day; and (c) That the remaining Clauses of the Bill and the Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage of the Bill to a conclusion (if and so far as not previously disposed of), be proceeded with on the third allotted day and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day. Any day on which the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order. At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are to be brought to a conclusion, or if that day is a Friday, at 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall, if
1566
those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any now Clauses or Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Clauses or Amendments), and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the ease may be. Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on any allotted day shall, instead of being taken on that day as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding the Standing Order "Sittings of the House." At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first order of the day, or if that day is a Friday or Saturday at 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that stage of the Bill. After the passing of this order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill stand as first order of the day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order 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. — (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the right hon. Gentleman, he remembered, made an observation a few years ago to the effect that guillotine Motions reduced the proceedings of the House to a farce. That was in the days when guillotine Motions were few and far between, and when they were only moved in respect of one Bill, or, at the most, two Bills in the course of a session. The right hon. Gentleman, who thought that this method reduced proceedings to a farce—he did not know what was lower

1567
than a farce in stage terminology— had greatly improved on his predecessors, and he had reduced, or was in the process of reducing, their proceedings, if not to a farce, at all events to a burlesque. Not content with reducing the proceedings to a burlesque once in a session, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had moved this closure by compartments resolution already three times this session—a larger Parliamentary offspring of the right hon. Gentleman's brain than any of his predecessors were able to produce in the same length of time Even that family did not content the right hon. Gentleman, and it appeared that the House was not to be allowed to retire to bed that night until it had left the right hon. Gentleman the proud and happy father of twins. The magnitude of the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to debate that evening were in inverse proportion to the defence which he had thought fit to make of them in what he would not call a speech, but in the few observations which he had condescended to make to the House. The right hon. Gentleman was great on records, and he had made a record this session. Though the right hon. Gentleman had not done much in the way of defending his Motion, he had said one or two things which deserved some slight commentary. In the first place he said that the Bill to be dealt with was a purely Scottish Bill. According to his opinions—and he was the most distinguished of Scottish Members—the Bill was purely Scottish; and a Scottish Bill was, in his opinion, a Bill to which any treatment might be meted out. But it was not a purely Scottish Bill. In the first place it affected the position of the Agricultural Department for the whole of England and Scotland, and it must have a great effect upon the future administrative work of the Department. His right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin had told him that it would have been impossible for him to carry out the reforms he effected in connection with rabies and other forms of disease attacking flocks had the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture not had the universality which the Bill proposed to destroy. Then, if they were not dealing, as they certainly were not, with Scotland alone what was this new doctrine that the Prime Minister had developed? He had announced in so many words that in
1568
I legislating for Scotland it was nonsense to take into account those broad general principles which the Opposition considered, or which the House might consider, and had the right to consider, as applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom. Parliament was not only to legislate, but to think, in water-tight compartments. They were to have different principles when they were discussing the same problem. The same problem was to be discussed on one set of principles north of the Tweed, and on another set of principles south of the Tweed. That was— the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying so—the most inept defence of the most foolish measure which so far as he knew had ever been presented to that House by a responsible Government. When the right hon. Gentleman declared that this strange and fantastic scheme of legislation was only to apply to Scotland, and that, therefore, English Members were travelling outside their proper function when they attempted to criticise it at all, he was no doubt doing a very good service to the colleague sitting next to him, than whom no man more needed shelter from unkind criticism, but a very great injustice to the legislative duties of that House. But the next argument of the right hon. Gentleman was even more absurd than the one he had just dealt with.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Hear, hear!
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What was the argument? He was sure he could convince the right hon. Gentleman of the appropriateness of the epithet. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the first six clauses were the most important in the Bill, but that they had been discussed so long in Grand Committee that he thought one night was sufficient for discussing them and the new clauses as well on Report by half-past ten o'clock. Had the right hon. Gentleman reflected on the duties that he was attempting to throw on the Grand Committees? The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Scottish Grand Committee, but, of course, it was impossible for him to attend, or for the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was also a member to attend. [Mr. ASQUITH was understood to dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman attended once for twenty

1569
minutes in the course of twenty-two days that the Bill was before the Grand Committee. That was an exception which most happily and conclusively proved the rule. There were members of the Front Opposition Bench who found it equally impossible to attend from twelve to three as was the earlier practice, or from eleven to four o'clock as was the later practice. How on earth was a Committee of that kind in any true sense to be regarded as representative of the House? None of those who were not members of the Committee knew anything of the procedure of the Committee except by hearsay. But he had heard strange things—as, for instance, that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had only two arguments. One of them was that never had there been so excellent a piece of legislation as the Scotch Crofters Bill; and the other argument, even more pertinent and effective, was the Motion that "the Question be now put." He was informed that the right hon. Gentleman asked for the closure on fifty-three occasions, and got it on fifty, so that he just made his "half-century." He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman had been well advised to move the closure. It got him out of a great many embarrassments. He did not criticise the right hon. Gentleman's action. No doubt it was dictated by motives of most carefully thought out prudence. But he must point out that a Committee, on which the average attendance was not more than forty or fifty, which the most important members of the Treasury Bench could not attend any more than a large number of Members on the Opposition side of the House, and in which the closure was moved fifty times, could in no sense be a reflection of the will, intelligence, and argumentative powers of that House. Therefore, to say, as the Prime Minister said, that, because the important clauses of this Bill took so many days in that Committee, it was not necessary to devote more than six hours and a half to them on Report, was an argument worthy of a Motion which, in the words of the Prime Minister himself, turned the proceedings of the House into a farce. The right hon. Gentleman was not content with merely maiming debate on the Report Stage of the Bill by using the guillotine, but he was deter-
1570
mined to make ineffective such discussion as he chose to allow by carrying on, at the same time, consideration of the Scottish Bill in that House and another Scottish Bill in Committee upstairs. It was impossible to ignore the deliberate statement of policy which the right hon. Gentleman made last Thursday when he said that he proposed to ask Scottish Members to sit all the morning discussing the second most foolish Bill of the Session and all the afternoon and evening discussing the most foolish Bill. However foolish a Bill might be. it was impossible to throw such a burden on those who had properly the right to debate it. When the right hon. Gentleman was bringing forward his Grand Committee Resolution he declared that there was to be no undue strain thrown on Members of the House. ["No."] Did anybody doubt that the Prime Minister said that? Let them contradict him if he was wrong, but nobody who heard the Prime Minister's speech on that occasion was likely to deny it. To ask the same persons to devote all their time and attention to so novel and revolutionary a proposal as I the Scottish Land Values Bill in the morning and then to discuss the Scottish Small Landholders Bill in the afternoon was deliberately to violate the implied understanding which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House when he moved his Grand Committee Resolution. He was utterly at a loss to understand how the right hon. Gentleman could so far forget what was due to the House as to make proposals of that kind. No doubt they would save some trouble to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Small Landholders Bill. The right hon. Gentleman reminded him of a timid and inexpert rider, who insisted on his groom's exercising his steed severely in the morning so as to reduce it to the level of his powers of equitation by the time he mounted it himself in the afternoon. That might be very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman, but he ventured to say that it was excessively unfair on those English Members—and there were English Members on the Grand Committee—who ought, and he hoped would, devote their most careful attention to the work. So that here they had a Bill of the utmost importance not discussed, so far as the proceedings of that House were concerned, except on

1571
three truncated days which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister proposed to allow them, and on which they had already exhausted those people who were best qualified to take part in the discussion in the evening by throwing upon them the perfectly absurd burden of having to sit in the morning. He wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman remembered the statement he made earlier in the session, in which he promised that he would not send upstairs to Grand Committees any important controversial measures. What had become of that Parliamentary pledge? Either the right hon. Gentleman thought that a Bill which applied to Scotland must, because it applied to Scotland, be necessarily insignificant, or else he really could not have read the provisions of the measure in respect of which he was now proposing the guillotine. It would be out of order and quite unnecessary to discuss the merits of the Bill now, but was there a single human being who had read the measure who doubted in the first place its importance, and in the second place the fact that it ran directly in the teeth of every sound principle of land legislation ever held, so far as he knew, by any serious school of political thinkers in this country? [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] It could not be acceptable to those who favoured land nationalisation, because when it was compared with that school of thought this measure was hopelessly illogical and foolish, and did not fit in with the views of extremists. Let them that take the ordinary Liberal and Radical as he was only a few years ago. Such men held, and Mr. Gladstone undoubtedly believed, that dual ownership was in itself an evil, that it ought only to be brought into legislation where it existed ethically and morally already, and that far better than dual ownership was that single ownership which could be proposed by way of purchase, a system which had been adopted in Ireland with the consent of every hon. Member on both sides of the House. Was it not a very big matter to revolutionise these fixed traditions of policy which were common to every school of thought in the House—Radicals, Liberals, Irish Nationalists, Unionists, Conservatives, and Tories? And now, in a light-hearted fashion, after three days of debate carried on under the guillotine, which destroyed and had always destroyed good debate in the House, the Secre-
1572
tary for Scotland came down as a great revolutionist and asked them to adopt, with regard to parts of Scotland, which, as everybody knew, were absolutely identical in their land system with England, a system which would have horrified every single Member of the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged who had expressed his views on the land question in the last two or three generations. That was a very serious matter. Not only was this legislation bad, but the method of dealing with it was worse, and it was absolutely inconsistent with every pledge which the Prime Minister gave them as to the class of Bills which he was prepared to send upstairs in order to relieve congestion in the House. And if anything could add to the absurdity of a procedure which, in itself, was, he thought, sufficiently open to comment and criticism, it was that on the same night they were being asked to bring to a premature end two Bills both dealing with land of the same kind, held on the same tenure, worked in the same way, but dealing with that land on entirely different principles. At four o'clock the Prime Minister had moved a resolution that they should, under the guillotine, declare next Thursday or Friday that so far as Scottish land was concerned two and two made five. The Prime Minister was also going to move a second Resolution which would come on at some unknown hour that evening in which he was going to cut down the discussion on the English Land Bill to the same, limits under the-guillotine, and in that case they were going to declare that two and two made three. He could not understand how anybody with a serious countenance could propose these two Resolutions to prevent the House from discussing two quite inconsistent and different methods of dealing with one great problem. The real secret of the whole thing was let out in a moment of unfortunate candour by the President of the Irish Board of Agriculture last week when he explained to an interested and amused House that he belonged to a Government which worked in water tight compartments. The natural result was that the head of each of those water-tight compartments looked with disgust and indignation at his colleagues who happened to preside over other water-tight compartments. The President of the Irish Board of Agricul-

1573
ture did not think much of the President of the Board of Education in England in the matter of dealing with the law of the land, because he told them he was going to preserve the law, although he implied that it was his misfortune and not his fault that he was the colleague of a right hon. Gentleman who did not intend to maintain the law. The same with regard to the relations between the Minister in charge of the English Agricultural Bill and the right, hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Scottish Agricultural Bill. They required Resolutions passed on the same night, but they would be shocked at being lumped together in the same Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the English Land Bill was not, he thought, in his place; but he was sure he would look with deepest indignation at any suggestion that he should be thought to be trafficking with any of the schemes of the Secretary for Scotland, and, if they were hastily or rashly to confuse him and his procedure with his Scottish colleague and his procedure, he would have the same feeling of indignation which, he understood, was felt by a West Indian mulatto when he was described as a black. He wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for their procedure had reflected on the point to which he had now succeeded in bringing debates in the House. He had made them shorter, but he had not made them to the point. He had deprived the House absolutely of the power of discussing the details of any of the measures he brought forward. He wisely protected his colleagues from any of the disagreeables which naturally ensued when criticism affected the careless drafting or the weak logic of any measure which the Government brought forward, and, so far from occupying his time as he understood he proposed to do, with filling up the cup with regard to another place, it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was occupied in giving a great practical demonstration of the absolute necessity of some legislative Chamber where discussion and revision were still possible. As far as the House of Commons was concerned, they had got far beyond the stage of farce to which the right hon. Gentleman had so eloquently referred a few months ago, and nobody now expected, and some people were ceasing even to desire, an opportunity for discus-
1574
sing proposals, however important, however far-reaching, however novel might be the principles on which they were founded. He did not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite would reconcile themselves to this method of dealing with great social problems if it were not that they knew, as well as those on that side of the House know, that there was another Chamber. He did not believe that they would tolerate the careless drafting, the hasty legislation, the crude and even foolish proposals with which the Government now, without hesitation or a blush, inundated that House, or that they would stoop to defend them if it was not that they said—"After all, it does not matter much what the Government do. We can always trust to the grosser absurdities being removed from the legislation which this House sanctions by another place. "And if, in the process of making legislation reasonable and tolerable, they could get material for a few perorations about a hereditary Chamber, why, so much the better. He did not know that that was a very noble policy, but he thought it was a very ingenious one. He was far from desiring not to give full credit where credit was due, and, while he was unable to compliment the right hon. Gentleman on the wisdom of his measures, or on the care with which they had been drafted, or on the success with which they had been defended either in the House or upstairs, at all events he could and did compliment him from his heart on the ingenuity of the general scheme of procedure with which he had entertained the House, shortened its proceedings, and destroyed its efficiency during this and the preceding sessions.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.)said the right hon. Gentleman had shown more than his usual command of denigratory rhetoric. He had represented this Measure as one of the most inept and one of the most revolutionary ever introduced into Parliament, except the Scottish Valuation Bill, which he found to be still more inept and still more revolutionary. [Several HON. MEMBERS: The other way about. The other way about. It did not matter much; it was all the same to the right hon. Gentleman. Both fell within the same category, and which got the place of pre-eminence was a matter of complete indifference

1575
to him. Then there was the English Land Bill also, and the right hon. Gentleman told them that whereas this Bill was like a legislative enactment of a proposition that two and two made five, the English Bill was an enactment of the other proposition that two and two made three. It was a very odd thing that the Bill which said that two and two made three was not divided on upon the Second Reading, and that the revolutionary Valuation Bill now upstairs received recognition in the late Parliament by a majority of something like 200. The less said about inept and revolutionary Bills the better.
The real point was the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to the procedure of sending Bills to Committees upstairs for their Committee stage. The whole gist of the argument, in so far as it was relevant, was that this Bill ought never to have been sent to a Standing Committee. It was so sent, however, and was anyone going to say that it did not receive in Committee ample, detailed, and, if he might use the expression, meticulous consideration? It was true of himself that he did not attend the deliberations of the Committee with much regularity, but he heard a good deal of the enormities which were said to be carried on in secret there, so he thought he would visit that chamber of horrors; and the half-hour he spent there was occupied almost entirely by English Members. [Cries of "Half-an-hour."] It might have been an exceptional occasion, but his impression appeared to tally with that of many of his hon. friends that English and Irish Members took their full share in the deliberations on the Bill. The Committee sat twenty-two days, ten hours a week, during three months of Parliamentary time.
He said frankly that the object of the new procedure was to get rid of Committee stage in the House, and the Government believed that was to the advantage of careful legislation. Complicated details of measures of this kind could be much more freely, thoroughly, and effectively handled under the comparatively informal conditions of the Standing Committee than in the House. [An HON. MEMBER: Closure.] An hon. Member said the Bill was closured. Was
1576
he horrified at that? A closure on the; average after two and a half hours of discussion compared favourably with procedure in Committee of the Whole House. No one could deny that the Committee sat long and sat often, and had every opportunity of considering the measure with fulness and care. If it was otherwise, then he said legislation had become impossible. He was not enamoured of the closure. He regarded it as a temporary palliative for the evils of our present Parliamentary system. The right hon. Gentleman opposite developed the use of the guillotine to a degree previously unknown. He did not say they were not bettering his example. He should be sorry to regard it as part of the permanent machinery of the House of Commons, but until there was some business-like arrangement for allocating time between different Bills and different stages of Bills this was the only way by which the majority could, after giving full opportunity for discussion, make its voice effective. On that ground, and that ground only, the Government submitted this Motion to the House.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid stress on the words "careful legislation" in reference to the discussions upstairs. If that was the desire to be attained by the Government, they might have been expected in using the closure to apply it only to particular questions and not to whole portions of clauses. Those members of the Standing Committee who attended the sittings were perfectly aware that some portions of clauses were passed entirely undiscussed, and certainly no one could say that there had been that carefulness in legislation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was the great object of having the Bill discussed upstairs. Another matter which had not been alluded to was that the Members of the House generally had had no means of ascertaining the points which really had been discussed, the lines laid down on points of order, or the statements made by Ministers in connection with the Bill. When he asked a question in regard to that matter the Prime Minister told him that he ought to read the Scottish papers. That was the manner in which they were to discover

1577
what was going on in the Standing Committee. Surely that was hardly a dignified way of carrying on legislation! They were to get their information in the highways and byways, and they had even to go to the Scottish papers for reports of what was going on. If that was the case, surely there could be no objection to asking questions on the floor of the House, especially when they remembered the statements which were made by light hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench when the new procedure rules were discussed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton stated that under the proposal for referring Bills to Standing Committees there would be reserved to the House the fullest opportunity for discussion on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government proposed no limitation of discussion on the Report stage. What had been the actual condition of things, especially with reference to this Bill? There was the fact that of 588 Members only fifteen representing Ireland, Wales, and England who were added to the Committee had an opportunity of saying a word upon this extremely complicated measure. There was every ground, therefore, for suggesting that this was a novel procedure, that it was one contrary to the pledges of the Government, and one which ought to be resisted, however small the minority might be. Having got the whole time of the House, the Government now suggested that on the Report stage the Bill should be discussed between a quarter to four and half-past ten o'clock. Let the Government give the House the whole of the time allotted to them. At all events they asked that some concession should be made. The actual allocation of time suggested was based on the most extraordinary principle. As to the new clauses, even the Government must allow that out of 588 hon. Members there might be some who had suggestions to make when they were changing the entire land system of Scotland. After the new clauses there were six clauses which the Prime Minister admitted were the most important in the Bill, and all these were to be discussed between 4.30 and 10.30 p.m. As had been pointed out by the right hon. Member for the City of London, there was a clause which broke up the present Board of Agricul-
1578
ture. He believed that the members of that Board and all interested in agriculture would view with the greatest regret the severance of Scotland from the Board of Agriculture. The Board had been gradually built up; it had attained a status and a position of a very substantial character, and that was only because it had under its control the agriculture of England, Wales, and Scotland. He himself had been connected with a Departmental Committee on Sheep Scab, and the only possible way of dealing with that disease was by united action in Scotland and Wales and that had diminished its effect in England. The same thing might be said in regard to many other important subjects. Again, they did not know whether this Bill included fisheries, and under the operation of the guillotine there could be no particular discussion on that point. However they looked at the matter—in view of the pledges given by the Government, the Opposition had been treated in a way no minority had ever been treated before. Therefore they were bound to make the strongest possible protest against the action of the Government. The Prime Minister had said in setting up these Grand Committees that the great measures of the session would still be retained under the control of the House. What were the great measures of the session? Let them clear one thing away. Would the Government claim that the two land measures were the great measures of the session, although they said that they had always intended to send these measures to Grand Committee? It had been said that if they looked at the Order Book they would see what were the main measures of the Government. He did not think it necessary to read them through, but at all events they knew from the position that was given to the two Land Bills and the arguments that were used about them that they were going to be used by the Government as their great effort at legislation. If that were the case, and if they were to be used as the means of piling up the agony against the other House, then opportunity should be given to the House of Commons to discuss them so that the arguments that could be brought to bear against them might be reported, printed, and considered by the public. Such opportunity had not vet been given. The whole information which the vast majority of the Members of

1579
the House and of the public had in regard to these Bills had been gleaned from the public newspapers or conversations with members of the Committee. He trusted that a very strong protest would be made against the action taken by the Government.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he agreed very much with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the use of the guillotine was not an ordinary procedure that they would like to think had become inevitable. The time allowance made for discussion before the guillotine fell was too short, especially when they compared the time allowance given to the Scottish Bill with that given to the English Bill. He was one of those who had been grateful to the Prime Minister for having established the Grand Committee system, because that was the only way by which work could be done without a very large devolution of powers which he conceived the Opposition would oppose more than Grand Committees. If the Grand Committees were to provide for thorough discussion, there should be an adequate report of the proceedings; there should be the usual guidance from the Chair as in the House, and the closure should not be applied too freely. He had a marked copy of the Bill showing what portions had been carried under closure; and it revealed a very remarkable result. He doubted whether the discussion in Committee had been satisfactory, considering the extent to which closure had been used upstairs. It might be said that legislation under present conditions would be impossible without closure. It was not, but the objection was not so much to procedure as to the Bill itself. He did not object, of course, to the guillotine, but if three days were wanted for the English Bill then five times as many would not be too many for the Scottish Bill. Assuming that six days were to be given to the English Bill, he would, as a practical proposal, suggest that one day should be given to the English Bill on Report and five days to the Scottish Bill on Report. The English Bill was a very plain measure. It followed full inquiry. It utilised existing machinery and the local authorities. It was no bar to individual initiative, but provided a stimulus to it. It provided coercion both to the
1580
individual and to the local authorities It secured flexibility of tenure, disorganised nothing, and provided for experimental Work which was so particularly recommended by the Select Committee. The English Bill was a practical, not a political, Bill; it was accepted very generally by public opinion, and received a very large measure of support, not from one side of politics, but from both, which was fully justified during the Second Reading. It was carried through the Committee without the use of the closure, and was amended fairly. He could only say that if a similar Bill had been applied to Scotland, only one day would have been necessary for the Report stage of both Bills. He agreed with those who had spoken on the other side; for, after all, the difference between the conditions of Scotland and those of England was that in Scotland the equipment of farms was more costly, farm-servants were better paid, farming was of a higher character, and therefore there was less need to interfere so far as economic farming was concerned than in England. The Scottish Bill had been declared by the Prime Minister himself to be entirely different from the English Bill. That was so, but in the differences it was exactly opposite to the English Bill. Its origin had never been disclosed; it was the result of no inquiry; there was no precedent for its main provisions; no cause had been shown for it. Scotland was keen enough for land reform, but he had seen no keenness amongst practical men for the Bill. There had been a great division of Parliamentary opinion in respect to some of its clauses. In many of them it was destructive and not constructive. All these considerations afforded solid ground for asking for some time for its discussion. There was no practical defence of the Bill on the Second Reading. When certain points were discussed by the Opposition they were told that these were Committee points, and in Committee they were told that they were Second Reading points. Another objection taken by some hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House was that within the scope of the Bill there was the principle of divided ownership and divided management. And in Committee there was rather a stalwart minority instead of a stalwart majority in favour of the Bill. The stalwart minorities who were out-and-out

1581
supporters of all its provisions were not representative of agriculture. The Bill in respect of certain of its provisions ought to be considered on Report in the House as a whole, and that could not be done unless more time was allowed. It was said there was obstruction in the Committee upstairs. He denied that. No doubt the Bill took a long time, but, after all, it provided material for half-a-dozen Bills. He never recollected a Bill with so many different and contentious subjects embodied in it. It effected a revolution of tenure in the law of property and rating, and in agricultural organisation. The Opposition Amendments were moved upstairs on clear lines, and he thought they ought to be moved again. The Amendments which ought to be considered by the House were to omit these provisions which were unjustifiable, to recast other provisions upon practicable working lines, to remove those hampering restrictions which were said to check the real object of the Bill, which was to increase the population upon the soil, and to make adequate provisions for silviculture and intense cultivation. They were told that the land system had broken down. It certainly had not broken down so far as agricultural efficiency in Scotland was concerned The Bill only dealt with small farms, upon which there was the greatest possible expenditure by way of equipment. He had great sympathy with a restrictive provision as applied to bad owners, but the Bill hit the best owners. They were told that ownership was left untouched, but the Government really destroyed ownership. They were told also that the Bill was the considered policy of an enlightened Government, but Ministers who he should have thought knew most about the practical management of land exercised great restraint in their expressions of opinion. With their feet on mother earth, they had to face visionaries in the clouds. He admired the way in which the Secretary for Scotland tried to introduce some measure of supernatural law into the economies of agricultural law, but it was not business. The evils of divided ownership and the absence of responsible management which would be inflicted by the Bill would be irreparable. They would be driven on the rocks of litigation. It would end in wholesale expropriation by land purchase. That
1582
would be the consequence of the Bill. The results should be made plain to the House, and these points therefore ought to receive further and adequate consideration. He remembered that last year one of the Whips of the Liberal Party demonstrated that the people were against Socialism. He had never demonstrated that he was against Socialism, because so far as they could work collectively with equal efficiency to working individually he was a Socialist. He would, however, ask those who were so afraid of Socialism why—if it was equitable to appropriate capital invested in the equipment of land, and if it was equitable to transfer that to the occupiers, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Invernessshire frankly acknowledged was the consequence of the Bill—it would not be equitable to divide up largo houses into suitable smaller dwellings and thus solve the housing problem? If they could take the control and appropriate all the capital that was invested in the equipment of land in Scotland, to the extent of £100,000,000, and was still being invested at the rate of £2,000,000 a year, it seemed to him they could do that. The nationalisation of the land was a mild measure compared to the proposals of the Bill. No Socialist had ever proposed anything so destructive to individual initiative and to industrial efficiency.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was really now discussing the Bill, and not the Motion before the House.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he was advancing these arguments to prove the need for giving a much larger proportion of time to the Scottish Bill than to the English Bill under the provisions of the guillotine. He submitted that a fair division of time would be one day to the Report stage of the English Bill and five days to the Scottish Bill.
MR. LAMBTONsaid the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down would convince the Prime Minister that all the opposition to the Bill did not come from the English Members. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a somewhat savage attack on the English Members who had sat on the Committee upstairs. The Prime Minister told them

1583
they had no right to over-ride the right of Scotland to make her own laws, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked what right they had to speak on the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer forgot that they had to pay some of the taxation under the Bill. This was the first time he had heard two Members of the Liberal Party say that those who were going to be taxed should have no right to enter into the discussions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that he objected to guillotine methods and that he thought some better arrangements might be made upstairs. He seemed to have forgotten that the very question of the procedure upstairs was guillotined by the Government. There were Amendments put down to regulate the proceedings upstairs and to simplify them, and they would have avoided some of the deplorable scenes which had taken place. He did not think anything occurred on the Scottish Grand Committee of which any English Member at all events need be ashamed. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that their opinion was formed on hearsay evidence. Discussions on the merits of the Bill were hand capped, and in his opinion most of them were unworthy of being handicapped at all. He did not wish to say anything offensive to the Scottish Members of the Committee, but he would like to point out some of the reasons why the Committee took so much time. It was not because there was too much talk, but because there was too little information. One of the characteristics of Scottish people was that they were niggardly in giving information amongst other things. It was a characteristic of Scottish people of old standing. Since he had been on the Scottish Grand Committee he had become imbued with Scottish, so that he could hardly read anything but Scottish literature. One day, however, he had to take up an English author of some repute who wrote a Scottish play called "Macbeth." When Macbeth visited the three old maids on the Scottish heath, he said:—
"Stay, you imperfect speakers, tell me more."
That was the complaint he had to make of the hon. Gentleman who conducted the Bill for the Government. They were always met by the Solicitor-General for Scotland
1584
with a stony silence. Throughout the whole proceedings he was treated as a. Sphinx. Every now and then the Lord Advocate treated them with appeals of eloquence, and the Secretary for Scotland on every possible occasion moved the closure. The hon. Members for Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty frequently objected to the closure, and, as for all the opposition coming from the English Members, he would like to ask the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty what he thought of the Bill. He continually told them—
"My heart's in the Highlands,
My heart's in the Highlands,
My heart is not here;
My heart's in the Highlands
A 'chasing the deer."
Why should these measures be passed by sixty-two Scottish Members without any discussion by the English Members? They did not always get a quorum. Out of sixty-two Scottish Members they could only muster sixteen. He merely mentioned that to show the estimation in which this Bill was held by Scottish Members. It was said that the Bill had taken twenty-two days in Committee. What occurred? On the twenty-first day when they were dealing with the land in the burghs the right hon. Gentleman had to confess that he had not the slightest idea of the numbers of acres in the burghs or of the number of people living on them. On the twenty-second day he put a question to the Solicitor-General as to whether the Bill if it passed would prevent an owner selling land to an occupier, and the hon. and learned Gentleman could give no answer, and the Secretary for Scotland said himself that that was a matter which would have to be dealt with in the House. Thirty-three promises were made by the Government, and were all to be carried out by the Government by way of new clauses. It was now proposed to discuss the Bill in three short sittings. It had been said by the Prime Minister that twenty-two days in Committee was too much time for the Bill, which violated every principle of the land laws. He noticed that a small private water Bill, the Renfrew Water Bill, had taken eight days in Committee, and if eight days were required to consider a small private water Bill twenty-two days were not half enough time for the consideration of this. It was not that he had so much fault to find with the closure being

1585
applied as the manner in which it was applied. Comparatively unimportant Amendments were moved and a great deal of time was wasted in discussing them. If the closure had been put upon such debates as those he would not have objected But debates were allowed to run for a long time on unimportant Amendments, and then whole pages of the Bill were closured without any discussion at all. The fact was that these guillotine Motions were prearranged. The difficulties were foreseen, and when the Committee were discussing one clause they were referred to another. When on Clause 5 they were referred to Clause 10, and when on Clause 7 to a new sub-clause, and when they got on to that clause they were closured. He moved an Amendment in the first line of Clause 7, but it was closured with half the page that followed. An Amendment was raised in regard to the question of compensation, which was one of the most important parts of the Bill. But the Secretary for Scotland never responded, and the law officers for Scotland were most discreetly silent when important questions were raised. Then there were no lawyers in the Opposition, and when the lay Members applied as they often did to the Solicitor-General for Scotland for assistance to understand these abstruse points they were mot with a stony silence. It was under these circumstances that they now required more than three days to consider the Bill. The three days given under the Resolution destroyed all freedom of discussion. He thought the process of devolution under which English Members were told they were not to discuss Scottish Land Bills and that the English Land Bill was good enough for them was worse than any form of Home Rule over contemplated. It set class against class and country against country, and he most emphatically protested against the tyranny of the Resolution.
MR. MILDMAY: said the House was now accustomed to the annual comedy by which the Government of the day had to come down and with the greatest reluctance, as they said, muzzle the House of Commons. It could not be gainsaid that this procedure had been more and more drastic, until at last every sensible man in the House was
1586
subconsciously crying out for some less clumsy, more fair and more businesslike method of curtailing the debates. The Government were making a more wholesale use of the guillotine than any previous Government, and this was due to the fact that so much important legislation had been introduced so late in the House of Commons. He put it to the House that there was no precedent for the procedure by which the whole House had no opportunity to consider the details of an important measure before the 5th of August. He held that the Government had stifled liberty of speech in the House as no previous Government had done, and he thought all dispassionate Members of the House were convinced that the present method of obtaining measures by means of the guillotine was indefensible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was a temporary palliative that had lasted too long. But under those circumstances it was the duty of the Government to tackle the question and provide another method. The hon. Member for Salford, an extreme Radical, only the other day in a letter to the public Press said that he was extremely anxious to carry advanced legislation, but that there was something more important than that, viz., freedom of speech in the House of Commons. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had also spoken against this method. It could not be denied that the most important parts of Bills from the point of view of efficient legislation went through without discussion, and that in itself proved the absolute necessity for the House of Lords. They saw that necessity in connection with the Education Bill brought in by the present Government last year, when the Amendments moved in another place on behalf of the Government bulked more largely than all the other Amendments moved in that House. The author of a Bill was not immaculate, and when he introduced a Bill he expected to have Amendments made and would welcome criticism directed to points which had escaped him. A strong Government should welcome a strong Opposition so that every clause of a Bill should be dealt with from both points of view. That was the only way to get legislation to work smoothly. He had no hesitation in saying that in their hearts the whole House unanimously wished that some other method could be found than that now

1587
proposed for dealing with surplus talk. Was it not the positive duty of the Prime Minister and members of the Government, with their enormous majority, and as guardians of the efficiency of the House, to take their courage in both hands, not to make difficulties, but to tackle this question in a manner which would restore efficiency to the House of Commons?
MR. MITCHELL THOMSON: said he really thought that the aim of the Government was somewhat curious and topsy-turvy. He would recall to hon. Members opposite an opinion expressed by Sir George Trevelyan, that no Government composed of anything short of lunatics would propose to send highly contentious Bills to Grand Committees. The Prime Minister had expatiated at greater length on the same theme, and had assured himself and other hon. Members, in the discussion of procedure, that there was no necessity for their moving a large number of exceptions to the rule for sending Bills to Grand Committees, because highly contentious measures would not be sent upstairs. It followed from that statement that measures which were sent upstairs were, in the view of the Government, not highly contentious. He found that of the measures applicable to Scotland the Government had seen fit to retain two in the House, one the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) (Application of Penalties) Bill, and the other the Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. He assumed that if the definition of the Government was to be taken as correct, those two Bills were regarded as the Bills of the session, as highly contentious, and consequently were not sent upstairs. The other observation he had to make on the general question was this. In the earlier portion of the debate they had heard a reference by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the occasion on which he visited the Scottish Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was present for something like half an hour, and from his reference to it, one might be led to believe that the Scottish Grand Committee was a happy place where everything went smoothly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the closure had been used sparingly; but what were the facts? Over one third of the Bill had been passed
1588
under the operation of the guillotine. The Bill consisted of 790 lines, and of these 268 were framed under the operations of the guillotine Were the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place he would ask him, as he now asked any other member of the Government present, whether he considered that a reasonable and natural use of the guillotine, and whether, in the view of the Government, that was the sort of guillotine operation which they had to look forward to in the future. Regrettable charges had been made against Members of the Opposition of having obstructed the progress of the Bill in Committee. But he could reply to those charges on figures which he had taken the trouble to get out. One thousand two hundred and eighty-nine speeches were made in Grand Committee on the Scottish Small Landholders Bill, and of that number 636 were made by Unionist Members, and 653 by supporters of the Government. He thought these figures, which he was prepared to substantiate if required, effectively disposed, once and for all, of the charge of obstruction which had been made against Members on the Opposition side of the House.
MR. PIKE PEASE: said that the question was one of very great importance. The Prime Minister had brought forward the proposition in a very half-hearted way, and his supporters did not take the trouble to reply to the very solid arguments advanced against it. It was one of the most drastic proposals ever suggested to a legislative assembly anywhere, and he could imagine what hon. Members opposite would have said had the late Government brought in such a Motion as that with which they had now to deal. He had listened with interest and also with amazement to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made on 11th November, 1902, when after the Education Bill had been in Committee for thirty-eight days, the Closure Motion was moved by his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
"I venture to say that until this debate, whether you look back to the precedents of the past or to the reason of the thing, both the theory and the practice of the House of Commons have been that this procedure which we all regret, which none of us like, which we admit to be

1589
inconsistent with the elementary rights and privileges of a debating assembly—this procedure has never been, and ought not to be resorted to except in one or two cases in a case of extreme emergency, in the interests of public order or in the case where a Bill, having been carefully considered both by the country and by Parliamentary discussion, is ripe for a final decision. What are you doing here? You are violating those traditions: yon are flying in the face of experience; you are establishing a precedent which, I venture to say, once established will be repeated and applied in cases which will be extremely unwelcome to the large majority of those who are going to vote for this motion."
Was there any reason if they quickened their deliberations and their legislation in the manner that was now being adopted, why in the future the whole fiscal system of the country should not be changed entirely in perhaps two or three days, or why some future Budget should not be passed in a similar time? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to add—
"You are going to apply this procedure, which has hitherto been confined within limited and rational bounds, to a measure which is at once complex and revolutionary, which is neither urgent in its occasion, nor temporary in its operation, as to which the country has never been consulted"—
he thought they might apply those observations to the present Motion, as to which the country had never been consulted—
"against the hasty and ill-considered passage of which a second Chamber affords us no effectual safeguard."
He would like to refer to one very important point in the Prime Minister's observations, where he told them, that if the Scottish Members were satisfied with any Scottish measure, it ought to be passed into law. He wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman would apply the same law to Ireland or England. If he considered that the Scottish Members ought to have their will, as representing the Scottish people, in regard to any measure relating to Scotland, why should not the Irish Members have an opportunity of bringing in a measure somewhat different from the Irish Council Bill? They were told that the measure to which this Closure Resolution applied was not important. But that was said only in the House of Commons. When the right hon. Gentleman went to make a speech in the country or any of his followers made speeches in the Recess, they would say that
1590
this Scottish measure was one of the most important ever passed for Scotland. He thought the day would come when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would regret the decision at which they were going to arrive that day. He believed they would come to agree that the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were correct, when he said that proceedings such as this were a most dangerous example.
MR. STANLEY WILSON: said he had listened with considerable interest to the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he entirely failed to see that they had advanced the slightest reason for passing this Resolution or pressing it on the House. While the people of the country were spending a peaceful holiday, the House of Commons was called upon to discuss two Resolutions which would have been absolutely unnecessary but for the incompetence of the Government. The Prime Minister reminded him of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. Whenever he found himself in difficulties about his legislative proposals, he at once shouted, "Off with their heads!" At the present time he was guillotining Bill after Bill, Members were gradually becoming accustomed to the process, and now they found themselves in the unprecedented position of having two Resolutions before the House to deal with two most important Bills. Still, after a year and a half's experience of the present Government, one was hardly surprised at what they were doing. At the last election, right hon. and hon. Members opposite pledged themselves in favour of free speech, which in the House of Commons at the present moment they had absolutely destroyed. Every Bill was now forced through by means of the closure, and the only place where there was discussion was in the House of Lords, which also the Government had determined, if possible, to destroy. The Prime Minister had not made any case against the members of the Opposition, and he ventured to think that hon. Members on that side of the House would agree that it was not through any fault of the Opposition that the Government found themselves in their present predicament. The

1591
Opposition had not obstructed any of the Government's measures; in fact, had they wished to do so they would have been deprived of the opportunity by the closure. The Government had themselves alone to thank for the position in which they found themselves. They had endeavoured in the course of the session to do far too much. The majority of Members on the Government Benches admitted that. Only the other day, an hon. Gentleman, a supporter of the Government, said he earnestly trusted that the present session would be a lesson to the Government for the future not to pass a tremendous number of measures in one session as they were now trying to do. The oldest Member of the House could not remember a Government which had got themselves into such a muddle with regard to their legislative proposals as had the present Government. They had introduced important Bills right up towards the end of the session, and now they were endeavouring to do in a few short weeks what should take as many months or more. The Resolution dealt with the Scottish Bill, which was one of the most contentious measure ever discussed in the House. Later on they had to discuss the closure Resolution on the English Bill which the Prime Minister had said was a non-contentious measure. Although the Opposition did not object to the principle of small holdings they objected to many of the details of the measure. That measure was fairly considered by the Committee upstairs, but the same could not be said of the Scottish Bill; member after member of the Scottish Committee had told the House that whole pages of the Bill were closured without any discussion whatever. He had nothing to say against the Chairman of the Committee, because he was esteemed and respected on all sides of the House, but he could not help saying that it was most remarkable that whenever the Secretary for Scotland requested that the closure should be applied, the right hon. Gentleman invariably acceded to the request. The Bill introduced a new system of land tenure in Scotland. It introduced dual ownership and he failed to see why the Government should make this experiment upon poor unfortunate Scotsmen. He protested against such a Bill
1592
being forced through without adequate discussion. How could hon. Members who were not members of the Scottish Committee adequately dismiss the proposals of this Bill on Report without the assistance of any official report of the proceedings? He wished to record his emphatic protest against this Resolution.
MR. WALTER LONGprotested against the way in which these fundamental changes in the rules which governed their procedure were being carried through. It was in no sense the fault of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had had very short experience of Parliamentary work, having only been recently elected, and it was only natural that forming as they did a large majority of the House their desire should be to legislate as rapidly as possible, without due regard to the quality of their legislation or for the rights of the minority who were entitled by constitutional practice and usage to the fullest consideration in the discussion of measures brought forward. On the Grand Committee the voice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was never heard, although he had interposed on this occasion for a short time and had been called away by the urgent demands of his office. But if the right hon. Gentleman was going to make a practice of intervening in these debates, and charging the Opposition with an undue prolongation of their criticisms, the least he could do was to listen to the defence hon. Members made, and their repudiation of the charges he had thought fit to make again t them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been singularly unfortunate to-day. He had told them that he had a vivid recollection of the visit he paid to the Scottish Committee, but he appeared to have stopped short at a most important point. He desired to refer to it because it touched immediately upon the point he ventured to raise during the debate on the new rules, and which he was sorry to say he pressed upon the Prime Minister without success. By a curious coincidence when the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited the Scottish Committee they happened to be discussing a question which the Prime Minister thought English Members had no right to discuss, namely, the share they would have to find out of their own pockets

1593
towards the working of this particular Bill in Scotland. When they asked for more information on the subject they were met by the closure. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was present at the Committee, one of his hon. friends spied him and referred to the fact that he was present. He himself had contemplated putting two definite Questions to the right hon. Gentleman on the Committee, but the moment he found his presence was detected he fled from the scene never to return. He knew it would be idle to expect Ministers of the Crown not immediately connected with the Department concerned to be present at the Committee, but could there be a greater condemnation of the system than that fact? If the Secretary for Scotland was in charge of a measure it was probable that his colleagues would be on the bench beside him, but when questions arose which were outside the immediate purview of the Minister in charge of the Bill, and when the Opposition made an effective point, what had been the invariable practice? The practice had been immediately to send a messenger to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's room or to the Prime Minister or some other Minister of the Crown to come and give an answer to the question and meet the argument if he could. The Prime Minister had insinuated that the debates had been too much addressed to small points and that sufficient attention had not been paid to matters of principle. That was the inevitable result of the practice which the Government had adopted. He would like to know where the demand for this Bill in Scotland came from? What single authority entitled to speak for agriculture in Scotland could be quoted in its support? Hon. Members opposite were divided in regard to the Bill; in fact the closure was the only thing they were united upon, because they knew its application would get rid of a subject which had caused them many searchings of heart, and because they found it extremely difficult to answer the arguments put forward by the Opposition. With regard to the question of finance, the Prime Minister had criticised the interference of English Members. He wished to say that a great deal of the information upon which the Prime Minister
1594
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had based their speeches was not accurate. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not believe the Prime Minister was accurate when he said the great bulk of the criticism on the Committee was carried on by English Members. Let him remind the House who some of those English Members were. Some of them were men interested in agricultural land, who had spent their money in developing and improving it. Were they to be told that because a man did not sit for a Scottish constituency, although he was largely interested in Scottish land, he was not a proper person to take part in the debates upstairs? The number of Members not connected with Scotland either by representation or ownership, or by a large occupation of land, was very small upon the Committee. They were told that the Bill had been adequately discussed. He did not think that any Bill dealing with three principles so great as the three great principles affected by this measure had ever received so little discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the most of the fact that eleven days of Parliamentary time had been given to the Bill. It should be remembered that the Bill introduced into Scotland for the first time principles of legislation which had been followed in Ireland. The only result would be in Scotland as in Ireland that it would be found necessary to buy out the second party to the transaction. That was an entire revolution. It was a drastic amendment of the Crofters' Act which in itself, in the opinion of many hon. Members opposite, and especially those who represented the crofting counties, was a sufficient subject for legislation, and ought to have been the sole subject of legislation. The Government had in the case of England dealt with the question of small owners in one Bill, whereas in the case of Scotland that question had been lumped together with two or three other questions of almost equal importance. The Prime Minister had criticised somewhat adversely the action of English Members. If this Bill, which conferred autocratic power on the Secretary for Scotland, were

1595
put into force it would be impossible for anybody who sat on the Board of Agriculture of Great Britain to deal, as they had been able to deal hitherto, with some of those appalling diseases which had ravaged the country and destroyed so many of the cattle of the people. One case in his own experience was that of rabies. He ventured to say that if this change had been made, it would have been absolutely impossible to deal with that question in the way it was dealt with. The English Members were as much interested in these questions as Scottish Members. The justification given by the Secretary for Scotland for dealing with these matters in this Bill was that there was no such legislation with reference to Ireland. That was true; but Ireland was an island, and the subject of cattle diseases could be dealt with there in a way that was not practicable where, as in the case of Scotland, there was a land boundary. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs had dealt with the effect of the Bill on Scottish land. He was not going to deal with that, but he would give one small bit of information which in itself was an answer to every argument used by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House would not believe that the Opposition had wasted time in the Grand Committee by discussing this measure in what was equal to twelve Parliamentary days. The Government were absolutely pledged on the Report stage to deal with, or at all events to reconsider, thirty different points, some of which were small, while others were of first-class importance. It was the action of the Opposition which led to this result. In the first place it led to the insertion in the Bill in Committee of several Amendments of first-rate importance. And yet they were told that the measure had been adequately discussed. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] He understood that the hon. Gentlemen who cheered were anxious to get legislation through and would prefer bad legislation if they could get it through quickly. That did not happen to be the view of the Opposition, and he doubted very much whether it was ever likely to be their view. He did not believe it was necessary to move the closure fifty-three times, and there
1596
was proof of that to some extent. The tactics of the Minister in charge of the Bill were materially altered during the last four or five days the Bill was before the Committee. Curiously enough during those days the closure was never moved, although the debates were just as continuous and the interposition of Members of the Opposition just as frequent and determined as before. What was the result? Progress was two or three times more rapid than in the earlier stages of the Bill. He did not object to the closure in itself; it was part of our system and it would be ridiculous to object to it now. What he objected to was the method in which it was moved in Committee. During the debates on the new rules of procedure which provided for the application of the closure on the Grand Committees there was power reserved to the House for discussion on the Report stage. But if only a Bill was drawn with long enough sections the Minister in charge had only to move that the words down to the middle of the clause should stand part of the clause in order to prevent the discussion of a number of Amendments. In this case the Minister in charge introduced one Amendment of his own in a clause in order to place an extra charge on the Imperial revenue, and when he got that, he moved the closure down to the end of the clause. If that was not closure by compartments, it was first cousin to it. That appeared to be a use of the closure which was never contemplated by the House of Commons when the new rules were framed. Some portions of this Bill to which the Opposition attached the greatest importance were excluded from debate altogether by that method. He and his friends, and he believed many hon. Gentlemen opposite, were opposed to any alteration in the laws dealing with the Diseases of Animals Act which would weaken the hands of the British Government. That was a matter which affected our own trade with foreign countries. The only Amendment upon which they would have been able to discuss that question was closured by taking one half of a clause at one fell swoop. On more than one occasion there was doubt and difficulty on the Committee in regard to matters under discussion. If the Bill

1597
had been before Committee of the Whole House the Prime Minister would have been called in more than once, and he would have seen the necessity for some concession. It was absolutely idle and futile to blame the Opposition for what they did upstairs. However strong the majority behind a Government might be, no majority was so strong that it had not from time to time to make concessions.
SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: Hear, hear!
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the right hon. Gentleman cheered that sentiment In regard to nine-tenths of the Bill, not only was there no concession, but no attempt at concession. The Government presented a determined front, and argument after argument was met by pointing to the virtue of the Crofters Act, and it was held that this legislation was going to produce happiness and prosperity in Scotland.
SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: The right hon. Gentleman stated that there were thirty concessions made.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was sorry if he did not make himself clear. What he said was that the Government during the Committee stage had pledged themselves to reconsider thirty different points. That was a very different thing. The Prime Minister knew that a Government very often promised to consider a question in the most friendly way, that they did their best to meet the views of the Opposition, but not unnaturally the Government and the Opposition did not see the thing in the same light. Differences of opinion might arise as to what the Government had done in regard to the points they had promised to reconsider, and what chance was there that the reserved points would be properly dealt with? They were told by Ministers that closure by compartments was hateful to them. And yet they had made use of it more often than their predecessors. Even if they had a conference between the two sides of the House with the view of arranging the debates on the Report stage so as to bring them within three days, he doubted whether such an
1598
arrangement could be made with a Bill of this magnitude. The Government would say to the Opposition that they could select their own subjects and arrange the time for themselves. Fifteen new clauses were on the Paper, eight of them in the name of Scottish Members, and one by a supporter of the Government, while other Amendments dealt with totally different branches of the subject, such as the amendment of the Crofters Act, the Small Holdings Bill, the setting up of a Land Court, and the creation of a new Agricultural Department to the destruction of the English Agricultural Department. He did not think it was possible adequately to discuss these in three days. And let it be remembered that when the Government sought to justify their action by criticising the action of the Opposition, and by saying that the Opposition had been unreasonable in their demand, they were dealing with the Lowlands of Scotland and that the Opposition had on their side a man who had unique experience in regard to every branch of agriculture in that country. Nobody would say that that hon. Member had gone out of his way to oppose the Government except in this case. The Opposition had had throughout these discussions in Committee the sympathy and support of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs; and in regard to the crofting part of the Bill they had had the unfavourable and outspoken criticism of those who represented the crofting areas. Was there ever a case in which the Opposition had shown a cleaner record? The Bill was of the greatest importance and proposed to bring into Scotland a change in its land system which had proved disastrous in Ireland. The most representative men in Scotland who did not usually vote on the Opposition side, and the great bulk of the farmers, opposed the Bill in its general outlines. If that was the case it could not be said that the Opposition, had acted in a way in which they ought not to have acted. He regarded the great change proposed by the Resolution as a most insidious invasion of Parliamentary procedure and one which instead of curing an evil was likely to aggravate it. It would send legislation out of the House ill-digested, without the stamp of adequate discussion, and some of it never debated

1599
at all. Whatever effect that might have on another place, it would have a most disastrous effect on public opinion outside, and it was not likely to redound to the credit of the House or add to its usefulness as a legislative body.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire)said that the House had listened to what the right hon. Gentleman had said in regard to the proceedings in the Grand Committee. He acknowledged the fairness with which the right hon. Gentleman had treated the subject, although he differed from the right hon. Gentleman strongly as to what he had stated was the opinion of Scotland in regard to the Bill. He was not going to enter into the merits of their proceeding's upstairs, except on one or two points in which his own conduct had been impugned. He ventured to assert that they approached the work of the Committee much more in the temper of the right hon. Member for South Dublin than in that of the Leader of the Opposition who had characterised the Bill as "carelessly drafted," as "Party legislation," as "a crude proposal," as "a strange fantastical measure," as "a most hopelessly foolish and illogical measure." He would ask hon. Gentlemen if they were to approach the debates on a Bill animated by the spirit of those words, would it not be absolutely impossible to come to any reasonable conclusion in regard to it? He submitted that in this country we were governed by discussion. The right hon. Gentleman's whole speech amounted to nothing else than abuse of the Bill. He had never condescended to treat the measure with the least respect or as one worthy of any reasonable consideration. He asked hon. Members to put themselves in the position of the Committee which had been appointed by the House to consider the measure and to amend it where desirable. They had to meet difficulties on the merits of the Bill. There was an avowed hostility to the methods of procedure in the Committee upstairs which was something not very far short of an intention to wreck the procedure on the Bill.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he entirely denied that the right hon. Gentle-
1600
man had any right to assert that there was an avowed intention to wreck procedure.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he would substitute for "avowed" the phrase "scarcely veiled. "There was a, further objection taken largely by Members of the Opposition, and that was to the institution of a Scottish Grand Committee, and not on a count of the merits of the Bill. On those two grounds they had to meet the most violent and bitter hostility during the discussions on the Bill. Speaking for himself, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, who had always been fair, would admit that the earlier clauses of the Bill contained the principles of the measure on which there could be no substantial concession whatever made. The first four clauses contained the framework of the Bill, and there was no room for any substantial concessions in regard to them. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends took great exception to them. On the other hand, they received throughout the, proceedings the hearty and enthusiastic support of a very large body of Scottish Members. It was proper that he should acknowledge now the gratitude that he himself felt and the Government owed to the great body of the Scottish Members who were acquainted with the facts and circumstances of Scottish life and opinion, who had exercised the greatest self-restraint and patience throughout all the proceedings carried on upstairs. Of course, the closure, whether by guillotine or by compartments, was always regretted both in the House or in Committee. It was not regretted more by the Opposition than by the Government. Everybody knew that the guillotine was a double-edged weapon and that its use must necessarily arouse embittered antagonism and that it protanto delayed the proceedings in legislation. With regard to the criticism which had been passed on himself that afternoon, he admitted that this was the first occasion on which it had fallen on him to pilot a Bill of this kind, or any other Bill, through Committee and that he had not as much experience as the right hon. Member for South Dublin. But he maintained that, such was the hostility of the

1601
Opposition, if the closure had not been used they would have been discussing the Bill in Committee now. He would say further in regard to the closure that it was so used that with the exception of the point alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, he challenged any Member of the Committee to point to a single important clause which was not discussed or the discussion of which was prevented by the use of the closure. In regard to the other point brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, he would recollect the great length at which he went into the subject at the beginning of the clause and his reasons for rejecting it. He did not wish to prolong the discussion, and he saw no good reason for recrimination of any kind on these matters. For his part he had nothing to withdraw and nothing to apologise for in regard to what had fallen to him to do in the discharge of his duty. He only hoped that on future occasions in Committee the proceedings would be conducted with less friction than it had been his unhappy lot to experience on this occasion. He wished to take the opportunity of saying that he would be glad on the Report stage to confer with the right hon. Gentleman and his friends so as to facilitate the bringing forward of the subject on which he wished the House to come to a decision. It had been said that the closure had been used in order to prevent awkward questions and discussions. That was, he thought, an unworthy suggestion for which there was no foundation. He wished it could have been possible to have arranged for more discussion on the further stages of the Bill. He would only say one word more on the subject. The people affected by that afternoon's proceedings lived in a part of the United Kingdom for which the House was finding it increasingly difficult to provide time to legislate. The Scottish Grand Committee had been set up by the Government as a palliative for that evil condition of things. No adverse criticism on the conduct of the Scottish members in the Committee was valid, for, as a whole, they did everything they could to make it a working committee and to use it as an efficient and useful instrument for Scottish legislation. It was a serious and dangerous thing for
1602
the Opposition to paralyse this useful experiment in regard to Scotland. They might depend upon it that whilst Scotland was patient and forbearing and tolerant to a degree which he thought was not exceeded in any part of the United Kingdom, she had a right to her share of the time of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was under a total misapprehension if he imagined that there was not a very considerable and a very important body of opinion solidly in favour of this measure.
MR. WALTER LONG: Not agricultural opinion.
MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, agricultural opinion. There was a large body of opinion—ploughmen, farm servants, small holders, small farmers, and even a considerable number of large farmers—solidly in favour of the measure. The authentic voice of Scotland was to be found, not in resolutions of farmers' clubs and associations, but in the attitude of his hon. friends in that House. The measure was not a hasty proposal. It had been before the country now for more than twelve months, and there had been an opportunity for its discussion in every village in every county in Scotland. These being the facts, he contended that those who would dam up this channel of legislation and prevent the will of Scotland being realised in this and other measures were laying up for themselves a reckoning which would involve consequences much more serious than those which they feared.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: said he had not had the advantage of being a member of the Committee, but in some ways that was not a disadvantage, because he happened to represent a very large proportion of Members who were in the same position. They had heard from members of the Committee their views and recollections of what took place, and that was their only source of opinion. He confessed, if he were compelled to choose between the not always harmonious views given he would certainly be inclined to accept the view of his right hon. friend. They had learned something during the course of the discussion, and particularly from the speech of the right

1603
hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He had made one remark which must have struck the House as curious in view of the Motion they were discussing, when he told them that the country was governed by discussion. The whole gravamen of their charge was that no discussion was allowed. The right hon. Gentleman's remark was scarcely discreet. He had made it quite clear that his (the speaker's) right hon. friend was justified in saying that the discussions in the Committee were not carried out with that judicial regularity which they enjoyed in that House and which they would like to see in the Committees. He had made it perfectly evident that there was a vindictive spirit in the application of the closure. He had told them that he entered into the discussions believing that there was on the part of his right hon. friend and those who supported him a deliberate intention to wreck the Committee. That was a very easy charge to make, but was it not rather curious—to outsiders at any rate it seemed curious—that, if that was the case, no signs of that intention were to be found in another Committee—the Committee which considered the English Land Bill? He did not understand the compliment the right hon. Gentleman paid to the Member for South Dublin when he spoke of his moderation and courtesy on the Committee if there was this malignant purpose. They had heard and seen nothing of it on the Committee of the English Land Bill. He was compelled from from what the right hon. Gentleman himself had said and from his right hon. friend's remarks to the conclusion that the Secretary for Scotland went into the Committee with the deliberate intention of carrying matters through with a high hand. He had done that. They had already had evidence that before the Committee came to an end the force of public opinion which penetrated even to that dark recess produced an alteration in the procedure. There were some considerations which to him were important; and he thought they were absolutely justified in pressing the matter. The right hon. Gentleman made some remarks of a general character and spoke about the dangers that were likely to ensue from the conduct which he attributed to hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. It struck him that there
1604
were other dangers not less certain, not less formidable. There were some 550 Members who, practically speaking, knew nothing of what had taken place in the Committee. He was astonished, in view of the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that the Bill should ever have been referred to a Committee at all, because it was perfectly idle to pretend that it was not a matter of the most vital importance. His right hon. friend had enumerated several points which, he believed, were all made more or less the subject of closure in Committee and all of which were of vital importance, not merely to Scottish Members interested in Scottish agriculture, but to every British citizen. There was the question of introducing that lamentable failure of the Irish land system into Scotland. In the second place, there was the question of substituting other legislation for the crofter legislation. In the third place there was the question of altering the whole agricultural arrangements of the country. His right hon. friend knew, nobody better, what was the advantage of the uniform authority of the Board of Agriculture, and he had given examples of what seemed to him the immense mischief which might be done by divorcing the two sections of that common body. What did any of them know with regard to any of these subjects? This debate was going to come to an end as a triumph of that policy of concealment by which alone legislation of this kind could be carried. They were supposed to be living in democratic times, and they were always having speeches made about the great body of public opinion. That, after all, was the tribunal to which they must all go, and by which they must be judged so far as their political short-comings or successes were concerned. But what were the Government doing? They were pledging the country, under a process absolutely novel, to a series of principles which so far as they were known at all, were condemned, not by the adherents of that Party, but by five-sixths of the people of England and Scotland. If they could make it perfectly clear to every Scottish and English elector that the lamentable history of the Irish land question was to be written on the Statute Book of Scotland, he ventured to say they would have a different class of support to

1605
that which the Secretary for Scotland had declared he possessed. They did not, however, know at all, and they could not know. The one and only legitimate way in which that knowledge could be brought before the public was by debates in that House. The debates had been going on in Committee for twenty-two Parliamentary days. Who was the wiser? They were told that fifteen English and Irish Members were allowed to participate in the discussions. He was glad they were there; they had at any rate some evidence of what took place. Otherwise it was a sealed book, and the book was to remain sealed. No one was to know what had taken place. There was another danger to which the Secretary for Scotland had not alluded, and which he thought was intensified by what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had talked about this cosmopolitan Committee. He thought the word cosmopolitan indicated citizens of the world, whereas the Committee was composed of citizens of the United Kingdom. He thought it was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have treated the three sections of the United Kingdom as three separate powers. They had the argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and enforced by the Secretary for Scotland that the English Members had no business in this galère at all.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood him. He did not say anything of the kind.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he accepted the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman, but, if he did not mean that, they misunderstood a great deal of what he said. He wished to protest against any doctrine of that kind finding acceptance. The Secretary for Scotland had talked of the need for Scottish legislation, and had said that claims were made by Scotland upon Parliament for the fulfilment of her just demands. That was a very dangerous doctrine if carried too far. He had never heard it suggested, and he hoped at would be long before anyone did suggest, that Scottish Members should hold their tongues when English measures were discussed. Neither Scottish nor Irish Members ever observed that rule.
1606
It was most unfortunate that such a suggestion should have received support from the speech of the Secretary for Scotland. He protested, as a Member of the House who had never had, and never would have, any means of knowing what had taken place in Committee, against the doctrine of legislating in this hole-and-corner fashion. The Government were forcing the House to acquiesce in the registering of decrees, not in matters of technical detail, but in three or four grave matters of principle. It might be said that this was a Scottish question, but who would have thought a few years ago that it would be proposed to introduce the Irish system into Scotland? Having been introduced into Scotland, it was inevitable that it should come across the border, and he could hardly imagine any subject of greater importance to every class of the community than that such a question should be settled only with the fullest publicity and after the fullest discussion, and with the assent of the people generally concerned. The opportunity for a general discussion was now either to be taken away or curtailed.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he desired to move an Amendment to leave out "three" and insert "five" as the number of days to be allotted to the Report stage. Everybody who had listened to the debate would admit that that proposal was only reasonable. It was distinctly stated by a Member below the gangway who was a great authority upon Scottish land questions, that the clauses of this Bill contained greater principles than any Bill which had come before the House save the Home Rule Bill. Every Member who had spoken agreed that whether there had been a long discussion in Committee or not there was a necessity for a great deal more discussion before the Bill passed into law, and all the pledges given by the Government in Committee were in favour of full and free discussion in the House. He therefore thought they were right to claim full time when time was allotted as it was by the Government on this occasion. He quite admitted that if the Government would meet the Opposition in this way the time-table would have to be reconsidered, and he

1607
proposed that on the first day they should take the new clauses and Clause 1, which dealt with a very important principle. Then he thought anybody would admit that the definition of landowner and the establishment of the Land Court were sufficient to occupy another day, and a third day could be devoted to the question of the Agricultural Commission and the important matter raised by his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin. They would in that way have these great principles discussed in the House. He begged to move.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he seconded the Amendment in order to take up the challenge of the Lord Advocate, who had said there was nothing whatever of importance to discuss.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid that would be going back upon the main discussion and would not be in order.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he would endeavour to keep to the rules of order, Under this Resolution they had six clauses to discuss on the first day together with the new clauses, and it would be absolutely impossible to give adequate discussion even to Clauses 3 and 4, which were closured in Committee, and the new clauses in the time given. It was not, therefore, unreasonable to ask for further time to discuss the important question arising in those clauses, namely, the appointment of a Land Court, and he did not think the two extra days asked for was too much. It should not be forgotten that although there might be a body of opinion behind the Bill that body of opinion did not go the whole way in backing it up, and, having regard to the fact that the closure was moved on such huge blocks, he thought the Government had no right to allocate so short a time for Report.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, to leave out 'three' and insert 'five.' "—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid there was nothing to be said by him beyond a repetition of what the Government thought. They thought three-days were enough. On the first day they had rather a formidable list of new clauses, which, at first sight, was somewhat alarming. Of the fifteen new clauses only one was put down by a sup porter of the Bill and all the others by its opponents. On that ground, he thought he was justified in believing that they were not prepared with the simple desire to further the progress of the Bill. If the time at the disposal of the House for the discussion of the clauses of the Bill was shortened, the hon. Members who put these clauses down created that position.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the right hon. Gentleman might have devoted a little more attention to the appeal made by his hon. friend. His hon. friend had not protested against applying the closure at all, but had simply limited himself to the proposition that the time given by the Government was wholly inadequate. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider the first day's debate. He would not go into the importance of the six new clauses upon the Paper, two of which stood in the name of a supporter of the Government's policy in general, and in particular of this Bill; he would merely point out that whatever speed was shown in making progress, no Government had ever yet expected to get rid of the new clauses in a Bill without some hours discussion. Supposing the new clauses were disposed of in two and a half hours—there were fifteen of them, and it was sufficient to state that to show that two and a half hours was an absurd amount of time to give to the discussion of those clauses.—the six clauses were to be discussed from seven in the evening, and at a time when, ever since the alteration of the dinner hour rule, hon. Members, however ardent politicians they might be, and right hon. Gentlemen could not always be expected to be present; that was the time chosen for discussing, the three most important clauses of the Bill. He said nothing about Clauses 1 or 2; but they had to consider Clause 3, which was a sixth part of the six clauses

1609
which were to be got through before half-past ten o'clock to-morrow night. Clause 3 established a Land Court for Scotland on the model of that which existed for Ireland. He could not imagine a question of greater importance from the point of view of general legislative principles, the future of agriculture in Scotland, or the interests of Great Britain than the establishment of a Land Court, and handing over to irresponsible Commissioners or Judges the whole industry of the country. It was the most tremendous thing they could do, and however bad it was, it was not a measure whose consequences could be limited to the particular area to which they chose to apply it. The establishment of Land Courts in Ireland had boon followed by a tax on British credit of £150,000,000 sterling to do away with the effects of the system. If we adopted this policy in Scotland, the same results would follow for the taxpayer. Although the Bill related to Scotland, nobody supposed that such a precedent could be started in the northern portion of Great Britain without inevitable consequences in the southern portion of the island, if not as regarded land tenure, at least as regarded financial credit. Was it not ludicrous and preposterous that the House should be asked to discuss this matter in two or three hours as a sixth part of those clauses of the Bill which they were expected to get through on the first day before the fall of the guillotine at half-past ten o'clock? The Bill had never been discussed, except as to generalities on the Second Reading. Let them compare the demands made on previous occasions when the guillotine had been applied. The Education Bill of 1902 and the Licensing Bill of 1903, or any Bills they liked to choose in the ten years of the late Government, were measures in regard to which every opportunity was given to the House to consider the details. They had not as yet had five minutes to discuss in Committee or on the Report Stage the proposals of the present Bill; if they consulted Parliamentary history or precedents, if they considered that the real merits of the case might properly take weeks of discussion before the House accepted it, and if they compared what they might well ask for and what the Government proposed to give, he was utterly unable to believe that any man, who had a recollection of the traditions of
1610
that House even with the use of the guillotine by compartments, would not think that there never had been an outrage on the Members of the House comparable to the outrage which the Prime Minister was now perpetrating. He would not go through the other five clauses, though perhaps he ought to do so; but really the case was so overwhelming with regard to Clause 3, that he was not sure that he would materially strengthen it. There it stood, plainly and flagrantly, as the proposal which the Government intended to adopt. They were preparing to introduce for the first time into this island the greatest of all possible changes in land tenure, a change which no other country had ever been foolish enough to adopt, and which we had been foolish enough to adopt once and once only, with the result that we had ever since heartily repented of it. This was to be done without giving opportunity for anything more than a paltry debate, which would probably take place at the inconvenient hour of dinner. That meant, and could only mean, that in the view of the Government, the existence of a large majority was an excuse for carrying any measure, however preposterous, strange and revolutionary, not only without giving the opportunity of reversing or modifying their proposals, but without giving the exposition a chance even of saying what they thought of them. He deeply regretted that the appeal of his hon. friend asking for the smallest possible concession to a most reasonable demand should have met with an un argued denial—an unsupported refusal—from the Minister in whose keeping the credit, honour, and freedom of that House properly resided.
SIR F. BANBURY: said that as he understood the argument of the Prime Minister it was that fourteen out of the fifteen new clauses were hostile to the Bill, and had been, therefore, conceived in a spirit antagonistic to the measure. He did not know how the right hon. Gentleman arrived at that conclusion. He understood him to mean, if his words had any meaning, that because opponents of the Bill brought forward new clauses for the purpose of amending the Bill, and those clauses were hostile, then they were necessarily wrong and must not be discussed. That was exactly the attitude taken up in Committee

1611
by the Secretary for Scotland. He had always met their arguments by saying that the Bill was a good Bill, that the Opposition were hostile to it, and that, therefore, nothing further could be done except move the closure. He was sorry the Prime Minister was meeting their arguments in this manner, because it was not the way in which to accelerate progress. The question was whether five days were sufficient, and he thought they were not, and that more like ten days were required; but if the Prime Minister would accept five days, no doubt they, on that side of the House, would do their best to meet him and discuss those parts of the measure which were not discussed in Grand Committee. Might he point out that the first clause
consisted of eighteen subsections, which in the course of ordinary drafting would make five or six clauses, while, the clause dealing with the Land Court contained twelve subsections—or thirty subsections between two clauses. He was astonished at the moderation of his hon. friend in asking for only five days, and he was sure that on further consideration the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Scotland would accept the Amendment to insert "five" days instead of "three."
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 372.)

AYES

Abraham,William (Cork,N.E.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Ferens, T. R.

Macpherson, J. T.

Astbury, John Meir

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeagh,,Jeremiah(Down,S.)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Mac Veigh,Charles)Donegal, E.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Callum, John M.

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Crae, George

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gill, A. H.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Barnes, G. N.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John

M'Killop, W.

Barry, RedmondJ.(Tyrone,N.)

Glover, Thomas

M'Micking, Major G.

Beale, W. P.

Grant, Corrie

Mallet, Charles E.

Bell, Richard

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Gulland, John W.

Marnham, F. J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gurdon,RtHn.SirW. Brampton

Masterman, C. F. G.

Bowerman, C. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Branch, James

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

Mooney, J. J.

Brigg, John

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Bright, J. A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hayden, John Patrick

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

Myer, Horatio

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Nicholls, George

Byles, William Pollard

Hodge, John

Nolan, Joseph

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hudson, Walter

O'Grady, J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Idris, T. H. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Partington, Oswald

Cleland, J. W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Pollard, Dr.

Clough, William

Jenkins, J.

Price,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pullar, Sir Robert

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Radford, G. H.

Cooper, G. J.

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Rainy, A. Rolland

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Jowett, F. W.

Redmond,John E.(Waterford)

Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

Kekewich, Sir George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts,Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Dalziel, James Henry

Lamont, Norman

Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside)

Dewar,Arthur(Edinburgh, S.)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Rowlands, J.

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

Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington)

Runciman, Walter

Duckworth, James

Lehmann, R. C.

Samuel. Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Sears, J. E.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seely, Major J. B.

Dunne,MajorE.Martin)Walsall

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Elibank, Master of

Lough, Thomas

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

Erskine, David C.

Lupton, Arnold

Sherwell, Arthur James

Essex, R. W.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walsh, Stephen

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Snowden, P.

Walters, John Tudor

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Spicer. Sir Albert

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

Wilson, HenryJ.(York, W.R.)

Stanger, H. Y.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

Steadman, W. C.

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Waring, Walter

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason,JohnCatheart (Orkney)

Yoxall, James Henry

Thorne, William

Waterlow, D. S.

Torrance. Sir A. M.

Watt, Henry A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Trevelvan, Charles Philips

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

MR.Whiteley AND Mr. J. A.Pease.

Ure, Alexander

White, J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

Vivian, Henry

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

NOES

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Moore, William

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Craik, Sir Henry

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arnol-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Nield, Herbert

Ashley. W. W.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Banner, John S. Harmood.

Forster, Henry William

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bowles. G. Stewart

Gordon, J.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Smith,AbelH.(Hertford,East)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hills, J. W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Tennant,SirEdward (Salisbury)

Cavendish,Rt,Hon.Victor C.W.

Kennaway,RtHon.SirJohnH.

Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Whitbread, Howard

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Younger, George

Chamberlain,RtHn. J. A.)Wore.

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOB THE NOES—

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

LORD R. CECILmoved an Amendment providing that none of the allotted days should be a Friday or a Saturday. He could not believe that the Government proposed to take any one of the three allotted days either on a Friday or a Saturday which would only give them five hours. He begged to move.
SIR F. BANBURYseconded. When this Bill was before the Committee they were deprived of the services of hon. Members who were lawyers, and if the Report stage was taken on a Friday those hon. Members would still be engaged in the Courts. [An HON. MEMBER: It is the Long Vacation.] He was glad that on the Report stage they would be favoured with the presence of lawyers. Many hon. Members wished to go away at five o'clock on Fridays.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, after the word 'day,' to insert the words 'none of which shall be a Friday or a Saturday.' "—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had already informed the House that the intention of the Government was to take the Report stage of this Bill on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. It was therefore unnecessary to provide that none of those days should be a Friday or Saturday, and there was no necessity for the Amendment. He quite agreed that Friday should not be one of the allotted days for the Report stage.
LORD R. CECILsaid the only reason why this Amendment was necessary was that the Government might find themselves unable to take the Report stage on the days mentioned. The Prime Minister or the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill might be ill.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the noble Lord had given a very unpleasant reason. He had already

1615
stated that the Report stage would be taken on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. ABEL SMITH: moved an Amendment to provide that only the new clauses, and Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, should be disposed of on the first allotted day. What had been said to-day on behalf of the Government was all based on the assumption that the clauses were thoroughly discussed in Committee. He would remind the Prime Minister that Clauses 2 and 3 were passed without any discussion at all. It was too much to ask the House to dispose of the new clauses, and also the first six clauses of the Bill, on one day. The first clause was most difficult to understand, and they had never been able to get an explanation of it. It extended the provisions of the Crofters Act and must have a far-reaching effect. The second clause laid down who were to be landholders. The third clause establishing a Land Court for Scotland was most revolutionary. The fourth clause proposed to establish Agricultural Commissioners for Scotland who were to carry on the work under the direction of the Land Court. He thought the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Scotland would admit that it was too much to ask the House to deal with these matters on one day. He submitted also that the new clauses were of a varied character and raised points of importance which would necessarily occupy some time.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, to leave out the words" 1 to 6,' and to insert the words '1 and 2.' "—(Mr. Abel Smith.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'to 6' stand part of the Question."
SIR H CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that the Government considered the apportionment of time proposed in the Resolution as the fairest that could be made, but they would agree to the Amendment if the Opposition would consent to the consequential Amendments. Not more than three days could
1616
be given altogether, and if one were unloaded the others must be overloaded.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he entirely approved of the proposal of his hon. friend. He gathered from what the Prime Minister said that if only the new clauses and Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill were taken on the first day, it would be necessary to put Clause 3 into the next group, which contained matters of very great controversy. It was difficult to see how the Opposition could accept in full the suggestion of the Prime Minister that, if the Amendment were agreed to, the consequential Amendments should also be agreed to. That would mean that, besides the new clauses, eleven clauses of the Bill would have to be dealt with on the second day. That seemed to be a very large demand to make as the result of accepting the Amendment of his hon. friend. While Clause 2 was very important, Clauses 3 and 5 were also important, and he could not agree to the suggestion that they should form part of a group of eleven to be discussed on the second day.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was anxious that the two sides of the House should not work at cross purposes. He wished it to be understood that the apportionment of the time which the Government proposed in the Motion was, in their opinion, the fairest in the circumstances. He only suggested that, if it was agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, the Government were willing to accept the Amendment if Clauses 3 to 6 were included in the second day's group.
Amendment negatived.
LORD R. CECILmoved an Amendment to provide that on the first day the new clauses should be disposed of by six o'clock, Clause 1 by seven o'clock, Clause 2 by eight o'clock, Clause 3 by nine o'clock, Clause 4 by ten o'clock, Clause 5 by eleven o'clock, and Clause 6 by midnight. He said one of the great objections to proceeding by the guillotine was the enormous addition it gave to the powers of the Government of the day It enabled them, consciously or unconsciously, so to arrange their business.

1617
that practically they could avoid discussion on any particular portion of a Bill. It seemed to him a serious matter in connection with the present position of political affairs that there was a tendency for more and more power to drift into the hands of the Cabinet. If that went on, the House of Commons would become a less and less important assembly, and it would be more difficult to get men of independence to enter the House. This was not a mere whim in this particular case. It was shown in the debate the other day which took place at a very unseasonable hour on the Lords' Amendments to the Army Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester in that case pointed out that the provision in the Bill which enabled the County Associations to assist rifle clubs had never been really submitted for discussion in the House. That clause fell under the guillotine, and, therefore, the Labour Members were unable to express and enforce their views. He did not think that could be altogether avoided by any arrangement once the guillotine was established. They must modify it to some extent by splitting up a Bill in the smallest number of sections, so that there would be power to submit the Amendments on each particular section to the decision of the House. His proposal was that instead of dividing the Bill into groups of one day it should be divided into groups of one hour—two hours for new clauses and an hour each for other clauses. The only difference as to time would be that the House would require to sit till midnight on this Bill instead of to half-past ten o'clock, which surely would not be an undue demand on hon. Members. The effect of his Amendment would be that in each particular group if objection was strongly felt to one clause it could be forced upon the attention of the Government and command the consideration of the House. His scheme was designed to make the closure procedure a little less oppressive than it admittedly was to private Members.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion. He thought there was considerable force in the noble Lord's argument, that the Government by the methods now adopted were enabled to remove awkward ques-
1618
tions from the consideration of the House. At the same time he would point out to his noble friend that although his Amendment was a step in the right direction it would not altogether carry out his object. An hour was not a very long time to discuss an important Amendment. The House took different views as to what was an important Amendment. For instance, what he-might consider an important Amendment the Prime Minister would not Therefore, to start with, it would be rather difficult in one hour to pick out the Amendment round which the principal discussion should be taken. The proposal of his noble friend was, however, better than that of the Government.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 5, after the word 'day,' to insert, the words, 'Provided that the new clauses shall be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion by 6 p.m., Clause 1 by 7 p.m., Clause 2 by 8 p.m., Clause 3 by 9 p.m., Clause 4 by 10 p.m., Clause 5 by 11 p.m., and Clause 6 by midnight.' "—(Lord Robert Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words, be there inserted."
SIR H. CAMBPELL-BANNERMANsaid that the noble Lord had drawn a picture, fortunately a short one, of the decay of Parliament, and had gone on in; a characteristic way to say that we should discourage men of independent mind and public spirit from coming into the House-under the new rules. But the noble Lord's cure was to make debate even more mechanical than would be the case under the Government arrangement. It would be to make closure by compartment within a compartment. The noble Lord had contended that there should be an opportunity of discussing important Amendments, but as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London admitted, they all differed as to what might constitute an important Amendment. The noble Lord's proposal would be carrying guillotine by compartment rules almost to an absurd extreme. He did not think a remedy for the evils from which they suffered was to be found in making more mechanical rules, but rather in the other direction.
MR. ABEL SMITH: said that this was a choice of evils. There was one aspect

1619
of the question which had not been touched upon, and that was that the Government plan did not secure full consideration of any single line: whereas, his noble friend's proposal had at least this merit, that it secured some consideration for each of the clauses.
MR. CHAPLIN: pointed out that it might happen that a most important clause would be at the end of one of the compartments. Under the proposal of the Government there would be no discussion whatever on that clause. If the Amendment of the noble Lord were agreed to, however, it would at least ensure that such a clause would not be passed over without some discussion, though he admitted that it could not be adequate or satisfactory.
SIR HENRY CRAIK: said that Clause 1, although short, brought in an enormous amount of legislation by reference, and that was a calamity which had to be discussed at full length. As to Clause 2, a very important Amendment had been placed upon the Paper by a Ministerialist, and it would be a very serious thing if that Amendment were not considered. Clause 3 had practically not been discussed at all, while of Clause 4, which consisted of two whole pages of the Bill, only twelve or fourteen lines had been discussed in Committee. A shorter time might be taken to Clauses 5 and 6, in order to secure some time to discuss Clauses 3 and 4. That was absolutely essential.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that they had only to look at his noble friend's Amendment to see how ludicrous it made the whole Resolution. When they came to Clause 3 they would have to begin the discussion of the new Land Court, and the Irish system of divided ownership. Was it not ludicrous that sixteen new
clauses and six clauses of the Bill should be discussed between four o'clock and half-past ten? Could the Government suggest a better arrangement than that of his noble friend?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is in your power to use the time if you like.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that no Party in the House was in that perfect drill which he imagined, or that every Member was going to regulate his speech to suit some general scheme which had not yet been passed. The proposal of his noble friend ensured that something, it might be only one speech, or part of a speech, but still something, would be said about each one of the clauses. Everybody knew that that would not happen otherwise. He thought it would be well that the House should face the real truth, find see in its naked actuality the plan which the Government were forcing upon them It was for that reason that he would support the Amendment of his noble friend.
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid he had never yet voted, and, to far as he could see he never would vote, for a closure by compartment Resolution for the reason that such Resolution always failed to secure the discussion of important points. He admitted that the noble Lord's Amendment was too mechanical, but it secured that no clause should be passed through the House wholly undiscussed, and for that reason it was his intention to go into the lobby with the noble Lord.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 373.)

AYES

Acland-Hood,RtHn.Sir Alex. F.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cave, George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Boyle, Sir Edward

Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.

Ashley, W. W.

Bull, Sir William James

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

Balcarres, Lord

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone E.)

Balfour,RtHn. A. J.(CityLond.)

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

Chamberlain, RtHn. J.A.(Worc.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Carlile, E. Hildred

Chaplin, Rt. Hon Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kennaway,Rt.Hn. Sir John H.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Faber, George Denison (York)

Long,RtHn.Walter (Dublin, S.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Fell, Arthur

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Ferguson, R.C. Munro

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Thomson, W.Mitehell-(Lanark)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Macpherson. J. T.

Thorne, William

Forster, Henry William

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Valentia, Viscount

Glover, Thomas

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Gordon, J.

Moore, William

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

O'Grady, J.

Younger, George

Hills, J. W.

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Hunt, Rowland

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Randles, SirJohn Scurrah

Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Abel Smith.

Jowett, F. W.

Rawlinson,JohnFrederick Peel

NOES

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Gill, A. H

Molteno, Percy Alport

Astbury, John Meir

Gladstone,RtHn.Herbert John

Mooney, J. J.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Grant, Corrie

Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gulland, John W.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Barnes, G. N.

Gurdon.Rt.Hn.SirW.Brampton

Murphy, John (Kerry, East

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Myer, Horatio

Beale, W. P.

Harmsworth.R. L.(Caithness-sh

Nicholls, George

Bell, Richard

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nolan, Joseph

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Berridge, T. H. D.

Henderson,Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bowerman, C. W.

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Branch, James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Parker, James (Halifax.)

Brigg, John

Holt, Richard Durning

Partington, Oswald

Bright, J. A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Pollard, Dr.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hudson, Walter

Price,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hyde, Clarendon

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Idris, T. H. W.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Byles, William Pollard

Illingworth, Perry H.

Radford, G. H.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jardine, Sir J.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cair-Gomm, H. W.

Jenkins, J.

Redmond,John E.(Waterford)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)

Rees, J. D.

Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston S.]

Jones, William)Carnarvonshire)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cleland, J. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Roberts,CharlesH.(Lincoln)

Clough, William

King,Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradford

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

Lamb,Edmumd G.(Leominster)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cooper, G. J.

Lamont, Norman

Rowlands, J.

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Runciman, Walter

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington)

Sears, J. E.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lehmann, R. C.

Seely, Major J. B.

Cox, Harold

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Shackleton, David James

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Dalziel, James Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Sherwell, Arthur James

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lough, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dewar,Arthur(Edinburgh,S.)

Lupton, Arnold

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Duckworth, James

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Snowden, P.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

MacVeigh,Charles)Donegal,E.)

Stanger, H. Y.

Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

M'Callum, John M.

Steadman, W. C.

Elibank, Master of

M'Crae, George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Erskine, David C.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Essex, R. W.

M'Killop, W.

Ure, Alexander

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Micking, Major G.

Vivian, Henry

Everett, R. Lacey

Mallet, Charles E.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Ferens, T. R.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Walsh, Stephen

Ffrench, Peter

Marnham, F. J.

Walters, John Tudor

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Massie, J

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

Fuller, John Michael F

Masterman, C. F. G

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fullerton, Hugh

Micklem, Nathaniel

Waring, Walter

1622

1623

Wason,JohnCatheart (Orkney)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Waterlow, D. S.

Whitley,JohnHenry)Halifax)

Yoxall, James Henry

Watt, Henry A.

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

White, J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

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

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

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

Main Question again proposed.
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 177; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 374.)

AYES

Abraham,William(Cork, N. E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Molteno, Percy Alport

Astbury, John Meir

Grant, Corrie

Mooney. J. J.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morgan. G. Hay (Cornwall)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gulland, John W.

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Gurdon,RtHn.SirW.Brampton

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morton. Alpheus Cleophas

Barnes, G. N.

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

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Myer, Horatio

Beale, W. P.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholls. George

Bell, Richard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nolan, Joseph

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

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hodge, John

O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bowerman, C. W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

Branch, James

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Grady, J.

Brigg, John

Hudson, Walter

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bright, J. A.

Hyde, Clarendon

Partington, Oswald

Brocklehurst. W. B.

Idris, T. H. W.

Pollard, Dr.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jardine, Sir J.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Byles, William Pollard

Jenkins, J.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Johnson, W. (Nnueaton)

Radford, G. H.

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Jowett, F. W.

Rees, J. D.

Cleland, J. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Ridsdale. E. A.

Clough, William

King,AlfredJohn(Knutsford)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

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

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cooper, G. J.

Lamont, Norman

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Rowlands, J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Runciman, Walter

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lehmann, R. C.

Sears, J. E.

Cox, Harold

Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

Seely, Major J. B.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Levy, Sir Maurice

Shackleton. David James

Dalziel, James Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lough, Thomas

Sherwell. Arthur James

Dewar,Arthur(Edinburgh, S.)

Lupton, Arnold

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Duckworth, James

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sinclair. Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furnes)

Macpherson, J. T.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Snowden, P.

Dunne. MajorE. Martin)Walsall

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Stanger. H. Y.

Elibank. Master of

M'Callum, John M.

Steadman. W. C.

Essex, R. W.

M'Crae, George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Killop, W.

Thorne, William

Ferens, T. R,

M'Micking, Major G.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Ffrench, Peter

Mallet, Charles E.

Ure, Alexander

Fuller, John Michael F.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Vivian, Henry

Fullerton, Hugh

Marnham, F. J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Gill, A. H.

Massie, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Masterman, C. F. G.

Walters, John Tudor

Glover, Thomas

Micklem, Nathaniel

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Waring, Walter

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Yoxall, James Henry

Wason,JohnCatheart (Orkney)

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarthen

Waterlow, D. S.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Watt, Henry A.

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

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

NOES

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craik; Sir Henry

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, W. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingon

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Banner. John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, Sir William James

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hills, J. W.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

Hunt, Rowland

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway,Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

Thomson, W. Mitchell. (Lanark)

Cave, George

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

Cavendish, Rt.Hon. Victor C.W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

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

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Wore.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Courthope, G. Loyd

Moore, William

Question put accordingly.
The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 375.)

AYES

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Dalziel, James Henry

Hudson, Walter

Astbury, John Meir

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hyde, Clarendon

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Dewar, Arthur I Edinburgh, S.)

Idris, T. H. W.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Duckworth, James

Jardine, Sir J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Jenkins, J.

Barnes, G. N.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Beale, W. P.

Elibank, Master of

Jowett, F. W.

Bell, Richard

Essex, R. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

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

Esslemont, George Birnie

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Everett, R. Lacey

Laidlaw, Robert

Bowerman, C. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Ffrench, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Branch. James

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Brigg, John

Fullerton, Hugh

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Bright. J. A.

Gill, A. H.

Lehmann, R. C.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gladstone,Rt Hn.HerbertJohn

Lever,A.Levy (Essex, Harwich

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Glover, Thomas

Levy, Sir Maurice

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Byles, William Pollard

Grant, Corrie

Lough, Thomas

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lupton, Arnold

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gulland, John W.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gurdon,RtHnSir W. Brampton

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macpherson, J. T.

Cleland, J. W.

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Clough, William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)

Collins. Stephen (Lambeth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

M'Callum, John M.

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

M'Crae, George

Cooper, G.J.

Henderson,J.M.)Aberdeen, W.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Hodge, John

M'Killop, W.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Holland, Sir William Henry-

M'Micking, Major G.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Holt, Richard Durning

Mullet, Charles E.

Cremer, Sir William) Randal

Horniman, Emslie John

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Marnham, F. J.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ure, Alexander

Massie, J.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Vivian, Henry

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rees, J. D.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Ridsdale, E. A.

Walsh, Stephen

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walters, John Tudor

Mooney, J. J.

Robertson,SirGScott (Bradf'rd

Walton,SirJohnL. (Leeds,S.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Waring, Walter

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Rowlands, J.

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Runciman, Walter

Waterlow. D. S.

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Sears, J. E.

Watt, Henry A.

Myer, Horatio

Seely, Major J. B.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Nicholls, George

Shackleton, David James

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Nolan, Joseph

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sherwell, Arthur James

Whitley,JohnHenry (Halifax)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Williams. Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

O'Grady, J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Snowden, P.

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

Partington, Oswald

Stanger, H. Y.

Wood, T. M.Kinnon

Pollard, Dr.

Steadman, W. C.

Yoxall, James Henry

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Strachey, Sir Edward

TELLERS FOB THE AYES—

Pullar, Sir Robert

Thorne, William

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

Radford, G. H.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

NOES

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Courthope. G. Loyd

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Ashley, W. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Moore, William

Balfour,RtHn. A. J. (CityLond.)

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson. Wm. G. (Petersfield

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Pease. Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Boyle. Sir Edward

Gordon. J.

Roberts. S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall).

Bull, Sir William James

Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford

Rutherford. John (Lancashire)

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

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hills, J. W.

Smith,AbelH.(Hertford,East)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester.)

Cavendish,Rt.Hon. VictorC.W.

Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor).

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

Chamberlain,RtHn.J. A. (Wore.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Ordered, That the "Report Stage of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill be brought to a conclusion in three allotted days; and—

(a) That the new clauses and Clauses 1 to 6 of the Bill be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; and

(b) That Clauses 7 to 15 of the Bill (if and so far as not previously disposed of) be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day; and

(c) That the remaining clauses of the Bill and the schedules, and any

other matter necessary to bring the Report stage of the Bill to a conclusion (if and so far as not previously disposed of), be proceeded with on the third allotted day and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day.
Any day on which the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this order.
At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are to be brought to a conclusion, or if that day is a Friday at

1629
5 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall, if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any new clauses or Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other clauses or Amendments), and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or schedules he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on any allotted day shall, instead of being taken on that day as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding the Standing Order "Sittings of the House."
At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order of the Day, or if that day is a Friday or Saturday at 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
After the passing of this order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill stand as first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order 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.

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS IN MERIONETHSHIRE—TEACHERS' SALARIES (MOTION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT).
LORD R. CECILsaid the matter he desired to bring to the attention of the House by the process of moving the adjournment was one of some consider-
1630
able importance and related to the action taken by the local education authority in the county of Merioneth with regard to the salaries of the teachers in non-provided schools. Hon. Members would remember that as soon as the Education Act of 1902 was passed a considerable agitation was aroused in Wales, largely by Members of the present Government, the object of which was to bring about what was commonly called the Welsh revolt. The general purport of the movement in the first instance was to decline to work the Act altogether, but that was soon abandoned because some of the chief movers in the revolt accepted places of profit for the administration of the Act. The next phase of the revolt consisted of depriving the voluntary schools of assistance out of the rates. No one who watched what took place could doubt that the real object underlying all was to injure the Church of England. He knew that that was denied, but looking at the facts of the case he had very little doubt that that was the real object. The methods by which this was sought to be carried out were various. One was to under staff the voluntary schools.
MR. ELLIS DAVIES: That is not true.
LORD R. CECIL: The hon. Member, with scant courtesy, said that was not true.
MR. ELLIS DAVIES: True in a single instance only, but not generally.
LORD R. CECILsaid he had brought cases to the notice of the House. Another method was to underpay the teachers in Church schools. They were not only paid at very much lower rates than prevailed for similar teachers in the council schools.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.)said he understood that the noble Lord had risen to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance. He wished to know if the hon. Member was in order in going into the whole history of this question.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was only briefly discussing the subject. In this movement the county of Merioneth had always taken a very active share, and he dared say was very proud of it. They had been supported by conferences and by public bodies, to whom the President of the Board of Trade had made valuable and very strong speeches. He remembered one in 1905, and he thought the President of the Board of Trade had taken his part in stirring up the people of Merioneth to resist as far as possible the enforcement of the law.
MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: The President of the Board of Trade has never been in Merioneth.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not say that the right hon. Gentleman had been in Merioneth, but he had spoken at other places. The teachers of voluntary schools were entitled to receive their quarter's salary on the 1st July, or shortly after the 1st July. So were the teachers in the council schools. The teachers in the council schools had all been paid, every one of them, he believed, by the 12th July. The teachers in the voluntary schools had not been paid. There were twenty-one voluntary schools in Merioneth, employing fifty or sixty teachers. Not one of those teachers had received a penny of salary up to the present time from the local authority. He asked the House to consider what that meant to men in this walk of life. Most of them were deprived of the opportunity of taking a holiday at all. Many of them had suffered more serious disadvantages. Obviously the case was not so much one of paying them out of the rates as of delaying payment. It was an organised delay of payment to the voluntary teachers of their salaries. It had been done over and over again since 1904, and this was a particularly complete and flagrant case. It was not an isolated question of administration; it was a deliberate deprivation of these very poor men and women of the means they would otherwise have of taking the very necessary holiday which their work allowed them. One teacher, by this action of the local authority, had been prevented from paying his insurance premium and keeping up his insurance.
1632
In another case—he admitted that it was a mere accident that it should be so—the teacher had a bedridden wife; and of course the injury fell far more on the invalid than on the healthy members of the household. Admittedly the whole defence of this action was the injury which it would do to denominational schools. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen realised what this proceeding of the local authority meant. They were inflicting gross injustice and hard ship on men and women who had done no wrong at all, in order to further an object with which, whether worthy or unworthy, these people had no concern. He did not think it was recognised by the people who supported these lawless proceedings that it was always the poorest and weakest who suffered. Proceedings of this sort were directed against rich corporations and political organisations. The rich and powerful corporations were wholly unaffected, and the political organisations gained rather than lost. The people who suffered were the poor men and women who were deprived of their salaries. One of the teachers had written to him, he must say with admirable self-restraint. He said—
"I think it very hard indeed, after such hard work, for the money to be withheld in Party spite, to prevent teachers having a holiday and paying important bills."
That seemed to him a very serious indictment. The remedy was exceedingly simple. It was provided by Parliament and could be employed by the President of the Board of Education without the least difficulty. He referred to the Defaulting Authorities Act. It provided that the Board at Whitehall might repay the managers the expenses which the local authorities ought to have met. It was true that the managers would have to pay the teachers first out of their own pockets, but the President of the Board of Education had only to send a circular to the managers of the twenty-one schools telling them that the money would be repaid to them, and nobody could doubt that within a week every voluntary school teacher who had been deprived of his salary would be paid. Many of these managers were nearly as poor as the teachers themselves, and to ask them to run the risk of a long lawsuit with the local

1633
education authority without being assured beforehand of the support of the Central Department was to ask them to do something which was utterly un reasonable. He did not think they would be discharging their public duty if they fell in with any such proposal. The plan which he suggested would do justice and hurt no one, except that it would, no doubt, injure the effective carrying out of this mean and paltry form of persecution. He was asking the right hon. Gentleman to do that which was very much against human nature, for the President of the Board of Education had spent many hours in the last Parliament in denouncing this Act. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] He observed that hon. Members opposite cheered this statement. He confessed that in view of recent history he was amazed at those cheers. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen took the trouble to recall some of the Bills at the present moment before Parliament, they would remember that one contained powers to coerce local authorities far more extensive than anything contained in the Defaulting Authorities Act. It contained powers to compel county councils to undertake experiments in land culture which they did not desire to do, and then compelled them to pay the expenses of that culture out of the rates rather than out of the taxes. The same policy had been adopted in connection with the Labourers (Ireland) Act last year. But he had a more definite statement by the Prime Minister, who said in reference to the question of unemployment, as long ago as 1904—
"While the central authority should give latitude to local bodies, it ought to have large powers of compelling local authorities to do their duty."
The policy of the Defaulting Authorities Act had been put into force over and over again by the Liberal Party. The only possible reason for declining to enforce it now was the recollection of the irresponsible utterances of Gentlemen who now sat on the Treasury Bench. At any rate, whether that was the reason or not, he was quite certain that he had the concurrence, in their own minds, of nine-tenths of the people who heard him. This scandal, this attempt mali-
1634
ciously to persecute voluntary school teachers who had committed no fault whatever, who had stuck to their duty and had taught the children entrusted to their care to the best of their ability, must be put a stop to. H was quite confident that he carried wit him the opinion or judgment of practically the whole House. He did not believe that if they searched through the last fifty or one hundred years they would find a case comparable to that which he was putting before the House. They were told that it was members of the Church of England who were intolerant. In the greater proportion of the local authorities members of the Church of England were in an enormously overwhelming majority. ["No."] It was so. Could hon. Members opposite quote a single instance of treatment even remotely resembling that which had been meted out to the teachers in this case, in any Wesleyan or other school? He knew they could not. If they took action of the kind to which he now drew attention there would be such a storm among hon. Gentlemen opposite that a Motion for adjournment would be regarded as a poor and inadequate remedy. This was a course of intolerance and bigotry; it was very mean and cowardly besides, and ought to be put a stop to directly by the Central Government. It was this spirit of intolerance and bigotry which made the settlement of the education question so difficult, if not impossible. Until the Welsh authorities, under the leadership and instigation of the right hon. Gentleman and others, abandoned this kind of policy, he was perfectly certain that whether, as the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say a few days ago, they came with the sword or in peace, they would not settle the education question, whatever legislation they passed. A stop must be put to this action, and put with a very strong hand, in the interests of education and of peace, and, above all, in the interests of the teachers and of the children they taught. He begged to move.
*MR. LANE-FOX, in seconding the Motion, said it seemed to him hat his case was

1635
of a gross and marked kind, directed against a class who were least able to defend themselves. It was a striking case in which the Government ought to try to do justice to those who were unable to protect themselves against a strong and powerful local authority. He was surprised that none of the hon. Members below the gangway were supporting this Motion, because it was a case of protecting the weak against the strong. Under the Act of 1902 it was the duty of the Board of Education to protect the teachers from oppression of every kind. The President of the Board of Education seemed to be throwing away his power of seeing fair-play between the teachers and the local authority. This system of using the teachers in a political campaign was no new matter; it had been tried in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Upon a previous occasion the present Chief Secretary for Ireland when he was at the head of the Board of Education insisted upon the law being carried out. What made the present instance more important was that this was not the first time this sort of thing had occurred under the administration of the present President of the Board of Education. In a case which occurred at Royston in the West Riding, of Yorkshire, the right hon. Gentleman proved that he was not prepared to stand up for the teacher against the local authority.
MR. MCKENNA: Nonsense.
*MR. LANE-FOXsaid he was not aware what were the canons of civility on the Treasury Bench; but was it usual for a Minister of the Crown to interrupt a speaker with the word "Nonsense"?
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. EMMOTT)said he did not hear who used the expression, but he must point out that these constant interruptions tended to disturb and prolong the debate.
MR. LYTTELTONpointed out that the expression fell from the Minister for Education, and he trusted Mr. Deputy-Speaker would ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
MR. McKENNA: May I ask whether, when an hon. Gentleman charges me with
1636
refusing to fulfil my duty in protecting the weak against the strong, I am in order in informing the hon. Gentleman that he is talking nonsense?
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I certainly do not think that "nonsense" is a phrase that ought to be used. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
MR. McKENNA: In deference to your ruling, sir, I withdraw.
*MR. LANE-FOXsaid that in the case he had mentioned the action of the right hon. Gentleman justified him in saying that they had every reason not to trust him in the matter because he did not fulfil his responsibility and failed to protect a man who required his protection. [Cries of "Order, order."]
MR. LEIF JONESasked if the hon. Member was in order in making a charge which it was impossible for the Minister for Education to reply to because it would not be in order.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I confess that I do not see the relevancy of this particular matter. I must remind the hon. Member that he must keep within the terms of the Motion.
MR. LYTTELTONasked if it would not be in order to show that this was part of a system and that there had been other instances.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot see that other instances even of a like kind arise on this Motion which is a Motion for the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.,—the case of Merionethshire. The debate must be confined to the case of the Merionethshire teachers, which is the "definite matter of urgent public importance" to which attention is now being called.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid that if it could be shown that there had been other instances surely that was relevant.
MR. McKENNAsaid the case to which the hon. Member was referring was not a similar case at all, but a totally different one.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is quite clear that the hon. Member cannot discuss other cases in detail. This debate ought to be confined to the question on which leave of the House was granted, and my ruling is that the discussion must be confined to that.
*MR LANE-FOXsaid he had no intention of going into the case he had alluded to in detail, and he only mentioned it as an illustration. When this question was raised a short time ago the right hon. Gentleman sheltered himself behind the plea that the teachers could sue the managers. Did not the words "maintain and keep efficient" put the whole responsibility upon the local educational authority? There was another reason why they had strong grounds for not having absolute faith in the Board of Education, and that was the undoubted bias of Mr. Davies, the Superintendent of the Welsh Department of the Board of Education, in regard to his post before he was appointed. That was why the managers would be unable to have confidence in the impartiality of the Board in this case. Where a clear case of oppression of the teachers was proved the House ought to back up the managers. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he was prepared to do as much as the Member for Oxford University to secure fair play for the teacher, and he had given that deliberate pledge to the House. What the late Government did in similar cases was to put into effect the Defaulting Authorities Act, and that was what they asked the right hon. Gentleman to do now. All the President of the Board of Education had to do was to send a circular round to the managers letting them know that if they incurred this expenditure they would be backed up by the Government, and there was no doubt that then the way would be clear, and the teachers' salaries would be paid. The reason why they insisted upon immediate action was that this was part of what was known as the Welsh revolt, and nobody would attempt to deny that revolt had been largely the practice in Wales. He thought he could prove why it was necessary that hon. Gentlemen should act speedily. The whole essence of the revolt he had alluded
1638
to was that there should be a series of protracted delays.
MR. MCKENNAasked if the hon. Member was in order in proceeding to enter into this question, because he would, not have an opportunity of answering him. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why not?"]
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe question of the Welsh revolt is not the definite matter of urgent public importance raised in the Motion, and therefore it is not in order.
LORD R. CECILasked if his hon. friend would be in order if he dealt with any topic which might affect the necessity for this Motion.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not interrupt the hon. Member when he merely said that this was part of the Welsh revolt, but he was proceeding to go into the tendencies of that revolt and that is not in order. The discussion must be confined to the definite matter of urgent public importance.
*MR. LANE-FOXsaid what he was proposing to go into was that the essence of the Welsh revolt was systematic delay, and therefore this case under discussion was the beginning of a series of delays in Merionethshire.
*MR. DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf this case is the beginning of a series, then this one case may be and is a definite matter of urgent public importance, but the remainder of the series cannot be discussed. They can be neither definite nor urgent, for they have not occurred.
*MR. LANE-FOX: said this case was one in which the teachers really wanted support and help. He appealed to the President of the Board of Education as a man of fairness to see that justice was dealt out as between these teachers and the local education authority. He thought the urgency of the matter fully justified his hon. friend in bringing it before the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Lord Robert Cecil.)
MR. MCKENNAsaid he did not remember a case in which the adjournment of the House had been moved on such flimsy grounds. He was not speaking now of the hardship of the teachers, which he admitted had been serious, nor of the desire which everybody entertained that the hardship should be put an end to, but he was speaking of the charge against the Government of having failed to do their duty. Neither the noble Lord nor the hon. Member who seconded the Motion had the faintest suggestion to make as to what the Government could legally have done under existing circumstances. The teachers had not been paid their salaries which were due on the 1st of July. As the facts stood, there were only two remedies open to them. The first was for the teachers to sue the managers, who could then have joined the local authority as defendants. Thus speedy judgment could have been obtained in the county courts.
LORD R. CECILindicated dissent.
MR. MCKENNAsaid the noble Lord shook his head. He did not know that the noble Lord intended to dispute the accuracy of what he had said.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that it would have been open to the local authority to put every possible obstacle in the way of a speedy judgment.
MR. MCKENNAsaid the noble Lord was apparently not familiar with the procedure. What obstacle could the local authority put in the way of the county court procedure? By this time the teachers in every case would have obtained judgment. The Government were in no wise responsible for the neglect of this remedy. The second remedy open was that the Government could have considered the propriety of proceeding against the local authority by mandamus. Here he must remind the House that what the noble Lord had really complained of was not the action of the Government, but the Act of 1902, which was responsible for this state of things. Did the noble Lord suggest that if the Government had proceeded by mandamus in the month
1640
of July that would have been of the faintest advantage to the teachers? That would have been a case in which the local education authority could have caused an infinite amount of delay. And his hon. friend the Attorney-General reminded him that he could not have got even a mandamus to pay money. Would the noble Lord tell him what other procedure was open to the Government? The noble Lord relied on the Act of 1904. He had not read that Act.
LORD R. CECIL: Oh, yes, I have.
MR. MCKENNAsaid he could not understand how the noble Lord, having read that Act, could have made the speech he had made. The Act said that the Board of Education might, if they were satisfied that it was expedient to do so on account of any default of the local authority in the performance of their duties, if it appeared that the managers of a school had for the purpose of maintaining and keeping the school efficient incurred any expense for which provision had been made by the local education authority, pay to the managers such amount of expenditure as in the opinion of the Board was properly incurred. He could assure the noble Lord that it did not appear to them that the managers of any school had for the purpose of maintaining and keeping the school efficient incurred any expense. It was, on the contrary, well within the knowledge of the Board that the managers had not incurred any expense. He had to be satisfied that the managers had incurred expense before he began to consider whether it was expedient to act. He had no power to issue a circular. He had no statutory power to give a guarantee beforehand as to the payment of public money to the managers. The method of the Board of Education at present was to proceed according to the law. The noble Lord had been brought up in a different school. He had no power to consider a refund of any sums of money until the managers had themselves paid the money. Where had the Government failed to act? The House would be surprised to hear, notwithstanding the moving tale of a bedridden wife, and a teacher prevented from paying his insurance, that, as a matter of fact,

1641
through the action of the National Union of Teachers the salaries of the teachers had been paid.
LORD R. CECILsaid the hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken. Out of fifty or sixty teachers not more than twelve to fifteen were members of the National Union, and they had only received two-thirds of their salary.
MR. McKENNAregretted to hear that so small a number were members of the National Union. He had been informed that, as a matter of fact, the teachers were paid. Everybody deplored that any teacher should suffer, but he appealed to the House whether the obvious and appropriate remedy was not that the teachers should sue the managers, who could exercise their right of joining the local authority as co-defendants.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought the hon. Gentleman took a singular view of his functions. These teachers' salaries were in arrear. Their holidays were approaching, if they had not already begun. They had no money with which to pay their more immediate bills. That money was unlawfully withheld by the local education authority, whose duty it was to maintain the schools and to pay the teachers. The teacher wanted his money and the right hon. Gentleman offered him a lawsuit, and that when he had the remedy in his own hands and could secure the payment of the salaries at once. Then be mentioned the alternative of a mandamus; but the result of proceeding in that way would probably be that for about a year and a half the teacher would have to go without his salary. What were the means the right hon. Gentleman had under the Defaulting Authorities Act? If the Board of Education were informed that the teachers were not paid they should write to the local education authority and invite their observations. If they get unsatisfactory observations they should write to the managers to ask whether the salaries had been earned and were unpaid. That was a form with which the right hon. Gentleman ought to be familiar by this time. The Board should then write again to the education
1642
authority and say, "If you do not do what you are bound to do, we shall enable the managers to pay, and the money will be deducted from your Parliamentary grant." If they got an unsatisfactory answer, all they had to do was to say to the managers, "You can pay the teachers and we shall regard that payment as a payment for which provision should be made by the local authority, and we shall pay you when the time comes." That was the law, and it had been put in practice without question and with most satisfactory results. So much for the unfortunate incapacity of the right hon. Gentleman to do what was right. He had told the House that he was awaiting a reply from the local authority. The President of the Board of Trade in one of his speeches in the early days of the Welsh Revolt had said that one weapon the local education authority could use with effect was delay. He described how the voluntary schools could be injured by withholding the teachers' salaries, by under-staffing, or in various other ways in which an ingenious local authority could persecute them; and he pointed out that the Board of Education would communicate with the local authority and they would give an assurance that the matter would be fully considered at the next meeting, that care should be taken as to the position of the matter on the agenda, and that by the time it was reached the council would be weary, the last trains would be leaving, and the matter would be postponed to a more convenient season. Meanwhile the voluntary school would undergo, as the right hon. Gentleman hoped, a gradual process of starvation. So much for the latitude of communication which the President of the Board of Education thought was necessary before he could put into operation the Defaulting Authorities Act, and do common justice to the teachers in these voluntary schools. It is not as if this was a solitary instance. It was part of a scheme of oppression by the local educational authorities. This was not the first but the third or fourth time that the voluntary school teachers had had their salaries withheld till the quarter after the holidays.
MR. MCKENNA: said there was delay in 1905.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he believed that there was delay in that year, but it did not come to his knowledge, or he would have come to the rescue, as in the case of Montgomeryshire, and with good effect. There was no delay or laches on his part; it was mere want of information.
MR. MCKENNA: It happened before.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he did not think so. The county of Merionethshire was, the first local education authority in which the Defaulting Authorities Act was put into operation, but on other grounds. The question was urgent and important because it was an illustration of the attitude of the Board of Education on these matters. Wherever a voluntary school made any lapse in the exact requirements of the Board of Education, every opportunity was taken to destroy it. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentlemen said "Hear, hear," and that was the embodiment of the Nonconformist conscience. Did the hon. Member desire that every advantage should be given to the county council schools and that no relief should be given to the voluntary schools? [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: Denominational schools; there are no voluntary schools.] At any rate, this illustrated the attitude of the Board of Education. In the case of a school near Halifax every arrangement had been made for carrying out necessary repairs. The Education Bill of last year threw into suspense every matter of that nature. But at the beginning of this year the managers were prepared to carry out there pairs, and the Board of Education said that the time had passed and the school was ruled out.
MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked whether the hon. Baronet was in order in referring to other schools.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid he did not see that the hon. Baronet's argument referring to the action of other local authorities was relevant. The action of the Board of Education in reference to
1644
repairs o! a school not even in Merionethshire was clearly outside the definite case of the Merionethshire teachers.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that that was an illustration of the action of the Board of Education in failing to secure justice being done to the teachers of denominational schools, while it was in their power to see that justice was done.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid he thought the hon. Baronet must feel that his remarks did not come within the scope of the Motion, which referred to a matter of definite urgency and public importance—the non-payment of the teachers in certain schools in Merionethshire.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he would not say one word more as to the stringency with which rules were enforced on voluntary schools, but he would add a few words as to the deplorable laxity with which the President of the Board exercised his powers in enforcing the law as regarded the duty of the county councils schools. The right hon. Gentleman ought to insist upon the county council doing its duty to the voluntary schools. If there was a body of men who deserved well of the State it was the teachers in the elementary schools. Their holidays were, moreover, especially necessary to enable them to bring back freshness of mind to the discharge of their duties. Yet here was a body of men who were denied the enjoyment of their holidays for no other reason than that they belonged to denominational and voluntary schools, whereas the teachers in other schools got their salaries and their holidays. The Board of Education would not raise a hand to secure that both classes of teachers should be treated in the same way. The business of a Government Department in these matters was to interpret the law strictly and equally between all parties and creeds. That was the line which, in his humble way, he had endeavoured to take, and that was the line which he desired to see carried out now. It would be very unfortunate if in departmental administration a difference were made between the supporters of the Government and their

1645
political opponents, and least of all in matters which concerned the education of the children. Surely those small animosities which existed against the voluntary schools should not be exhibited to the detriment of the teachers who had served the State so well, and which would be reflected on the children who if the teachers Suffered would not be so well taught. He thought it was not foreign to the Motion to call attention to the partiality of the Board of Education and its lack of judicial power in dealing with two different parties of religious teachers, or to lament that the President of the Board of Education should have taken so narrow—he might almost say so trivial—a view of his own responsibilities as to raise specious objections and technical points when the remedy was ready to his hand, and he had only to employ it, and the teachers would be paid.
MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: said that he was as earnest a Churchman as the noble Lord himself, and had been returned unopposed by the most nonconformist county in Great Britain. There was, accordingly, no question of persecuting church schools in this matter. The Merionethshire Council were fighting for a principle. When the Act of 1902 was passed the then county council passed a resolution that they would not levy a rate for the maintenance of non-provided schools unless they had complete control and management. The present county council had followed and re-affirmed that principle, with the consequence that the county of Merionethshire had never spent any of the money derived from the rates on the maintenance of those non-provided schools. They kept them going, however, as long as they could, the grants they had earned being used for this purpose. They had come to an end of their resources, and there was nothing else left for the county council to do than to refuse to pay the salaries of the teachers. They could not do otherwise without violating their conscientious convictions and breaking the pledges they had given to the ratepayers. That was the position, and he ventured to say that if the Bill of last year had been passed their troubles would have been at an end. They were disappointed in
1646
that, and he very much regretted that they were constrained to continue the fight for conscience, and that the Government had been caused any difficulty by their attitude. The action of the county council had had the excellent result, at any rate, of preventing 90 per cent. of the ratepayers of Merionethshire from being forced to become passive resisters. He regretted the unfortunate position in which the teachers were placed, but when all was said and done it was very largely their own fault. These people knew all along that this resolution had been passed by the county council, and that the county council had no money except the grants. The best course of procedure which the teachers could have taken would have been to resign. The schools would then have been closed, and after a time taken over by the local authority, when these very teachers would have been re-engaged at largely increased salaries and under much better masters.
*MR. EVELYN CECIL: said that the defence made by the hon. Member of this iniquitous action of the county council was simply that it was defying the law. He denied that the county council were justified in breaking the law. If they were going to be told that breaches of the law of this character were to be condoned because a fight for conscience was in progress, all he could say was that, when this Government went out of office, it was extremely likely that masses of people would have cause for a good many fights for conscience of this kind. He did not pretend to say that would be justifiable, but it was very much to the point to say that what the hon. Gentleman said was perfectly unjustifiable. He was amazed that a defence of this kind was put forward. The President of the Board of Education let them understand it was his duty to do nothing. He evidently had an extreme reluctance to deal with the matter at all. That had been a characteristic of his whole conduct. When they questioned him on Thursday he told them that the Act of 1902 was somewhat obscure as to the powers of the Board of Education and of the local education authority in relation to certain matters, of which this was one, and he was not quite certain, he added, what the powers were in this respect. He supposed

1647
he could so far congratulate him that between Thursday and now he had at any rate discovered what possible remedies there were and how far he would be disposed to apply them. They asked whether he would do his utmost to get the salaries paid at once, and they had not got an answer. They did not yet know clearly whether or not he was going to do his best to get the salaries paid at once.
MR. MCKENNA: I stated that at question time.
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman had answered. Perhaps he would not mind telling them what the answer was.
MR. MCKENNA: I said I had made representations to the local educational authority asking them to pay the salaries as soon as possible.
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he was glad to hear that. That was certainly a step forward. Had the right hon. Gentleman had any reply?
MR. MCKENNA: No reply yet.
*MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he did not know whether, in the event of refusal, the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to act further, but he submitted that, according to his duty, he ought to act. He gathered from his speech that he based the defence of his inaction on the fact that he was not strictly bound by the four corners of the Defaulting Authorities Act of 1904. The learned Attorney-General was no doubt going to say that relying on the strict wording of that Act the President of the Board of Education was not bound to take action unless the managers had incurred any expense, and that at present they had not. Surely, when they saw a large number of teachers not being paid although they had earned their salaries equally with other teachers, it was an odd interpretation of duty for the President of the Board of Education to say it was not necessary to take any steps in the matter. He could not help believing that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman would see that all the teachers ought to be
1648
treated fairly and equally. They heard much of religious equality, and it seemed to him it was the Party opposite who were breaking that principle. It ought to make no difference what school a teacher worked in, and no distinction in payment ought to be made on the ground of religious differences. If their salaries were all due on 1st July they ought all to be paid on 1st July. That was his idea of religious equality. Apparently it was not what the words conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see what dangerous consequences would probably follow if he encouraged such differentiation. He objected to his whole method, which was wrong and objectionable. He could not understand anybody in an official position allowing organised delay of this kind to be tolerated any longer, and not taking prompt steps to stop it. This systematic and organised delay had been resorted to on several occasions, and he could not help noticing that the President of the Board of Education appeared to know very well when those occasions were. It occurred to him that perhaps he had had some hand in those earlier revolts, because he seemed to quote the date, "Christmas, 1904," very glibly and to know very well what occurred in 1905.
MR. MCKENNA: Oh, no.
*MR. EVELYN CECIL: said he was very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had no part in that agitation. He hoped the debate would lead to more satisfactory administration and remove a public scandal.
*THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SIR JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)said that he was anxious to avoid the zone of fire which seemed to surround the county council for Merioneth as the education authority for that area. The Motion sought to attach censure to his right hon. friend, and it was suggested that something ought to be done by him in addition to making these representations to the educational authority of the county which he had told them he had made. As far as he could form any opinion on the subject his right hon. friend could do no more than he had done. It was a

1649
deplorable fact that the teachers were unpaid, and it was hinted that his right hon. friend had the right to use the public revenues for the purpose of supplementing the arrears of salary. He failed to understand that contention. The teachers were employed under contract by the managers of the schools. That situation was not forced by the House on the managers of these schools; it was a situation which they invited the House to place them in when the legislation of 1902 was passed. In the seventh section of that Act it was provided that the managers of the schools should have the exclusive power to appoint the teachers. That entailed the obligation of a contract, for which they alone were responsible, that the salaries of the teachers should be paid. It was the expression of a statutory liability in the form of a legal instrument, in which the managers of the schools accepted that responsibility. It was, therefore, clear that the obvious duty to pay the arrears fell on the managers. But it was also clear that Parliament had recognised that the managers might be placed in an awkward position. The Local Authorities Default Act contemplated, not the liability of the managers in future, but the expenditure they had made in the past. No question between the managers and the Education Department could arise until after an expenditure had been incurred. His right hon. friend therefore had no power to improve the situation until the managers had discharged the duty which rested on them by their own contract. When they had done that then they might have recourse to his right hon. friend. The noble Lord suggested that his right hon. friend might issue a circular holding out to the managers the hope that they would be reimbursed and giving a guarantee in reliance on which these payments might be made. Upon a question where principle arose, and where a point of conscience was said to be involved, it was of the utmost importance for a Minister to act within the law, and unless he had the power to do so he could not in law or propriety issue a circular.
LORD R. CECILsuggested that it was within the province of the Department to advise the managers that they would be safe in making the payment.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the noble Lord knew very well that a guarantee would be read into the terms of such a letter, and the managers would say they paid reliving on the assurance of the Department. The section contemplated that after the expense was incurred then the Minister could consider the circumstances and nature of the dispute. That was the position. What else could be done? The dilatory, obscure, antiquated method of enforcing compliance with a statutory obligation by mandamus was out of the question, because there existed the ordinary remedy by an action at law. The obvious remedy was for the managers to do their duty. They should not have entered into the contract if they were not prepared to abide by it. Let them fulfil their duty and then approach his right hon. friend, and if he proved impenetrable to sympathy, or, as had been suggested, was influenced by bias, there was the remedy in an action against the education authority, because they were clearly bound under Section 7 of the Act to indemnify the managers for expenditure properly incurred under the Act. That was the answer to the Motion. His right hon. friend had acted scrupulously within the law.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid the Motion had revealed a thoroughly discreditable state of affairs in Merionethshire. There had been a deliberate attempt to withhold salaries from voluntary school teachers at a time of year when the money was most needed. There had been no defence. There had been two lawyers' speeches, because the President of the Board of Education had dropped the administrator and had sheltered himself behind the most technical point of law, in which he was backed by the Attorney-General. But this was not a point of law at all. Under Section 7 of the Act of 1902, the local authority had the obligation to maintain the schools in efficient order, and, therefore, to pay the teachers. They might as well say that a man who had an obligation to maintain a building was not bound to pay the builder for doing the work as to say that the local Education Authority was not bound to pay the teachers. The managers

1651
had not the duty of paying the teachers; they had only the right to appoint them.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: The managers had entered into a contract; they were the masters of the teachers; they had the right to appoint and dismiss them. More over their contract with them expressly bound them to pay their salaries.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would point to any section which provided that the managers should pay the teachers he would admit that he was in error, but until he did that he could not. But supposing that it was a condition precedent to any action that the managers should have been sued. Clearly the administrative duty of the Board of Education was to tell the managers that they should pay. Circulars advising local authorities as to their legal obligations were frequently sent by the Home Office, the Local Government Board, and the Education Department. Why not in this case?
MR. McKENNAsaid he had stated again and again that it was the managers' duty to pay the money. The Board of Education insisted on the managers signing a contract, and the teacher was not allowed the appointment until the contract was signed and the managers knew that perfectly.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid that according to the right hon. Gentleman the managers had twice committed a breach of duty; he had asked the right hon. Gentleman if he had informed them that they had committed that breach, and if he himself would see that they should do their duty, and if he might use so discourteous a phrase the right hon. Gentleman had fenced and quibbled with the House upon this matter.
MR. MCKENNAsaid that he had no power to make the managers pay.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid that he did not suggest he had. What the right hon. Gentleman could do was to advise and exhort them to pay, and it was well within his province to issue a circular to that effect. But, if as in this case, they
1652
were poor men and had no money to pay' the right hon. Gentleman had only to give the information and the managers would be able to raise money on such a circular in order to discharge their duty. A number of men had been appointed managers under the Act, and they were anxious to do their duty and pay the teachers. The local authority were bound to give them the funds to pay, and the local authority had made wilful default, he cared not for what purpose, and those who sat on the Treasury Bench were bound to enforce the law. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite saw that the local authorities made default and that the managers were unable to pay they ought to say to the managers "we will see you through this, we will compel the local authority to pay, and you are perfectly entitled to discharge your first duty and pay the teachers." That was the plain course, and the technical objection of the Attorney-General was no answer at all. The fact remained that these poor teachers were now confronted with the loss of their salaries for some considerable time, or with litigation against the managers. or, as the Attorney-General said, the local authority could be brought into such an action and be made to indemnify the managers. It was possible that that might be so. But they were told that there being no contract between the teachers and the local authorities they could not be properly be brought into such an action. He did not for a moment put that authority against the authority of the Attorney-General.
SIR JOHN WALTON: They can be brought in as third parties.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he did not say that that was a good point of law. He knew the way in which bad points of law were fought in Wales; he knew very well what it would be. Provided there was any colourable pretext for resisting an action, he was certain that the pretext would be accepted, and these unfortunate teachers, who were deprived of their salaries and means of livelihood, would have the liability of an action, which he was perfectly certain would end in their favour, but which would cost them many a penny before they got the

1653
justice which the Board of Education ought to give them.
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid that the question had been answered by the President of the Board of Education and the Attorney-General. Merionethshire had a population 90 per cent. of which consisted of Nonconformists who had dealt with the question of education in no niggardly way. He noticed that neither of the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Motion was in the House when the Defaulting Authorities Act was passed: if they had been they would have seen the whole of the Opposition march out because they were not allowed to take the main Amendment on this question, and he believed that the opposition in Wales had backed them up, not merely then, but during the last General Election, when they sent up every Member a Liberal to that House. But that was not the principal question before the House. Who were the managers of these schools? Four of them were Churchmen, and he ventured to say that, apart from his hon. friend the Member for Merionethshire who was a Churchman and a Liberal, nearly all the extensive landlords in that county were Churchmen and Conservatives; they were the people who had tried to retain the denominational schools at the expense of the rates. Let the rich landlords and Churchmen take pity on the hardships of these teachers. Merionethshire was a rich county to begin with, so far as the landlords were concerned; but the Nonconformists, who were 90 per cent. of the population of the county, were amongst the poorest in Wales; and yet what had they done for education in Merionethshire? It was worth while that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who knew absolutely nothing of the facts, should know this, namely, that peasants, labourers, small tradesmen, and quarrymen had spent more on education, elementary, higher, university, and technical, than not merely any other county, but more in proportion than Prussia, which, it was known, had done more than any other State in Europe in behalf of education. It was the Nonconformists of Merionethshire who had done all that, and they sent
1654
Church boys and Church girls to their secondary and university schools to be maintained at their expense. The Nonconformists had never kept away a single Church girl or Church lad who had won scholarships. It was the quarrymen who first of all endowed the universities of Wales with scholarships, and the children of Tories and Churchmen had benefited from the action of the Nonconformists. Why? Because these institutions were controlled by people who had no sectarian feeling. That was the main question. ["No."] His hon. and right hon. friends had proved that; they had knocked the bottom out of the legal argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the duties of the local authorities under the Act of 1902. The contract was not between the teachers and the local authority, but between the teachers and the managers, and they could not make the Central Department a sort of county court to compel the local education authorities to pay the salaries of the teachers. In his own county of Anglesey, and in the Division which he represented, they had come to an understanding on the education question, and there was no cause to grumble. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite come and help them to deal fairly with these schools, and all these teachers would be paid. Let them not stand on a mere quibble of the law. ["Oh."] He said "quibble" because they had not had a right exposition or interpretation of the law from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had not given the right interpretation of it, firstly, because the education authority had not incurred the liability, and secondly, the Board of Education had no right to compel the local education authority to pay. The only way to settle this question was for Churchmen and Conservatives to deal with it in other counties as generously as they had done in Wales. In that way they would do away with sectarian bitterness and sectarian prejudices. During the controversy in Merionethshire, a Churchman and one of the hierarchy, said what a pity it was that the Education Bill did not give more facilities for Church teaching; and a Church teacher, the headmaster of a National Church School, got up and said—"Why, the Bill gives us more facilities than we have now, for we only

1655
teach the Catechism once a week, and this Bill gives us facilities to teach it twice a week." He wished hon. Gentlemen opposite would help them by assisting to transfer these schools to the local authorities, and then the whole of the teachers would be properly and adequately paid, and there would be no religious bickerings or sectarianism. He made an earnest appeal to all classes concerned in the interests of true citizenship to end this miserable petty squabble.
*MR. CAVEsaid he desired to bring the House back to the real matter before it. They had heard from the hon. Member for Merionethshire a speech admitting their whole case. The hon. Member had admitted that it was the duty of the local education authority to provide funds for payment of the teachers. He had admitted that the authority had refused to do this, and the only reason given for that refusal was that the local education authority in Merionethshire did not approve of the Act of Parliament under which those salaries were payable. The hon. Member said they were going to continue the fight against the Act of 1902. Was that fight to be carried on by depriving these unfortunate teachers for weeks and months of salaries which were admittedly due? Was that a fair way to carry on a contest for conscience sake? It was said that these teachers knew they would not be paid and they ought to have resigned. Was that really the case for Merionethshire? Because a man knew that he was going to be cheated out of his salary was he to resign his post? Was it not possible that the teachers felt some kind of duty towards the managers and the children? Was it not even possible that they relied on the Government of the country to see that the local education authority did its duty? Not a single Minister had said a word in defence of the action of the local authority. It would have been a surprising thing if the Attorney-General or the Minister for Education had ventured to defend what seemed to him to be a gross and flagrant illegality. The hardship being admitted, they asked the Government to come to the rescue and find a remedy. What was the answer
1656
they received? The Minister for Education said the managers ought to pay. He agreed that they were legally liable to pay, but many of the managers were no more able to provide these funds than the teachers were able to do without their salaries. The right hon. Gentleman said: "Let the teachers sue the managers." Really, was that the answer of the Government? To sue meant further delay, and judgment could not be obtained before the end of September. That was rather a hard course to suggest especially when the managers were willing to pay but had not been provided with the means. There was an easy course open to the Government. They suggested that a simple letter should be written to the managers to the effect that the money would be refunded if they paid the salaries of the teachers by the Board of Education under the Act of 1904. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Government could not take that course until they had heard what the Local Education Authority had to say on the subject. But the Government had already written to that authority pressing them to pay, and the authority had not thought fit to reply. If necessary, they could be pressed for an answer. But failing some explanation other than that which had been given to-day the course of the Board of Education was clear. He was sure that the Government did not wish to make themselves the accomplices of the local authority. If so, let the Government meet this Motion in the spirit in which it was made and the whole difficulty would be at an end.
MR. YOXALL: said that the President of the Board of Education had done all he could in regard to representations to the local education authority. The hon. Member for Merionethshire had told them that the local education authority were at the end of their tether and had not sufficient money out of the grants in hand to pay the teachers their salaries. He gathered that in the past they had a surplus in hand, but now it had gone and the demands of the teachers could not be met in consequence. He would recommend his right hon.

1657
friend to inquire if that was the case. If it was the case, it seemed to him to be a proper one for putting the Defaulting Authorities Act in operation. Failing that, his right hon. friend should consider whether some new system could be devised whereby these schools might be put on a satisfactory basis. This was a small matter in a small county. The teachers needed their salaries, and every other consideration apart, they ought to have their salaries paid. It was particularly hard that they could not use some part of their salaries in taking a holiday away from the county. This was an exceptional case in the whole of the Principality.
*MR. REESsaid he wished to reply to some observations which fell from the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion. He desired to redeem the character of the county of Montgomeryshire and to assure the hon. Member for Barkston Ash that the facts were not as had been represented. It was not the case that the delay in paying the teachers was due to sectarian feeling, for the head of the Education Committee for Montgomery actually paid the salaries of a great many teachers and guaranteed an overdraft at the bank.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid he only referred to the case as one in which action was taken by the late Government.
*MR. REESsaid the Government of the day took action in that case, and deducted the salaries from the grants earned. He understood however that the action which was taken was illegal. He must regard the Attorney-General as the best possible authority in this matter, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had told the House that the hon. Member for Oxford University had been guilty of bad and unconstitutional law in what he did. However, his point was that there had been no callous disregard of the sufferings of the voluntary school teachers in the county a district of which he had the honour to represent, and no sectarian persecution. There had been the assertion of a great principle, but so far from its having been associated with hardships to individuals, or disregard of their claims, the local education authority had gone to great
1658
lengths to obviate the occurrence of hardships to those whose salaries were inevitably paid later than would have been the case had there been no effort to force the local authorities to carry out a policy of which they disapproved. The charge that the action of the county council had been illegal fell to the ground.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that every word which had been uttered as an explanation or apology by the hon. Member for Montgomery was a separate condemnation for Merioneth. Nobody defended the action which had been taken by Merionethshire, not even the Member for Merionethshire, and he was quite sure the Minister for Education did not defend it.
MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman was not present in the House when I spoke.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that although he had not had the honour of hearing the hon. Member's speech, he had done his best to inform himself of its substance. He understood that there was no question whether Merionethshire had obeyed the law, the only question being whether the people of Merioneth had obeyed their consciences. Therefore from the legal point of view Merionethshire stood without defence, and the only question the House of Commons had to discuss was whether in the illegal action of Merionethshire, His Majesty's Government were to be counted as accomplices. It was evident from the speeches made by the Government that they were not only accomplices, but willing and deliberate accomplices. The Minister for Education was perfectly aware, and did not deny that he was aware, that the illegal action of the County Council of Merionethshire had been the cause of inflicting a great deal of undeserved suffering upon men who were certainly poor, who had certainly earned their salaries, and who certainly needed their salaries more at this time of the year than at any other. He admitted that the teachers, men and women, were not many. An hon. Member had said that it was a small matter because it concerned few people. He admitted that it concerned few people, but he did not admit that it was a small

1659
matter. It was important to the men and their families that the salaries honestly earned should be honestly paid. They had not been honestly paid; and the President of the Board of Education had not pretended that the Government had used their administrative powers to tell the managers that if they paid the salaries the legitimate authority and undoubted powers of the Government would be used to see that the unquestioned debt of the local authority was discharged. The managers could not be blamed because they had not advanced the salaries out of their own pockets. It was not the business of any man in this country to pay money out of his own pocket which should be paid out of the rates. He believed that the managers had been ready to advance money if the Government had said that they would be liable for it.
MR. MCKENNA: The Law Courts would compel them.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: HOW? By mandamus? It was the duty of the Government to assure them that the rates, which were liable in law, would be made liable in fact.
MR. MCKENNA: No; the sum could be recovered by an action in the county court.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: said the right hon. Gentleman's idea of the way for a poor and hard-worked teacher to spend an agreeable holiday was to bring an action against his employer in the county court. The teachers in the schools should be under the guardianship of the Minister for Education, but the right hon. Gentleman had not given them any advice except to bring an action against a public authority. The managers, had they been assured that the Government would exercise their undoubted rights and extract from the local authority their undoubted debts, would no doubt have been perfectly ready to help their teachers over the time of difficulty. Why did not the Government give that assurance? They had ample power to do so.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: Their powers are stated in and are limited by the statute.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: said it was in the Act of Parliament that the education I authority "may" do it, not that they I "must" do it.
MR. MCKENNA: Will the right hon. I Gentleman kindly read the section— Section 1, Subsection (b). When the managers have paid, when the condition, in other words, has arisen, then I shall have to consider whether it is expedient that they should be recouped.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the section stated that if it appeared to the Board of Education that the managers of a school, on account of any default of the local education authority in the performance of their duties, had, for the purpose of maintaining and keeping efficient the school, incurred any expenses payable by the local authority the Board might pay to the managers such amount in respect of those expenses as, in the opinion of the Board, was properly incurred. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman on this technical point that he could not pay out of public funds money to the managers until they had themselves incurred any expense. Nobody doubted that. But what they did say was that the Board of Education should have informed the managers that, if they did incur expense under the Act, the Education Department would consider it a case in which the Act should be put in force. If they had done that, the teachers would have got their emoluments. They had not done that because they thought it better to be in collusion with the illegal action of those county authorities, and that no encouragement should be given to any manager of the voluntary schools to pay the teachers. That was the policy of the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged and of the Government of which he was a Member. It was publicly avowed. Nobody denied it. He did not particularly quarrel with that, profoundly as he disagreed with it. He did not take exception to any Gentleman in a public position saying "We object altogether to voluntary schools."

1661
That was an intelligible policy, although, in his opinion, a wrong one. But that that policy, whether good or bad, should be advanced by the petty persecution of the county council for Merionethshire, backed by the Education Department and this House, was a procedure totally new in our political and public history; for hitherto Ministers on that Bench, however much opposed to voluntary schools, had never sunk to using weapons of that kind. They had never condescended to visit upon the heads of these hard-worked, poor, and helpless teachers the sins of a system of which they disapproved. He thought the House, having
before it the case as presented by the two Gentlemen on that Bench, whatever their views might be, however much they disapproved of the voluntary schools, and however much they thought parents should be deprived of the right to have their children given the religious education they desired, might, at all events, abstain from methods utterly mean and wholly beneath the dignity of a powerful Ministry supported by a great majority.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 145. (Division List No.376.)

AYES

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Duncan. C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

O'Grady, J.

Ashley, W. W.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gardner. Ernest (Berks, East)

Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Barnes, G. N.

Gill, A. H.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bowerman, C. W.

Glover, Thomas

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J.

Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Shackleton, David James

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford East)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Henderson, Arthur (Durham

Steadman, W. C.

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

Hills, J. W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hudson, Walter

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Thorne, William

Cavendish, Rt.Hon. Victor C.W.

Jowett, F. W.

Walker,Col.W.H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway,Rt. Hon.SirJohnH.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Chamberlain,RtHn. J.A.)Worc.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Younger, George

Clynes, J. R.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Yoxall, James Henry

Corbett,A.Cameron(Glasgow)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Courthope, G. Loyd

Masterman, C. F. G.

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Craik, Sir Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Viscount Valentia

Crooks, William

Moore, William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)

NOES

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Byles, William Pollard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne

Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dunne,MajorE.Martin (Walsall

Astbury, John Meir

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Elibank, Master of

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Erskine, David C.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Essex, R. W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cleland, J. W.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Barlow. Percy (Bedford)

Clough, William

Everett, R. Lacey

Beale, W. P.

Collins. Stephen (Lambeth)

Ferens, T. R.

Bell, Richard

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

Ffrench, Peter

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

Cooper, G. J.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Corbett.CH (Susex.E.Grinst'd)

Fullerton, Hugh

Bertram, Julius

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Goddard. Daniel Ford

Brigg, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)

Bright, J. A.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Gulland. John W.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

Gurdon,RtHn.SirW.Brampton

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duckworth, James

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Micking, Major G.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mallet, Charles E.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen, W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Charles S.

Marnham, F. J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hodge, John

Massie, J.

Snowden, P.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Micklem, Nathaniel

Stanger, H. Y.

Holt, Richard Durning

Molteno, Percy Alport

Strachey, Sir Edward

Horniman, Emslie John

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hyde, Clarendon

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Ure, Alexander

Idris, T. H. W.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Vivian, Henry

Illingworth, Percy H.

Myer. Horatio

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jardine, Sir J.

Nicholls, George

Walsh, Stephen

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walters, John Tudor

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Partington, Oswald

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

King,Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Waring, Walter

Laidlaw, Robert

Pullar. Sir Robert

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Radford, G. H.

Waterlow, D. S.

Lamont, Norman

Rainy, A. Rolland

Watt, Henry A.

Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington

Rees, J. D.

Wedgwood. Josiah C.

Lehmann, R. C.

Ridsdale, E. A.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshir

Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth.

Lough, Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lupton, Arnold

Rowlands, J.

Wilson, HenryJ. (York, W.R.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Runciman, Walter

Wilson, P. \(St. Pancras, S

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sears, J. E.

Tellers for the Noes—Mr.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Seely, Major J. B.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

M'Crae, George

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

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Sherwell, Arthur James

Bill read a second time.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in moving a Resolution allocating three days to the Report stage and one day to the Third Reacting of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill, said he trusted it would not be so keenly criticised as his previous Motion in connection with the Small Landowners (Scotland) Bill. The Resolution which was in similar terms to those adopted in the case of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, provided that on the first allotted day new clauses and Clauses 1 to 5 should be disposed of; on the second day the I other clauses to the end of Part II.; and on the third day the remaining clauses of the Bill and the schedules. In the case of the one Bill, as of the other, the Government had endeavoured to allot the time in such a way as to give the best opportunity for considering important matters. On the first day the House would be able to discuss the relations between the central and local authorities; on the second day the compulsory acquisition of land; and on the third day the machinery of the Bill. He hoped the Opposition would admit the desire of the Government to
1664
secure at any rate the best use of time and a sufficient occasion for the consideration of all matters of primary importance. He trusted that the Motion would be found to be free from some of the difficulties which had stood in the way of the earlier Motion.
*MR. CAVE: pointed out that the reprint of the Bill supplied to the Committee from day to day did not show where the new clauses were intended to be inserted, and until a reprint of the whole Bill could be obtained hon. Members were not in a position to criticise the allocation of time which the Prime Minister proposed.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid that that was a matter for discussion. The Prime Minister had no doubt a copy of the Bill and had drawn up his Resolution in accordance with its provisions.
MR. CHAPLINsaid that thanks to the kindness of Mr. Speaker he bad been able to obtain a copy of the Bill. It was, he believed, a proof but without it it would have been impossible for him to have moved any Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

1665
There were many Members who were not so fortunate as he in this regard, and he objected to the Motion on the ground that the Bill as reprinted with the new clauses was not obtainable in the Vote Office and that, therefore, it was not possible for them to move Amendments to the Motion. He spoke with great deference, but he never recollected any occasion where the guillotine had been moved before the Bill was printed, and before hon. Members had had an opportunity of giving notice of Amendments.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the Motion had been most carefully drafted with reference to the clauses in the Bill as reprinted in the course of the proceedings in the Committee from day to day, and except that it contained a provision between the first and second subheads the division of the Bill into parts remained the same as they were.
MR, CHAPLINsaid that the right hon. Gentleman did not quite appreciate the position. There were seven new clauses which were now incorporated in the Bill and the situation of those clauses could only be known to those who had seen the Bill. It was impossible therefore for any hon. Member to move an Amendment to the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman on the ground that he did not think the time allocated was fairly proportioned.
*MR. SPEAKER, in reply to the point of order, said it was unfortunate that the House was not in possession of the Bill as reprinted, but, still, he had no doubt the Prime Minister would give every information, and he did not think he could rule that the Motion should not be put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Report Stage of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill be brought to a conclusion in three allotted days; and

(a) That the new clauses and Clauses 1 to 5 of the Bill be proceeded with and proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; and

(b) That the Clauses of the Bill following Clause 5 to the end of Part II. of the
1666
Bill (if and so far as not previously disposed of), be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day; and

(c) That the remaining Clauses of the Bill and the Schedules and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage of the Bill to a conclusion (if and so far as not previously disposed of) be proceeded with on the third allotted day, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day.

Any day on which the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this order.
At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are to be brought to a conclusion, or if that day is a Friday at 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall, if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any new Clauses or Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Clauses or Amendments), and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on any allotted day shall, instead of being taken on that day as provided by the Standing Order 'Time for taking Private Business,' be taken immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding the Standing Order "Sittings of the House."
At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order of the Day, or if that day is a Friday or Saturday at 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall

1667
put forthwith any question necessary to complete the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
After the passing of this order on any day on which any proceedings on the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill stand as first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order 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."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
MR. CHAPLINsaid, under all the circumstances of the case, unless he were ruled out of order, he thought he should best perform his duty by moving the adjournment of the debate, in order that those who desired might have an opportunity of seeing the Bill, and of moving any Amendments which they thought right to submit.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
MR. WYNDHAM: said that a considerable number of Members on that side of the House, who had no violent view upon this Bill, felt that a measure of this kind was one touching many questions of deep political interest, upon which they thought they had a right, he would not say a right, but something approaching a right, to speak. The new method with a Bill of this description was to send it upstairs. It was quite true, and if the Prime Minister urged it he would concede the point, that by searching the newspapers and all the official documents they might apprise themselves; from day to day and week to week of what was going on upstairs; but the right hon. Gentleman could hardly reproach them for not having done so. When the new rules were passed they believed that in the case of a Bill sent upstairs they would have an opportunity of reviewing the work of the Grand Committee as a whole and pronouncing their opinion upon it. But even that opportunity was limited by the guillotine. Surely, in view of this
1668
guillotine Motion, they had a right to consider what portions of the Bill they would select for discussion. What was to become of the House as a debating assembly? This was one of the great Bills of the Government; it was not a minor matter. The Prime Minister himself introduced his land policy at a public meeting, assisted by the Undersecretary for the Colonies, and he announced that this was one of their main lines of policy. They used a certain amount of imagery to impress the importance of the case upon the public. They said the curtain had rung up on a play that was to have a long run. What run was the play to have if the curtain was rung down before the band played the overture? The Opposition were in earnest about this matter, because Englishmen must take an interest in a measure of this kind. They might differ, but they would be glad to agree. There was no settled determination on the part of the Opposition to resist this Bill, but they thought that they ought to discuss it. They thought that the Prime Minister ought not to introduce a policy affecting land tenure in England, one of the oldest civilisations in Europe, without allowing them an opportunity of discussing what parts of the Bill they would desire under the guillotine to debate. They had not yet seen the Bill nor considered what portions of it they should discuss and what parts the Government should have their own way about without discussion. The Prime Minister, he believed, was the oldest Member of the House. He appealed to him, not as Prime Minister but as Father of the House of Commons, to agree to this Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and to say that it was not unreasonable for the Opposition and for the whole House to have one or two days in which to study the Bill in the form in which it had been put in Committee by only a small section of the House.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid he was a member of the Small Holdings Committee, and naturally he knew more than a good many Members of the House what the contents of the Bill were. Owing to circumstances over which he had no control, however, he was unable to attend

1669
the Committee during the last three days when the new clauses were discussed. Therefore he was just as much in the dark as to those new clauses as other hon. Members. It was difficult even for Members of the Committee to discuss the limitations under which the Bill should be debated until the Bill was printed, and they had it in their hands. Every Member of the House must admit, and the Prime Minister himself, he thought, would not deny, that an entirely new situation had arisen. The Prime Minister, in his passion for the guillotine, in his desire for uniformity of treatment of measures, had forgotten that comparative harmony and peace characterised the discussion of this Bill under the very able management of his colleague. There was no dealing with the closure, such as stained the consideration of the other Bill in connection with which they had just had a discussion. It was only when the Bill came before the House that they applied the guillotine; but in this instance the House was asked to pass this resolution actually before the Bill was in print, or had got out of its swaddling clothes. In the interests of proper discussion and of the Bill itself the Government ought to accept the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. The Tribune, a newspaper highly respected by Ministerialists, had declared that the opposition to the Bill did not come from those Members around him, but that the discussion had come mainly from earnest Radicals advocating vague schemes of land reform. In view of the interest which different sections had in the Bill, the large interests involved, and the general desire they had to make it a success and not obstruct its progress, he thought they might be spared the insult of this guillotine Motion until at all events they had an opportunity of knowing to what parts of the Bill they would desire to give their attention. He hoped the Prime Minister would accept the Motion.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that a copy of the Bill as amended had been in the hands of the right hen. Gentleman opposite, who had been conducting negotiations with regard to it with the First Commissioner of Works. As the Bill had been reprinted down to
1670
the 40th clause, he could not see any ground for complaint. There were, of course, one or two new clauses to be inserted. Whilst he admitted that it would have been better if they had been able to place a complete copy of the Bill in the hands of hon. Members, he did not see any reason at all for adjourning the debate.
MR. CHAPLINsaid the Prime Minister was wholly inaccurate in regard to what he had said about his having taken away the copy of the Bill. He had seen merely a proof of the Bill and he had only been allowed to do so by the courtesy of Mr. Speaker. No one else had seen it and nobody else had had the opportunity of seeing it. As seven new clauses were going to be added to the Bill it was quite impossible for any hon. Member not acquainted with the way those new clauses were going to be allocated to move any Amendments to the guillotine Motion. The Prime Minister had offered no reasonable reply or excuse which met their objection to the situation which had arisen, and that being so he would press the Motion.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he required to criticse the guillotine Motion in regard to one of its provisions.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must wait until the guillotine Motion is taken as a substantive Motion.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he understood that he could debate that point on the Motion for adjournment.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member understood wrongly.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid that during the first two days under the guillotine they had to pass some twenty-two clauses and seven new clauses which had been accepted in Committee. It made the greatest possible difference where those clauses came in the Bill when it was printed. In regard to the proceedings which had taken place in Committee he felt sure the hon. Baronet the Member for South Somerset would agree with him that there had been a good

1671
sound debate all through the Committee stage and no obstruction whatever. He thought the Government would be adopting a wise course in postponing this question until some opportunity had been given them of seeing the Bill as it would appear when the new clauses had been inserted. He was sure the hon. Baronet opposite realised the importance of these new clauses and perhaps he might be able to induce the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision and agree to the adjournment of the debate.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose to a point of order. He wished to ask how, if any Gentlemen on either side of the House desired to move an Amendment with regard to the modification of the compartments, he could do it, not having the Bill before him showing the clauses as they would stand for discussion. It seemed to him that there would certainly be Amendments moved dealing with the allocation of the time.
*MR. SPEAKERThe advice I would give him would be to borrow a copy of the Bill from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, who has borrowed my copy.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that answer was surely conclusive as to the line which ought to be taken now. The House should not be asked to pass a guillotine resolution like the present which required them to deal in three days with a Bill of forty-seven clauses which had never been before the House at all. It was really carrying tyrrany too far to ask them to make their Amendments as to the allocation of time when the only Bill available was one belonging to Mr. Speaker, which had not been laid on the Table of the House, and which by the courtesy of Mr. Speaker had been put in the hands of one individual. He wished to make an appeal to the common-sense and fairness of Gentlemen in all parts of the House, hoping that the Leader of the House would find it impossible to resist the appeal.
MR. LAMBTONsaid that as a private Member he protested against the business of the House being left entirely in the hands of the two front
1672
benches. Private Members had some right to take part in the discussions of the House. He thought it was an insult to be told of private arrangements between the right hon. Gentlemen on the two front benches.
MR. MILDMAYreminded the Prime Minister that the rank and file had a duty to perform in criticising the legislation brought before the House. Surely they had a right to know what they were called upon to vote for. At present they did not know what the compartments were going to include. How was it possible for hon. Members to discuss these matters under the circumstances? He was sure the Prime Minister would see how unfair it was to propose the Motion under the circumstances. During the many years he had been in the House he had never known a case in which it was more incumbent on private Members to speak out.
MR. STANLEY WILSONthought the Prime Minister had excelled himself on the present occasion. He and his friends wanted to know where they were in regard to this Motion. Private Members were not to receive any consideration from the Government. They protested against being so treated. He thought the request they were making was a most reasonable one. How was it possible for private Members to discuss a Motion with regard to a measure which they had had no opportunity of seeing? He was not a Member of the Committee, and he had not the faintest idea of what Amendments had been moved upstairs and what Amendments had been accepted by the Government. The newspaper reports were of a very meagre character. He had heard that seven new clauses had been introduced and accepted in Committee. It was absurd for the Prime Minister to ask hon. Members to accept this Motion before they had seen those clauses. He thought private Members might be afforded greater opportunities for taking part in the discussions than they had at present. If the true feeling of the House was indicated in the division lobby there would be no uncertainty about carrying the Motion for the adjournment.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANadmitted that it was a matter for some degree of regret that Members had not been, put in possession of the Bill. He had fully expected that by this afternoon the Bill would have been in the hands of Members, but it was not owing to the absence of the Member of the Government who had been most keen in accelerating the business arrangements upstairs that the Bill had not been available.
MR. CHAPLIN: The Bank holiday.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was searching about for a reason why the Bill was not in the hands of Members. He believed the inconvenience was of the most infinitesimal kind. He did not think the fact that they had not the Bill in their possession should affect the putting down of Amendments as to the allocation of time under the guillotine, but still he admitted that it was hardly dealing fairly with Members to invite them to put down Amendments to the Bill which they had not seen. He was impressed by that, and, therefore, he would not resist the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, but as the Government could not afford to lose a day they would take this Bill and other Government business on Saturday.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

COUNCIL OF INDIA BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs), in moving the Second Reading of the Council of India Bill, said he had prefixed to it a short note which explained, he hoped, in a thoroughly concise and clear way what the object of the Bill was. When the Government of India was transferred to the Government of the Crown, the number of the members of the Council was fixed at fifteen, but since then for various reasons, with which he need not trouble the House, the number had been reduced to twelve. Under present cir-
1674
cumstances it had seemed to the Government perfectly clear that it was desirable to have larger room for the representation of various interests which were becoming more and more important. Therefore, they asked the House to allow the Secretary of State to increase the number of members of Council from twelve to fourteen. The Secretary for India would not be obliged to appoint fourteen members, but the Council must never consist of less than ten members. That being the case it was natural to consider some other conditions of the constitution of the Council of India, which in the mind of the Secretary of State of both parties were thought worthy of consideration. For instance, at present a Member of the Council might haw been absent from India for twenty-five years. That term seemed to be excessive. Therefore, the Government proposed to enact that absence from India at the time of appointment should not exceed five years. That would be of great importance to secure freshness of views on the part of the advisers of the Secretary of State. Then, in the same direction it was proposed that the term of occupancy of office should be reduced from ten to seven years, and that the emoluments should be reduced from £1,200 to £1,000 a year. These alterations themselves, he thought the House would agree, were of no very great importance; the most important part of the Bill being increase in the number of the Council. He would remind his hon. friend below the Gangway, who had an Amendment on the Paper, that when the present constitution of the Indian Council was set up, the magnitude and intricacy of the details of Indian Government were sufficient cause for increasing the number of the Council to fifteen. He did not think that any Member could find any reasonable objection to the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed:—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR, A. J. BALFOURsaid that so far as he was concerned there was no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill, although he confessed he looked with dismay on the proposal that the salaries in future of the members of the Indian

1675
Council in this country were to be reduced from £1,200 to £1,000. He was not sure that that was a wise proposal. He had not had an opportunity of consulting his friends who knew India better than he did, but he would have thought that if they desired to get officials of the highest ability and capacity in the future for the Council it would be penny wise and pound foolish to reduce the emoluments even by £200 as was proposed to do in the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman might have reasons of which he knew nothing which would justify the policy he advocated. However, that part of the question did not touch the part of the Second Reading, and he welcomed the measure.
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: said he rose to oppose this Bill. He believed that it had been brought in with the very best intentions. The right hon. Gentleman wished to increase the number of his advisers in this country, not only men who were acquainted with Indian affairs, but Indians also. He felt that a Bill dealing with the constitution of the Council of India ought not to have been introduced at the fag-end of a session. This Bill was not quite so small a measure as it seemed. The Council of India was the only check on autocratic Government, and the intention of creating that Council was to give the Secretary of State advisers who would be independent and best fitted to give advice. A Council of India had been in existence for fifty years, and at first it was a very remarkable and independent body consisting of seven members of the Old East India Company and eight independent members. As year by year passed the Council had become more an official body and notorious, in the words of Lord Curzon, for its obsolete hugger - mugger methods. If a Viceroy of India could so describe it, it was well that they should look closely into its constitution. All measures and orders by the Secretary of State were laid on the Table of the Council for its members to express their opinion in writing. Though the whole of the members of the Council might differ from the Secretary of State, he had only to express his decision in a Minute, and the matter went no further. It
1676
never came to the knowledge of this House. The Secretary of State and the members of the Council might absolutely disagree, and this House had no opportunity of knowing it. That ought to be changed. Then on several points the Council might not be consulted at all. There were two specifically laid down by the Act. All urgent matters and all matters of secrecy might be dealt with by the Secretary of State without consulting the Council. Nearly all important matters were either urgent or secret. There might be some clause in the Bill giving Parliament an opportunity of knowing how things were going on in the Council. What they now had was only criticism of officials by ex-officials, and he must say that that ran contrary to their ideas of administration in this country. Let them imagine the Home Office criticised only by retired and pensioned ex-officials of the Home Department. He greatly desired to see members introduced into the Secretary of State's Council who would be as independent and hold as high a position as the Commercial Member and the Finance Member. It was understood that the Secretary of State was about to appoint two Indians. The House would naturally ask who those natives were to be. One knew that for many years Indians were appointed on the legislative councils and that they had no authority, but were the mere nominees of the Government. He was afraid the same thing was going to happen here. Surely, if the Bill was postponed till next year the Secretary of State might consider how he could get on his Council more independent opinion and advice. There was nothing he regarded with greater fear than the introduction of native members into the Secretary of State's Council, unless they were sure that they would be representative men. He was quite sure his right hon. friend would appoint two admirable men, but he would not always be in office, and the men he appointed might die or resign and the next who came along might not be so useful or authoritative. If the Secretary of State could come down to the House and say that what he recommended had the support of his Council, including representative Indians, his proposal would have great weight;

1677
but if these natives were mere figureheads they would have no influence. He knew that it would be urged that they should get the measure through, but he was not entirely in agreement with that feeling. After having waited forty-nine years, they could wait a few months longer, and, if the measure could be taken up next session and debated thoroughly, they would lose very little. He felt that they should have a much broader measure of reform, and that if this Bill were passed they would hardly be likely to get another chance next year. He believed it was even more necessary that the English section of the Secretary of State's Council should be reformed than that natives of India should be introduced. It was of the utmost importance that men of independence and character should be appointed. It was most essential that some half-dozen of the Secretary of State's Council should be as independent as the present commercial and financial members. He begged to move that the Bill should be read that day three months.
MR. O'GRADY: said he rose with great regret to second the rejection of the Bill, but there were certain features in it which seemed to him rather dangerous. He understood that the Council was the only check upon the autocratic government of India. It seemed to him that when Questions were asked in that House all the answers were stereotyped and came from the same source and were always in the interests of the bureaucracy of India. The most serious point revealed that night was that important matters connected with India never came before the Council at all. If that was so, it seemed to him that there was absolutely no need for the Council to exist. Then it was almost impossible to accept criticism by ex-officials upon the Secretary of State. The Bill made provision for two natives to sit upon the Council.
MR. MORLEY: The Secretary of State may appoint two or he may not.
MR. O'GRADYsaid he knew it did not specifically lay down that two native members should be appointed, but he presumed that was the purpose the
1678
right hon. Gentleman had in view. However estimable they might be, and however high they might stand in the opinion of the Indian people, they would only delay things, and it did not seem to him they would have much weight in the Council. The best course would be to appoint some Member of that House on the Council. He did not mean that they should have any emoluments. It seemed to him that that would he a particularly advisable course to pursue, and in his opinion the Council ought to change with the Government. He wished to enter his protest against the way things were carried on out in India, and to urge that if the Bill were delayed till next session it might be broadened so as to make it one of real reform for the Indian people.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. Charles O'Donnell).
Question proposed, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."
*MR. REES: said that the hon. Member who made this Motion generally approached Indian subjects from the point of view of those "who were oppressed and had no comforter" except himself and the two or three others of the like mind who were gathered together in that House, button this occasion he suggested that the comfort, which had been offered, should be postponed. One would have thought that the measure would have been welcomed as an instalment of comfort to the oppressed. It was better late than never, and, if the measure was a good measure, the earlier the better. Secondly, the hon. Member said the Bill was such a little one that it should not be passed. That again was a very bad reason, and he quoted the opinion of Lord Curzon, whose policy he and the two or three others who were gathered together had most comprehensively condemned during the debates on the Indian Budget. The hon. Member also asked why a Council could not be established of men as independent as the Commercial and Public Works Members, who happened

1679
not to be officials. He would like to know why he suggested that the official members on the Council were not independent. He could not imagine men occupying a more independent position. As a matter of fact they could not look for any further advancement. The Secretary of State, however much he might desire it, could do nothing more for them. Once they were appointed they were practically independent of him. Why did the hon. Member suggest that they were wanting in independence and rectitude?
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid he never spoke of their rectitude. He objected to ex-officials being the sole critics of officials. He feared official bias. The members of the Indian Council were as distinguished men as existed in England or the Empire.
*MR. REESsaid that that disclaimer was hardly in keeping with the condemnation of the hon. Member's speech, and if a member of the Council were wanting in independence, he failed to see how he could be full of rectitude. Independence was the outward and visible sign of rectitude. At what point in their careers did the hon. Member and the two or three who thought with him discover that officials were not independent and were not good advisers? Supposing the Government of India had thought fit to invite the hon. Member to serve longer in India by promoting him to a higher position, there was nothing in the hon. Member's past career to make him believe that he would not have continued to perform the excellent service he had performed and to carry out without cavil or objection the orders of the Indian Government, including, for instance, the partition of Bengal, had he, or one of the other hon. Members of his little party been appointed to the charge of either of the Bengal Lieutenant Governorships. When an ex-official came and suggested that his brother officials were wanting in independence, they should see whether he was justified, and he submitted that the hon. Member had no justification for making such a statement. He invited those who put forward this view, in justice to the service to which they belonged, to the Indian Government, to
1680
the House, and to themselves, to tell the House what discovery of moral obliquity or administrative incapacity induced them immediately they left the service of the Government of India to withdraw from it that confidence which he believed they felt in it during the quarter of a century or longer during which they served it. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion described himself as one interested in the natives, but did he really think that differentiated him in any way from other hon. Members? Whilst the hon. Member had no acquaintance with the natives of India he might on that ground hesitate before he made up his mind that all those who did know them and were carrying on the Government of India, were not capable of fulfilling the high functions with which they were entrusted. The hon. Gentleman said that members of the Council were mere dummies. He thought that was far indeed from the fact, and to none of the ex-civil servants who were appointed members of Council had been vouchsafed the revelation of the incompetence and servility of the Government of India and its servants which had been vouchsafed to the hon. Members, whose views on Indian affairs were those of the Hindu Congress and the Bengal agitators. It was perhaps hardly in order to take it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State proposed to appoint any natives of India to his Council, seeing that the Bill contained no reference to Indians or to any other race, but since this assumption had been made, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would appoint natives; if would be an admirable measure if he did. But he protested against the suggestion of the hon. Member who moved this Motion as to the men who would be representative, because he meant that those men alone would be representative who held the views of the hon. Gentleman— the views of the Bengalis of Calcutta, or rather of a section of the Babes of that city, and not of men who could and would represent the masses of India. He did not think that the Secretary of State would appoint men other than those who were truly representative of India, and they were not to be found among those who came over here and were accepted by the people of this country

1681
as authorities, although they had renounced the religion and caste of the natives and were, themselves in turn, renounced by the natives. As regarded the reduction of salary to which the Leader of the Opposition made certain objections, he would venture to suggest that members of the Civil Service and other officials who came home from India would not refuse an appointment because the salary was reduced from £1,200 to £1,000. He thought this reduction was probably a wise measure because by it the cost of appointing the extra members would be met, and he was quite certain it was very desirable to reduce the period of absence from India for appointment purposes from ten years to five. He might say for the benefit of those hon. Members who smiled at that, that he left India more than five years ago, and was, like most Indian officials and ex-officials, perfectly independent, and speaking with perfect sincerity, of matters which affected him personally and peculiarly in no way whatever. He thought this was an extremely good Bill and he was very sorry to find that any hon. Member who wanted to improve the position of the Council, and was filled with vague and ill -defined yearnings to do something magnificently revolutionary in character, should suggest that it should be passed next session or some other time instead of at the earliest possible moment.
*SIR H. COTTONsupported the Second Reading of the Bill, though he confessed that his anxiety to see the Bill passed into law had been slightly weakened by the speech of the hon. Member who had spoken just before him. He was almost afraid that his desire to support his right hon. friend the Secretary of State might be a mistaken one, because he felt that if he went into the same lobby with the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs upon any Indian subject he might very possibly make a mistake. However that might be, he would certainly advise the House, if they would pay any attention to his advice in the matter, to support the Secretary of State for India and agree to the Second Reading of this Bill. He was personally not very friendly to the
1682
scheme for the enlargement of the Council that the Secretary of State had submitted, but he did not want to waste the time of the House by discussing the constitution of the Council. He freely admitted he did not like the enlargement of the Council; but in other respects the Bill seemed to him to be an excellent one, and its provisions were in the direction of greater efficiency. Although there were many points on which he would have liked to have spoken he thought at that late hour it was sufficient to say that the Bill had his general support and approval.
*MR. SMEATONsaid he only desired to offer his hearty support to the Bill. He agreed with his hon. friend who had just spoken that on any point with respect to Indian administration he was afraid he would be in the wrong lobby if he found himself in the lobby with the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs. The Bill was a very mild one, but to his mind it had the saving grace that it moved in the right direction, namely, that it tended to keep the Indian Council more abreast of the changes in the opinions and condition of the Indian people. The restriction of the time of absence from India of a nominee for the Council was wise, because opinions and events in India now moved rapidly, and if the nominees for the Council were workmanlike, independent men who had quite recently been among the people and took a real interest in their affairs, the more useful to the progressive administration of India they would be. He would only add to his support of the Bill one suggestion. If it had been possible to introduce a provision enacting that there should be, as in the case of the Colonies, periodical Indian Conference it would very much strengthen the hands of the Secretary for India. There was no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman had had the advice of such a Conference, and if the Council had had the advice of a few independent members of the Indian community to discuss frankly Indian affairs without official bias, many of the scandals which had lately disgraced the annals of the Indian administration would have been avoided. The presence in this country of independent natives competent to convey to the

1683
Secretary of State and his Council the changes that had taken place in Indian opinion would carry immense weight; and would be of great utility in preventing the commission of stupid blunders and arrogant acts of the kind which had been witnessed during the late régime in India; and would be a check on any reactionary tendencies on the part of the Government at home. With these few remarks and a general approval of the tendency of the Bill he begged to give it his most cordial support.
MR. MOONEYsaid he did not rise to speak as a retired Indian civil servant, but to ask the Secretary for India if he could give him any information on two points which had occurred to him. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman took power under this Bill to repeal the Act of 1876, which gave power to appoint any person possessing special qualifications. He thought it was rather a curious thing to repeal such a power given to a Government. The real point he wished to raise, however, was that in the Act of 1876 a person appointed to the Indian Council held office during good behaviour, and could only be removed, on an address of both Houses of Parliament. He could not find in that Act any power for what he might call the temporary suspension of a member of the Indian Council. He did not know whether it was done under that Act or not, but what he wanted to know was whether, if a member were temporarily detached from the Indian Council, it was open to that member of his own initiative to return to the Indian Council without being reappointed thereto by the Secretary of State.
MR. MORLEY: As I understand the law, it is not within the power of the Secretary of State to reappoint a member of the Council who has once retired from office.
MR. MOONEYsaid his point did not refer to a member who retired from the Indian Council, but to the case of a member who was temporarily detached by the Indian Government from the Indian Council. Under such circumstances could the member return to the Council without the consent of the
1684
Secretary of State? The correct expression was "temporarily lent."
MR. MORLEYsaid he was not aware of any such case, and he thought he would be if any had arisen. If he were right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman had in mind a certain case, he might inform him that he was incorrectly informed.
MR. MOONEYsaid there was no concealment about the matter. The case he had in his mind was that of the Under-Secretary for Ireland, who was a Member of the Indian Council when appointed, and did not retire from that body. It was announced in this House that he was to be "temporarily lent" by the Indian Council to the Government of Ireland. What he desired to know was whether a person in that position could go back to the Indian Council of his own initiative without re-appointment by the Secretary for India. Was he free to return simply by expressing a wish to do so?
MR. MORLEY: Certainly not by expressing any wish. I do not use the words "going back." No appointment can be made except by and with the consent of the Secretary of State.
MR. MOONEYsaid that under this Act the number of years during which a member of the council could be absent from India was reduced from ten to five. If a member had temporarily left India for more than five years he took it that, under the Act, he would not be entitled to go back to the council of which he was created a member, and from which he had not been dismissed. He would be in this curious position, that he could not go back unless appointed by the Secretary for India, and the Secretary for India could not appoint him because the period of his absence was more than five years. In this way they were creating a very curious anomaly.
MR. LUPTONsaid he only rose to ask a question from the right hon. Gentleman. He understood that this Bill was introduced partly in consequence of the determination of the right hon. Gentleman to add some natives of India

1685
to the Indian Council. But the Bill, as it stood, contained nothing about natives. Was it competent, for the right hon. Gentleman to appoint as many as he liked of the new members from amongst the natives of India, or was there a limit? He (Mr. Lupton) had had the advantage, some years ago, of meeting a member of the Indian Council, and he told him a great deal about India. One of the things he said, which struck him very much, was that famines in India were increasing, and were bound to increase still more in virulence and mortality. When he asked him; "What about the famine fund, has that been spent in Afghan wars? "he replied that it had; the Indian Government always used what funds they had got to pay their debts. He (Mr. Lupton) wished to ask if the Government were now advised to use the special famine funds for the payment of expenses incurred in military expeditions?
MR. MORLEY: The last question of the hon. Member is one that, does not at all arise here. In reply to the first question, there is nothing in the Bill which at all limits or defines in any way the choice of the Secretary of State. He may appoint Indian members of the council or others.
*SIR J. JARDINE: said he wished to make a few remarks, even at that late hour, because of the extreme importance of the subject, and necessarily few because the Bill had been introduced so very late in the session, and was now being debated very far into the small hours of the morning. He could have wished as they had a great question before them, that the debate could be conducted without any of that asperity which was introduced by his hon. friend near him. It was important when they were dealing with the affairs of India that they should take a high, statesmanlike view, not mere criticism of other Members whose opinions differed. He thought that those opinions were extremely valuable. He agreed entirely with what his hon. friend the Member for Walworth said about the need of having independent persons on the Council of State. He spoke of an independent mind rather than of personal
1686
character in these distinguished men. They should have men of varied careers, not merely one sort of officials, but as various and as representative as in that House. It was well known to those serving in India that the administration gained immensely in every way and at every point, and especially in times of peril, when it had competent native advisers on whom it could depend, and he welcomed the belief that this Bill was intended to assist the Secretary of State for India to bring into his Council some of the natives of the country, who were familiar with the opinions and the feelings of the people on many questions, familiar to a degree that no British official —however well-qualified in other respects —could possibly be. The changes the Bill made were likely to do good. It was, on the whole, he thought, well that the tenure of office should be reduced from ten years to seven. He could have wished, however, that they had some certain assurance that natives were going to be introduced into the Council. In fine, he hoped this Bill would pass its Second Reading, while its important details could be discussed in Committee.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: said he wished to emphasise the observations of his hon. friend the Member for Newry. He had pointed out a couple of points at least which were well worth consideration by the Secretary of State for India. He had pointed out that under the Council of India Act, 1876, there was power to appoint a person possessing special qualifications to be a member of the Council. Section 5 of this Bill repealed the Act of 1876. Was it a wise proceeding to deprive the present Secretary of State or any future Government of the power of appointing a person possessing special qualifications? There might not be now on the political horizon a Warren Hastings or a Lord Clive, but there was the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs. The hon. Member was somewhat snobbish, but he put him down with such distinguished predecessors as Warren Hastings and Lord Clive, and they would all be satisfied if he soared in such a starry atmosphere as he had mentioned. He thought it

1687
would be an act of the greatest un wisdom for the Government to deprive itself or any other Government of India of the power of availing of the services of such hon. Gentlemen as the Member for Montgomery Boroughs. Now he came to what was proposed by this Bill. The first proposition was to fix the number of members of the Council, and on that he did not intend to trouble the House with any observations. But the second proposition was to reduce the period of possible absence from India before appointment from ten to five years. That affected a very distinguished public servant at the present time. They were not, and the House was not, quite clear as to what were the terms upon which the present Under-Secretary for Ireland retired from the position of a member of the Council of India. His recollection was that his retirement from the Council of India was tentative, that it came upon an invitation of a distinguished member of the late Government for the purpose of assisting him in a difficult situation. He wanted to know if he had altered his position as a member of the Council; was he still an outside member of the Council; did he ever retire from the Council; was his absence from India at present a real absence; was it an absence which would be construed by those who would have the interpretation of this Bill as a period of absence from India of five years or not? These were points they desired to have elucidated before they could with a clear conscience pass this part of the Bill. His hon. friend had raised these two points. He submitted that they were important points. The first was an important point; although he might have treated it in a light manner so far as the hon. Member opposite was concerned. The second question was one which his hon. friend, himself, and others were unable to understand. He did not wish it to be understood— and he was quite sure his hon. and learned friend did not wish it to be understood— that they were expressing any desire for the retirement of Sir A. MacDonnell. Par from it; but he was in Ireland at the invitation of, and had been appointed by, the Government of Ireland, on the understanding, if he remembered rightly,
1688
That his position would not be worsened soar as the Government were concerned. Before this Bill was pressed to a final issue, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought, if he possibly could, to inform the House as to what the real position of the Under-Secretary for Ireland was. It might be that they would be obliged to abstain from voting, while they had a very honest and sincere desire—as they often had —of supporting the Government in the lobby. Then the Secretary of State had referred to the period of absence from India. He said a period of "real" absence. What did that mean? He thought that these two points ought to be elucidated before the House was called upon to come to a find decision on the Bill.
MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday. (Mr. Secretary Morley.)

PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (APPLICATION OF PENALTIES) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

SALMON AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES BILL [LORDS].
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of July last, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliament had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders in respect of the Amendments made in Committee of this House to the following Bill have not been complied with—
Armagh Urban District Council. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Armagh Urban District Council Bill. Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
Swansea Harbour Bill. —Read 3a, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Aberdeen Corporation Electricity Bill [H.L.], Midland Railway Bill [H.L.]Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Portishead District Water Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [H.L.,]. Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
Brought from the Commons.
Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell), and reported from the Committee. (No. 151.)
Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. A.
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways—Was presented by the Lord Granard (E. Granard) for the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 152.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 532. Surveys of British Africa (Annual Report of the Colonial Survey Committee, second year, to July, 1907).
  No. 533. Wei-hai-Wei (Report for 1906).

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Memorandum on the teaching of drawing.
  TUBERCULOSIS (HUMAN AND BOVINE) (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Appendix, Part II. (2 vols.), to the second interim Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the relations of human and animal tuberculosis.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1907.
  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
  Return of tenants (or their representatives) who had been evicted from three "Plan of Campaign" estates purchased or proposed to be purchased by the Estates Commissioners, and who have been reinstated in their former holdings or provided with other holdings.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS(IRELAND).
  Annual Report of the Registrar General, for the year 1906.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, l906–1907.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Rules of the Supreme Court. (August, 1907.)
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF STAFFORD).
  Order made by the council of the county of Stafford, altering the Handsworth Sandwell (South) Polling District of the Handsworth Parliamentary Division of Staffordshire.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST, NEW ZEALAND)
  The Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 9) Warrant, 1907, dated 19th July, 1907.

  LAND REGISTRY.
  Account of receipts and payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1907.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  Moved, That the Lord Balfour be appointed to take the Chair in the Committee of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees (The Lord Privy Seal (M. Ripon),; agreed to.

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary to trouble your Lordships with a long speech on this occasion, because this measure, which has come up from the House of Commons, corresponds in its main features with the Bill which received the approbation of this House and was passed through all its stages last year. As I then explained, the object of the Government in introducing the Bill was that there should be an opportunity for appeal in regard to all convictions upon indictment, in order that those who had been struck by the criminal law should be placed in a position, with respect to appeal, similar to that enjoyed by litigants in civil causes.
1472
There was a good deal of feeling against the Bill at that time, but I venture to think that the lapse of time has greatly diminished whatever hostility there was to its principle, because, singularly enough, events have occurred within the last twelve months, which, at least to my mind, raise the question whether there should be an appeal to the Press or an appeal to His Majesty's Judges, and for my part I have no hesitation in expressing a preference for His Majesty's Judges. That is the opinion, I think I may fairly say, of your Lordships also, because the principle of the Bill last year was not really contested, and in some parts the Bill met with the approbation of the greatest living authority on the subject, the noble and learned Earl who preceded me on the Woolsack, although in some matters I agree he was not able to concur. The Bill now comes before your Lordships, with something very near unanimity as to the general principle, from the House of Commons. I shall therefore at this stage confine myself to a very short indication of the points in which the Bill now presented to your Lordships differs from the Bill that was agreed to last year.
First, as to the constitution of the Court. Last year all His Majesty's Judges were to be members of the Court of Criminal Appeal. This Bill provides that only nine of the Judges are to be members of the Court, with the Lord Chief Justice as President. The second point is as to the subject-matter of appeal. Last year all matters of fact and of law and of mixed fact and law were referable to the Court of Appeal by leave either of the Judge or of the Court of Appeal. In this Bill all these matters are still subject to appeal, but there is the additional provision that without leave an appeal is given in all cases of capital sentence. The third point is as to the remedy or relief which can be given by the Court. Under the Bill of last year as originally introduced the Court of Appeal might either confirm the conviction, or quash the conviction, but they were not entitled to order a new trial. That was my own original view, and I thought it was the best view or I should not have inserted it in the Bill. But during the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House high legal authorities expressed the opinion that the Court of Appeal ought also to be given the power to order a new trial, and

1473
I yielded to that opinion, although it did not correspond entirely with my judgment. That provision for a new trial was contained in the Bill as it was introduced in the House of Commons; but the provision was struck out by the Commons. Mr. Akers-Douglas, Sir Edward Carson, Lord Robert Cecil, and others of experience and knowledge took an extremely strong view on this point, and I think there is a great deal to be said for the action of the Commons, because it approaches the confines of torture to put a man on trial twice for the same offence. Those are the only differences of substance—at least they are the principal differences—between the Bill as it left your Lordships' House last year and the Bill as it stands now, and I beg respectfully to commend it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, as it is not my intention to move the rejection of this Bill it will not be necessary to go very minutely into the objections which I have to it. On the other hand, I think it would be uncandid, and perhaps not quite fair to my noble and learned friend, if I did not point out what was the substance of my objection to the Bill before we get into Committee. I protest, in the first place, against the proposition of the noble and learned Lord that this Bill is in a great measure necessary because events have occurred which raise the alternative of trial by Judges or trial by newspapers. That seems to me to indicate a weakness somewhere, to which I, for one, will not assent. I cannot understand why the legislation of the country in the most serious matter of the administration of the criminal law should be affected one way or the other because irresponsible persons think it proper to assume that they have knowledge superior to that of His Majesty's Judges.
I must say I a little dissent from one observation made by the Lord Chancellor —namely, that feeling has greatly changed in favour of this Bill. I cannot assent to that. I agree that dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Home Office has increased; and I do not wonder at it, when it is found that the
1474
only mitigating circumstance in a case of murder is that the murderer thought his victim was his father and shot him. It is said that a new trial can be had in all civil cases. Stated broadly like that, that is not true. It is one of those delusions which pass from hand to hand and nobody has yet apparently corrected the error into which fall people who are not familiar with the administration of the law in our Courts. But it is not true to say there is a right of new trial in civil cases. Upon the question of fact there is no right of new trial, and I deny altogether that you are now making the law as applicable to criminal cases the same as in civil cases. You are doing nothing of the sort. You are giving an absolute power to set aside a conviction on a question of fact. I object to that for two or three reasons. I regard it as a most serious constitutional alteration of our whole system.
A man has the right to be tried by a jury; and to say that the question may, be remitted to a Committee of Judges is to make a serious innovation in our whole legal system. I hope none of His Majesty's Judges will be angry with me if I say, after a somewhat extended experience, that in my view the judgment of a jury is better on a question of fact than that of the learned Judges, who are at times a little disposed to be too technical. At all events, the Constitution has made the tribunal on fact the jury, and for myself I very much regret to see an attack made on that institution. Further than that, the consideration of this subject has been made the opportunity of using expressions about the Judges with which I am sure the Lord Chancellor has no sympathy. Yet this question has arisen apparently, out of cases which were not decided by his Majesty's Judges at all; one case, the Beck case, for instance, was decided by a Recorder, and the Edalji case by the chairman of a court of quarter sessions. Any one would think from the cry that has been got up that no complaints had ever been made before our time against convictions. I remember Barber's case very well. That case was decided before one of the ablest Judges that ever sat on the English Bench, but I do not think that in connection with that case we ever had such observations made against the Judges as I was pained to see were made elsewhere.

1475
I repeat that in my opinion the proposed change will greatly diminish the sense of responsibility in the jury. To my mind, nothing could be more mischievous than to give an unqualified right of appeal in every case of capital conviction. Last year there were twenty-eight capital convictions, and if this right were exercised, as we may assume it would be, there would thus be added to the list of cases twenty-eight which would have to be examined with that minute care which characterises an English trial for murder. I think that many people who speak and write on the subject have never witnessed an English trial for murder, for if any one wants an example of the minute and careful administration of justice it can be found there.
Then, too, if you take nine Judges from their ordinary avocations for this purpose, how are the arrears of work to be diminished, on account of which you are at this moment appointing a new Judge? Then you will have a great many more appeals subject to certain conditions. There were 12,000 people convicted last year, and what proportion of them would appeal I cannot say. It may be said that when loss of liberty and of life are at stake you ought to incur the risk of having a great many arrears; but I believe it is absolutely untrue to say that injustice is done in the administration of the law in this country. Moreover, by establishing this Court of Appeal, are you going to get rid of trial by newspaper? Will those who have commented on a public trial before a jury be silenced if they think there is reason to complain, because the case will be tried by a Committee of Judges?
To my mind, the worst feature of the whole system proposed is that witnesses are not to be heard. It is not, then, to be a new trial, for the life and body of the evidence, as more than one learned Judge has described it, will be lacking. The Committee of Judges are not to have the witnesses before them but they are to have the shorthand writer's notes; but the shorthand writer's notes will not tell the Judges how the witnesses looked, how they spoke, whether they hesitated, or how they stood the test of cross-examination. All they will have will be the record, faithfully taken down, I admit, of the evidence; and I must say I entirely approve of a shorthand note
1476
being taken of every criminal trial I do not say that it should necessarily be transcribed, but the note should be taken so that it could be transcribed if required.
These are but a few of the objections which I entertain to this new departure, but, for the reasons I have given, I do not think it necessary to say more at present. I deeply lament what I think is a reversal of our whole system. It is curious that while we are talking about altering our system and so bringing it into consonance with the practice prevailing in the United States, the United States are considering whether they ought not to alter their system and bring it back into consonance with ours, because of the gross abuses involved in this practice of appeal in criminal cases. It is not my intention to move the rejection of the Bill, but I shall endeavour, in Committee, to get rid of some of the evils attendant on its being passed, and I shall hope to carry the majority of your Lordships with me.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I feel that this is an extremely important and delicate subject and one to be approached with the greatest consideration and care. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the proposal to found a Court of Criminal Appeal. The mere use of those words contains an immense statement of what may be an obvious and great piece of justice. I know of no civilised country that does not recognise the desirability of having some power of review and examination in criminal cases.
There is nothing new in this proposal-Some of the greatest legal reformers in this country have for the last half-century applied their minds to this question, not always from the same point of view, not always dealing with the same provisions, not always suggesting the same method or giving the same measure of relief, but all recognising that there should be a right of appeal in criminal cases where there was a possibility that a re-examination might prevent an injustice being done. The whole history of our law shows a steady and sometimes a rapid development towards reform in our criminal procedure. If one contrasts the present administration of our criminal law with what took place in the reign of George III. and long after, when people

1477
were hanged for the most trivial offences, one will see the vast development that has taken place. This idea of reform in criminal procedure has grown with our growth and strengthened with our strength. Trials are carried on with every desire to act fairly and to give consideration to every topic of defence that can be urged, and by a recent reform prisoners are now enabled to give their own story and their own point of view. The death sentence is now limited—and rightly limited—to cases not only of murder, but of deliberate murder.
But now a point has been reached. This, as I have said, is not a new Bill. It follows some forty or fifty previous Bills, all seeking to accomplish the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. Therefore I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is justified in applying his mind as seriously and as earnestly as he has done to seeing whether the time has not been reached when a determined and resolute effort should be made to place such a measure upon the Statute Book. It is not possible in human affairs to get all minds to concur, but there is agreement as to a substantial part of this question of criminal law reform; there is agreement as to the fairness, the justice, and the obvious necessity of giving an appeal to a proper Court in the simplest way on points of law. That is not in controversy. Where differences of opinion and objections arise is as to the giving of an appeal upon questions of fact and upon sentences. The present system is unsatisfactory. It has worked for a great number of years, and I daresay it has often worked very well, but it has sometimes worked in a way that was not satisfactory. The system of the Home Office reviewing cases on petition of the prisoners has one advantage—the Home Secretary and his advisers are not bound by strict rules of law and precedure, and they can take an elastic, untechnical, commonsense view of the case. But, as I say, that system is not always satisfactory. Many thousands of petitions are presented to the Home Secretary every year. The Home Office has to apply itself to this enormously difficult task without any open assistance. It cannot have a hearing in public; it cannot invoke, as far as I know, the aid of an independent Judge who has not theretofore applied himself to the case.
1478
The Home Secretary has to deal as best he can with the particulars before him. It is a difficult branch of administration thus entrusted to an official, no matter how highly placed or anxious to do what is just. But, over and above that, I see it stated that Judges themselves are found not infrequently, after a trial, to invoke an investigation by the Home Office. That all goes to show that the larger provision comprised in this Bill is urgently needed. My noble and learned friend who has just spoken, and for whose opinion I have the greatest respect, as I am sure is the case with every Member of your Lordships' House, has put aside, I think too authoritatively, the effect of the interference of the Press and public discussion in reference to the administration of this jurisdiction. It is always a difficulty in the way of the Home Secretary to have discussions going on in the Press and efforts made to form and develop what is called public opinion, not for his assistance, but in order to lead him to a particular conclusion. I cannot see that this can be regarded as satisfactory, but if this Bill is not passed, what is the alternative? It strikes one with surprise that while in civil cases a man may appeal even to your Lordships' House, a man who has been sentenced to penal servitude, and has a strong objection, if not on a point of law, at all events on a question of fact, has no power to make an objection, except by a private petition to the Home Office. Surely that is a condition of things that can hardly be regarded as satisfactory. I do not know any other country possessing a system of legal jurisprudence that shuts out the element of appeal in criminal cases. The noble and learned Earl beside me referred to America. I am not going to defend the American system, but if I were a criminal, or at all events a person charged with crime, I think I should like to emigrate to America rather than stay here. But that is not the question. It is reasonable that there should be some Court which could be asked to say whether there was anything in the case which called for review, subject to the safeguards provided in the Bill. I admit that there is a danger that this change may tend to weaken the responsibility of the jury, but that consideration is not sufficient to prevent my looking at the purposes of the Bill and considering whether it cannot

1479
be made a useful and valuable measure There is also the danger that the Court will be congested with a great number of appeals. But I hope the Judges will use their discretionary powers with a firm hand. Moreover, there is no appeal on fact except by leave of the Court, and sentences may be increased as well as reduced. These are checks which were not contained in the Bill of last year. The Bill is a great experiment, and no doubt the teachings of experience will show that some amendment will be desirable, and will enable us to obtain from it a more useful and certain assistance in the administration of justice.
LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I hope this Bill will pass its Second Reading and eventually become law without any very substantial amendment. That there should be an appeal on all questions which are not of a criminal nature, and yet no appeal in cases in which life and liberty are at stake, must strike all persons as an anomaly which cannot be allowed permanently to exist; and if this Bill passes into law I venture to prophesy that those who come after us will wonder that we remained so long without remedying so substantial an injustice. Many efforts have been made to remedy this state of things. Your Lordships will recollect that years ago a very learned Commission was appointed to codify the criminal law and that that Commission reported in favour of an appeal on questions of law; but the rock upon which most of those recommendations have split has been the fact that the recommendations have taken the line of advising that in questions of appeal the Court of Appeal should be able to grant a new trial. There are obvious objections to this course—objections on the score of delay, on the score of being unable to get together the witnesses, on the score of expense, and, more potent than all, there is the objection that if the Court of Appeal grants a new trial on the ground of misstatement of fact that is equivalent in law and in logic to their stating that the man ought never to have been convicted, and if he ought never to have been convicted then by our law he is entitled to acquittal. Therefore there was a certain illogicality running throughout the recommendations in suggesting that the Court of Appeal should, in one breath, say that a man ought not to have
1480
been convicted upon the evidence, and give the go-by to the old maxim that the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise the prisoner is entitled to his acquittal. This difficulty is removed by the present Bill, and I presume the really disputable point in the Bill is the question of appeal on matters of fact. To my mind that is the most important and the most valuable part of the Bill. The public is not interested in the unravelling of knotty points of law; what the public is interested in is to see that substantially no injustice is done so far as human foresight can prevent it.
No one can doubt that mistakes have been made and will be made. Mistakes may arise out of questions of identity, they may arise out of a defence of alibi, or they may arise out of placing too much trust or reliance on the evidence of experts in handwriting. There are other grounds on which mistakes have been made and will be made, and when made they have led to injustice. It may be said that such mistakes can be corrected by the Home Office and its officials. No doubt that is so, but that is a tribunal sitting in secret which does not give its reasons; and, though I do not doubt for a moment that they deserve every confidence in the manner and the result of their investigations, yet you cannot expect people outside to have the same confidence in a secret tribunal of this kind that they would have in a public tribunal. For these reasons I trust that the Bill will pass into law without any essential change.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not be shocked at my temerity in rising to say two or three words before he replies. The noble and learned Lord who has just addressed us said a moment ago that only lawyers were interested in these knotty points of legal procedure. I am not quite sure that I entirely admit that. I am quite prepared to admit that only lawyers may be competent to discuss them thoroughly in all their technical bearings. But the public is interested, I think, and very much interested in the question that we are discussing this evening. We, the lay Members of your Lordships' House, are

1481
always at considerable disadvantage in debates of this kind, and we are usually glad and ready to be guided by those who do possess the requisite amount of expert knowledge and to the best of my recollection we are generally fortunate in finding that the eminent lawyers who sit in this House are able to give us, without distinction of Party, advice which the House is able to follow as a whole.
But upon this occasion I own I have listened to the discussion with feelings of some misgiving. It appears to me that we are all of us agreed up to a certain point, and up to a certain point only. We all desire to see some change in the present law. We are all dissatisfied with what the noble and learned Lord described as trial by newspaper. We are all ready to see an appeal given in criminal cases on points of law; but beyond that point there does not seem to me to be any unanimity. My noble and learned friend beside me, Lord Halsbury, is certainly unable to agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and so far as I was able to follow my noble friend, Lord Ashbourne, he does not seem entirely to agree with either of those two great authorities. Then we all remember the speech which the Lord Chief Justice delivered last year, and we have no reason for believing that the noble and learned Lord has changed his mind.
Speaking as an ignorant layman, there are one or two points in the Government Bill which I regard with a considerable amount of apprehension. There is, I think, in the minds of many of us an uneasy feeling that if the Bill is likely to do good in certain cases by preventing a miscarriage of justice in such cases, at other points it may lead to a very inconvenient disturbance of our judicial system. It seems to me to follow obviously that if this Bill becomes law there will be a great increase in the number of criminal appeals. In capital cases the right of appeal will be exercised without the deterrent effect of a possible increase of the sentence, and is it not almost inevitable that our already overburdened tribunals will have thrown upon them a great additional burden by the number of these appeals. Is it not also obvious that a great expense will be occasioned by the number of additional trials which will take place
1482
and, I presume, the number of additional Judges who will be required to try them?
There is another point which seems to me to be intelligible even to the understanding of the humblest layman, and it is this, that the passage of this Bill cannot fail greatly to diminish the feeling of responsibility which now attaches to our jurymen, and that it will be likely to lead them to be less careful than they are now in the performance of their difficult and responsible duties. Again, if these cases are to be heard on appeal, the second trial, in the absence of the witnesses, is likely to be less conclusive and satisfactory than the original trial. These are all points which seem to me to be comparatively simple and easily intelligible, and I confess that they are points which fill me with a certain amount of apprehension in regard to this Bill. Before sitting down I venture to make, with great deference, a suggestion. Upon former occasions when those differences of opinion have arisen there have been informal exchanges of opinion outside the House by its great legal authorities. I cannot help hoping that between the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage it may be found possible, as it was found possible last year, to find some means of reconciling the divergent views which have been expressed this evening, and of submitting the Bill to the House in a shape which may make it acceptable to all of us without the apprehensions which some of us now feel.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, though this debate has been short, the subject-matter of it is of very real importance. I have never attempted to attenuate the importance of the subject, knowing as I do that the giving of an appeal of this kind is in substance a novel proceeding in the criminal law of this country. It is not, however, a proceeding which has been thrust un-expectantly or without long preliminary deliberation upon Parliament. It has been the subject of deliberation by many very distinguished men, and I hope we shall now come to a satisfactory conclusion upon it.
I can only say that I have always been willing, and always will be, to

1483
attempt to come to an agreement on any measure in which I have been interested, but I must say that some of the differences are more than skin deep. However, I need hardly say that I will respond to the expression of hope which the noble Marquess has uttered. Everybody agrees that on questions of law there should be an appeal, but questions of law are very rare in criminal cases. It is nearly always a question of fact, either as the sole element or as the main ingredient in it. The reason for wishing to have an appeal on the question of fact is derived, in the first place, from the antecedent probability that human nature will make mistakes, or is liable to make mistakes, and that there ought to be some means of obtaining a skilled review in appropriate cases. It is a terrible thing for a man to be convicted. It ruins his future; his character is gone, and it causes infinite pain and anguish and misery to all who belong to him.
But apart from the antecedent probability of error there is the acknowledged fact that error exists. We are constantly investigating in this House and in the Court of Appeal cases in which juries have gone wrong on questions of fact; and we are often unable to agree with the views of Judges on points of law and on directions of law upon the question of fact and their treatment of questions of fact. If men are liable to go wrong in their judgments in civil causes, why are they not under similiar liability in criminal cases? In a civil cause any one can appeal down to £50; but that a man should have no right of appeal against a conviction which may involve penal servitude and a career and character blasted for life is most extraordinary, and in this position this country is unique among nations. I do not believe there is any country that has not some form of appeal.
When I spoke of trial by newspaper, I meant that, when a case arose in which facts were disputed, newspapers brought the matter forward, partially and inadequately, and what agitated the public mind was that there was no impartial tribunal to settle the dispute. I put aside the question of the necessity of appointing more Judges; we are not so impoverished that we cannot afford £15,000 or £20,000 for such a reform.
1484
As to the impairing of the sense of responsibility among jurymen, I do not think the knowledge that there is an appeal will influence their consideration for a moment or affect their judgment. If such knowledge would have such effect, then it is the most complete condemnation of the jury system applied to civil causes. In answer to what the noble Marquess said, may I offer him in the first place an exhortation, and in the second place a respectful admonition. The exhortation is that he will take part in legal discussions. The law is nothing but educated commonsense as a rule, and as he possesses common-sense, although he has not had a special legal education, I can assure him that his contributions will be most grateful. The admonition is that difference is the breath of our nostrils, and that there is no likelihood of unanimity among members of the legal profession. In reply to the remarks of the noble and learned Earl, it is to be observed that among lawyers there are at the commencement always differences of opinion upon, and objection to, any reform of the law; but I will venture to prophesy that in two or three years this reform will receive a chorus of approval from the profession and gratitude will be accorded your Lordships' House for having passed it into law.
On Question, Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order.)
[Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair].
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2: —
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This clause refers to settlements of a married woman's separate property, and it provides that—
"a settlement or agreement for a settlement made after the commencement of this Act by the husband or intended husband, whether before or after marriage, respecting the property of any woman he may marry—"
I propose to add after the words "may marry" the words" or have married."
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 21, after the word 'marry' to insert the words 'or have married.' "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is in Subsection 2—
"(2) But if she dies an infant any covenant or disposition by her husband shall bind or pass any interest, larger than an estate or interest for his life, in any property of hers to which he may become entitled on her death."
I propose to insert after the word "husband" the words "contained in the settlement or agreement" That is the meaning of the clause, and the Amendment is merely to make that clear.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 25, after the word 'husband' to insert the words 'contained in the settlement or agreement.' "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is designed to state clearly that which is intended by the Bill. I propose to leave out, from Subsection 2, which I have already read, the words larger than an estate or interest for his life," and to insert, at the end of the subsection, the words, "and which he could have bound or disposed of if this Act had not been passed."
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words ' larger than an estate or interest for his life,' and in line 27, after the word ' death ' to insert the words ' and which he could have bound or disposed of if this Act had not been passed.' "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4: —
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move an Amendment in this clause to provide that the Bill shall not apply to Scotland. I cannot imagine what the result would
1486
be if an Act relating to English conveyancing law were to apply to Scotland.
Amendment moved —
"In page 2, line 16, after the word 'eight' to insert '(3) This Act shall not extend to Scotland.' "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 150.)

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS(No. 2) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAU-CHAMP): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to extend a principle which has been already admitted in other Acts, and which has been found to work with very good effect. There are precedents in the Habitual Drunkards Act, 1879, and the Youthful Offenders Act, 1901, under which a justice of the peace may, instead of sending the person before him to a retreat or to prison, commit him to the custody of some fit person to be detained for the period for which he is remanded. This principle has also been enacted under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, and the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887. This Bill, however, goes rather further, in that it will apply to others besides those who are before the Court for the first time. The most important part of the Bill, perhaps, beyond what I have already mentioned, is the permission which is given to Courts to provide for the payments of a salary to probation officers. Your Lordships will see in Clause 3 a provision that the salary shall be paid by the authority out of the funds from which the salary of the clerk to the justices is paid. I am sure that those of your Lordships who have had experience upon petty sessional divisions or upon benches in towns, even small towns, will realise that the, provisions of this Bill are likely to be of very great benefit in a large number of cases. I myself have heard cases in connection with which

1487
I have regretted that it has been necessary to send the accused to prison. This Bill will obviate that. It is recognised by all reformers that the more you can segregate offenders the better it is for them in the future, and inasmuch as this Bill goes some way in that direction I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading, and allow it to pass without Amendment.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, this Bill can hardly be called a first-class measure in the ordinary sense of the term. It is not one which creates a great deal of popular excitement, or which, before it reaches your Lordships' House, is heralded by the shouts of politicians and the clash of Parliamentary steel. But all who are interested in social form must feel highly grateful to His Majesty's Government for having introduced this Bill, and I may also, in parenthesis, add the Bill which is to follow, and which is also to be proposed by the Lord Steward. I am delighted to find that His Majesty's Government have discovered that a useful measure need not necessarily be a lengthy or contentious one. I have for years felt that a great deal might be done if only the Government of the day would, instead of looking simply and solely for great party contentious Bills, see whether they could not do good by simple and non-contentious legislation. There can be no doubt whatever that this Bill will prevent crime, and to a large extent empty our jails. Therefore I. venture to say that if the Government, instead of producing lengthy and contentious programmes of shop-front legislation, of which not a tithe can pass, were to devote themselves to small and useful and non-contentious measures like this they would add greatly to the happiness of the great mass of the people.
On Question, Bill read 2a" and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RELEASED PERSONS (POOR LAW) RELIEF BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the subject with which this Bill deals has been before the public for something like twenty-two years, and I believe the Bill itself has no opponent of any sort or kind. Its object is. to give relief to the rates of districts in which prisons are situated by giving powers for the sending of distressed prisoners, who, on release seek refuge in the nearest workhouse, to districts more properly charged with them. In Wandsworth alone no less than seventy-nine prisoners became chargeable'' to the rates of the borough, although none of the offences for which they were sentenced were committed within the Wandsworth Poor-Law union. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, and will not consider any Amendment necessary.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a " —(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND) BILL,
Bill read 3a (according to Order.)
LORD DENMANmoved to amend Clause 1, Sub-section (1) —by leaving out the word "recognised" before the words "assistants of the clerks of petty sessions at Cork and Belfast," and inserting, at the end of the clause, the words "and approved of by the Lord Lieutenant." He explained that this Amendment had been drafted to meet the point urged at an earlier stage by Lord Ashbourne.
Amendment moved —
"In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word ' recognised' and in line 12, after the word ' Act' to insert the words ' and approved of by the Lord-Lieutenant.' "—(Lord Denman.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that if the Irish Office thought the words moved by the noble Lord met the point adequately and prevented the possibility of doubt he was satisfied.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE SUGAR CONVENTION.
The EARL of DENBIGH: My Lords, I rise to call attention to Papers recently circulated relating to communications from the Colonies protesting against any weakening of the Brussels Sugar Convention, and to the reasons put forward by His Majesty's Government in justification of their policy on this question. I had this Notice on the paper for last week, but on receiving a representation from noble Lords opposite that it was desirable to postpone it in view of discussions being carried on elsewhere, I took it off; but when I found that the question was coming on in the House of Commons on the Foreign Office Vote, I replaced it with the assent of the noble Lord opposite.
Before this House is too much occupied with other business I wish to call your Lordships' attention to this important question, because unfortunately there is no doubt that the general public do not thoroughly comprehend the present situation. I know that it is a somewhat complex one, and the difficulty has been that in this country we have invariably regarded the question simply and solely from the consumers' point of view, and therefore the general public, beyond the question of getting cheap sugar, have never paid any attention to the matter. As your Lordships know, the Convention about which so much dispute has arisen was an agreement come to for the purpose of dealing with bounties and foreign cartels. Bounties are pretty well understood, but, unfortunately, cartels are not. I daresay there are a certain number of noble Lords in this House who do not fully appreciate the manner in which the foreign cartels have hitherto worked, and I will go further and say that there may be some members of the Cabinet who would be indisposed to stand a very searching cross-examination as to the ways and methods of the foreign cartels.
Only a few days ago I was speaking to a very influential and well-known Member of your Lordships' House, a noble Lord of great experience, and he expressed the opinion that there did not seem to be any probability whatever of bounties being re-established, because he said he did not believe that foreign countries wished to re-establish them. I quite agreed with him, but I said, "What
1490
about cartels?" "Oh," he replied, "that is a technical question," and he thereupon dismissed the subject. That is just a sample of the way in which it is too often regarded. Though the question of the cartels may be a technical one, it is of just as much importance in dealing with the present situation as the question of bounties; in fact, I think it is more important, because cartels have done more harm than the actual bounties. And when I say that they have done more harm, it is important to remember the exact matter which the Convention was devised to remedy—namely, the constant selling in the markets of the world of sugar under cost price, thereby greatly injuring the cane industry in foreign countries, and more especially in our own Colonies.
I wish, therefore, without any desire to be wearisome, to remind your Lordships ' what this question of cartels is. The cartels were formed in Austria and in Germany; they were great trusts, or combinations, or rings, whatever you like to call them, of the manufacturers of those two countries, who combined together and bound themselves, under very strict penalties, not to sell sugar in their respective countries under a certain price; and by means of this combination they screwed up the price of sugar to a point just below that at which it would have paid other people to have imported sugar to compete with them. By means of having a high protective duty in these countries the cartels made very large profits, but they were only able to work satisfactorily to themselves by means of this high protective duty, or, in other words, by having a high surtax—the surtax being defined in the document of the Brussels Convention as being the difference between the Excise duty and the Import duty.
This Convention was passed for the purpose of dealing with the selling of sugar below cost price. The bounties were dealt with by the countries agreeing to bind themselves not to give bounties in either direct or indirect forms; and the cartels were dealt with by the various countries joining the Convention agreeing to limit the surtax to six francs per 100 kilos, or 2s. 6d. per cwt. With the surtax thus limited the cartels ceased to be profitable combinations and automatically went

1491
into abeyance. It is just as well to remember, too, that the profits made by the cartels in selling to their own consumers were very large indeed. In Austria, I believe, in one favorable year, the cartel made as much as £3,000,000 profit, and in Germany about £5,000,000. The result of that was greatly to increase production and encourage the cultivation and establishment of sugar factories, because, naturally, when these large profits were being made, people were constantly wishing to come in and join the cartels. The consequence was that Austria and Germany produced far more sugar than they could use themselves, and the surplus was dumped on the English market, and owing to the large profits they were making, they were able to sell that surplus sugar at less than cost price. It was this situation which the Convention was brought about to deal with. I hope I have been able to make the situation clear. It is very important that it should be thoroughly understood, and I would point out that these cartels are only in a state of suspended animation. Their organisation is still in existence, and they are ready to get to work again if only they can persuade their respective countries to increase the import duty to a point above 6 francs per 100 kilos. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that these cartels did just as much harm as, if not more harm than, the actual bounties themselves; and yet, unfortunately, in the minds of the British public, the cartels are almost wholly ignored, and people speak of the question as if it affected nothing but the bounties.
There is another point to which I wish to call attention£namely, that these, as I would call them, cut-throat prices were absolutely killing the cane industry in foreign countries and in the Colonies, and I submit that this was entirely contrary to the interests of the consumers in this country. In consequence of the encouragement which has been given to the production of sugar on the Continent of Europe, Austria and Germany alone at the present moment supply about 4,000,000 tons of sugar£that is, very nearly one-third of the total production of the world; and, taking into consideration France and other countries that grow beet, I think you will find that very nearly one half of the whole sugar production of the world is grown on the Continent of Europe.
1492
This is contrary to the interests of consumers, because it places them at the mercy of any drought or bad season in the principal beet-growing countries, and at such times you are certain to have speculative prices and to have the general markets upset. The abnormal prices that obtained in 1905 are an instance.
I would remind the House of what happened in regard to the question of cotton. Owing to a short crop in the United States and to great speculation in Wall Street, cotton a few years ago was forced up to a price which caused the greatest possible alarm in Lancashire and brought disaster to that important industry. What was the result? All our important cotton users began busying themselves to see in what other parts of the world cotton could be grown. The West African Cotton Growing Association was formed, and the question was investigated in Egypt, in Rhodesia, and in East Africa, so as to prevent the cotton markets of Lancashire being too much dependent on the United States supply. Surely the same thing applies to sugar, and it is most shortsighted of the consumers of this country to continue to favour a system which has in the past had the effect of centering the sugar supply of the world on the Continent of Europe, and thus making themselves liable to these fluctuating prices.
I was the other day somewhat severely castigated by the noble Marquess who leads this House and by the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs for daring to insinuate that the policy of His Majesty's Government on this question had been actuated mainly by political motives; and I was told that their action had been simply and solely due to their adherence to the great principles of Free Trade. I do not wish to say anything to hurt the feelings of the noble Lords opposite, but I am afraid I must confess I am entirely unrepentant, and I venture the assertion again that the action which has lately been taken by His Majesty's Government with regard to this particular question has been mainly owing to Party exigencies and to the statements that were made in the country by many politicians previous to the general election. I say that their action has been mainly in consequence of what have been called the "good-humoured

1493
exaggerations" of politicians—a phrase which fell from the noble Lord the Under -Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and which, used in conjunction with what went on at the last general election, is destined to take its place in history second only to that other famous phrase, "terminological inexactitude".
Well, what happened? When that great rise in sugar took place, naturally there was great disturbance to all our markets. The Convention was cursed, no consideration whatever was paid to the real causes which brought it about, and every one in the then Opposition immediately proceeded to direct their attention, and the attention of the public, to the great desirability of destroying the Convention on the very earliest opportunity. The result of that was that when the present Government came in they found themselves very considerably tied up by these "good-humoured exaggerations," and they had considerable pressure put upon them by their followers. Speeches were made on this subject by many prominent members of the Government previous to the general election, and by none more than by the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Lloyd-George. I have seen several speeches of his in which he declared that if foreign countries were foolish enough to give bounties, and so provide us with cheap sugar, we should be very foolish if we did not avail ourselves of them. Lurid accounts were given of the large amount of sugar which was kept out of the country owing to the prohibition of sugar from the countries which did not join the Convention, and we were told that all this was greatly to the detriment of the sugar-using trades.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Under-Secretary have both acknowledged that they do not want the bounties and cartels to revive, and they admit the evils of both of these systems. Therefore it is evident that the Government now adopt a different attitude from what they did before the general election. It is possible that the President of the Board of Trade may have got somewhat wiser since he took office and came into contact with the permanent officials and with official documents. I believe that is a thing that very often happens to platform politicians. But the curious
1494
thing is they never will admit it. They prefer that the British public should consider them absolutely incapable of learning anything from official documents, or of profiting at all from sources of information from which they were previously debarred. It is quite evident that the situation now is that the Government do not want to destroy the Convention, but they have not got the moral courage to get up and say so. Therefore they are bound to do something for the purpose of performing the Chinese operation which is known as "saving their face"; and so I presume the brilliant idea occurred that the best way out of it would be to denounce the penal provisions of the Convention—the provisions which alone made the Convention effective—while at the same time saying they had no desire to injure the Convention at all; and, of course, as the public has been led to believe that these penal provisions were keeping large quantities of sugar out of the country that denunciation could naturally be done in the name of free trade and great kudos would necessarily accrue to His Majesty's Government.
I submit that His Majesty's Government must have known that no possible good to the trade of the country could come from denouncing these penal provisions, and I shall venture to show why. We had a statement from Lord Denman not very long ago in which he stated, very positively, that in his opinion the keeping out of sugar from the Argentine and from Russia encouraged speculation, and was greatly conducive to the high prices which existed in 1905; but in the House of Commons last week the statement was made on behalf of His Majesty's Government, in reply to a question, that in 1903, previous to the passing of the Convention, the amount of sugar brought in from the Argentine was only 4,000 tons. I respectfully submit that to say that the non-advent of 4,000 tons in a market of 2,000,000 tons could have had any effect on the price is too ridiculous a contention to merit further notice. Then, with regard to Russian sugar, it was stated in the House of Commons, in the same answer, that it was difficult to obtain absolute statistics because a great deal of Russian sugar came through Germany. I believe that is the case, but I am informed by competent people in the City,

1495
who know what they are talking about, that it would be very safe to say that the amount of sugar which came from Russia was well under 20,000 tons. But, whatever the amount may have been, the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs admitted, in the last speech he made in this House on the subject, that the stopping of Russian sugar did not alter the supplies available; and that, I submit, effectively disposes of the rest of Lord Denman's argument.
The noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was himself extremely illogical and contradictory in his last speech. When I ventured to point out, in support of the agitation for the establishment of the beet sugar industry in this country, the great good it would do in providing employment in rural districts and improving the cultivation of the land, the noble Lord said that the good results to which I alluded would be infinitesimal alongside the advantages given to the trade of the country by the absolute free entry of sugar. The only possible way in which the sugar trade of the country could benefit would be by a permanent and very considerable cheapening of the raw material. I admit, of course, that it is of great advantage to many manufacturing interests to have raw material as cheap as possible, but, at all events in this particular instance, I entirely fail to see why the confectioners and sugar-using trades of this country should necessarily be allowed to make to the great harm of other people larger profits than they do at present.
But what I ask is, would sugar be considerably cheaper? I submit that it could not possibly be cheaper on account of the advent of sugar from the non-Convention countries, because His Majesty's Government admit, in so many words; that no restriction of supplies has been brought about by the imposition of this penal clause; and if there has been no restriction of supplies in this way, how can there be any addition to the supplies by dropping the penal clause? And if the supplies are not very greatly increased, how can the prices be so lowered as to bring about these wonderful benefits to the sugar-using trades? A great lowering of price could not possibly arise simply and solely through sugar coming from the non-Con-
1496
vention countries; the only way in which it could occasionally arise would be by recourse to bounties and cartels—the system which did occasionally produce exceptionally low prices, but which His Majesty's Government are themselves condemning and which they say they do not wish to see re-established. I submit that the position taken up by His Majesty's Government on this particular point is supremely ridiculous.
The Under-Secretary the other day, after he had driven himself into various corners in the course of his speech, knocked out all the arguments that had hitherto been used. He said—
"If it were asked how, in view of the fact mentioned, the prohibition of Russian sugar in this country could affect the price we had to pay for our sugar or could really limit our supply, the answer would be that any interference with the natural How of commodities along the routes which they follow when left to themselves must involve friction and must tend to make them more expensive."
The noble Lord added—
"A case may easily arise, when sugar prices are unduly inflated by speculation, when it may be desirable for an importer to procure sugar from a special source which may for the moment be the most favourable one.''
So that, practically, is the only possible advantage which the noble Lord leaves to be derived from the dropping of these penal provisions. But who would be the people who would import sugar under these conditions? Not the confectioner, not the jam maker, but the big broker in the City, who might possibly be able to snatch a bargain at times of inflated prices. But these gentlemen are not philanthropists; they do not go to Mincing Lane for the benefit of their health; and is it supposed that if an importer obtained a parcel of sugar under these conditions he would not sell it at the best market price he could get and put the profit in his pocket? Therefore I say that when you come to analyse it, the sole possible advantage which is left as a consequence of the dropping of the penal clause is that particular instance to which I have referred.
I do not know why it is that His Majesty's Government use these extraordinarily thin and threadbare arguments in support of this policy—arguments so contradictory that to an exceptionally stupid and dense person like myself they

1497
appear to be almost nonsensical and pedantic. The only conclusion I can come to is that His Majesty's Government are the unfortunate victims of something; they know perfectly well that they have no case and that their arguments are absolutely untenable, but they have to do something and make the best of it. If the dropping of the penal clause was going to do any good, that good might very fairly be set against any evil effects which might result; but I submit I have shown to your Lordships that it cannot possibly do any good and that it may do a great deal of harm. This Convention is extremely unpopular with the sugar interests on the Continent, on account of the fact that it has curtailed very greatly the profits they made under the system which the Convention destroyed; and although, possibly, the countries now negotiating at Brussels may consent to go on with the Convention for another five years, this action of His Majesty's Government is a standing invitation to the cartels of Austria and Germany, and more especially to the Austrian ones, to agitate all they can during the next five years for the, purpose of obtaining an increase in the import duty to their own advantage at the end of that time.
You have no guarantee whatever as to what may happen in five years time. No wonder that we have recently had circulated by the Government this remarkable series of protests [Papers relating to the Brussels Sugar Convention, Cd. 3565] from our different Colonies, showing the alarm and the indignation which they feel. This correspondence begins with a letter received from the Now Colonial Company, dated as far back as May 15th of last year, in which they state that they are going to expend £4,000 on the erection of a hospital for the benefit of their sugar coolies, and they very much wish to know what the policy of His Majesty's Government is going to be. It would be interesting to know what answer was sent by the Colonial Office. Then follow letters from Antigua and Jamaica. From Jamaica comes the request to His Majesty's Government to permit the Government of that Colony to endeavour to negotiate with the United States a reciprocal agreement, whereby the American Government would, after September, 1901, admit sugar from that
1498
island into the United States on preferential terms. Therefore the policy of His Majesty's Government does not seem to be doing much towards promoting commercial intercourse between Jamaica and this country.
Then you have strong despatches from Barbados and British Guiana, where the sugar industry is the principal industry of the Colony, and where the greatest possible alarm has been felt at the general state of insecurity which has been brought about by His Majesty's Government. It is also remarkable to notice that there are despatches from nearly all the other Colonies, both sugar-producing and non-sugar-producing, showing that the opinion is pretty unanimous on this point. Protests have come in from chambers of commerce all over the Empire, and it is not too much to say that the greatest alarm has been created by the action of His Majesty's Government, who will have absolutely nothing whatever to show for it. I know that the Conference at Brussels is sitting at the present moment, and, in the interest of the sugar producers and of the possible establishment of the sugar beet industry in this country, I most sincerely hope that the Convention will be renewed. It would be a disastrous thing if it were not. But I repeat, that, even if it is renewed, no possible benefit can come to this country from the action of the Government and the state of uncertainty with regard to the possible re-establishment of the cartels that has been created, and will continue for the next five years until the Convention again comes up.
*LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, when the Brussels Sugar Convention was first mooted I took a great personal interest in opposing it on behalf of the east coast ports of England. The noble Lord has made a very good theoretical speech, but the practical business question to be considered is whether it is better for this country to have sugar cheap or sugar dear. This is practically what it comes to. In 1903 there was a big meeting held at Hull, presided over by a very strong Unionist, the object being to call upon the local Members of Parliament to do all they could to oppose this Convention. The resolution that was passed was in these terms, that while protesting, on national grounds, against

1499
the ratification of the Convention, the meeting regarded with especial alarm the fact that important local interests would be injured by its operations, and it was felt that the Convention was a move of Mr. Chamberlain to divert the sugar trade from the Continent to the West Indies, as a protectionist measure.
Why should we support the West Indies against our own people? Perhaps the noble Lord and the House generally are not aware that the trade with the Sugar Bounty countries, France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany in sugar alone, in the year 1901, amounted to 1,574,000 tons, whereas the exports from the West Indies were only 34,000 tons; that is 34,000 tons against 1,574,000 tons which came into this country at a low rate for the benefit of all the industries connected with sugar. The West Indies, at the same time that they were exporting 34,000 tons of sugar to England, were exporting 105,000 tons to the Untied States. The exports in coal from the United Kingdom to France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany were £9,629,000, and the exports to the West Indies £48,000. The West Indies do not want our coal, except what is used for bunkering steamers. They do not want our blankets. What do they want? They practically want very little.
The Member for West Birmingham, in his zeal to support the population of the West Indies, thought it desirable to encourage trade there, and the Government now have to pay £40,000 a year for a line of steamers to bring bananas from the West Indies to England. We did very well without bananas in times gone by. As we see in the streets of London, the importation of bananas has produced a taste for them, but I suppose human beings can only eat a certain quantity of fruit, and it would have been more in the interests of this country if they had kept to apples and pears. We must remember the enormous trade we do with the sugar-producing countries, and the millions of pounds worth of coal they buy from us. This year, there has been an enormous increase in the export trade to Continental ports, and the increase has been so great that the local railways have been entirely unable to cope with the traffic. The consequence is that steamers arriving in the Humber ports have to lie out in the
1500
river until room can be found for them in the docks, and until the railways are able to deal to some extent with the traffic. Those are facts; they are not theories.
To make sure of my ground, I telegraphed to the chairman of the meeting to which I have referred, and this gentleman, who is largely concerned in the question, replies that he is as opposed to the Sugar Convention now as as he was four years ago. I do not know that I can say anything stronger. I look upon this from a practical business point of view. It simplifies itself into this: are we to support the West Indies against our own people? Are we to endeavour to induce agriculturists in this country to lay out thousands of pounds in an attempt to grow sugar beet? What would have happened this year, with the season that we have had, to those who had put their money into such a speculation? It would have been a total failure. It is clear that this country is not suitable for the growing of sugar beet.
I am in favour of as little protection as possible and as much dumping as possible. Let us get everything as cheaply as we can. I am sure that in the long run that will be found to be the feeling of the country. I am still at a loss to know what the noble Earl who has raised this question today wishes. Does he wish us to support the West Indies, the entire population of which is very little more than that of one of our biggest cities, or does he wish encouragement given to the cultivation of sugar beet in England? We have plenty of things to grow without undertaking sugar beet, and I think that, on the whole, the people of this country will feel that the Government are acting wisely in putting a stop to all the troubles that the Brussels Sugar Convention has undoubtedly led to.
My statistics are for 1901, when the United Kingdom imported only 34,160 tons of sugar from the West Indies against 1,574,750 tons from France, Belgium, Holland and Germany, the Sugar Bounty countries; at the same time the West Indies exported 105,453 tons of sugar to the United States, show-it is their natural and best market. Again, we exported 15,542,743 tons of coal to the Sugar Bounty countries against 56,725 tons of coal to the West

1501
Indies, and we bought (imported) from the Sugar Bounty countries a total of sugar and merchandise of about £140,000,000 against £1,330,000 from the West Indies. Again, we exported to the Sugar Bounty countries £84,297,248 of coal merchandise against £2,102,122 to the West Indies. The Sugar Bounty countries thus by our purchases of sugar are enabled to reciprocate and help us to maintain our shipping lines and colliery output. The West Indies can do little or nothing. I hope the Board of Trade will give the statistics for 1906.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES(The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I must confess that I, like the noble Lord behind me, feel somewhat doubtful as to what the noble Earl has desired specially to put before us this evening. I proposed to reply because I found on the Paper a statement that the noble Earl was going to call attention to certain communications from the Colonies. The noble Earl made, as he always does, an eloquent speech, full of knowledge of his subject, and, if I may do so, I would like to express my personal thanks to him for the lucid way in which he described the system of cartels.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I also put down on the Paper that I would call attention to the reasons put forward by His Majesty's Government in justification of their policy on this question.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: I am quite aware of that, but the noble Earl placed the other matter first in his Notice, and one naturally supposed that that was to be at any rate the jumping-off ground. But he did not refer to those Papers until just at the end of his speech. I admit that then the noble Earl did say one or two words on that subject. I was beginning to feel that I should have little to say, but as the noble Earl has referred to the communications from the Colonies, I shall venture to say a few words on that subject. As to the rest, I have only to remark that we have already had two debates on this subject this session in your Lordships' House, in both of which the noble Earl who initiated them told us that we were going entirely wrong, and in which he probably said, as he has said to day, that our action was entirely actuated by political motives. All I can
1502
say on that point is that we have made our statement. I think we have taken the only action that was open to us as a Government professing free trade principles, and we are not ashamed of having done so.
With regard to the Papers to which the noble Earl has alluded, although there are expressions in favour of the noble Earl's views, the Papers also contain other significant expressions. I will quote one only. In a resolution passed by the Barbados Agricultural Society it is stated that—
"While the Convention has not led to a rise in the average price of sugar, it has restored the financial stability of the industry, and as it consequence sugar-planters are able to obtain capital for improving machinery whereby the quality of their sugar can be adapted to the changing needs of the market and the cost of production can be gradually reduced."
I quote that resolution to show that it is stability which has give man impetus to the sugar industry in the West Indies, and especially to the improvement of machinery. But stability cannot be said to depend on protection alone. I should be inclined to argue that protection was apt to injure stability. I believe that many instances of that kind could be quoted. At any rate, the want of stability is disastrous to any industry. If we want to secure stability we must take into account all those who are interested in the industry with which we are concerned. Therefore we must take into account, not only the producers in the Colonies, but also the consumers in the United Kingdom, and the great confectionery industries to which cheap sugar is of the highest importance. I think we can safely argue that it is detrimental to the Colonies that the democracy of this country should possess the idea that the majority in this country should suffer for the sake of the minority in the Colonies. The friction which arises out of those causes must be avoided, because nothing is more calculated to bring about those unsettled conditions from which the sugar like any-other industry is apt to suffer. It is from that point of view that the action taken by His Majesty's Government proceeds. What happened was this. The permanent Commission established at Brussels under the Sugar Convention met on 25th July to consider the suggestion of His Majesty's Government that, if the United Kingdom could be relieved from the obligation to

1503
enforce the penal provision of the Convention, they would be prepared not to give notice on 1st September next of their intention to withdraw on 1st September, 1908—notice which otherwise they would be bound to give. At the meeting of the Commission a draft protocol was drawn up for submission to the different Governments on the understanding that, if accepted, it would be signed before September 1st next. This draft protocol provides for the modification of the Convention, and, at the same time, for its continuance. It meets, on the one hand, the wish of his Majesty's Government to be relieved from penalising bounty-fed sugar, and, on the other hand, it enables the other Powers to reconsider their position, should they be of opinion that their interests are suffering.
The Commission decided that the text of the protocol should not be published until the Governments had decided whether they would accept it. and it is for that reason, and not because we wish to burke the matter in any way, that we have been anxious that the debate should be postponed. I hope the action which his Majesty's Government have taken will safeguard the stability on which the sugar industry of our sugar producing colonies depends. The noble Earl made some references to an incident in Lancashire and the failure of the cotton crop. He is, no doubt, well aware that one of the results of that incident was that the growing of cotton was taken up in the West Indies as well as in other places. I, for one, think that nothing will give greater stability to the West Indies and to the industries of the West Indies than that their eggs should not all be put in one basket. For that reason I have seen with great satisfaction the growth of the fruit trade, and I entertain still greater hopes in regard to cotton-growing in those colonies. From all accounts which have reached me, it appears that in many of the Islands there is ground well fitted for growing cotton of excellent quality. I hope that, if that enterprise is successful, we shall see those colonies, in spite of any difficulties that may arise in their sugar trade, once more enjoying the prosperity which has perhaps been denied to them for some time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat
1504
down and the noble Lord who preceded him have thought it wise, in their own interests, to attempt to import into this discussion all the prejudice which hangs round the fiscal controversy. But I would like to remind your Lordships that this question of the abolition of the sugar bounties was long anterior to the fiscal controversy. The abolition of sugar bounties has been advocated, not by those who are called protectionists, but by ardent free traders. I believe Mr. Gladstone himself was in favour of the abolition of sugar bounties. I am quite sure of this, that the Government which negotiated the proposals of the Sugar Convention contained such men as the Duke of Devonshire, Lord George Hamilton, and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, all of whom, as your Lordships are well aware, proved at a very important and significant moment their attachment to the principles of free trade. Therefore I am not prepared to admit that those who favour the maintenance of the Brussels Convention are to be labelled with the name of protectionists.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: I did not say so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the noble Lord behind the Government Bench said so, or used words to that effect. Even the Government themselves do lip service to the interests of the producers as well as to those of the consumers. That fact stands on the face of their despatch, in the opening words of which they say they are—
"bound to consider the interests of the consumers and producers in the United Kingdom and her Colonies"
Having said that much, that is all they do for the producers so far as the Colonies are concerned. The rest of their policy is confined to looking after the interests of the consumers and the consumers alone. What can be the motive for adopting this policy? Why could not the Government have left things alone? They were not called upon to make themselves responsible for the Brussels Convention. That was done before they assumed office, and all they had to do was to leave it alone. All that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies could find to say on that subject was that it was inconsistent with the faith of a free

1505
trade Government that they should continue the Convention. I notice that his colleague, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking in another place, said: —
"We never denied that under the Sugar Convention benefits might accrue to those parts of the Empire which produce sugar. But what we did contend was that no benefit to a particular part of the Empire should be purchased at the cost of the community as a whole."
That appears to be the policy of His Majesty's Government. I am surprised, if they take that view, that they are content with the consequences of the Sugar Convention, even though its sanctions are by their action to be abolished. If they really think the interests of the consumers are alone to be sought, why do they not take steps to persuade foreign countries to re-establish the bounties, to get rid of which we were at such pains?
I would refer your Lordships to another quotation, one of an earlier date, but not many years old: —
"The benefit which the British Empire as a whole derives from any lowering of the price of sugar due to the operation of the bounty system is too dearly purchased by the injury that system imposes on a limited class— namely, your Majesty's West Indian and other subjects dependent on the sugar industry"
Observe the phraseology of that quotation and compare it with the observation I have just quoted from the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place. According to Sir Edward Grey, no benefit to a particular part of the Empire should be purchased at the cost of the community as a whole; but, according to the quotation I have just read, the benefit which the British Empire as a whole derives from any lowering of the price of sugar due to the operation of the bounty system is too dearly purchased by the injury that that system imposes on the sugar-producing Colonies. I have read those two quotations, because the latter quotation is signed by no less a person than the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs himself. The extract I have quoted is from the Report of the West Indian Commission, of which Sir Edward Grey was a member, and though there was a slight difference of opinion between the Commissioners on the question of retalia-
1506
tory duties, yet in respect of the quotation I have given to the House there was no difference of opinion. It is contained in the unanimous part of the Report, and all the Commissioners committed themselves to it.
I wonder what it is that has caused the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to change his opinion. He has not confided that to either House of Parliament. Has he really changed his opinion, or is it one of those wonderful compromises at which Governments arrive? I cannot help thinking that that is so, because there was a significant phrase in the Secretary of State's speech in another place about the harmony of the Government. I always distrust Ministers when they begin to advertise their own harmony. There are two ways of achieving harmony. One is for all to agree; the other is for those who disagree to sink their opinions; and perhaps that is what has happened in regard to His Majesty's Government.
One other observation founded on the Report of the West Indian Commission. The majority of the Commissioners were against countervailing duties. As your Lordships are aware, there is no question of countervailing duties so far as the Brussels Convention is concerned. The penal method adopted was that of prohibition and not countervailing duties. But it is interesting to note the objections which the Commissioners in 1898 had to countervailing duties. One was the uncertainty felt by the Commissioners as to whether or not that policy would save the West Indies. No doubt they had a right to be uncertain; but we have no such right. We have before us Papers showing that Colony after Colony bears witness to the success of the Convention. Colony after Colony declares that the Brussels Convention has been a conspicuous success, that it has saved the West Indies, and that its abolition would seriously prejudice their prosperity. In some of the despatches the representatives of these Colonies speak of the ruin which will follow upon the destruction of the Brussels Convention, so that the doubt which Sir Edward Grey and his colleagues had in 1898 no longer exists and that particular reason against countervailing duties may be eliminated.

1507
At this hour and in this small House I shall not go into the question of the most-favoured-nation clause. Our Government dealt with the difficulty of most-favoured-nation treatment in connection with the Convention, and it was very easily disposed of. It was agreed that the most-favoured-nation question was not touched by the Brussels Convention. There was another point—the loss to the consumer in England which countervailing duties would involve. That was all that the noble Lord who spoke just now from the back bench opposite cared about. His whole idea of Imperial policy was what would happen to the consumer in England. But this is what Sir Edward Grey and his colleagues signed in 1898—
"On the whole we think, as we have already indicated, that the loss to the British consumer, if it were the only matter to be considered, might reasonably be accepted in view of the importance of removing the disadvantages under which the West indian producers at present labour"
So that Sir Edward Grey held that the interests of the consumer ought not to be allowed, if they stood alone, to weigh against the interests of the West Indies.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I raised the question of the export of coals. That is a very large portion of this question. None of these Colonies buy our coals.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I do not quite see the relevance of the noble Lord's observation. If the West Indian Colonies sell sugar to us we have corresponding exports on which we make our profit, and we need not go further into the matter. So long as we have a trade with the West Indies it is certainly profitable both to the seller and to the buyer. Then there was the inconvenience to trade. That had to do with a large number of subjects, but in one respect at any rate that also may be eliminated from the consideration. One of the difficulties which the Commissioners anticipated was the sort of complication that hangs round what are called certificates of origin, but, as a matter of fact, there have been no such difficulties found in working the Brussels Convention. Therefore speaking as we do, not looking into the future as the Commissioners did, but having the actual working of the Convention to guide us, we say that we may eliminate nearly
1508
all the arguments which Sir Edward Grey and his colleagues put forward for objecting to countervailing duties.
Here we have a Convention which has worked very well, which has, in fact, saved the West Indies, and which has not presented the difficulties foreshadowed by the Commissioners, of whom Sir Edward Grey was one; yet the Government, colleagues of Sir Edward Grey, now wantonly and without reason wish to upset it simply that they may fulfil the rash and unwise pledges given during the general election. I have always tried on these questions to be moderate, and I believe that great harm is done to the cause of free trade, which I have at heart as much as noble Lords opposite, by this bigoted and unreasoning desire to work a theory to an undue extent. I do not believe that that is a sound or a practical policy, and I regret very much that the Government should have adopted it, I believe that the great fiscal controversy which has arisen, and which I profoundly regret, has been due as much to the stick in-the-mud policy of the free traders in the past as to anything else, and if they had-taken a reasonable view and had been willing to admit that it was consistent with free trade to stop these perfectly artificial advantages given to one particular trade, the fiscal controversy would probably never have arisen.
But the Government are not at the end of their difficulties. We do not know the full policy of the Government. It is possible that there are foreign negotiations still pending which make it necessary for them to exercise a certain reticence, and it is possible they may, by means of some diplomatic instrument secure that the consequences of their having abandoned the penal clause may not be felt. That is possible, and, if so, except that it is rather a shabby proceeding to take advantage of all the benefits of the Sugar Convention without making yourselves responsible for it, I do not know that anything more need be said. But, if they have not secured the future safety of the West Indies, there will be very much to be said. The West Indies may be ruined, and, if they are, the Imperial Government will have to take over their debts. That represents a very large sum of money.

1509
Then there is the welfare of the negro population. I think I caught an observation from the noble Lord who sits on the back bench opposite which I profoundly regret. He spoke with some kind of contempt of a policy which had at heart the welfare of the negro population. That is not the view which has been taken by responsible statesmen on this subject. That was not the view taken by Sir Edward Grey and his colleagues, who spoke in the most emphatic way of our profound obligation in respect of the negro population in the West Indies. They did not go there of their own accord. Under British law they were compelled to go to the West Indies, and if we abandon them we shall incur a grave responsibility. If the fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government and the abandonment of the Brussels Convention should lead to the ruin of the West Indies, the Government will not only have to take over the debts of the West Indies, but also to undertake whatever course may be necessary with regard to the negro population. I think they are incurring a grave responsibility, unless, as I say, they intend to secure, by some diplomatic arrangement, the benefits of the Convention without making themselves responsible for it.
Although something may be done by such diplomatic instrument, what is most especially required is that confidence should be restored in the West Indies. Therefore it will have to be, not only a diplomatic instrument, but one which everybody can understand, so that the confidence of those engaged in the West Indian sugar industry and the credit of that industry shall be safeguarded. If one thing appears more prominently in these despatches than another it is that they value the credit and the confidence which the Sugar Convention gave them. The fact that once more, owing to the action of the Government, the whole thing is uncertain makes them anticipate a great disaster and the possibility that there will be no longer any investment of money there, and that the prosperity which has begun once more to shine on the West Indies may be destroyed. Therefore it is most important that credit should be restored and confidence re-established. Whether to-night or at a future period, I hope something may be said which will reassure our West Indian
1510
fellow subjects, and show them that, after all, England has not abandoned them, that their interests will be safeguarded, and that, whether it be by means of the Brussels Convention or in some other way, they will not be allowed to suffer owing to the policy which, for different reasons, His Majesty's Government have thought good to follow.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, I hope the noble Marquess who has just addressed the House will not think it discourteous on my part if I do not attempt to follow him over the very wide held he has traversed. I would not really be justified in inflicting upon your Lordships, at a very short interval of time, a second edition of a speech which exactly a month ago I made in reply to the noble Earl who has brought forward this subject tonight. I regret, but I am not going to profess to be astonished, that my words did not carry conviction into the mind and heart of the noble Earl. As I said at the time, I feel that we on this side of the House and noble Lords opposite are separated by questions of principle, matters of long conviction, which probably will not be materially changed or altered in their texture by a very great number of debates either here or elsewhere.
I certainly was under the impression, when I saw the noble Earl's notice on the Paper, that, just as on a previous occasion he had desired to bring the grievances, as he thought them, of English producers, or, rather, intended producers, of beet, before the House, and on another occasion the general arguments connected with the whole of this question, on both of which occasions I had the honour of replying to the noble Lord, to-night he was going especially to bring forward the question of the Colonies, and for that reason my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies decided, in keeping with the practice of your Lordships' House, to reply to the noble Earl. But what has really happened is this. The noble Earl and the noble Marquess appear to have come down to the House and made speeches they had prepared at, as I think, some comparatively remote time —
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Only this afternoon.
*LORD FITZMAURICE: Upon the assumption that by the month of July or August this year the wreckage of the Sugar Convention, which some of them had had a hand in negotiating, would, as it were, be lying about the Continent of Europe. But that is not the case. As I pointed out just a month ago, we are concerned in negotiations, and it is, of course, an exceedingly difficult and objectionable thing to make partial statements; and if I have anything to regret at all in this matter — and I am sure I am expressing the feelings of the Secretary of State also — it is that we have been obliged, owing to the necessities and courtesy of debate, to go even further than we would wish at this moment. Naturally we would desire, when the time came, to make a full and complete statement, and to inform the House of the exact terms contained in the protocol. That, however, is not the position in which exactly we have been placed; and we have gone, in consequence of the pressure that has been used, as far as we can go consistently with the interests of the situation.
A very large part of the speech to which we have just listened was taken up with matters of what may be called mere debate. Attempts were made to show that something which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said on the subject the other evening in the House of Commons did not agree with something that was written in the carefully selected extract which the noble Marquess produced from the Report, one of the signatories of which was Sir Edward Grey, of the Commission that went to the West Indies. I really think I am expressing the feelings of noble Lords generally when I say that a question of this kind is really not benefited by such treatment. Many things have happened since Sir Edward Grey and his colleagues went to the West Indies and wrote that interesting Report, and the most important, the thing that has entirely modified the situation, is that the Sugar Convention has come into existence, and, whether we think that Convention was wise or unwise, it is impossible to discuss the question as if the Convention did not exist, or as if the matter at issue could be dealt with simply according as we may be free traders or protectionists. I am convinced that the passage on the
1512
subject in the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons the other evening carried conviction to the minds of all who heard it. The passage is so important that, with your Lordships' permission, I will quote it. Sir Edward Grey said —
"The late Government entered into that Convention on certain terms, having made certain arrangements with other Powers. We had to consider, when the time came for denouncing the Convention, whether so long as we could do it consistently with our own economic interests it was not our duty to cause the minimum of inconvenience to other Powers by, if possible, not disturbing the arrangements they have made. Our unconditional withdrawal must have meant considerable inconvenience to other Powers, and we thought it right, in the interests of good relations with them, that as we had, under the late Government, entered into a Convention with them, we should not denounce it unconditionally without making to them proposals which we felt sure would safeguard our own interests by freeing us from the penal clause, and yet securing our own interests with the minimum of disturbance to the other Powers."
Now what applies to foreign countries applies to the Colonies equally, perhaps even more. We cannot get away in either case entirely from the effects of our own action. To speak frankly, I am inclined to think there has been a tendency too much of late to use politically the argument about the danger to the trade of the West Indies and the indifference of Liberal Government on that point. I quite appreciate the anxiety which is entertained as to the trade of the West Indies, and no blame can possibly attach to the people of the West Indies for having organised themselves to do the best in their own interest; but there is no justification whatever for the charge that any Government, Liberal or otherwise, is indifferent to the fortunes of the West Indian Colonies. I cannot add anything to what has been said by the Secretary of State with regard to the present position of the negotiations. We are fully cognisant of the difficulties and dangers of the question; we have fully considered the subject of cartels; and I sincerely hope that when the time comes we shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that we have not treated the matter lightly or in any unworthy spirit.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.