Sitting of 23 July 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Kensington Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords]; Tynemouth Corporation (Water) Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords.]—As amended, considered; to be road the third time.
Pasley Children Legitimisation Bill [Lords.]—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords.]—Read a second time, and committed.
Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords.]— Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to: Central London Railway Bill, without Amendment.
Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill; North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords] without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  CONGO FREE STATE.
  Petition from Birkenhead, for protection of the Native Races; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Horn castle, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL LANDOWNERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Bathgate, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING.
  Petition from Rowley Regis, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petition from Tufnell Park and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations applicable to Schools for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epileptic Children [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 21, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Accession of the Commonwealth of Australia to the Industrial Property Convention of 1883, as modified by the additional Act of 1900, 5th August, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (GREAT BRITAIN) (GRANT IN AID).
  Copies ordered, "of (1) Treasury Minute, dated the 31st day of January,

  Statement showing the Passenger Movement between Scottish ports and non-European countries during the six months January to June, 1907, distinguishing passengers of Scottish nationality.

  Scottish.

  Other.

  Total.

  Number of passengers, outward

  29,301

  11,754

  41,055

  Number of passengers, inward

  2,784

  4,062

  6,846

  Balance outward -

  26,517

  7,692

  34,209

  Allowances to Staffs of Royal Ordnance Factory and Army Accounts Department.
  Me. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War
  1312
  1906, appointing the Advisory Committee; (2) Treasury Minute, dated the 4th day of March, 1907, adding Mr. F. G. Ogilvie, C.B., to the Committee; (3) Report of Advisory Committee, dated the 6th day of June, 1907, with Appendix containing the Reports of the Inspectors; and (4) Treasury Minute on the Committee's Report, dated the 9th day of July, 1907."—Mr. Runciman.

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Emigrants from Scotland
    Mr. J. D WHITE (Dumbartonshire): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what was the number of emigrants sailing from Scottish ports during the first six months of the present year, distinguishing, as far as possible, emigrants of Scottish nationality from emigrants of other nationalities passing through Scotland.
    (Answered by MR. Lloyd-George.) The particulars: asked for by my hon. friend are as follows:—
    whether he will grant a statement showing the annual allowances, apart from travelling and subsistence allowances, in London, at home and abroad, permitted to each rank in the clerical staffs of the Royal

    1313
    Ordnance Factories of the War Office and the Army Accounts Department, and the conditions under which these allowances are granted.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The information is as follows:—As regards the clerical staff of the ordnance factories no allowances are granted other than travelling and subsistence; in the event of a member of that staff going abroad on duty a special rate would no doubt be fixed. As regards the Army Accounts Departments, it is presumed that this Question refers to the directing staff only. Under normal conditions, no member of the directing staff of the

    Accountant.

    First-class assistants.

    Second-class assistants.

    £

    £

    £

    Cape Town

    —

    200

    150

    other stations in South Africa

    300 †

    220

    150

    Malta

    —

    100

    50

    Straits Settlements

    —

    —

    100

    Ceylon

    —

    150

    —

    Bermuda-

    —

    —

    100

    Mauritius

    —

    —

    100

    Jamaica

    —

    —

    100

    † Personal to the present holder of the appointment.

    The allowance is issuable from the date of arrival in the command till the date of departure, and one-half is admissible during the official's absence from the command on ordinary leave.

    Police Protection in Ireland
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state, by counties, the number of persons
    Accounts Department is given an annual allowance while serving in London or at any other station at home. But members who previously belonged to the War Office staff were given a higher rate of pay on joining the Department (£50 additional in the case of staff clerks and £30 in the case of Second Division) as compensation for their new liability to serve away from London. Acting second-class assistant accountants are granted an allowance of £30 a year (in addition to their pay as Second Division clerks) while serving away from London. The civilian members of the directing staff who are serving abroad are granted a local allowance to cover the increased cost of living, as follow:—
    under constant protection and protection by patrols, respectively, on the 31st January, 30th June, and 31st December, 1906, and at the end of each month to 30th June, 1907.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The following statement shows the numbers of persons receiving special police protection (a) constant, (b) by patrols, on the dates mentioned:—

    Counties, etc.

    31st Jan., 1906.

    30th June, 1906.

    31st Dec, 1906.

    31st Jan., 1907.

    28th Feb., 1907.

    31st March, 1907.

    30th April, 1907.

    31st May, 1907.

    30th June, 1907.

    constant.

    By petrol.

    Constant.

    By petrol.

    Constant.

    By petrol.

    Constant.

    By petrol.

    Constant.

    By petrol.

    constant.

    By petrol.

    Constant.

    By petrol.

    Constant.

    By petrol.

    Constant.

    By petrol.

    Antrim

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Armagh

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Belfast City

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Cavan

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    Donegal

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Down

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Fermanagh

    —

    1

    —

    l

    —

    1

    —

    2

    —

    2

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    Londonderry

    —

    —

    —

    l

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Monaghan

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Tyrone

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Carlow

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Dublin

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Kildare

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    l

    —

    1

    Kilkenny

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    l

    —

    1

    King's

    1

    9

    1

    6

    1

    5

    1

    5

    1

    4

    1

    4

    —

    7

    —

    7

    —

    7

    Longford

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    Louth

    —

    12

    —

    13

    —

    12

    —.

    12

    —

    12

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Meath

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Queen's

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —.

    1

    Westmeath

    —

    5

    —

    5

    —

    4

    —

    3

    —

    3

    —

    3

    —

    3

    1

    2

    1

    2

    Wexford

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Wicklow

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Galway, East Riding

    5

    18

    8

    23

    8

    26

    5

    29

    5

    29

    6

    29

    6

    29

    6

    28

    8

    32

    Galway, West Riding

    2

    4

    2

    5

    2

    5

    2

    5

    2

    5

    4

    5

    4

    5

    3

    5

    3

    7

    Leitrim

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Mayo

    1

    11

    —

    4

    —

    4

    —

    4

    1

    8

    2

    10

    1

    5

    1

    5

    1

    5

    Roscommon

    1

    4

    1

    8

    2

    1

    2

    1

    2

    1

    2

    1

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    Sligo

    —

    2

    —

    6

    1

    3

    1

    3

    1

    4

    1

    3

    1

    4

    1

    4

    1

    4

    Clare

    5

    33

    5

    30

    5

    33

    5

    34

    5

    34

    2

    35

    2

    48

    2

    50

    2

    48

    Cork, East Riding

    8

    28

    8

    14

    8

    15

    9

    14

    9

    14

    8

    15

    8

    14

    8

    13

    8

    13

    Cork, West Riding

    —

    4

    1

    3

    3

    5

    4

    3

    4

    3

    4

    3

    4

    3

    5

    5

    5

    5

    Kerry

    14

    12

    14

    13

    20

    12

    13

    12

    13

    11

    13

    10

    14

    11

    13

    12

    13

    12

    Limerick

    2

    15

    2

    12

    2

    11

    2

    10

    2

    10

    2

    9

    2

    9

    2

    13

    2

    13

    Tipperary, North Riding

    1

    3

    1

    2

    —

    3

    —

    3

    —

    3

    —

    3

    —

    2

    —

    2

    —

    2

    Tipperary, South Riding

    1

    4

    1

    10

    2

    6

    1

    6

    1

    6

    1

    7

    1

    7

    2

    8

    3

    8

    Waterford

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Total

    41

    167

    44

    158

    55

    150

    46

    150

    47

    153

    47

    144

    46

    154

    47

    163

    50

    167

    Grants to Training Colleges.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone): To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the number, accommodation, and amount of

    Table showing, under Denominations, the Number, Accommodation, and Amounts, of Grants paid to Training Colleges and Hostels in respect of the Session 1905–6:—

    1. Training Colleges.

    Denomination.

    Number of Colleges.

    Accommodation.

    Grant to college.

    Personal grant to day students

    Total grant.

    Resident.

    Day.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Church of England:

    Residential colleges for men

    12

    1,224

    50

    63,132

    3

    0

    1,258

    6

    8

    64,390

    9

    8

    Residential colleges for women

    21

    2,106

    375

    80,482

    14

    5

    3,700

    0

    0

    84,182

    14

    5

    Total Church of England

    33

    3,330

    425

    143,614

    17

    5

    4,958

    6

    8

    148,573

    4

    1

    Weslevan:

    Residential colleges for men

    1

    140

    —

    6,661

    0

    0

    100

    0

    0

    6,761

    0

    0

    Residential colleges for women

    1

    129

    12

    11,497

    0

    0

    180

    0

    0

    11,677

    0

    0

    Total Wesleyan

    2

    269

    12

    11,497

    0

    0

    180

    0

    0

    11,677

    0

    0

    Roman Catholic:

    Residential colleges for men

    1

    106

    —

    4,379

    0

    0

    —

    4,379

    0

    0

    Residential colleges for women -

    6

    437

    —

    15,113

    0

    0

    —

    15,113

    0

    0

    Total Roman Catholic

    7

    543

    —

    19,492

    0

    0

    —

    19,492

    0

    0

    Undenominational:

    Residential colleges for men

    2

    213

    1

    11,300

    0

    0

    25

    0

    0

    11,325

    0

    0

    Residential colleges for women

    7

    815

    60

    31,977

    6

    8

    1,066

    13

    4

    33,044

    0

    0

    Residential colleges for men and women

    1

    31

    —

    192

    0

    0

    —

    192

    0

    0

    Day colleges for men

    4

    —

    264

    2,632

    6

    8

    3,412

    13

    4

    6,045

    0

    0

    Day colleges for women

    2

    —

    303

    3,939

    0

    0

    5,977

    0

    0

    9,916

    0

    0

    Day colleges for men and women -

    15

    —

    2,752

    29,779

    0

    0

    45,327

    6

    8

    75,106

    6

    8

    Total Undenominational

    31

    1,059

    3,380

    79,819

    13

    4

    13

    4

    135,628

    8

    8

    Grand Total -

    79

    5,201

    3,817

    254,423

    10

    9

    60,947

    0

    0

    315,370

    10

    9

    grants paid to training colleges and hostels, distinguishing the religious connections, in respect of the last completed session.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.)—

    2. Hostels.

    Denominations.

    Number of hostels.

    Accommodation.

    Grant to hostels, †

    Church of England:

    £

    s.

    d.

    Hostels for men

    1

    Not fixed.

    240

    0

    0

    Hostels for women

    4

    79

    1,318

    0

    0

    Total Church of England

    5

    79

    1,558

    0

    0

    Undenominational:

    Hostels for men

    2

    28

    1,035

    0

    0

    Hostels for women

    9

    259

    5,774

    0

    0

    Total Undenominational

    11

    287

    6,809

    0

    0

    Grand Total

    16

    366

    8,367

    0

    0

    † In addition to these amounts, £466 13s. 4d. and £2,200
    13s. 4d. was paid to certain recognised colleges of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge,
    respectively, some of whose students are recognised as hostel students.

    Army Clothing Contracts with Irish Firms.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War
    whether he can state the nature, extent, and value of the clothing
    contracts

    Army.

    Description.

    Number.

    Khaki drill clothing

    Frocks

    12,500

    Total value (inclusive of materials issued by the Depart approximately,
    28,420.

    Trousers

    30,000

    Service dress clothing

    Great Coats

    10,000

    Jackets

    27,500

    Trousers

    12,000

    Discharged Soldier's clothing

    Suits

    500

    Total value, approximately, £6,600.

    Hosiery

    Woollen drawers

    pairs

    14,400

    Woollen socks

    pairs

    64,000

    Linen, black

    yards

    22,500

    Drabbet

    yards

    33,000

    Thread

    Machine

    reels

    20,520

    Sewing

    reels

    150,000

    Sewing

    skeins

    743,000

    Royal Irish Constabulary.

    Frocks

    14,560

    Total value (inclusive of material issued by the Royal Irish Constabulary),
    approximately, £23,700.

    Tunics

    210

    Trousers

    19,460

    Overalls

    266

    Pantaloons

    133

    Cloaks and capes with belts

    30

    Great coats with cape

    3,380

    Badges and chevrons

    960

    Cloth

    yards

    1,500,

    placed with firms in Ireland during the past financial year.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Contracts for the following articles were placed with Irish firms during the past financial year:ߞ

    Religious Instruction in Secondary Schools
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the number of schools recognised under the Regulations for Secondary Schools; the nature of the religious instruction given in those schools, distinguishing between Church of England, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, other denominations, and religious instruction of an undenominational character; the number of scholars on account of whom grants were paid; and the amount of the grant.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) 1. The number of schools recognised for grants under the secondary school regulations in respect of the year 1905–6 (which is the last year for which grants have been paid) was 601. Grants amounting to £224,828 were paid in respect of 59,026 scholars in these schools. 2. In many cases the Board do not know what is the character of the religious instruction actually given in the schools, but the 601 schools referred to above may be classified as follows:— (a) 158 schools provided by local authorities, and therefore subject to the provisions as to the" Cowper-Temple Clause" relating to such schools, contained in Section 4, Education Act, 1902; (b) nineteen schools, for the maintenance of which local authorities are responsible, though they may not have provided the school in the technical sense. In four cases in this class the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1902, relating to religious instruction in provided schools, are included in the governing instrument, in two others the ' Cowper-Temple Clause "of the Act of 1870 is embodied, and it may be assumed that in the remainder the religious instruction has no denominational character; (c) seventy-nine schools in which it is required by the governing instruments that religious instruction in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England shall be given. It must not, however, be assumed that in all these cases instruction is actually given in the catechism or formularies of the Church; (d) forty-three schools eon-ducted by persons or bodies in connection with the Roman Catholic Church; (e) eight schools similarly connected with other denominational bodies, viz.:—four connected with the Wesleyan Methodists; two connected with the Congregational
    1324
    body; one connected with the Friends; and one connected with the Bible Christians; (f) In the remaining 294 schools the governing instrument of the school either (i) directs that religious instruction in accordance with the principles of the Christain faith shall be given in the school; or (ii) directs that religious instruction shall be given under regulations to be made by the governors without restrictions on those regulations; or (iii) gives no directions as to religious instruction, or the provisions are merely permissive. In a few of the cases in Class (f),the governing instrument requires the head teacher to be a member of a particular denomination, or contains some other indication that a connection of the school with some denomination is contemplated. 3. The information immediately available in the Board's office does not enable them to state separately the number of schools, and consequently the amount of grants paid in respect of the scholars educated in the schools belonging to the above-mentioned categories. The number of schools assigned to each of the categories must be regarded as approximate.

    Rupees Imported to Mombasa by the National Bank of India
    Mr. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the National Bank of India, through its Mombasa branch, imported between 1896 and 1902 more than ninety-five lakhs of Indian rupees; and whether the profit to the Government of India on this parcel at the then gold price of silver was at least £200,000.
    (Answered by MR. Secretary Morley.) I regret that I Lave no information as to the number of rupees imported to Mombasa by the National Bank of India during the years in question.

    Profit on Rupee Coinage.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, as the profit on the rupee coinage is at present not more than £4,000,000 sterling per annum, and that one-half of the profit is to be expended on the construction of new railways mileage in India, one-half of the estimated profit on the numbers of Indian rupees which are and have been imported and absorbed in East and Central Africa might similarly

    1325
    be employed in building railways in East and Central Africa.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am unable to admit that the fact that the inhabitants of East Africa for their own convenience use Indian rupees gives them any claim to participate in the advantages derived by the Government of India from the profits of its own coinage.

    Cost of Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
    CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the money voted during 1906–7 for the repatriation of Chinese coolies under the proclamation of last year was sufficient to meet the obligations involved.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) As far as is known the amount will be sufficient, but detailed accounts have not yet been received.
    CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state how many coolies have applied for repatriation during the present financial year; and when the Supplementary Estimate will be introduced to meet the expenditure.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The number, according to the latest information received, is 340. With regard to the second part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question, the date fixed for the introduction of the Supplementary Estimate is Wednesday the 31st July.

    Crown Colonies and Self-Governing Dependencies.
    Mr. H. J. TENNANT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to carry out the proposals for a clearer demarcation in the Department between Crown Colony work and that relating to the Self-governing Dependencies; and whether progress has been made with the establishment of the secretariat to the Imperial Conferences.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The subject matter of my hon. friend's Question is receiving the active attention of of the Secretary of State, and a decision will not be long delayed.

    Salvage Claim on Nets of Alexander Smith, of Cellardyke.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of Alexander Smith, a fisherman, of Cellar-dyke, whose nets were taken, on or about 2nd February last, to the Elie Coastguard Station under the misapprehension that they had been abandoned or lost at sea; whether, when this fact was explained, the nets were not delivered to their owner, but a claim made of £4 for salvage; whether these nets were left out all night in frost and snow and suffered damage thereby; how many days and nights they were so exposed; whether these nets are now to be sold by auction; and whether, seeing that the owner, a hard-working man, has been deprived of the use of them ever since the beginning of February and has thus suffered financial loss, which, he can ill afford, ho will cause the nets to be handed over, without payment, to their owner and grant him some compensation for the loss he has sustained.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am aware of the circumstances in this case. I am advised that the nets in question, having been found adrift, were properly brought as wreck by the finder to the chief officer of Coastguard at Elie as representing the receiver, and that Section 546 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, accordingly operated to give the salvor a claim for reasonable salvage. It became the duty of the receiver under Section 552 of that Act to detain the nets pending a settlement of the claims or until security, which in this case was fixed at £4, had been given. I understand that the chief officer of Coastguard did everything in his power to protect the nets, but that while they were spread out to dry and in his absence on duty a snowstorm unfortunately came on and covered them. They were then dried and stored as soon as possible, and I am informed that they do not appear to be any worse for their exposure. The receiver was instructed by the Board to endeavour to effect an agreement between the salvor and the owner of the nets, but though the claim of the former was substantially reduced the owner still objected to pay, and his solicitors stated that the receiver could keep the nets. In these

    1327
    circumstances instructions have been given for the sale of the nets by auction, and the proceeds, if any remain after the settlement of salvage and expenses, will be handed to the owner, but I cannot hold out any hope that he will be paid anything beyond such balance.

    Public Elementary Schools Transferred from "Non-provided" to "Provided" Class.
    MR. ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board

    Number, Accommodation, and Average Attendance of Voluntary Schools transferred to Local Education Authorities between 1st January, 1906 and 30th June, 1907. The Average Attendance is for the Statistical Year, 1905–6—

    Denomination.

    Number.

    Accommodation.

    Average Attendance.

    Church of England

    69

    15,943

    12,512

    Roman Catholic

    —

    —

    —

    Wesleyan

    33

    13,331

    10,017

    Undenominational and others -

    91

    26,263

    18,800

    Total

    193

    55,537

    41,329

    Exclusion from School on Account of Ringworm.
    DR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the exclusion, from September, 1906, to the present date, of Ellen and Edward George from the Rolls Road London County Council School on the ground that they are suffering from ringworm; whether the certificate excluding these children from school was signed by a nurse; whether he is aware that, on the children being taken to the London Hospital for treatment, the parents were told that the children were not suffering from ringworm but steatorrhœa, a non-infective disease; whether, although the parents have given the teacher a certificate complying with Section (C,) Subsection 10, Article 3, of the School Management Code, the children are still refused admission; whether this exclusion is in opposition to the wishes of the managers of the school, who are anxious that the children should return; whether the nurse on whose certificate the children
    of Education what was the number of public elementary schools transferred from the class of non-provided to provided between 1st January, 1906, and 30th June, 1907; how many of such were so transferred from the Anglican, Roman Catholic, or other denominations or bodies, respectively; and what is the total school space therein and the total number of children in average attendance thereat.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) were excluded possesses any medical qualification; if not, whether a medical certificate given by an unqualified person can exclude a child from school; and whether his Department propose to take any, and, if any, what, action in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Board of Education have no information as to the incidents referred to. In the event of an appeal being made to them on the ground that the children have been excluded from school on other than reasonable grounds, the circumstances will be carefully investigated before a decision is arrived at.

    Collection of Rates-Cost of Legal Proceedings.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that during last year 238,253 persons were summoned in the metropolitan boroughs for non-payment of rates, resulting in the issue of 74,573 distraint warrants and the

    1329
    committal to prison of 882 out of 4,135 persons against whom warrants were issued, will he take such steps as may be be necessary to secure a uniform system in the charges made for the summons and for hearing and serving.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The fees mentioned do not vary much. In the Metropolitan Police Courts the fee for a summons is 2s., and this could not be reduced; while summonses issued by county justices cost Is. or 6d. There is, so far as I can ascertain, no fee for bearing; and the fee for service is generally Is. Legislation would be necessary to enforce entire uniformity; and I cannot see my way to undertake legislation.

    Motor Car Accidents.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he

    Nature of vehicle.

    1905.

    1906.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Motor car or carriage -

    39*

    23*

    62

    91†

    31

    122

    Motor cycle

    12

    3

    15

    12

    —

    12

    Motor omnibus

    8

    3

    11

    54

    5

    59

    Electric tram

    43

    10

    53

    16‡

    14

    30

    Steam tram

    2

    1

    3

    —

    —

    —

    Traction engine

    17

    1

    18

    20

    —

    20

    Motor (including steam) dray waggon, etc.

    24‡

    —

    14

    24‡

    2

    26

    Steam roller

    6

    —

    6

    3‡

    —

    3

    141

    41

    182

    220

    52

    272

    * Including one case in which the coroner s jury returned a verdict of manslaughter.

    † Including one cane in which the coroner's jury returned verdicts of murder, two of manslaughter and one of suicide.

    ‡ Including one case in which the coroners jury returned a verdict of suicide.

    Local Government Board Report—Delay in Publication.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the cause of the delay in issuing the
    can now state how many motor-car accidents occurred in the provinces during the years 1905 and 1906, respectively, the number of deaths resulting there from, and the number of cases of personal injury.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I cannot give the number of personal injuries resulting from motor accidents, and no separate record is kept of the number of fatalities occuring outside London, but the following particulars of the number of deaths in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan Police district, returned by coroners' juries as having been caused by motor vehicles in the years 1905 and 1906, have been furnished me by the Registrar-General. The figures for 1906 are provisional, and subject to slight revision:—
    Report of the Local Government Board; and will arrangements be made, as in other Departments, for the issue of the Report before the Vote was taken.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Some of the information contained in the Report relates to the year ended 31st March, and is not received by the Local Government Board until some time after that date. It is not practicable, therefore, that the Report should be issued before the Vote for the Department is taken.

    Sanitary Condition of St. Asaph Rural District.
    Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, at a recent meeting of the St. Asaph (Flintshire) Rural District Council, several members of the council took exception to some statements in the report of the medical officer of health representing parts of the district to be insanitary; and, seeing that the Local Government Board medical inspector has not visited the district since 1882, will he consider the expediency of deputing one of the Board's inspectors to report on the sanitary condition of the district.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The facts appear to be as stated. I will give consideration to the suggestion that a medical inspector should visit the district, and report on its sanitary condition.

    District Councils and the Public Health Act, 1875.
    MR. "WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that the last published Report of the Local Government Board shows, at page 74, that during the year 1905 the Board dealt with several complaints against district councils who had made default in the performance of their duty, as required under Section 299 of the Public Health Act, 1875, will he state how many complaints of this character have been dealt with during the year 1906; and how the figures compare with those for the previous year.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Seven cases were dealt with in 1906 as against five in the previous year.

    Shareholders of Trawling Companies Membership of the Scottish Fishery Board.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state whether any members of the Fishery Board for Scot-
    1332
    land are shareholders or directors of trawling companies.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am not aware. But no doubt it is possibly so. For the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, under which they are appointed, expressly provides, Section 4 (1), that they shall be representative of the various sea fishing interests of Scotland.

    Holdings not Liable to Sub-Division under the Small Landowners Bill.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has formed any estimate as to the number, area, and rental of holdings between fifty and 150 acres in Scotland which will not be liable to sub-division under the Small Landowners Bill, and of the number of acres within urban areas that will likewise remain immune for purposes of extensive cultivation under this measure.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) No, Sir. The Board of Agriculture Returns afford no material for such Estimates.

    Pension for late Sub-Postmistress of Gorton.
    MR. HODGE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the late sub-postmistress of Gorton served the Post Office in that capacity for a period of twenty-five years; and that, in view of the fact that she was only on the establishment nine-years and six months, no pension was given her; whether it is the rule in some-instances that unestablished services may count towards pension; and whether, in view of the good work performed for so many years and the fact that the post mistress was compulsorily retired for reasons of ill-health, he will consider sympathetically the merits of this claim for a pension.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton): The late sub-postmistress of Gorton did not become an established officer of the Post Office until 1897, when she gave up her private business and devoted her whole time to the Post Office work. Unestablished full-time service may in some cases be counted for pension, but part-time service, such as that of a sub-postmistress carrying on a private

    1333
    business, is invariably excluded. I am sorry it is not practicable to grant the sub-postmistress a pension.

    Improvement of Sanitary Conditions of the Island of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when the funds will be forthcoming to enable the Secretary for Scotland to take such steps as may be necessary to meet the sanitary requirements of the townships in the island of Lewis and remedy the evils disclosed in the Report of Dr. Dittmar, the medical inspector for the Local Government Board for Scotland.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I have been: asked by the Secretary to the Treasury to reply to this Question, but I can only refer my hon. friend to the Answer given to him on the 8th instant, †

    Evicted Tenant—Application of Mathias Brady.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Mathias Brady, Corraho, Stradone, county Cavan, whose father was evicted in 1882 for non-payment of rent by Charles B. Marley out of his holding in Gortnakillue; will he say whether this farm is on the landlord's hands, and, if not, whether anyone resides upon it; and whether the applicant, who has returned from Scotland to get possession of his old homo, will he reinstated at an early date.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have investigated the application in Question, and have decided to take no action upon it. The holding has been divided, and is now occupied by two tenants who are unwilling to surrender, and, moreover, the applicant is stated to have been working in a steel factory in Scotland for the past eight years.

    Dublin Police and Intoxicated Persons entering Licensed Premises.
    MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Police Inspector Cushion stated on oath, during the hearing of a licensing prosecution in the Dublin police
    † See(4) Debates, clxxvii, 1165
    1334
    courts on the 31st May, that the order of 13th December, 1902, instructing members of the force that Where they observed a drunken person entering licensed premises it was their duty to call the attention of the proprietor or his assistants to his condition, did not apply to constables as distinguished from officers of higher rank; and whether, having regard to the fact that the order was referred to publicly in court by counsel engaged in the case and by the magistrate, who both commented upon the neglect of duty upon the part of the constable who was examined as a witness, ho will cause further inquiry to be made into the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed by the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police that the facts are precisely as stated in the reply which I gave on. 13th June‡to the hon. Member's previous Question on this subject. The order referred to in the Question applies to constables as well as to other members of the force, and Inspector Cushion made no statement to the contrary. The constable who gave evidence of the alleged offence stated on cross-examination that he was aware of the order, but did not warn the publican in this particular case because he did not observe the drunken person entering the public house. The Chief Commissioner informs me that all members of the force are well acquainted with the order.

    Anti-Typhoid Inoculation of British Troops.
    SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any official statistics exist in regard to anti-typhoid inoculation of British troops serving in India or in South Africa; if so, will he lay them upon the Table; whether any order has been issued by the Commander-in-Chief in India in reference to anti-typhoid inoculation; and, if so, will he state its terms.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A large number of Returns relating to anti-typhoid inoculation have recently been received both from India and South Africa, and the work of compiling this information in statistical form is at
    † See(4) Debates, clxxv, 1613

    1335
    present in progress, but some considerable time must necessarily elapse before the work is completed. Anti-typhoid inoculations are being largely carried out in India under the general direction of the Commander-in Chief, but the War Office is not aware of the terms of the specific orders issued by him.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Destroyers on the China Station.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many destroyers there are on the China station, and how many of these are in full commission all the year round, and how many in reserve.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton): Seven, five with full crews and two with nucleus crews.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Can the hon. Gentleman say why since July, 1906, the number of destroyers has been reduced from thirteen to seven?
    MR. LAMBERT: No, Sir. The reduction is made at the discretion of the Admiralty, who must be the sole judge in this matter.

    Destroyers in the Mediterranean.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many destroyers there are at Gibraltar and on the Mediterranean station; and how many of these are in full commission all the year round, and how many in reserve.
    MR. LAMBERT: None at Gibraltar; eleven on the Mediterranean station in commission with full crews all the year round.
    MR. BELLAIRS:asked why there had been a reduction of destroyers on the Mediterranean station from thirty-four to eleven.
    MR. LAMBERTwas unable to add anything to his reply to a similar Question as to the destroyers on the China station.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why are there so many de-
    1336
    stroyers? Whom do we want to destroy?
    MR. ASHLEY: What has happened to the other destroyers? Have they been sent to the Kyles of Bute?
    MR. LAMBERT: They are in home waters.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN:asked the hon. Gentleman to indicate to the House what were the circumstances which had influenced the Admiralty in their reduction of the force of destroyers.
    MR. LAMBERTwas sure that the right hon. Gentleman, having had experience of the responsibility of office, would not expect him to make a statement, in answer to a Question, on a large question of policy.

    The Coastguard.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to reduce the number of Coastguard stations, or merely the number of Coastguards quartered in such stations; what, substitute will be provided for the purposes of watching the movement of foreign war vessels and of maintaining signal communication with our own fleets; and what occupation will be provided for retiring seamen and petty officers of His Majesty's fleets in the place of Coastguard service.
    MR. LAMBERT: The question of the future constitution of the Coastguard is under consideration, and a final decision has not yet been arrived at.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to lay on the Table the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, which contains a full answer to all these questions?
    MR. LAMBERT:asked for notice.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the Question on the Paper?
    MR. LAMBERT: I have already stated that no decision has yet been arrived at.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will one be come to before the end of the session?
    MR. LAMBERT:asked for notice.

    H.M.S. "Edward VII." Rudder.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has called for any reports of experts as to whether an inspector with personal experience of foundry work might have been expected to discover the flaw in the rudder-casting recently supplied for H.M.S. "Edward VII."; and, if so, whether he will lay the reports upon the Table.
    MR. LAMBERT: The staff of inspectors consists of persons of long and large experience in foundry work, and I am informed that this defect could not have been detected by visual inspection.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Will the Admiralty consider the advisability of calling in as experts men of practical experience?
    MR. LAMBERT: We do not see any necessity; our inspectors are men of large experience in these matters. This was a very exceptional case.
    MR. COURTHOPE: But only last week the hon. Gentleman said the inspectors had had no practical experience.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle): Have they had experience in foundry work?
    MR. LAMBERT: No practical experience in the sense that they have worked in a foundry, but they have had large experience in superintending this class of work for the Admiralty, which is perfectly satisfied with them.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that engineers in general know less about foundry work than of any other department?
    [No Answer was returned].

    Warships in West Indian Waters.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now say what proportion
    1338
    of each year the ships which are to cruise on the Atlantic coast and West Indian waters will be allocated to cruising in the West Indies?
    MR. LAMBERT: This Question so entirely depends on administrative arrangements connected with the training service that a precise reply is hardly possible, but probably the Fourth Cruiser Squadron will visit the West Indies for the same period, and at about the same time of year, as the former permanent North American and West Indian Squadron.
    MR. HAROLD COX: Have any stops been taken to secure a contribution towards the cost from the Colonial Government?
    MR. LAMBERT:asked for notice.

    Life of a Destroyer.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the life of a destroyer is officially reckoned in Germany as twelve years, and that by the time of the submission of next year's programme no less than ninety British destroyers will belong to programmes introduced over twelve years ago; and whether the replacement of the larger number of these craft will receive the close consideration of the Government when they frame the new shipbuilding programme this autumn?
    MR. LAMBERT: The Board in framing destroyer-building programmes consider not only the age of destroyers built but their condition, and have not adopted any time limit. This and all other questions with regard to the replacement of obsolescent vessels of war will receive close attention before the new programme is submitted to Parliament under Vote 8, 1908–9.

    Number of Destroyers.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what have been the respective numbers of destroyers laid down or projected by Great Britain and Germany for eleven years under the programmes of 1897–8 and subsequent years, after deducting any of these vessels which were subsequently lost or struck off; and whether he will at the same time state the largest number of

    1339
    destroyers we have had stationed abroad at any one time.
    MR. LAMBERT: The numbers are-Great Britain, seventy-three destroyers, of which two have been lost; Germany, seventy-two destroyers and one divisional torpedo boat. The largest number of destroyers that we have ever had stationed abroad is forty-seven.

    H.M.S. "Renown."
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if H.M.S. "Renown" is still fitted as a royal yacht for special service; what part of that ship's armament is now on shore; and if this ship is included in the Return of Fleets as a unit of the Fleet immediately available for war service.
    MR. LAMBERT: The "Renown" has special fittings still remaining on board, and that part of the secondary armament which is landed can be replaced within the five days allotted to vessels in the Special Service List to be ready for war service. The "Renown" is included in this category.
    MR. GRETTON: What part of the secondary armament remains on board?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Defence of Home Waters.
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Commander in Chief of the Channel Fleet is held responsible for the defence of home waters; and, if so, whether, in view of this fact, the Board will reconsider its decision depriving that officer of control of the fully-commissioned torpedo flotilla in home waters.
    MR. LAMBERT: The Admiralty are responsible for all matters of naval defence, and they arrange the responsibilities of the officers under their orders at their sole discretion.
    MR SWIFT MACNEILL: When may we expect an invasion?
    MR. GRETTON:asked if the Commander of the Channel Fleet was not responsible for the defence of home waters.
    MR. LAMBERT: No, the Board of Admiralty must be regarded as responsible.

    Fleet Cruisers.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether some intimation could be made by the Admiralty, either through the Press or to the local authorities, of the intention of any part of His Majesty's Fleet to visit any port in the British Isles, so as to prevent any uncertainty as to the date of call, the strength of the Fleet, and the number of the officers and men employed.
    MR. LAMBERT: I presume that the hon. Member's Question arises out of the incident at Edinburgh during the recent visit of the Channel Fleet, and it is hoped that the arrangements to be made in future will obviate the recurrence of the inadvertence on that occasion to make the necessary communication to the local authorities.

    Naval Statistics—Ships in full Commission.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the number of ships in full commission, excluding ships specially mobilised for manœuvres, on 15th July, 1903, 1904, 1905. 1906, and 1907.
    MR. LAMBERT: The numbers were as follows—

    1903

    254

    1904

    245

    1905

    223

    1906

    211

    1907

    246

    The Shooting Team for the Colonies-
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that for a number of years past representative shooting teams from Canada, Australia, and other Colonies have visited England, and that the Colonial Governments have made grants in aid of the expenses of the teams representing their respective Colonies; and whether, in view of the above facts, he will make a grant in aid of the expenses of the team representing the Mother Country which, for the first time, will shortly visit Canada and Australia.
    The following Question also appeared on the Paper:—
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is is aware that, for a number of years past, representative shooting teams from Canada. Australia, and other Colonies have visited England, and that the Colonial Governments have granted separation allowance to the non-commissioned officers and men forming part of such teams; and whether, in view of the above facts, he will afford similar facilities to the non-commissioned officers and men of the team representing the Mother Country which, for the first time, will shortly visit Canada and Australia.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (MR. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.): The War Office has no information with regard to the payment of separation allowances by the Colonial Governments. The entire expense of the visit of the British team to the Colonies will be borne by' the National Rifle Association.
    MR. COURTHOPE:asked whether the hon. Gentleman intended to answer the Question addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): I have no information on the subject.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the practice of the Australian Government in these matters?
    MR. ASQUITH: I do not know, Sir. I will see if it is possible to get the information.
    MR. COURTHOPE::asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he was aware that inquiries were made some months ago by the War Office as to what was the practice of the Australian Government.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Whether inquiries were made or not I am not prepared to state, but we have no information whatever as to what the practice of the Australian Government is. The Secretary of
    1342
    State gave his assent to a portion of the Regular Forces forming part of the team for Canada and Australia, but on this condition, that no part of the expense involved should be borne by the War Office.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Am I to understand then that the Government wish to discourage rifle shooting?
    MR. BUCHANAN: No, certainly not.

    Queen's Barracks, Perth.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office how much money is to be spent during the present financial year in improving the accommodation at Queen's Barracks, Perth.
    MR. BUCHANAN: A sum of about £500 will probably be spent this financial year on improving the accommodation of these barracks, and a further sum of about £800 will be spent on maintenance.

    Duke of Devonshire and Old Soldiers.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to correspondence which has passed between Mr. Fitzgerald, of the estate office, Lismore Castle, Lismore, and the colonel commanding the Royal Engineers, Dublin Sub-district, with reference to an application for a Protestant Royal Engineer pensioner to fill the position of timekeeper and overseer on the Duke of Devonshire's estate; and whether the officer concerned has any explanation to offer of his action in the matter.
    MR. BUCHANAN: It appears from the correspondence that Mr. Fitzgerald applied to the Commanding Royal Engineer in Dublin for the services of a Royal Engineer pensioner, and stipulated that he should be a Protestant. In endeavouring to obtain a man for the appointment the Commanding Royal Engineer duly specified the conditions required by Mr. Fitzgerald. The action of the Commanding Royal Engineer does not seem to require any explanation.
    MR. O'SHEE: But why should facilities be given to outsiders at all, if men

    1343
    are to be excluded by reason of their religion?
    MR. BUCHANANdenied that any special facilities were given, and added that the War Office had no right to interfere with regard to the qualifications insisted upon by a private individual.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman see that Catholics are informed how they are likely to be treated if they join the Army?
    MR. BUCHANAN: This was not treatment applied to an individual in the Army; it was simply facilitating the employment of persons who had left the Army.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will it be made known that only Protestant ex-soldiers will be employed by the Duke of Devonshire, while Catholics will pass into the workhouse to end their days?
    MR. BUCHANAN: That is a matter for the Duke of Devonshire.

    Army Pensions.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the numerous cases of drunkenness, disturbance, and other evils in which pensioners were concerned following last Army pension day; whether he has observed that many of these evils are attributed to the present system of paying pensions; whether regulations would permit pension money to be paid in smaller but more frequent sums, so that the money might be better used; and, if so, whether he can take early action to institute more regular payment of these pensions.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I believe that such cases do sometimes occur after the quarterly pay-day, and it has been represented that some benefit may be derived from the payment of pensions in smaller sums at more frequent intervals. The question was referred to a Committee under the chairmanship of the Paymaster-General, and the Report of this Committee is now under the consideration of the Army Council.
    MR. CROOKS: And men are breaking down week after week because it is too much trouble for the Army Council to issue an order. It is time some one got indignant.
    MR. BUCHANAN: It is an exceedingly important question and must have proper consideration.

    Range Markers and the Workmen's Compensation Act.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that according to counsel's opinion, recently taken, certain members of the Volunteer force, comprising markers employed on ranges, members of advanced and rear parties on fatigue duty in connection with annual camps, and bandsmen in receipt of pay, will, in case of injury, come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, together with civilians necessarily employed by Volunteer Corps, such as cooks and mess waiters; and whether it is intended that the liability shall fall on the commanding officer.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The position under the Workmen's Compensation Act in regard to liabilities for injuries received under these and similar circumstances is now being considered by the legal advisers of the War Department.

    Victoria Barracks, Windsor.
    MR. J. F. MASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he anticipates that the actual building of Victoria Barracks, Windsor, will be commenced this autumn; and how long such building is expected to occupy before completion.
    MR. BUCHANAN: It is anticipated that this work will be commenced this, autumn, and will extend over a period of about two years.

    Plague in India.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg toast the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the estimates given by the Indian Statistical Department of the plague victims in the year 1904 varied between highest and lowest in ground figures 200,000; and whether he will look into the administration of this Department with a view to the

    1345
    matter presented for publication being made intelligible and consistent.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): The extreme variation to which my hon. friend calls attention is due to the fact that the higher figure refers to the whole of India, including the native State, and the lower one to British India only. The figure which I quoted in replying to a Question on the 8th instant was taken from a special Return recently published by the Government of India, and differs from the figure given in their annual Sanitary Report, from which the statistics given in the Moral and Material Progress Report and the Statistical Abstract are taken. I have: asked for an explanation of the discrepancy.

    Alarmist Telegrams from India.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, with a view co preventing alarmist telegrams being sent to the Press in this country, and of the effect such telegrams are creating as to the present state of order in India, he will give instructions that the same regulations as issued in the case of certain of the native Press shall apply to the correspondents referred to.
    MR. MORLEY: I am not aware that any regulations have been issued to the native Press. But the Government of India have warned the public of their intention to enforce the ordinary law relating to seditious publications in India. There is no Indian law or regulation that enables me to exercise a censorship over the telegrams sent to this country.
    MR. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the correspondents mentioned in this Question are those of Reuter's, The Times, and the Daily Mail? In view of the telegrams being based on the flimsiest of evidence, and upon the most insignificant facts, and the effect they have in India, can the right hon. Gentleman not take steps to censure both the correspondents and the papers in question.
    MR. MORLEY: Nobody will recognise more freely than my hon. friend that this is very delicate ground. It is practically impossible for me or the Government
    1346
    of India to dictate to newspapers what telegrams they shall or shall not publish.

    Coconada Disturbances.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a force of punitive police are quartered upon the inhabitants of Coconada and that the town has to boar the cost; and whether, having regard to the fact that the recent disturbance arose through an assault committed by Surgeon Kemp on a young student for crying Bande Mataram, and that the case is now pending in the Law Courts against Surgeon Kemp for the said assault, he will cause inquiries to be made as to the present state of order, with a view to the removal of the Police.
    MR. MORLEY: The recent disturbances at Coconada led the Government of Madras to consider additional police necessary. The law provides that the town should bear the cost. As at present advised, I do not conceive it to be a transaction in which it is my duty to intervene.
    *MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action of the Madras Government in this behalf has given profound satisfaction to the loyal and law-abiding inhabitants of that Presidency.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Case of Habil Sircar.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the case of Emperor v. Habil Sircar, in which the trying magistrate stated that the prosecution produced evidence showing that the accused read a notice to a crowd of Mussulmans at Dewanganj, and had told them that the Government and the Nawab of Dacca had passed orders that nobody would be punished for plundering and oppressing Hindus, and that soon after the Hindoo image of the goddess Kali was broken by the Mussulmans, and the shops of Hindu traders plundered; whether, as a result of his judgment in the case, the magistrate (a Mahomedan) was removed to another district; and, if so, will he give instructions for an investigation into this and cases of a like

    1347
    character that had occurred at Jamalpur and Mymensingh, and for the Report to be laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. MORLEY: I have no official information on the subject, but I will inquire.

    Somaliland—Government Officials' Allowances.
    *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state if the Government officials up country in Somaliland will be allowed a money equivalent for furniture, considering that the officials on the coast are allowed furniture.
    THE. UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR. THE COLONIES (MR. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): Having regard to the facts that the salaries of the political staff in Somaliland are fixed on a more liberal scale than those of the administrative officers on the coast, that their duties require them continually to move about among the tribes, and that camp equipment and sufficient transport and travelling allowances are issued to them, the Secretary of State does not see any good reason for adopting the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member. Lord Elgin has no knowledge of any promise made by the Colonial Office to the assistant political officers that they would either receive furniture or an equivalent, and I should be glad if the hon. and gallant Member would furnish me with information which would make it possible to trace any communication bearing on the subject.

    Transvaal Loan Bill.
    *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has now approved the Draft Bill being passed by the Transvaal Parliament to authorise the guaranteed loan of £5,000,000; and if he will lay upon the Table a copy of i the sanctioned Bill.
    MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government have been in communication with the Transvaal Government and have intimated generally their approval of the terms of a Draft Bill. They are now awaiting further informa-
    1348
    tion from the Transvaal. A copy of the Bill as passed by the Transvaal Parliament will be included among the Papers which will be published before the Resolution preliminary to the introduction of a Loan Bill is brought before the House.
    CAPTAIN FABER:asked if all the £5,000,000 would be issued this year.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already stated that only £1,000,000 will be needed before the end of June next year.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER:asked if the question would come before the House in the form of a Bill.
    MR. CHURCHILL: A Loan Bill will have to be introduced.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: Will it be before the end of this session?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Most certainly.

    New Hebrides.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether ho can now say when the New Hebrides Convention between England and France will be proclaimed; and whether the Government has received any communication from the Australian authorities complaining of the disabilities under which the British traders labour owing to delay in proclamation.
    MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government have been for some time aware, both from communications of the Australian Government and from other sources, that British subjects in the New Hebrides labour under a commercial disadvantage, because they are forbidden to supply arms, ammunition, and liquor to natives, while French citizens are not subject to such a prohibition. They are in communication with the French Government on the question of the prohibition of the export of liquor, etc., to the New Hebrides. With regard to the proclamation of the Convention, I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Andrew's Burghs.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER::asked whether it was the case that the proclamation could not be made until the Pacific Islanders (Amendment) Act was passed.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid that was a legal point he could not answer without notice.

    St. Helena.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to make to St. Helena a grant for the repair and necessary up-keep of the roads, to which reference is made in the Governor's Report; and, in view of the distress which exists in the island and the privation to which women and children are subjected, and that a great many of the men have had to emigrate for a term of years to work in the mines, leaving their families behind them, whether a special relief grant will be given.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is not proposed to make a grant for the repair of the roads which have hitherto been maintained out of Army funds for military purposes. A grant of £300 for relief of distress was made recently. This grant has been expended. It is not proposed to make any further grant for this purpose, as the Secretary of State has reason to believe that further employment, in addition to that secured by 100 labourers who have been engaged by the Namaqualand Copper Company, will shortly be provided out of the grant-in-aid for flax growing and other sources.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that labourers from St. Helena have been refused permission to work in the Transvaal mines?
    MR. CHURCHILL: was understood to reply that some difficulty had arisen.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to secure employment for the distressed inhabitants of St. Helena until the flax industry, which is being established, and which takes four or five years to develop, will give them work to do.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is making inquiries in various quarters as to the possibility of opening up new sources of employment. A large batch of labourers has recently been engaged for South Africa, and it is understood that workings on a concession for exploiting the phosphate deposits of the island will shortly be commenced. The preliminary operations in connection with the flax will also absorb some labour. Consequently I hope the number of those likely to remain unemployed is not likely to be such as, to require any further direct action by the Government at present.

    Orange River Colony Farm Valuations.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what arrangements have been made by the Government of the Orange River Colony to meet the general request of the settlers, Dutch and British, for a revaluation of their farms; and whether the arrangements will come into force before the new Government assumes administration.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know that I can add anything to my Answer to the hon. Member on 9th July, † beyond that the legislation there referred to is to be passed by the existing Legislative Council. The Draft Ordinance was published in the Gazette of the 7th June, and the Governor has reported that no adverse criticism has been made by the settlers or the public.

    British Civil Servants in the Transvaal.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in granting responsible Government to the Transvaal, any stipulation or arrangement was made with the incoming Government concerning the position of British civil servants who had done duty under the old Government; and if he can state how many resident magistrates and assistant resident magistrates have been summarily retrenched or removed from the service since the present Government came into power.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The pension rights of officials transferred to the service of the Transvaal from pensionable service
    † See (4) Debates, clxxvii, 1423

    1351
    in this country or other Colonies were secured by legislation, but no general arrangement was made with regard to civil establishments, the regulation of which must, in accordance with established usage and the necessities of the case, rest with the Government which is responsible to the legislature of the Colony. I am aware that several magistrates have been retrenched lately, but I have not detailed information on the subject.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERreminded the right hon. Gentleman of the statement made by him when the Bill was introduced to the effect that every effort would be made to secure fair and equitable treatment for these officials from the Transvaal Government.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was his desire to secure fair and equitable treatment everywhere, but His Majesty's Government could not interfere with the discretion of the Government of a self-governing Colony upon a matter falling exclusively under the control of that Government.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: But this statement was made preliminary to the grant of the responsible Government.

    Isthmian Canal Labour.
    MR. STARKEY: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies why no provision has been made in the Isthmian Canal Labour Contract for the repatriation of those Trinidad labourers who do not become destitute while working on the canal.
    I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why no provision is made under the Isthmian Canal Labour Contract for the Trinidad labourers to be accompanied by their wives and families.
    MR. CHURCHILL: There is an undoubted ambiguity in the contract upon the point noted by the hon. Member. The form of contract was drawn up not by the Trinidad Government but by the Isthmian Canal Commission, whose recruiting agent assured the Trinidad Government that the men would be repatriated at the expiration of their contract. I am informed that it has
    1352
    lately been held that the courts in the Canal Zone have no jurisdiction against the Isthmian Canal Commission for breach of contract. This contract therefore cannot be enforced. No recruiting has been carried on in Trinidad since November last. In answer to the second Question of the hon. Member I am informed that wives and families were not taken because none of the men applied to take them. The majority of the men were not natives of Trinidad, but had come there in search of work from other parts of the West Indies.
    AN HON. MEMBER:asked the result of the inquiries promised to be made some time since.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he did not call to mind the promise, but would look into the matter.
    LORD BALCARRES: Has this contract been abrogated?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
    LORD BALCARRES: In view of the fact it is impossible to enforce its terms will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of abrogating it?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    East African Railways and Rupee Currency.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, by agreement with the India Office,, branch railways might be built usefully in East Africa and Uganda from the profit made on the coinage and circulation of rupees; and whether he has any official Reports showing that the circulation of this rupee currency in vast regions in Africa, where to-day barter only obtains, would be calculated to develop local trade and commerce.
    MR. CHURCHILL: As the Governments of the African Protectorates do not share in the responsibility of the Government of India for maintaining the value of the rupee, the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the Government of India could properly be: asked to hand over to Protectorates in which the Indian

    1353
    rupee circulates any portion of the funds by which the maintenance of its value is secured. The position does not appear to be altered by the fact that it has been decided to devote a portion of the profits on coinage to railway construction in India instead of investing the whole in home securities as has been done up to now. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question I am not aware of any special Reports dealing with this subject, but I have no doubt that the substitution of a proper currency for a system of barter would be calculated to develop trade and commerce.

    Chinese Labour—Payment in Rupees.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the suggestion has been made to the Transvaal Government that native wages in the mines might be paid in rupees, or in the case of Chinese labour in silver dollars, such as are issued at the Straits mints; and whether an important economy in mine wages, without disadvantage to the wage earners, might result from the employment of one or other of these silver currencies in the place of the present sterling currency.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I know nothing of such a suggestion.

    Johannesburg Mines—Supply of Labour.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Committee appointed by the Transvaal Government to inquire into the whole question of the supply of labour for the mines at Johannesburg has now made its Report; and if the same can be supplied to this House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Committee has not, as far as I am aware, yet reported.
    MR. FELL: Was not the Committee appointed with a view to its reporting before any steps were taken with regard to Chinese labour?
    MR. CHURCHILL: It was appointed by the responsible Government of the Colony, and it is not for us to interfere.
    MR. FELL: But was not this one of the Questions in regard to which His
    1354
    Majesty's Government retained the power of interference?
    MR. CHURCHILL'SAnswer was inaudible.

    Turkish Customs Duties.
    MR. LYNCHI beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that owing to the increase in the Turkish Customs duties granted by the Powers for a period of seven years, an annual sum estimated at from £450,000 to £500,000, and consisting of the best revenues of Turkey, will become available in two or three years for any purposes to which the Porte may desire to apply it, he will use his good offices with the Turkish Government as to the employment of these best revenues, thus to be set free, during the period for which the increase in the Customs has been granted.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): I can add nothing to previous Answers which I have given on this subject.
    MR. LYNCH: Arising out of that Answer, does the hon. Gentleman intend to acquiesce without protest to the applications of these large revenues—which have only been set free by our consent to the increase in the Customs on behalf of the wretched peasantry in Macedonia— to finding dividends for the German capitalists of the Baghdad Railway?
    SIR E. GREY: I never said that I intended to acquiesce in anything.

    Congo Free State Imports.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to state to what extent goods are imported into the Congo Free State by way of the Nile; whether arms and ammunition are included in such consignments; and if so, whether the Egyptian Government have full information on the subject.
    SIR E. GREY: I am not aware of the extent of trade in general merchandise; arms and ammunition are imported under the provisions of the Brussels Act which apply to such traffic; and the Egyptian

    1355
    and Soudanese authorities possess the requisite information.

    Nile Bridge at Khartoum.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg-to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a bridge over the Nile at Khartoum is to be constructed at a cost of £350,000; whether a contract, for the construction has yet been given to any and what firm; and, if not, whether it may be tendered for by open competition.
    SIR E. GREY: I will make inquiries.

    Egyptian State Railways and Telegraphs.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that in the Report of the Egyptian State Railways and Telegraphs for 1906 there is an entry of expenditure of £67,675 indicated solely as special and miscellaneous expenses, he will furnish the House with the items of the expenditure in question.
    SIR E. GREY: Full details of the expenditure referred to are furnished on page 36 of the Report.

    Egyptian Government Officials' Salaries.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a number of inferior functionaries of the Egyptian Government have petitioned Sir Eldon Gorst to the effect that the cost of living in Egypt is constantly and rapidly increasing; that their salaries were fixed on the basis of the much lower costs of former years and are no longer sufficient for maintenance; and that the Commission appointed by Lord Cromer in 1904, by making the maximum of wages in the highest class from £5 to £9 per month, the maximum of which cannot be reached in less than fourteen years, has rendered their condition worse than formerly; and whether he will recommend the Egyptian Government to revise the scale.
    SIR E. GREY: I am aware that this subject has been occupying the attention of the Egyptian Government. But I do not consider it advisable for his Majesty's Government to interfere in a matter
    1356
    which obviously depends upon detailed information of local conditions, with which the Egyptian Government are qualified to deal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And while a money grant is being made to Lord Cromer these men are to be kept on starvation wages.

    Baghdad Railway.
    *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can and will use his good offices to ensure that no portion of the £450,000 to £500,000 extra revenue which the Forte will receive in consequence of the increase of the Customs duties to which Britain was the consenting party most concerned, is used as a kilometric guarantee for the further prosecution of the Baghdad railway, unless and until the construction of the Gulf section is guaranteed to this country, together with a proper and preponderating influence in the whole Mesopotamian section.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: As shown in the Papers recently presented to Parliament, the portion of the increased Customs duties which reverts to the Ottoman Government is earmarked for Macedonia.

    Egyptian Postal Rates
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in Egypt there is actually established a postage rate of 1d. (four millièmes) for postcards for Great Britain, while the letter rate remains at 1¼d (five millièmes); and whether, in view of the increase in last year's postal revenue in Egypt, to which his attention has been called, he will now recommend the establishment of letter postage from Egypt to Great Britain at the rate of four millièmes per unit of weight.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I will make further inquiries, but the matter is not one in which His Majesty's Government are called upon to interfere with the discretion of the Egyptian Government.
    MR. HAROLD COX: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, before taking any action in the matter, he will inquire if the service is conducted at a profit?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I did not say I was going to take action.

    Turkish Troops at Bemba.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether ho has any official information showing that in the first week of June a detachment of fifty Turkish troops occupied Bemba, on the frontier of Tripoli, and that the Egyptian Government had charged on officer of the garrison of Alexandria to proceed to the spot with a detachment and cause it to be evacuated; and whether he can state what has since occurred.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. An officer went to investigate, and by 8th June was able to report that the Turkish patrol had left Egyptian territory.

    Boutros Ghali Pasha.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Boutros Ghali Pasha, the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was the president of the special tribunal which a year ago condemned the villagers of Denshawi, has been appointed to act as Regent of Egypt in the absence of His Highness the Khedive.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: As Boutros Ghali Pasha was the senior Minister when His Highness the Khedive left Egypt, he was appointed, in accordance with precedent, to act as Regent.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON:asked whether the appointment would be reconsidered, in view of the position occupied by Boutros Ghali Pasha at the trial a year ago.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I did not see how the trial a year ago could in any way affect this appointment. The appointment is one that would have been made in the ordinary course, as Boutros Ghali Pasha is the senior Minister.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is this the person by whom the four villagers were brutally flogged?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative. The Question of the hon. Member can only be answered in
    1358
    the negative. It conveys imputations on Boutros Ghali Pasha which are entirely undeserved.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did the flogging occur or not? Is that the imputation?
    *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.

    Khedivial Law School—Case of M. Lambert.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to allegations complaining that the recent forcing of the resignation of M. Lambert, by the action of Mr. Dunlop, from the presidency of the Khedivial Law School of Egypt, is part of a persistent policy of repression and discouragement of that school and of French instruction generally, in contravention of the friendly guarantee of French educational interests which was stipulated for in 1904; and whether it was also by the action of Mr. Dunlop that the Government œoleNormale, where there were many French professors, was closed, and that the teaching of French in the Government primary schools was abolished.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: There is no truth whatever in the allegation that M. Lambert's resignation was forced. As I have previously stated, it was not desired at all. I have no information about the œoleNormale, but there is no intention whatever of not keeping the agreements of 1904 in the spirit and in the letter both in Egypt and elsewhere.
    In reply to a further Question, Sir EDWARD GREY was understood to say that the point raised by M. Lambert was conceded to him rather than that he should resign.

    The Hague Conference.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if notice has been given by the British delegates at The Hague of any proposal for international limitation of armaments; and, if so, what are the terms of the resolution.
    SIR: EDWARD GREY: I see that the terms of a suggested resolution have

    1359
    appeared in the Press, but I understand that no resolution has yet been put formally before the Conference, and I cannot say what terms may eventually be proposed. It is desirable that they should be such as will be accepted by the Conference.

    Kaid Maclean.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing any connection between the capture and holding for ransom of Kaid Maclean and the payment by this Government of the ransom for Mr. Abbott and by the Belgian Government for the Belgian subject captured recently.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative. The trouble in this case is entirely between Raisuli and the Moorish Government.

    Guaranteed Colonial Loans.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is any precedent for the guarantee by this country of a loan to any Colony where the proceeds of the loan are to be employed for the general purposes of that Colony and not for some extraordinary outlay.
    MR. ASQUITH: It is not easy to draw the dividing line between ordinary and extraordinary expenditure. Many of the purposes for which loans have been guaranteed might be regarded as falling into either category.

    Income-Tax on Irish Land Purchase.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether income-tax is demanded from occupiers of land in Ireland who have purchased their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts; whether such demand is also made from persons who have entered into agreements to purchase but whose purchase is not yet complete; whether at the same time income-tax is collected from the landlords on account of the interest payable to them under such agreements and from the former landlords on the income derived from the amount of the purchase money; and whether, seeing that under these circumstances double the amount of income-tax
    1360
    formerly collected from the land of Ireland is now claimed by the Inland Revenue, and that, in view of the long term of repayment, there is no material difference between annuity and rent, he will consider the advisability of putting a stop to these demands upon the occupying owners of farms in Ireland.
    MR. ASQUITH: There is no double assessment on income derived from land in Ireland, the ordinary machinery of deduction provided by the Income-Tax Acts operating to prevent it. It may, however, be observed that occupiers of land in Ireland, who purchase their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts, will in the vast majority of cases be exempt from income-tax, as only a small percentage are likely to have total incomes exceeding £160 per annum.

    Flogging in Prisons.
    MR. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the local prisons in Scotland and Ireland there is no flogging sanctioned; and, if so, whether he would consider the advisability of the regulations in the local prisons in England being so altered as to prohibit this practice.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLAD- STONE,): I beg to refer my hon. friend to the full Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for North Galway on the 7th May, 1906 †

    Brooklands Motor Races.
    MR. MARNHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the danger ' and inconvenience run by the inhabitants of Weybridge from the influx of motor cars, including racing motors, into that village on days when races are held on Brook-lands motor track; and whether he will seriously consider the advisability of issuing restrictions of such traffic on such race days through the village of Weybridge in accordance with Section 8 of The Motor Car Act, 1903.
    † See(4) Debates elxvi, 976-7.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD(Mr. JOHN BURNS,): My attention has been drawn to this matter. I find that the Urban District Councils of Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge have written to the Surrey County Council with a view to an application being made to me for regulations relating to motor car traffic in their districts. I have not at present received an application from the county council, but I am in communication with them on the subject.
    MR. TREVELYAN: Have any steps been taken to regulate the traffic in the same neighbourhood on the tow-path between Kingston-on-Thames and Hampton Court Bridge?
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that an inquiry had been held, and as the result of the report which he had received on the subject he had decided to retain the riverside resort between Kingston Bridge and Hampton Court Palace for the use of the general public free from the inconvenience and discomfort that would arise there from motor car traffic.

    Poor Law Children.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of children in the Poor Law schools of England and Wales, and the number boarded-out within and without their respective unions on the 1st January, 1907.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: As I stated in reply to Questions put to me on the 15th and 16th April last, the number of children in district and separate schools on the 1st January, 1907, was 11,809, and in cottage, scattered, and other homes, 15,889. On the same day 6,806 children were boarded-out within the union, and 1,853 beyond the union.

    Cost of Boarding out Pauper Children.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the total inclusive cost per annum per child when boarded out under the Poor Law.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The sums paid in respect of a child who is boarded-out vary according to the arrangement made
    1362
    with the foster-parent; but the amount paid for the maintenance of the child cannot exceed £13 a year. Some other payments are made for medical attendance, repair and renewal of clothing, schooling, etc. These seem usually to amount to between £2 and £3 a year.

    Emigration Statistics.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how many emigrants left this country for the United States, the Dominion of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, respectively, from the 1st January to the 1st of July this year.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE, (MR. KEARLEY, Devonport): The usual monthly Return of "Passengers to and from places out of Europe" for June will be published in the course of a day or two and will give the hon. Member the particulars he requires.

    Coal—Short Weight.
    MR. CLOUGH, (: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the incorrect tare-weights of waggons used by certain colliery proprietors, which result in coal merchants being supplied with short weight of coal from these companies; and whether, in the interest of honest trading, he will promote legislation so to amend The Weights and Measures Act, 1889, as to secure the more frequent and correct taring of all railway trucks used in the wholesale coal trade.
    MR. KEARLEY:Yes, Sir, the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to this matter, and my hon. friend's suggestion will be borne in mind when any Amendment of the Weights and Measures Acts is in contemplation, but I fear that the Board of Trade cannot undertake to deal with the question at present.

    Light Railway Commissioners.
    MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade of whom do the Light Railway Commissioners consist; by whom are they appointed; what are their individual salaries and emoluments; and how many meetings are held annually.
    MR. KEARLEY: The Light Railway Commissioners are the Hon. A. E. Gathorne-Hardy (Chairman), who is unpaid (being also a Railway and Canal Commissioner), Colonel George F. Ottley Boughey, R.E., C.S.I., and Mr. Henry Allen Steward, Barrister-at-law. The Commissioners are appointed by the President of the Board of Trade. The two last-named Commissioners receive salaries of £1,000 per annum. The Commissioners are in permanent session at their offices, and the local inquiries held by them are only part of their duties.

    Kirk Smeaton Bridge.
    MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Ackworth Light Railway Company agreed to construct a bridge, sixty-six feet in width, for carrying the Doncaster and Tadcaster main road, which forms part of the Great North Road, at Kirk Smeaton, and that the Light Railway Commissioners took the step of prescribing only for a width of fifty feet; and whether he proposes to take any steps to safeguard the public from such a policy being adopted in the future by the Light Railway Commissioners.
    MR. KEARLEY: The facts are as stated. In all such eases an appeal can be made from the Light Railway Commissioners to the Board of Trade, and such an appeal was duly made in this case. The Board, however, after full hearing and careful consideration, sustained the decision of the Commissioners. As the present width of metalled road at the place is only eighteen feet it was not considered reasonable to impose on a light railway the burden of a greater width at the proposed bridge than fifty feet.
    MR. CLOUGH: Did not the Light Railway Company agree to make the bridge the fall width of the road?
    MR. KEARLEY: I am aware of that fact.

    Telegraph and Telephone Accounts.
    MR. J. F. MASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he has now come to any decision as to improvement on the methods now in use for keeping the accounts of the telegraph and telephone departments.
    CAPTAIN NORTONfor Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): The undertaking that my right hon. friend gave on the Second Reading of the Telegraph (Money) Bill was that when he had a little leisure he would carefully examine the methods of presenting the telephone and telegraph accounts with a view to their improvement. This he proposes to do in the recess.

    Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when he will give particulars of the Supplementary Estimates to be presented this session.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dews-bury): I hope all these Estimates will be issued this week.

    Giggleswick and Rathmell Charities.
    MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Commissioners have formulated a scheme for placing under one trust the charities of Clarke, Clapham, and others, in the parishes of Giggleswick and Rathmell, all the trustees of which shall be appointed by the parish council of Giggleswick and the parish meeting of Rathmell; and, if not, will he explain why this has not been done.
    MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland): A scheme has been settled for the charities of the parishes of Giggleswick and Rathmell by which all the trustees will be appointed by the parish council of Giggleswick and the parish meeting of Rathmell. Clarke's charity, owing to difficulties connected with the governing-body, has been omitted from the scheme. But the income of that charity only amounts to 28s. between the two parishes.

    Small Holdings in Scotland.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board has made any suggestions to the County Council of Roxburghshire as to holding inquiries about the demand for small holdings; whether any such inquiry has been made, and at what places; whether any reports have been submitted to the Board; and if he can state the names

    1365
    and occupations of the persons who held any such inquiries.
    I beg also to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state what instructions or suggestions have been issued by the Board to the county councils of Scotland as regards commissions of inquiry into the demand and necessity for small holdings; and whether they include any recommendation for securing the presence of farm servants as members of any commissions of inquiry?
    MR. LAIDLAW: May I also ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he is able to say if the Board has issued any recommendations to the county council of Renfrewshire to hold inquiry regarding the demand for small holdings; and, if so, whether any recommendation has been made to secure the presence of one or more farm servants as members of any commission of inquiry that the council might; appoint; and whether he can state if any public inquiry has yet been held in that county and a Report submitted to the Board?
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSE HOLD (SIR EDWARD STRACHEY, Somer setshire): A circular letter was addressed by the Board in February last to all county councils in Great Britain calling attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Small Holding's, and in particular to the observations contained therein with respect to the present administration of the Small Holdings Act, 1892. The Committee recommended that an annual inquiry should be made by the Small Holdings Committee of a county council from the minor authorities within the county as to the land occupied by small holders, and as to whether there was a demand for further land for small holdings, and if any land was available for the purpose. The Board suggested that such an inquiry might with advantage be made forthwith. I understand that the county councils of Renfrew and Roxburgh are making inquiries on the lines suggested, but the results have not yet been communicated to the Board. I shall be glad to supply my hon. friends with copies of the Circular in question.

    The Superior of Kelso.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether there is any official Return of the number and amounts of casualties collected in the last six years by the Duke of Roxburghe as Superior of Kelso, as compositions from his vassals in that burgh upon singular successions; and whether he can see his way to introduce a measure to confine the subject and amount of such casualties on singular successions to the land of the feu, buildings and other improvements thereon being excluded from the computation.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (MR. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): So far as I am aware, there is no such official Return. The system which my hon. friend seeks to change has long been considered unsatisfactory and indefensible, but I am not able to give any undertaking to legislate upon it.

    Birth Statistics.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: T bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will abate the excess of births over deaths in England, Scotland, and Ireland per 1,000 of the population, from the latest available figures; and will he say if in any of the places mentioned a progressive decline is shown, whether it can be accounted for, and, if so, how; and whether any remedy has or is being applied.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE LAND (MR. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): In the year 1906 the excess of births over deaths per 1,000 of the population was: in England and Wales, 11·6; in Scotland, 11·9; and in Ireland, 6·6. In the cases of England and Scotland the figures agree, as nearly as can be, with the average for the past ten years. In the case of Ireland the figures are a little more than one per 1,000 above the average for ten years. In none of the three countries, therefore, is a progressive decline shown in the excess of births over deaths.

    Lunacy in Ireland.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the proportion per head of the population of lunatics in Ireland for the years 1851,

    1367
    1881, and 1901; and will he say what is the relative proportion of males to females for the latter year, and in what respect, if any, this differs from the Returns of the same date in Great Britain.
    MR. BIRRELL: In 1851, one out of every 1,291 persons in Ireland was recorded as a lunatic; in 1881, one out of 529; and in 1901, one out of 225. The proportion of male to female lunatics in Ireland in 1901 was 100 males to ninety-two females; in England, 100 males to 115 females; and in Scotland 100 males to 105 females.

    Mentally Weak, and Deaf and Dumb.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the proportion per head of the population, from the latest available figures, of those suffering from mental derangement in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and also the figures on the same basis of the deaf and dumb in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELL: The proportion of persons suffering from mental derangement in the year 1901 was, in England, one in 245; in Scotland, one in 220; and in Ireland, one in 178. It must however be borne in mind that in England and Scotland the feeble-minded as well as lunatics and idiots are included, whereas the Irish figures comprise lunatics and idiots only. The proportion of deaf and dumb persons, according to the census of 1901, was, in England, one in 2,134; in Scotland, one in 1,695; and in Ireland, one in 1,450.

    Swanlinbar Licensing Prosecution.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. M'Caffrey, J.P., interviewed Mr. Davies, district inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary, in the latter's house prior to adjudicating at petty sessions in Swanlinbar, county Cavan, on the 9th July, in a licensing prosecution against a Mrs. Prior; that this magistrate served forty-five years in the Royal Irish Constabulary; and that the district inspector was advised by him in this case, and immediately on the dismissal of the prosecution
    1368
    for breach of the Licensing Act, and at the instigation of Mr. M'Caffrey, Mr. Davies handed in a draft case stated prepared in anticipation of the result; whether in view of this magistrate's connection with the police force and the desirableness of securing the confidence of the people in the impartiality of the administration of justice in the county, this matter will have the attention of the authorities; and what steps, if any, is it proposed to take.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General informs me that on the occasion in question Mr. M'Caffrey, J.P., who is a retired officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary, called to see District-Inspector Davies on private business. The District-Inspector states that there is absolutely no foundation for the suggestion that Mr. M'Caffrey advised him in respect of the prosecution referred to, or instigated him to apply for a case stated. No draft of the case to be stated was prepared beforehand. It is the duty of the magistrates, and not of the police, to prepare a case for the opinion of the Superior Courts. Having regard to the facts, there does not appear to be any ground for taking action in the matter.

    Irish Teachers Salaries.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the fact that the ordinary salary payable under the existing rules by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland works inequitably in the eases of five teachers who entered the service of the Board from the 1st April, 1900, to 31st December, 1900, and are in charge of schools with an average under sixty; whether he is aware that the Commissioners have stated that the ordinary salary will not work inequitably in the case of ten teachers who entered the service in the same year and are in charge of schools with an average of over sixty; and whether he can state what explanation the Commissioners give with reference to the facts set out as regards these five teachers.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have referred this Question to the Commissioners of National Education, who inform me that the Question is too vague to admit of a definite Answer. If the hon. Member

    1369
    will give particulars of the cases to which he refers in the first part of the Question I will again refer the matter to the Commissioners.
    MR. MOONEY: If I give the names will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the Commission of National Education shall not take any action against them? Will he ask the Commissioners to make further inquiry?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think that-kind of communication would have the effect the hon. Member has in view.

    Irish Evicted Holdings.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the aggregate area of the evicted holdings formerly occupied by the 1,609 tenants or tenants' representatives mentioned in Paragraph 22 of the special Report of the Estates Commissioners [Cd. 3570], and who should, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be reinstated or provided with new holdings.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the information: asked for in the Question could only be obtained by an examination of the applications in each individual case, and that such an examination would involve the expenditure of much time and labour on the part of their staff. Having regard to the existing pressure upon the Commissioners and their staff, I do not think it reasonable to ask them to undertake the required investigation.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman furnish the information with regard to the cases he has actually before him?
    MR. BIRRELL: I think even that would involve an amount of time and labour which, in view of the pressure under which the officials are working, I should not feel justified in imposing on them.

    Lords and Commons.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that the Bill to be introduced next session to modify the relations between the two Houses of Parliament
    1370
    shall have precedence over all other measures.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): No Sir, I have nothing to say on this subject.

    Infantile Mortality.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the death rate amongst young children from burning and overlaying, he will afford facilities for the passage into law of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Bill during the present session.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The time has not yet come for deciding on the Bills claiming to have facilities given to them. I believe this Bill has not even been read a second time.

    Parliament and India.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, on consideration of the many social and moral changes going on in India and the vastness of the political, financial, and commercial interests concerned, he can see his way to assigning more time for the discussion of Indian affairs in this House.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The House is undoubtedly concerned with political, financial, and commercial interests in India, but I am afraid no further time can be given this session for the subject, and I am afraid that no amount of time would be sufficient if the House sought to control the complex and delicate elements of social and moral changes to which my hon. friend alludes.
    SIR H. COTTON:asked whether the one day given this session was adequate for a fair discharge of the grave responsibility of the House in the government of India.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A better opportunity has been given this year than in many years when we never heard of India till the expiring days of the session. Hon. Members have-many opportunities for bringing forward Indian matters.
    SIR H. COTTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further facilities for debate?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No Sir.

    THE "VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS."
    MR. MOONEYdrew the attention of the Speaker to the fact that an Amendment to the Evicted Tenants Bill moved in Committee the night before by the Member for North Dublin, and carried, did not appear in the Votes; and Proceedings circulated that morning, although other Amendments were noticed. He: asked whether the Votes and Proceedings were an official record of the proceedings of the House, or whether any other record was kept, and, if so, whether there was any way in which an ordinary Member could ascertain the actual proceedings of the House.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid the Votes and Proceedings were only a brief abstract and chronicle of what took place. A fuller account would be found in the Journal. The real authority, however, as to the Amendments was the Bill itself. If the hon. Member would look at the Bill itself, which was amended by the Chairman of Committee as the Committee stage progressed, he would find the Amendments made by him in the Bill itself, which always lay on the Table.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford):asked what was the use of issuing the Votes and Proceedings if they were not a trustworthy account of what took place. It was not a summarised account; it was a defective record calculated to deceive Members of the House. Could not some change be made in this matter which would enable hon. Members to find out what had taken place without examining the Bill on the Table?
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid the Votes and Proceedings recorded cases in which the closure was moved or refused, and in which a division took place on an Amendment, but they did not, record all the Amendments proposed or the fate of those Amendments. The present practice was of very old standing, and he was not prepared to say at a moment's notice that it ought to be changed; but he
    1372
    would consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Waterford.
    MR. CLANCY:asked if it were not the fact that all the Amendments dealt with on the previous night were mentioned except this particular one. Was that omitted by design or by accident?
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid it was omitted by design, because the Amendment was accepted.
    MR. MOORE: But the following Amendment, which was also agreed to, appears.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Yes, because a colleague of the hon. Member moved the closure on it and it became necessary to record that abortive proceeding, and in order to show what happened to the Amendment it had to be put in the Votes. It could not to be left in the air as it were.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwished to make an appeal to the Prime Minister on his decision in connection with the order of Votes to be taken on Thursday in Irish Supply. Last year there was no opportunity of discussing the Chief Secretary's Vote, except on one evening after eight o'clock, and he understood that the idea of the Government was that this procedure should be repeated. Regarding the Chief Secretary's Vote as a proper occasion for a general survey of Irish administration, and taking into account the condition of Ireland and the desire of the Unionist Party for discussion, he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think it would be in accordance with the spirit of the Supply rule that an adequate opportunity for discussion should be given.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND:asked whether it was not a fact that the Leader of the Opposition when in office initiated the practice of acting according to the wishes of the Irish Party in the selection of Irish Supply; whether the practice was not broken for the first time last year; and whether there was not a clear understanding that the Irish Party should name the Supply for the third day this year.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:asked whether the practice to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was not based on the fact that at the time when it was initiated the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway were the only opposition to the Government coming from Ireland. The essence of Supply was that the critics of the Government should have the first turn, and he thought the Opposition above the gangway, including the Ulster Members, ought to be treated as all other critics were treated, and allowed a legitimate opportunity of stating their case.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Have not the regular Opposition the right to demand a day for a Vote of Censure, which demand would not be acceded to if it came from this quarter of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am willing to accept the alternative and waive the right to discuss the Chief Secretary's Vote next Thursday if the right hon. Gentleman will give us a day for discussing it on a Vote of Censure.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not suppose that is a serious suggestion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perfectly serious.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANexpressed the opinion that these were hardly the conditions and circumstances which belonged to an ordinary notice of a vote of censure. At the same time, he appreciated the force of the consideration tantas componere lites. He had heard with astonishment the suggestion that criticisms of the late Government came entirely from the Nationalists. He thought the Member for Dover resigned the Chief Secretaryship mainly in Consequence of criticisms from his own side.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a complete misstatement, and I think the right hon. Gentleman must know it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I gave the general impression made on the public mind, and remaining on the public mind.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny): Also on the mind of the Member for Dover.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that for many years t he distribution of Irish Votes in Supply had been practically left to the option of Members below the gangway, and the practice was being stretched a little further in the direction of recognising other sections of Irish Members by allowing a partition of the night. It was intended that the Chief Secretary's Vote should, as last year, be taken after eight o'clock. He did not think that, that opportunity being given in addition to all the other opportunities open to Members of bringing forward subjects in which they were interested, any reasonable complaint could be made by hon. Members below the gangway.
  MR. CROOKSsaid he had heard alarming reports about discharges from the Arsenal, and he pressed for an opportunity to discuss the matter on the Army Estimates.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsubmitted to the Prime Minister that it was not unreasonable that the Unionist Members from Ireland, who represented one-third of the country, should have one of the remaining days allotted to Supply.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had recognised the claims of the Ulster Members, and had gone much further towards meeting them than had be on done formerly. In answer to his hon. friend the Member for Woolwich, he was unable to give another day to the War Office Vote. In regard to Friday's business, he should move at the beginning of the proceedings the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule and the five o'clock rule for the rest of the session —the usual Motion suspending the Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House; and make such a statement —which might not be a very serious matter—as business required. After-wards; by way of soothing effect, he proposed to proceed with the Butter and Margarine Bill.
  MR. SHACKLETON:asked if they could have time to discuss the War Office Vote and to

  1375
  criticise the Local Government Board? Under Standing Orders the Government had power to allot three additional days to Supply if it chose.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied that he was afraid he could not give any additional days. He was afraid that when he came to make his statement it would be found that the session would not be a very short one as it was.

  PROCEDURE (ANTICIPATORY MOTIONS).
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 264.]

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Albert Victor Grayson, esquire, for the Southern Part of the West Riding of the County of York (Colne Valley Division).

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Third Report brought up, and read, with Minutes of Evidence.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 265."]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Small Holding and Allotments Bill): Mr. Nicholls; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. George Hardy.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL:moved an Amendment
  1376
  to provide that the evicted tenants who received the benefits of the Bill should be domiciled in Ireland. It seemed to him, and he trusted it would also be the opinion of the Government, that the advantages of the Bill should be given only to those tenants who had remained in Ireland and not also to those who had emigrated. As the Committee were aware, a great number of the tenants evicted in other days had left the country for nobody's benefit but their own. They had sought their fortunes in Australia, America, and other countries, and should not now have the advantage of this Bill. The British taxpayers had to be considered, and it was not fair that their money should be used to reinstate men who had emigrated and had only returned when they heard the evicted tenants were to be restored to their holdings. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 19, after the word ' holdings,'' to insert the words ' and who, at the time of application, were domiciled in Ireland.' "—(Mr. Staveley-Hill.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)said it had not been the intention of the Commissioners that persons who could be shown to be actually domiciled in the United States should be allowed to avail themselves of the benefit of the Bill, but whether it would be a desirable thing to exclude finally and in every case persons whose domicile was not in Ireland was a matter about which there might be considerable difference of opinion. The Amendment as it stood would not be reasonable, because it required a purely Irish domicile. There might be circumstances in which it would be very difficult and expensive to determine where a person was domiciled, and it might be held that persons had for the purposes of this Act an English and not an Irish domicile. If there had been any likelihood that the powers of the Act would be used in favour of persons who had abandoned Ireland, it might have been desirable-to insert words excluding them, but

  1377
  no such question, he thought, arose. The Commissioners had acted on the principle that a person who had abandoned Ireland altogether was not to benefit, but to exclude them in the manner proposed might give rise to legal proceedings which would add to the delay and to the costs which were borne by the Treasury. Therefore, while agreeing with the hon. Member as to the rule to be obeyed, he doubted the wisdom of inserting his Amendment.
  MR. MOOREthought the Amendment a very important one as illustrating the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. In spite of all his assurances that many of the Amendments proposed were reasonable and should be considered, he had hitherto declined to accept any suggestion which would alter a line of the Bill. He suggested that the Chief Secretary should get leave from those with whom he had conferred since the introduction of the Bill to make an alteration of this sort. Perhaps the word "domicile" was not fortunately chosen. Could not the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment excluding aliens from the Bill?
  MR. BIRRELL: No alien will get the benefit of this measure.
  MR. MOORE:asked why, if no alien would get the benefit of the measure, they should not put it in the Bill? The Amendment was another result of the secrecy which the right hon. Gentleman had maintained with regard to the findings of the Estates Commissioners. If the names of the 2,000 persons whom the Estates Commissioners had found eligible for reinstatement were published: the Committee would be in a position to know how many of them were aliens. The right hon. Gentleman had refused to give that information, but said that no alien was to get the benefit of the Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman carry his sweet reasonableness so far as to insert an Amendment which would prevent the alien from getting the security of British credit? At present, all over the country there were reports of people hastening from America in order to get 40 acres in Ireland. If it were, a question of English or Scottish domicile, he was sure his
  1378
  hon. friend would raise no objection. The real objection was to the return of the Irish-American, and he had no hesitation in saying that for those responsible for the good government and peace of Ireland the returned Irish-American was in nine cases out of ten the most undesirable person they could have. He had left America because he was a failure there, and he came back tempted by the magnificent offer of 40 acres and £200 or £250 to stock his farm. There was no check on the Commissioners, no one knew what they had done in the secrecy of their chamber, and it would be impossible to see that a returned Irish-American had been reinstated until the man was actually on the holding. It would be very unfortunate if a class of persons who had left the United States should come back to Ireland to be endowed with British money. That would be a very undesirable state of affairs, and the Amendment afforded a very good test of how far the right hon. Gentleman would meet them and whether he was prepared to put in his Bill a clause excluding alien;.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the hon. and learned Member was alarming himself needlessly. The average Irish-American was not likely to leave his employment in America to come back to Ireland for a farm of 40 acres, under the present depressed agricultural conditions. The number of Irish-Americans who would come must be very few, perhaps not more than half a dozen, if as many, and there was no necessity for an Amendment like that proposed. It might very well be that tenants who had been evicted because they were unable to pay the rack-rents charged by the landlords had come to this country or Scotland, where they performed the hardest kind of work in the mines and the factories for very low wages. Why should these men be debarred from being reinstated in their old homes? The Amendment— he had almost raised it as a point of order—would, he submitted, practically repeal Section 2 of the Act of 1903, of which the measure now before the House was complementary, save as regarded powers of compulsion. Section 2 referred to tenants or their representatives,

  1379
  and he believed that the Amendment would repeal that section, and was, therefore, out of order. On the whole matter as it stood the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was only putting up a case in order to knock it down again. The word "domicile" could apply to very few persons at the most, while the Amendment would also apply to those who had been driven to seek work in England and Scotland. Nor did he see why the Irish-American should be excluded, for after all the Irish-Americans had done more to uplift Ireland than the landlord class had ever done. They had sent millions of money home with a generosity which had been the subject of remark over and over again by Mr. Bright, Mr. Gladstone, and others, to keep up the old homes and to help to pay rack-rents to the landlords who were represented in that House.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he quite agreed that the word "domicile" might give rise to the legal difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, and he saw no reason why men who happened to be employed in England or Scotland should be excluded. He could understand the light hon. Gentleman's point of view that they might trust the discretion of the Commissioners not to put in an unsuitable person or an Irish-American; at the same time that discretion was not infallible; and he had, therefore, a suggestion to offer the right hon. Gentleman which was contained in an Amendment to Clause 2. to the effect that the particulars taken by the Commissioners should set forth in full the name and present address and occupation of the person or persons whom it was proposed to restore. That would give to the landlord or any other person the fullest opportunity of informing the Estates Commissioners of the absence from Ireland or other objections to the person intended to be reinstated. He thought that would meet the object which his hon. friend had in view.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he rather hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of his hon.
  1380
  friend, either in the form in which it was moved or without the word "domicile," which would get rid of the legal difficulty of which the Chief Secretary had spoken. He thought the Amendment was a test of the true object of the Bill. As he understood, the case presented was this. Here was a class of men who, rightly or wrongly, believed they were suffering from an injustice; they were centres of disturbance in Ireland and made it difficult to restore order and good-will in that country. That case could not apply to anyone who was not resident in Ireland; and it could only apply to people who from that point of view had to be restored to-their holdings, and were feeling this injustice of which so much complaint was made. The Amendment would be a test of whether the Government accepted the view of the hon. Member who had spoken just now, that the Bill was a reward for those who had assisted him and his friends in the campaign against the landlords of Ireland; or whether the object of the Bill was to restore law and order, and peace, and good-will in Ireland, in which case the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR O'SHEEsaid that from the point of view of the Nationalist Party this was a very extraordinary Amendment. He knew that a man. was coming back from New Zealand at the present moment with a view to obtaining possession of a farm from which he had been evicted. He also knew of a man who was coming back from America to get back to the farm, from which he had been evicted. It would be an outrage to prevent these men from being reinstated in their holdings. These and other men had left their country to seek their living abroad because they were unable to pay the rack-rents demanded by the landlords in. Ireland, and were they, for that reason, to be prevented from coming back to their native land to get possession of the farms from which they had been unjustly evicted? It was an outrage on the Imperial Parliament to put before the Committee such an Amendment, the only effect of which would be unjustly to exclude these poor exiled Irishmen

  1381
  from being reinstated in their former holdings.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he was glad they had had an opportunity of listening to the two speeches of hon. Members below the gangway, for they threw a light upon the designs and desires of Nationalist Members in a way which he had thought impossible before the Amendment was moved. The Bill must have been introduced for one of two purposes—either for the purpose of dealing with the evicted tenants who, as was said, had been centres of disturbance, and, as was agreed under the Act of 1903, were to be restored to their holdings; or, as they had learned, it was meant practically to reward every man who for the last twenty-five years, for one reason or another, had lost his farm. If some limitation such as was proposed by the Amendment were not introduced into the Bill there would be endless trouble in connection with aliens from America coming to Ireland to get the benefit of the Act. The Irish-American was very much in evidence in Ireland at the present day. He (Mr. Craig) was in Connemara at Easter, and a local doctor told him that it was a peculiar thing to hear children going about Connemara with a strong American accent. Under the Bill they were likely to have a perfect flood of Irish-Americans. Some of them would probably come over to Ireland, get a 40-acre farm, and sell it again to his neighbour and return to America. From such a possibility they required protection. He was hopeful that the Chief Secretary would accept this or some similar Amendment, because for the first time since the Committee stage commenced the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was a considerable amount of reason or justice in the objection raised; and he was quite sure that his hon. and learned friend did not wish that evicted tenants who had emigrated to other parts of the British Islands should be excluded from the Bill. It was not against those persons that the Amendment was directed, but against men from America, who would seize the opportunity to come over to get hold of some of these farms. He hoped the Chief Secretary would
  1382
  either accept this Amendment in an amended form or else introduce some other words upon the Report stage to deal with this very important point.
  MR. FLAVINsaid he desired to put a typical case. He knew an instance where, ten years ago, through the harsh treatment of the landlord because he was unable to pay an exorbitant rent a man was evicted. What j was the procedure? The landlord, using his influence through the Local Government Board, followed that evicted tenant into the workhouse and was the means of getting the 3s. or 4s. a week he was receiving as outdoor relief stopped. Under this Amendment that poor man would be excluded from any benefits under the Bill. There was a general understanding when the Act of 1903 was passed that every evicted tenant, no matter what were the conditions under which he was evicted, for a period of twenty-five years previous to the passing of that Act, would be entitled to make an application to the Estates Commissioners. He hoped the Chief Secretary would not consent to make any exception in regard to these unfortunate men who had been driven out of their own country. The Amendment would not ease the situation, and he hoped that every tenant who had been evicted unjustly and had gone abroad would have the same rights as the evicted tenants living in Ireland.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that having regard to the revelations which had just been made in respect to people from the United States and elsewhere returning in view of the present Bill to to take up land under the new provision, some such Amendment as had been proposed seemed to be an absolute necessity. They were informed that two persons were known to be coming from long distances to be reinstated. He had to remind the Chief Secretary that from those benches below the gangway they were last night given. the names and conditions in life of certain evicted tenants. He could hardly believe that these returning wanderers were taking these journeys on the off-chance of the Estates Commissioners giving them holdings. It

  1383
  was now, therefore, perfectly clear that the Estates Commissioners had already expressed an intention to restore these two returning people—one from New Zealand and the other from the United States. Through some channel news of that intention must have reached these people. The suggestion which he had already made would not meet this case, for he understood that the Estates Commissioners would be the last men who would put the law in force for the purpose of benefiting men of that kind. He would remind the Chief Secretary that though his intentions on this subject might be of the very best, he had not expressed them in the Bill, and outside the Bill they would be utterly useless, for the right hon. Gentleman's power over it ceased as soon as it became law. Although the Chief Secretary's view of the suggestion contained in the Amendment was that it was desirable, he would not put it into the Bill. For the life of him he could not comprehend that attitude. He would therefore support the Amendment of his hon. friend providing for the limitation of residence to the United Kingdom.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid they were discussing a limited clause, affecting only those persons who had been evicted up to a certain date, and who had been required to give proper notice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would have the Committee believe that the American liners were coming over to Ireland crowded with persons anxious to claim the benefits of the Bill. What was the good of talking at large in that fashion? The Bill was a very limited measure, and he was not dealing with people who might be dissatisfied because they had not been included. The right hon. Member for Dublin University thought the Bill was big enough already, and he did not want to enlarge its boundaries so as to include everybody in America who might hear of it and say, "Hallo I am an evicted tenant; I will go back to Ireland and get a farm and 200 acres, and get restored to the home of my father." That could not be done under the provisions of the Bill. To be entitled to benefit a person must already have made his case good, produced his credentials,
  1384
  and submitted his name and all the circumstances of his case to the Estates Commissioners, who must have inquired into the matter on the spot; but because that person might happen to be in America the right hon. and learned Member contended that he should absolutely and ruthlessly be excluded. They were only discussing about half-a-dozen cases out of 2,000, and it was these half-a-dozen rampant American-Irishmen whom the right hon. Gentleman in his new-born zeal for the purity of the Irish breed was desirous of excluding from the Bill. The matter was really not worth talking about. Those Irishmen who had gone to America were not in the hast likely to comeback to Ireland for the. privilege of getting a 30-acre farm. As a rule, if such men came back to Ireland they were generally in a sufficiently independent position not to require the advantages placed at their disposal by the Bill. It was disheartening to see so much time occupied in discussing a question which had no force or moment in relation to this question. The overwhelming majority—in fact, he might say the whole of them with the exception of about a dozen at the outside—would be resident Irish tenants. He did not wish to do an injustice even in half-a-dozen cases. The discussion was simply a quibble in which he was asked to insert words which might in one or two cases hamper the cause of justice, and he was not disposed to do anything of the kind. They were told that there was an atmosphere of suspicion about these transactions, and that he was engaged in all kinds of underhand dealings, sometimes with hon. Members below the gangway, and sometimes with people in a far-off part of the world. The hon. Member for North Armagh might use such language to him, but he had entered into a solemn obligation with himself that he would not lose his temper even with that hon. Member. He. supposed that the language the hon. Member had employed was his notion of conciliation, but to him it was hard to distinguish it from the language of insult. He knew that people had their own way of conducting their cases—it was a habit of the Court. He was not going to give it greater importance than it deserved. All he could say was that there was nothing of the kind; he had no

  1385
  secrets to keep from anybody; nor had the Estates Commissioners informed anybody, except in some cases the tenants themselves, that their cases had been investigated, and that they had passed the ordeal, and might look forward to being-reinstated under the provisions of the Bill, or upon untenanted land under the general provisions of the Land Acts of Ireland. There was no harm in telling tenants, or in a tenant telling his friends. Of course, some information of this kind naturally got abroad. He was not going any further into the matter. He was unable to accept the Amendment.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON (Staffordshire, Handsworth)said that if there were only one or two persons coming from abroad to claim reinstatement on farms from which they or their relatives had been evicted it would not matter, but there might be a large number, and it was on that point that the supporters of the Amendment took their stand. They could not see how the congested districts in Ireland would be relieved if a large number of the descendants of evicted tenants came back to occupy evicted farms. It was a very important question whether the descendants of evicted tenants were to be imported in large numbers from America and the Colonies to dispossess those now in occupation of the farms.
  MR. MOOREsaid he was sorry the Chief Secretary had run away after making personal charges against him, but he would take that opportunity of saying that he should ignore those personal charges.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): The Chief Secretary has been called away suddenly for important business with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. MOOREsaid that if the Chief Secretary repeated those charges he should take no notice of them, and they would not prevent him from doing his duty. The right hon. Gentleman was himself to blame for any atmosphere of suspicion which had been created. Nationalist Members were in possession
  1386
  of information upon certain points on which information was denied to Unionists. He and his friends had again and again: asked for the names of the people who had been selected by the Estates Commissioners, and that information had been denied to them. They had been for the first time told by the Chief Secretary that the fortunate parties had been communicated with. People whose lands were to be taken from them had a right to know who they were, and they could not get that information. If there had been suspicion engendered it was the result of the intimate relations existing between Nationalist Members and the Chief Secretary, and of the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to take Unionist Members into his confidence on matters vital to the Bill. He regretted that the Minister responsible for the management of Irish business in that House had treated one-third of the representatives of Ireland in such a manner. It was most regrettable. They had a right to know what was to be clone with regard to the legislation of the country. But that was the one thing the Chief Secretary kept from them, and then complained that they were suspicious. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to impress upon members of the Committee that this was a limited Bill. He thought the Committee were agreed that it ought to be a limited Bill. But the Chief Secretary had consistently and determinedly opposed every effort made by Unionists to limit it. He had refused to accept any limit as to the number of tenants, as to the acreage of land which could be compulsorily taken, and also as to the price that the British taxpayer was to pay. Now that a limitation was proposed as to the quality of the tenant who was to be eligible for the benefits of the Bill, what did the Chief Secretary do? He got up and made speech No. 1, in which he said that it was obviously never intended to give aliens the benefit of the Bill. Then he got up and made speech No. 2, after hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had threatened him as to what would happen if aliens were excluded. Then the right hon. Gentleman stated that he would not make any alteration in the Bill which would lead to

  1387
  injustice, even to five or six persons who. might be coming from abroad. It would be an injustice to British taxpayers that a naturalised American citizen should come over and get the benefit of British credit at the expense of law-abiding tenants who had signed purchase agreements, for which the Chief Secretary had not yet found the money in order that they might be completed. The right hon. Gentleman had treated as a nightmare on the part of the Unionist Members from Ireland the idea that an American might come across the Atlantic and request the Estates Commissioners to give him his due, and then sell the holding. This view had already been taken, because Section 8 of the Bill provided that where a tenant was reinstated in a holding he was not to be allowed to transfer it without the consent of the Land Commission. That would not prevent an American from coming back, getting the holding, and selling it next day. Hon. Members below the gangway said that that was reasonable. That clause was put in to pre vent the transference of a farm when a man came back from America. That man would not only get the farm, but the report of the Estates Commissioners said that he was entitled to an adequate sum of money as well. He would get £250 or £300 in the shape of chattels, stock, cattle and machinery, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent him calling an auction and selling out and recrossing the Atlantic. He could get a steerage for £4 or £5, and having got £300 for the stock he would be able to return to America with £296 of the British taxpayers' money. That was not only possible but probable, and it was to prevent an operation of that sort that the right hon. Gentleman said he would put nothing in the Bill which would lead
  to injustice. There were plenty of people in this country who had a first claim on public funds.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)said the discussion had been useful in one sense, namely, in throwing light on how the vast number of 8,000 had come to be compiled. He hoped that on the Report stage there might be words put in which would cover the Amendment moved by his hon. friend. It was obvious that some sort of limitation was required. At present there was no limitation as to the relationship of the person who might be allowed to obtain a farm. They had heard of aliens on their way to this country to apply for reinstatement, but they had had no opportunity of knowing anything of the other 8,000. He did not see that there was any guarantee that foreigners coming from abroad would not be able to take up farms from which evicted peaceful and law-abiding citizens were to be evicted. He had a certain amount of sympathy with one section of evicted tenants who were to be reinstated at the expense of the British taxpayers. He referred to those who were persuaded by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway and their predecessors to break the law and to decline to pay their rents. It was on account of that action that the great bulk of the evicted tenants had been brought into the position in which they were at the present moment. If the words of his hon. friend's Amendment were not accepted, he sincerely hoped that some words would be introduced for the purpose of limiting the Bill to that class of evicted tenants.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 303. (Division List No. 299.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, RtHn.Sir Alex;.F.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Coates, E.Feetham(Lewisham)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.Sir H.

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Carlile, E.Hildred

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cave, George

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cavendish,Rt, Hon. Victor C.W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Baring, Capt.Hn.G(Winchester

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cecil, Lord E. (Marylebone, E.)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Wore.

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

  Bridgeman, W. Give

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fell, Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  O'Neill Hon. Robert Torrens

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Younger, George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Liddell, Henry

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—MR.Staveley-Hill and Mr. Meysey-Thompson.

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

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Moore, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Harwood, George

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Crombie, John William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Akdins, W. Ryland D.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Agnew, George William

  Cullinan, J.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Alden, Percy

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe]

  Ambrose, Robert

  Delany, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dewar, Arthur(Edinburgh, S.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh.)

  Hodge, John

  Baker. Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles -

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Barker, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hove, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barnes, (G N.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hudson, Walter

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dunne. MajorE. Martin(Walsall

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Elibank, Master of

  Jackson, R. S.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Erskine, David C

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Bethell. T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Everett. R. Lacey

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Faber, O. H. (Boston)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jowett, F. W.

  Boland, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Field, William

  Kekewich. Sir George

  Branch, James

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kelley, George D.

  Brigg, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Bright, J. A.

  Flynn. James Christopher

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Kilbride, Denis

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.

  Lambert, George

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lamont, Norman

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gilhooly, James

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Cameron. Robert

  Gill, A.H.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Glendinning. R. G.

  Lehmann, R, C.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Glover, Thomas

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. David

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Grant, Corrie

  Lough, Thomas

  Cleland, J. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Clough, William

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Clynes. J. R.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cobbold, Felix, Thornley

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Halpin, J.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hammond, John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mac Veagh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Callum, John M.

  1390

  1391

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Steadman, W. C.

  M'Killop, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Maddison, Frederick

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Stuart. James (Sunderland)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants.)

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Mansfield, H.Rendall (Lincoln)

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Massie, J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radchiffe)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne. William

  Menzies, Walter

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rees. J. D.

  Ure, Alexander

  Mond, A.

  Kendall, Athelstan

  Verney. F. W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampton

  Walker, H. Dc R. (Leicester)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Richardson, A.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ward. John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Morse, L. L.

  Robinson, S.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Murnaghan, George

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wardle. George J.

  Murphy, John

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Wason, Rt.Hn.E(Clackmannan)

  Murray, James

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Myer, Horatio

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Watt, Henry A.

  Nicholls, George

  Rowlands, J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Nicholson, Charles. A(Doncast'r

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitbread. Howard

  Nolan.-Joseph

  Russell, T. W.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Nussey, Thomas Willians

  Scarisbrick. T. T. L.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid.

  Schwann. ('. Duncan (Hyde)

  White. Patrick (Meath. North)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sears, J. E.

  Whitehead. Rowland

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Seaverns. J. H.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shackleton. David James

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Grady, J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wilson. J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  O'Malley, William

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson. W T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Shee, James John

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Winfrey. R.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Young, Samuel

  Partington, Oswald

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Smyth. Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Snowden, P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Perks, Robert William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whiteley and Mr. Herbert

  Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lewis.

  Philipps, Owen C (Pembroke)

  Spicer. Sir Albert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

  SIR F. BANBURYon behalf of the right hon. Member for Dublin University, move dan Amendment, to provide that the Commissioners should hold a public hearing of all parties interested before determining that the evicted tenants to be reinstated were fit and proper persons to be become purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts. It appeared to him to be a reasonable Amendment, and it was to be hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do more than give a courtesy reception to it. It was evidently in the true interests of the Bill and of the Commissioners, and was likely to make the proceedings under the Bill more harmonious. How were they to ascertain whether an applicant was a
  1392
  fit and proper person to be reinstated unless they inserted the proposed words and provided for an investigation into the circumstances connected with his claim? There had been recriminations about secrecy, but he was quite certain the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to perpetuate secrecy, and he was sure that hon. Members below the gangway desired that the proceedings should be conducted in the most open and above-board manner. Every taxpayer had a right to know what was going on. It was the first essential of a Court of Justice that all the parties interested should be heard, and in a case of this sort it was absolutely necessary that all the parties who would should come forward

  1393
  and give their testimony as to whether the claims were good or not, and whether the applicants were fit and proper persons to become purchasers under the Act. He did not suppose there would be a Report stage, as no Amendment had been accepted.
  MR. CHERRYsaid that two Amendments had been accepted, so there would be a Report stage.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was glad to hear that, but he begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALYraised, as a point of order, the question whether the Amendment would not be more properly dealt with on Subsection (5) of Clause 2, which enacted the machinery of the Bill. The whole of Section 2 seemed to him to deal with the procedure question, while Section 1 dealt with the question of principle.
  SIR. BANBURYthought the Amendment was in its proper place. There were two stages. The first was that an application should be made, and that then the Commissioners should consider whether the applicants were fit and proper persons. Before they considered whether applicants were fit and proper persons they must take into consideration whether the applications had been properly lodged.
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLpointed out that the inquiry upon which the Commissioners were to say that the applicants were fit and proper persons preceded that publication of the notice under Section 2, and therefore this was the only place in which the Amendment of his hon. friend could come in. It would no doubt be out of order unless it was intended to portend a second inquiry.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that in reference to the point of order it was sometimes an extremely difficult matter to decide whether an Amendment should be accepted to a first clause of this character, or on the machinery clause, and his decision on this point was that
  1394
  this was a condition precedent which might properly be moved on this clause, and therefore he should allow it to be moved.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 19, after the word 'Commissioners' to insert the words 'after a public hearing of all parties interested.' "—(Sir F. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHERRYwished, in the first place, most cordially to thank the hon. Baronet for the courteous manner in which he had moved his Amendment. It was quite refreshing to him to hear an Amendment proposed without a single taunt being levelled at the Irish Government, or any charge that they had been guilty of underhand conduct. He did not know whether the rest of the debate would be conducted in this way, but he sincerely hoped it would. As to the Amendment, he was very sorry that the right hon. Member for Dublin University, in whose name it stood, should have given notice of it, especially as he was not present that day, because he did not think he could have realised what its effect would be. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to have a public hearing of all the parties interested, the tenant, the landlord, the mortgagee and others in the locality who had any claims upon the land. Taking the proposal and dealing with it in point of time, hon. Members knew how long these matters took now, and if each of these claims was heard in a public inquiry, with counsel and King's Counsel—they knew what long speeches they could make—he calculated that a reasonable computation would be that half a day would be taken for each case,
  Mr. CLANCY: Two days.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he would not take it at two days, but at half a day a case. There were said to be 8,000 cases, and that would mean 4,000 days. Supposing all the Commissioners were to give their whole time to this task he did not think they could expect them to sit more than 300 days in the year.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid, as he understood it, the 8,000 were largely composed of applications of a fictitious character, and if there was a public inquiry most of these claims would drop out.
  MR. CHERRYthought that the bogus claims would remain, and it was always the bogus claims that took the most time. There were 4,000 days, and he calculated taking 300 working days a year that it would take thirteen years and four months to investigate them. Putting aside the question of time and taking the question of cost, he would assume that in each of these 8,000 cases £50 would be spent—not a very extravagant sum. If these 8,000 claims were investigated it would cost £400,000. The Government could not, therefore, accept the Amendment, and he did not think that any reasonable Member of the House could expect them to do so.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid that if there were any bogus claims surely they ought to have an inquiry by a body other than the Estates Commissioners, who were already over-worked; and if they were to have an increased number of claims coming forward from America and elsewhere that was a reason for having an additional body to deal with these claims. If, however, the duty was thrown upon the Estates Commissioners why should they not hold a public inquiry? That body was appointed for one purpose, and the Government were going to ask them to do what they were not appointed to do. There was every ground for a public inquiry.
  Mr. CLANCYsaid the Attorney-General for Ireland, it seemed to him, had under-estimated the length and cost of these investigations. He had not taken into account the length and power of speech of the right hon. Gentleman in whose name this Amendment stood. Let them imagine the right hon. Gentleman appearing before the Commissioners. He would begin with an indictment of the Commissioners. He had made a calculation as to the length of the right hon. Gentleman's observations before the Land Commissioners, and if made at equal length before this proposed tribunal this investigation would last
  1396
  for forty years. All the parties would be dead before the controversy came to an end; the lawyers would be dead, and the British taxpayers would be dead. His hon. and learned friend the Member for North Armagh or his descendants would have spent the fortune he got out of his estate long before the cases were decided. It was difficult to imagine what would happen. They might have Home Rule, or the Empire might have broken up before then. It really was a pity, though, that the Amendment could not be carried out, because it would benefit lawyers to such a large extent. But he could not dare to look forward to such a state of things; if he could entertain such an idea it would certainly be pleasurable. He could not, understand, however, why, after all. the Amendment could be considered necessary, because if anyone examined Clause 2 he would find the most elaborate precautions taken that these claims should be investigated one way or another. He really did not know, having regard to the prospect held out, how he should vote on the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he did not take quite such a gloomy view as the hon. Member and others of the result of the Amendment. The Estates Commissioners had by a process of weeding-out, been enabled to reduce the number of those claiming to be evicted tenants from 8,000 to 2,000, and it must be clear to the Attorney-General for Ireland and others that if the tests were applied which were set out in the Report there should be no difficulty in having an inquiry into the cases of all these tenants. The Estates Commissioners would have no difficulty in stating from their records that an applicant had voluntarily surrendered his holding or that he or his predecessors had been evicted more than twenty-five, and perhaps forty years ago, or that their eviction was due to the action of creditors or in consequence of family disputes, and so on through the other grounds on which the Commissioners made a distinction. So that instead of having a large number of cases to investigate, which were computed to last from thirteen to forty years, he thought the whole business could be done in a year. The tribunal would

  1397
  have a certain number of reports before them, and they would be able to dispose of the cases in the same way as those of fair rent claimants were disposed of, at the rate of thirty or forty a day. That being so, as the landlords were to be compulsorily dispossessed and the taxpayer was to pay for all these operations, the greatest care should be taken in choosing those people whose claims were bona-fide. Although the. Chief Secretary said that everybody had confidence in the Estates Commissioners, and that they were just as well able to carry out these inquiries as anyone else, they had already told the right hon. Gentleman that a certain number of 'Members on those benches did not share his confidence. He thought it was desirable that they should have some further light as to how these, tenants had been chosen, because it seemed that the Report of the Commissioners had been a perfunctory one. They did not see the tenants, but only had the report of their inspectors, on which they acted. He thought, that was a very unsatisfactory way.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid that in view of the compliment which had been paid to them on that side of the House, he hoped his remarks would not be taken as imputing any underhand or corrupt motives to the Attorney-General for Ireland and his colleagues. It could not be denied, however, that there was a certain amount of secrecy in regard to the Bill, and it would be for the advantage of the Committee if the Chief Secretary could elucidate the matter further. He would ask of what advantage had been this secrecy in the 2,000 cases. It was i thrown in their teeth that these Commissioners had been appointed by the Party to which he belonged, but they were appointed for different duties. For these reasons he hoped the Chief Secretary; would see his way to give that publicity which would be in the interest of the evicted tenant and of the public.
  MR. MOOREsaid he knew that it was a high and solemn misdemeanour to suggest that there was anything approaching secrecy in regard to the Bill, but he would take the conse-
  1398
  quences. Powers were given to take £15,000 or £20,000 worth of land, but the owners of the property did not know for what reason it was taken. The evicted tenants were selected without public inquiry, and in regard to the taking of land no appeal was given. He was surprised to hear the Attorney-General for Ireland compiling an amusing calculation, working out that it would take thirteen or fourteen years to dispose of the question if there was an inquiry. He hardly thought he treated the House seriously, because the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Land Commission Court had heard fair rent appeals for years and had disposed of forty or fifty cases a day. The process was that the rents on one estate were all taken together. The landlord was represented by a firm of solicitors in regard to the whole number of cases, and the applicants, thirty or forty perhaps in number, were also represented by the same firm of solicitors. That Court could on an average certainly deal with thirty cases a day, and he could not understand why it should be assumed that in this instance each case would take half a day to decide. It was a ridiculous compilation to say that thirteen years would be required for the work. As they had no guarantee that it would be dealt with at a later stage of the Bill, or in the course, of the discussion on the measure, he was obliged at the present juncture to vote for the provision embodied in the Amendment that there should be a public inquiry, which he took to be a public inquiry dealing with the whole matter. Although he hardly dared say so, because if he did he would be taunted by the Chief Secretary with harbouring unworthy motives, he wished to express the opinion that an inquiry was a proper course at every stage where property was passing and where there had been in the past an undue amount of secrecy, especially in a case where the result of the proceedings would be that tenants were to receive forty acres of land apiece and £300 to stock it.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL:desired to say one word in favour of public inquiry. During the whole of these debates he had been impressed by the indisposition of the Government to give information for which Members of the Opposition had again and again: asked.

  1399
  The English taxpayers were interested in this matter, and they who were called upon to pay were entitled to know what were the conditions under which the money was to be spent. There should be public inquiry stage by stage and step by step. Concealment or anything which tended to throw a veil over the proceedings would be at once mischievous in itself and have the necessary result of creating suspicion, doubt, and uncertainty, while operating prejudicially against the successful working of the Act. He was not quite sure whether the desire for concealment was not one of the many dangers which were threatening them. He had ventured on one or two occasions in the course of the session to warn the House or the Committee against these pending dangers. One of the dangers was the increasing indisposition to make facts public. In concealment was danger; in publicity, safety. He was very glad that his hon. friend had made this proposal, and he should have very much pleasure in voting for it,
  Mr. T. M. HEALYsaid he greatly regretted that hon. Gentlemen above the gangway had not proposed that there should be public inquiry into land purchase under the Act of 1903. It had been said that the hon. Member for North Armagh had sold his land at extravagant prices; he was quite sure that was not accurate; but if hon. Gentlemen had recommended the right hon. Member for Dover to put in his Bill a provision for that public-inquiry which they were now advocating ",in respect" of the £100,000,000 and £12,000,000 bonus which had been given to the Irish landlords, he could quite conceive that the most salutary consequences would have resulted. They had been told that the Duke of Leinster got £1,000,000 in precedence of everybody else, and if there had been a public inquiry before he got that immense sum he could quite understand that the public would have come in to listen why he should be given priority. The Duke of Abercorn had got an enormous sum of public money in connection with the various Land Purchase Acts. He believed that Lord Londonderry had sold a considerable portion of his estates in the
  1400
  North of Ireland, but he had never heard the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone suggest that there should be an inquiry into the conditions under which Lord Londonderry sold his estates. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. Why should they have left £112,000,000 to be dealt with without inquiry by the Commissioners in whom they now proclaimed that nobody had the slightest confidence and now demand public inquiry when it was a question of £2,000,000 to reinstate these poor evicted tenants? It seemed to him that hon. Gentlemen above the gangway were making themselves companions with strange bed-follows. They would come into office again, and they would hear of these things. Hansard would be searched in the future; they would read of these adjurations about the corruptness of these Commissioners, and would ask themselves why these men could have been satisfied to ladle out public money without anything in the nature of a public inquiry when it was the case of the landlords and insist on public inquiry when it was the case of the tenants. He would suggest to hon. Members above the gangway that they were raking a dangerous line, not only upon this question, but upon many others, as they would find a little later. The denunciations of principles which they were making to-day when the Liberals were in office would come home to roost very often when they themselves were back in power.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not think his hon. friends need be disturbed by the prophecies of the hon. and learned Gentleman, nor in the least alarmed about inquiry into certain land purchase. Lord Londonderry, in fact, sold his land long before the Act of 1903.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was there a public inquiry?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that in regard to the Duke of Abercorn and the other landlords no priority was given to them other than what was due to the time at which they made the applications. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that

  1401
  the whole of the transactions under the Act of 1903 were on the voluntary principle; and he also knew perfectly well that there was the greatest possible difference between transactions of a voluntary character and those which were compulsory. Where county councils and other public authorities were authorised to take land compulsorily a public inquiry was held at which the authority had to justify the taking of the land. He was inclined to agree with his hon. friend the Member for North Armagh that this stage was the wrong one for inquiry. He was not aware that there had been any allegation made on those benches against the Commissioners of the kind suggested by the hon. and learned Member. It was inevitable that there should be statements made about those gentlemen, because owing to the duties they had to perform they were occasionally forced into an attitude which led to their expressing opinions on what the Government policy ought to be. It was not the duty of permanent officials to deal with questions of policy; that was a matter for Ministers of the Crown; but the position of the Commissioners was so peculiar that from time to time they had been called upon, because of the peculiarities and difficulties of the land question, to make suggestions and criticisms of which ho had always regretted the necessity, but in regard to which no one would suggest mala fides on the part of the Estates Commissioners. What they said was that, at some stage, not, he thought, the preliminary stage, but after all preliminary inquiries had been made, and when the number of tenants had dwindled down to the ultimate selection at which these gentlemen had arrived, and when the land was to be compulsorily acquired, there should be some procedure of a public character, so that the facts might be known to all concerned, and especially to those whose land was to be taken. Surely, it was not an unreasonable demand, where everyone was concerned in the successful working of the Act, that there should be some farther declaration of the reasons which had governed the Estates Commissioners in the discharge of their duties, other than those which were available now. In the interests of the Commissioners themselves he thought it was
  1402
  highly desirable that there should be public information available for all. The Commissioners would receive criticism enough, however successful they might be in the discharge of this most difficult task, but the criticism would not be so bitter if there was a publication of the reasons upon which they based their action. He thought it was possible for the Government to devise some method by which the public could be put in possession of the facts of the various cases, and it would be in the interests of all concerned, and, not least, of the Commissioners themselves, that such a method should be devised. It would only be carrying out what the Government had repeatedly said was their object and intention.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the Commissioners had two duties to discharge. First, they had to ascertain the class of persons to be benefited by the Bill, and they had to ascertain the Christian names, surnames, and addresses of those whom it was proposed to restore to the land. The other duty they had to discharge was of a wholly different character, and related to the machinery they had to employ for the purpose of getting the land, namely, whether the land was to be acquired voluntarily by agreement or compulsorily. That would be dealt with when they came to consider Clause 2, and there would be full opportunity for discussing that clause. With regard to the simple ascertainment of the individual, he confessed he could not for the life of him understand—probably it arose from ignorance of Irish life and politics—why there was this passionate desire on the part of gentlemen opposite to be supplied with the names of the evicted tenants, whose cases would be investigated by the Estates Commissioners, to see whether they were suitable persons to be supplied with land. He did not know why they wanted the names before the time came to restore those tenants. He quite understood that the landlords wished to know somehow or other who were the persons that were to become purchasers of their land; that was a very natural desire. But at the present moment what object would be gained; what good would be done? Supposing he was able now to read out the names of the 2,000 persons, did they want those names to be handed

  1403
  about and made the subject matter of Questions and Answers in that House? All he could say was that the restoration of this limited number of evicted tenants would be impossible unless the House recognised that it was a bit of business which had got to be done as quickly as it could be done by the tribunal who were to deal with it, he would not say in a rough and ready fashion, but as summarily and as speedily as possible. By passing this Bill the House took upon itself the obligation of providing some machinery whereby as speedily as possible these 2,000 people should be provided with land. They had given that power to the Estates Commissioners. He had been obliged to find some tribunal and the men he had chosen were the nominees of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those men had been engaged in this kind of work for a great number of years, and no Motion had ever been made to remove them. He thought they knew more about the value of land in all the counties of Ireland than anyone else. If they referred it to a Roscommon jury to fix the value of grass land in Roscommon that might be in accordance with the eternal principle of justice, but they were debarred from adopting that plan by the conditions existing in Ireland, and that would not be considered fair treatment. Consequently they selected the men who were already discharging these duties. They did not all look at these things from the same point of view, but to say that they were unfit to fix the value of land in a matter of this sort and provide 2,000 tenants with small holdings without having a public inquiry was absurd.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think we ought to keep to the point raised in the Amendment.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan that the English taxpayer had a financial as well as a moral interest in this matter. Many of the tenants had been upon their farms for twenty-four years.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that this is a question of whether the Commissioners are to inquire
  1404
  into the fitness of the applicants by a public inquiry.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid his point was the great need for a public inquiry, which was doubly important after what had been said about the men who were coming home from New Zealand and America to make all kinds of vague claims for these farms.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is a point which does not arise. The question is whether they are fit and proper persona to become purchasers under the Act.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Chief Secretary appeared to be at a loss to understand why the Opposition were so anxious to have a public inquiry, and why they proposed to press the Amendment to a division. The answer was simple. The chief reason was that when the Act of 1903 was being discussed they were led to understand by the best expert Ireland could produce, the Leader of the Irish Party, that there were about 400 or 600 evicted tenants. Now they were told that there were 3,000, 1,000 who had been reinstated and 2,000 waiting to be reinstated. Surely those remarkable figures were sufficient justification for the claim for some sort of an open court in which the applications of these 2,000 persons could be made public. The Chief Secretary had constantly referred to the impartiality of the Estates Commissioners. He had never charged the Commissioners with corruption; but he went the length of saying that they were prejudiced in favour of the evicted tenants, and they had not the confidence of the parties whose land was going to be taken. He had made that statement before, and it had never been contradicted. If it were true the very least the promoters of the Bill could do was to let every step taken under it be as public as possible. It was not a small matter. A transaction by which such a large amount of land as 80,000-acres was to be taken compulsorily at a cost of about £2,000,000 could not be called a small matter. At the origin or this transaction it was understood that it should be carried through on voluntary lines. That understanding had now been wrongly departed from, and, therefore, in order to mitigate the severity with which

  1405
  it would fell upon the owners of land the least the Government could do was to give the. greatest publicity to the steps taken under the Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 321. (Division List No. 300.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.Sir AlexF

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Aubrey,-Fletcher Rt.Hn.Sir H.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baldwin. Alfred

  Duncan. Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Baring, Capt.HnG(Winchester)

  Fell, Arthur

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N

  Forster, Henry William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gretton, John

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill. Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot. Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Horn by, Sir William Henry

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston. Robert Paterson

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cave, George

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

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

  Cavendish, Rt.HonVictorC.W.

  Liddell, Henry

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Long. Col.Charles W(Evesham

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

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

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

  Chamberlain. R t Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Younger, George

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birming'm

  Lytteltont Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Meysey-Thompson, E, C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Viscount Valentia and Lord Balcarres.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Moore, William

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim, S.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Devlin, Joseph

  Abraham. William (Rhondda)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Agnew, George William

  Byles. William Pollard

  Donelan. Captain A.

  Ainsworth. John Stirling

  Cameron, Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Alden, Percy

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duncan, G. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Causton, Rt.Hn Richard Knight

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

  Astbury, John Meir

  Chance, Frederick William

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Clancy. John Joseph

  Elibank, Master of

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Erskine, David C.

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Clough, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barker, John

  Clynes. J. R.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Farrell, James Patriel

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fenwick, Charles

  Beauchamp. E.

  Cooper. G. J.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Beck. A. Cecil

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

  Field, William

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Bertram. Julius

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Cox. Harold

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex;, Maldon)

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crean, Eugene

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crombie, John William

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Boland, John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Crossley, William J.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cullinan, J.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S

  Branch, James

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Brigg, John

  Daves, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gilhooly. James

  Bright, J. A.

  Delany, William

  Gill, A.H.

  Gladstone, Rt, Hn. Herbert John

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Richardson, A.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln;

  Glover, Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough

  M'Kean, John

  Robinson, S.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W Brampton

  M'Killop, W.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

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

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Halpin, J.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Hammond, John

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rowlands, J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Runciman, Walter

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Russell, T. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford]

  Harwood, George

  Marnham, F. J.

  Schwann. C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Massie, J.

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sears, J. E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Seddon, J.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Shackleton, David James

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mond, A.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

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

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Sloan. Thomas Henry

  Hodge, John

  Morse, L.L.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hogan, Michael

  Murnaghan, George

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murphy, John

  Snowden, P.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Murray, James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N

  Myer, Horatio

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hudson, Walter

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nicholls, George

  Steadman, W. C.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Stuart. James (Sunderland)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutherland. J. E.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Grady, J.

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Kelly, James Roscommon,N

  Thorne, William

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Malley, William

  Tomkinson. James

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Trevelyan. Charles Philips

  Kilbride. Denis

  Parker, James (Halifax.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Partington. Oswald

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Lambert, George

  Perks, Robert William

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lamont, Norman

  Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

  Wardle, George J.

  Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wason, Rt.Hn.E(Clackmannan

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wason. JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Waterlow. D. S.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lever, A.Levy(Essex, Harwich

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Whitbread. Howard

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  White. George (Norfolk)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Radford, G, H.

  White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Lough, Thomas

  Rainv, A. Rolland

  White. Luke(York, E.R.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  White. Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rea. Russell (Gloucester)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Whittaker. Sir Thomas Palmer

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rees. J. D.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Maclean, Donald

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richards, T. F(Wolverh'mpt'n

  1408

  1409

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Winfrey, R.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Young, Samuel

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: moved an Amendment for the purpose of limiting the persons in whose favour the measure was to be administered to those whom the Estates Commissioners "have prior to the date of the passing of this Act, determined to be" fit and proper persons to become purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts. He said that as the clause stood at present the primary determination by the Estates Commissioners as to who should be re-instated was postponed until after the Act passed. In other words it would enable the Estates Commissioners after the Bill became law to settle afresh what they had already investigated. He did not suggest that that was an enterprise upon which they would willingly embark. He wanted it to be put out of the power of anybody to put pressure, direct or indirect, upon the Commissioners to induce them to alter that list they had already arrived at, and which, as the Chief Secretary had said, was by this time practically complete. He could not see why there should be any opposition or objection to the Amendment. All he proposed to do was to confine the persons to be re-instated to persons who at the time of the passing of the Act were on the list made by the Estates Commissioners. He wished to secure that there should be finality about the matter, although he was willing to postpone that finality until the Bill became an Act. That was a reasonable suggestion. The Chief Secretary had said that he could not understand why there was no confidence expressed in the Estates Commissioners by Unionists. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth had suggested that there had been charges of corruption brought against the Estates Commissioners. Unionists had never made any suggestion of that kind. He declared, however, that the majority of the Estates Commissioners had not the confidence of the persons whose property would be affected by the Bill. He was not concerned as to whether that was due to the Estates Commissioners or to the
  1410
  unreasonable suspicion of the landowners. It was not the first time when the property of a particular class was being taken that Parliament had been: asked not to hand over the administration of the duties connected with the taking of that property to a class of officials who had not the confidence of the persons whose property was going to be attacked. When the great Land Act of 1881 was passed, hon. Gentlemen below the gangway imputed corruption to the county court judges, and Mr. Gladstone yielded to their request and set up a new tribunal of sub-commissioners for fixing fair rents under that Act. Surely in the present case the only people whose property and interests were concerned we e a particular class; it was not unreasonable, therefore, that landowners should ask that the administration of the Act should not be handed over to a body in which they had, for good or bad reasons, no confidence whatever, and that there should be some period fixed for determining the evicted tenants to be in reinstated, especially as the Committee had been assured by the Chief Secretary that the investigation was practically at an end. He, asked that after the passing of the Act there should be no alteration of the list, but that the list which was then in the hands of the Commissioners should be taken to be final for the purposes of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 20, to leave out the words 'consider,' and insert the words have, prior to the date of the passing of this Act, determined.'"—(Mr. James Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'consider' stand part of the clause."
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the Amendment was one for which a great deal might be said; but the question was one of such a minute character that it really could not be worth consideration. He still pleaded that in the interests of the solution of a difficult question there might be some latitude allowed. As a matter of fact,

  1411
  he had very little doubt that by the end of August or very early in September the Commissioners would have completed their work to their own satisfaction. In one sense they had completed it now, and he did not think that probably there would be much injustice done if the Amendment were inserted, and if their labours were absolutely closed on the passing of the Act, probably next Monday. On the other hand, he was assured that there were a few cases upon which they contemplated they might wish to have some time. They might be cases which would have the effect of reducing the number to be restored, or they might be cases in which they had to inquire as to the capacity and character of the tenant to be restored. The question, therefore, was one of the minutest possible character, just as it was in the case of those who had not come over from America and New Zealand, and he dared say that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would only finally close the door on some half-dozen whose claims had not yet been decided. He did not, however, see why it should be closed upon them. They were told that the Amendment was moved in the interests of the Commissioners, and to save them from the overwhelming pressure of all the people they had rejected, who would claim to have their claims reconsidered. Those people, however, would not get that reconsideration, even if they made the demand. It was simply and solely in the interests of doing justice in delicate matters of administration that he found himself unable to agree with the Amendment, although he quite recognised that, even if it were accepted, it would do harm in no more than a limited number of cases. Those cases, however, might come within the purview of the Bill, and he did not propose to agree to fixing a hard and fast time whereby those who were entitled to receive consideration would be ruled out of court for all time.
  MR. MOOREsaid he supported the Amendment because he understood that what the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University was striving for was that there should be some definite period for dealing with evicted tenants, so that there might be finality in the matter.
  1412
  It was in the interests of the evicted tenants themselves, and in the interests of others concerned, that the number of claimants should be crystallised as from a given date. The Chief Secretary had admitted that the Amendment was a reasonable one, but had refused to accept it because it was too small. If the right hon. Gentleman did accept it, he would probably gain the time which would be occupied in its discussion, and he might also gain a reputation for being reasonable. He should not be so stiff as to refuse to accept an Amendment against which he could say nothing. If Unionist Members were not to be allowed to see the list of evicted tenants which had been given to Nationalist Members, at least the names should be put on record so that they could not be afterwards expanded in number.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid the hon. and learned Member for Waterford the other day accused him of want of trust in the Estates Commissioners, and he wanted to say that he had no intention whatever of expressing the slightest want of confidence in those gentlemen in so far as they did their work. All he said or intended to say was that he thought an ad hoc body should be created to deal with the cases of the evicted tenants.
  *Mr. ASHLEYsaid there were two points to be considered. One was the possibility of doing injustice to some half-dozen tenants, and the other was the probability of an agitation being started in Ireland to have put back on the list the whole 5,400 applicants who had been rejected. That was what the case came to. He would be very sorry to see injustice done to anybody, but he thought the danger of an agitation springing up should outweigh the consideration of that possibility.
  Sir F. BANBURYwas sorry the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment. The Attorney-General had refused the last Amendment on the ground that it was such a large Amendment and would take up thirteen years. This, however, was an extremely simple Amendment, and would not take

  1413
  up any time at all. The Attorney-General's argument therefore did not apply. The Chief Secretary had said that five or six cases of injustice might occur if the proposed limitation was put in, but wherever there was a limitation cases of injustice must arise. It was beyond the wit of man to devise a limitation which would not press severely upon a certain number of people. The right hon. Gentleman had already put in one limitation, because; applications had to be made before May, 1907. There might be some few cases of injustice under that limitation. Why, therefore, should not a further limitation, which according to the right hon. Gentleman's own showing would only result in injustice to some six or seven people, be inserted? The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Amendment was reasonable. His real reason for refusing to accept it was not because it would result in injustice to a few people, but because it would offend hon. Members below the gangway.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he would like to make a suggestion before they went to a division. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had no objection to the merits of the Amendment, and that he only objected to it because it might possibly exclude some half-dozen cases, which cases he believed would be cleared up early in September. He had laughed at the suggestion that unless they did put some limit in the Bill in all probability a very large number of extra cases would be pressed upon the Commissioners. He (Mr. Long) did not think anybody who had had any practical experience of the question would share the right hon. Gentleman's views as to the prospects before the Bill. Everybody knew that when it had passed if no limit were imposed there would be pressed on the Estates Commissioners a very great number of cases, and not the. half-dozen of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken, which ought not to be included. If therefore the right hon. Gentleman did not accept this Amendment he might perhaps put in some date, the 1st of September or 1st of October, so that there might be some date before which these half-dozen cases might be adjudicated upon or revised, but which would impose
  1414
  a limit beyond which no further cases could be considered by the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he could assure the right hon. Member that the Estates Commissioners were fully alive to this matter, and it was their fixed intention as speedily as possible to complete the list and exercise their minds in adjudicating these claims. Once having satisfied their consciences in the matter, and settled the matter, they would not re-open any case in any shape or way. Although it might seem reasonable to fix such a limit as was suggested, he thought the Committee should be satisfied with the assurance he had given. The Estates Commissioners had almost completed their labours, but there were still certain cases in which they might have included persons who, on further information, might be found to be improper persons, and in which they had excluded persons who might be found to be proper persons for reinstatement. This was as he had said a somewhat rough-and-ready way of finding out who these people were, and to impose this limit might impose some hardship. The method had, however, to be adopted, otherwise the work would have been interminable. He could not accept the Amendment, which would impose a limitation which he did not think was necessary.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid it was quite true that the friends of this Bill, at present, seemed to acquiesce in the restricted figure of 2,000 which the Estates Commissioners had arrived at. The Committee had heard but little, though they had heard something of the enlargement of that number. But at present the list of selected applicants remained private. Every one who had applied hoped and believed he was a successful applicant, but the moment the list became public there would be a rush of applicants, and every sort of political and other pressure would be brought to bear to enforce the claim of those persons who had applied and been refused. Everybody knew the rapidity with which these things grew; the 800 had increased to 8,000 in an incredibly short space of time. America, England, Scotland, all had provided their quota.

  1415
  And who could doubt that when once a Department of State was set on foot for the restoration of evicted tenants and Commissioners were invested with compulsory powers, all evicted tenants who were on the original list would again put their demands with increasing insistence? The Estates Commissioners were a semi-judicial body whom it was right to protect against undue political pressure and influence in the exercise of very difficult duties. He should vote in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. ASHLEY:asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not, as he had admitted that these persons were likely to be hardly hit if this Amendment was not carried, accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South Dublin,
  and reinstate these men under Section 2 of the Act of 1903.
  MR. MOOREsaid he regarded this Amendment as one of the first importance. The Committee had been told that the evicted tenants numbered 2,000, and the Chief Secretary had told them that all outside that figure could be settled on the land by voluntary purchase. Those he concluded would include the 4,000 whom the Estates Commissioners decided did not, and were not fit to, come in under this Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think the matter arose on this Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 314; Noes, 92. (Division List No. 301.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork.N.E.)

  Clancy. John Joseph

  Gilhooly, James

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gill, A.H.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clough, William

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Agnew, George William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Glover, Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Alden, Percy

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

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Asquith, Rt.Hon Herbert Henry

  Cox, Harold

  Gurdon, RtHn.SirW. Brampton

  Astbury. John Meir

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crean, Eugene

  Halpin, J.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crombie, John William

  Hammond, John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardy. George A. (Suffolk)

  Barker, John

  Cullinan. J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Harwood, George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Delany, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Bertram, Julius

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

  Dilke. Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duffy, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Boland, John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hobhouse. Charles E. H.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Elibank, Master of

  Hodge, John

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Essex, R. W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Branch, James

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Brigg, John

  Everett. R. Lacey

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bright, J. A.

  Faber. G. H. (Boston)

  Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Horniman. Emslie John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Hudson, Walter

  Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas

  Field, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Byles, William Pollard

  Findlay, Alexander

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Cameron, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Jackson, R. S.

  Causton, Rt.HnRichard Knight

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Chance, Frederick William

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Jenkins, J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R,

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead).

  Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shipman, Dr. John G

  Jowett, F. W.

  Napier, T. B.

  Silcock, Thomas Bali

  Joyce, Michael

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Sloan. Thomas Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Nicholls, George

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Kelley, George D.

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Nolan, Joseph

  Snowden, P.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lambert, George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stewart-Smith, 1). (Kendal)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Grady, J.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E.

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Lever, A.Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  O'Shee. James John

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Partington, Oswald

  Thorne, William

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Lough, Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tomkinson, James

  Lundon, W.

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lynch, H. B.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ure, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Verney, F. W.

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Maclean, Donald

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

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Radford, G. H.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wardle, George J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Rea. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan

  MacVeagh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Rea. Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wason. JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Redmond, William (Care)

  Watt, Henry A.

  M'Killop, W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Weir, James Galloway

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richardson, A.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants

  Roberston, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, Patrick (Meath. North)

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S..

  Whitehead. Rowland

  Meagher, Michael

  Robson. Sir William Snowdon

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Roche. Augustine (Cork)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mond, A.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rowlands. J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Runciman, Walter

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Russell. T. W.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Morrell, Philip

  Sears, J. E.

  Young, Samuel

  Morse. L. L.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Seddon, J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Shackleton. David James

  Tellers for the Ayes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Murphy, John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Murray, James

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Myer, Horatio

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  NOES

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bull. Sir William James

  Ark wright, John Stanhope

  Baring, Capt.Hn. G (Winchester

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir H.

  Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Cave, George

  Ban bury. Sir Frederick George

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cavendish, Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.

  1418

  1419

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Keswick, William

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Liddell, Henry

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)>

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark. Govan

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Moore, William

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

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

  Muntz, Sir Philip A

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger. George

  Hills, J. W.

  Nield, Herbert

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  MR. MOOREmoved to insert, at the end of the clause, the words, "Provided that such persons have been evicted for non-payment of rent or under judgment or decree for rent." His object, he said, was to exclude from the definition of evicted tenant, and, therefore, from the benefits of this Bill, those persons who had been evicted from their farms in consequence of decrees obtained by ordinary creditors or of ejectments in title. Hon. Members were aware that evictions in Ireland took place from different causes and for different reasons. It had always been understood that the evicted tenant problem with which the House had attempted to deal was that of restoring to their holdings those tenants who had been evicted for non payment of rent and for that cause alone. In Ireland if a man was indebted to his butcher or his baker the latter could get judgment against the debtor, and, if he had a farm could, if it was not subject to a mortgage, proceed to sell him up. If there was a mortgage he could have his judgment registered as a mortgage and still sell him up and evict him. Another case which hon. Members had not considered was that of a man who did not come within the Act of 1881, who had a long lease the term of which had expired and he was evicted because the landlord wanted to resume possession. That was called an ejectment on title. There were also other classes of eviction. Therefore he thought it was only right
  1420
  to amend this clause so as to ensure that the only evicted tenants who derived advantage from the Bill should be those who were evicted for the non-payment of rent. It was never intended that evicted tenants of any other kind should come under it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the clause to add the words 'Provided that such persons have been evicted for non-payment of rent or under judgment or decree for rent.'"—(Mr. Moore.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHERRYthought there was some weight in the argument that these men would be technically and literally in the position of being evicted tenants and would be within the words of Clause 2 of the Act of 1903. He did not think they should be included, and the Government had no desire to extend that clause. Landlords, however, frequently took advantage of their position to proceed against tenants as ordinary creditors, and recovering the rent as an ordinary debt, seized the holding. When landlords took those steps there was nothing to distinguish them from the ordinary creditor who had taken similar steps to recover a debt. The hon. and learned Member suggested that all these cases should be excluded, because he would confine the

  1421
  Bill to persons evicted for non-payment of rent.
  MR. MOOREsaid the words of the Amendment were, "Who have been evicted for non-payment of rent or under judgment or decree for rent."
  MR. CHERRYthought those words would exclude the cases to which he had referred, but the Government would not like to accept the Amendment in the form in which it had been moved, and what they proposed to do was to substitute a form of words on Report.
  MR. CLANCY:suggested that the right hon. Gentleman ought to hear arguments against this and similar Amendments before he offered to make any concession.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he was ready to hear any arguments that might be used, but his feeling was, that this was a Bill for tenants who had been evicted from their holdings by their landlords, and not by their butchers or bakers or others. That was all they proposed to do. The hon. Member should have let him finish his remarks. He seemed to be afraid of his conceding too much.
  MR. CLANCY:thought the tendency of the Government was to give way on everything that was proposed.
  MR. CHERRYsaid the Government tried to do what was just and right in the case. They had not accepted many Amendments proposed by the Opposition. They proposed to bring up on Report a form of words which would confine the Bill to evicted tenants who had been evicted by their landlords, or at the suit of their landlords, where they had been turned out of possession. It would exclude cases where family disputes had led to evictions, and also where the proceedings of ordinary creditors had led to evictions. It was fair and reasonable that that should be inserted.
  MR. MOORE: Am I to understand that the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman proposes is to be restricted to evictions for non-payment of rent?
  1422
  If the landlord ejects the tenant on title the tenant must come in.
  MR. CHERRY: The hon. Gentleman must wait until the Amendment is put down. Our object is to exclude the cases mentioned of evictions by butchers and bakers and younger brothers
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that of all harsh cases connected with eviction ejectment on title was the worst. Mr. Gladstone had refused to include leaseholders in the Act of 1881, and for six years the leaseholders of Ireland in many cases paid rents after their leases had expired. In many cases the enlargement of the Act which came later on never affected them, and it was not till 1896 that a whole shoal of exclusions disappeared, while in the meantime the landlord availed himself of every little flaw in the title to eject these unfortunate men. Mr. Gladstone, in whose character extraordinary Conservatism was sometimes shown, would not even enable a present tenant to be artificially created. The Tory Government, however, accepted an Amendment as a matter of course, and a present tenant could now be created artificially. He instanced the case of joint tenants and tenants in common. They had put an Amendment in the Act of 1896, and immediately the Court of Appeal ran a spear through it. In 1903, again, the Conservative Party amended the law, and these men were now entitled to a fair rent, though in the meantime numbers of them had been ejected. The Front Opposition Bench had a clean record on this business, because nearly every one of the valuable Amendments of the Act of 1881 had been made owing to the clear - sightedness of the Conservative Party. Were they now to turn round and, before their Amendments of the law had had time to take effect, say that the men who had been unjustly evicted were not to get the benefit of the amended law? He really could not fathom the spirit of Gentlemen above the gangway, haggling and niggling in order to exclude one or two unfortunate men. It was not common justice. They were against the campaigners, the "immoral" men who would not pay their rent; but

  1423
  the men they now sought to exclude were men who were sound rent-payers, but who had some flaw in their title which Parliament had subsequently remedied. He advised Members above the gangway to let the House of Lords shape their Amendments for them. Was not every landlord in Ireland a Member of the House of Lords? The promoters of this Amendment were not landlords; they were only lawyers, and they had not even got the landlords as their clients. The great advantage of the House of Lords was that they had a packed jury of landlords, making Amendments to suit themselves—the real Simon Pures who considered their own cases and their own estates. The evicting landlords would all be there. When he saw an Amendment with Lord Clanricarde's name attached to it he knew that it was an authoritative Amendment moved by the landlord Party. Members in the Lower House were mere journeymen who knew nothing of the intricacies of the Irish case, and made mighty poor grand inquisitors. He urged the Government to be chary as to the Amendments they promised. If the rent was not paid, the landlord would evict. If it was paid, perhaps the mealman would go unpaid, and he would come forward and get judgment, and the tenant would be turned out because he had paid the landlord the money he ought to have paid the mealman. It was not so simple a matter as hon. Members considered it to be. The Government had appointed a tribunal which nobody supposed was going to be unfair to the landlords, and this was a matter which might safely be left to its discretion. He thought they would be making a great mistake if they did not at least wait and see what the House of Lords proposed to do.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Government would not, he thought, be shaken in their determination by the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had omitted any reference to the Report of the Commissioners on which this Bill was very largely founded. Clause 20, Subsection 4, dealt with creditors other than landlords, and they had, therefore, actually the avowed intention of the Commissioners, on which they had already acted. All the Government had done
  1424
  was to give effect to what the Attorney-General said had been their object and intention, namely, to make the Bill applicable to a particular class of cases; and he thought they were indebted to the Government for having accepted the Amendment of his hon. friend in the spirit, as he understood that the Attorney-General had undertaken to bring up on the Report stage an Amendment to carry out the views, speaking generally, which his hon. friend had just now expressed. He hoped they would not be prevented from carrying out that object by any jocular observations from below the gangway.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the Commissioners assured him that not a single person that had been placed upon the list of cases hack been evicted for anything but the non-payment of rent, and the substance of the case was very fairly met by the Amendment as altered by the Attorney-General. In regard to what had been said about another place, a Minister was under an obligation to do his duty by the House of which he happened to be a Member, and could not consent to insert in a Bill what he might think to be incorrect because there was another tribunal animated by a strong bias the other way. and that anything that could be urged in favour of those affected would be given effect to by them. There was not in this matter any real disagreement between the Government and Members below the gangway. It was agreed that at all times what was contemplated was the reinstatement of those who, for political reasons, took part in a war which had remarkable legislative results and who for that reason were turned out of their holdings. Those were the only people who could claim to be reinstated and they were the only class who would be found in the list.
  *Mr. HERBERT (Buckinghamshire, Wycombe)said it struck him that unless great care was taken in drafting the Amendment cases which were really evictions for non-payment of rent might appear to be evictions at the suit of ordinary judgment creditors; for example, a landlord might have assigned his rent to his butcher or tailor who might have obtained judgment and evicted the

  1425
  tenant on the judgment, so that he would appear to have been evicted by his tradesman for non-payment of a debt and not for non-payment of rent. So again a judgment creditor of the landlord might obtain a garnishee Order and again appear as an ordinary execution creditor of the tenant when in fact the eviction took place for non-payment of rent. Although no doubt the principle laid down might be a perfectly right one he hoped care would be taken in drafting to see that cases would not be included which were not intended to be included.
  MR. MOORE:asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Leave being refused, the Amendment was negatived.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHmoved the omission of Subsection (b), which includes among those for whom land is to be compulsorily acquired "new tenants to whom this Act applies, that is to say, tenants and persons nominated by the Estates Commissioners as personal representatives of tenants of holdings formerly occupied by evicted tenants to whom this Act applies." He explained that the Amendment dealt with the so-called "planters." He objected to the manner in which the Bill proposed to deal with the tenants who for twenty-five years had been in possession of holdings from which tenants had formerly been evicted for non-payment of rent or other causes. Such tenants were entitled to their commiseration. He would like to place before the Committee some of the hardships which these new tenants had of necessity to undergo. They might have been cultivating their holding for twenty-five years and brought up a family upon it, and yet, under the Bill, they would be dispossessed, and an evicted tenant, who might not have worked his holding in the manner in which it should be worked, might be put in his place. That was an injustice of the highest order. In many cases those tenants had exhibited a courageous character, and had accepted tasks which in many cases involved danger to their lives. To dispossess them would be an act of injustice. The
  1426
  subsection would also place in the hands of the Estates Commissioners a discriminating power which it was never intended they should exercise, because they were originally appointed for a totally different purpose. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 22, to leave out Subsection (b)."—(Viscount. Castlereagh,)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'new tenants' stand part of the clause."
  MR. J. F. MASONthought the subsection both unjust and unnecessary. He could not see why two people should be disturbed for the sake of reinstating one. If either of the tenants—the new-tenant or the evicted tenant—had a sentimental attachment to a particular holding it was more likely to be the man who had lived there during the last twenty-four years than the man who was evicted twenty-four years ago and since then had lived somewhere else. If a man had been cultivating his farm satisfactorily nothing could be gained by moving him to another farm. This double movement for the sake of reinstating one man would be tinged with a considerable amount of resentment and bad feeling, and the cost to the taxpayers would be very considerable. He supported the Amendment.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, and he did not think the hon. Members who had spoken had fully apprehended its effect. It would not only prevent new tenants being required to give up their holding for another holding or for money compensation, but it would prevent part of the land being acquired for those new tenants who had voluntarily agreed to give up their present holdings. Many of the new tenants sat very lightly in their present holdings, and would very willingly go upon the terms of the Bill. They had not acquired the holdings naturally. They were somewhat artificially introduced to them. In many places they were regarded as only caretakers of the land—perpetual evidence of the strife the Government were seeking to put an end to They would jump at

  1427
  the terms of the Bill, and would gladly either take land offered them elsewhere, or, if they were satisfied that agricultural pursuits did not suit them, take the monetary compensation provided under the Bill. Not only was it necessary that they should have the power to acquire parcels of land for actually reinstating the old tenants upon their former holdings and give the new tenants a holding elsewhere, but they required land for tenants who would not be turned out at all. He did not contemplate that there would be many cases in which there would be actual eviction of new tenants. If powers were taken to acquire land for the purpose of providing the new tenants with farms elsewhere he thought the difficulty of the case would be solved. Subsection (b) was of the very essence of the measure, and it was necessary that it should be allowed to remain in order that there should be power to obtain the land required for the carrying through of the purposes of the Bill.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he understood that it was impossible for the Government so agree to the elimination of the subsection, as its omission would strike at the very foundation of the Bill. He was glad the discussion had been raised, for there was no part of the Bill to which he objected more than that which proposed to get rid of the new tenants in order to make room for the evicted tenants. One wondered at the necessity for the Bill at all if these people were so anxious to go, provided there was power to give them the necessary compensation. If the right hon. Gentleman's information was accurate a great many of these people would not be seriously interfered with. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find that there was a much larger number who did not answer the description he had given of the new tenants. A considerable number of these men had carried on their work under circumstances of great difficulty, and they were men for whom the Attorney-General had no sympathy at all. They had become unpopular for doing their duty, and as it was a great trouble to look after them the Attorney-General thought it was better to put in somebody else. Of course that was a very good reason for a Minister
  1428
  who wanted to lessen the difficulties of his situation, but he and his friends did not regard it as a good reason at all for using public money to dispossess men who in many cases had stood up against long odds in doing their best to cultivate their holdings satisfactorily. He agreed with the Chief Secretary that the subsection was necessary, and he was inclined to advise his noble friend not to press the Amendment to a division. It would prevent provision being made in the shape of fresh holdings for any of the new tenants whose removal might be voluntarily arranged. That would be, of course, to do them a considerable injustice. Surely arrangements might be made for dealing with these cases without the excessive powers proposed to be taken.
  MR. MOOREsaid he wished to make a suggestion with reference to the drafting of the clause. Instead of "tenants of holdings" he suggested that the words "occupiers of land" should be substituted. He understood that on the Clanricarde estate ninety holdings had become forty-five through some holdings being amalgamated. If the clause limited the application of the Bill to holdings which were formerly occupied by evicted tenants, there might be considerable trouble, in view of decisions under the Land Acts, in regard to holdings which had ceased to exist.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he was much obliged for the suggestion, which would improve the language of the clause. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had seemed to think that he was animated by some bitter animosity towards the new tenants. He had no animosity towards them at all. On the contrary, he had a good deal of sympathy with them. The Government had done everything they possibly could in the Bill to see that these tenants should get perfectly fair play and everything for their advantage. They were mainly men who had been brought from a different part of Ireland; for instance, Ulster men had been brought down to occupy evicted farms in the South of Ireland. They had not been very happy there. He did not say what the cause of it was, but the Government wished to put an end

  1429
  to it. They thought that these men would be more prosperous and happy if they were brought back and placed where they could carry out their work where the country was quieter. They believed that the majority of these men would agree at once to the removal, but there were some men who would not even in their own interest give up the holdings they occupied. It was a common thing for people when they lost their tempers to do things which were bad for themselves. These men had been badly treated and they had lost their tempers, and some of them said, "We will stick here because we are determined to fight to the bitter end." The Government therefore took power in the Bill to remove these men for their own interest against their own will. It was to meet such cases alone that they thought that the compulsory clause should be put in. He had no hostile feeling towards these men. He wanted to see them treated fairly, but be wanted to see peace in the country. He did not want the necessity to continue of having an army of police to surround particular holdings. The Government thought their proposals would be fair to all parties concerned.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he was glad of the assurance that the new tenants were to be fairly and reasonably treated, but he felt apprehensive that there would be a certain amount of injustice as regarded the apportionment of tenancies. He was aware that there had been a good deal of amicable settlement and he trusted there would be more in future. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. O'SHEE:moved to include within the scope of the section "new tenant purchasers" as well as "new tenants." He said that the effect of the Bill would be largely nugatory unless this Amendment were adopted. There was no real distinction between the new tenant and the new tenant purchaser. He could illustrate this by stating the circumstances of a case in his own constituency. An estate there was owned by Mrs. Williams, who lived in England. There were in
  1430
  1890 three tenants on the estate, and in that year two of them were evicted. Mr. Purcell, the agent of the estate, who lived about thirty or forty miles from the place, got possession of the two evicted farms, but his position was that of a mere planter. Under the Act of 1903, Mrs. Williams lodged an application for the sale of her estate, and Mr. Purcell had already been negotiating with the Estates Commissioners as to the price to be paid to him for giving up the two holdings so as to enable the Estates Commissioners to reinstate the evicted tenants. He was informed also that Mr. Purcell had signed an agreement to purchase the two evicted holdings, and, therefore, his vesting order might be made before this Bill came into operation. There had been a difference of opinion between Mr. Purcell, who wanted to get compensation, and the Estates Commissioners, who were anxious not to give him more than his just due. Mr. Purcell had never made any improvements since 1890; he had never lived on his land since that date; and, although his holding had deteriorated, the Estates Commissioners were willing to give him some £200 if he would give up his goodwill. Mr. Purcell wanted more. Notwithstanding this, a vesting order might be made any day. In such a case it would be contrary to all common-sense and to the intentions of the Government that Mr. Purcell should be in a position by reason of his vesting order being made to say to the Estates Commissioners that they would not give him what he wanted, that he thought he ought to have £1,000, and that, although he had never done anything to improve the land, they could not restore the evicted tenants because he was the holder of the land and would not give it up unless they gave him £1,000. What would the Estates Commissioners do? He challenged them to find in the whole county of Waterford 100 acres of untenanted land. There were in that county, according to the Report of the Estates Commissioners, 120 cases suitable for restoration, and there were thirty-eight more cases to be dealt with. There would, therefore, probably be a total of 150 persons for whom holdings would have to be provided either by purchasing the interests of the planters or grabbers who had gone into possession or by obtaining untenanted land. They

  1431
  had only provided for twenty-four tenants up to the present, and there was no more untenanted land to be had. The proportion of holdings throughout the country held by new tenants to those in the possession of the landlords was as seven to two, and from his knowledge of Waterford the proportion there was not likely to be less. Therefore, of the 150 cases to be provided for 120 holdings were in the possession of new tenants and only thirty in the hands of the landlords. How were they to get land for those 120 men? They could not get it in the neighbouring counties. There would be 1,570 of the total number of 2,000 cases where the holdings were in possession of new tenants. By reason of the operation of the Land Act of 1903—£20,000,000 having been paid in advance up to the present time—one-seventh of those 1,570 new tenants, about 230 in number, had already got their vesting orders and had become new tenant purchasers under the Act of 1903. There would also probably be about 100 more who had got their vesting orders under previous Land Purchasing Acts, and there would, therefore, be at least 330 who had become new tenant purchasers and had got their vesting orders. They were men who had been notable as suitable for restoration. There might in parts of the country be no difficulty in dealing with the evicted tenants and in providing untenanted land for them. There might be some untenanted land in the midland counties, but there was none in the south of Ireland. There would therefore be, as the Act of 1903 operated, a greater number day by day of the new tenants becoming tenant purchasers, and, if they excluded them from the operations of the Bill, they could not possibly provide in Minister and in the south of Leinster for the evicted tenants whose farms had been acquired by new tenants purchasing them under the Land Act. This was a very large question, and, in his opinion, the Bill would be largely nugatory unless they dealt with the question by carrying out the intentions of the Government. His Amendment was really only a verbal one, because there was no distinction between the new tenant and the new tenant purchaser. Under the Bill as it stood they would be unable to prevent Lord Clanricarde, for instance,
  1432
  from defeating the Bill if he chose. He had no doubt that Lord Clanricarde had lost money by letting his land to these new tenants, and he could make them judicial tenants if he chose if he had not already done so. If he-entered into an agreement with them after three months they became judicial tenants, and after that process had been gone through, Lord Clanricarde could easily convert them into second term tenants and make them buy at twenty-seven, thirty, or forty years purchase whatever the figure might be. He could put the maximum limit of value on the land, and at all events make them purchase at twenty-seven years purchase. Unless this Amendment was accepted at least 1,200 people would be disqualified from receiving the benefits of the Act because no distinction was made between the new tenants and the new tenant purchasers. The impression that he and his colleagues derived from the speeches made before this Bill was presented was that these new tenants, whether they were nominally tenant purchasers or only came within the description of new tenants, were, if they were willing to give up possession, included within the scope of the Bill. The general impression was that these men were to be compulsorily got rid of and moved elsewhere or to be given money in compensation if they did not take a farm of equal value elsewhere. That was the impression in Ireland, and that was the impression under which Nationalist Members voted for the Bill. From 1,200 to 1,570 of the 2.000 tenants who had been found suitable for reinstatement by the Estates Commissioners would be found to be unsuitable unless this Amendment were accepted. They denied the right of these new tenant purchasers to be in these farms. They were brought there by artificial means and in order to enable the landlords to extort higher prices from the existing tenants, and the Nationalist Party would always do all they could to secure the return of the tenants who had been evicted from their holdings. During the land war in Ireland there were no doubt "blacklegs," and he objected to these new tenants being converted into "new tenant purchasers."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 22, after the word 'tenants,' to insert the words 'and new tenant purchasers.' "—(Mr. O'Skee.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALY:thought the Attorney-General for Ireland would do well to consider some of the observations which had been made by his hon. friend. He would not say that this Amendment affected a large number of cases, but he thought that it hit a blot in the Bill which was well deserving of the consideration of the Government. It was one which would inflict no hardship on landlords. Certainly some Amendment of this kind was necessary and he could not see how anybody connected with the landlord class could object to it. His only fear, however, was that the terms of the Amendment were not sufficiently wide, but if the Government were satisfied that a blot had been hit by his hon. friend he hoped the Attorney-General for Ireland would see his way, if he could not accept the Amendment as it now stood, to bring up a new clause to enable something of the kind to be done. He was sure that his hon. friend was entitled to the thanks of the Committee for the very able manner in which he had brought this subject before its attention.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid the speech of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment was an illuminating one, because it showed what false hopes had been raised in Ireland and the difficulties and the bitter disappointments which were likely to arise from this extremely ill-considered measure. The hon. Member for West Waterford had said that there was no real distinction between a new tenant and a tenant purchaser. The grounds that the hon. Member offered for that extraordinary statement were two. First, he gave instances in which persons who were never intended to get the benefit of the Purchase Act, such as agents and others, had purchased their holdings. He did not intend to dispute those instances, but anyhow there they were in legal possession. Next he urged that the tenant
  1434
  purchaser might have been in possession of his holding only for a year. But the hon. Gentleman did not tell them of cases in which the person he described as a "new tenant purchaser" might have been in possession of the holding for ten, fifteen, twenty, or even twenty-five years. Let them take the ease of a man who had bought his holding ten or twenty years ago and had since been paying instalments to the State. Could his position be said to be merely that of a new tenant? First of all, he had acquired by this time a valuable property; he had paid a large sum of money in the form of terminable annuities, and at the end of a definite period he would hold the fee simple of the land without any further payment at all. He had already advanced so far along the road to complete ownership that if he were to put his holding up for sale he would realise a substantial price. The price so given would itself be conclusive proof that his interest as tenant purchaser was of a very different kind from that of a new tenant. His land was much more valuable, owing to the number of years during which he had paid the annuity. Besides, the holding had in many cases doubled in value, owing to the labour he had put into it and the improvements he had made. Yet they were told that these purchasers were in the position of ordinary tenants, and could fairly be put out of their holdings, and be forced to begin elsewhere ab initio.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid that Subsection 5 of Clause 6 provided that the condition attaching to their present holdings should attach that to other holdings.
  *Mr. BUTCHER:very much doubted whether that clause covered these cases. But, whether it did or not, he still maintained that the man who had paid his annuity to the State and had become an owner was in a totally different position from an ordinary tenant. The Bill had already one great blot which alone would prevent him from voting for it in its. present shape—it gave power for the compulsory dispossession of new tenants. It was now proposed to do another and even greater injustice, to turn out owners who had acquired their land by an advance of public money. He trusted

  1435
  the Government would not lend themselves to such a wrong.
  MR. POWERsaid that to his mind there was some ambiguity in the clause as it stood, and it was necessary to have words inserted to prevent misunderstanding. He presumed that the Estates Commissioners would naturally endeavour to procure farms for the people of a county in that county. That was the only way in which the difficulty could be met. He ventured to say that unless some such words as his hon. friend had suggested were inserted they would have people exempted from the operation of the Act who should naturally come under it.
  MR. CHERRYsaid that an interesting discussion had taken place and several points well worth considering had been raised. This was however not the first time the Government had considered the matter. There was an immense amount of difficulty in dealing with the question raised by the hon. Member for West Waterford. The hon. Member had used the phrase "new tenant purchasers." As he understood the hon. Member, there were two classes of tenants, those who had purchased their land and those who had merely signed agreements with their landlords to purchase but who by virtue of those agreements were considered owners. With regard to those who had purchased and were owners of the fee simple, their land was not tenanted land. It was technically untenanted land and therefore land which could be acquired compulsorily under the Bill. But there were two things which would prevent its being so acquired. First, Clause 6 distinctly stated that land in the immediate vicinity of the owner's dwelling should not be taken, and secondly— and this was a much more serious difficulty—that, if land was liable for an annuity, so long as it remained liable it could not be resold. So that before the Commissioners could take that land they must redeem the annuity, which would be a matter of enormous expense. He saw no way of dealing with cases of that kind at all. The hon. Member for North Louth had drawn attention to some cases where no doubt great hardships existed, but the Government
  1436
  would consider all cases of hardships brought to light and do all they could without violating the principle of the Bill to mitigate the hardship. The mover of the Amendment dealt with an entirely different class of tenant. A tenant was a tenant until the vesting order was granted, and then he became a purchaser, and it was exceedingly doubtful whether the land in that case could be taken from the tenant. But here a new difficulty arose as to whether a new tenant who entered into an agreement with his landlord to purchase did not pass out of the scope of the Bill altogether. He had however considered that matter, and had put down an Amendment to the effect that "a person shall be deemed to be a new tenant notwithstanding that he may have agreed to purchase his holding, provided that the holding has not been vested in him as a tenant purchaser." That would not give rise to the difficulty in regard to a man in occupation of land of which he had redeemed the greater portion. In the case of the other tenant whose term had not yet begun to run, he thought that tenant came within the definition of "owner" if not in the letter at least in the spirit of the Act.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would like to put to the hon. Member for Cambridge University and to the Government what he thought was the complete answer to the case of the tenant purchaser. No doubt, to the hon. Member for Cambridge University, who had shown such conspicuous fairness on this question, it did seem at the start a strong thing to say that a man who had bought the land, though he was a grabber or planter, should be disturbed in his possession as though he was an ordinary tenant of the landlord. But, if they considered the case, it was not so. It was a hardship to interfere between landlord and tenant, because there they interfered between the contractor and the contractee—they interfered with private rights. But if the State handsomely came forward, as it had done, and took upon itself the burdensomeness and onerousness of being the landlord, and was willing to make an advance, surely the State had acquired, in regard to a man in that position, a right which it

  1437
  would not have in regard to a man in the position of a free contractor. To interfere with the tenant purchasers, to whom the State had made a handsome advance, and who had got the right by reason of the money and machinery of the State, aye, and the work of Members below the gangway who for the last twenty-five years had been fighting their battle for them to get them into that position, was much more reasonable than to interfere with men who had remained outside the State limits or State control. The man who had purchased a farm with the aid of State money was not possessed of the fee simple; he became a child or protégéof the State, which asserted rights over him which it would be most unfair to assert over the ordinary tenant from year to year; he had acquired land not by the expenditure of his own money, but through the sacrifice of his fellow-countrymen and the bounty and generosity of the State. The legal difficulty which the Attorney-General had pointed out with reference to the annuity could be very easily got rid of. The question was whether it was right and reasonable to remove it. It was greatly to their credit that a number of landlords who had evicted tenants in the past had shown to the Estates Commissioners that they were willing to let bygones be bygones and to facilitate the re-introduction of these men to their holdings, and he believed it would facilitate the working of this measure if that spirit were properly recognised. They had Lord Lansdowne and Lord Massereene and landlords of that type who desired to let bygones be bygones; and surely they were not to speak in the same breath of a man like Lord Lansdowne and a man like Lord Clanricarde. One was anxious to let bygones be bygones; the other was still waving the black flag. Of the whole string of landlords, sixteen out of eighteen, or fourteen out of sixteen—he did not know the exact number—were desirous of having peace, and only one or two of the ragged edge were willing to continue contention. He knew that the spirit of the Government was reasonable, and he fully recognised that the Attorney-General had distinguished himself by the acuteness as well as the sympathy he
  1438
  had shown in the course of the debate. This case ought not to be dealt with on the ground of a technical objection, and the Government should consider it as a whole. He thoroughly believed that these new tenants, if they got a decent offer, if the way were made easy for them, would willingly give up their holdings, and for his part he would not haggle with them about terms. Let them have peace. That was what they wanted, and surely if peace were the real consideration with both parties, it should not be difficult to frame some Amendment to get over what he admitted, as the law now stood, was the unanswerable argument of the learned Attorney-General.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that no one who had followed the discussion could be in the least surprised at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he had no doubt that they would be told afterwards that the Government had climbed down altogether. Speaking some few days ago in another place a member of the Government said that he, for one, would be no party, nor would His Majesty's Government, to the removal by compulsion of any new tenant who was a bona fide farmer. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his Second Reading speech, as the hon. Member for West Waterford had said, had declared that all the "planters," whether bona fide farmers or not, were to get the order to go; and the hon. Member had said that of course it would be a disappointment if it was now found that there was to be a distinction as regarded any of these new tenants. Although that was undoubtedly the impression left on the House, and the impression that was created throughout Ireland by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading, he had altered the tone of his remarks since the statement by Lord Crewe in another place; because, speaking from his place in that House, the other evening, the right hon. Gentleman had said that he entirely agreed with that statement and that he also, for one, would be no party, nor would His Majesty's Government, to the compulsory removal of any of these new tenants who had shown a bona fide desire and intention to work their

  1439
  holdings as farms. This Amendment afforded an excellent opportunity for bringing to a test the reality and sincerity of that profession, because it was now proposed to apply compulsion not merely to the new tenant but to the man who, having been a new tenant, had given the very best indication of his desire to keep his place as a farmer by becoming the purchasing owner of the land under the Act of 1903, or some antecedent measure of the same kind. He could not conceive any better proof a new tenant could give than by becoming the purchasing owner, and thus turning himself from the occupier, who could go out on six months notice, into that of occupying owner who was to remain until he could sell the whole thing to some new owner. Therefore, if there was any truth or reality in what the Chief Secretary had said, in regard to the views expressed in another place by Lord Crewe, that he and his Government would be no party to the removal against their will of new tenants who were bona fide farmers anxious to retain their farms, then all he could say was that the right hon. Gentleman could be no party in any shape or form to this Amendment of the hon. Member for West Waterford, who had shown a very keen appreciation of the difficulty of this measure, and a very apt knowledge of the situation in Ireland as regarded the landlords and evicted tenants. The hon. Member had said truly that these tenants had been in possession since long before 1901.
  MR. O'SHEE: Some of them.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaw that that was the hon. Gentleman's statement, however he might wish to modify it, and he could only deal with what the hon. Gentleman had said, namely, that these tenant purchasers who were now to be summarily removed were, to his own knowledge, in possession long before 1901. What better proof could there be of the desire of these men to retain their holdings as farms than the fact that they had used them so many years as farms, and had remained so many years in possession, having changed their position from that of a yearly tenant to that of purchasing j owner subject to the purchaser's small annuity? If this Amendment was ac-
  1440
  cepted, it would be a deliberate and direct violation of the pledge so honourably given in the other House by Lord Crewe, supported as it was by the plain, straightforward, and deliberate language of the Chief Secretary. He should have thought that would have been a sufficient answer; but the Attorney-General had not touched upon that point, his only reply being that there were legal difficulties in the way. There were other difficulties which to him had a much more important bearing, and they were difficulties of honour and solemn undertakings and pledges given as deliberate expressions of the intentions of the Government in that House and elsewhere. The hon. Member for West Waterford sought to include within the definition of new tenants, tenants who had changed their position into that of purchasing owners. That, he submitted would be a distinct violation of the pledges given by Lord Crewe in the House of Lords. It was said that agents should not become purchasing owners: why not? Under the Acts of 1881 and 1870 agents who held farms were allowed to be treated as persons entitled to compensation when they were disturbed. Until that day he had never heard any complaint made against a man simply because in addition to being a farmer he happened to collect the rents for his principal.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No such complaint has been made.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid there appeared to be a difference of opinion upon that point even amongst the Nationalist Party.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There is no difference of opinion amongst us.
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the matter under discussion was one of the most important, short of leading principles, that had come up for consideration. The Attorney-General had explained that the object of this proposal was to bring under the definition of ordinary new tenants
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has already stated what the Attorney-General said, and we cannot

  1441
  now have the whole matter repeated because the Chief Secretary has come in.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that all he desired to say was that to include in the definition of new tenants those tenants who had become purchasers, and had changed their position to that of purchasing owners, would be a direct and distinct violation of the pledge given by Lord Crewe and the right hon. Gentle man opposite, that in the case of a really bona fide farmer there was no intention to remove him. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there were legal difficulties in the way and that he would be quite prepared to consider with favour some Amendment that would enable those tenants who had signed agreements
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot have the Attorney-General's speech delivered over again for the benefit of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid there must be some mistake, because he was not repeating this for the benefit of the Chief Secretary.
  THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the arguments of the Attorney-General some time ago.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: Not on this particular point.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: You have answered him already on the very points you are dealing with now.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the Deputy-Chairman was under a complete misapprehension, because he had not yet approached the second branch of this question, which had been dealt with by the right hon. Member, namely, the case of those tenants who had not yet become purchasing owners, but had signed agreements. He had said that they were in a different position, and that he would be quite prepared to accept some Amendment which would place them as new tenants within the ambit of the Act. He admitted that there was something to be said in favour of in-
  1442
  cluding within this section tenants who had signed agreements to purchase since the introduction of this Bill. But it would be a breach of an undertaking which had been given in that House to apply these compulsory powers to tenants who had signed agreements to purchase some years ago, and had not yet become owners owing to delay in the Estates Commissioners' office and to want of funds.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGobjected strongly to the Amendment on the ground of the pledges given by the Nationalist Party in 1903. It was a monstrous proposal, and he asked the Committee to reject it. They had been told that only in a few cases would these compulsory powers be used for the purpose of expropriating new tenants, but this Amendment did not confirm that view. Having regard to the Act of 1903, and the pledges which were given before the passing of that measure, it would be a gross breach of the bargain then made. They knew that the Attorney-General was unable to accept any Amendment with regard to those who had actually completed their purchases, and were in possession of their farms. If these so-called new tenants who had signed agreements to purchase in good faith, before there was any question of this Bill, were made subject to the provisions of this section, there would be an end to all bargains and pledges in that House. He had frequently stated and had never been contradicted, that when the Act of 1903 was passed there was no intention on the part of the Nationalist Members to ask for the expropriation of the new tenants. They said they would be perfectly content if powers were given to the Land Court to reinstate those unfortunate people who had been evicted, and especially those who had been evicted during the land war. Practically 95 per cent. had been reinstated, and yet hon. Members below the gangway asked that the men in possession should be asked to go out in favour of persons who had been evictee1, perhaps, twenty-five years ago. Those evicted tenants had lost all connection with the districts in which they once lived, and probably they did not care whether they were reinstated there or somewhere

  1443
  else. It was a monstrous proposal, and he hoped the Committee would reject it.
  MR. KILBRIDE (said he understood the Attorney-General to say that his objection to the Amendment was that the Government, if it were accepted, would have to deal with the cases of planters who had purchased under any of the Land Purchase Acts, and that that would involve such a large financial transaction that the Treasury would never consent to it. He knew of cases himself where tenants had got back into farms from which they were evicted and where a difficulty existed in making them tenant purchasers, because the person who purchased previously had not repaid the full purchase money to the Treasury. He could not understand why that difficulty should come in. If the original price of a holding was £1,000, and £250 had already been repaid to the Treasury in respect of the sinking fund portion of the annuity, leaving £750 still outstanding, where did the difficulty come in of the Treasury giving to the Estates Commissioners the £750 for the purpose of buying out the existing planter-purchaser, when the next day the Treasury would be getting back the same amount of money from the evicted tenant whom the Estates Commissioners proposed to reinstate in the holding? He really thought it was trifling with the House of Commons and the tenants of Ireland for the Attorney-General to put forward such an argument. The objection of Unionist Members was that it would be a monstrous thing to remove a farmer who had purchased. A stranger listening to their speeches would suppose that the planters were bona fide farmers. As a matter of fact, some of the planters who were put in at the time of the Plan of Campaign were shoemakers. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted more information as to cobblers and others who had been put into farms when the landlords could not get bona fide tenants, he should ask the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was one of those who started the Irish Land Trust Company to finance them. The funds were collected mainly from English landlords who wanted to stave off the land legislation with which they were now face to face. The hon.
  1444
  Member for North Armagh had said that these planters were bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh. He should have thought that the hon. Member would have had more respect for himself than to be anxious to make the House of Commons understand that he claimed kinship with these men. The hon. Member knew that most of these men were advertised for, and that they were got in the slums of the Ulster towns. [Cries of "Oh."] The hon. Member for South Tyrone would acknowledge that, and he knew more about it than the hon. Member for North Armagh. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had done more for Irish landlords and landlordism than the hon. Member for North Armagh would be able to do if he lived to the age of Methuselah. [An Hon. Member: He is making up for it now.] Yes, he was making up for it now. The hon. Member for North Armagh had sold his estate, and had put into his pocket, through the action of the wounded soldiers of the land war, more than thirty-three years purchase of the net income.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment. It must be remembered that if we go into all these details we will never make progress.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid that, if the Chief Secretary thought that the Bill as it stood, and without the acceptance of the Amendment or some modification of it, would settle for ever the evicted tenants question, he would find himself mistaken. The Chief Secretary knew the extreme landlords sufficiently well to know that if any loopholes were left, they would avail themselves of them for the purpose of defeating his object. He hoped, therefore, the Government would consider the Amendment, either in its present or some other form.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that he and his right hon. and learned friend were in accord as to the line to be taken on this subject, and he was prepared to repeat what he understood the Attorney-General had already said. They were not prepared to throw open again the estates of these planters, who might have become purchasers

  1445
  under the Act of 1903. He dared say that a good deal might be said on both sides, but on the whole they were of the opinion that, after the great sacrifice made and the agreements arrived at, it would be undesirable to take away the land from those who had become possessors under the Act of 1903. He certainly thought when their cases came to be reviewed under the terms of the Bill, the Estate Commissioners would not feel themselves justified in seeking to evict those planters who had become purchasers of their holdings. He had always felt that there were two classes of planters, those who were bona fide farmers and had shown their interest in the soil and their desire to remain on it, and to become purchasers under the Act, and those with whom his hon. friend beside him (the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture for Ireland) had at some period of his life, a closer connection than now, and who came and took possession, not so, much because they wanted to do so as because other people wanted them there in order to carry on a contest which they hoped was now coming to a conclusion. He was disposed to think that in those cases and where the planters had shown their bona fides, their good faith and their desire to remain on the land for the purpose of making it a marketable commodity, even if they had not become purchasers under the Act, the Estate Commissioners would exercise their discretion, and would not interfere with them. He was not, therefore, disposed to interfere with the decision which the Attorney-General had arrived at in the matter. His right hon. friend had, he believed, indicated a willingness to consider the cases of the planters who had only signed agreements and had not obtained their vesting orders. The question was obviously one as to what date should be inserted in the clause, and the matter would receive the attention of his right hon. friend the Attorney-General and himself. They were not prepared, however, to accept the Amendment in the form presented.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he gathered that the Attorney-General did not go quite so far as the Chief Secretary had suggested. He understood that
  1446
  the Attorney-General had promised that he would consider an Amendment in regard to the cases in which vesting orders had not been made. He would appeal to the Chief Secretary. What argument was there that applied to the case of those who had obtained their vesting orders which did not equally apply to those who had not obtained them merely because the State had been unable to find the necessary money? It was not due to any want of willingness on their part or on the part of the landlord that the vesting orders had not been made; it was due solely to the fact that the State had not been able to find the money necessary to complete the purchase. The Chief Secretary had said that he rejected the Amendment in its main part because the tenants, by entering into purchasing arrangements, had given the strongest proof of their bona fide desire to be connected with the land and to remain on their holdings. There was no difference whatever between the proof given by the man whose vesting had taken place and the man whose vesting order had not been issued. The latter was not a bit less willing, nor had he shown any less desire than the former. If the right hon. Gentleman based his opposition to the Amendment on the ground that the purchasing tenants had given the strongest proof of their desire to be permanently connected with the land of which they were the occupiers and cultivators, he could not justify his refusal to consider the oases of men who had equally done everything they could to show the same desire and expose them to the possibility of displacement when the State had been the only stay in the operations. They were not fighting a Party question in any sense, and the history of the agrarian question as written in this House alone must tell the most casual student that, when they were dealing with it, they were on very different ground, and that it was almost impossible for anyone to tell what would follow from the best conceived and best worked out legislation. They believed that the Government were opening up difficulties, not for themselves—that was a matter it was not for them to look after; it was no business of theirs if

  1447
  the Government got into difficulty; on the contrary, it was their business to see they did get into difficulties—but they were opening up difficulties in regard to the general situation of the agrarian question in Ireland, and the step they were taking would bring in its train the gravest difficulties to the people in Ireland interested in the settlement of the land question. There was no distinction whatever between the position of the Irish tenant who had had the vesting order which made him the actual owner of his farm and the position of the tenant who had come to an agreement with his landlord, who had done everything he could to become the purchaser of his farm, who was sitting under conditions which led him to believe ho was to be the purchaser, and yet who had not received his vesting order. There had been £50,000,000 of sales in Ireland, of which only £20,000,000 odd had been paid for, and it was in respect of all these cases in which vesting orders had not been issued that it was proposed to expose the new tenants to expulsion. Whilst they refused to interfere with the man who had had his vesting order, they were going to disturb the man who had given the same proof of his desire to be permanently connected with the land he occupied, but who had not been able to acquire possession because the money had not been forthcoming to enable the order to issue. He said without hesitation that whilst the decision of the Government in regard to the major part of the Amendment was sound and one which the whole House ought to support in the interests of peace, their promise to re-open the cases where vesting orders had not been issued would create difficulties for the Government and their supporters and for those who would have to pay for the blunder of the Government. It must be remembered that those who lived in Ireland had to pay the price of the blunders of the Government.
  MR. MOOREwished to associate himself with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member who had spoken before said that he had spent the greater part of his life in preventing "planters," or "grabbers" from getting possession of the land. In saying that
  1448
  the hon. Member was going against the leaders of his own Party, who said in that 1903 they would not consent to any measure or step which would expropriate these men.
  Mr. O'SHEEsaid that what he had done was done after the landlords had broken their part of the compact.
  MR. MOOREsaid he understood that the hon. Member had been engaged in a lifelong exploit in this regard, but now the hon. Gentleman seemed to be going quite contrary to the declarations of his leaders. [A Nationalist Member: Who is your leader, Moore?] He took it rather as a compliment that he was never able to address the House without interruption. The hon. Member seemed to think that this was a trivial Amendment, but there was no such person known to the law as a "new tenant purchaser." The moment a man became a purchaser he ceased to be a tenant, and the phrase "a new tenant purchaser" was something which the hon. Gentleman had adopted from the Freeman's Journal. A man could not be at the same time the tenant and the purchaser of a holding. He objected to the nomenclature which the hon. Member used in regard to this class of tenant, because if a man had purchased his land, or even if he had only signed a contract for the purchase of his land, he was in equity the owner of that land, although perhaps the contract had not been completed. There were only two cases before the House, namely, those of men who had purchased their land and those who were tenants, and the attempt of the hon. Member for West Waterford to create a third class must fail. It would be an intolerable thing if a man had within the last three years become a party to an agreement and paid money upon it that he should be made the subject of a statutory and compulsory eviction. Therefore the Attorney-General for Ireland was only doing what was honest and honourable when he said that new tenant purchasers in the sense in which those words were used by the hon. Member for Waterford were. not to be expropriated from their holdings. There was, he repeated, no such term as "new tenant purchaser," but he hoped that the Chief Secretary would put an

  1449
  Amendment in the Bill to the effect, that when they were dealing with untenanted land which was subject to an annuity to the Land Commissioners it should not be interfered with. That, however, was a subject for the Report stage. For all he knew, the action of the Estates Commissioners, or rather the action of the majority of the Estates Commissioners, might have been caused by the pressure which the hon. Member for Waterford boasted he had exercised during his lifetime. [Mr. BIRRELL dissented.] The Chief Secretary deprecated that statement, and he dared say that without consulting his experts he would continue to deprecate it; but they on that side were in a position in which they were free to criticise; and when an hon. Member said that for a quarter of a century he had been engaged in exercising pressure to bring this state of things about they did not know what the pressure to which he alluded might be. He protested against the idea, however, that when a man was not a tenant, and in equity was the possessor of the property and in equity was the purchaser of it, the Government of the day, in order to suit the Party exigencies of hon. Members below the gangway, were going to shoot him out altogether. What was he if he was neither a purchaser nor a tenant? And yet it was said that a man in this position who had been in possession for three or four years was to be shot out. The Government to be logical should treat him as a purchaser if an agreement was signed. He had had the pleasure of listening to the speech of an hon. Gentleman who said he was an evicted tenant. He did not complain of the references of the hon. Member to himself, or of the comparisons he made between the political records of the hon. Member for South Tyrone and himself. He had sat for thirteen years behind the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was now in a position in the present Government, and then the hon. Member protested not against the class of "planter" who had been described by the Chief Secretary as being dispossessed, but against the people who had risked their lives and their fortunes and who had come down to take possession of an evicted farm being dealt with.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLcalled attention to the fact that in the year 1894 he moved the clause which was supported by the hon. Member's leader to reinstate these evicted tenants.
  MR. MOOREdid not know what that statement had to do with the matter. They did not object to the reinstatement of evicted tenants, but to the displacement of "planters," as they were affectionately called by hon. Members below the gangway. The hon. Member got up in those days and protested against any steps being taken against those new tenants. He said it would be an injustice, and if it was an injustice in 1894, what was it now when these "planters" had had children who had grown up, and who had been given in marriage, and who had been selling and purchasing land and borrowing money on their farms? The only difference was that in those days the hon. Member was elected by a Nationalist majority, instead of as now being elected by a Unionist majority. He would not have introduced this topic, but for the hon. Member's contrast of their political records. He had introduced a personal comparison between himself and the hon. Gentleman, and he thought it was unfortunate that these personal matters should be introduced. This topic, however, was introduced by the hon. Gentleman's ally the hon. Member for Kildare.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not quite see the relevance of these remarks upon this sub-section, which merely dealt with the question of finding land for new-tenants.
  MR. MOOREsaid he might be wrong, but he thought they were discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Waterford which introduced the words "new tenant purchasers" upon which the Government had made a very important declaration. He would not, however, say anything more on the personal matter; he was led into his references by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had previously spoken. Speaking generally, however, he thought it was an unfortunate thing that the position of Vice-President of the Irish

  1451
  Department of Agriculture, which the hon. Member for South Tyrone now occupied, should cease to be a non-political appointment, and that the occupant of the office should have a seat in that House. While he congratulated the Government on the unusual talent they had shown in coming half way towards what was right and fair, he still said it was an unfortunate thing that they should have gone so far in the concessions which they had made to hon. Members below the gangway.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he did not intend to enter into the general arguments of this Amendment. He had been listening to speeches from the hon. and learned Member now for some time with reference to this Bill, and he had not heard one speech from him in which he did not make very grave insinuations and accusations against the Estates Commissioners and against hon. Members for Ireland sitting below the gangway. His accusations had amounted to this, that they had been bringing improper pressure of one sort or another to bear upon the Estates Commissioners, and the insinuations had been to the effect that the Estates Commissioners had been, or were likely to be, moved by this improper pressure. The House knew that two of the Estates Commissioners held their office by tenure of an insecure character, and that they could be removed from office at the pleasure of the executive of the Government of the day. He had risen for the purpose of denying that they had ever directly or indirectly sought to bring any pressure whatever to bear upon any of the Estates Commissioners, and he was quite convinced, although it was not his habit to defend officials of the British Government in Ireland, that those gentlemen were not susceptible to pressure of this kind. But he had to say that the hon. Member himself had attempted to bring most improper pressure to bear upon one of these Commissioners. He had to say that the hon. and learned Member himself had addressed a letter to one of these Commissioners containing threats of what would happen to him if he pursued his present course of action when a change of Government took place. The writing of that letter was a most improper proceeding.
  MR. MOORE,rising to a point of order, said he had written a letter to one of the Commissioners in reference to a letter marked "private." Would the whole correspondence be read?
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the letter to which he was alluding was not marked private, and if he was not mistaken it contained the phrase that the gentleman to whom it was written might show it to anyone he liked. That letter, written to a man whose tenure of office was insecure, who held his office at the pleasure of the Government of the day, threatened this official that if he pursued his present course, in accordance with what he held to be his duty, he would be visited with pains and penalties when next the Tory Government came into office. Now, what about improper pressure brought upon these gentlemen? He had not got the letter, but it was in the possession of a Member of the House, and if his statement was challenged he called upon that Gentleman to read it.
  MR. MOOREsaid that, as he was the Member attacked he should say—as far as he remembered at any rate—he received a letter from one of the Estates Commissioners, and that was marked "private." He could not state the contents of it now unless he was authorised to do so, and he would not do so. Let any hon. Member authorise him to state what he received from him. He then wrote a letter in which he expressed his opinion and stated that he could show it to whom he liked. It was in marked contradistinction of the document marked "private." He received another letter—he did not think it was marked "private"—and he said he had written in consequence of the contents of the first letter. He had no objection to it being published, but he would not discuss it piecemeal. As to saying that he threatened this gentleman, he said that there should be an inquiry, and as far as he and his friends were concerned —he had no right to speak for a Tory Government—they would be delighted to have an inquiry as soon as they had the power.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid this was a purely personal matter which appeared, hardly relevant to this discussion.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND,with great respect, although not intending to contest the point with the Chair, expressed the view that it was not a purely personal question. An accusation had been made against him and his friends of bringing improper pressure to bear upon the Commissioners, and there had been an inneundo that these Commissioners had been influenced by that improper pressure. He answered that by denying the accusation against him and his hon. friends and by making a specific allegation that threats of this character were held out in a letter; and he now called for that letter to be read He had not the letter, but it was in the hands of an hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, and he called on the hon. Gentleman to read it.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: My point is that, I doubt if this is an occasion on which this matter is relevant.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I most respectfully say that this is a question as to whether the Estates Commissioners are to be trusted with the discretion of applying compulsion in certain cases to the planters of Ireland. The whole question turns on whether they are deserving of this discretion; and it is strictly relevant to that to consider whether they have yielded to improper pressure from these Benches, and it; is strictly relevant upon that question whether improper threats have been held out from other quarters. Again I call for the production of that letter.
  MR. MOORE MR. MOORE rose simultaneously with MR. RUSSELL.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for North Armagh rise to a point of order?
  MR. MOORE: Yes, Sir. I am perfectly willing to have the letter read if that of Commissioner Bailey is also read.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: This appears to have arisen out of some charges made when I was not here, and perhaps it would be better, if the hon. Member for Waterford wishes that the letter should be read, to have it read.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is well known that I am a very old friend of the Commissioner assailed in this correspondence; and before I left Ireland on Sunday MR. Bailey placed in my hands this letter, leaving it entirely to my discretion to use it or hot. I have been challenged to read it, and I think I ought to reply to that challenge. [Cries of "Read the whole correspondence."]
  MR. WALTER LONG: I rise to a point of order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is within the competence of an hon. Member to read a portion of correspondence the whole of which he has not got with him, and of which he only proposes to read one letter.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: A particular letter has been asked for, and it may be read; but it is not in my power to compel the production of the whole correspondence.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL, proceeding,said that in March, 1907, the hon. Member for East Down put a question to the Chief Secretary. [Cries of "That is not the letter."] It was a statement preparatory to the reading of the letter.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether, after the consent of the Chairman has been given for a certain letter to be read, it is competent for the hon. Member who has offered to read it to make a speech?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: There is no such intention I think.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Member for East Down put a question in the House of Commons to the Chief Secretary in March, as to the delay in making land purchase advances. After the answer was given, the hon. Member for North Armagh put as a supplementary question, "Is the continual absence of Mr. Commissioner Bailey a cause of the delay?" The Speaker ruled the question out of order. Mr. Bailey's attention was called to the matter, and he wrote to the Chief Secretary on the subject, and also to the hon. Member for North Armagh. He pointed out that during

  1455
  the preceding twelve months he had not taken more than half the vacation to which he was entitled. [Cries of "Read the letter."] Mr. Bailey received the following letter from the Member for North Armagh:—
  "Belfast,
  19 th March, 1907.
  "Dear Bailey—
  ["We want Bailey's letter."] I have received the Chairman's permission to read this letter.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must appeal to hon. Members to keep order. I have given permission for this letter to be read.
  SIR F. BANBURY: On a point of order, am I not right in thinking that the letter which the Member for Waterford called for was the letter written by Mr. Bailey. [Cries of "No."]
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is going to read the letter asked for and which I said could be read. ["Which letter?"] Order, order! I must appeal to Members of the Committee not to keep interrupting.
  MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby): On a point of order. You, Sir, having called on the hon. Member to address the Committee, is he not entitled to say anything or read anything he pleases, provided he is within the rules of order?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, he is entitled to do anything within the rules of order.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL:then continued reading the letter as follows:—
  "You were appointed by a Unionist Government to see fair play between Wrench and Finucane, and you have sold the pass on every occasion. The first thing my colleagues and I will do when we come back, which will not be far off, will be to press for an inquiry into the working of your department. You can destroy your evidence now, and show this to whom you please." [Interruption.]
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must appeal to hon. Members to keep quiet.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND:Who is intimidating now?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he regretted that a letter which formed a portion, of a correspondence should have been read without the production of the other letters, and upon an occasion when, under the Order made by the Government, the Opposition were precluded from taking the only course that in the circumstances would have been possible—namely, moving the adjournment of the debate. A member of the Government had been able with marvellous celerity to produce the complement to the speech of the Member for Waterford, and he had done so without venturing to produce the correspondence of which it formed part, and under the protection of the Order to which he had already referred. But for this Order the Opposition would certainly have moved the adjournment of the debate to mark what they considered as, not only irregular, but as the most remarkable course ever taken by a member of a Government. ["Oh, oh."]
  MR. MOOREsaid he hoped the Committee would not deny him the right of making a personal explanation. Now that MR. Bailey had accommodated his friend the Member for South Tyrone with a sample of his own letter, he was released from the obligation of the word "private" put upon it. Mr. Bailey's letter was unsolicited and uncalled for. It contained a complaint that he had asked about Mr. Bailey's apparent neglect of his duties. He had asked why he was always to be seen at Westminster in company with hon. Members below the gangway, considering the judicial position he had in Ireland. Mr. Bailey's letter contained a statement which he regarded as an attack on Mr. Wrench. Mr. Bailey did not mention Mr. Wrench's name, but he said he had been in closer and longer attendance than his own colleagues, by whom he understood Mr. Wrench to be meant. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh."] Who else was there? He thought it was a most disloyal and unfair attack of one colleague in a Government office on another colleague, and he wrote to Mr. Bailey that he resented his marking his letter "private," and took the opportunity of saying that his own letter was not private. It might have been an imprudent letter, but he was not ashamed of it, and he would do it again if he

  1457
  thought a friend of his was unfairly attacked. In an acknowledgment which he wrote he said he should never have written the letter to him had he not unfairly attacked his own colleague, Mr. Wrench. That letter also was probably in the possession of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, so let him read that letter as well.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I need hardly say that I am not going to add anything to the controversy which has arisen. Unfortunately I was not here in the earlier stages, but I understand from my right hon. friend near me that the hon. Gentleman opposite has read a letter to a member of the Estates Commission. I am not going to express an opinion until I have fuller information as to whether that letter should have been read or not, but of this I am quite clear, that the letter should not be read alone. It is a perfectly well understood and universally accepted rule of the House that if a Minister of the Crown reads a letter the whole correspondence should be laid on the Table. That is not only, so far as I am aware, the settled practice of the House, but it is
  obviously fair in the present situation. It may be—for I know nothing of the controversy—that when those letters are laid on the Table my hon. and learned friend behind me may have reason to regret that I asked for it. I do not know but at all events let us have the whole thing before us. I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite and the Government will agree that the whole correspondence should be printed and laid on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was afraid that the preface he gave to the letter was imperfectly heard on account of so much interruption. He agreed with what the Leader of the Opposition had said. He would communicate with MR. Bailey, and if he had the original letter it would be produced.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Moore has it.
  Mr. MOORE: I will produce it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 298. (Division List No. 302.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Jowett, F. W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Baring, Capt.Hn.G(Winchester)

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Barnes, G. N.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, William. (Clare)

  Boland, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampton

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Richardson, A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon. W.

  Seddon, J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Shackleton, David James

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Macpherson. J. T.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Devlin, Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Thorne, William

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  M'Kean, John

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Killop, W.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Field, William

  Meagher, Michael

  Ward. John (Stoke upon Trent

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Wardle, George J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mooney, J. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North;

  Gilhooly, James

  Murnaghan, George

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gill, A.' H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Halpin, J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary,M.)

  Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

  Hammond, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare.N.)

  Young, Samuel

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Grady, J.

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Hodge, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Delany, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Agnew, George William

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lever, A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Astbury, John Meir

  Duckworth, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Liddell, Henry

  Baker, JosephA. (Finsbury, E.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lough, Thomas

  Balfour, RtHn A. J.(CityLond.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Essex, R. W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lynch, H. B.

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Everett. R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J.M(Falkirk B'ghs

  Barker, John

  Fell, Arthur

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Barnard, E. B.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, J. S.

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Maddison, Frederick

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Bell, Richard

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford, S.

  Mansfield, H.Rendall (Lincoln)

  Benn, SirJ.Williams (Devonp'rt

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gibb, James (Harro W.)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Bertram, Julius

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Bethell, SirJH (Essex, Romf'rd)

  Glover, Thomas

  Massie, J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Menzies, Walter

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mond, A.

  Branch, James

  Gurdon, RtHn.SirW.Brampton

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Bridgeman, W. Olive

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Montagu, E. S.

  Brigg, John

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Moore, William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Morrell, Philip

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hart-Davies. T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cameron, Robert

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murphy, John

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murray, James

  Causton, Rt.Hn. RichardKnight

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Napier, T. B.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hervey, F.W.F(BuryS.Edmd's

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Nicholson, CharlesN(Doncast'r

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon.N

  Clough, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Partington. Oswald

  Cobbold, Felix, Thornley

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearson, Sir W. I). (Colchester)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, E.Grinst'd

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jenkins, J.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Radford, G. H.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Crooks, William

  Kelley, George D.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Crossley. William J.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Laidlaw, Robert.

  Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lambert, George

  Rees, J. D.

  1460

  1461

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Snowden, P.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Robinson, S.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Stanley, Hn.A.Lvulph(Chesh.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staff'sh.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Rowlands, J.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Runciman, Walter

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Russell, T. W.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Williamson, A.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

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

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Thomson, W Mitchell.(Lanark)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

  Sears, J. E.

  Toulmin, George

  Winfrey, R.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Trevelyan. Charles Philips

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Ure, Alexander

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

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—MR.

  Shipman, Dr. John (J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, RtHnE(Clackmannan

  Pease.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the Home of 22nd July, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded.
  Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 341; Noes, 98. (Division List No. 303.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.)

  Branch, James

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brigg, John

  Crossley, William J.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cullinan, J.

  Agnew, George William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Allen, A.Acland(Christchurch)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cameron, Robert

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Armitage, R.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Delany, William

  Astbury, John Meir

  Causton, Rt HnRichardKnight

  Devlin, Joseph

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Chance, Frederick William

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

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Barker, John

  Cherey, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duckworth, James

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clough, William

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Beauchamp, E.

  dynes, J. R.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Elibank, Master of

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Erskine, David C.

  Bell, Richard

  Collins, SirWm.J.(S.P'ncr's,W

  Essex, R. W.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Benn, SirJ Williams(Dev'np'rt)

  Cooper, G. J. Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bertram, Julius

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bethell, SirJH(Essex, R'mf'rd)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cowan, W. H.

  Field, William

  Black, Arthur W.

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Boland, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Flynn, James Christopher Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Crooks, William

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lynch, H. B.

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macdonald.J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

  Rees, J. D.

  Gardner, Col Alan Hereford,S.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Kendall, Athelstan

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Gilhooly, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Richardson, A

  Gill, A. H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Glover, Thomas

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'd

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Kean, John

  Robinson, S.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robson. Sir William Snowdon

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Killop, W.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W Brampton

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Halpin, J.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Hammond, John

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rowlands, J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln

  Runciman, Walter

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Russell, T. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Harwood, George

  Massie, J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Menzies, Walter

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Scott, A. H. (Asht'n-und'r-Lyne

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sears, J. E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mond, A.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Seddon, J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Montagu, E. S.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Mooney, J. J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Hodge, John

  Morrell. Philip

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Morse, L. L.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morton, Alphens Cleophas

  Slier well, Arthur James

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Murnaghan, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset.N

  Murphy, John

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Murray, James

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hudson, Walter

  Napier, T. B.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Snowden, P.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nicholls, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Nicholson, Charles N (D'ncast'r

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Steadman, W. C.

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Md

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jones, William (Carnavonsh.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stuart, James. (Sunderland)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Grady, J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Malley, William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thompson, JWH(Somerset, E.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shee, James John

  Thorne, William

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tomkinson, James

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Partington, Oswald

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Toulmin, George

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lambert, George

  Pearson, Sir W.D.(Colchester)

  Ure, Alexander

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Lardner, James Carriage Rushe

  Philipps, Col.Ivor.(S'thampton

  Vivian, Henry

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (StPancras.E)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S

  Lever, A.Levy (Essex, Harwich

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

  Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Wason, Rt HnE(Clackmannan

  Lundon, W.

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney

  Lupton, Arnold

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Watt, Henry A.

  1464

  1465

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Winfrey, R.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wodehouse. Lord

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Williamson, A.

  Young, Samuel

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  White, Patrick(Meath, North)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Tellers for the Ayes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Whitley, John Henry Halifax

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

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, Sir George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Ashley, W.W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Percy, Earl

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon.Sir H

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Fredk. Peel

  Baring, CptHn.G. (Winchester)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

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

  Gretton, John

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beckett, Hon.Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hervey, F.W.F.(B'ryS.Edm'ds

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hills, J. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kenyon Slaney, Rt.Hn.Col.W

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffs.)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  King, Sir Hen. Seymour (Hull

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Thomson, W.Mitchell(Lanark

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cave, George

  Liddell, Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC. W.

  Lockwood, Rt.Hon.Lt.-Cl.A.R

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Long, Col. Chas.W.(Evesham)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone,E.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wilson, A.Stanl'y.(York, E.R.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A. (Wore

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Corbett,A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Mason,.James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Moore, William

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Clause 2:—
  Verbal Amendment made.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 346; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 304)

  AYES.

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

  Barnard, E. B.

  Branch, James

  Abraham. William (Rhondda)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brigg, John

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Agnew, George William

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Bell, Richard

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ambrose, Robert

  Benn, SirJ. Williams(Devonprt

  Byles, William Pollard

  Armitage, R.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cameron, Robert

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bertram, Julius

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bethell, SirJ. H.(Essex,Romfrd

  Causton, RtHnRichard Knight

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Boland, John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barker, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Cleland, J. W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Mond, A.

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hodge, John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Collins, Sir Wm.J.(SPancras W

  Hogan, Michael

  Morrell, Philip

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morse, L. L.

  Cooper, G.J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Corbett.CH (Sussex.E. Grinst'd

  Hope, W. Bateman (Som'setN.

  Murnaghan, George

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Murphy, John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Murray, James

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hudson, Walter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Napier, T. B.

  Crean, Eugene

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Nicholls, George

  Crooks, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nicholson, CharlesN.(Donc'str

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crossley, William, J.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cullinan, J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tippera'y Mid

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jones, William (Carn'rv'nshire

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Delany, William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Grady, J.

  Dewar, Sir J.A.(Inverness-sh.)

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

  Dickinson, W.H.(St.P'ncr'sN.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Malley, William

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kincaid Smith, Captain

  O'Shee, James John

  Duckworth, James

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Partington, Oswald

  Duncan,C. (Barrow-in Furness

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Dunn, A, Edward (Camborne)

  Lambert, George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lamont, Norman

  Pearson, Sir W.D.(Colchester)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lardner, James Carige Rushe

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

  Essex. R. W.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Layland Barratt, Francis

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lea, Hugh Cecil St.Pancras,E.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare,

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lever,A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, C.E. (Edinburgh, Central

  Field, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford,

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macdonald,.J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rees, J. D.

  Gilhooly, James

  Maclean, Donald

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Gill, A. H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richards, T.F. (Wolver'mpt'n)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Richardson, A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  MacVeagh, Charles(Donegal,E.

  Robertson, SirG. Scott(Bradfrd

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robinson, S.

  Griffith, Ellis, J.

  M'Killop, W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Gurdon, Rt.Hn.SirW.Br'mpt'n

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

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Halpin, J.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hammond, John

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

  Rowlands, J.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Russell, T. W.

  Harwood, George

  Massie, J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Meehan, Patrick A-

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Menzies, Walter

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Scott, A. H.(AshtonunderLyne

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sears, J. E.

  1468

  1469

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe

  White,J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Seddon, J.

  Thomas, SirA. (Glamorgan.E.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (S'm'rs't, E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Shackleton, David James

  Thorne, William

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Tomkinson, James

  Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

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

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Toulmin, George

  Wiles, Thomas

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ure, Alexander

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Verney, F. W.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Vivian, Henry

  Williamson, A.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Snowdon, P.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.

  Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)

  Winfrey, R.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wardle, George J.

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wason, RtHnE. (Clackmannan

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Young, Samuel

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Tellers for the Ayes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White George (Norfolk)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, Sir George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Percy, Earl

  Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt.Hn. SirH

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Balfour, Rt, Hn. A. G. (City Lon,

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Ratcliff; Major R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baring, Capt. Hn.G.(W'ch'ter)

  Gretton, John

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervasse

  Hervey, F.W.F.(Bu'yS.Edm'ds

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hills, J. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kenyon Slaney, RtHonCol. W.

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormski'k

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cave, George

  Liddell, Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cavendish, RtHon.VictorC.W

  Lockwood, Rt.HnLt.-Col.A.R

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Waiter(Dublin, S

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone,E.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Chamberlain, RtHonJ.A.(Wor

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred and compensation payable by the Estates Commissioners in relation to land acquired under any Act of the present session, to facilitate the provision of land for certain
  Evicted Tenants in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith, and to authorise the National Debt Commissioners to make advances to the Land Commission for certain purposes of such Act."—(Mr. Birrell.)
  And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd July, to put forthwith the Question.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 331; Noes, 94. (Division List Xo. 305.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Corbett, C.H.(Suss'x,E.Grinst,'d

  Halpin, J.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hammond, John

  Agnew, George William

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Allen, A.Acland(Christchurch)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Crean, Eugene

  Harwood, George

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Armitage, R.

  Crooks, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barker, John

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dalziel, lames Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Delany, William

  Hodge, John

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hogan, Michael

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dickins'n, W.H.(St.P'ncr's,N.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Bell, Richard

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hope, W.Bateman (Somers't,N

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np'rt

  Duckworth, James

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Duffy, William J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bertram, Julius

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-F'rn'ss)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bethell, SirJ.H.(Essex,R'mf'rd

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Elibank, Master of

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Erskine, David C.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Boland, John

  Essex, R.W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Branch, James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jenkins, J.

  Brigg, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Field, William

  Jones, William (Carn'rv'nshire

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jowett, F. W.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Byles, William Pollard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kelley, George D.

  Causton, Rt.Hn.Rich'rdKnight.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (H'r'f'rd,S.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Kilbride, Dennis

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gilhooly, James

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gill, A. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gladstone. Rt. Hon. H'rb't Jn.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lamb, EdmundG.(Leominster)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Clough, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lamont, Norman

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Collins, SirWm.J.(S.P'ncr's,Wr

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (S. Pancras,E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gurdon, Rt. Hon. Sir W. B.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Grady, J.

  Snowden, P.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O' Kelly, James (Rose'm'n, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Lundon, W.

  O'Shauaghnessy, P. J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  O'Shee, James John

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lynch, H. B.

  Partington, Oswald

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs.,Leeks.)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Pearson, Sir W.D.(Colchester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Maclean, Donald

  Pearson, W. H. M.(S'ff'lk, Eye)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Philipps, Col.Ivor (S'th'mpt'n)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (S'm'set,E.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thorne, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Tomkinson, James

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  M'Callum, John M.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh,C'nt'l)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Kean, John

  Price, Robert John (N'rf'lk.E.)

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Priestley, W.E.B. Br'df'rd.E.)

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Killop, W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rea, Walter Russell(Sc'rboro')

  Walters, John Tudor

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wason Rt. Hn. E. (Cl'ckm'nan)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Richards,T. F.(W'lv'rh'mpt'n)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Richardson, A.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Massie, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roberts, G.H. (Norwich)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson,.Sir G. S. (Br'df'rd)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Menzies, Walter

  Robinson, S.

  White,J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robson, Sir William Snowden

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mond. A.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Whithead, Rowland

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Rowlanns, J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Morrell, Philip

  Runciman, Walter

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morse, L. L.

  Russell, T. W.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Williamson, A.

  Murnaghan, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Murphy, John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Murray, James

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, J. H.(Middlesbrough)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Scott, A. H.(Asht'n under Lyne

  Wilson, J. W, (Wor'stersh. N.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Nicholls, George

  Seddon, J.

  Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

  Nicholson, CharlesN. (D'nc'st'r

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Winfrey, R.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Shackleton, David James

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Young, Samuel

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Tellers for the Ayes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Coates, E.Feetham(Lewisham

  Ashley, W. W.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

  Aubrey- Fletcher,Rt. Hn. SirH.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. H. M.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Baring, Capt.Hn.G.(W'ch'ter)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Cave, George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn.VictorC.W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

  Fell, Arthur

  1474

  1475

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Mason, James F, (Windsor)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton)

  Gretton, John

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Hardy, Laurence (K'nt,Ashf'd)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Hn.Arthur(Ormsk'rk)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Moore, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry(Staff'sh.)

  Hervey, F.W.F.(B'yS.Edm'ds)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsb'ry)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hills, J. W.

  Nield, Herbert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pease, Herbert Pike(D'rl'gton)

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

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

  Percy, Earl

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

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  King, Sir H'ny Seymour (Hull)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lane-Fox, G. R,

  Rawlinson, Jn. Frederick Pool

  Younger, George

  Law, Andrew Bonor (Dulwich)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffi'd, Ecclesall)

  Liddell, Henry

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Long, Col. Chas.W. (Evesham)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES, &C.) BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  SIR F. BANBURY,in moving that the Bill be recommitted to a Private Bill Committee, said he did so for the following reasons. The Bill proposed a very large increase in the charges upon consumers of water in London. It was going to impose a charge of something like £100,000 a year additional on the City of London alone. Not only was it going to charge that large amount no the City, but it was going to impose a charge to an enormous amount on the manufacturers and traders of London as a whole. On the Second Reading he had opposed the Bill on a similar ground, but his Amendment was defeated, but he believed that a considerable number of hon. Members opposite would, if they had known what they knew now, have voted with him instead of against him. The Bill, being of a very contentious character, was unfortunately sent to a joint Committee, which was only one tribunal. If it had been sent to an ordinary Private Bill Committee, and if the evidence had not been brought forward in such a manner as to impress the Committee, or if there was new evidence,
  1476
  when the measure went before the Lords' Committee its opponents would have had an opportunity of advancing their arguments a second time. It had always been held that when a Private Bill went to a Private Bill Committee upstairs it should go through the two Committees, that of the Lords as well as that of the Commons. In this particular case the double Committee had been done away with, and the result had been most unsatisfactory. A large number of water consumers thought that the question had not received proper consideration, and therefore the best course to take would be to recommit the Bill in order that its opponents might be placed in the position they would have been in if the Bill had gone through the ordinary course. If after this had been done their arguments were considered to have no weight, then he would have nothing more to say. The object of the Bill was to raise charges for domestic supply from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. There were only two areas which would benefit under the Bill. In the City of London the charges for water would be increased by £100,000 a year. He knew one case in which they were paying £700 a year for water, but under this Bill they would have to pay £1,500 a year. There was also to be some alteration in the method of assessing outside consumers. Some twenty years ago they had what was known as Dobb's decision, under which the rateable value was substituted for the annual value, and some of the outside areas were not brought in under that decision, because there was not obligation upon them to make a

  1477
  quinquennial assessment. For the sake of securing uniformity the Water Board had decided to reverse the decision in the Dodd case, and under this Bill they were charging the outside areas on their rateable value, with the result that the Board would lose about £50,000 a year, which would have to fall upon the purchasers of water within the Metropolitan area. That was a wrong principle to go upon, because it was far mow expensive to supply water to an outside area on account of the pipes being longer. Therefore the Water Board were proposing to give to the water consumers in those outside areas who ought to pay more for their water a very great advantage as against the people of London proper. The Water Board raised the rates for water for manufacturing purposes some time ago, above the charges which had been previously made by the old companies, but he understood that the manufacturers had made themselves extremely unpleasant, and they were going to have their case met by the charges being brought down to those made by the water companies. The result of this would be that the small manufacturers would not benefit, and the vast majority of the people who consumed water for domestic purposes would have to pay for the benefits given to the manufacturers. In this as in other matters those who had made the most noise would receive the benefit, and the humbler and quieter people would be pushed on one side. It was in the interests of those people that he desired that the Bill should be recommitted, and that course would give an opportunity of reviewing an extremely important matter for the whole of the citizens of London. It was well known that the amount received in rates had increased since the companies' undertakings were acquired by the Water Board, and the amount required to pay interest on water stock was not so much as it used to be. On the face of it he did not see why there should be any loss at all. If there was a deficit under the Bill, the Water Board were empowered to levy a rate over the whole of London, and that would be the fairest way to deal with it, because in that way everybody in London would bear their just proportion. He begged to move.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLin seconding the Motion, said he desired to hear on behalf of the promoters of the Bill what compromise they proposed to offer in order to meet the objections stated by the opponents. He frankly said that he did not know where they stood in regard to the small consumer and the large consumer, or in regard to the area outside of London.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'now considered,' and add the words ' recommitted to a Private Bill Committee ' "—(Sir Frederick Banbury)— instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'now. considered' stand part of the Question."
  *Mr. WATERLOWsaid he had given notice of an Amendment of his own, but as the question of the recommital of the Bill had been raised he would support the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. He did that, not necessarily because he wished to kill the Bill, but because the Motion gave an opportunity for raising the whole question. One reason why he and others wished to have the Bill recommitted was that they desired to readjust the burden on the water consumers throughout the whole area served by the Metropolitan Water Board, so that it might not gall in particular places where it might be greater than in others. He admitted that the Bill as a whole contained a great many provisions which would considerably improve the present system. Those who had been engaged in public work of one kind and another in London were of opinion that, with very slight alteration, the Bill might be very considerably improved in the way of equalising the burden as between the various areas. The joint Committee had practically admitted the inequality of the rates as between the outside and the inside areas. That inequality arose from the rating being in some places on annual value and in others on rateable value. The Committee considered that that was a matter for future legislation, and that they would not trouble about it in this Bill. The first point he wished to make was

  1479
  that if they were to trust to future legislation for the redress of this inequality they might possibly have to wait for a very considerable time. Perhaps the President of the Local Government Board would give some assurance as to that, but though the right hon. Gentleman might have the best will in the world to take up at once the question of revaluation, he might find it extremely difficult to get the time in view of the great mass of work which this House had to do. On these grounds he and his friends would rather maintain the status quo. He asked the House to recollect that it was the status quo they desired to maintain. Everybody recognised the great labours which the Committee had given in connection with the Bill. The area over which the Bill extended embraced a population probably exceeding 6,000,000, and that fact consequently raised the measure to one of first class importance. As between the different parts of the entire area there should be fair and equal treatment. The difficulty in regard to annual value and rateable value created a new inequality which did not exist at the present time. After long controversy the old water companies were bought up by the present Metropolitan Water Board. Each of the eight companies which formerly supplied London with water had its own basis of charging, and Parliament in transferring the concerns to the new board imposed on them an obligation by Clause 15 of the Act of 1902 to bring in a Bill to equalise the charges. The measure now before the House was that Equalisation Bill. He did not complain of the Bill having been introduced; but he wished to point out that it created a fresh inequality which did not exist before as between the area under the London County Council and the area which lay outside the jurisdiction of that council. It arose simply from the difference in the law of rating in the two areas. Within the London County Council area, under the Water Rating Definition Act of 1885, water was assessed on the rateable value. In the extra London area, under the Water Clauses Act of 1847, the annual value was the basis for the charge. The present Bill proposed to abolish the annual value as the basis of assessment. On the face of it that might seem a fair proceed-
  1480
  ing, but it was not, because in the London County Council area there was a quinquennial valuation, while in the outside area there was no such valuation. Therefore in the outside area there was no revaluation, and, as a result, there was not a common denominator. The inside area had a periodical revaluation, but in the outside area there was no periodical revaluation. If they adopted the rateable value in the outside area, it might go for years without revision, and the effect would be that whilst those in the inside area would be always screwed up to the highest pitch, those in the outside area would not be screwed up at all. There would thus be an increasing burden on the London inside area. He was to some extent speaking for the majority of the London Members, but he had also in support of his view a communication from the Islington Borough Council, and a large number of representations from the London County Council, who desired that the present arrangements should stand and that the Bill should be amended in respect to this matter. The Islington Borough Council said—
  "I am directed by my Council to ask the Members representing Islington to use their utmost endeavours to get the Bill amended so as to more fully protect the interests of the water consumers in the county of London and particularly in the borough of Islington."
  The London County Council had gone into the matter very closely and had opposed the Bill in Committee, and now asked that the Bill should be amended. It was not only the old London County Council who had acted in this way. The present and new London County Council had also adopted the same attitude. On 24th January, 1907, the County Council passed a resolution that petitions should be sealed and presented against the Bill, and in a report they said that the measure proposed that the basis of the charge for domestic supply was in the future to be the rateable value of any house as it appeared in the Valuation List. That was at present the basis in the county of London, but in the extra London district it was the annual value. The annual value, the report said, was a higher rate than the rateable value, owing to there being no periodical revaluation in those districts as there was in London; and having regard to

  1481
  the inequality that must arise in consequence of the proposed alteration in the basis of charge, they considered they should lodge a petition against that Bill. On 14th February a further report was presented in which they said that they found upon examination that the Bill in no way provided for a uniform scale of charges, but merely for a fixed maximum charge, leaving it open to the board to make any charges within these maximum charges. They also said that the charge for royal parks was to be a fixed charge of 6d. per 1,000 gallons, and they thought the supply to all public parks and gardens and open spaces should be treated alike. The new council said they could not but regard the proposal to substitute rateable value for annual value as the basis of the water rate in the extra-London districts as most unsatisfactory from the point of view of London. They further said that the existing powers of the Water Board with regard to fixing the charge outside London were fully sufficient to enable it to settle a basis which would be uniform with a basis prescribed by law inside the county, and the Amendment put forward by the council was only intended to continue those powers to the board. That raised a very important point. If they maintained the existing system the Water Board could regulate the basis of charge and could, if they so thought fit, adopt, almost without any trouble whatever, the rateable value as their general basis of charge. The effect of the proposal in the Bill was given in the Water Board's evidence and in a memorandum issued by the Central London Chamber of Commerce. It would be to increase the charge on London by £10,618 a year. The excess of annual values over rateable values, according to the report of the London County Council of 20th June, 1907, amounted to a total assessment of £536,292. With the adoption of rateable value as the basis, the board would lose the right to charge on this amount of assessment, which would be equivalent to a loss in water rates, with a 5 per cent. rate, of £26,805 per annum. It was clear, however, that if the assessment of all houses—many of which, as already stated, were charged on less than the rateable value—were fully rectified, this
  1482
  figure of £26,815 would be very greatly increased. That was practically the case they wished to make, and he thought, inasmuch as they had apparently got nearly a month before Parliament was likely to rise, there was ample time for the matter to be reconsidered by the Committee. As he had said, he did not wish to kill the Bill, but only to give ample time for the consideration of it, and therefore he supported the Motion.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns, Battersea)said that if the Motion to recommit this Bill was carried it would be a very serious matter. The House would in that case have decided against the proposals of the London Water Board, and if the Motion was carried it would kill the Bill. If that happened it would cost next year much for legal expenses in the shape of money that personally he should like to see used by the Water Board in reducing the rates to consumers, large and small. If the Bill were recommitted for the sake of uniformity that could never be secured, for a number of people would still have some complaint against the Water Board, even if this Motion was carried, and the same arguments would be used by those who were left out of the preferential scale, and by those whose prices might have been increased in order to secure uniformity. Might he ask the House to look at this matter from the point of view of the Water Board, and also of the consumer. Parliament appointed the Water Board to look after the water supply of 514 square miles inside and outside of London, and £40,000,000 of property, from which an income of £2,750,000 was derived every year. That Water Board had been in power but a short time and had been unable to make anything but a small profit or a small deficit, and he thought it was unreasonable of Parliament to expect anything else in so short a time. And Parliament did another thing besides devolving this enormous responsibility upon this body. It said that after a certain number of years the Water Board, whether it liked it or not, should come to Parliament with a Bill establishing uniformity of charge throughout the limits of supply, and therefore the Water Board Produced this Bill, which had gone before a

  1483
  Joint Committee of both Houses and been examined by them. The Water Board had no choice in regard to the Bill, which, like the parent Bill, went to a Joint Committee, as Parliament in its wisdom had ordered. He thought it was wise that the same tribunal which passed the original Bill should deal with the question of uniformity of prices. The Bill had therefore gone upstairs to a Joint Committee and had been examined by them for thirteen days. The Committee were unanimous after that examination, he believed, in passing the Bill which was now before the House. But it had not been said, and he rose to say it, that since the Bill left the Committee substantial concessions had been made to those interests who thought they had not been so favourably dealt with as they were entitled to be. These interests were the trading and manufacturing interests of London. These gentlemen said, and it was to their appeal he listened, that if the Water Board persisted in maintaining the charges as they passed through Committee, some of the large manufacturers in certain parts of London, by reason of the additional charge placed upon them, would probably have to consider the very serious step of moving their works outside the area of supply. When he was con- fronted with that he did what every Minister of the Crown had a right to do he took the opportunity of seeing whether the differences between the opponents of the Water Board and that body could not be adjusted. Given in round figures, it appeared that if a reduction of £21,000 per annum was made these interests would withdraw their opposition and would not move their Amendments, as he was glad to see they had not done. The Water Board went further, and gave to those interests £24,000. Beyond that they had given a concession to market gardeners, which he thought ought to have been given. It might be said that it was the large manufacturers who alone received this concession, but he was afraid it was the law of life not only in regard to Water Bills but in regard to other Bills that the big fish eat the little fish and the little fish eat mud; but that was not the case here, because one had to consider that if the burden fell upon the larger
  1484
  manufacturers there would be more disturbance in consequence of the shifting of trade than in the case of smaller industries. It might also be said that the other interests which approached the Water Board had not been similarly dealt with, but his answer to that was that the charges in the Bill were maximum charges and if with the improvement of trade more prosperous conditions came to the Water Board in the future there was no reason why the Water Board should not give consideration to the smaller traders, and he would be glad to bring to bear such influence as he had upon the Board in that direction. Nobody had taken any exception to the general scheme of the Bill, and considering the enormous size of the area administered and the value of the property dealt with and the difficulties of the procedure, he wondered on the whole that the board had done so well as they had. The Bill amalgamated services which were formerly disunited, and it equalised the values at which prices could be properly ascertained. It made the service inside and outside the area uniform, and it made the values inside and outside the area the same. What was more, in 87 per cent. of the houses in and outside the London area it had reduced the charge by the sum of £82,000, while it had increased the charge on 13 per cent. of the houses rated at £200 a year and over by £108,000. It had reduced the cost of water to manufacturers and traders and introduced meter rents. It had introduced a rateable value outside the county which he believed to be the only fair and equitable basis of assessment. He believed that the Water Board would meet any reasonable demands upon them, and he appealed to the House not to put the Water Board, and through them the inhabitants of London, to the expense of another Water Bill, when, after all, rough justice had been done with a fair intention and in an even-handed manner to all the interests affected by this great service. He had done his best to be a medium and an arbitrator between the conflicting interests, and he asked the House to pass the Bill on condition that the two Amendments which he had mentioned were accepted by the Water Board. He

  1485
  was sure that that body would receive any suggestion from the Local Government Board for further equalisation in a proper spirit, and he could only say that while he was responsible as the Minister whose duty it was, he would continue to look into this matter. He urged the House to accept the Bill and not to put the Water Board to the trouble of bringing another Bill into the House in two or three years which would be met by the same arguments which had been used against this Bill. He asked the House to believe that the tribunal which had dealt with the matter had dealt with it in the interests of all concerned.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he only intervened because it was his duty to pass through the House of Commons the preliminary measure which was the origin of the Bill before the House. It was unnecessary for him to go into the history of the measure, because the President of the Local Government Board had done that, but he desired to support the right hon. Gentleman in the course he had taken. Going back, as he was able to do, to the preliminary stage preceding the passing of the Act which set up the Water Board, he remembered, as everybody else who took an active part in the discussion must remember, that the question of the water charges in the Metropolis formed one of the most prominent points of controversy which then raged. When Parliament threw this duty on the. Water Board it knew perfectly well that it was throwing upon them a duty of a most difficult kind, and that it would be. a matter of extraordinary difficulty to find a common basis which would be generally accepted. The difficulty in London not only connected with the water question, but in connection with other questions, had been due to the fact that London was different in its position from any other big city or town in the United Kingdom. Whereas Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, or any big city they liked to name, could be dealt with as single areas, London, until the passing of this Act, was divided into eight separate districts for the purpose of water supply. The bases of charge were different, and, what was more important, not only were the statutory bases of
  1486
  charge different, but the obligations thrown on the different companies arising out of the constitution and character of the separate areas varied in a most remarkable way, and, therefore, each water company really supplied a district which was quite different in the character and requirements of the people living in it from the other areas. All these duties were now concentrated upon the Metropolitan water Board, and, although he could quite understand the dissatisfaction which had been voiced by his hon. friend the Member for the City of London and others, he did not believe that it was possible to find any solution of the question which would not produce considerable irritation and dissatisfaction on the part of some people. They had got, in fact, to make some people pay more than others in order to get equalisation of charges and do justice all round. They knew perfectly well that those who were released from some portion of the burden, or that those on whom no additional burden was imposed, would not show gratitude, whereas those who had to pay in excess of what they had been previously charged would naturally complain and ask that the matter should be reconsidered. He was confident that reconsideration would not improve the proposals of the Bill. They might tear the whole thing up, yet it would only entail much heavier and increased charges on London, and he respectfully asked the House to agree to accept the Bill. He desired to congratulate the President of the Local Government Board on the part he had taken in the matter, because the right hon. Gentleman had no responsibility for the passing of the Act which led to the introduction of this Bill. The President of the Local Government Board was at one time inclined to oppose he measure, but he had now acted as amicus cur œ in the matter with absolute fairness to all the people concerned; he had done his best not for one party or the other in the dispute, but to aid in the solution of this great London difficulty. He believed he advice which the right hon. Gentleman had given was well founded; and he thought that it would be in the interests of London that the next stage of this difficult question should be settled now, and, if any further steps were called for,

  1487
  he was convinced that to whomsoever it might fall to deal with the question it would be dealt with in the interests of London.
  *MR. STRAUSsaid he should not vote for the recommittal of the Bill, because there were very valuable things in it which it would be a great pity for London to lose. But there were also some very great dangers in the Bill which certainly ought to be taken out, and he earnestly hoped that some of the Amendments on the Paper would be accepted, and that thereby the measure would be strengthened and made of some real value to London. If these Amendments were not carried, however, he would sooner that the Bill was killed to-night, because he believed that it would simply go on making the anomaly more absurd in the future than it had been in the past. It could not be right for London Members, at any rate Members representing the inside London area, to vote for anything which made the inside area suffer and the outside area benefit. The Bill as it stood now was not quite the immaculate and remarkably well considered measure that might be imagined outside from what had been said, because the estimates were based on the valuations made before the last quinquennial valuation, and consequently the valuations and the figures which they had were not correct or up to date; and if they considered the last quinquennial valuation they would find, he was quite confident, that a great deal of the loss which had been estimated would not occur. In undertaking not to vote for the recommittal of this Bill, London Members, either Liberal or Tory, in no way pledged themselves to vote for it, unless some of the Amendments which were on the Paper, and which they considered of the utmost importance, were accepted in order to ensure that the rates would be levied on a proper and fair basis.
  *Mr. BARNARDsaid he would like on behalf of the Water Board to thank both the President of the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin for the manner in which they had approached this question.
  1488
  The Water Board were pledged to bring in this Bill; they had no interests of any sort to serve, there was no intention of favouritism, and they had tried as far as they were able to hold the balance between all the different interests which were involved. The President of the Local Government Board had mentioned that he had had an interview with the representatives of the Water Board after the Bill had left the Committee, and that he had pointed out to them that in his opinion some amendment in connection with the trade scale was desirable; and after they had seen the right hon. Gentleman, they had a second and a third interview with him, in which they made it emphatically clear that as far as advising the Water Board was concerned they could only go to the extent of not opposing the amendment of the scale; they could not volunteer to accept it, because they did not think it a desirable alteration which the right hon. Gentleman, in his wisdom, suggested was suitable. Their reason for not volunteering to accept it was a financial one. The Water Board had to collect nearly £3,000,000 a year with which to do its work, and the responsibility for doing that, without risking a rate-in-aid, was very heavy and onerous. The Board were of opinion that it was most undesirable in any way whatever to risk a rate-in-aid, and the whole framework of their scheme was based on that conclusion. The President of the Local Government Board had also pointed out that the market gardeners should get some warning before being cut off. The Board said they were willing to extend the time to seven days in order that the market gardeners might have the opportunity of making other arrangements. He expressed his sincere thanks to the President of the Local Government Board for the manner in which he had brought the parties together. The hon. Member for Islington had suggested that the new rating basis proposed by the Bill would involve a hardship. He ventured to think that that was very largely imaginary, since the resulting loss of income was represented by an annual sum of £10,600, and when this was subdivided it was found that, roughly speaking, £8,000 represented an actual overcharge

  1489
  within the West Ham Union. Since the discussions in the Committee the Board had gone closely into the figures, and the found that they could not maintain the present valuation. The water assessments for the West Ham Union were above what they ought to be, and it appeared to him that the time had come for revising them. But on the other questions they could not go any further in the way of concession than the President of the Local Government Board had pointed out.
  *Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that when he saw two right hon. Gentlemen on opposite Front Benches patting each other on the back and the hon. Gentleman responsible for the Bill patting both those right hon. Gentlemen on the back, he observed a position eminently threatening to the general interests of Members and particularly so to the interests of the consumers of water. If he had no other reason for opposing the Bill, he should find one in the fact that a measure, affecting the health and welfare of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 inhabitants of London, had been brought forward at that hour of the night. He had listened, not with much surprise, to his right hon. friend, who had evinced a paternal solicitude in the doings of the Water Board which he created, but he confessed he had a little more surprise when he heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite say they must look at the matter from the point of view of the Water Board. He looked at it from the point of view of the consumer who lived in London, who was highly rented and highly rated, and whose assessments were constantly raised by quinquennial revision, and who by the Bill was being mulcted in favour of the man who lived outside London and who paid a low rent, and a low rate, and had no revision. Moreover, the latter's rent was largely represented by the cost of his railway fares to and from London, on which he was not rated for water. His right hon. friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member below the gangway had supported the Bill on the ground of its uniformity of charge, but there was absolutely no uniformity in the charge established
  1490
  by the Bill. The average cost of water per head was 5s. 7d.; the charge for that water outside was 4s. 1d. and 6s. 3d. inside. By this Bill the outside charge was reduced to 3s. 7d. and the inside raised to 6s. 9d. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that was a uniform charge. [An Hon. Member: "How many gallons do they use inside and outside?"] He should like to refer to another distinction which many people might not have in their minds In London a man paid £100 for a house which the man who lived outside got for £60. Both used the same amount of water, but the man in London had to pay £5 for his water, while the man in the country only had to pay £3. Was that uniformity? Another point which struck him as extraordinary was that while the big business man and the well-to-do tradesman had been favoured the poorer man was penalised, and the man who was rated above £300 a year for an office or shop he locked up at night got a rebate of 20 per cent. on his water rate while the man who occupied a smaller shop which was not above £300 got no rebate. He asked what justice there was in the struggling professional man or shopkeeper who paid £50, or £100, or £200 rent not getting a rebate while his neighbour who paid£300 or £400 received that benefit. At that late hour he could not go into other matters; but for these two reasons, because the Bill set up absolutely no uniformity of charge and because it was hard on the small man, he would vote for its re-committal.
  *MR. LUKE WHITEdid not wish to stand between the House and a division, except for a few moments. As one of the Members of the Committee he said the Bill did secure uniformity of charge throughout the whole area. The House had laid it down that the Board should bring in. a Bill similar to this this session. He thought it should be pointed Out that the Committee which originally considered the question laid down two great principles. The first was that there should be uniformity as to the basis on which the charge was to be made, and the second was that

  1491
  there should be uniformity as to the amount of the charge, namely, 5 per cent. on the rateable value as a maximum charge. He asked the House to support the Committee and to pass the Bill in the form in which it was now before them. A great deal had been said about the injustice which would be done to London, both inside and outside the Metropolitan area, if the Bill became law. He wished to point out that there were at the present time about 1,000,000 buildings in the area which received a water supply, and, if the Bill was passed, the effect would be that less than one-
  fourth would have to pay an increased rate. A little over one-fourth would be undisturbed, and nearly one-half—that was to say 500,000,of houses—would benefit by having a lower rate. On every ground that could be urged. it would be a great misfortune if the Bill were not passed during the present session, and he hoped that the House would defeat the Motion at present before it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes. 163; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 306.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, T. P, (Liverpool)

  Acland-Hood.RtHn.SirAlexF

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Hazelton, Richard

  OShea, James John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Barker, John

  Hills J. W.

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darl'gton)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Beaumont.Hon. Hubert

  Hogan, Michael

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Holt., Richard Durning

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bertram, Julius

  Hudson, Walter

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Branch, James

  Jenkins, J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh.Cent'l)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Causton, Rt Hn. RichardKnight

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

  Cave, George

  Kelley, George D.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cavendish, Rt.Hn.VictorC.W.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'pton)

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Wore.

  Kenyon Slaney, RtHn.Col.W.

  Richardson, A.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Dulwich)

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'd)

  Clongh, William

  Layland-Barratt. Francis

  Robinson, S.

  Corbett, A.Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lever, A.Levy (Ess'x.Harw'h)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rowlands. J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Russell, T. W.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Teigam'th)

  Longh, Thomas

  Rutherford, V.H. (Brentford)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Crooks, William

  Lupton, Arnold

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton un'r Lyne)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Seaverns, J, H.

  Cullinan, J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seely, Major J.B.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Devlin, Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Doughty, Sir George

  Macpherson. J. T.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  MacVeagh, Chas. (Donegal,E)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Duffy, William, J.

  M'Killop, W.

  Smith. Abel H. (Hereford, E.)

  Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Straus. B. S. (Mile End)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Elibank, Master of

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mond, A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thompson, J.W. H.(Somers't)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, J. J.

  Thorne, William

  Forster, Henry William

  Murnaghan, George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Tomkinson, James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Nicholls, George

  Toulmin, George

  Gill, A. H

  Nolan, Joseph

  Valentia, Viscount

  Glover, Thomas

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Verney, F. W.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipper'y, Mid.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Halpin, J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  TELLERS FOR THE.—Sir John Bethell and Mr. Barnard.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  White, Patrick (Meath, N'rth)

  Wilson, J. W. (Wcestersh N.)

  Whiteley, George (York.W.R)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhought'n)

  Whitley, John Henry (H'lit'x)

  Younger, George

  NOES.

  Allen, A.Acland(Christchurch)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Percy, Earl

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dickinson,W. H.(St.Panc's,N.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gretton, John

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone,W.)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Bowerman, C.W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsb'ry)

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keswick William

  Wiles, Thomas

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lane Fox, G.R.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B.Stuart

  Coates, E. Feetham(Lewish'm

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cooper, G. J.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sir Frederick Banbury and

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Mr. Waterlow.

  Main Question put, and agreed to

  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. FLETCHERmoved the following new clause: "Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, the water rates shall continue to be payable according to the annual value of the house or building, or part of a house or building, supplied with water by the board, and such annual value shall (except within the unions and parishes to which the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, extends) be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, and shall in no case be less than the rateable value according to the poor rate valuations." He said that under the Bill it was desired to bring about a uniformity in the water charge, but the Bill did not secure uniformity in the mode of assessment. The reason of this was that while the administrative county of London was revalued every five years and its rateable value was thus kept up to date, there was no statutory revaluation outside the administrative area. The result was that the water consumer outside London was not paying a fair charge, and the unfortunate ratepayers of London had to pay the difference. The Water Board, they were informed, had a very small margin between its expenditure
  1494
  and the sum which was brought in by its charges. Therefore, if any part of the water area did not pay its due proportion, obviously the balance had to be paid by the unfortunate in-dwellers in the county of London, and an injustice was thus perpetuated. If the President of the Local Government Board could assure them that some effort would be made to extend the Bill of 1865 to the whole water area, then, of course, the grievance to which he had alluded would disappear, but if that was not done he should feel bound to press his Amendment.
  *MR. W. F. D. SMITH,in seconding, said that he had heard nothing, not even from the two right hon. Gentlemen on the respective Front; Benches, to convince him that the basis of charges was conceived equally as between the two areas. The President of the Local Government Board had said that the Bill equalised the value. The value was equal in name, and in name only, because, as a matter of fact, neither the law nor the practice of carrying out the law within and without London was the same. The result was that even at the present time there were almost absurd anomalies in in the rateable valuation outside London. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was going to introduce a Valuation Bill next session. If that were so this was putting the cart before the horse. It would be far more satisfactory if they

  1495
  had the Valuation Bill, and saw what it was to be. Then they might have a principle fair alike to everybody. There was another point to which he would like to refer. It might be said that there was no good putting this extra charge upon outside London, because, after all, London within the border would still have to pay 5 per cent. on its rateable value. He thought there was a reason for putting this extra charge upon outer London, and it was this. As the Member for Westminster had said, a house assessed for £300 a year and not assessed for inhabited house duty would under this Bill get a reduction of 20 per cent. The Water Board were empowered to raise that reduction to 30 per cent., and if they got an extra revenue from the outside areas it might be possible for them, within a short period, to give 30 per cent. instead of 20 per cent. There might be this further advantage, that the poorer ratepayers to whom his hon. friend referred would also receive some advantage under the Bill, and they required it even more than the others.
  New clause—
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained the water rates shall continue to be payable according to the annual value of the house or building, or part of a house or building, supplied with water by the Board, and such annual value shall (except within the unions and parishes to which The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, extends) be determined in accordance with the provisions of section sixty-eight of The Waterworks Clauses Act, 184", and shall in no case be less than the rateable value according to the poor rate valuations."—(Mr. Fletcher.)
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  *Mr. WHITBREADsaid that as one of the Members of the Joint Committee which reconsidered the Bill, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division, or that, if it were, the House would reject it. The grievance that had been put forward, and that the Amendment sought to redress, undoubtedly existed to a certain extent. Where they had various areas which up to now had been assessed by different bodies, and
  1496
  probably on rather various principles, and then passed an Act, or brought forward a Bill which threw them all together for rateable purposes, it was inevitable there must be a certain inequality in the burden imposed on the ratepayers in the district as a whole. That was one of the inevitable results of placing together for rating purposes districts which had hitherto been rated separately and differently. But that was a grievance which might be properly dealt with when the Valuation Bill was brought in at a future session, and not one that could be safely remedied by that Bill, for these reasons. It was sought to rectify the difficulty which arose from the fact that inner London was by virtue of its quinquennial assessment valued up to the hilt, whereas the outer districts were probably not valued in the same way, and the ratepayers in the outer districts, under the Bill as it stood, would escape a certain amount of their fair burden. There were two objections to remedying this by the Amendment. The first was that if they carried that Amendment they would run a very serious risk of inflicting injustice in one portion the area, while they remedied it in another. The total annual revenue which was in question in the case had been placed at various figures. As a matter of fact, he did not believe it was as high as one of the totals which had been mentioned, but whether it was high or not, it was a fact that the greater portion of that income, roughly three-quarters of it, was drawn from a part of Essex in the Poor Law union of West Ham, where it was admitted as a fact that the rateable value was as high as the rateable value in inner London. If they were by the Amendment to impose annual value on the whole of the outside districts they would, as a matter of fact, inflict an unjust and harsh burden on three-quarters of the persons whose burdens they sought to equalise. The other objection to the Amendment was that the whole genesis and principle of the Bill was that they were to impose uniform rates of charges upon the whole area administered by the Water Board. It might be expedient, and it might be just, to levy a rate upon rateable value in one part of the area, and on annual value in another. It might turn out

  1497
  to inflict no hardship, but there was one thing that was quite certain, and that was that it was not a uniform rate of charge. For these reasons he hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he rose to appeal to the House whether it was possible to discuss that night a measure of enormous importance involving to some extent the health and welfare of the people of London. Owing to the procedure which the Government had thought it right to adopt in reference to an entirely different measure not affecting England at all, they were asked to discuss this Bill after eleven o'clock. It had now reached almost one in the morning, and they were just beginning the eight pages of Amendments which stood on the Paper in reference to the Bill. He suggested to the House that the time had now arrived when further consideration of the measure might be adjourned. He did not believe that that would have any unfortunate effect either on the measure or in regard to those who desired its amendment. He thought a little consideration outside that chamber might well result in some kind of arrangement; at any rate he was quite confident that at that hour it was impossible to ask the House to consider fairly and with the proper patience and impartiality the details of that very important and complicated measure affecting London. He did not desire to use that opportunity to prolong the debate, and therefore he concluded by moving that the debate be adjourned.
  MR. F. E. SMITHseconded. He thought there was some advantage in those who were not London Members addressing that appeal to the House, on a subject which might seem at first sight to be exclusively one that concerned Members for London, but it must be obvious that on a measure of this kind, in which there were so many sections desiring to lay their views
  before the House, that could not be usefully done at such a late period of the evening. Even the Government would admit that there were questions in it on which different opinions might be held, and it would be extremely undesirable that at one o'clock the House should set itself seriously to consider the many pages of Amendments. He hoped the House would take that view. There was no desire in that part of the House that there should be obstruction or unnecessary delay so far as the Bill was concerned, but a widespread desire that so important a measure should receive adequate consideration.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this debate be now adjourned." —(Lord R. Cecil.)
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: The noble Lord and the hon. Member who has just sat down will not, I hope, press their appeal for the adjournment of this particular measure. The substance of the Bill has been decided on the Motion to recommit, and the House is fully informed as to the only remaining point of difference between the two sides in the controversy. If we were to adjourn the debate from to-night to some subsequent date, I think there is not the least doubt that with other measures pressing for equal consideration we should find ourselves considering this Bill at an even later hour on some subsequent morning. As the House has the full facts before it I trust we may settle the matter and come to a decision upon the Amendment as soon as possible. I cannot accept the view of the noble Lord, and I would point out to him, if he is anxious to get forward matters vitally affecting the interests of London, that the matter is substantially agreed upon, and I trust we may be able to get the Bill through to-night
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 60; Noes, 125. (Division List No. 307.)

  AYES.

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

  Ashley, W.W.

  Bowles, G. Stewart.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bull, Sir William James

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

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

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC.W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  (Keswick, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, E.Feetham(Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, C.H(Sussex, EGr'nst'd

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Dickinson, W. H. (St.Pancr'sN.

  Pease, Herb'rt.Pike(Darlingt'n

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

  Flavin, Michel Joseph

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Forster, Henry William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Gretton, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Tellers for the Ayes—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. F. E. Smith.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ratherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  Hervey, F. W. F. (B'ryS.Edm's)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone,W.)

  Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Barker, John

  Hogan, Michael

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hudson, Walter

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Jenkins, J.

  Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')

  Bertram, Julius

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Bethell, SirJ.H.(Ess"x, Romf'rd

  Jones, William(Carn'rv'nshire)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'ton)

  Branch, James

  Jowett, F. W.

  Richardson, A.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robertson, SirG. Scott(Bradf'd)

  Causton, Rt.Hn.Rich'rd Knight

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robinson, S.

  Cave, George

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rowlands, J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lever, A.Levy (Essex, H'rwich

  Russell, T. W.

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W'lt'r (D'blin S.)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lough, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Crooks, William

  Lundon, W.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cullinan, J.

  Macdonald, J. R, (Leicester)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Davis, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(DownS.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal E)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  M'Killop. W.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Elibank, Master of

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (S'm'rset,E.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Thorne, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Ferens, T. R.

  Meagher, Michael

  Watt, Henry A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mond, A.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mooney, J. J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Glover, Thomas

  Nicholls, George

  Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Halpin, J.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipper'yMid)

  Wilson, J. W. (Wor'stersh,N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Younger, George

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shee, James John

  Original Question again proposed.
  *MR. DICKINSONsaid he was sorry to have to speak on the subject at such a late hour, but he was sure hon. Members would understand that it was not the fault of the London Mem-
  1500
  bers that the House was detained there, because they had expected that the Bill would come on for discussion in the ordinary way at a quarter past eight. Circumstances over which they had no control had brought them into the present position, and the only thing.

  1501
  to do was for Members to speak as briefly as they could. The hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Committee had just said that one of the chief reasons why he resisted the Amendment and supported the Bill was that the Committee had gone on the basis of attaining a uniformity of charge all over the area. It was precisely because it was not and could not be a uniform charge so long as the basis of assessment was not uniform that the Members for London were anxious that, at any rate for the present, the existing system should hold good. The House would understand that the present system was discussed in the House of Commons in the year 1885, and a Bill was then brought in for the purpose of forcing the Water Company to raise their rate upon the rateable value. That Bill was proposed to extend to the whole area of the Water Company, but, the then President of the Local Government Board, the Member for the Forest of Dean, consented to the insertion of Amendments limiting the operations of the Bill to the Metropolis. The arguments used then were precisely the same as the arguments which were used now. The circumstances had not changed in any way since that time. In fact, if anything, the position was worse than it was then, because, owing to the system of quinquennial valuations, the valuation in London had gone up by leaps and bounds, while outside the administrative county the valuation had not gone up. He had had certain figures got out by the officials of the London County Council which showed the difference in the valuation. He was informed of a house rated at.£24 in Hornsey which would, at the same rental, be rated at £34 if it were in London. In the case of a house in another district the rent was £90 and the rateable value was £46; but if that house were in London the rateable value would be £75. That state of things held good in a large number of places. There were several reasons for it, one of them being that outside London a different system of arriving at the rateable value of premises was adopted. In London they made a deduction of one-sixth in order to arrive at the rateable value, whereas outside London the. deduction in many cases was one-fifth. Then, again, there
  1502
  was no system of quinquennial valuation outside London, and in the absence of this the valuation was stereotyped from year to year. Mention had been made of the case of West Ham. It was quite true that in that district the East London Company screwed up the assessment to such an extent that they got it above the rateable value, and to that extent West Ham was harshly dealt with. But in the evidence given before the Committee upstairs, however, he found that the comptroller of the Water Board made the following important statement. He said—
  "In the East London area the Board will be bound, whether annual values are adopted in this Bill or otherwise, to make the allowance foreshadowed in the table of something like £8,000 a year."
  Clearly, wherever the rateable value. was properly assessed, as in West Ham, it would be the duty of the board to revise its annual value until it was the same as the rateable value. Therefore places like West Ham would not pay more than they would on the basis of rateable value, since they could now secure equitable treatment of the question by the Water Board. The difficulty was that other places outside London were really under-assessed, and would under this Bill continue to be so. He thought that they should be compelled to pay on a basis which was fair in comparison with the payments in London, and the only way in which that could be secured was to continue the system of annual values. The annual value would be the rateable value where it was fair, and something more than the rateable value where the latter was unfair. He had looked through the evidence carefully, and he ventured to think that the figures as laid before the Committee, though perfectly accurate as far as they went, were not thoroughly investigated in all their aspects. He would ask the House to consider one or two of the figures for a moment. Even if the charge? were to be levied on the present system of annual values, so beneficial was the Bill to the poorer outside districts that they would pay £39,000 less than they had paid hitherto. That was the amount they gained by a system of equalisation. But when they came to have the additional advantage which was to be bestowed upon them by the proposal that

  1503
  rateable value should be taken instead of annual value, it added nearly £27,000 to the advantage gained by the outside districts, making a total advantage of £66,000 a year, while all the time inner London was going to pay more He had got out similar fiures to those given by the hon. Member for Westminster, and he found that the amount charged for domestic purposes only worked out at 6s. 2¾d. per head in London, whereas under the Bill it would work out at 6s. 3¾d. In outer London the amount worked out at present at 4s. 8½d., but under the Bill it would work out at 4s. l½. which, as the House would see, meant a considerable reduction. He thought those figures justified the attitude taken up by the Members for London constituencies on both sides of the House. Both Conservative Members and Liberal Members earnestly asked the House to pass the Amendment. They attached great importance to the Amendment, which could not possibly wreck the Bill, because the effect of it was to make the system more uniform throughout the whole area, as they would be basing the system as far as they could on a uniform assessment and also using the same charge of 5 per cent. If the President of the Local Government Board could only see his way to consent to some Amendment which would continue that system until he brought in his proposed Valuation Bill, he thought it would satisfy the London Members. Until that came to pass he ventured to think it was a reasonable request which the London Members made that the existing system should go on for the present. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to assent to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Hampstead, that outside London the basis should be the annual value.
  *Mr. BARNARDsaid that one or two figures which had been quoted required explanation. The matter was of some importance because there had been an attempt to make out that the difference between annual and rateable value would inflict very serious injury on inner London. He wanted the House to understand that "uniformity" dealt with particular [classes of property
  1504
  and had nothing whatever to do with locality. The mere chance circumstance of where the property might be situated was, after all, accidental. He would like to make the real position clear. The last speaker had said that he did not know very much about West Ham. He (Mr. Barnard) held in his hand a table which he quoted to the House. It showed that the whole amount at issue was represented by something like £10,600. Of this amount £7,800 was inside the West Ham Union. The last speaker admitted the contention he (Mr. Barnard) tried to place before the House when he said, speaking on the Motion for recommittal, that the West Ham charges were probably wrong. If that was the case, what was the issue before the House? A question of £2,800 a year. Was it not too trivial that they should be asked to go contrary to the principle of uniformity because it was suggested that London might lose £2,800 a year out of an income of nearly £3,000,000. One word more. There were precedents for the Board's action. Reference had been made to a matter in which Tottenham many years ago made a bargain with the Board of Works. Payment was to be on rateable value. The bargain was capable of revision. The London County Council, which stepped into the shoes of the Board of Works, might have claimed revision if they objected to rateable value being taken as the basis in the case of Tottenham, but they did nothing of the sort. He would quote a further case. The County Council had themselves made a bargain with Willesden, and in connection with it the basis was rateable value. There was another case that might be taken—the Metropolitan Police. Outside the areas where the Water Board were collecting on annual value at present they had Metropolitan police, and the Home Office collected on rateable values. Why should not the same doctrine be adopted by the Water Board? Lastly, there was an arbitration recently between the London County Council and West Ham upon a very big question involving a large money payment. The arbitrator Sir Hugh Owen— a very distinguished gentleman in the Local Government world, in his decision gave the verdict that the contribution

  1505
  from West Ham was to be on rateable value. He (Mr. Barnard) therefore put it to the House that as rateable value was accepted in the instances he had mentioned it was equally applicable to the matter they were discussing at that moment.
  Mr. WATERLOWsaid he had already spoken, but he wanted the House to understand one point. Supposing the Amendment were accepted, there was nothing to prevent rateable value being adopted by the Water Board for West Ham or any other district. Moreover, the Board could always reduce its water rate, and if they were convinced that annual value made it too high they could bring it down to rateable value. On the other hand, they who knew that rateable value in London in many districts was too low would be satisfied if the Board could revise the system.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the Bill did not ensure uniformity. If the rateable value outside London was calculated in the same manner as it was calculated in London there would be nothing to say. It was because the Bill was not uniform that the London Members on both sides were determined to offer their most strenuous opposition. He regretted very much having to speak at 1.25 a.m., but it was not his fault but the fault of the Government, who were now endeavouring to force through a most important question in a House of 180 Members. It was an unheard-of thing in the history of the House of Commons to take a Private Bill dealing with such a question at such an hour. He would point out that the figures which had been given by the hon. Member for Kidderminster were misleading. It was difficult to be absolutely accurate in figures, but he made out that the amount in the case of the outside areas was £49,000 and not £56,000. It was certainly not a matter of £2,000. The hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to mislead the House. [Cries of ''Order" and "Withdraw."]
  *MR. BARNARD: I rise to a point of order. I was quoting from a table handed in to the Joint Committee, which is now open to the inspection of the Members of the House.
  MR. O'SHEE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is an hon. Gentleman entitled to charge another hon. Gentleman with endeavouring to mislead the House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member suggested it was done for any sinister purpose it would not be in order; but I do not think that was the case. The hon. Member merely intended to say that the figures were misleading.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had no wish to charge the hon. Gentleman with any sinister attempt. The figures were misleading for this reason, that the hon. Gentleman had omitted to say that the outside area would benefit by £39,000, owing to the rate having been altered. In addition to that they would benefit by the alteration in the rateable value by, he thought, £10,000 odd, probably by £17,000. It was a great fallacy to make the allusion which had been made by the Member for South Dublin to other towns where he said there was uniformity. He totally forgot that London was not a single town. It was an agglomeration of a large number of different towns under different conditions. In the outside areas, not only did they gain benefit by rateable value being taken on a different basis, but it was perfectly known that the rent paid for land was much less than in London, whereas the amount consumed in water was as much or more. The man outside London paying £40 or so for his house and assessed at a very low valuation was using as much water as the man in the interior who might be paying £300. Was it fair to take the interior of London, which already paid large sums of money for its water, and sacrifice it to the outer areas, when the outer areas were obtaining their water at a very much less charge than the consumer in the interior? The matter was put in a nutshell when it was said that 3s. 7d. per 1,000 gallons was what was paid outside the area, and 6s. 9d. per 1,000 gallons inside. That was not fair. If there was to be uniformity, consumers should be put on something like an equal basis. The hon. Member's idea of uniformity was to allow those people who were paying too little to pay still less, and those people who were paying too much to pay a greater amount The

  1507
  whole question turned on the fact that London was, as he said, an agglomeration of different towns, and that they could not in fairness, if they endeavoured, as they ought, to introduce some system in the different ratings, start with the idea, absolutely illusory, that each house was to be treated in the same way. It was making confusion worse confounded to take rateable value and assess it in one quarter in a different manner from in another. He had said all he had to say and he hoped hon. Members who were not hon. Members for London would understand that the question was vital for London. It was not often that London Members, absolutely regardless of Party, were found fighting together, and he thought that circumstance ought to have some weight with hon. Members who did not sit for London. What London Members were trying to do was to see that there should be some regard for justice in these charges, and that those people who were already favoured should not be still more favoured for no reason whatever.
  *MR. T. M'KINNON WOODsaid it had been argued by the hon. Member for Kidderminster as a justification of the charge that the police rate was raised on rateable value. But that was one of the injustices under which London suffered, and why one injustice should be the excuse for another passed his comprehension. The fact that there would some day be a Bill for the reform of valuation in England was no reason why in the meantime London should suffer an injustice. The late Government prepared a Bill which was a very good Bill in some respects, but years had passed, and that Bill had never been carried by the House. They hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would bring in a Bill at an early date, but that was no reason why an injustice should be inflicted on London for a year or two. They did not object to equalisation, but the fact was that the new basis, while it brought about a nominal equality, brought about a real inequality. The amount involved had been said to be £10,000. That figure of £10,000 was arrived at by a fallacious calculation, and the nearest figure they could arrive at
  1508
  was £26,000.All that they were arguing was that London should not be subjected to an injustice amounting to £26,000 a year for no reason whatever. Who were the people who were in favour of that Amendment? London Members, both Conservative and Liberal, both Moderates and Progressives on the London County Council, a great majority of London Members on the Metropolitan Water Board, and the Finance Committee of the Water Board, headed by his friend Lord Welby, were against this proposal, and it was only carried with difficulty by the Water Board. He thought the Water Board was constructed on most unfortunate principles, and that this was a very good fulfilment of the prophecies some of them had ventured to make at the time of its construction that its peculiar constitution would inevitably lead to serious difficulties. Not a single argument had been advanced that evening why London should submit to that injustice, and he hoped that Members outside London would not assist to impose that injustice upon London.
  *Mr. LUKE WHITEsaid the question was one which lay very largely between inner London and outer London. The hon. Member for Islington had stated that the Amendment, if carried, would have the effect that in West Ham Union the Water Board could fix the rateable value as the basis for the water rate, while in another district it could fix the annual value, and that if they passed the Amendment they were leaving it to the Water Board to say what the basis of the rate was to be. When the case came before the Joint Committee they heard the arguments and witnesses on both sides and were so convinced that it was to the interests of London as a whole that rateable value should be taken both inside and outside London that the members of the Committee were absolutely unanimous that that was the proper course to take. They could not secure uniformity by adopting such a. principle as that recommended by the hon. Member for Islington. They must take the rateable value both inside and outside London, and then the Water Board could go before the Assessment Committee and get the increase made.

  1509
  In the present circumstances he appealed to the House to support the Committee in the decision which it had come to, a decision which he would say again was only arrived at after hearing the arguments and witnesses for and against the proposal, and a decision which the Committee came to unanimously, that rateable value should be adopted both inside and outside the area.
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: I, like the rest of the House, am regretful that we should have this discussion at this time in the morning. I am not responsible for it, and it cannot be helped. I believe that we ought, if possible, to get this Bill through to-night.
  AN HON. MEMBER: No.
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: I express my view and I leave it there. I hope we may be able to do so, and I appeal to the House not to support the Amendment. I do this because there are many precedents why we should adopt the rateable value as a basis for water charges inside and outside the area of the County Council of London. The police rate, which extends over something like 600 square miles, is based on rateable value. The water charges in the County Council area are also based on rateable value. What is equally important, the Local Government Board for many years have always insisted on rateable value being taken as the basis for this and similar purposes. The Committee which had the whole of the facts before them in this particular Bill was under the impression that rateable value, as distinct from annual value, was the best form for assessment, particularly for obtaining a valuation on which a uniform rate should be charged. I believe that, particularly in the light of the growing area and population of the water supply both inside and outside London, any inequality there may be will soon be redressed. The responsibility for annual value outside London is not a liability or responsibility of the Water Board, but it is due to past Governments, but the responsibility for rateable value inside London is the responsibility of succeeding Governments. This Bill, which aims at equality of the incidence of both price
  1510
  and assessment, does approximate as near as it is possible for it to be done to a rough standard by means of which the inner and outer areas can be properly treated. If there is a discrepancy, that can only be remedied by the Government doing what I trust this Government will be able to do, and that is in a Valuation Bill to make uniformity of assessment if it is possible, not only inside and outside London, but throughout the country. What is more, if it is possible to apply it to outside areas as well as to London, we should have that excellent system of a quinquennial valuation by means of which we can get uniformity of assessment, rateable value, and prices for standard services such as water and many other things where uniformity of rateable value and assessment is needed. I can only say that if this Amendment were carried, the Water Board would regard it as being destructive.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Why?
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: The Water Board are as competent judges of how to conduct their business as the hon. Member who interjects.
  ANOTHER HON. MEMBER: Do you associate yourself with the Water Board?
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: I associate myself with the Water Board because we ought not to allow our personal views as to whether the Water Board and its constitution is or is not right to stand in the way of a genuine and serious attempt to get rough justice done by the establishment of rateable value both inside and outside the county of London. If we can do that consistently with not imposing any burden on London we ought to do it. The Water Board area is 514 square miles, and of this 400 square miles, with £7,500,000 rateable value, is outside London. The difference between annual value and rateable value in all that area is only £212,000, of which £156,000 is in Essex alone. If you exclude Essex the. difference between the annual value and the rateable value all over the Water Board area is only £56,000. Translate that into revenue, and the difference is £10,000. For so

  1511
  small a difference we have no right to destroy this Bill. I can only say, this that the Essex County Council has adopted rateable value in the West Ham, East Ham, and Ilford Unions as a basis upon which to draw a number of their rates, and as a basis on which to establish a number of their county council charges. I would appeal to the hon. Member for Hampstead, who, like myself, has worked for many years in the service of London, not to allow this Amendment to stand in the way of the Water Board carrying out the duties and responsibilities which are committed to them, and which they will be unable to discharge with justice, equity, and fair play to London, both inside and outside the County Council area, if the Amendment is persisted in. I must appeal to the House of Commons to resist this Amendment, and also to come to a decision as soon as possible. I am as much convinced as are Members of the Committee who have spoken on the subject, that if the Amendment is carried, and rateable value is prevented from being the basis on which water prices should be charged, then it will mean the postponement indefinitely of the beginning of a settlement of this question. If rateable value is accepted as the basis, anything I can do as President of the Local Government Board to tone down inequalities, and to bring about as soon as possible by administrative action that thorough uniformity which this Bill is a step towards, I shall be only too pleased to do. If I could go further and say that in the Valuation Bill which I hope to introduce next year on behalf of His Majesty's Government provision could be made by means of which absolute equality both of assessment and charge could be secured in the entire area, I should be only too pleased to bend my energies in that direction. Having given that promise, I can only conclude by saying that I hope the House of Commons will support the Bill, and I appeal to them to do so.
  *MR. STRAUSsaid that he did not desire to keep the attention of the House at that hour of the night for a minute longer than was necessary, but he was forced to speak under the circumstances then existing by the action of the Government. He felt that this
  1512
  was such an important matter for London that if those who were not Members for London and who were showing signs of impatience liked to go home he saw no reason why they should not do so, seeing that the London Members were determined to prevent the Bill passing unless they got fair play for the ratepayers. A great deal had been said that night, particularly by the President of the Local Government Board, about prejudice in this matter. It might be that some of them were prejudiced against the Water Board, but the peculiar thing about the situation was that the Members for inner London wore absolutely unanimous on the question excepting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea. How could there be any question of prejudice when Liberal and Conservative Members were enthusiastically combining together in support of the Amendment? It was a fact that when the President of the Local Government Board was a member of the London County Council he saw the inequality and absurdity of rateable value in the outside area being taken to be the same as the rateable value inside London, as he knew that outside they had no compulsory quinquennial valuation. He believed he was voicing the feeling of every Member who sat for inner London when he said that they wanted to know why they should not deal in exactly the same way with this question of water charges as they did in the London County Council with the contribution of the outside area towards main drainage. He submitted that the prejudice was all on the other side. He did not desire to kill the Bill, but if they were to be taunted with prejudice he could only say that he was sorry such a remark should be made, and that it would cause him to wish that the Bill was dead. From start to finish the Bill had never received the consideration that it ought to have had. He did not wish to say a word that was disrespectful about the members of the Committee, but it was a fact that there was not one Member on the Committee who understood the difficult question of the rating of London. Why were not some London Members put on the Committee? He represented a constituency in London which was very much interested in

  1513
  the Bill, and he was speaking on its behalf when he said that it was his duty to see when questions of prejudice were raised that they were put in the proper way. They had heard something that night about rough justice. He did not know much about rough justice, but he assured the House that if the Amendment was not passed it would be very rough on London. The right hon. Gentleman had again mentioned the question of the police. That was an injustice and an inequality which should not exist, but it ought not to be used as an argument in the present instance, except in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hampstead. The injustice at which the Amendment was aimed was one of which every Member who knew anything about the inequality of rating in London was well aware. He was pleased to hear that the President of the Local Government Board was desirous of doing something to get rid of the present anomalies, but if that desire had been really sincere he thought the right hon. Gentle man would have accepted the Amendment. He believed if any prejudice had been introduced it had not been by London Members, who, whether Liberals or Conservatives, were unanimous on this Amendment. He hoped the House would give the London Members credit for knowing what they wanted and that they would agree to the Amendment which was essentially fair and just.
  MR. LEAsaid he objected to the Bill for the very simple reason that the right hon. Member for Battersea, in order to get the measure through, had appealed to Members sitting for county constituencies, when he knew very well that his old colleagues on the London County Council were dead against him on the question. When hon. Members saw the President of the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin vieing with each other as to who could give the most flattery, then he thought they would view what those Gentlemen said about the Bill with the greatest suspicion. He did not profess, for one instant, to be au fait with all the questions raised by the Bill, but he thought no one could have listened to the debate without
  1514
  coming to the conclusion quite impartially that the bulk of the evidence had proved that the inner area of London was suffering owing to the advantage given to the outer area. What he would venture to say was that he thought it was very inconsistent with the general policy of a democratic and Liberal Government to introduce a Bill affecting 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of people and to try to rush it through by wearing out the endurance of the London Members at two o'clock in the morning. The President of the Local Government Board would not dare to go to a London constituency and take up the attitude on the Bill which he had done that night, provided that before he had a chance of addressing his audience the matter was impartially explained to them.
  *MR. MORTONthought it was very much to be regretted, considering what a large matter this was, and how many millions of the people of the Metropolis it affected, that they should be driven to discuss it at that hour of the morning. He was bound to say that he did not think it was acting fairly either towards the people of London or towards their representatives in the House of Commons, who, they were told, were practically unanimously in favour of an alteration in the Bill. He did not like staying there at that hour of the morning, especially considering that he had been at the House since eleven o'clock on the previous day, and he thought nobody could say that they were not, at any rate, attempting by the time they devoted to their work to do their duty. He was not a London Member. His constituency was some 700 or 800 miles from London, but, blowing the importance of London to the United Kingdom, he had decided to stop and assist the poor Londoners to get justice done to them. With regard to this particular Amendment he was quite in favour of rateable value being the basis for these calculations, but in the outside areas, of which they had heard and which were affected by the proposal, there was no fair rateable value. If the Government wanted to be honest to the people of London they should take care that a proper rateable value was taken in the districts outside before these changes

  1515
  were made. It was no good to tell the House they were going to do it by-and-by. In the meantime they were going to rob the people of London of £56,000 per annum. He remembered when they made the settlement of 1885 and adopted rateable value as a basis for the water charges in London. They had just previous to that got the Dobb's judgment which fixed annual value, fair value or something of that sort. They were not satisfied because they held that having got a quinquennial and proper valuation in the Metropolitan area the rateable value was the fair value. It was acknowledged then that all over England and Wales there was no proper valuation, and until they got a proper and fair valuation the matter should rest. Lot the change be made when the valuation was effected. The Government of the day had nothing to do with that rateable value business. The Bill was introduced by a private Member on the Tory side of the House. A Tory Government was then in power. The Bill was not passed till 1885, during which the Tory Government were in power a few months. They got the Local Government Board then peopled by Tories, to assist them in the matter, and having got the Bill through the House after twelve o'clock at night, they sent it up to the House of Lords. He remembered being one of the Committee that had charge of the matter outside the House, and he remembered going to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cit who was then at the Local Governmen Board, to ask him to assist them. They eventually got the Bill, which was not a Government Bill—not even a Liberal Bill—fixing for London a rateable value, which was then a quinquennial valuation, as the basis for water charges. If there was a quinquennial or proper valuation for outside London he would agree that rateable value was right, but let them not give up what they had. They had got by the Water Bill of 1903, or whatever time it was passed, an annual value fixed for these outside districts, as the valuation upon which they should contribute towards the charges of the metropolitan Water Board. It would be admitted by everybody who understood anything about it that it was not at all necessary for them to blame personally the
  1516
  Water Board or its members, because they were in this difficulty — that they were compelled by Parliament to go and buy up these unjust charges upon the people, and therefore they now had to find the money. But they were not bound to remove or release these outside people from the charges placed on them by Parliament which apparently said their contribution was to be on annual and not rateable value. He thought, therefore, before Parliament made that change and gave the rest of the country a proper valuation they should continue to charge on the annual value, and do justice to London, which he, coming all the way from Cape Wrath, told them had been treated very ill in this matter.
  *SIR JOHN BETHELL (Essex, Rom-ford)said the question was very important for London, but it was also a very important question for London over the border. The consumers in London over the border were prepared I to pay their full price for a supply of water, but if they were to pay on annual value they asked that those inside should pay on annual value. They were prepared to pay on the same basis us consumers in the metropolis. The matter was developing into an inner or outer London question. They were both partners in the undertaking and they both wanted the inner and outer ring alike to pay a fair price for the supply of water. Personally he was grateful to the President of the Local Government Board for the way in which he had taken the case in hand. He assumed the House would not allow the people over the London border to pay a higher rate than those in the inner ring. He pointed out that at present a man who paid a weekly rent of 15s in London paid for his supply of water £1 a year. Outside London a house let at 15s. a week paid £1 5s a year. Under this Bill the people in the outer ring would pay about 5 per cent. more than the people within London, who were really not giving them anything, when over the border they had been paying much higher prices. The Bill would simply give them the justice to which they were entitled. The East London Water Company had exacted the last shilling from them. They were now under a Water Board, and they had

  1517
  their representative on the Board and they expected to pay the same, price as the people in the metropolis.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: moved a new clause providing for the application of A part pf the surplus revenue of the
  Question put.
  The House divided: — Ayes, 64; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 308.)

  AYES.

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Gretton, John

  Scott, SirS. (Marylebsone, W.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, F. E. (Liverp'I, Walton)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Hedge, A. Puget

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Straus, B.S. (Mile End)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras,E.)

  Thompson, W Mitchell(Lanark

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Lever, A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Macdonald, J.R. (Leicester)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Cavendish, Rt.Hn,Victor,C. W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wiles, Thomas

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  O'Donnell, C. W. (Walworth)

  Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone,E.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Coates, E.Feetham(Lewisham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darl'gton)

  Younger, George

  Cooper, G. J.

  Percy, Earl

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, E Grinst'.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  TELLER FOR THE AYES—Mr.Fletcher and Mr. Dickinson.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Radford, G. H.

  Courthorpe, G. Lloyd

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Holt, Richard Darning

  Rea, Walter Russell(Searboro')

  Acland-Hood, RtHnSirAlex.F

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Jenkins, J.

  Richardson, A.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, Charles A. (Lincoln)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Roberts G. H. (Norwich)

  Bertram, Julius

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'd)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Robinson, S.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kelley, George D.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rowlands, J.

  Causton, RtHnRichard Knight

  Kilbride, Denis

  Russell, T. W.

  Cave, George

  Lardner, James Carrige Ru-he

  Rutherford, V.H. (Brentford)

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lundon, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Cullinan, J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Duffy, William J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Duncan, C(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Laren, SirC. B. (Leicester)

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Thompson, J.W.H.(Som'rs'tE)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Meagher, Michael

  Thorne, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mond, A.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Walsh. Stephen

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nicholls, George

  Whitbread, Howard

  Gill, A. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  While, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'y, Mid

  Whiteley, George(York,W.R.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, Jn. Henry (Halifax)

  Halpin, J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, J. ((Glamorgan)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Shee, James John

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hazleton, Richard

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, J. W. (Wor'stersh, N.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  TELLER FOR THE NOES—Sir John Bethell and Mr. Bar nard.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Cent'rl)

  Hogan, Michael

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Board to reduction of charges for water supplied by measure. He said he had stated very much earlier in the debate

  1519
  that he did not quite understand the compromise suggested by the President of the Local Government Board. He would like to make his position clear and would make a general statement to the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. SPEAKER:The hon. Member must confine his observations to the subject-matter of the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid he begged to move the clause which was for the application of part of surplus revenue to the reduction of charges for water supplied by measure. He wished to point out to the House the position with reference to the difference between the rateable value and other values. For instance, one of the difficulties which the small consumer had to face in supply by measure was that in the case of a large mercantile office, or a bank, in London, at present there was a very small consumption of water, say not more than 6,000 gallons per quarter, and for that at present he paid £6 or £7. At the end of the year that came to about £30 for 30,000 gallons of water or £1 per 1,000 gallons. Under the new scheme whereby the rateable value was taken that office would be charged five or six times as much if there happened to be a housekeeper on the premises and in habited house duty had to be paid. The proprietor of that office or business premises—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has said nothing which is in the least relevant to this clause.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid he was trying to come to it. He would move the clause as it was and reserve his remarks till they were relevant.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not move the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid he did move it, but would not detain the House, as he wanted to get ready for his next speech.
  A new clause—
  "(1) If the receipts on revenue account exceed the expenditure on that account of the
  1520
  Board in any year, one-fourth of the excess shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1902, be carried to a separate account in the books of the Board and ear-marked as applicable to the reduction of the charges for the time being made by the Board for supply of water by measure in pursuance of the section of this Act whereof the marginal note is 'Supply by measure'; (2) all moneys carried to a separate account and ear-marked in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section shall be accumulated from time to time until they amount, to not less than two pounds ten shillings per centum upon the amount for one year of the charges to reduction of which they are applicable and shall then be applied and distributed by way of a special discount or rebate upon such charges at a rate of not less than two pounds ten shillings per centum per annum."
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made and Question, "That the clause be read the second time," put and negatived.
  *MR. COOPERmoved an Amendment to transfer the cost of laying and maintaining communication pipes from the consumers to the Water Board. He said his Amendment would affect a. large number of owners and occupiers of houses. The Water Board brought the water down the street in the main, but the owner of a house had to put in the communicating pipe and put in the cock in the street by which the Board cut off the water if its rate was not paid, and also a specially prescribed tap to prevent waste. Under the water companies the cock and tap could only be purchased at an extravagant cost from a limited company the shareholders of which were the leading officials of the water company. Gas and electricity were brought to one side of the meter. He had never seen why the Water Company should make the occupier put in the communication pipes while the gas company should do it for him. On those grounds he moved the Amendment.
  LORD R. CECILseconded. He said the laughter with which the hon. Member's observations had been received showed the need for the adjournment of the discussion. The Amendment was put forward by an hon. Member who knew the conditions of London life as well as any Member of the House. He had put forward the Amendment in a perfectly serious speech, and it was

  1521
  received in a way which was not becoming to the House of Commons.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 2, to leave out lines 24, and 25."— (Mr. Cooper.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: The noble Lord entirely misinterpreted the hilarity which greeted the remarks of the hon. Member, and which was due to the hon. Member's display of subtle humour, and not to any ironical fooling on the part of the House. The Amendment would be contrary to the general practice which prevails with water companies. The Amendment really means that the Water Board shall pay for and maintain the communicating pipes that are now paid for and maintained by private owners. The universal practice is for this to be done at the expense of the consumer. If these charges were suddenly put on the Water Board who have had the greatest difficulty in securing a small margin of £9,000, following a deficit in the previous year of £10,000, it would cause the Water Board to pay for special and privileged users at the expense of the rate-pavers. It is not the intention of the House that the Water Board should be so handicapped. These charges are now borne by private owners, and until the Water Hoard has a substantial surplus out of which they might be exported to make a contribution for other purposes, it would be placing an intolerable burden on their shoulders if these charges were transferred to them.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid he begged to move the adjournment of the debate. He wished to say a word or two in regard to it. He wished with great respect to make his position clear.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must bear in mind the Standing Order which says that all his remarks must be relevant to the motion for the adjournment.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid it was now extremely late, it was half-past two and the Bill had been debated since eleven o'clock. The President of the Local Government Board and himself came to a certain arrangement which he had hoped would be carried out. The Bill was an extremely valuable one, and he had no wish to see it lost, but he wished to get from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance in regard to it. It seemed to him that it would save the time of the House if he could make his position clear. He proposed that certain Amendments which he had put down should all be withdrawn and that he should retire from his opposition on behalf of those for whom he was acting. He was very desirous, however, of protecting the small consumers and he was anxious to hear a few words from the President of the Local Government Board on that question. He thought that certain suggestions might come from the right hon. Gentleman which would enable hon. Members to go home, and to enable the President of the Local Government Board to state his views he moved the adjournment of the debate. He believed that if the contending parties were afforded an opportunity of having one more conference the Bill would pass through the House in a very short time.
  SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Motion.
  *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the hon. Member for Hampstead had referred to an attempt which he made to bring the contending parties in this matter together with a view to an amicable settlement. He thought the hon. Member would admit that in round figures they had been able to satisfy the traders and manufacturers on the particular point upon which the hon. Member had spoken to him. They had been able to secure from the Water Board £3,000 more than would have met the total bulked claims of the friends of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, but the sum of £24,000 had been so allocated and distributed as not to bring within the purview of its benevolence those smaller consumers for whose interests the hon. Member for Hammersmith had shown much care.

  1523
  That was not due to any fault on his (MR. Burns's) part, but it was due to the fact that both large and small traders expressed their willingness to accept the £24,000. It was said that the small consumers had not received the concessions to which they were entitled. He was quite willing, if the hon. Member for Hammersmith would accept his public assurance, and would allow him to press in his own way—and he would do it as soon as possible—to press the strong claims of the smaller consumers on the Water Board, to convey both the spirit and the letter of the hon. Member's request to the Water Board with a strong expression of the hope that they would be able to meet him. If, having received that public assurance, the hon. Member would do him the honour of withdrawing his Amendment, he, for his part, would do his very best to recommend the claims of the smaller consumer to the generous consideration of the Water Board. The hon. Member had said that he would not press the Amendment if he got a satisfactory answer, and he hoped that what he had said on the point would meet his wishes.
  MR. H. W. FORSTERhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the very reasonable Motion which his hon. friend had made. He spoke as one who had consistently supported the right hon. Gentleman in the proceedings connected with the Bill, and he could not help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate the further discussion of the Bill might go through in a far shorter time on some subsequent occasion than must necessarily be consumed if the debate were continued that night. Personally he would be exceedingly sorry if the Bill were lost, and he thought it would stand a really better chance of passing if the Government accepted the Motion. In that case the debate could be resumed at a more reasonable hour at some not far distant date.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. George WHITELEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)said that in all probability from now until the end of the session private business would invariably have to be taken after eleven o'clock at night. The House would understand. therefore, that he had some little hesitation in agreeing to the Motion. But if it was intended that the further proceedings on the Bill should take only a very little time he did not see why his right hon. friend should not agree to accept the Motion. He must, however, repeat his expression of the hope that if an arrangement was come to the adjourned debate would occupy very little time.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that he should be only too pleased to fall in with any reasonable request, made from any section of the House, that would tend to facilitate the passing of the Bill. If the adjournment of the debate at that juncture would enable that result to be brought about he willingly consented to it. He trusted, however, that if he on his part did his best to bring about a settlement that would satisfy the smaller consumer, hon. Members would do their best to keep to the bargain and would allow the Bill to go through.
  SIR F. BANBURY: No bargain.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that in the circumstances he had named the Government agreed to the adjournment of the debate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed this day, at a quarter past Eight of the clock.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at twenty-one minutes before Three o'clock

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, subject to the restoration of the definition of a "Tenement House" to the form in which it was inserted in the Bill as introduced into Parliament. Read, and agreed to.
  Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Reported, without Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.
  Alton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
  Sunderland Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  Alton Military Hospital Bill [H.L.], Electric Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  Sheffield Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  London and North Western Railway Bill, Penrith Urban District Council Bill, Worthing Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Chelmsford Order.
  Local Government Provisional Orders No. (13) Bill. Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Norwich Order.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill. Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 133.)
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill.
  Moved, That the order made on the 20th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a (Lord Allendale.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of, ONSLOW): My Lords, there are a large number of Bills in respect of which the Standing Order is proposed to be dispensed with; but I have been in communication with the Local Government Board and I think there is good reason why your Lordships should agree to this Motion.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill raises some questions as regards audit, and although I have no objection to anything which is in the Bill, I beg to give notice that when we reach the next stage I shall ask your Lordships to consider whether it would not be an advantage to introduce into this Bill, and, if so, into others afterwards, the provisions unanimously agreed upon by the Joint Committee of the two Houses which sat under the presidency of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and Hills read 2a accordingly.

  PETITION.
    ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
    Petition for amendment of; of Fulham Borough Council; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    TREATY SERIES, No. 21 (1907).
    Accession of the Commonwealth of Australia to the Industrial Property Convention of 1883, as modified by the Additional Act of 1900, 5th August, 1907.

    BOARD OF EDUCATION.
    Regulations applicable to schools for blind, deaf, defective, and epileptic children.
    Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
    Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 130.): Bill reported with amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 131.): Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
    MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION BILL [H.L.]
    Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 132.): Bill reported without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House. Minutes of Evidence, with an Appendix, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
    STANDING COMMITTEE.
    Report from the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee that they have added the Lord Granard (E. Granard) to the Standing Committee. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    IMPORTED WATCH-CASES BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3aon Thursday next.
    QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.

    COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, since the Companies Act of 1862 there have been no fewer than seventeen amending Acts, and the object of this Bill is simply to codify and arrange all these different statutes. There is at present before the other House the Companies Bill of this session which I had the honour of introducing in your Lordships' House, and we intend holding over this Bill, if your Lordships grant it a Second Reading, until that measure has passed the other House, in order that we may be able to add to this Consolidation Bill the Amendments effected in the Bill now before the House of Commons. With these few words I trust- your Lordships will give the Bill I a Second Reading.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a' —(The Earl of Granard.)
    On Question, Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

    ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
    Bill read 3a (according to Order).
    LORD KILLANINmoved the insertion of a new clause, after Clause 7, providing that it should be the duty of every metropolitan borough council to enforce within its own area any by-laws made by the London County Council under paragraph (1) of Section 2. He had moved an Amendment in Committee to a similar effect but more extensive in its application, and the noble Earl who represented the Home Office was unable to accept it. He understood that since then there had been communications in the matter, and that the noble Earl would be able, on behalf of the Home Office, to accept the new clause now proposed.
    Amendment moved—
    "After Clause 7, to insert the following new clause: 'It shall be the duty of every metropolitan borough council to enforce wit' in its own area any by-laws made by the London

    1285
    County Council under paragraph (1) of Section 2 of this Act, and any expenses incurred by a metropolitan borough council in the execution of this provision shall he defrayed as part of the expenses of that council.' "—(Lord Killania.)
    EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the Home Office see no objection to the Amendment in this form.
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH,speaking on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, said that after what had passed he would offer no objections to the incorporation of this Amendment. His object during the passage of the Bill had been to be very careful not to take sides in any conflicting opinion which might exist as between the London County Council and the metropolitan borough councils will regard to the subsequent enforcement of the Act. The promoters of the Bill thought that these were matters which ought to be decided on the authority of the Government Department concerned, and, as the Home Office thought this Amendment represented the right course that should be taken, they gladly agreed to it.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

    TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, before this Bill passes I wish to say a few words in order to make my own position with regard to it clear. This Bill is a revolution. It tears up by the roots our existing military system, and it is wholly inconsistent with the Resolution which was unanimously passed by your Lordships' House in 1904 —
    "That any scheme of Army reorganisation which does away with the Militia Force is contrary to sound policy, destroying as it does the ancient constitutional foundation of our military system."
    No doubt it may be said that, in consequence of the arrangement made in the other House, the Militia has been retained; but while it has been retained in name, its whole constitution has been changed. At present it is a force which can volun-
    1286
    teer to go overseas, but under the Bill it will be a force which may be ordered to any part of the world. Therefore, I hold that your Lordships have acted inconsistently with the Resolution I have just read, and which was passed unanimously by both sides of the House.
    But it is not so much to this as to my own position that I wish to refer. I have taken a very keen interest in the Militia Force, and have thought it wise that it should be retained as originally desired. I have, nevertheless, avoided all participation in the discussion on this Bill. This is my first appearance since the Bill came up to your Lordships' House. I knew that this great change was about to be made, and that my single voice raised against it would not have been of the slightest use. Therefore, I have abstained from coming here until tonight, and I propose not to make a speech, but to read a protest which I desire to have entered upon the Journals of the House, and I hope that other noble Lords will be willing to add their names to my dissent. I will read the document, which states that I protest against the passing of the so-called Army Reorganisation Bill for the following reasons—
    "Because it destroys the foundations upon which our military system has rested from all time.
    "Because that system was admirably suited to our insular position a like as regards home defence and service over sea, resting as it did on (1) voluntary service in the Regular Army for service alike in this country and over sea; (2) compulsory service in the Militia for home defence; (3) voluntary service in the Yeomanry and Volunteers for those who desired to escape the chances of compulsory service in the Militia under the Militia Ballot Act, which was an alleviation of universal compulsory service for home defence.
    "Because by the system of compulsory service in the Militia the competition for voluntary recruits with the Regular Army was taken away.
    "Because the Militia thus compulsorily raised for home defence was free to volunteer for service over sea.
    "Because it has in the past done admirable voluntary service with the Regular Army in our foreign wars.
    "Because this one, up to the present time, existing military system has been approved alike by all statesmen and soldiers.
    "Because it is only required to be put in force to render our country absolutely immune from foreign invasion, and in the state aimed at by the Resolution of the House of Lords, passed unanimously on July 16th, 1905—'that in the opinion of this House it would be a danger to

    1287
    the Realm, and limit the power of the Navy as an offensive force in war to trust to it alone for home defence, and inasmuch as it is admitted that the Navy cannot guarantee us against so-called hostile raids it is the more needful that our land defences should be at all times such that no nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile landing on our shores.'
    "Because in the place of our existing military system, by which these results could at once and without extra cost be obtained, we are to have a Militia Force liable to compulsory service over sea, thus doing away with the power of compulsion through the Militia Ballot which can never be applied to a force thus subject to compulsory over-sea service; while the Yeomanry and Volunteers are to be made liable for four years service in a so-called Territorial Force, from which continuous service they can only escape on payment of £5—'their present term of service requiring only fourteen days notice.
    "Because the training to which this Territorial so called Force is to be subject can in no way fit it to meet the picked foreign troops with which an invasion of this country might in future be attempted with every prospect of success, supposing the Navy to be unable to protect our shores, a possibility foreseen by the Lords in the Resolution already quoted.
    "Because in this Army 'reorganisation' scheme the so-called Territorial Force rests on no other foundation than 'hope, speculation, and optimism,' the words applied to it by the present Secretary of State for War.
    "Because as shown in the acompanying paper, we could at once, without one penny additional cost, by a moderate application of the Militia Ballot have 1,250,000 troops for home defence, exclusive of Regulars; whereas, after deducting all those in the Territorial Force under twenty years of age and the men necessary for the garrisoning of Ireland, the Channel Islands, and our naval stations, there would only remain 50,000 insufficiently-trained men for the defence of Great Britain"
    For these reasons I enter my protest against this Array Bill, the passing of which in its present form is due to the action of the late as well as of the present Government.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble and gallant friend Lord Wemyss—I might refer to him as" my gallant friend" in more senses than one—has informed your Lordships that he desires to clear his conscience by recording on the Journals of the House the dissent which he has just read to your Lordships. I, too, desire to say a few words on the Motion that the Bill be read a third time, not with the object of protesting against the Bill, but to make clear to the House the manner in which I and some of my friends regard the measure.
    1288
    One observation I hope I may be allowed to make without fear of contradiction, and that is that noble Lords opposite have certainly no reason to complain of the manner in which this Bill has been treated in your Lordships' House. It has met, no doubt, with a considerable amount of criticism, but that criticism has been entirely of a reasonable description, and it has proceeded almost entirely from noble Lords who have a right to claim that they speak on this subject as experts. It has been criticism, not of a merely destructive character, but criticism full of useful and valuable suggestion. The result has been that we now have in our hands a much better Bill than that which came in the first instance before your Lordships.
    But I hope I shall not be understood as suggesting that we on this side of the House regard the Bill as by any means a perfect measure. All we can say is that it is a great outline. It is an outline which to my mind presents some attractive features, but it is full of immense gaps, upon the filling up of which depends entirely the ultimate value of the Bill. The first of these gaps seems to me to be that which has reference to the numbers of the Territorial Army to be created under the Bill. The Territorial Army is, after all the main feature of the Bill. We have failed altogether to obtain any precise information as to the total numbers of the Territorial Army. The matter really stands where it did when my noble friend Lord Newton referred to it the other evening, when he complained that we were not even told within half a million what the strength of the Territorial Army was to be. We are equally left in the dark as to the strength of that portion of the Territorial Army which will be I will not say a mobile force, because the noble Lord opposite objects to that expression, but which will be available when the obligatory points have been occupied in different parts of the United Kingdom.
    Another point on which we are left very much in the dark is the cost which this Bill will entail upon the country. My noble friend Lord Midleton, in the debate on the Second Reading, pointed out that the apparent saving—a saving, remember, not to be arrived at once, but after a considerable lapse of time— could probably not exceed somewhere

    1289
    about £800,000. I do not think that figure has been challenged. Against that we have to set the enormous expense which cannot fail to be involved by the setting up all over the country of these new County Associations, which have been well described as miniature War Offices, and which it will be impossible to run except at very considerable cost to the country.
    At another point we are inevitably very much in the dark. Will the terms which His Majesty's Government are going to offer under this Bill to the Militia, to the Yeomanry, and to the Volunteers be a sufficient inducement to obtain the men whom we want in over to create those forces? That, after all, is a matter almost entirely of conjecture. The anticipations of His Majesty's Government, as my noble friend said a moment ago, are to a great extent based upon hope, speculation, and optimism.
    We must also remember that, whatever accession of strength may be derived by the passing of this Bill, it will be obtained at the cost of a great, and to the minds of many of us a dangerous, weakening of the Regular Army. As to that there can be no controversy. It has not been disputed that a number of fighting units have disappeared in order to make room for this Bill, and we have never yet been able to get to the bottom of what I may call the mystery of the Regular Artillery. The explanations we have received upon that point have been confusing and diff -cult to follow. It will, moreover, I think, scarcely be contradicted that, as a result of this diminution in the strength of the Regular Army, there will be a diminution in the number of the Army Reserve upon which we have to a great extent depended to bring about the efficiency of our fighting line.
    It is, I conceive, our duty to point out these matters. We have certainly not stood in the way of this Bill, or denied those in charge of it facilities for carrying it through Parliament. But it is necessary that we should make it quite clear that the responsibility for it rests upon the shoulders of noble Lords opposite, and not upon our shoulders on j this side of the House.
    I think it only due to noble Lords opposite that I should say that if the passage
    1290
    of this Bill has taken place without much heat or friction, if the discussions have been of a considerate and instructive character, if the result has been, upon the whole, to give us a better Bill, that has been due in great measure to the considerate attitude of the Minister who is the author of this Bill, and has had charge of it in the House of Commons. The suggestions that have been made from this side have without exception been examined in a thorough and considerate manner—they have not been hastily put aside—and I think we may claim that both in the case of the Militia and in the case of the Yeomanry changes have been made which render this Hill far more acceptable than it was at first to the members of those forces.
    I dwell with pleasure upon this circumstance, because I think it due to His Majesty's Government that I should do so, and also because the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this case seems to me to be of happy omen for the future. During the few weeks of the session which remain several other Bills of a very difficult and controversial nature are likely to be brought before us. It is impossible that those Bills should be satisfactorily dealt with unless our criticisms of them are received in the same considerate and tolerant spirit as that in which our criticisms of this Bill have been received, and in resuming my place I desire to express my hope that when these other measures come before us we shall find n able Lords opposite not less ready than they have been in the case of this Bill to listen to our arguments and to deal fairly with them.
    *LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should not have ventured to detain your Lordships even for a moment upon the finance of this Bill had not the noble Marquess again repeated what I cannot but think the extraordinary fallacies under which he labours in regard to the expenses of the County Associations. Since the Second Reading of this Bill I have had several interviews with those in the financial department at the War Office, and I could show your Lordships the exact items upon which the County Associations will have to incur expenditure. On Wednesday last, the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition

    1291
    assured your Lordships that the expenditure under these associations would be enormous. He said—
    "He was bound to add that the more the position and duties of these County Associations were considered the more evident it became that the expenditure which their operations would necessitate would be an enormous expenditure."
    The noble Marquess has virtually repeated the same expression to-day. I hold in my hand Command Paper No. 3370, in. which it is explained exactly what the County Associations will have to spend. I may observe that all expenditure upon the troops during the time that they are in camp is removed altogether from the County Associations; the money will be paid direct to the general officer commanding. There are four headings under which the associations' requirements are to be presented to the War Office. The first is establishment grants, and that is met by the £75 per company of which we have heard a great deal during these discussions, and which I would remind noble Lords would amount in a ten company battalion to £750 a year. Out of that it is true there will be the new expenditure on the secretary and the headquarters, but it does not include repairs to headquarters; and it is generally assumed that two rooms will be hired either in the town hall or at the headquarters of the corps, which would accommodate them sufficiently. Then there are the ordinary expenses of these rooms, such as fuel, lighting, and cleaning, and there are certain expenses for prizes and small items of that kind. There is also what is called the care and maintenance of ranges, but everything connected with ranges, except merely the upkeep of them, will be provided for under another head. The County Associations will have nothing to do but to find a caretaker; all the large expenditure, if any, in the hiring of ranges will be defrayed entirely by the War Office, and will not be found from these sums at all. Neither will structural repairs to the drill hall or headquarters be defrayed out of this fund. Then there is the question of stationery, but it is probable that the Stationery Office will supply that direct. Again, the Associations will not be out of pocket in regard to the capitation grants. The capitation grants will be given to cover
    1292
    two suits of clothing, at the rate of 22s. 6d. per man, to last three years, or 67s. per head. This is the average cost. As to the travelling grant, the amount will probably be a penny per mile for men going to the ranges, and will be paid by issue of routes. Lastly, there are the payments for drill hall accommodation and rifle ranges, but this includes only the actual rent or repairs; it does not mean structural repairs. The actual rent will be ascertained from the corps and will be paid in one lump sum from the amount taken in the Votes. If there is any question of excessive expenditure, such as the obtaining of a new range, that would be made a special requisition and would not be included in the annual Budget. This proves, I think, that it is impossible for the expenditure of the County Associations to run into a great amount. In fact, the whole of the expenditure does not go through the associations at all. To say, therefore, that there will be gross expenditure on the part of the Associations is exceedingly misleading, and there is no reason to fear that the cost of these associations will militate against the success of the Bill.
    THE EARL OR MOUNT-EDGCUMBE: My Lords, I desire to say a few words at this stage. I should like to inquire of the noble Earl the Under-secretary whether it is possible under the Bill for the County Associations not to be formed, or, at least, not to be formed universally. These associations were originally designed to deal with a homogeneous body of Volunteers, Yeomanry, and Militia, firming together the Territorial Force: but all that has been changed, and the force will now be composed exclusively of Volunteers. It is very difficult to see what the associations can do for the Volunteers that is not done under the present system.
    Of course, the Bill does a good deal besides for the Volunteers. It introduces great changes which may be of considerable advantage, but on which I am not competent to form an opinion. A new system of training is introduced, but these things are quite independent of the County Associations. This new training system may be excellent and may produce a great improvement in the efficiency of the Territorial Force, but

    1293
    the County Associations will have nothing to do with it. The men are in future to be enlisted instead of enrolled, which may some day lead to their being paid. That is another matter which makes a great change, but which has nothing whatever to do with the County Associations.
    The points with which the County Associations may be called upon to deal by the Army Council are enumerated in the various paragraphs of Clause 2. The first is the organisation of the units. I do not quite understand that. The units are organised now. The Volunteers are organised in companies, in battalions, and in brigades, according to the resources of the localities in which the units are maintained and according to a system which has been developed under the supervision of the War Office during the last forty years. The next point is the recruiting for the Territorial Force, and there, again, I cannot see how we can hope that the recruiting will be more strenuous or more successfully encouraged by a body of gentlemen forming a central committee in a locality than by the officers directly connected with the centres in which the units are raised, It is not like recruiting for any other Force. The men can only be recruited in the place in which they live, and if the interest of a particular locality not sufficient to maintain a unit in that place I do not think it at all likely that any influence brought to bear by a County Association will add a single man to the muster roll. I think that is the opinion of the officers of the Force.
    The next point is of great importance —it is the provision and maintenance of rifle ranges and buildings, including magazines and armouries. These are provided already, and I do not see what is to be gained by transferring the responsibilities of property in these things from the commanding officer to a central association, unless, indeed, the Volunteer officers desire it themselves, and I have not been able to find out that they do. It is not as if the County Associations were going to give them any pecuniary help. They cannot levy rates. The members are not going to be personally liable. All the money that is given to them must come, under the sanction of the Treasury, through the War Office and by direction
    1294
    of the Army Council, and I can quite understand that the Army Council may desire a source of local information to guide them as to the needs of the different units. I think, however, that such source might be very well supplied by a small committee, or, better still, by one man—by such a person as the Secretary whom it is proposed to appoint under this Bill. The other points referred to seem to me to be dealt with very well at present by the County Volunteer Rifle Association, which in my county has lately taken to encouraging rifle clubs, boys' brigades, and so on, and by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society and by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association.
    What I desire to know is whether it is supposed to be absolutely necessary that these associations should be established in every county. Clause 9 says that no man can be enlisted for a county for which an association has not been established under this Act. Therefore, if there is a county in which no association has been formed you would not there apparently be able to enlist men. I have ventured to give notice of an Amendment to make it read that every man shall be enlisted in such county as he may select, the words being the same as are used in the rest of the clause with regard to his appointment to a particular unit. Then Clause 8 would be inconsistent. It vests the right to recommend for first commissions in the president. If there is no association formed there will, I suppose, be no president, and this right would then, so far as I can judge, be vested in nobody. The clause is a curious one both in form and in substance. No mention is made in the clause that this duty has vested in the Lord-Lieu-tenant from time immemorial in regard to the Auxiliary Forces generally, and with regard to the Volunteers ever since the Force came into existence. I think it is usual, when a change of that kind is made, to refer to the existing state of things which has to be changed. That, however, is not a matter of great importance. What the Bill does is to transfer from the Lord-Lieutenant a duty which he has performed up to the present time, and to vest it, not in a popularly elected officer, which might be in accordance with the spirit of the age, but purely and simply in a nominee of the

    1295
    Army Council; and this duty is the only duty assigned by the Bill to the president of the association. No other duties are defined, nor is anybody empowered to define them in any scheme.
    We may be told that the nominee will prima facie be the Lord-Lieutenant, but that does not affect the principle or the practical consequence. Suppose a Lord-Lieutenant shrinks from undertaking the responsibility which he may incur by accepting the post as president of the association. I do not mean official duties, because, as I have said, they are nil, for the only duty which is assigned to him is this particular duty which he is performing at the present moment. Or suppose he is declared incompetent by the Army Council. I do not know what noble Lords who hold the position of Lord-Lieutenant would feel, but if they were so declared incompetent to perform the duty which they are performing at this moment I should be surprised if any of them continued to hold the office, and in that way the Army Council would have practically the power to dismiss the Lord-Lieutenant.
    But suppose the other alternative, that he declines to accept the office and another person is appointed. On the demise of the Lord-Lieutenant a younger man, able, willing, and competent to do the work, is appointed as his successor. Should we then expect that the Army Council would cashier their nominee for the purpose of putting in the new Lord-Lieutenant? I think that shows that this clause is, at any rate, one which ought to be considered. My only desire is to express the hope that the Government regard the appointment of these associations as permissive, and that they will not consider that because they have been talked about so much they are bound to be appointed in every county, but will see from experience how they work in one or two. I share the fear of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, that these associations will cause considerable unnecessary expenditure of money which might be far better used in other ways in promoting the improvement of the Territorial Forces.
    *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite who followed the noble Marquess the Leader
    1296
    of the Opposition took him to task, and I have no doubt intended also to take us to task, for complaints as to absolute ignorance of the financial intentions of His Majesty's Government under this Bill. He called attention to a Paper which has been on the Table of your Lordships' House for some considerable time, and practically suggested that if your Lordships had carefully studied this Paper you would have had no ground whatever for complaint on this head.
    I should like to remind your Lordships what this Paper is. It is a statement showing the proposed financial control over the expenditure connected with the Territorial Forces. It shows how the financial control is to be maintained, but it says nothing whatever about the effects of this Bill on the Estimates, or of the changes which were introduced in the scheme in Committee in another place and in your Lordships' House. Part of this document is dated 15th April and part 17th May, so that it was, of course, written before the changes which were made in the Bill in your Lordships' House could possibly have been taken into consideration; while the appendix, which doubtless should teach us everything we want to know, is almost entirely blank. This is the document that we are told we ought to have digested.
    The noble Lord gave us a few details —the 1d. per mile travelling allowance, and so on; but he gave no totals. Our ignorance on that point is not due to our not having: asked for information. We have: asked for information all this year, and, indeed, all last year, and we have been told absolutely nothing. I therefore think that it is rather hard that thus late in the day we should be reproached for being ignorant when we have been diligent, if not importunate, students for two years.
    What broadly, are, our financial fears? They come under two heads. First of all we know that there is to be a grant of £75 per company to the County associations for the business of these miniature War Offices up and down the country; but we do not believe that £75per company is going to be enough, and no attempt has been made to prove that that sum will be sufficient. We have: asked, and hon. friends in another

    1297
    place have: asked, for the production of a model scheme, but our request has been refused time and again. I was rather surprised at one remark which Lord Haversham made. He refused to take the cost of stationery into account, because, ho said, the Stationery Office were going to provide it, and therefore it would not come into the Army Estimates. But the nation is going to pay for it. It is to be juggled out of the Army Estimates and saddled on to the Stationery Office Vote in order that His Majesty's Government may be able to show, either a saving, or not such a large increase as a result of their policy. The very fact that this suggestion has been made is proof of the slipshod financial methods that have been pursued in this connection from the very first.
    Our first fear, as I have said, is that this £75 is not going to be sufficient. Secondly, we feel that if the Government are really in earnest, and are going to make the Territorial Army efficient in the new organisation into brigades and divisions, you will have to spend very much more on the Volunteers and Yeomanry than you do at present. As far as we have been able to ascertain, no calculation whatever has been made as to what will be necessary under this head. I understand the Secretary of State to have said, in reply to a question on the subject in another place on almost the last day of last session, that he was not so foolish as to make any prophecy as to what the financial result was going to be. Possibly Mr. Haldane was wise, from the Parliamentary point of view, not to make any prophecy, but it illustrates the fact that this is a financial leap in the dark. If it is necessary to spend more money in order to make the Territorial Army efficient, where is that money coming from? What will be the temptation? Will not the pressure of their followers be brought to bear on His Majesty's Government, as it has been brought to bear in regard to other matters, to reduce the Regular Army in order to provide the extra money required for keeping the Territorial Army up to a state of efficiency? That is my second fear, and I desire to protest against the possibility of that eventuality.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF ELGIN):
    1298
    My Lords, I do not propose to enter into any detail in regard to the criticisms of this Bill which have been made at this stage, because I think it was quite clear, from the speech of the noble Marquess opposite, that it would not be expected that we should now re-enter into the discussions which took place in Committee. But with regard to the observations made by the noble Earl who has just sat down, and by others, as to the finance of the Bill, I would just say this, that it seems to me that the money which is to be provided by Parliament is, under Clause 3 of the Bill, strictly regulated. The associations have in each case to submit their estimates, which have to be approved by the Army Council, and it is on those estimates and those approvals that the money is to be expended. In these circumstances, for all those services which are to be provided from moneys voted by Parliament, it does appear to me that the Bill supplies the essential part of the scheme under which this organisation is to work. There is provision in the Bill that the associations should also receive money outside that voted by Parliament; but it is laid down that that money may be expended on any of the purposes of the regulations. But in regard to that part of the expenditure involved in the regulations of the Army Council, there can be no doubt that the associations have a right to look, and will look, to the provision which will be made from the Votes.
    I venture to think that in connection with the whole of this subject there has been some tendency to overlook the fact that the Bill which we are now passing is only the first stage in a certain process. The first clause of this Bill provides for the preparation of schemes, and there has been much criticism of the particular provisions laid down for incorporation in those schemes. But those provisions are not exhaustive; all that is provided is that they shall be included in every such scheme. That is entirely consistent with leaving a certain amount of discretion in the preparation of schemes in order to meet the varying circumstances of different parts of the country. That, I think, will apply also to the question of finance. In many instances the conditions and circumstances of the locality will have a very material effect upon the expenditure

    1299
    which will be necessitated under the provisions of this Bill. In the case of a straggling county, for instance, the expense involved will be greater than in one which is well concentrated and where the various forces can meet together with greater facility. I have had some experience of dealing with the preparation of schemes and the application of schemes in local management in different directions; and I venture to say again, what I stated on the Second Reading of the Bill, that it appears to me that to allow a sufficient amount of elasticity in the preparation of these schemes will be far more likely to result in good work in the different parts of the country than to send down a cast-iron scheme from head-quarters.
    The noble Marquess alluded to the Bill as one of which as a general measure he might speak with a certain amount of approval, but in which he found a number of gaps. I venture to suggest that the gaps which the noble Marquess finds in this measure really arise from the same circumstances as those to which I have alluded. In the matter of numbers, of which the noble Marquess spoke, I do not see how under present circumstances it would be possible to give any accurate estimate of numbers until the schemes for each county have been prepared and the whole matter brought into operation. As I have said, I do not wish to dwell on details. With regard to the questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mount-Edgcumbe, I believe that, when we come to the Amendments of which ho has given notice, my noble friend behind me will be prepared to give him an answer.
    I am glad that the noble Marquess recognises that this Bill has been presented to Parliament in a spirit of which he could approve, and that he was able to say that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State and my noble friend behind me had been always ready to consider, so far as it was possible, the adoption of any suggestion coming from the other side which could be incorporated in the Bill. I know there are some in this House, and especially my noble friend at the Table (the Earl of Wemyss), who still protest against interference with the Militia; but I do hope that the concessions which have been made in regard to the Militia and also the Yeomanry have been such as to inspire the feeling which
    1300
    the noble Marquess has expressed. I think I may say that they have shown that there is every disposition on our part to make the changes in this great scheme of reorganisation as little irksome as possible.
    It is impossible, my Lords, in any such scheme not to come into contact with the feelings of those who are attached to the old system. But I do venture to repeat my opinion that this Bill is the first real attempt to give to our military system the powers of expansion beyond the Regular Forces of the Crown which we need; and as I believe it to be the wish of every one of your Lordships, even those who have most seriously criticised the provisions of the Bill, that these powers of expansion may prove real, I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships now to assent to the Third Reading of the Bill.
    On Question, Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
    THE EARL OF ERROLLmoved an Amendment to Clause 1 (establishment of associations) to provide that during the first three years after the passing of the Act the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman of the County Association should rest with the Army Council. He urged that the responsibility in this matter ought to belong to those who had worked out the details of the scheme. He confessed that at first he thought the decision arrived at by their Lordships on this matter was a sound one, but on second thoughts he had come to the conclusion that in the special circumstances of the case it would facilitate the working of the Bill if the Army Council had the appointment of the first chairman. But he agreed that when the associations had become firmly established it would be better that they should elect their own chairman.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 2, line 19, after the word ' for' to insert the words ' the appointment by the Army Council during the first three years after the passing of this Act, and subsequently for.' "—(The Earl of Erroll.)
    THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH)said he had no objection to the

    1301
    Amendment, which proposed to give effect to a suggestion that he had ventured to make to their Lordships when this particular clause was under discussion in Committee. In this matter he was in the hands of the House. He had heard from the Duke of Northumber land that he was quite willing to accept the Amendment, but he would like to know the view of his noble friend Lord Haversham upon it.
    *LORD HAVERSHAMsaid that so far as he was concerned he strongly objected to the acceptance of the Amendment. The proposal was made by him, and from both sides of the House the opinion was expressed that the Chairman should always be elected by the Association.
    THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that what really mattered was what the House thought now, not what was thought last week. Speaking entirely for himself, he felt strongly that if their Lordships refused to pass this Amendment they would be placing an unnecessary obstacle in the way of the Army Council. He agreed that once the associations were running it was absolutely necessary that they should have the election of the chairmen in their own hands. The Bill would obviously pass into law, and the earliest date at which any association could be started would be late in the autumn. But there was nothing to prevent the War Office, as soon as the months of August and September had passed by, from getting to work, appointing their chairmen, and proceeding with individual schemes 30 that they could be ready to start in full working order by the end of the year. Unless the Army Council had the power of setting up the local men with whom they would discuss the details it would be impossible to get the associations started smoothly and quickly. Therefore he felt, at the time the suggestion contained in the present Amendment was made by Lord Portsmouth, that it was a reasonable one, and that a special case had been made out for allowing the Army Council to appoint the first chairman and vice-chairman. But he would strongly deprecate a reversal to the original position of the Bill, by which the Army Council was to appoint the chairman for all time.
    THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this is really not a question of principle, but one of machinery. The general principle, that it is desirable that the chairman should be an elected person, is admitted by us all; but I confess that we do retain the opinion that while the schemes are getting into shape the Army Council should have the assistance of a chairman whom they themselves appoint. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press his objection further.
    LORD NEWTONdid not see why the House should reverse their previous decision on this matter. He was quite unable to understand why it should be assumed that the associations would be incapable of electing the right person as chairman.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD LOVATmoved an Amendment to Clause 2 (powers and duties of Associations), to provide that the date at which regulations issued to County Associations embodying the requirements on mobilisation which are to be supplied locally, should be not later than 1st January, 1909. It had been impossible to extract from the Government either what would be the numbers of the Territorial Army, or at what date it was to be organised. At the present date that Army was absolutely unemployable for home defence, as it had got neither staff, organisation, nor transport, and could not be billetted. He trusted that His Majesty's Government would be able to accept this Amendment, otherwise they might have it said of them that they were unable to state within 500,000 how many men they were likely to get for the Territorial Force, and within a quarter of a century how soon they would be able to be mobilised.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 4 line 25, after the word ' regulations' to insert the words 'which shall be issued to County Associations not later than the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nine.'"—(Lord Lovat.)
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHassured the noble Lord that the question of mobilisation was being thoroughly considered by the General Staff. It was their desire not to lose any time, but a certain amount of elasticity was necessary. The question of home defence

    1303
    would have to be considered to a certain extent separately in each county, and it was possible and probable that for certain counties, in which there were towns or ports supposed to be specially liable to raids, mobilisation schemes would be settled upon much sooner than for others. They could not accept the Amendment, which would have no practical value. If after a reasonable interval the noble Lord had good ground to suppose that no steps had been taken in this matter, he could again raise the question in Parliament.
    VISCOUNT MIDLETON: regretted the attitude adopted by the Government. What they feared was that under the new system they would simply have Volunteers and Yeomanry under a new name, but with an enormously increased expenditure. If the whole of the money to be voted by the Army Council was to be assigned to other purposes before the requirements for mobilisation had been laid down, then no progress would ever be made in the preparation for mobilisation. He ventured to say, with some authority, that the cost of mobilisation in the counties would be very great. If they were merely going to get all wagons and horses that would be required scheduled, even then there would have to be some small payment made. His fear was that the means and money would not be forthcoming to make provision for mobilisation at all. Lord Lovat had certainly touched

    Marlborough, D.

    Mount-Edgcumbe, E.

    Barrymore, L.

    Portland, D.

    Nelson, E.

    Blythswood, L

    Roberts E

    Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.

    Bath, M.

    Romney, E.

    Clifford of Chudleigh. L.

    Camden, M.

    Vane, E. (M Londonderry.)

    Clinton, L.

    Lansdowne, M.

    Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

    Clonbrock, L.

    Salisbury, M.

    Colchester, L.

    Churchill, V. [Teller.]

    Ellenborough, L.

    Abingdon, E.

    Cross, V.

    Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare)

    Bathurst, E.

    Falmouth, V.

    Kensington, L.

    Camperdown, E.

    Goschen, V.

    Killanin, L.

    Carnwath, E.

    Hardinge, V.

    Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll)

    Cathcart, E.

    Hill, V.

    Lawrence, L.

    Cawdor, E.

    Hutchinson,V. (E. Donough more.)

    Lovat, L.

    Clarendon, E.

    Newton, L.

    Dartrey, E.

    Knutsford, V.

    Ravensworth, L.

    Denbigh, E.

    Tredegar, V.

    Robertson, L.

    Devon, E.

    Saltoun, L.

    Halsbury, E.

    Abinger, L.

    Seaton, L.

    Lauderdale, E.

    Ampthill, L.

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

    Lonsdale, E.

    Armstrong, L.

    Sinclair, L.

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Ashbourne, L.

    Mayo, E.

    Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

    one of the most vital points in the new organisation, and he hoped the Government would accept some such Amendment. Perhaps Lord Lovat's words were a little drastic. He would suggest to Lord Lovat to allow the Amendment to run so that these regulations should be issued to County Associations "from time to time, and on the first occasion not later than 1st January, 1909". That form would have the advantage that, while it would leave the Government practically a free hand to issue the regulations as they liked, it made it necessary for them within eighteen months to face the question of these mobilisation regulations. Of course, the Government would not be precluded from altering the regulations when they pleased.
    LORD LOVATaccepted the suggestion of Viscount Midleton, and withdrew his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 4, line 25, after the word 'regulations' to insert the words ' which shall be issued to County Associations from time to time, and on the first occasion not later than the first day of January, 1909.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
    On Question, "That these words be here inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 32.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Loreburn. L. (L. Chancellor.)

    Althorp. V. (L. Chamberlain.)

    Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller]

    Esher, V.

    Crewe, E. (L. President.)

    Hamilton of Dalzell,

    Allendale, L.

    L. Haversham, L.

    Armitstead, L.

    Lucas, L.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Burghclere, L.

    Nunburnholme, L.

    Carrington, E.

    Coleridge, L.

    O'Hagan, L.

    Chesterfield, E.

    Courtney of Penwith, L.

    Pirrie, L.

    Chichester E

    Denman, L.[Teller,]

    Shuttle worth, L.

    Elgin, L. (E Elgin and Kin cardine. )

    Stanmore, E.

    Craven, E.

    Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

    Durham, E.

    Fitzmaurice, L.

    Tweedmouth, L.

    Portsmouth, E.

    Glantawe, L.

    Welby, L.

    THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBE:moved the omission of Clause 8:—
    "Subject to any directions which may be given by His Majesty, first appointments to the lowest rank of officer in any unit of the Territorial Force shall be given to persons recommended by the president of the Association for the county, if a person app-roved by His Majesty in recommended by the president for any such appointment within thirty days after notice of a vacancy for the appointment has been given to the president in the prescribed manner, provided he fulfils all the prescribed conditions as to age, physical fitness and; educational qualifications; and where a unit comprises men of the Territorial Force of two or more counties, the recommendations for such appointments shall he made by the president of the Association for the respective counties in such rotation or otherwise as may be prescribed."
    He had, he thought, fully explained, in his speech on the Motion for the Third Heading of the Bill, his reason for moving this Amendment.
    Amendment moved—
    "To leave out Clause S."—(The Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe.)
    THE EARL. OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was in some doubt as to the object of the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be pressed, as it was opposed to the whole spirit of the Bill. The president of the association would be in almost all cases the lord-lieutenant, but there might be cases in which the lord-lieutenant, although the status he would give to the association by being connected with it would be of great value, would not care to add to his already heavy duties the active work of the association. There might also be cases in which for other reasons the lord-lieutenant would not be a suitable person. Lord Newton had instanced the ease of a lord-lieutenant being a Quaker. The Government desired that these appointments should
    1306
    rest in the hands of the president of the. association, who they presumed would have the necessary local knowledge. He hoped that as the Amendment ran counter to the whole spirit of the Bill it would not be pressed.
    THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEcould not imagine that the gentleman who would be appointed president of an association would be likely to have more local knowledge than the lord-lieutenant. The clause did not place this duty in the hands of the County Association; it simply transferred it from the lord-lieutenant to an individual who was named by the Army Council. It seemed to him that this was really a move to alter the position of the lord-lieutenant in his relation to the Auxiliary Forces.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the noble Earl the Under-Secretary had altogether failed to answer the noble Earl who had moved the Amendment and who had shown most convincingly that there was no provision in the Bill making it certain that there would be an association in every county; and if it was made necessary that the first appointments should be by the president and there should happen to be no association, there would be a casus omissus. That was a difficulty which his noble friend Lord Mount-Edgcumbe was fully justified in pointing out. But the Amendment would hardly, perhaps, carry him to the full length he desired. The noble Earl's second object was that these appointments should rest with the lord-lieutenant, as at present. He (Lord Salisbury) could not make out why the Government did not adopt that course, but he was afraid that the Amendment as it stood on the Paper would not carry out the second

    1307
    object the noble Earl had in view. Still, the point the noble Earl made remained unanswered—that in cases where associations were not appointed it would be difficult to work the Territorial Force at all. The responsibility for that mistake in drafting would rest, of course, with the Government, and it was too late now for their Lordships to alter it.
    *THE EARL OF ELGINassumed that if there was no association it would be because there was no Territorial Force in the country. It was to meet that possible conjecture that the word "may" was used. He believed that if the noble Earl's Amendment were pressed, nomination to first commissions would rest with the King, as in the Regular Army.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEexplained that his next Amendment turned on the question whether the appointment of the County Associations was compulsory or permissive. He begged to move.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 9, line 15, to leave out 'a' and to insert the word ' such,' and in lines 15 and 16 to leave out the words 'for which an association has been established under this Act' and to insert the words ' as he may select.' "—(The Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe.)
    *The Earl of PORTSMOUTHsaid the omission of these words would seriously interfere with the general purpose of the Bill. For enlistment purposes the county existed only in so far as it had an association, and the words proposed to be omitted were absolutely necessary to define the meaning. The recruit selected the particular unit to which he wished to be posted, but he was enlisted for the county to which that unit belonged. If the object of the noble Earl was to secure to the recruit the right of selecting his county he would see on reference to the latter part of Subsection (a) of the clause that the Bill not only guaranteed him such a right, but even the right to select any particular unit in that county.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE Marquess OF SALISBURYmoved to add to Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3), which relates to the transference to the associations of property belonging to or held for the benefit of Yeomanry and Volunteer units, the following:—"The corresponding unit of the Territorial Force shall, in the event of any such transfer, become entitled, notwithstanding the terms of any trust, limitation, or condition affecting the property so transferred, to the estate or interest in such property of the unit to the property of which the order relates; but, subject to this provision, the interest of any beneficiary other than such unit shall not, without the consent of such beneficiary, be affected. The order may, if it be deemed proper, having regard to the special circumstances of any case, provide for the appointment of special trustees to act together with or to the exclusion of the association in regard to any such property, and such special trustees may be the existing trustees of such property." He said he understood the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment. The object was to deal with certain mixed trusts existing in the case of the present Volunteer Force. There was certain property in which other persons as well as a Volunteer unit were interested. So far as the interests were not military interests, they would be saved by this provision.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 21, line 29, after the word 'final' to insert the words 'The corresponding unit of the Territorial Force shall, in the event of any such transfer, become entitled, notwithstanding the terms of any trust, limitation, or condition affecting the property so transferred to the estate or interest in such property of the unit to the property of which the order relates; but, subject to this provision, the interest of any beneficiary other than such unit shall not, without the consent of such beneficiary, be affected. The order may, if it be deemed proper, having regard co the special circumstances of any case, provide for the appointment of special trustees to act together with or to the exclusion of the association in regard to any such property and such special trustees may be the existing trustees of such property.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH,in accepting the Amendment, said he wished to take that opportunity of stating that nothing would be done by the Army Council in reference to the

    1309
    transfer of property without full consultation with Volunteer officers with regard to the transfer of any of the properties of these units to County Associations.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Bill passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 129.)

    QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND TOWN COUNCILS)(SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
    Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3" on Thursday next.

    INJURED ANIMALS ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
    House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.