Sitting of 23 July 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Private Bills.—Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the session.
That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if unopposed) shall be considered forthwith.
That as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such times as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited at the Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords.—(The Deputy Chairman.)
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill o [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Salmon, Trout, and River Tweed Fisheries Bill.—Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Salmon, Trout, and River Tweed Fisheries Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Sir John Jardine.)
Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1.) Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and 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:—Margate Corporation Bill; Manchester Corporation Bill; Burnley Corporation Bill; Blackburn Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to:—Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction Railway, Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction Railway, and East and West Junction Railway (Amalgamation) Bill [Lords]; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to regulate the sale of certain Poisonous Substances and to amend the Pharmacy Acts." [Poisons and Pharmacy Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to legalise the use of Cran and Quarter Cran Measures in connection with trading in Fresh Herrings in England and Wales." [Cran Measures Bill [Lords.]

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from West Hants and East Dorset, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Norfolk, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions for alteration: From Rochdale; and West Hants and East Dorset; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Bettws Garmon; Carnarvon; Liverpool; Llandwrog; and Pentonville; to lie upon the Table.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Barry; Brechin; Menmuir; and Monifieth; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 21st July, 1908, directing that the Annual Account required by the Uganda Railway Act, 1896, shall be discontinued [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (PAUPERS RELIEVED IN A YEAR AND PERIODS OF RELIEF).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th August, 1907; Mr. Burns]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 250.]
  SHIPPING CASUALTIES (1906–7).
  Copy presented, of Abstract of the Returns of Shipping Casualties which occurred on or near the Coasts or in Rivers and Harbours of the United Kingdom from 1st July, 1906, to 30th June, 1907, and of the Returns of Shipping Casualties to British Vessels elsewhere than on the Coasts of the United Kingdom and to Foreign Vessels on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of British Possessions Abroad, etc., with Charts and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Chamber of London.—Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1907 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 251.]
  HOUSE OF LORDS (MANUSCRIPTS), VOLUME IV. (NEW SERIES).
  Paper [communicated 22nd July] to be printed. [No. 249.]

  ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
  Copy presented, of Report, dated 18th July, 1908, by the Director General
  298
  of the Army Medical Service, as to the progress made in constituting the Medical Service of the Territorial Force [by Command]; to lie upon; the Table.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Earlier Issue of Education Code.
  MR. H. GOOCH: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he can see his way to issue the Code earlier in the year so as to give local education authorities more time to make their arrangements before the summer recess.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman). I should be glad if an earlier issue of the Code were possible, but in view of the fad that questions are continually arising during the earlier months of the year, which require careful consideration and occasionally consultation with other departments, it is impossible for me to make any promise.

  Increase of Rents of Tenants at Box, Carrickmacross.
  MR. MCKEAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the rents of three tenants in the district of Box, Carrickmacross, named Bernard O'Reilly, Thomas Walsh, and Peter Callan, were raised, respectively, from £3 8s., £4, 15s., to £4 2s., 4 18s 6d., and £5 14s. 6d., at a sitting of the Land Commission Court held in Carrickmacross on 5th November; 1907, Mr. Justice Dodd being the presiding Judge and Mr. Williams his assessor; and what are the qualifications of Mr. Williams for the position mentioned.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell). The rents in question were judicially fixed by the Land Commission Court of Appeal udder the provisions of Section 88 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the Land Law Acts. It would be entirely irregular for me to ask the Commissioners to state the grounds of their decision. Mr. Williams is one of the assessors appointed pursuant to the eighty-ninth section of the Act of 1903. He was previously an assistant

  299
  Land Commissioner, and his qualifications when appointed to the latter office in 1906 are stated in House of Commons Return No. 151, of 1902.

  Anarchism and Slander in India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal received a communication signed by the Nawab of Murshedabad, the Maharajas of Kasimbazar, Burdwan, and Gidhour, and Maharaja Prodyot Kumar, Tajore, deploring the anarchism brought to light in their province of Bengal, and urging that seditious writing poisons the mind of the young and led to the conspiracy recently discovered at Calcutta, and that the Government of India should bring in Press legislation which will deal efficaciously with the present unbridled licence to slander by irresponsible press men and root anarchism out of India; and whether the Governments of India and Bengal propose to take any action upon this representation.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan). The letter referred to in the Question has been published in the Indian newspapers, and has, no doubt, been considered by the Government of India. The Secretary of State has nothing to add to his recent utterances on the subject of seditious writing in India.

  Military Training for Europeans in India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Government has been called to the recommendation of the Bombay Chamber of Commerce, to the effect that every European and Eurasian in India should be trained to arms in the interests of the State and for the greater security of the European community; whether the Government of India has under consideration the question of increasing the capitation grants so as to enable all classes to serve without being put to personal expense, and giving such aid in the way of practical military training to firms and companies as may enable them to provide for the proper training of their employees; and whether the Government of India contemplates
  300
  giving further active assistance in general to the volunteer movement in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The recommendation of the Bombay Chamber of Commerce referred to by the hon. Member has not come before the Secretary of State, nor has he yet received any proposals from the Government of India on the subject of volunteering in India.

  London Street Ambulances.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the question of ambulances for street accidents in London have presented their Report, and when it will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am informed that the Committee are considering their Report, and hope to present it in the autumn.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that during the sitting of the Departmental Committee on London ambulances litter ambulances amounting to more than 100 were placed in the streets of London; whether he will state by whose authority these ambulances were placed in the streets; how much was the total cost; and whether this cost will be a charge upon the rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) A large number of litter ambulances have been placed in the streets by my authority; some were authorised before the appointment of the Committee, others since its sittings commenced. The cost of a wheeled litter with the appliances and shelter is £35 14s. 6d. This is defrayed out of the Metropolitan Police Fund.

  Supply of Books to Prisoners.
  MR. MONTAGU: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that public attention has recently been directed towards the Regulations in prisons as to the supply of books and other matters, he will make

  301
  investigations by Departmental Committee, or otherwise, with a view to improving these Regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone). The Regulations are receiving my attention.

  Official Shorthand Writers at Assizes.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the Herefordshire Quarter Sessions on 29th June no official shorthand writer was in attendance, and that the local reporters declined to act, on the ground that the remuneration was inadequate, with the result that the chairman was compelled to remand the remaining prisoners to the Assizes, and that at the Surrey Assizes at Guild-ford on Thursday last no official shorthand writer was present in the second Court and the local reporters similarly declined to act for the same reason, with the result that the progress of business was stopped for two hours until some one was sent down from London; and also that at the Assizes at Birmingham on Saturday last, after the trials of prisoners had proceeded some time, it was found that no shorthand writer was present and the business had to be suspended; and whether he will take such steps as will result in the provisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act being carried out without justice being delayed.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) My attention has been called to these cases, but the appointment of official shorthand writers for the purposes of the Criminal Appeal Act rests with the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, and I am in communication with them on the subject.

  Appointment of Irish-born Customs Preventive Officers.
  MR. MCKEAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in connection with the Customs there are what are called preventive officers, whose appointment is in the gift of the Treasury; and he will furnish a Return showing the number of persons of Irish birth who hive obtained such appointments within the past five years.
  302
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) Preventive men are nominated by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, but no inquiry is made or record kept of the birthplace of persons so nominated, and the labour involved in procuring the information would not be justified.

  Territorial Army—Issue of Wagons and Harness to Supply Columns.
  MR. CARLILE: To ask the Secretary of State for War upon what grounds the Ordnance Department have refused to issue to transport and supply columns of the Territorial Army the wagons and harness allotted to them by regulation, and which are indispensable to the carrying out of their necessary duties during the training which is commencing next week.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It has been decided to issue to units for instructional purposes one wagon and harness per transport company. The hon. Member must recollect that this equipment, together with that of other services, takes time to provide.

  Athletic Clubs—Facilities for Shooting.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are many athletic clubs in Leicestershire the members of which have signified their intention to the commanding officers of the Territorial Forces of their desire to learn to shoot; whether he is aware that the commanding officer, Colonel Sarson, has informed this body through a representative deputation that he can give them no assistance unless they join the Territorial Force, which these clubs decline to do, and claim that subsection of Clause 2 of the Territorial Reserve Forces Act gives power for such a request as theirs being carried out; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I have no knowledge of the particular matters referred to in the Question, but the statement of Colonel Sarson was correct, as it is not in his power to grant facilities for shooting to others than members of the Territorial Forces. As I have already informed the House, there

  303
  are no funds at my disposal to enable me to assist rifle clubs, but it is just possible that we may be able to do something for them by supplying a certain amount of ammunition at reduced prices. I regret that members of the Leicester athletic clubs do not at present appear to be willing to undergo the training which would make their keenness to shoot of service to their country. It is possible that in future some aid may be given to rifle clubs which can be shown to contribute to our defensive strength if funds become available, but I am unable to make a statement on this point at present.

  Working of Patents in Ireland.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the new Patent Law (Amendment) Act, 1907, he would instruct British consuls and agents abroad to bring under the notice of patent holders in the various countries the special advantages which Ireland offers for the working of such patents.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) It would not be practicable for His Majesty's Government to take such action as that proposed by the hon. Member. A brief notice of the terms of the new Patents Act as affecting patent-holders abroad has already been sent to every holder of a British patent, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad, and has also been published in the Board of Trade Journal.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Daniel Barry.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Daniel Barry, evicted tenant, of Knockduff, Meelin, County Cork, on the Hastings Twiss Estate, if so, whether they have taken any action in the matter; whether the holding is derelict and in charge of a caretaker under police protection; and whether, in view of all the circumstances of the case, the Commissioners will take steps to acquire it with the object of reinstating the evicted tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners received an application
  304
  from Daniel Barry for reinstatement in his former holding. The landlord intimated his willingness to accept for the holding the price estimated by the Commissioners, but Barry refused to sign an agreement to purchase at that price because of a right of way over the holding enjoyed by a neighbouring tenant. As the Commissioners failed to effect a settlement between the parties they do not intend to take any further action in the matter Moverover, the farm is now in the occupation of a new tenant, though at the time of the negotiations referred to it was in charge of a caretaker under police protection.

  Restoration of George Crowley on the Beresford Estate.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in restoring George Crowley, an evicted tenant on the Beresford estate, Kilmacthomas Union, County Waterford, to his former holding, seeing that the landlord is selling his estate and seeing that Crowley's farm is on the hands of the landlord.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The holding formerly occupied by Crowley is now worked by the landlord as a home farm in connection with his demesne, and the Estates Commissioners are of opinion that the holding cannot be acquired for the evicted tenant. The Commissioners have offered Crowley another holding on the estate, and have intimated that they would be prepared to make him a grant of £200 to assist him in working it, but Crowley has, through his solicitor, refused the offer.

  Restoration of the Murphy Family.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in restoring the lands of Shanaclune, Barron estate, Dunhill, County Waterford, to the representatives of the Murphy family, seeing that there is no objection raised to the transaction by the landlord, who is selling his property under the provisions of the Land Act, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have now received their

  305
  inspector's scheme for the distribution of the lands in question, and will consider the case of the Murphy family as soon as they are in a position to deal with the scheme.

  Belfast Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that since the transfer of certain members of the Royal Irish Constabulary from Belfast it has transpired that many were wrongly punished; and whether, having regard to all the facts, he will cause all unfavourable records to be withdrawn from those officers who deny the charges until a sworn inquiry is held and they are given an opportunity to prove their innocence, or otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A year has now passed since the occurrence in Belfast in connection with which certain, policemen were transferred to other districts, and the matter cannot now be reopened. The Inspector-General has no reason whatever to believe that any of the men whose transfers were finally decided on have been wrongly punished.

  Police Transferred from Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of police officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were transferred from Belfast to counties after the attempted police strike on 27th July, 1907; the number who were reported for attending the meeting at Musgrave Street Barracks on the same date; the number of such officers who denied the charge; and by what authority were such officers punished by receiving unfavourable records for offences denied by them, seeing that no Court of inquiry was held, and in view of the denial of facilities for proving their innocence.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Two head constables, four sergeants, and 228 constables were transferred from Belfast in connection with the occurrences of July, 1907. 224 constables were reported for disobedience of orders by attending the meeting at Musgrave Street Barracks, and of these 97 denied the charge. The Inspector-General found
  306
  the charge to be proved as regards 208 constables, and allowed the charges to drop in the remaining 16 cases. Courts of inquiry are not held as a matter of course in such cases, but only if the Inspector-General requires the assistance of such Courts to enable him to arrive at a decision. In these cases the evidence was clear, and the Inspector-General required no such assistance. Each case was dealt with separately, and the written statement of the accused was fully considered. It should be stated that, of the transfers referred to in the first part of this Answer, the two head constables, the four sergeants, and nine of the constables were not reported for disobedience of orders, but were subsequently transferred in the interests of the service.

  Withholding of Salary of Teacher of Oatquarter National School.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why £2 17s. 6d., salary due to teacher of Oatquarter National School, Roll No. 14,532, for the quarter ending 31st March, 1907, has been withheld, seeing that a medical certificate of illness was forwarded by the teacher to the National Board, and that a teacher is entitled to a month's salary if ill, while the teacher in question was only absent seven days.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The amount in question was deducted from the salary of the teacher because he closed his school on certain days during the quarter ending 31st March, 1907, without notification to, or permission from, the manager of the school, who declined to certify the justice of the teacher's claim for payment in respect of these days.

  Irish Teachers' Salaries—Conditions of Increased Grants.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in making a grant of £114,000 for the increase of teachers' salaries in National Schools, the Treasury have attached the condition that grants to all small schools having an attendance of less than fifteen shall be withdrawn, thus involving the closing of 225 schools, as vacancies occur in the teaching staff

  307
  whether the Commissioners of National Education have pointed out to the Treasury that a large number of small schools are an absolute necessity owing to the population being scattered over wide areas, and have twice refused to agree to this condition, and have only accepted it under compulsion; whether this action of the Treasury is an invasion of the rights of the Commissioners to decide what schools should be supported by the State, and will involve the closing of all small Protestant schools in the South and West of Ireland, with the result that Protestant children will receive no State education except at schools under Roman Catholic management and carried on by nuns and members of the Roman Catholic orders, and against the will of Protestant parents; and whether, in view of these facts, he will take steps to withdraw this condition attached to the grants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I see no necessity for entering into the subject of the Question, seeing that the original Supplementary Estimate has been withdrawn and that a revised Estimate is to be presented. I would ask the hon. Member to await the appearance of the revised Estimate.

  Transfer of Constable Hugh Martin from Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Constable Hugh Martin, who was transferred from Lisburn Road Barracks, Belfast, on 5th August, 1907, on the ground that he attended an unauthorised meeting in Musgrave Street on 27th July, 1907, was on that date on the sick-list and unable to leave his home; and, in view of this fact and that Constable Martin has witnesses to prove his innocence, he will cause a sworn inquiry to be held in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabulary, informs me that he was completely satisfied, upon the testimony of senior members of the force, that Constable Martin, was present at the unauthorised meeting referred to. It is not intended to reopen, by sworn inquiry or otherwise,
  308
  a case which was disposed of nearly a year ago.

  Relief of Distress in Belfast.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any portion of the grant-in-aid for relief works in distressed unions in Ireland will be available for works for the relief of those suffering from the present distress in Belfast; and whether any steps have been taken there for the formation of a relief committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The grant was intended for the purpose only of aiding the relief operations under Section 13 of the Local Government Act in districts in which, owing to low valuation, high rates, and the poverty of the ratepayers generally, the resources of the union were insufficient to provide for the prevailing distress. The section quoted has not been in operation in Belfast, and happily no question has arisen in that union as to the financial position of the ratepayers.

  Policeman and the Disturbances at Portadown.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a policeman took part in the doings of a mob which paraded the streets of Portadown on the morning of the 13th instant, smashing windows and doors in the houses of Catholics; and whether any notice will be taken of such conduct by the policeman's superiors.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police authorities inform me that full and searching inquiry has been made into this subject, and that not the slightest foundation can be found for the allegation contained in the Question. Moreover, no complaint whatever has been made to the police authorities that any such conduct occurred on the part either of a constable or of a mob.

  Disturbances at Portadown.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state why it is that Orange processions and mobs are allowed by the police to march

  309
  through, the Catholic portions of Portadown, when there are other ways by which they could proceed to their destination; and whether, in the interests of the peace of the town, he will direct that they shall not be allowed to proceed through such quarters in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The direct route for Orange processions entering Portadown from the northern portion of County Armagh runs through Obin Street, part of which is a Catholic quarter. There are two other routes by which such processions could enter Portadown, but these routes are circuitous and inconvenient. I am informed by the police that the Orange processions have for generations used the direct route, and it is not considered desirable to interfere with the practice. The police take full precautions for the preservation of the peace on such occasions.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the morning of the 13th instant a band of persons paraded the streets of Portadown, cursing the Pope and smashing the windows in a number of Catholic houses; whether the police made any attempt to interfere with these rowdies; whether an attack was also made on a Catholic house in Marley Street, and the door burst in; whether any arrests have been made in connection with these occurrences; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent them in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police authorities inform me that the streets of Portadown were continually patrolled by the police from 9 p.m. on 12th to 4 a.m. on 13th July, and that no such conduct as is described in the Question came under the notice of the police or could have occurred without their knowledge, and no complaints were made to them. Special police precautions were taken for the preservation of the peace in Portadown during the July anniversaries, with, I am informed, entirely satisfactory results.

  Cuiltybo National School.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
  310
  Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the National School at Cuiltybo, Claremorris, County Mayo, has been repeatedly condemned by school inspectors in their reports to the Commissioners of National Education as a dilapidated structure, inconveniently situated, in very bad repair, not worth repairing, in danger at any time of falling in over the children's heads, and undeserving of the Board's grants; whether any action has been taken by the Commissioners of National Education on these reports, and, if so, what; and whether, in view of the repeatedly expressed wishes of the parents of the district for a new school, he will draw the attention of the Commissioners to the matter without delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education have sanctioned a grant towards the erection of a new schoolhouse in place of the existing building, and the manager will be furnished with the necessary plans and specifications.

  Recognition of Colonial Services.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, having regard to the political and commercial developments of the greater Colonies, which have outgrown limitations regarded as commensurate when constituted, as well as to the importance of extending appropriate recognition to men who are performing valuable and important services at the outposts of the Empire, whether in commerce or in the services, subjects may be permitted to make their appeals for the recognition through the Premiers of provincial Parliaments, to avoid the present circumlocution and the delay not infrequently occasioned, which now not infrequently amounts to injustice.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The hon. Member will probably agree with me in thinking that recognition of services rendered to His Majesty the King in any part of His Majesty's dominions should rather be spontaneously recommended by others than solicited by those who have rendered the services. In the self-governing dominions the Premiers make their views on such subjects known

  311
  to the Governors, who are the King's representatives, and who forward them with an expression of their own opinions, and with their own recommendations, to the Secretary of State. It would, in the opinion of the present Secretary of State, be most undesirable to make a change in this practice, and it is not admitted that it has been the cause of unreasonable delay.

  Railway Employees.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of men employed in connection with the traffic department of tramway undertakings in the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I regret that I have no Returns which enable me to give this information.

  Foreign Trade of China.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he can give the value of the foreign trade of China for the year 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The following particulars give the information desired by the noble Lord:—

  Value of the Foreign Trade of China in 1907.

  £

  Imports (total)

  69,724,000

  Exports:

  Of Chinese produce

  42,962,000

  Of Foreign produce

  2,059,000

  Grand total

  £114,745,000

  The above particulars relate to trade which is under the control of the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs, and exclude a small amount of trade, carried on wholly by native vessels, with respect to which no information is available.

  Cost of Living in Scotch Towns.
  MR. ERSKINE: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he is able to state the cost of living index number for the following towns:—Aberfeldy, Auchterarder, Crieff, Dunblane and Pitlochry.
  312
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The towns quoted have not yet formed the subject of investigations by the Board of Trade; they are provisionally classed by analogy of other towns.

  Increased Pay for Irish Rural Letter Carriers
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to give Irish rural letter-carriers any increase in pay; whether he is aware that some of these carriers work for wages as low as 4s. 6d. a week, 9s. 6d. being the maximum for a man; and whether he will consider the advisability of revising these rates of pay.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I presume the hon. Member is referring to rural auxiliaries employed for a few hours a day. These auxiliaries are paid at varying hourly rates, and there is no fixed maximum of 9s. 6d. a week. The pay of auxiliaries is being revised.

  Commissions for Private Students at Keyham.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether twenty-four private students were entered into Keyham in 1904 on the same terms as engineering cadets and under the same Regulations as to discipline, uniform, pay, and leave; and whether, having regard to the good results obtained by some of these students, the Board of Admiralty will offer the most proficient the boon they desire of commissions in the engineer branch of the Royal Navy.
  (Answered by Mr McKenna.) Twenty-five private students entered Keyham in 1904. They came in on the understanding that they would be eligible for any unexpected vacancies that might occur for commissions as engineer officers in the Royal Navy. There has only been one vacancy, and this has been offered to the student who came out first on the list.

  Line and Trawl-Caught Fish.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the quantity of line-caught fish and trawl-caught fish, respectively, landed

  313
  in Scotland for each year during the the last ten years, distinguishing line-caught fish secured by steam liners from line-caught fish secured by sailing boats.

  Line-caught Fish.

  Trawl-caught Fish.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  1898

  1,050,000

  783,000

  1899

  939,000

  983,000

  1900

  757,000

  1,077,000

  1901

  696,000

  1,328,000

  1902

  608,700

  1,467,000

  1903

  602,600

  1,566,000

  1904

  753,700

  1,705,600

  1905

  735,654

  1,745,431

  1906

  688,057

  1,870,517

  1907

  614,869

  2,079,701

  The catches of steam liners and sailing liners were not recorded separately previous to 1906. In 1906, 180,119 cwts. were landed by steam liners and 507,938 cwts. by sail liners. In 1907 the figures were 177,328 cwts. and 437,541 cwts., respectively.

  Migration of Lewis Cottars.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state whether the landward committee of the Stornoway Parish Council have yet furnished information in regard to Lewis cottars who are willing to migrate; and, seeing that it is six months since a list of upwards of 120 cottars Was sent to the Scottish Office, will he state the cause of the delay in obtaining information respecting their qualifications.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Answer is in the negative. No action can be taken by the Congested Districts Board until the landward committee have furnished the information which they are endeavouring to obtain.

  Construction of Boat Shelter and Sea Wall at Skigersta.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Congested.
  314
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The following table shows the quantities of line-caught fish and trawl-caught fish landed in Scotland during the last ten years.
  Districts Board have yet considered the Resolution passed by the people of Ness, Stornoway, Island of Lewis, early in the year, pressing for the construction of a boat shelter and sea wall at Skigersta, such as will enable the people to prosecute the deep-sea line-fishing by means of the larger-sized decked boats; and will he state whether the Board propose to provide a grant in aid of the work.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I do not think this is a practicable proposal, but it is one part only of the large and difficult problem of the condition of the Lewis which is now before me, and I am not at present prepared to make any statement.

  Lemstrom Electrification System and the Cultivation of Wheat.
  MR J. DEVLIN: To ask the Vice-President, of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention

  315
  has been called to the success of the experiments made in this country in increasing the yield of wheat by means of the Lemstrom electrification system; and whether he has considered the advisability of having the experiment tried in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The attention of the Department has been called to these experiments, and the matter is being inquired into.

  Notification of Tuberculosis.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board in how many cases Parliamentary powers have been given to local authorities in England and Wales enabling them to require the notification of tuberculosis by medical men under penalty; whether such powers have been given in respect of tuberculosis of the lung only, or in respect of any form of tuberculosis; whether such powers have been given in any cases for more than a limited period of time; in how many case have voluntary systems of notification of tuberculosis been adopted; and whether the results obtained under a voluntary system have compared favourably with those obtained under a compulsory system.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Parliamentary powers have been given in two such cases, viz., Sheffield and Bolton. In both cases the powers have been given in respect of tuberculosis of the lung only, and for a limited period. I am aware of about 150 cases in which voluntary systems of notification of tuberculosis have been adopted or tried in England and Wales, and there may possibly be others. It cannot, I think, be expected that under ordinary circumstances a voluntary system of notification will secure as early or complete notification of cases as will a compulsory system, and the preponderant experience in England and Wales appears to confirm this expectation.

  London Customs House Accommodation.
  MR. SEARS: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether
  316
  any provision has been made for providing additional accommodation at the Customs House in London; and, if so, what amount is to be expended and what progress has been made with the work.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) No provision has been made in this year's Estimates for additional accommodation. No Estimate can be given of the cost of work at the Custom House, as the requirements are not yet known.

  Emigration of British Subjects to Canada and United States.
  MR. KING: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how many British-born subjects have emigrated from these islands to Canada and the United States, respectively, during each of the last ten years and during the first six months of this year; whether he has any information to show in what proportion of cases the enterprise of these emigrants has been rewarded by successful settlement in the land of their adoption, or in what proportion they have returned home within twelve months of the date of their departure; and can he further say to what extent their places in the congested areas of this country have been filled up by immigrants of foreign nationality.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The following statement gives particulars of the movement of British and Irish passengers from the United Kingdom to Canada and the United States of America, and from Canada and the United States of America to the United Kingdom, during éach of the years 1898–1907, and during the first five months of the present year. Particulars of the passenger movement for June are not yet compiled. The figures include a number of ordinary passengers as well as prospective settlers. There is no information as to the length of time during which passengers returning to this country remained in Canada and the United States of America, nor as to the number of alien immigrants who had settled in congested areas of this country.

  Statement showing the Number of British and Irish Passengers that left or arrived in the United Kingdom for or from British North America and the United States, respectively, in each of the years 1898 to 1907 and during the five months ending 31st May, 1908.

  United States.

  British North America.

  Total, United States and British North America.

  Outward.

  Inward.

  Balance outward.

  Outward.

  Inward.

  Balance outward.

  Outward.

  Inward.

  Balance outward.

  1898

  80,494

  50,728

  29,766

  17,640

  9,794

  7,846

  98,134

  60,522

  37,612

  1899

  92,482

  53,643

  38,839

  16,410

  8,395

  8,015

  108,892

  62,038

  46,854

  1900

  102,797

  54,819

  47,978

  18,443

  10,640

  7,803

  121,240

  65,459

  55,781

  1901

  104,195

  58,312

  45,883

  15,757

  8,636

  7,121

  119,952

  66,948

  53,004

  1902

  108,498

  56,881

  51,617

  26,293

  11,563

  14,730

  134,971

  68,444

  66,347

  1903

  123,663

  58,271

  65,392

  59,652

  13,786

  45,866

  183,315

  72,057

  111,258

  1904

  146,445

  79,655

  66,790

  69,681

  18,397

  51,284

  216,126

  98,052

  118,074

  1905

  122,370

  61,373

  60,997

  82,437

  19,934

  62,503

  204,807

  81,307

  123,500

  1906

  144,817

  58,876

  85,941

  114,859

  23,596

  91,263

  259,676

  82,472

  177,204

  1907

  170,264

  70,320

  99,944

  151,216

  33,691

  117,525

  321,480

  104,011

  217,469

  Five months ending 31st May, 1908

  40,661

  25,867

  14,794

  41,335

  9,684

  31,651

  81,996

  35,551

  46,445

  Sunday Hotel Licences in Scotland.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of six-day hotel licences at present existing in Scotland; and, if not, whether he will procure information as to this.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The number of hotel licences issued in Scotland by the Excise for the year ending 31st March, 1908, under the provisions of Section 43 (4) of the Act 43 and 44 Viet., was 375. But the number of such Excise licences which have been granted upon a justice's or magistrate's certificate for six days is not distinguished in the statistics now available.

  Old-Age Pensions in Rural Districts.
  MR. HUNT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the Estimate of 194,000 persons in the rural districts of the United Kingdom who will receive old-age pensions on the Pensions Bill becoming operative, what is the estimated total number of such rural pensioners in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, respectively; what is the estimated percentage of such rural pensioners in each country to the total rural and urban population of it; and what is the estimated total number of persons in each country who, when the Pensions Bill becomes operative, will be seventy years of age but not entitled to the benefits of the measure.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am afraid that the Estimate of 194,000, which, as I informed the hon. Member on the 17th instant, is approximate only, does not admit of analysis in the manner desired with any degree of accuracy.

  Irish Unemployment Grant.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what portion of the £200,000 required under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, will be allocated to Ireland, and how much of it will be available for Belfast.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It is impossible to answer the hon. Member's
  320
  inquiry until applications have been received from the Local Government Boards of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the circumstances of each case fully considered.

  Earned Incomes.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if it can be shown that an individual owns all the ordinary shares in a limited company and gives the whole of his time to the management and business of that company, and is dependent for the whole of his income upon the dividends paid by the business, he can claim a reduction upon earned income under the Act of 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Only so much of the profits of a limited company as the articles of association provide as remuneration for services to the company, and as are actually so paid according to the accounts, can be regarded as earned income within Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1907.

  Inland Revenue Returns.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the number of returns and accounts required annually at different periods from collectors of Inland Revenue; is he aware that sixty-eight collectors made from 150,000 to 200,000 such annual contributions, and that of these upwards of 35,000 go to the Accountant and Comptroller-General's Department in Somerset House; and will he cause inquiry to be made as to the usefulness of such returns, with a view to prevent unnecessary expenditure of official time and stationery.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I will cause inquiry to be made.

  Administration of Old-Age Pensions Scheme.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the statement that the new Customs and Excise Department would deal with goods only, whether it is intended to restrict certain offices to old-age pension work exclusively; will he state the agency to be employed in collecting intoxicating

  321
  liquors and other licences; and will he say by what means it is intended to distinguish the pension officer, who is to be a Treasury official, from the licensing officer, who is to hold his commission from the Board of Inland Revenue or Customs.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in restricting Customs officers under the amalgamation to dealing with goods only without regard to licences, there will be a number of breweries, certain warehouses, and some distilleries in remote places where it has been found impossible to profitably employ the officers' time without the inclusion of considerable licensing work; and, as the amalgamation will considerably disturb an arrangement that has worked satisfactorily and economically, will he state how it is proposed to deal with this matter so as to avoid employing officers for part time only, and unnecessarily duplicating such officers in certain districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Until the amalgamation has actually taken place it would be premature to forecast the details of the necessary arrangements. The old-age pension officer will, as a rule, have revenue duties also.

  Cape.

  Natal.

  Orange River Colony.

  Transvaal.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Cavalry

  109

  2

  9

  —

  108

  3

  10

  109

  8

  2

  Horse Artillery (on higher establishment)

  —

  —

  —

  119

  17

  3

  Field Artillery (on lower establishment)

  117

  9

  3

  —

  116

  4

  1

  118

  1

  5

  Engineers (field units)

  —

  —

  104

  4

  5

  104

  9

  5

  Infantry

  74

  5

  3

  73

  17

  4

  74

  4

  8

  74

  4

  10

  These figures include the cost of horses, but not the cost of staff, schools of instruction, sea transport, carriage of stores, labour establishments, and other items which cannot be appropriated to the several regimental units.

  Gravesend Torpedo Slipway—Arbitration Award.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, through the unauthorised action of local officials at Gravesend, the contractors for the new torpedo slipway have been awarded by arbitration £3,076, instead of the £1,135 for which they contracted to do the work; who was the local official responsible; and how has his case been dealt with.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I must refer my hon. friend to the evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee, which will shortly be in the hands of hon. Members.

  Cost of British South African Garrison.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the cost per head of, taking all rank together, but taking each arm of the service separately, maintaining the British garrisons in the Transvaal Orange River Colony, Natal, and Cape Colony respectively; what number of military stations are there at present in each of these Colonies; and what is the number of troops of each arm at each of them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The average effective cost per head (all ranks) of the principal arms in each Colony is as follows:—
  The stations and distribution of the troops at present are as follows:—

  South Africa.

  Establishments (all ranks).

  Cavalry.

  R. H. A

  R. F A

  R. G. A.

  R. E.

  Infantry.

  Departments, &c

  Transvaal:

  Pretoria

  594

  360

  —

  —

  211

  2,451

  —

  Potchefstroom

  1,186

  —

  136

  —

  142

  —

  —

  Standerton

  —

  —

  132

  —

  —

  1,042

  —

  Orange River Colony:

  Bloemfontein

  593

  —

  269

  —

  142

  2,458

  —

  Harrismith

  —

  —

  132

  —

  —

  1,267

  —

  Cape Colony:

  Cape Town

  —

  —

  —

  114

  —

  —

  —

  Middelburg

  593

  —

  132

  —

  —

  817

  —

  Simonstown

  —

  —

  —

  113

  127

  —

  —

  Wynberg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  817

  —

  Natal

  Pietermaritzburg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  817

  —

  Departmental Corps, &c. (no separate establishment for each station)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  147

  —

  1,421

  2,966

  360

  801

  227

  769

  9,669

  1421

  16,213

  Transfer of Officers to the Essex Regiment.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can explain why Captain Clutterbuck and Captain Pepys were transferred to the Essex Regiment, now serving in Burmah, Captain Pepys having less service than four captains and nine subalterns now serving in the regiment.
  324
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In consequence of the reduction of the battalion of the West India Regiment and Royal Warwickshire Regiment, to which these officers respectively belonged, they became supernumerary, and their transfer was imperative. There were about 200 officers similarly situated, and the Army Council decided that when transferred the officers of all the

  325
  reduced regiments should get the benefit of their seniority, and that these supernumeraries should be distributed as equally as possible throughout the infantry of the Army. Every consideration was given to the comparative age and service of officers transferred with that of the officers over whose heads they went in their new regiment, but it was manifestly impossible in many instances to prevent the supersession of officers older and of longer service.

  Straffan Stud Farms and Military Manœuvres.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in direct opposition to the owners of the Straffan Station Stud Farms, important Army manœuvres are to be held on this estate; and, if so whether the Government are prepared to meet claims for any losses which may arise from these manœuvres to the blood stock on these farms.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. The Military Manœuvres Act is not in force for any manœuvres held in Ireland this year, and consequently it is impossible to manœuvre over any land in that country without the consent of the owner or occupier.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Portsmouth Gun Wharf Fire.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a fire occurred at the Gun Wharf, Portsmouth, on the 2nd January, 1907, causing damage to the extent of a quarter of a million sterling, the camp equipment of an Army Corps being destroyed; and whether the building was owned by the Admiralty.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): In regard to the first part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. The Answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.

  H.M.S. "Gladiator."
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state what reasons exist for not using the two steel cylinders or camels which were made to raise the "Montagu" for the purpose of raising the "Gladiator"; and what the price was of these camels, and where they are now.
  MR. MCKENNA: There were no cylindrical camels used. Seven of the rectangular camels constructed for the "Montagu" salvage operations are still in existence, having been turned over to the Works Department at Devonport for use at Oreston Quarries. These camels are quite unsuitable for the first operations in the salvage of H.M.S. "Gladiator" and will probably not be suitable for use in the subsequent operations, as the conditions are different from those which existed in the case of H.M.S. "Montagu."

  London Engineer Offices.
  SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will sanction pay and separation allowances, according to their former rank in the Volunteers, to those non-commissioned officers in the London Engineers who have transferred their services from the Volunteers to the Territorial Army and have been reduced in rank.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,): It is not clear to what unit the hon. Baronet is referring. Under paragraph 79, Part I., Army Order, 18th March, 1908, every non-commissioned officer in a transferred unit is entitled to retain his rank in his own unit, and while he retains his rank he receives the pay of that rank. If the hon. Baronet will give specific instances I will have inquiry made.

  Australasian Dissatisfaction with Suez Canal Dues.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of the Colonies of Australia and New Zealand with the

  327
  charges levied by the Suez Canal Company on shipping passing between those Colonies and the Mother Country; whether representations have been made by the Governor-General of the Commonwealth to the effect that steamships trading between Australia and Great Britain are deterred from taking the shorter route by reason of the heavy charges levied by the Suez Canal authorities and are compelled to take the longer route round South Africa, involving several days extra steaming; whether the Governor-General has suggested, in view of the dividend of 28 per cent. paid on the Suez Canal shares, a substantial reduction in existing rates and asked, on behalf of Australia, as well as of all other British Possessions lying to the East of Egypt, that the influence of the British Government should be used to secure concessions which would have a material effect on inter-Empire trade and upon the volume of traffic which will pass through the canal; whether these representations were strongly reinforced by the Premiers of Australia and New Zealand at the recent Colonial Conference; and whether they are being taken into consideration by His Majesty's Government, together with those to the same effect from British shipowners.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY, Liverpool, Abercromby): The facts are generally as stated in the Question. The matter is being considered by His Majesty's Government and will not be overlooked.

  Transvaal Compensation Fund.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the loss of £41,420 7s. 11d. entailed on the Exchequer through the failure of the Colonial Office to reply to the High Commissioner of South Africa as to the allocation of the charge for the administration of the compensation fund between Great Britain and the Transvaal; whether the responsibility for this loss has been brought home to any particular official; and what action has been taken in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: The reference is, I presume, to Section 10 of the Second Report
  328
  of the Public Accounts Committee just laid. It is quite a mistake to suppose that any loss of public money occurred or that any additional charge was thrown upon the Exchequer through the action of the Colonial Office, for whatever may have been the merits of the question whether administrative expenses could properly be charged to the fund, the Colonial Government had unquestionably full power to spend the money in increasing the compensation paid to protected burghers. I would refer my hon. friend as regards this compensation fund to the Report of the Central Judicial Committee printed in Cd. 3028. I must deny that there was improper delay in the matter on the part of the Colonial Office. The money has since been revoted by Parliament.

  Native Labourers' Wages in the Transvaal.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the minimum salary per adult for each utilised working day in respect of native labourers for the Transvaal recruited in Portuguese East Africa.
  COLONEL SEELY: The average monthly wage earned by natives and Cape boys according to the last Annual Report of the Government Mining Engineer was 52s. 3d., but I have no further information.

  Native Labour Pass Regulations.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the pass regulations in force in the Transvaal mines in connection with the employment of native labourers recruited from Portuguese East Africa and elsewhere.
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir. I do not think that the expense of reprinting would be justified. The regulations in Question were issued in 1903, with various later modifications, and are made under the authority of the Proclamation No. 37 of 1901, printed in Cd. 904, and an Ordinance of 1903.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: Will the hon. Gentleman put a copy in the Library?
  COLONEL SEELY: That would involve reprinting, and I think it hardly reasonable to insist on that. But if the hon. Gentleman and any of his friends will call at the Colonial Office they can get what information they require.

  Portuguese Native Labourers.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies what is the opportunity which the curator has of influencing natives from Portuguese East Africa to return to Portuguese territory when their period of contract for the Transvaal mines has ended; and whether the Transvaal Government have any intention of introducing legislation to secure the effectiveness of this contractual obligation.
  COLONEL SEELY: The curator's action is only advisory. I am not aware of any intended legislation by the Transvaal.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: But are not the mineowners bound by contract to see that the natives return at the end of their contract, and are not the Government in honour bound to see that the contract is carried out?
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not think that that is an accurate description of the state of affairs. In point of fact I am told that a great many of the natives do not return.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: But is it not provided for in the contract, and are the Government and the mineowners to be allowed to evade their responsibility?
  COLONEL SEELY: If there is such a clause it is not enforced.

  British Government Shares in the Suez Canal Company.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, although the British Government possesses a number of shares approaching one-half of the existing shares of the Suez Canal Company, its voting power is only equal to that possessed by holders of 250 shares; and whether, in view of this fact and of the fact that the dues on British shipping amount to nearly three quarters of all the dues received by the Suez Canal Company, he can see his way to secure a representation for the British
  330
  Government more in accord with its actual holding of shares, and also more in accord with the proportion of dues paid by British shipping.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GEEY, Northumberland, Berwick): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Any alteration in the existing system of voting would involve an amendment of the Statutes of the company, which cannot be effected without the consent of two-thirds of the shareholders, and I cannot say that an alteration would be feasible.

  Suez Canal Dues—British Shipowners Dissatisfaction.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction Which exists among British shipowners in regard to the dues charged by the Suez Canal Company; whether he is aware that an agreement was made in 1883 between M. Charles de Lesseps and the representatives of English shipowners, which provided that the dividend might rise from 17 per cent. until it reached 25 per cent., after which the surplus profits were to be used in reduction of the dues until they reached five francs per ton; whether this agreement was duly signed by the parties and subsequently ratified at a shareholders' meeting of the Suez Canal Company in Paris; whether the canal company have refused to carry out the agreement, though the dividend rose to 26 per cent. in 1904, and has been 28 per cent. since 1906; and whether he can see his way to using the influence of the British Government to assist in securing the observance of that agreement.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am aware of some dissatisfaction among owners of cargo vessels and of the agreement between Monsieur Charles de Lesseps and the members of the association of steamship owners trading to the East as well as of its submission to the shareholders. The agreement was, however, subsequently modified by the successors of the original parties to it, and it is not in the power of the British Government to have it altered.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it not the fact that these dues are an

  331
  advantage to this country, which holds a large number of shares?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Of course we get the benefit.

  Russian Loan in Great Britain.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has come to his knowledge that the Russian Government contemplate issuing a loan in Great Britain.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information to the effect suggested by the hon. Member.
  *MR. REESasked whether this was a matter in which the Government could interfere, if people were willing to lend their money?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Of course, borrowing in the open market is no affair of ours. I presume the Question was put to ascertain facts.

  Turco-Persian frontier Negotiations.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the present position of the negotiations for the delimitation of the Turco-Persian frontier; and whether the Turkish troops have been withdrawn from Passovah.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The frontier negotiations appear to be very much in statu, quo ante; I have no definite information as to the situation at Passovah at the present time, but on June 23rd the Grand Vizier promised the British and Russian representatives at Constantinople that orders should at once be sent for the withdrawal of any troops that might have advanced beyond the "neutral" zone, and this would include Passovah if occupied by Ottoman troops.
  In reply to a further Question by Mr. LYNCH—
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid we had a eonsul in the neighbourhood from whom information was obtained.

  Khedivial School of Agriculture at Cairo.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many pupils now attend the Khedivial School of Agriculture at Cairo, and what are their nationalities; whether any and what amount of instruction is now given in the Arabic language; and what is the annual cost of the upkeep of the school.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The information asked for, down to as late as last December, is given in pages 40 and 41 of Sir Eldon Gorst's Annual Report. I will make inquiry as to the rest of the Question.

  Mortgage Bank in Egypt.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government has knowledge of a proposal by Sir Ernest Cassel to establish a new mortgage bank in Egypt, and whether he will state for the information of the House the conditions under which such banks can be established.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative. I will inquire whether any conditions have been laid down, and if so what they are.

  Macedonian Reforms.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects to receive the replies of the other Powers signatory of the Berlin Treaty to the proposals agreed upon between His Majesty's Government and that of Russia for reform in Macedonia; and can he state whether the whole of these proposals, or only a portion of them, have yet been submitted to the Powers.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A portion only of the proposals has been submitted to the Powers, and it is hoped that the reply to these may be received at no distant date.

  Macedonian Bands.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have invited, or propose to invite, the Sultan of Turkey

  333
  to organise mobile columns to suppress the Macedonian bands.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Proposals of the nature indicated are under the consideration of the Powers, but it would be premature to make any statement at present till their opinion is known.

  Disorders at Tabriz.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will communicate to the House the substance of any information which he may have received on the subject of the disorders in the city and province of Tabriz from His Majesty's Consul-General at Tabriz; and are any, and, if so, what, steps being taken by His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with that of Russia, to bring about a speedy settlement of the differences between the Shah and the Constitutional Party.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have received various reports to the effect that fighting has been in progress at Tabriz between the supporters of the Shah and the popular party. According to the latest information in my possession, the Shah's party, which was defended by Government horsemen, was attacked again on 20th July by the popular party. The Government horsemen were defeated, and withdrew to their second line of defence. The reactionary Enjumen, or political club, was occupied by the popular party, which pulled down the white flag hoisted there by the clergy. The clergy and Acting-Governor-General are said to have hidden. It is reported in the Press that there has been further fighting, which is exceedingly probable, though I have not yet heard the result of it. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, the Russian and British Governments are of one opinion as to the necessity of strict abstention from any forcible interference on their part in the internal affairs of the country.
  MR. LYNCH: In view of the serious news just received to the effect that the telegraph wires have been cut, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House any assurance as to the measures that have been taken to secure the safety of the British Consul-General?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: So far, in this Persian trouble, there has been no danger to foreigners. As for the rest, Persia must look after herself.
  MR. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any Russian officers now serving with the Shah's troops?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: So far as I am aware, there are no Russian officers at Tabriz or at Teheran.
  *MR. REES: Is there any record that at any time Europeans have been molested during popular disturbances in Persia?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to that Question would require a great deal of historical research.

  Death Duties.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amounts assessed as death duties for the last financial year in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The net receipt of death duties in the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st March, 1908, is as follows—England, £16,571,384; Scotland. £1,847,018; Ireland, £689,854; United Kingdom, £19,108,256.

  Supplementary Civil Service Estimates
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates issued on the 22nd of June and the 15th July include sums, aggregating £378,000, for which no provision was made in the Budget; whether he is aware that the balance provided in the Budget for contingencies was £241,000; and whether he anticipates that the yield of the revenue will exceed the Budget Estimates, and, if not, from what source he proposes to meet the additional charge of £137,000.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It has frequently happened in the past that the Estimates voted by Parliament for the

  335
  service of a particular year have exceeded the Revenue available for meeting them, as estimated in the Budget. In such cases the Ways and Means required for the Supplementary Votes may be provided either by surplus Revenue, or by savings under other heads of expenditure which were included in the Budget.

  Scotland and the Income-tax.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the proportion which the income-tax assessment, on which taxes were

  Year.

  England and Wales.

  Scotland.

  Percentage of contribution by Scotland.

  £.

  £.

  1906–7

  27,271,000

  3,106,000

  11·39

  1907–8

  27,246,000

  3,110,000

  11·41

  Cost of Old-age Pensions.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the full total of the moneys that will have to be provided by Parliament during the whole of 1909 to meet the payment of all the old-age pensions contained in the Old-age Pensions Bill after it had been read a third time in this House.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: The concessions made in Committee are estimated to increase the cost of the scheme in 1909 by approximately £500,000. This was originally estimated at about £6,000,000. So the total cost of the scheme as amended, for the first complete year of its operation, may be expected to amount to about £6,500,000. Any estimate must, however, at the present stage and until practical experience of its working has been obtained, be highly conjectural.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: What will the expenditure for 1910 be approximately?
  MR. CLOUGH: Are we to understand, then, that Lord Rosebery's forecast of ten millions was altogether overdrawn?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is very undesirable to refer to debates in another place
  contributed by Scotland, bears to that of England, or of England and Wales-combined, for the years 1906–7 and 1907–8.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The respective amounts of income-tax contributed by England and Wales and by Scotland must necessarily be a matter of speculation; but, calculated on the basis of the estimate shown in Return No. 245 [Revenue and Expenditure (England, Scotland and Ireland) 1906–7], they would be as follows:—
  in connection with a Question in this House.

  Royal Warrant Holders and the Factory Laws.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the nature of the representations, if any, which he has made, and to whom such representations were made, in respect of the observance or contravention of the factory and health laws by firms enjoying the Royal Warrant and of firms applying for the Royal Warrant.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): In accordance with the promise made by the Under-Secretary on the 30th April last, I communicated the hon. Member's suggestions to the heads of the various departments of the Royal Household through which warrants are granted, namely, the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, the Master of the Horse, and the Keeper of the Privy Purse.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Have any answers been received?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe, no.

  Fish Curing Inquiry.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the

  337
  Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the inquiry into the fish-curing industry, promised in the debate on the Home Office Vote last year, was held; and, if so, when the Report may be expected; and whether any statement with regard to it can be made before the debate on the Home Office Vote.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The promised inquiry has been made by the Chief Inspector, who has investigated on the spot the conditions existing in the different branches of this widely spread industry, and his Report has been embodied by him in his General Report for 1907 just issued. The subject is a very difficult one, and will require careful consideration, and I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to it at present.

  Truck in the Potteries.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the statements with regard to truck in the Potteries on pages 197, 198 of the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops; and if he will inquire of the Chairman of the Departmental Committee on Truck if the practices there referred to, involving customary payments and stoppages, are being dealt with by the Departmental Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the statements to which my right hon. friend refers; and I understand that the points raised have been under the consideration of the Departmental Committee on Truck.

  Child Beggars.
  MR. WILES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that Frederick M'Ghee and his wife were sentenced each to one month's hard labour at the West London Police Court on Monday last on the charge of begging, and that nothing previous had been known against the couple, and that the husband had served in the late South African War, he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to reducing their sentences.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I understand that the object the magistrate had in
  338
  view when passing sentence was to deter persons from using their children in the streets for the purpose of obtaining alms, and that he had found lighter punishments ineffective for this purpose. I am making some further inquiry, but on the information at present before me I see no ground for advising any interference with the sentences.
  MR. CROOKS: Would it not be better to take the children away from their parents in these cases?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am considering that.

  Hamstead Colliery Disaster—Rewards for Bravery.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state to the House that he is prepared to recognise in a substantial form the brave action of those who risked and in cases lost their lives in the attempt at rescue in the Hamstead Colliery disaster.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Five of the men engaged in the rescue operations have been awarded Edward medals of the first class, and one the medal of the second class. The medals were presented to the recipients by His Majesty at the investure on Tuesday last. The medal of the first class has also been awarded to the widow of John Welsby, a member of the Altofts rescue party, who lost his life in the attempt to rescue the men in the mine.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. BRODIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the ladies now in prison for making demonstrations against the Government are, in default of finding sureties, suffering a heavier penalty than could have been inflicted if they had actually been found guilty of sedition, in view of the fact that by the Prisons Act of 1898 a person imprisoned for sedition or seditious libel must be treated as a first-class misdemeanant; and whether, in view of this circumstance, he will recommend the transference from the second division to the first of the

  339
  ladies now in prison on account of their having made political demonstrations.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Persons found guilty of sedition are liable to imprisonment for two years, and must by Statute be placed in the first division. As regards the prison treatment of these ladies, I must refer my hon. friend to my numerous previous Answers upon this subject.
  MR. BYLESasked the right hon. Gentleman if he did not think that the punishment was quite unsuited to the offence. Had he not power to "make the punishment fit the crime?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can add nothing to the Answer I have already given to the Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked the reason for the different treatment of Dr. Jameson and his fellow offenders. They were treated as first-class misdemeanants, while these ladies, who had committed no crime whatever in comparison with these impure fellows, had to associate with ordinary criminals.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had already explained.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked had not a sufficient time elapsed, had not the prisoners suffered enough, could not the right hon. Gentleman let them out?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid those who did not know the right hon. Gentleman would think him vindictive.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry for it, but I cannot help it.

  The Suffragists.
  MR. BRODIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a deputation of thirteen women proposing to visit the Prime Minister last March were arrested outside the Caxton Hall and sentenced to six weeks imprisonment, whereas on a more recent occasion a similar deputation with the same object were given a police escort to the Houses of Parliament, and what is the reason of the different treatment of the two deputations; whether the women agitating for votes for women arrested on 30th June
  340
  were prosecuted before Mr. Francis under Section 2 of The Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act, 1885, the maximum penalty on conviction under which Act is a fine of £5, or imprisonment for two months in default; and will he say under what Act proceedings were taken against those persons who were imprisoned for three months in default of finding sureties.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The deputation of last February headed a procession from Caxton Hall to the Houses of Parliament, which was illegal and could not be permitted, and as they would not desist, the procession was broken up and arrests were made. On the second occasion there was no procession. All those present in Caxton Hall were asked to remain quietly, and the deputation proceeded alone, and were assisted in their progress by the police. The ladies who were arrested on the 30th June were charged under the statute mentioned by the hon. Member, but the learned magistrate, in his discretion, dealt with the defendants under the general powers vested in him by law in virtue of his commission, and required them to find sureties to be of good behaviour. I see no reason to doubt that the action taken was warranted by law, and was justified by the circumstances with which the magistrate had to deal.

  Fenchurch Street Station Accident.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that an accident occurred to a point cleaner at Fenchurch Street Station, Great Eastern Railway, on 9th March, 1908; that a Board bf Trade inquiry was held into the matter on 15th April, 1908, when it was elicited that the point cleaner was working at this busy spot without a look-out man; whether he is aware that a look-out man was appointed after the inquiry; that the victim of the accident was removed from Fenchurch Street a week after the inquiry and a new point cleaner substituted without a look-out man; and will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Board of Trade are informed by the

  341
  railway company that it is not the case that a look-out man was appointed after the inquiry to which my hon. friend refers. The company also state that the new point cleaner (like his predecessor) prefers to work without a look-out man, and the company consider that to appoint such a man would probably increase the danger. The Board as at present advised are not convinced that this opinion is sound and propose to communicate again with the company.

  Port of London Bill.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of representations and petitions received by the Government objecting to or making suggestions in respect of the clauses of the Port of London Bill which relate to the Thames above Teddington; what are the names of the persons or bodies making such representations; and what alterations in the Port of London Bill are asked for by the persons and authorities making such representations and suggestions.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A great number of such representations and petitions have been received. The particulars are too lengthy to be conveniently given in reply to a Question, but I will send them to my hon. friend. I may add that many of the suggestions contained in the communications have been met by Amendments in the Bill.

  Glaunvarane Foreshore.
  MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the proceedings taken by Mr. James Perry Howe, at Ballinspittal Petty Sessions, County Cork, on the 26th May, 1908, against John Mahony, jun., for trespass on the foreshore of Glaunvarane Strand; if Mr. Howe has a patent or grant from the Crown of this strand; and, if not, what steps will be taken to protect the Crown rights to the foreshore.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the proceedings taken by Mr. Howe against John Mahony for trespass on foreshore at Glaunvarane Strand, by attempting to take seaweed therefrom. Mr. Howe bases his claim to the foreshore in question on prescriptive rights,
  342
  not on any patent or grant from the Crown, and the matter is under the consideration of the Board of Trade.

  Labour and the Port of London Authority.
  MR. W. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what Amendment to the Port of London Bill has been proposed by the Government to give effect to the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that labour should be represented on the new authority.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A clause has been inserted in the Bill by the Joint Committee at the instance of the Board of Trade in the following terms:—"(6a) With a view to providing for the representation of labour on the Port Authority one of the members of the Port Authority appointed by the Board, of Trade shall be appointed by the Board after consultation with such organisations representative of labour as the Board think best qualified to advise them upon the matter.
  MR. W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide that one of the County Council nominees shall be a representative of labour?
  Mr. CHURCHILLsaid the matter had been very carefully considered already, and he did not think the Board of Trade could interfere.
  MR. CARR-GOMMasked whether, in view of the fact that the Port Authority would have very strong powers for dealing with labour through the labour exchanges, the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the point.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer when introducing, the Bill spoke of two or three labour representatives, and will he be able to do something with regard to influencing the London County Council to nominate as one of their representatives a representative of labour?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think it is in the power of the Board of Trade to influence a body having the right to

  343
  nominate representatives as to the decision to which they should come.
  MR. CURRANasked what methods the Board of Trade proposed to put into operation for consulting the organised workers in the Port of London.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Board of Trade had a good many means of making inquiries as to who were really representatives of the opinion of labour, and they proposed to use all the means at their disposal.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: Does the right hon. o Gentleman remember the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that labour should have two or three representatives?
  MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to say that his attention had not been called to that promise, but he would certainly search for it. He would, however, point out that the Port Authority must be kept within reasonable limits.

  Price of Beef and the Beef Trust.
  MR. HOWARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to take any steps to inquire into the operations of trusts for the supply, price, and distribution of meat in the United Kingdom.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire how far and in what manner the general supply, distribution, and price of meat in the United Kingdom are controlled or affected by any combination of firms or companies. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone has consented to act as Chairman of the Committee. I have further invited my hon. friends the Member for the Elland Division and the Members for Southampton and Deptford to be members, and I also propose to appoint representatives of the Board of Trade and Board of Agriculture, together with a gentleman possessing expert knowledge of the meat trade. The Board of Agriculture will be represented by Sir Thomas Elliot, K.C.B., the Secretary to the Board.

  County Boroughs.
  MR. BEAUMONT: I beg to ask the President of
  344
  the Local Government Board if he will state what boroughs showing an estimated population of over 50,000 have, since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, been refused by the Local Government Board their applications to be created county boroughs.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): As respects three boroughs the Board have either refused the application or for special reasons deferred the consideration of it, viz., Hornsey, East Ham and Eastbourne.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the number of exemption certificates received by vaccination officers during the year 1907.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The number is 57,675.

  Metropolitan Water Board Clerks.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Metropolitan Water Board have now 100 clerks more than were formerly employed by all the water companies whose concerns were absorbed by that Board; and whether the Metropolitan Water Board proposes shortly to make a call upon the rates for a contribution, whereas the water companies under the same conditions were able to pay their proprietors good dividends.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. The increase in the number of officers of the Water Board is said to be due partly to extra clerical work, partly to the setting up of a department for the examination of water as required by the Metropolis Water Act, 1902, and partly to the fact that the staff of the Water Board now perform the legal and surveying work for which the companies employed outside firms. I understand, however, that the total annual amount of the salaries at present paid by the Water Board is about £5,000 less than that paid by the companies. I am not informed as to whether the Water Board propose to make a call upon the rates for a contribution.

  Government Hospitality.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to provide any official hospitality for the delegates who have been appointed by Foreign Governments, on the invitation conveyed to them by our Foreign Office from the British Committee, to attend the Third International Congress for the Development of Drawing arid Art Teaching and their Application to Industries, to be held in London during the present month.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): The Prime Minister has asked me to deal with this Question, and I hope my hon. friend will not think me wanting in courtesy if I decline to give him any detailed Answer to it. My colleagues in making me responsible for Government hospitality have imposed on me a task which is very onerous and very delicate—a task for which I confess I feel myself wholly unfitted—but one which I can only perform at all if I am happy enough to command the confidence of both sides of this House. National hospitality would lose half its utility and all its grace if the reasons for which it was proffered or withheld were to become a matter of Question and Answer in Parliament. I would not for a moment suggest that this House should be debarred from criticising my administration of the fund when the necessary Vote comes up for discussion. They will then be entitled to condemn my conduct of it or to suspend or cancel the policy itself. But even on such a debate I should not be prepared to defend myself by stating the grounds on which I had abstained from offering hospitality to any individuals or delegations, for I am convinced that such a course would absolutely destroy the aim of international comity which is the basis and object of this new departure. I can therefore only ask for the generous indulgence and confidence of the House during the commencement of this experiment and until in their opinion I have ceased to deserve it.

  Cattle Disease in Canada.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, when the
  346
  last cases of foot-and-mouth disease and anthrax occurred among cattle in Canada; and whether he has received advices that there is no disease now existing among Canadian cattle.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSE-HOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.): The Board are unable to reply to the first part of the Question without reference to the Canadian Government. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say the other day that disease did exist in Canada?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes; but there is a question as to the date I when the last case was reported.
  MR. FELL: Why not cable for the information?

  Provincial Homes Investment Company.
  SIR F. CAWLEY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to a case tried before Mr. Judge Parry in Manchester, in which a woman named Pointon recovered £37 10s. from a company called the Provincial Homes Investment Company; whether he is aware that the learned Judge described the representations which had been made by the said company as fraudulent, and whether he is aware that a large number of comparatively poor people have been induced to place their savings with this company; and whether the Public Prosecutor proposes to take any steps to enable these people to get their money back, and to prevent the Provincial Homes Investment Company from obtaining money from others under false pretences.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)said he had inquired into this matter, and had ascertained that morning that the case was under appeal, and, in those circumstances, he thought it better to defer any statement as to any action that might be advisable.
  SIR F. CAWLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are other similar companies that are taking poor people's money and defrauding them?
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid that there had been a Report by a Committee of the House which indicated that there were many such companies in existence, but he thought this particular company had the good fortune to be left out of that Report as being free from the evils attributed to other companies.
  MR. BYLESasked whether the hon. Gentleman would bring the matter to the attention of the Board of Trade in order to stop these businesses.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid he had made full and careful personal inquiries into the matter, but it was an extremely difficult one to deal with. The law on the subject was not very strong to enable him to deal with such cases.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDYasked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that there was a very full list of such doubtful traders and fraudulent companies, and would he ask the Home Office to supply it to the public.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was not aware of that, but he would be very careful how he advised a public department to publish a black list of that character.

  Superannuation of Edward Lynam.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether an inspector under the Board of Works, named Edward Lynam, was superannuated in December last; and whether the pension allowed him was much less than he was entitled to after a service of twenty-five years, and, if so, will he recommend that the proper amount shall be given.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): The case referred to in the Question is one which fell within the provisions of Section 9 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, and the deduction (which the Treasury is unable to reconsider) was made by the Treasury under the powers conferred upon them by that section.

  Scottish Fishery Cruisers.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he
  348
  has had under his consideration for a year or more the provision of a fishery cruiser for Scotland, and what provision has been made in this year's Estimates for providing such a fishery cruiser; whether any plans have been prepared for the building of such a ship; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to-expedite matters.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The hon. Gentleman seems to be under some misapprehension upon this subject. The expenses will be met out of the funds accumulating in the Board's Marine Deposit Account, and the funds available were not such as to justify the Fishery Board taking up the matter until 1st April last. Plans have now been prepared for the building of a cruiser, and tenders have been invited.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the cruiser will be completed?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman no idea?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.
  MR. WEIR: Where is the cruiser being built?
  MR. SINCLAIR: That is not yet determined.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: How many cruisers are there at the disposal of the Fishery Board?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Speaking from recollection, I think four. They are provided from Scottish funds.

  Departmental Committee on Truck.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Report of the Departmental Committee on Truck, last promised for Easter, may be expected.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): I hope, Sir, in November. The task of the Committee, as my right hon. friend knows, has proved very laborious.

  Irish Cattle-Drives—The Use of Fire arms.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the case of the King v. Patrick M'Dermot was not proceeded with at the Assizes, which commenced in Sligo on the 7th July, by the direction of the Law Officers of the Crown; whether the Crown refused to prosecute because Patrick M'Dermot was following the course of action which was recommended to him and other graziers by the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant in using firearms to prevent cattle-driving; and whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the use of firearms in future for this purpose without interference by the authorities.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHEERY,): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The case to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was not a Crown prosecution at all. It was commenced by a private prosecutor, and the case was returned for trial at the instance of the private prosecutor alone. He afterwards discontinued the prosecution on his own responsibility. I cannot undertake in answer to a Question to define in what circumstances any person is or is not justified in using firearms in defence of his person or property. The Government have no power to make any regulations on the subject, but must leave each particular case which arises to be determined according to law.
  MR. O'DOWD: Is it not the fact that there was no question of a cattle-drive in this particular case?
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Were not the Crown asked to take up this case and refused because of the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman himself as to the course to he pursued in these matters?
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot add to my Answer. I will inquire as to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Sligo.

  Irish Ranch Grabbers.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he
  350
  will explain why cattle-drivers are being prosecuted day after day, while the sons of non-residential ranch-grabbers, returned for trial on the charge of deliberately firing on harmless crowds, are not prosecuted by the Crown, notwithstanding the fact that both local and resident magistrates agreed in their return for trial.
  MR. CHERRY: I am sorry that I cannot undertake in answer to a Question to give the hon. Member a general explanation of my action as Attorney-General in directing or not directing prosecutions on behalf of the Crown, but if he will kindly direct my attention to the circumstances of any particular case I will, so far as the interests of justice will allow, explain to him the reasons for my action in that case.

  Lough Gara Drainage Board.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, owing to the negligence of the Lough Gara and Mantua Drainage Board, whose area of operation comprises the district of Killaraght, situated near Boyle, County Roscommon, the crops of many of the farmers residing within this area are being periodically destroyed by floods; and, if so, whether, seeing that this Board has been in existence for forty years, during which period no effort has been made by them to keep the main drains, which empty into the lake, in order, the consequence being the destruction, in wet seasons, of the crops of the people who are heavily taxed for the maintenance of this Board, an inspector will be sent down to have the whole matter inquired into.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,): I am informed by the Board of Works that only a portion of the Killaraght district is situated within the Lough Gara and Mantua Drainage district. No complaint of flooding of the district of Killaraght, near Boyle, in consequence of the neglect of the trustees of the drainage district, has been received by the Board, and consequently the Board are unable to say whether the area in which it is stated flooding has taken place, is within the jurisdiction of the trustees. The Lough Gara and Mantua Drainage district was constituted in 1858, but the

  351
  present Board of Trustees was elected in 1906, and the Commissioners of Public Works have no reason to suppose that they are neglecting their duty in maintaining the district.
  MR. O'DOWD: Is it not the fact that for the last forty years nothing has been done either in Sligo or Roscommon to improve matters?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: Up to the present the Board have received no complaint. The matter should be brought to their attention.
  MR. O'DOWD: I want an inspector sent down.

  Winn Estate, Glenbeigh, Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the tenants on the Winn estate, Glenbeigh, County Kerry, will be entitled to pay interest on the purchase money, seeing that it is nearly three years since the estate was purchased by the Congested Districts Board.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIREELL,): The Congested Districts Board are arranging to apply for interest on the purchase money in lieu of rent at their next collection, on the Winn estate.

  Kerry Evicted Tenants.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of evicted tenants in Kerry reinstated under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, the number reinstated by landlords, the number reinstated on purchase of the estates in which their farms were situated; the total number reinstated under all heads; and the total number of applications received from evicted tenants in the county.
  MR. BIRRELL: Up to 31st May last the number of applications received from County Kerry was 957, of which the Estates. Commissioners have rejected 359. The number reinstated by the landlord is 215, and by the Estates Commissioners 39, making a total of 254 reinstated in the county. No tenants
  352
  have yet been restored in the county under the compulsory provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, but the Commissioners have commenced proceedings for the acquisition of certain lands under that Act.

  Assistant Irish National School Teachers Salaries.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the initial and maximum salaries which are payable to assistant teachers in Irish National Schools; how many years does it take before an assistant reaches this maximum; how many assistants have given ten years efficient service; and what is the estimated cost of giving those assistants second grade salary.
  MR. BIRRELL: I gave the figures asked for in the first two parts of this Question in my Answer to the hon. Member's similar Question on the 14th instant. As regards the remainder of the Question the Commissioners of National Education inform me that the information asked for could not be furnished without an investigation of the careers of all the assistant teachers concerned and of the reports on their schools, and this would involve considerable labour and expense.

  Strokestown Grazing Land.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why it is that the Estates Commissioners are not taking action to acquire that part of the grazing lands of Monedarrah or Stokestown, offered to them by Mr. James W. Bond, D.L., Farragh, County Longford; if he can state the number of applications received for a share of this land; and will he request the Commissioners to proceed with the matter as soon as possible.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that, so far as they can trace, the lands in question have not been offered for sale to them, nor have they had any correspondence on the subject.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsuggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should repeat his inquiry about the correspondence.

  Dease Estates, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the agreements for the sale of the Dease estate, at Cloneen, in North Longford, have yet been lodged; whether he is aware that irritation exists amongst the tenants on account of an alleged unfair division of the bog by the landlord; and will he direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this estate with a view to their making a scheme, under Section 21 of the Land Act of 1903, in reference to the bog.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no purchase agreements in respect of this estate have yet been lodged with them. They have no information as to the division of the turbary, and can take no steps in the matter until the estate comes before them to be dealt with.

  Rathcline Evicted Tenants.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state the grounds upon which the Estates Commissioners have declined to provide Bridget and Joseph Mullooly, of Rathcline, County Longford, with equivalent holdings to those from which they were evicted; will he say whether they were evicted within the period named in the Evicted Tenants Act; whether they applied in due time; and whether, seeing that they are farmers willing to work the land, he will ask them to reconsider this case.
  MR. BIRRELL: The applicants were evicted within the period named in the Evicted Tenants Act, and their applications were received within the time limited by the Act. The Estates Commissioners have declined to take any action upon the applications because they are of opinion that the Mullooly family already have sufficient land. They occupy a holding of 100 acres which has been purchased under the Land Acts.

  Richardson Estate, Granard.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any petition has been received by the Estates Commissioners asking them to purchase the
  354
  Richardson estate at Ballynulty, Granard, so as to resell to the tenants who are anxious to buy their holdings; and will he ask the Estates Commissioners to communicate with the agent, Colonel J. H. Dopping, on the subject.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received the petition referred to, and will communicate with the agent of the estate as suggested in the Question.

  Chief Land Commission Assessor.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when Mr. Boyd, of the Chief Land Commission, was appointed to his present office, what experience had he of land valuing before his appointment; and what examination, if any, did he pass before being appointed.
  MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Boyd was appointed an assessor upon the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, pursuant to the eighty-ninth section of that Act. He had been an Assistant-Commissioner since January, 1889, and his qualifications when appointed to that office are stated in the House of Commons Return No. 151 of 1902. When Mr. Boyd was appointed there was no examination for the post, nor is there now.

  Irish County Councils and Compulsory Education.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the county councils in Ireland that have adopted the compulsory Education Act; what is the annual expense and the poundage rate incurred in each country in carrying out the Act; and what is the increase in the average attendance as compared with the average for the past five years for these counties.
  MR. BIRRELL: The compulsory attendance provisions of the Act of 1892 are in force in rural districts in the following counties: Antrim, Armagh, Carlow, Clare, Donegal, Down, Dublin, Fermanagh, Galway, Kerry, Kildare, Kilkenny, King's, Limerick, Derry,

  355
  Longford, Louth, Meath, Tipperary, Tyrone, Wexford and Wicklow. In some of these counties the Act is in force throughout the county and in other cases in portions only of the county. The expense of carrying out the Act could only be ascertained by reference to the local authorities and this would take some time. No figures are available showing the increase in the average attendance in each county as compared with the average for the past five years. In most of the counties mentioned the Act has been in force for more than five years. The centesimal proportion of the average attendance to the average number of pupils on the rolls for the year 1907 in the rural districts with school attendance committees was 67·3, and in those without such committees, 61·8.

  Queen's College, Belfast.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Graduates' Association of the Queen's College at Belfast, in public meeting at Wellington Hall, Belfast, joined itself to the protest of the General Assembly of the Irish Presbyterian Church against the separation of Belfast from the Royal University, and in condemnation of a merely local University, as entirely hostile to the wishes and interests of Ulster and Belfast; whether he is aware that this meeting was presided over by two elected senators of the Royal University and attended by a number of the most influential laity; and whether he will lay upon the Table the Resolutions of this meeting of graduates, who are deeply concerned by the change in the value of their degrees.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Resolutions referred to in the Question have already received due publicity through the medium of the Press, and I do not propose to lay them on the Table.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: Is it necessary in order to set up a Catholic University in Dublin that the right hon. Gentleman should run against the whole Presbyterian opinion?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

  Belfast New University.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state, taking into consideration the fact that half the population of Ulster and one-third of the population of Belfast are Catholics, how many Catholics he proposes to appoint out of the thirty-four members of the Senate of the new University of Belfast, which in future will be the only foundation for University education afforded to Ulster Catholics.
  MR. BIRRELL: The names of the persons whom it is proposed to appoint upon the first Senate of the Belfast University are given in the amended draft Charter which is now before the House. I understand that five of these persons are Catholics.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that one-sixth part of the Senate is a sufficient proportion?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

  Irish University Degrees.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any public or academic body in Ireland has expressed approval of those provisions of the Irish Universities Bill which exclude non-resident or extern students from the advantage of taking a degree, now secured to them in the Royal University and in Trinity College; whether the Convocation of the Royal University and the Association of Catholic Graduates, in public meeting assembled, have by Resolution condemned this exclusion; and whether he will lay upon the Table these Resolutions; and if he can state any special reason for excluding poor young Irishmen from advantages given to poor young Englishmen by the University of London and other Universities in England.
  MR. BIRRELL: The question whether extern students should or should not be admitted to degrees is one of a highly argumentative nature which I do not propose to discuss by way of Question and Answer. The hon. Member will have full opportunity of raising this question in the debate upon the Report stage to-day or to-morrow.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: Does the Tight hon. Gentleman think it possible adequately to discuss this question in the course of the two days allowed?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir.

  Catholic Students in the Royal University.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the number of students, over 4,000, attending the Royal University last year was larger than the attendance at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, or Aberystwyth, in fact larger than at any University in the United Kingdom, except London; and how many of these, over 4,000, students were Catholics; and whether any University in Europe had a larger attendance of Catholics.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of candidates at the examinations of the Royal University last year was 4,115. The secretaries of the University inform me that no record is kept of the religious persuasion of the candidates. I do not think it necessary to make any inquiry as to the number of students at other Universities, British or Continental.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary to withdraw from this very successful University the colleges that are to be assigned?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order. That, again, is a matter of opinion.

  De Blaquiere Estate, County Clare.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the De Blaquiere estate, near Tubber, County
  358
  Clare, has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners; did the estate comprise untenanted land, and how much; and will he state how many tenants and tenants' sons are going to benefit from the purchase.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have made an offer to purchase the estate in question, which includes 400 acres of untenanted land, and the owner has accepted the offer. The untenanted land has been allotted to fifteen persons, of whom fourteen are tenants on or in the neighbourhood of the estate, and one is the son of a tenant on the estate.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Hanley, of Tubber, County Clare, is a small tenant on the De Blaquiere estate, holding an acre and a half of land; whether he applied to the Commissioners for an increase of his holding out of the untenanted lands on the estate purchased by the Commissioners; and will he explain the reasons which induced the inspector to the Commissioners to refuse the claim of this small holder to more land.
  MR. BIRRELL: The application of Thomas Hanley is under the consideration of the Estates Commissioners, who have referred the matter to their inspector for inquiry and report.

  Lewis Estate Evicted Tenants, Galway.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations are going on between the Estates Commissioners and Mrs. Lewis, of Balinagar, Woodford, County Galway, in respect of the reinstatement of the Lewis evicted tenants; and whether, in view of the large number of uneconomic holdings on this estate, he will advise the Commissioners to acquire possession of all the untenanted land on this property in the interest of a general settlement.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have recently published notice of their intention to acquire compulsorily, under

  359
  the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, some 350 acres of untenanted land on the estate in question.

  Belfast Workhouses.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many Protestant and Roman Catholic inmates there are at present in the Belfast workhouse; and how many belonging to Ulster, Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, respectively.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that it would take the officials of the Belfast Workhouse a considerable time to make the search through the workhouse books which would be involved in answering this Question, and, in view of the pressure of work now upon the officials owing to the approach of the holiday season, the Local Government Board would be glad to spare them this labour for the present if possible.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: How far has Dunville's contributed to bring people—both Protestants and Catholics—into Belfast Workhouse?
  MR. BIRRELL: That is too subtle a Question for my intelligence.

  Castletown Cattle Drive.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a drive on an extensive scale recently occurred on the lands of Castletown, owned by Captain R. H. Fowler, Rahinstown, Enfield; whether this is the sixth drive which has taken place off Captain Fowler's lands in that district; whether on the occasion referred to about twenty-eight head of cattle were driven off, some of which were recovered at Ardanew, near Longwood, six or seven miles distant, after having been driver over a fence with three rows of wire on top, then through a river out on to the public road; and how many arrests have been made and what sentences have been passed on the perpetrators of the outrage.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the police authorities that the facts are
  360
  substantially as stated in the Question, The drive took place at night. The offenders are unknown, and consequently no arrests have been made.

  General Taylor's Clonlara Estate.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether an agreement has been entered into for the purchase by the tenants of the estate of General Taylor, at or near Clonlara, County Clare; does this estate carry fishery rights on the River Shannon,, and, if so, are those rights to go with the-sale of the estate; whether the Abbey fishermen of Limerick have paid a rental for this fishery for over 200 years; and whether, seeing that there are over forty families of those fishermen depending for a living on this fishery, and having; rented it for so many years, the Estates Commissioners will take care, before sanctioning the sale, that the rights of the Abbey fishermen are so safeguarded that they will not be disturbed, but will be confirmed either by purchase or by a fair rent which those men are willing to pay.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no purchase agreements in respect of this estate have been lodged with them. If such agreements should be lodged the Commissioners will consider any representations which may be made to them on the subject of fishery rights.
  MR. JOYCE: Will a deputation on this subject be received in the near future by the Estates Commissioners?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no control as to what deputations the Commissioners-may receive, but I have very little doubt they will consider any communication or representation that may be made on behalf of these persons.

  Grehan Estate, Kildorrery, County Cork.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the agreement entered into between John Therry, agent of the Grehan estate, Kildorrery, County Cork, and his son John.

  361
  Therry, of Mooresfort, County Tipperary, whereby the latter was given a judicial tenancy in the holdings of the evicted tenants on the estate, was made after the passage of the Land Purchase Act. 1903, to prevent these tenants from being reinstated in their old holdings; and whether the Estates Commissioners will have a full inquiry made into all the circumstances of this case with the view of bringing about the restoration of these evicted tenants to their old homes.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the judicial agreement referred to was entered into on 4th November, 1903. This was subsequent to the passing of the Irish Land Act of that year, but it was long before the passing of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907, which alone has any bearing upon the compulsory acquisition of lands for the reinstatement of evicted tenants. The Commissioners are of opinion that nothing would be gained by making further inquiries into the cases of the evicted tenants. They will, as I have already informed the hon. Member, consider the evicted tenants' applications in connection with the distribution of any untenanted land which they may acquire in the locality.

  Kearney Estate, Ardfert, Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Kearney estate, Ardfert, County Kerry, was offered for sale under Section 6 in 1904; whether it was inspected and valued in June, 1907; what is the cause of the delay in completing the sale; and whether the inspector's valuation has been communicated to the tenants; whether, since inspection, the tenants have been served with writs for rent, including hanging gale, although they are ready to accept the valuation of the Estates Commission inspector; whether an ejectment is pending against another tenant for old arrears; and whether steps will be taken to put a stop to compulsion of this kind against tenants.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify any
  362
  proceedings as having been instituted before them in respect of the estate referred to. If the hon. Member will furnish the full name of the owner the Commissioners will make further inquiries.

  Donegal Assize Grand Jury.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent Assizes for the County of Donegal not a single Roman Catholic was included by the High Sheriff when summoning the Grand Jury; whether he is aware that for many years past no Catholic has ever been so summoned, although the great majority of the people of the county are Catholics; and whether he can take any steps to put an end to the exclusion of Catholics from the Grand Jury.
  MR. BIRRELL: Grand Juries are empanelled by High Sheriffs under the provisions of the Grand Jury Acts. The High Sheriff of County Donegal informs me that one Roman Catholic was on the Grand Jury at the recent Spring Assizes, and that he himself is a Roman Catholic and was lately summoned but did not attend. I understand that in making out the panel the senior grand jurors or their representatives are taken in the first instance, and if a sufficient number of these intimate their intention to attend there is no necessity to summon others. I am assured that there is no exclusion of qualified Catholics.

  Irish Local Government Auditors.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he received a copy of a Resolution passed by the No. 1 Limerick Rural District Council requesting that in future auditors be appointed by competitive examination, and stating that the present appointment of auditors goes by favouritism; and whether he intends to take any steps to throw open to the people of Ireland these appointments.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Resolution has been received. It is not intended to

  363
  throw open to public competition the appointment of auditor under the Local Government Board. Very special qualifications are necessary, and the Board invariably select persons who in their opinion possess these qualifications in the highest degree. The persons selected have in all cases to satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners as to their literary and expert qualifications.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What qualifications are necessary for an auditor?
  MR. BIRRELL: I should say a clear head, a great knowledge of figures, and perfect indifference to public opinion.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Have all the auditors under the Local Government Board these qualifications?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid not.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act Agreement.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that statutory declarations, contractors' building agreements, and bonds in connection with schemes under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts are still liable to stamp duty; whether it was intended that under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, no stamp duty whatever would be payable from the commencement to the end of a scheme in order to cheapen the procedure; and whether he will take steps to afford relief to the ratepayers from this tax.
  MR. BIRRELL: I understand that when the Labourers Bill of 1906 was before Parliament the question of exempting from stamp duty such documents as are referred to in the Question was fully considered and was decided in the negative. Section 23 of the Act, which remits stamp duty on agreements for the acquisition of land, makes no reference to the kind of instrument referred to in the Question. I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

  Irish Teachers and the Education Grant.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended that
  364
  transition teachers shall share equally with other teachers in the allocation of the additional grant for Irish primary education (teachers' salaries).
  MR. BIRRELL: It is intended that all classes of teachers shall benefit by the new grant for education.

  Tulrahan Farm, Mayo.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the price offered by the chief land inspector of the Congested Districts Board to Mr. Treston for the purchase of Tulrahan farm, in the County of Mayo; and whether he will state the price it is proposed to give to the person who is now the owner of the Tulrahan farm.
  MR. BIRRELL: The price offered to Mr. Treston by the chief land Inspector, subject to the approval of the Congested Districts Board, was £600, and it is understood that the present owner of the farm purchased it at this price. The owner has offered to sell the farm to the Board at the same price as soon as they are in a position to purchase.

  Derrycassan Evicted Tenant.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the cause of the delay in reinstating the evicted tenants on the Derrycassan estate, Major Dopping owner; and if he is aware that the landlord is willing and anxious to see these tenants reinstated without delay.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have instructed their inspector to place the evicted tenants in the holdings allotted to them as soon as they have signed the necessary undertakings.

  Australian Commonwealth Arms
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can yet make a statement as to the standing of Lyon King-at-Arms in matters of imperial heraldry and the decision in regard to the new design for the arms of the Commonwealth of Australia.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg leave to answer this Question. The question of the jurisdiction of the Kings at Arms is now under consideration, and I am not prepared to make any statement on the subject. As regards the design for the Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, I understand that the usual course was followed of asking Garter King at Arms to prepare a design, based on a drawing furnished by the Commonwealth Government. The Arms have already been submitted to and approved by His Majesty.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: Was Lyon King-at-Arms consulted?
  MR. GLADSTONEasked for notice.

  War Office Administration.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, since his acceptance of the office of First Lord of the Treasury and that of Prime Minister, Ministers, other than the Secretary of State for War, have attended at the War Office, called for Departmental Papers and examined officers and officials under the control of the Secretary of State; what Ministers have been so employed, and whether they carried out their investigations with or without the presence of the Secretary of State for War; whether these visits were concluded prior to the pledge given by the Secretary of State for War that no further reductions of the infantry of the line were in contemplation; and whether he can give a pledge that the administration of the War Department will in future be conducted by the Ministers enjoying the powers conferred on the Secretary for War by the Royal Sign-manual.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): There is no foundation in fact for any of the allegations or suggestions contained in this Question.

  Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what opportunity the House will have of discussing the Supplementary Estimate for £1,464,491, Issued on the 15th July.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Supplementary Estimates are on to-day's Paper, and will continue to appear every day in the hope that the House may find an opportunity to discuss them. If no such opportunity is found the time at our disposal does not admit of special facilities being given. I may add that the subject-matter of the largest item of the Supplementary Estimates (£1,200,000 for old-age pensions) has already been discussed in the debates on the Budget and on the Old-Age Pensions Bill, and that the item of next importance (£200,000 for the unemployed) can, I should suppose, be discussed in connection with the Vote for the Local Government Board.

  Motor Car Act.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the inclusion within that Bill of the Motor Car Act.
  MR. ASQUITH: I hope that the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill may be taken at the conclusion either of to-morrow's or Saturday's sitting. I understand that it is not competent to discuss the merits of the particular Acts included in the Schedule.

  Licensing Bill Debate.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the new clauses to the Licensing Bill not being disposed of on the eighteenth allotted day, he will consent to their being carried forward to the nineteenth day, to be taken after schedules and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.
  MR. ASQUITH: The House has decided in the schedule to the Resolution on the allocation of time for the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill that all new clauses shall be discussed before 10.30 p.m. on the eighteenth allotted day. The hon. Member's suggestion would involve a reconsideration of the Order of the House, for which, as at present advised, I see no necessity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUKasked as to the arrangements for business for the rest of the session.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he was afraid it would be necessary to have a sitting on Saturday, which it would be proposed should be at ten o'clock in the morning. The Third Beading of the Irish Universities Bill and the Third Reading of the Finance Bill would be taken. On Monday, Supply would be put down. The first half of the sitting would be given to Army Vote No. 3, at the suggestion of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the sitting after eight o'clock to the Foreign Office Vote, Secretary of State's salary. On Tuesday the Colonial Vote, Secretary of State's salary, would be taken, and, if time permitted, Class 4, Vote 7, Universities, Colleges, and Intermediate Education in Wales, and the Board of Trade. On Wednesday the Votes would be those for the Local Government Board and the Home Office. On Thursday the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill would be taken, on the Friday following the Motion for the adjournment for the holidays, and on the Saturday the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill: Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda) and Mr. Carlile; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. William Edwin Harvey and Mr. Parkes.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C.: Mr. Hall.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Third Report brought up, and read, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 253.]

COMPANIES CONSOLIDATION BILL [LORDS], POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [LORDS], AND STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS].
Report from the Joint Committee in respect of Companies Consolidation Bill [Lords] pending in the Lords, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 252.]

CRAN MEASURES BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 341.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Ordered, That the proceedings on the Irish Universities Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—(Mr. Asquith.)

IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.) moved to omit Clause 1, in order, he said, to elicit from the Chief Secretary a statement as to whether he was fully aware of the great change which he was making in higher education in Ireland. Clause 1 was the clause which started off the two new Universities which he proposed to establish, but he would ask the House to say whether, even at that late hour, they would not take the course of omitting the clause and thus throwing out this very obnoxious scheme. When the Bill was introduced they were told that it was to be purely undenominational, and the two new Universities which it was proposed to set up, they were told, solved the mystery of undenominational teaching in the Universities in Ireland. In the course of the debates in Committee, and as anyone could judge in reading the Bill, they found that the scheme of the Chief Secretary was entirely denominational from beginning to end, and that the whole aspect of the question had been changed. Clause 1 destroyed the old Royal University of Ireland and changed the

369
aspect of Queen's College, Belfast. There had been no desire whatever expressed by those chiefly interested in higher education in the North of Irleand for this change in the status of Queen's College, Belfast. Everybody in Ireland who had taken an interest in higher education amongst the Protestants of the country had denounced the scheme. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland met immediately the Bill was proposed and passed a strong resolution condemning the system proposed to be set up. The next move was on behalf of the various educational associations, and they too condemned the scheme on the ground that it was purely denominational. The whole of the governing body of Orangemen in Ireland, which covered all the denominations of Protestants, condemned the scheme also, and they who represented the Ulster constituencies, he believed, had never received one single letter or memorial in favour of the Bill; anyhow, he had not, and he believed none of his friends on that side of the House had received a scratch of the pen from a soul in Ireland in approbation of the Bill. In Committee, they found that the Bill had been submitted to no Protestant body in Ireland for consideration, but in every instance to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It was proposed by Clause 1 to take away the undenominational system of the Royal University of Ireland and to set up in its place Universities segregated into two camps—Protestants in the north and Roman Catholics in the south. How, under those circumstances, could they ever hope to bring the people together, which they were all anxious to do? The Bill ruined that idea and went back centuries in the system of training the youth of the country. The Chief Secretary had admitted that he hoped the large University to be set up in Dublin, and its affiliated colleges, would draw the youth of the country to them. He and his colleagues had no objection to the youth of the country being educated; why should they throw cold water on a scheme which was to teach the people of Ireland? But what they objected to so much was that under the scheme of the Chief Secretary, and the wily way in which
370
it had been brought forward, there were three separate bodies. For two years a body of Commissioners was set up to carry out the scheme, and after those Commissioners had done their work another body was brought forward for five years, and then, when they had done their work, the crucial question arose as to who were to be the permanent governing bodies of these Universities. No one could deny that the governing bodies of the Universities, when it came to the third stage of the drama, would be on the one hand he Roman Catholic clergy in the south, and on the other hand the Presbyterian clergy in the north. Of that there could be no doubt, and he did not think anyone now ventured to deny it. Was that the class of education they were anxious to have in Ireland? It was going back one hundred years to destroy the Royal University, which threw its cloak over all classes of the community, Protestants and Catholics alike, which allowed extern students, and which allowed people to come and take degrees without fear or favour. Then there were the colleges of Cork, Galway, and Belfast, eve-y one of which had, so far as he knew, met with general approbation. Clause 1 destroyed them; it changed their aspect and at extraordinary cost. He believed £2,700,000 was to be voted by Parliament for the erection in Dublin of a Roman Catholic University, and for giving a certain amount of money to Belfast. The idea of a University for Belfast never would have been heard of had it not been that the Government thought if they catered openly and only for the Roman Catholics in Dublin, the Bill would not get through Parliament. The Chief Secretary had said that they who lived in the North of Ireland ought to be-glad to see the Queen's College raised to the status of a University, and receive a little more money. But if Belfast was left alone it was doing good work. They had repeatedly asked for more money in order to be able to do better work, but they could not get it from any Government. A mere handful of gentlemen within the College, an unrepresentative body in the truest sense of the word,, were in favour of raising the status of the College, but no one else, and in spite of the fact that there had been no desire whatever amongst Protestants in the

371
North of Ireland to have this, it had been thrust upon them. If they cut the Bill in two, and left Belfast on one side altogether, the Chief Secretary could not get his Roman Catholic University for Dublin. It was only the fact that this piece of treachery was tacked on to the Belfast end of it that enabled the right hon. Gentleman to get the Bill through when the majority of his supporters were Nonconformists. On the First and Second Reading of the Bill the people did not understand it. With the greatest haste it was smuggled upstairs to Committee, and now they were allowed two days and a bit of Saturday to discuss the whole organisation of higher education in Ireland. They were told that it was a Bill which would satisfy the people of Ireland. It would satisfy the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland. But did anyone imagine for a moment that if the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland held up its finger and said, "We will not have it," the Bill would go through, or that when the Bill did go through, if the Roman Catholic hierarchy, as they had done in regard to the Queen's College, held up their finger, they could not compel every Roman Catholic in the country to stay outside the walls of the University? It depended on that alone. They must give them a University, but whether it would ever be of the slightest use or not to the country depended not on the right hon. Gentleman or his successors in office, but entirely on the attitude adopted by the archbishops and the bishops in Dublin. He would like to see higher education in Ireland carried to the very best pitch, but under lay control and lay management. They had urged in Committee and outside the House that the Bill might change its aspect entirely, that the new Universities should have cut out of them every word of denominationalism and be absolutely free from the contamination of what went on in Dublin Castle, and that they should be allowed a free hand to run an undenominational University for the use of the laity, who would be encouraged to go to it, and allowed to manage it themselves. If that were done, the House would be wise in not stopping at £2,700,000, but if necessary giving £5,000,000 to have such a scheme carried into full effect. Clause 1 touched the whole matter which had been discussed so far by the
372
Chief Secretary. Had any improvement been made in the Bill since it went to the Committee? Far from it. It was true that some of the Party to which he belonged were in favour of the Bill because they were in favour of denominational education, and of having Irish Catholics educated in a University by themselves. But was that the attitude taken up by the great Nonconformist party? If so, let them pass the Bill, but do not let them have any more of this humbug of saying they were in favour of undenominational teaching when the English Bill was before the House, and then on the Irish Bill saying the more denominational the Bill was made the better. The Bill he thought would put a stop once for all to a considerable amount of the nonsense that was talked by Nonconformists on the other side of the House. This clause was the keystone of the arch. The Chief Secretary was doing harm to Ireland and to people who left Ireland for other parts of the world. He had understood the question about as little as he understood the Irish nature, and the country over which he was Chief Secretary The problem there was to mix up the Roman Catholics and the Protestants as much as they could. He earnestly implored the Government, if it was not too late, to strike out of the Bill everything which was going to Archbishop this and Bishop somebody else, and all the Presbyterian clergymen in the North. Although he was a Presbyterian himself, he would allow none of them to have anything to do with the Bill. He had fought in Committee, and done all he possibly could to try and make the Bill less denominational. He had fought hard and conscientiously for what he held to be the best interests of the people. The Bill, he supposed, must go through, but in the meantime he begged to move to leave out Clause 1.
MR. MOOREagreed that the first clause and the machinery which it provided, the abolition of existing universities, and the creation of a new one, really went to the root of the whole matter. He wished to point out what an extraordinary position the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were in, because the position they had invariably taken up in matters of education was that State money was not to be used for

373
denominational purposes. No one had recognised the pinch of that more than the Chief Secretary himself, because from start to finish he had pictured this scheme as undenominational. But now, with the Amendment which had been accepted, from whichever quarter they came as long as they were in a denominational direction, the Bill was not of the same colour or complexion that it was when it passed Second Reading, although they had always contended that the original intention had only become more apparent by the proceedings in Committee. It was always there. He rejoiced to find that this had become more and more appreciated in the ranks of the Party opposite. They were continually receiving from representative associations and organisations which professed the political faith of hon. Members opposite protests against the Bill. Only the previous day he had received a circular signed by the Rev. John Hirst Hollowell of Rochdale, a clergyman of some standing in the religious and political world, in which he said—
"In view of this and the other doubtful features of the Bill, which are opposed to the traditional policy of the Liberal Party, and which will accentuate existing religions differences in Ireland instead of providing a national settlement of this important question, the executive committee earnestly recommends the postponement of the Bill with a view to its Amendment on lines analagous to those of the Manchester University."
When it was suggested that this new University should be analogous to the Manchester University, the fact remained that the present scheme was like nothing in the whole history of University creation, either in the heavens above, the earth below, or the waters beneath. There was not a single Roman Catholic University in Europe founded or established on lines of this sort. It was true they had a Roman Catholic University in Belgium, but the Catholics found the money for it, and therefore they were entitled to control it. The State found the money for Universities in Germany and Austria, but the State preserved a superior control. There was not a vestige of control in the State in regard to the money which was being provided under this Bill for a University of a denominational character. Could anyone deny that these new Universities, from the very moment of their inception,
374
would be absolutely denominational, and yet all this was being done with State money. Mr. Hirst Hollowell denounced the proposal in no unmeasured terms. The House was being kept in the dark as to what the names of these new Universities were to be. The Third Reading was to take place on Saturday, and up to the present no suggestion whatever had been made in regard to the name. The clause said it would be determined by His Majesty the King, and the Chief Secretary said it would be determined by the governing body after hey had been called into existence. The reason he was anxious upon this point was that they had in Dublin the University of Dublin or Trinity College, and he was anxious that in the christening of the new University there would be no interference in title by the adoption of anything that would conflict with the well-known name of the University of Dublin. He knew that the Chief Secretary had given him an undertaking on this point, but if the choice of the name was to be left to the senate they ought clearly to understand that the new title was not to conflict with the recognised University of Dublin and Trinity College. The Bill had gone out of its way to destroy the Royal University, which was still a flourishing institution. He noticed that within the last month over a thousand persons had passed examinations in that institution. Therefore it was still an active working concern. At the Royal University they could get a degree by passing examinations, and nothing more was required, in consequence of their holding extern students' classes. He thought provision should be made for these extern students who desired to improve their education, young clergymen from the country, national school teachers, and people in the smaller country towns. It would be hard on these people to have their existing privileges and rights swept away while no provision was otherwise made for them.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out Clause 1."—(Captain Craig.)
Question proposed, "That the words of the clause, to the word 'two,' in page 1, line 8, stand part of the Bill."
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIREELL,)congratulated the House on being able to discuss the Bill free from the menace of the guillotine, and pointed out that hon. Gentlemen had referred in their speeches to many questions that would ultimately come up for consideration on particular Amendments. The clause had no reference to anything of a denominational or undenominational character. It simply proposed to establish two Universities in Ireland and the extinction of the Royal University. It would be impossible, however, to create two Universities in Ireland and leave the Royal University alone. The subject of extern students was important, but it would be discussed hereafter on an Amendment raising the question. He repeated the assurance which he had given already that His Majesty would in no circumstances allow either of the Univerities in Belfast or Dublin to take any name which should interfere with Trinity College under the name of the University of Dublin. Whatever would be the name chosen it would not be the University of Dublin, neither would it make any use of the name of Trinity College. The clearest possible distinction would be made between these two Universities, so that a student in Ireland would be under no mistake as to which University he was going to attend. If Clause 1 were omitted from the Bill the House might as well go home. He admired the way in which hon. Members opposite had fought this Bill in Committee upstairs—their courage, tenacity, and good temper; but it was impossible for him at this stage to cut out a clause on which everything else in the Bill was founded. The Government were anxious to establish in Ireland a teaching University, and they wanted to associate degrees in Ireland with other characteristics than those merely of examination. This point had been argued over and over again. As to the University of Belfast, he had been very much exposed during the last year to demands from the people of Belfast having this University in their minds. Personally he could not undertake to distinguish between the inhabitants of Belfast, though the hon. Member opposite admitted that there were some influential classes on the side of the Chief Secretary. The
376
Nationalist Member for Belfast was also in favour of the proposal, and he represented a certain amount of opinion in the city. He was animated by the same spirit and by the same hope as the hon. and gallant Member in wishing to see all sections of opinion brought together in support of religious peace, and he was encouraged in holding that hope by what he heard of the desires and intentions of the Roman Catholic population of Belfast and neighbourhood to avail themselves of the benefits of education within the walls of the old Queen's College, which had become a University. Indeed, he was encouraged to believe that he might live long enough to see the time arrive when there would be numbers of Roman Catholic students within the walls of the University of Belfast and when the ideas of the hon. Member and others of his way of thinking would be gloriously realised.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONexpressed his profound disappointment with the character of the Bill. From the outset of his Parliamentary career he had been a supporter of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland What he contemplated then was a denominational University, not a theological seminary. When they looked further into the way in which the powers conferred by this clause were exercised, when they looked at the constitution of the governing body—the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it possessed an enormous majority of Roman Catholics on it—they saw that this was not a Roman Catholic University in which clergy and laity might work together freely in the advancement of learning, but an institution which would be wholly and solely under the government of priests of the higher order.
MR. BIRRELL: No.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman would carry it out in the way by which it was alleged the Act of Union was carried. He would buy everybody who was worth buying either by money or by influence. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh ! Oh !"] He only asked hon. Members who said "Oh! Oh!" to look at the schedule of the Bill which contained the financial provisions, the

377
provisions about affiliation, the admission of outside societies to the government of this Roman Catholic University, in order to see what he meant. He said without fear of contradiction that the right hon. Gentleman had bought everybody it was necessary to buy. Under these circumstances what was his object in describing this as an undenominational measure? What was his object in putting in a clause forbidding a test for teachers? What would the right hon. Gentleman say of an Education Bill for England in which there was a specific clause forbidding any test for teachers, but in which the management of the schools or Universities was carefully secured to the various denominations? What chance would a Protestant have of obtaining an appointment in a Roman Catholic college or University?
MR. BIRRELL: Plenty.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The right hon. Gentleman said "Plenty"; he was not so trustful of English boards of management in connection with English schools. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were mot elected."] Nor are these. The right hon. Gentleman had unfortunately been entrusted with the introduction of two Education Bills, and when one looked at the essentially undenominational character of the Bill of 1906, and the essentially denominational character of the Bill of 1908, he could only congratulate him on an exhibition of political dexterity.
MR. BIRRELL: Have you read Clause 4 in the Bill of 1906?
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had repeatedly described that clause as a denominational clause in an undenominational Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that the merit of it was that it was there at all, and he minimised it to an extent which made it practically useless for a great denomination to which education in this country owed so much. He rose only to express his profound disappointment in this matter. He could not vote for the rejection of the first clause of the Bill.
MR. BIRRELL: Why not?
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he would tell the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it was essential that the highest education available should be at the service of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, as they could best procure it. He would gladly have seen the Bill so framed that the advancement of learning and the opportunities of study might be equally available for the clergy and the laity of the Roman Catholic Church, but he did not believe that any University, the main purpose of which was the advancement of learning, could discharge that purpose rightly which was under clerical domination, whether that domination was of a Nonconformist, Anglican, or Roman Catholic character. Such as it was, he accepted the Bill for what it was worth, but he thought the House and the country ought to realise the character of the Bill they were passing, the extraordinary contradiction in the action of the Government in regard to education in Ireland and in England, and the fact that they were passing a frankly denominational measure which placed education in Ireland in the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
MR. HUTTONsaid he desired to make one other protest against the root principle of the Bill. The hon. Baronet had concluded his speech by referring to this Bill as frankly denominational. He had always taken that view, and he did not think his right hon. friend could blame him for having done so, and for voting against the Bill on that ground. Clause 1 had been specially advocated on four grounds, namely, that the Universities were too free, non-federal, residential, and undenominational. All those four defences of the clause were absolutely unsound. He did not think, in the first instance, that the new Dublin University could be regarded as free. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of it as a University that would be entirely under clerical control. [Cries of "Oh! oh!"] That was met by cries of "Oh! oh! but there were two strongly opposed opinions in regard to the matter, and to meet these views his right hon. friend had introduced in the schedule many checks and counter checks to get this kind of influence and the other kind of influence to work. When that was the case, the Government could not claim that they had carried out the

379
promise that the University was to be residential. His right hon. friend could not justify that claim. Two small colleges were to be recognised—the Magee and the Maynooth—and there would be opportunities for the same kind of treatment to a large number of other kinds of colleges which had a large number of students. That might be good, bad, or indifferent, but it was not a residential University. He did not think the proposal could be commended on the ground that the University was free and residential. They had had the justification placed before them that these Universities were non-federal. It had been said that Universities with federated colleges at great distances from one another were bad in principle and must not be adopted in future. The glory of the Bill which they were passing was that it was free from old principles, and that it established Universities on a new principle. What was to happen was the establishment of a University with three colleges—one in Dublin, one in Cork, and one in Galway. It was a curious thing that the college to be established in Belfast was to be omitted from that University. They were going to have in Belfast a University separately established. Was that the sole reason why it was omitted? It seemed to him obvious that the reason was that they were going to get three colleges of a similar and homogeneous denominational type in connection with the new Dublin University. That was perfectly obvious on the lace of it. In Dublin they would have two colleges side by side—one Trinity, and another the name of which he did not know. The Government were seeking to establish three denominational colleges, and not to abolish the federal system. They could have made arrangements with Trinity, a Parliamentary representative of Dublin University having made certain offers on behalf of that college with the view to the demands of the Roman Catholics being met. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken those offers as a basis, he did not think there would have been much difficulty in the long run of establishing a college where both Protestants and Roman Catholics would have been able to go What was now proposed might be right or wrong, but he maintained that it was not an undenominational University. What would have been said if the Leader
380
of the Opposition had introduced such a Bill as that now before the House? He doubted whether the Conservative Party, in view of the feeling in these days, would ever have dared to bring in such a Bill.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid no one would be surprised at the action of the mover and seconder of the-Amendment nor at the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. That speech was only interesting to him for one observation. The hon. Member seemed to think that it would have been a more reasonable proceeding if the circumstances of the Catholics of Ireland I had been dealt with in conjunction with Trinity College. Of course he knew that the proposal to deal with that grievance by putting a second college in the University of Dublin was denounced and rejected by Trinity College. That was not what he meant. He meant that the Catholic grievance should be met by building a Catholic chapel in Trinity College. That was interesting as coming from him, and when the question arose later as to the building of denominational chapels within the precincts of these Universities he hoped the action of the hon. Gentleman would be consistent with the declaration he had now made.
MR. HUTTON: What I said was that in a frankly denominational University I saw no objection to a denominational chapel.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he had not risen merely for the purpose of arguing that matter with the hon. Gentleman, whose views were perfectly well known as those of a perfectly frank and consistent opponent of this Bill on every possible occasion when a vital Amendment had been proposed. Nor had he risen for the purpose of arguing with the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the rejection of the clause, but he had risen in consequence of what he must describe as the extraordinary speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University. That hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by reminding the House that he had always been in favour of what he called a Catholic University for Ireland, and that even when his own party did not share that view and were opposed to

381
that course as impracticable he voted in favour of a Catholic University for Ireland, and yet he proceeded to criticise this Bill on the utterly false ground that it was a denominational Bill and that it created a Catholic University. The attitude of the hon. Gentleman was utterly inconsistent, and he could not understand how an hon. Gentleman whom they always understood to be a friend to a fair settlement of the question and who had on more than one occasion made very broad-minded and friendly speeches on the matter, should have put into his remarks that afternoon such apparently bitter hostility. It was all very well to tell them that he was in favour of a settlement of the question which was impracticable. But here was a practicable settlement of the question which had a chance of passing, and the hon. Gentleman seized the opportunity of delivering what one might almost call a cruel and malignant attack on the Bill. [Cries of "Oh."] Perhaps he ought not to use the word "malignant," he had no desire to be offensive, but he could not understand the haste with which the hon. Gentleman had rushed into the fray against this practical effort, excusing himself by saying that in the past he had supported measures then impossible to carry out. What was the argument of the hon. Gentleman? He said that these were denominational Universities, because they were governed and controlled by the hierarchy in Ireland or because the one in Dublin, at all events, would be controlled by the hierarchy in Ireland. How did he make that out? The University in Dublin would be governed by a Senate nominated by the Crown for the first five years. That Senate consisted of about forty members of whom only four or five were clergymen. Their names were before the House, and how anyone reading these names could say that for the first five years, at any rate, those Universities were to be controlled by the hierarchy passed his understanding. At the end of five years the University would be governed by a freely-elected Senate on which no single clergyman of any denomination—bishop or priest—would have a seat ex-officio. No man could sit on that new Senate after five years unless he was elected, with the single exception of those nominated by the Crown. Let him remind the House how the Senate
382
was to be constituted. It was a Senate of thirty-five members. The Chancellor of the University, one; the Presidents of the Constituent Colleges, three; persons nominated by His Majesty, of whom at least one should be a woman, four; elected by the governing body of the new College having its seat in Dublin, three; at least being members of an Academic Council in the College, six; elected by the governing body of Queen's College, Cork, and two being members of the Academic Council of the College, four; elected by the governing body of Queen's College, Galway, two being members of the Academic Council of the College, four; the Registrar, one; elected by Convocation, eight; and four co-opted—total, thirty-five. That would be a freely elected body. It was little short of absurd for anybody to say that in the future this University would be governed or controlled by the hierarchy or anybody except the body forming the University just in the same way as all other Universities in the country. The second argument the hon. Gentleman used was as to the power of affiliation, to which he apparently strongly objected. The power of affiliation which was contained in the Bill was a proposal almost the same as the power of affiliation to be found in the charters of every one of the newly created Universities in this country, such as Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield. The hon. Gentleman had utterly failed to adduce any sound argument to show that his contention that this would be a clerically governed University was right. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected at once, and that the House would proceed with the consideration of the Bill in detail.
*MR. BARRIEsaid he had increasing admiration for the facility of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford for forgetting very obvious facts. During the Committee stage of the Bill there was an important Amendment in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the Cambridge University. That Amendment if it had gone to a division in the ordinary way, would have been carried against the Government. The Chief Secretary felt that he would prefer that a division should not take place on that occasion. And why? Because he was not personally in sympathy with that Amendment which gave

383
power to the Roman Catholic authorities to build a chapel within the precincts of the University College in Dublin. What happened? That Amendment was referred to the hierarchy in the hope—[Cries of "No."] He made the statement on his own responsibility. That Amendment was referred to the hierarchy.
MR. BIRRELL: By whom?
*MR. BARRIE: By the Chief Secretary.
MR. BIRRELL: Nothing of the sort.
*MR BARRIE; Not directly but indirectly.
MR. BIRRELL: Not directly nor indirectly. I utterly deny it.
*MR. BARRIE: The Chief Secretary admitted he did not like it. This Amendment was finally inserted in the Bill.
MR. BUTCHER: May I make one thing clear? The Amendment alluded to was my Amendment, and it is stated that it was referred, by someone unknown, to the hierarchy. I did not communicate with any single priest or bishop. If it was communicated to the hierarchy I had nothing to do with it.
MR. BIRRELL: Nor I.
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Who did it?
*MR. BARRIE: It was communicated to the hierarchy. All I said was that it was communicated by someone. I did not refer to the hon. Member for Cambridge University.
MR. BIRRELL: No, no. The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. The Amendment relating to the chapel question was never so communicated. On the chapel question there was never any meeting of the bishops. The thing the hon. Member has in mind is probably a meeting of the bishops at Maynooth with reference to an Amendment of the Member for Cambridge University imposing conditions of residence.
*MR. BARRIE: With all respect I say that what I have stated actually took place—[Cries of "Name"]—and after that the Amendment was reluctantly accepted by the Chief Secretary.
MR. BIRRELL: Not a bit. That is absolutely untrue. There was no communication with any bishop whatever with reference, to the question, of the chapel—absolutely none.
*MR. BARRIE: I fully accept the Chief Secretary's assurance, while still saying, with all respect and asking the House to accept this statement, that the fact remains that the opinion of the Irish bishops was taken on this important Amendment, and that their opinion prevailed.
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: By whom?
*MR. BARRIE: And that serious alteration was made in the Bill.
MR. BIRRELL: Not at all.
*MR. BARRIE: Said it was well known that the hierarchy had shaped this Bill from beginning to end. He was sorry that some of his Nonconformist friends—he spoke as a Nonconformist himself—seemed to accept this repudiation by the Chief Secretary. He was sorry he was unable to do so. He still believed that the policy of the hierarchy was the policy of this whole Bill. He would have had the greatest sympathy with the Government if they had come to the House and said frankly, "We wish to endow a Roman Catholic University in Ireland." He thought that many friends of higher education would have said that the Government would be able to make out a strong case for it; but he had no sympathy, on the contrary, he had the greatest contempt for intriguing and wire-pulling which had finally brought them to the stage they had arrived at that afternoon. In the Chief Secretary's brief contribution to the debate he had again asserted, what he had previously asserted in the Committee upstairs, that he had the people of Belfast behind him in planting a University in that city.
MR. BIRRELL: I did not say anything of the kind. I said a good many people in Belfast.
*MR. BARRIEsaid he accepted the qualification but did not think that they were very much further advanced. They knew that the professorial classes in Belfast were in sympathy with this movement, but that all the public bodies who had met since the Bill was introduced and during the intervening months had repudiated this settlement of the higher education question. As bearing out what he had said he might be allowed to quote the latest deliverance of the Higher Education Committee of the Presbyterian Church. They had spoken in terms which even the Chief Secretary could not minimise as to what their opinion of the Bill was, and this was an opinion expressed on the Bill since it came out of Committee—
"The Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, having fall power to speak in the name of the Church, has observed with gravest concern that in the progress of the Irish Universities Bill through Committee of the House of Commons, the sectarian character and tendencies of the constitution of his proposed new University and college for Roman Catholics so strongly condemned at the special meeting of the General Assembly in April last, had been seriously increased, all Amendments designed to make the new institutions less denominational having been systematically rejected.
"As a result, if the measure as amended in Committee passes into law a denominational University with denominational constituent colleges will, in contravention of the settled policy of the past forty years be irrevocably established in this country."
He left it there. Even the Chief Secretary knew the numbers and the influence of the Presbyterian Church. That was the opinion of that body and he agreed with it.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he largely agreed with the views expressed on the Bill by hon. Members behind him. It had been said by the hon. Member for the Morley division that if they (the Opposition) had proposed a Bill anything like this the opposition offered to it would have been very different from that which was now being offered to it in that House. The Leader of the Opposition had held the office of Leader of the Unionist Party for a longer period than any other leader for many years. He enjoyed the confidence and support of his party to a degree that could never be exceeded, and he was a strong and powerful advocate of the extension of University
386
education in Ireland. But notwithstanding that fact, even his great weight, and ability had been insufficient to enable the party to bring in a measure of the kind. No one could wonder that hon. Members behind him renewed the protests they made on the Second Reading, because it must be remembered that the Government were inviting the House to agree to a departure of the gravest possible kind, which might be of the utmost moment not only to the education of Ireland but to the cause of education elsewhere. This momentous step was being taken at the fag end of a session, and the time alloted for the consideration of the Amendments on the Paper were of the briefest kind. But whether they liked the Bill or not, the Second Reading had been passed by an overwhelming majority of the House and the Bill had gone through Committee. But during its progress it had been materially altered, in what he and others considered a wrong direction. No one who examined the Bill on its merits now could but say that it was in a very much larger degree a purely denominational Bill than when it was read a second time. An impartial man would find it difficult to recognise in it the measure which the Chief Secretary asked leave to introduce, and all that could be expected now was that Amendments might be inserted on the Report Stage which would improve the measure, especially with regard to the control that was going to be exercised over the Universities. He would, therefore, suggest to his hon. friends that having expressed their views they should proceed with the Amendments with a view to improving the measure.
*MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as to how it could be contended for a moment that the Universities to be set up by this Bill could be controlled by the Roman Catholic hierarchy was best answered by another question, which was how had the present Queen's Colleges in Ireland been controlled and practically ruined by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood. Everybody knew that the reason this Bill was introduced was that the Roman Catholic hierarchy was not satisfied with the present University education provided. Forty or fifty years ago a

387
meeting of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland discussed whether it was right of Roman Catholic parents to allow their children to attend the Queen's Colleges. By a majority of one it was decided it was not. They described the Queen's Colleges as godless institutions, and said that parents allowing their children to attend incurred grave responsibility, and the effect was that these institutions from that time had been practically starved out of existence. In like manner could the Roman Catholic hierarchy destroy the usefulness of the Dublin University now proposed to be set up. The Roman Catholic hierarchy claimed absolute control in the domain of education as they did in that of religion, and if that was the case it was perfectly plain that they would control these new institutions. Whether it was a question of primary, secondary, or University education, the Roman Catholic hierarchy would be the final judges. The whole question of affiliation was bound up with denominationalism. It simply meant affiliation of Maynooth and possibly of Magee College in the North of Ireland. The importance of this question would be realised by the House when he reminded them that Maynooth was a very large institution, and that the number of students who would take advantage of the right of affiliation proposed to be given to the institution would probably out-number students in any one, and possibly in any two, of the constituent colleges in the University. To give those students all the rights and privileges of the parent University was a very important proposal, when they remembered that the institution existed entirely for the education of persons for the Roman Catholic priesthood. When they remembered further that all those students could take a degree at this new University and ipso facto became members of the ultimate governing body of the Univesity—[An HON. MEMBER: They only get votes for Convocation.]—He said "ultimate governing body," because Convocation would appoint the actual governing body of the University, and it did not take much calculation to realise that in a very short time the Convocation in Dublin would be composed very largely—he did not say they would be the majority—of priests
388
of the Roman Catholic Church. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Those who were in favour of the Bill said—"Why should that not be so?" But they who opposed it said the reason it should not be so was because they wanted to see education in Ireland developed on undenominational lines. He submitted that it was absolutely futile to contend any longer that the proposals of this Bill were unsectarian and undenominational. They were nothing of the sort; and if the Chief Secretary would once and for all give up that line of argument, and frankly admit what practically everybody knew, that this was a denominational proposal, he did not pretend to say that they would vote for the Bills, but he could assure the right hon. Member that a great many of the arguments which would be used in reference to the various proposals would be omitted. If the right hon. Gentleman once for all admitted that this was a denominational Bill he would be simply telling them that which everybody in his heart of hearts knew perfectly well to be the fact. Those who shared his views were absolutely opposed to these proposals, believing that they would work a good deal of harm and that, far from bringing Roman Catholics and Protestants together, as the right hon. Gentleman said he devoutly hoped they would, they would have the opposite effect. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he was animated by the hope that even in his lifetime he would see that the effect of these Universities would be to bring Roman Catholics and Protestants together. That, to his mind, was the vainest and most ridiculous hope that could possibly be entertained by any man in that House. The effect of the Bill was bound to be the very reverse. It had been the reverse in the case of elementary education, and how could they possibly expect that it would be different in the case of University education? It seemed to him to be against all logic and common sense to say that they were going to bring two great religious denominations together by providing every facility for their keeping apart. Surely, if they wanted to bring the denominations together they should do it at the stage of elementary education, and keep them together from that time onward, till their education was completed. Of course, he recognised

389
it was impossible now to have any hope of making primary education undenominational in Ireland; that hope had long past; but the people of the North of Ireland had hoped that at any rate University education would be saved from this denominationalising process which he was sorry to say might, he would not say ruin, but seriously disfigure education in Ireland. He protested against the statement so often made by the Chief Secretary that the Bill was undenominational, and he protested against hon.
Mem-
bers opposite—when it was remembered how they had acted for the last four or five years on the educational question in England—offering to them in Ireland a new system of University education based on the very foundation which they themselves for years past had been decrying and endeavouring to root up in this country.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 231; Noes, 31. (Division List No 213.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Doughty, Sir George

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Duffy, William J.

Kerry, Earl of

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Ambrose, Robert

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Kilbride, Denis

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Laidlaw, Robert

Ashley, W. W.

Erskine, David C.

Lamont, Norman

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lewis, John Herbert

Barnes, G. N.

Fenwick, Charles

Lundon, W.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ferens, T. R.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Beauchamp, E.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lyell, Charles Henry

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Ffrench, Peter

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Field, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bertram, Julius

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Flynn, James Christopher

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Boland, John

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Maclean, Donald

Brace, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macpherson, J. T.

Branch, James

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Brigg, John

Glendinning, R. G.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Burnes, Rt. Hon. John

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Kean, John

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Killop, W.

Byles, William Pollard

Gulland, John W.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Cameron, Robert

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Mallet, Charles E.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Halpin, J.

Massie, J.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Masterman, C. F. G.

Chance, Frederick William

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Meagher, Michael

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harrington, Timothy

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Clancy, John Joseph

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cleland, J. W.

Harvey, W. E (Derbyshire, N. E.

Mond, A.

Clough, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mooney, J. J.

Clynes, J. R.

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hazleton, Richard

Morrell, Philip

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Healy, Timothy Michael

Murnaghan, George

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Crean, Eugene

Hills J. W.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Crooks, William

Holt, Richard Durning

Napier, T. B.

Cullinan, J.

Horniman, Emslie John

Nolan, Joseph

Curran, Peter Francis

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Dalziel, James Henry

Hudson, Water

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Idris, T. H. W.

Nussey, Thomas Williams

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Delany, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Brien, William Cork)

Devlin, Joseph

Jowett, F. W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Dillon, John

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Donelan, Captain A.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

O'Doherty, Philip

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Tillett, Louis John

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

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

O'Dowd, John

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Grady, J.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Verney, F. W.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Russell, T. W.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

O'Malley, William

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Walsh, Stephen

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wardle, George J.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend,

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Waterlow, D. S.

Partington, Oswald

Sears, J. E.

Watt, Henry A.

Percy, Earl

Seddon, J.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

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

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wills, Arthur Walters

Reddy, M.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Steadman, W. C.

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

Redmond, William (Clare)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Young, Samuel

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

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Yoxall, James Henry

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Summerbell, T.

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Sutherland, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

NOES.

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

Guinness, Walter Edward

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Valentia, Viscount

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hedges, A. Paget

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cave, George

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

Clark, George Smith

Lowe, Sir Francis William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Moore.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Oddy, John James

*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL (Newington, Walworth) moved an Amendment to Clause 1, which would have had the effect of authorising the foundation of only one new University, with its seat in Dublin. He said that he addressed himself to the Bill because he was the only graduate of the Royal University on that side of the House and the Royal University was being destroyed by this Bill. The remarkable point about the Bill was that it created two Universities. The demand from Ireland had never been for two but for one extra University, a Catholic University in Dublin, and the point of his Amendment was that if it was necessary to create a Catholic University, and the demand had been made by numbers of venerable and educated men, men whose opinion ought to be listened to, surely the demand might be granted without destroying the University which already existed. The whole basis of the Bill was the inaccurate assertion that the Royal
392
University had been a failure. The Queen's University last year had more than 4,000 students on its list, a larger number than any other University in the three Kingdoms except London. It would strike one as the natural course for the Government to take under the circumstances was to deal with the particular demand and to create a Catholic University, because Gentlemen opposite, who represented extreme Protestant opinion, had said they would consider favourably the creation of a Catholic University, and he held that it was the feeling of a very large number of Protestants in Ireland. But it did not at all necessitate the destruction of the existing University. It was alleged that the Royal University had been a failure because Catholics were prevented from going to it by their clerical superiors, but it had not only been attended by this large body of students but had also been remarkably successful, Professors, members of

393
the Bar, and crowds of medical men had gone through the Arts course and he believed there were four distinguished Judges who were graduates of the Royal University. Two members of it had reached the House of Lords. He could not, therefore, understand what the position taken by the Government in this matter was. It was an entirely illiberal proposal to destroy a successful unsectarian University. It was very good of hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept the measure, but he was afraid they did not remember that while conciliating one part of Ireland they were doing a very appreciable wrong to another part. The province of Ulster ought to be considered. They had no right to force on the North of Ireland a system which they would not have in the South of Ireland. He proposed his Amendment as a protest on behalf of the Royal University which he thought was being extremely badly used. Its Convocation had passed resolutions hostile to the measure and they had been treated with absolute disregard. He did not know that Convocation was even consulted by the Chief Secretary. That was riot the way to go to work. It was entitled to be treated with some degree of respect, but it had been thrown aside—for what motive he would not say. If they already had an undenominational University why should they have a second when nobody had asked for it? The only plan was to create a denominational University in Dublin.
MR. MOOREseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word found' to end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'one new University in Ireland, having its seat at Dublin.'"—(Mr. C. J. O'Donnell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part."
MR. BIRRELLsaid the hon. Member would realise that it was undesirable for him to argue the whole question over again, and to state why they had found it necessary to substitute for the Royal University a University of another character. The hon. Member naturally attached importance to the old Royal
394
University, and he had never denied that as an examining body, and as far as an examining body could be a University at all, it fulfilled its duty well. The 4,000 students who the hon. Member said attended it had only attended the examination hall. Ireland was discontented at being confined to the existing colleges. He did not think he could usefully occupy the time of the House further.
Amendment negatived.
CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG moved an Amendment to the clause providing that the names of the two Universities should be the Royal University, Dublin, and the Queen's University, Belfast. He said it was de sired that the new Universities should be called by names which would assure that as far as Dublin was concerned the new University there should not clash with Trinity. Some of them were convinced that they could not possibly have a better name for the Belfast University than the Queen's. It was well known, for he could not tell how many years, as the Queen's College, Belfast, and Queen's University before it, and the name had carried weight throughout the world. In regard to Dublin they thought it would meet with the approval of every one in Ireland that it should be called the Royal University. As the right hon. Gentleman had given up all hope of being able to find a name himself and intended to shelve it on to other shoulders, they had taken the bold step of perpetuating the name which at present existed, though he feared the new college would compare very unfavourably with the old.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word 'corporate,' to the word 'and, 'in line 13, and to insert the words' named the Royal University,' Dublin, and the 'Queen's University,' Belfast, respectively."—(Captain Craig.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed' to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. BIRRELLsaid he was rather surprised that the hon. Gentlemen should be so anxious to be godfathers to these two colleges. The responsibility was too great to be thrown upon him to determine by what name they should be called.

395
The question was under careful consideration, and so far as Belfast was concerned, the general feeling was in favour of its being called Queen's University. But he was not in a position to assert that that would be the title, because it was an important subject on which a great number of people would like to be consulted, and it was a matter of the Royal prerogative. He thought Queen's University, Belfast, would at all events receive the support of a very large number of persons who were likely to be connected with it. In regard to the University in Dublin, that was a matter in which the Senate and also the general opinion amongst those who were likely to frequent the University and who were interested in its success were entitled to be consulted, and he was certainly not in a position now to declare what the name of the University was to be. He could only repeat what he had said over and over again, that His Majesty would certainly not consent to any name which would in any way be liable to be confused with the University of Dublin and Trinity College. At present he was not in a position to go further.
MR. WALTER LONGthought the right hon. Gentleman's assurance might be accepted as satisfactory. He was, however, rather surprised, having regard to the great questions which he had been able to solve without much regard to the feelings of many people in Ireland, that he had not been able to solve the minor question of the name of the Universities. He might very well have taken the decision of the question into his own hands. However, they were entirely in his hands, and he thought they might rest satisfied.
CAPTAIN CRAIGasked leave to withdraw his Amendment after the assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MOORE MR. MOORE moved an Amendment designed to secure that there should be a permanent lay majority on the governing body. The Chief Secretary had told them that this was to be an absolutely free and unfettered governing body, in no way subject to clerical control. To enable the Chief Secretary to carry out that intention it was very desirable that the statute
396
should contain what was a very reasonable provision to secure that when this new University was set up there should at least be a lay majority on the governing body. He could not see what objection the Chief Secretary could have to his proposal. A very customary argument against this Amendment in Committee was that it was an insult to limit the clergy to a possible one fourth of the governing body. He moved this Amendment for the real benefit of University education, and at the risk of being described as "insulting" he would persist in it. He had no wish to say anything insolent in regard to the ministers connected with any church; he considered his action in this matter and the action of those who supported him in limiting the number of clergy would not by any means be so insulting as the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford which disqualified clergymen under the Local Government Act. He wished to disclaim any such sinister or malignant intention, but he desired the House to see that a rational and reasonable safeguard was put into the Bill, because charters might be altered or modified. He hoped the House would see that the governing bodies of these institutions which would have the control of State funds were free from clerical control and that would be secured by the adoption of this Amendment.
MR. BARRIE, in seconding, said he had been reading the statute of the great University at Sydney where the clergy were not allowed to form more than one-third of the Senate. He thought that amply justified this Amendment, which, upon other grounds as well, they were anxious to have inserted. He would have the same objection to Presbyterian clergymen on the governing body of the Belfast University, because he thought the clerical element should be kept in a minority. He begged leave to second the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that any governing body under this Act shall be composed as to three-fourths thereof of laymen.'"—(Mr. Moore.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BIRRELLsaid he could not be a party to placing a permanent disqualification upon an educational matter upon persons who were trained divines either of one Church or another. Personally, he would much sooner deal with a cleric than with a clerically-minded layman. If they were going to exclude the clergy on educational grounds they were practically declaring that the electorate were incapable of choosing their own governing body. He thought that would be inflicting upon the electorate something approaching an insult, because they would practically be saying that they were not fit to elect the persons to represent them on the governing body, and they would only be allowing them to elect their representatives subject to the condition that they should not have more than one-fourth of the governing body clergymen. On this matter they must stand for freedom, and it must be left to the people to select the persons who were best qualified. To his astonishment—he would not say admiration—the hon. Members representing the North of Ireland were advocating undenominationalism. The Amendment, however, imposed upon the electorate of the University a condition which declared their incapacity to elect persons they might think best fitted. He thought the proposal was unreasonable. If they wanted a University at all they must place some measure of confidence in the graduates and the professors to chose their own governing body.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the views expressed in the Amendment at one time found general acceptance on the opposite side of the House, but now Liberal Members heard, in what they had proudly proclaimed to be the greatest Nonconformist Parliament ever elected, a member of the Government express his astonishment at an Amendment which he had entirely mis-described but which simply asked Parliament to lay down the governing principle of these institutions instead of leaving it to the bodies themselves. The Chief Secretary said it was a monstrous thing to impose these disabilities upon the clergy. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the most distinguished authorities on history, and surely he could not believe that this Amendment was imposing the disability upon the clergy for the first
398
time. What about elections to the House of Commons? Was it an insult to say that there should be a majority of laymen on these governing bodies when it was a fact that a clergyman could not be elected a Member of that House whilst he was in Holy Orders? The Amendment simply meant that in the government of these great educational institutions, the control should rest in the hands of the laity, and not in the hands of the clergy in any Church. Many of them disbelieved in Universities being governed by the clergy, whether Protestant or Catholic, and he would vote as consistenly and with as much confidence against a proposal to vest powers of this kind in the clergy of his own Church as he would in regard to any other Church, not because he was wanting in respect to the clergy or did not believe in their capacity or fairness, but because he believed that the clergy of any Church were governed by rules and conditions—and their vision was frequently narrowed—which made it undesirable that they should exercise the far-reaching duties attaching to members of governing bodies. The Chief Secretary had said that the Amendment imposed a disability upon the electorate of the Universities; but it did nothing of the kind; all it did was to lay down that Parliament should decide the principle. The question was frequently argued as if it arose out of the bigoted views of his hon. friends towards the Catholic Church, but it was nothing of the kind. It was now proposed to create a University which it was believed would be largely dominated by Catholic influences in the South of Ireland, but by other influences in the North of Ireland. The Amendment simply meant that Parliament should decide that there should be a majority of laymen on the governing body. They were voting a large sum of public money for the endowment of these Universities. He was a believer in toleration in regard to all religion, and he hoped that this was only the beginning of a general settlement, although he had his doubts. But when they were voting large sums of money and taking it out of the pockets of the people of this country, surely Parliament was not only entitled to lay down what should be the governing principle, but it was also the duty of the House to see that a start was made in the right direction. The Amendment was a perfectly fair and

399
just one, and four or five years ago it would have found almost universal acceptance from the supporters of the Government. Whatever might have made hon. Gentlemen opposite change their views, he and his friends had not changed theirs. They adhered still to the policy which they consistently advocated, and they would certainly vote for the Amendment.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the House might assume that the governing bodies which the Chief Secretary proposed to set up to watch over and direct the destinies of these Universities during the first five years were, more or less, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion ideal bodies. The first senate of the University of Dublin was to be composed of thirty-nine persons, of whom about one-sixth were clergymen. In the case of Belfast University the first senate was to consist of thirty-three or thirty-four persons, of whom two were clergymen. That being so, he did not think anybody could say
that the proposal of his hon. friend to limit at all times the number of clergymen on the Senates of those Universities to one fourth was unreasonable. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would be able to contend that it would be impossible to get three-fourths of the members without going to the churches for them. Both in Dublin and Belfast it would be perfectly easy to get the whole number without going to the churches. There was, he believed, a feeling in all parts of the House that the control of these new Universities should be, as far as possible, in the hands of the laity, and that safeguards should tie introduced to prevent the control from being gradually, or possibly suddenly, taken out of the hands of the laity and handed over to the clergymen. The Amendment proposed by his hon. friend might be safely and advantageously adopted.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 219. (Division List No. 214.)

AYES.

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Armitage, R.

Guinness, Walter Edward

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Ashley, W. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sears, J. E.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Barnes, G. N.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Steadman, W. C.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bull, Sir William James

Higham, John Sharp

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cave, George

Hill, Sir Clement

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Clark, George Smith

Kerry, Earl of

Thornton, Percy M.

Clough, William

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Valentia, Viscount

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Nield, Herbert

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Oddy, John James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Moore and Mr. Hugh Barrie.

Fell, Arthur

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Percy, Earl

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bowerman, C. W.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barnard, E. B.

Brace, William

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Beale, W. P.

Brigg, John

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Beauchamp, E.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Ambrose, Robert

Bennett, E. N.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Balcarres, Lord

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cameron, Robert

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Boland, John

Chance, Frederick William

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lamont, Norman

Redmond, William (Clare)

Clancy, John Joseph

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Cleland, J. W.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

Clynes J. R.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lundon, W.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Robinson, S.

Crean, Eugene

Lynch, H. B.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cullinan, J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Curran, Peter Francis

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Delany, William

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Devlin, Joseph

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Rowlands, J.

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

M'Kean, John

Russell, T. W.

Dillon, John

M'Killop, W.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Donelan, Captain A.

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

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Doughty, Sir George

M'Micking, Major G.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Duffy, William J.

Mallet, Charles E.

Seaverns, J. H.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Seddon, J.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Massie, J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Meagher, Michael

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Erskine, David C.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Menzies, Walter

Snowden, P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Middlebrook, William

Spicer, Sir Albert

Farrell, James Patrick

Mond, A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fenwick, Charles

Mooney, J. J.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Ferens, T. R.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Summerbell, T.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Morrell, Philip

Sutherland, J. E.

Ffrench, Peter

Murnaghan, George

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Field, William

Murphy, John (Kerry East)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Myer, Horatio

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Napier, T. B.

Toulmin, George

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nolan, Joseph

Ure, Alexander

Halpin, J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Walsh, Stephen

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Walters, John Tudor

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nuttall, Harry

Wardle, George J.

Harrington, Timothy

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Waterlow, D. S.

Hazleton, Richard

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Watt, Henry A.

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Henry, Charles S.

O'Doherty, Philip

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Hogan, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Grady, J.

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Hudson, Walter

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Williamson, A.

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Malley, William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Partington, Oswald

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Young, Samuel

Jowett, F. W.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Joyce, Michael

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Power, Patrick Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Raphael, Herbert H.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Kilbride, Denis

Reddy, M.

Laidlaw, Robert

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

*MR. BARRIE*MR. BARRIE moved an Amendment to provide that Queen's College, Belfast, should not be dissolved. He explained that this Amendment
402
should be read in conjunction with an Amendment on Clause 2 of which he had given notice with the object of making Queen's College, Belfast, and

403
Magee College, Londonderry, "constituent colleges of the new University having its seat at Belfast." He found it necessary to move the Amendment in order to bring before the House the case of Magee College, Londonderry, which for many years had been doing excellent work for higher education in Ireland. It was the only educational institution in Ireland which, as he hoped to show, would suffer seriously under the Bill as now before the House. He thought it necessary, the matter being of the greatest and most urgent importance to this institution to go into considerable details. The matter had only come before him in a complete shape this week, when he received a letter from the President of Magee College asking him to place the facts before the House on the Report stage of the Bill. He proposed to read a few extracts from the correspondence, premising his remarks by saying that an important deputation waited on the Chief Secretary in December last year when the right hon. Gentleman made the statement referred to:—
"He would not allow Magee College to be placed in a worse position than it was in at present under the Royal University."
It was fully expected when the Bill was introduced that that promise would be fulfilled; but he was sorry to say that it was not. Immediately after the introduction of the Bill, Dr. Leebody wrote to the Chief Secretary as follows:—
"Dear Sir,
Will you pardon me if I express to you my keen disappointment (which is I believe shared by all my colleagues) on learning that Magee College is not formally recognised in your University Hill. I can understand the difficulty of giving formal recognition to Maynooth, which is a purely ecclesiastical college, but since the founding of the Royal University the essential difference between Magee College and Maynooth has been admitted, and we have enjoyed the same status in the University as the Queen's Colleges,"
and he went on to repeat the case for Magee College, which was pretty well covered in his letter. The next letter in the correspondence was from the Chief Secretary, or rather from the private secretary of the Chief Secretary and was as follows—
"Mr. Birrell asks me to say that he should have acknowledged your recent letter to him about the position of Magee College. He desires me now to say that he hopes that by
404
a discussion of the question the matters at issue could be fairly adjusted, and with that object he would be glad to have a Conference in Dublin with yourself and Mr. Cooke and the President of Queen's College, and Sir James Dougherty would be available for giving the help in the matter that his special knowledge of the situation enables him to render. Mr. Birrell has to leave Dublin for Easter, but will be back on Tuesday, and will be able to meet you on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. Sir James Dougherty is in communication with Mr. Cooke and Dr. Hamilton and will write to you when he is in a position to make a definite engagement. If yon have anything to suggest as to the day Mr. Birrell will be glad if you will write to Sir James direct."
The correspondence showed that the Conference took place in the Castle, on Thursday, 23rd April. There were present Mr. Birrell, Sir James Dougherty, Dr. Hamilton, Professer Dill, Mr. Cooke, and Dr. Leebody. Mr. Birrell submitted a new clause which he proposed to introduce into the Charter of the Belfast University and this clause was accepted by the representatives of Queen's College, Belfast, and Magee College. The clause was as follows—
"The Literary and Scientific Department of Magee College, Londonderry, should be entitled to be affiliated to the University, subject to the provisions of this our Charter, and to the Statutes and Regulations of the University; and the Professors therein who should be engaged in teaching Matriculated Students of the University, in the approved courses of the University shall be members of the several faculties concerned with the subjects which they teach of the General Board of Studies and school, subject to the provisions of this our Charter, and to the Statutes and Regulations of the University, take part in the examinations held by the University; and the students of the Literary and Scientific Department of Magee College, when matriculated in the University, should enjoy all the privileges of students of the University.
"Provided always that the Literary and Scientific Department shall be entitled to affiliate so long only as it is open to students of all denominations, without distinction of religious belief."
On 27th April, Dr. Leebody received from the Chief Secretary's office a printed copy of the Draft Charter of the proposed Belfast University, with this note appended to it—
"It should be observed that this Draft will require modification as a result of the arrangement come to at the meeting at the Castle on Thursday, 25th April, 1908."
When the clause of the Bill relating to the affiliation of colleges was under discussion in Committee objections were made to the provision for the affiliation of Magee College being included in the

405
Belfast Charter. On reading the report of the Committee proceedings in the Press, Dr. Leebody addressed the following letter to the Chief Secretary—
"I observe that a strong attempt is being made to induce you to withdraw your promise to provide for the affiliation of Magee College by Charter. It is not difficult to guess by whom this movement has been engineered. Nothing as they well know can prevent the affiliation of Maynooth except a direct prohibition of its affiliation by Charter, and this would involve the unanimous hostility of the hierarchy. Whether, therefore, the affiliation of Maynooth be provided for by Charter, or left to the decision of the University, makes no difference to Maynooth. Provision for affiliation by Charter is the only hope of justice for Magee. I trust you will pardon this letter, but the matter is one of vital importance to our college."
No acknowledgment of this letter was received.
MR. JOHN REDMOND, on a point of order, said that the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument was as to the question of affiliation of colleges. That did not arise on this Amendment which dealt with making certain colleges constituent colleges.
*Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I do not quite appreciate the difference between constituent and affiliated colleges for the purpose of this Amendment.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that in the one case the University was to consist of constituent colleges, while in the other the University was to have the power of affiliating other colleges on conditions. The argument of the hon Gentleman was that Magee College ought to be one of the colleges so affiliated, but the Amendment before the House dealt with the question that it should be a constituent college.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question that Magee College should be one of the constituent colleges.
*MR. BARRIEsaid he desired to give his reason why Magee should be a constituent college rather than an affiliated college.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that the whole question of affiliation would be
406
discussed later on another Amendment, and there was no use discussing it now.
*MR. BARRIEsaid that he was almost finished. At the close of the Committee meeting on June 1st, the Chief Secretary was reported as having said:—"If Magee College does not want affiliation the matter is closed so far as I am concerned." On noticing this in the newspapers Dr. Leebody at once wired to the Chief Secretary that he was under an entire misapprehension as to the attitude of Magee College, and addressed to him the following letter on June 2nd—
"I was greatly concerned to see from the reports of yesterday's Committee meeting that you were under the impression that the authorities of Magee College did not wish the College to be affiliated by Chatter to the Belfast University. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course all its friends would prefer that it should be made a constituent college, but many, as well as myself, see the very serious difficulties in the way. All, however, recognise the vital importance of the boon you promised to Mr Cooke and me in Dublin being granted. We rely on your not withholding this. It would be a pity that a measure which it is to be hoped will be a great and lasting benefit to Ireland should needlessly involve the destruction of an institution which has been built up without State aid, and is certain to do good work if not crushed by the State. Failure to provide for our affiliation by charter will inflict on us a deadly blow, for reasons of which you are aware."
Neither the telegram nor the letter of 2nd June had been acknowledged by the Chief Secretary, who was generally conspicuous for his courtesy. He expressed his personal regret that the head of Magee College should have been so treated. He was there as representing a constituency immediately adjoining the site of the college, and, seeing the Chief Secretary had shown no intention or desire to fulfil his promise from which he had never been absolved, to plead for this college. Entirely out of private resources provided by members of the Presbyterian Church, this college had done for forty years something for higher education in the North-West of Ireland in a manner which the Chief Secretary himself had acknowledged the value of. Subject to a life charge a very substantial provision would accrue to the college in a few years, and the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church were anxious to do everything in their power to promote higher education in that part of Ireland. The general

407
assembly had recently offered that the teaching of theology should be removed from Magee College so that no restriction should stand in the way of the Chief Secretary acting generously by it. He held that the case for making Magee College a constituent college was incontestably strong, and if the Chief Secretary persisted in the course he apparently desired to take, he would, in the name of benefiting higher education in other parts of Ireland be striking a very serious blow at higher education in the North-West of Ireland. They must not forget that this was the only institution within 100 miles of Belfast and 160 miles of Dublin which was doing anything for the benefit of higher education in the whole of the North-West. The task of the Chief Secretary had been a more than usually difficult one. They knew the influences which had been tying his hands, but he asked him now even at the eleventh hour not to strike this unjust and undeserved blow at higher education in the North-West of Ireland.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 19, to leave out the words 'and Queen's College, Belfast.'"—(Mr. Hugh Barrie.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that his conscience was clear in this matter. During the prolonged discussions they had had he considered it his duty to see to it that Magee College was in no way injured or destroyed by the cessation of the Royal University. He had endeavoured in every way he possibly could to prevail upon Magee College to confine its claim to one of affiliation, and he was prepared to do all he could to secure that it got that affiliation. For that, purpose he got its principals, Dr. Hamilton and Dr. Boll, to meet him at Dublin Castle. They then put forward a demand that Magee College should be a constituent college. He said that could not possibly be. They also made a claim for further endowment, which he met with a forbidding attitude. Dr. Hamilton, to his surprise, produced from his pocket a written proposed of, his own, sug-
408
gesting that Magee College should be affiliated by Charter—that was to say, that the discretion should no longer be vested in the Senate of the Belfast University, but that its affiliation should be put in the charter, and various other arrangements with regard to securing them the advantages of an examiner. Those gentlemen went away with that document and from that moment he had never received any assurance from them or from any person connected with the governing body of the Magee College that they stood by that—that they gave up their claim—a claim which he could not possibly accept—that they should be a constituent college, and they should be affiliated by charter, which he was prepared if he could do it to secure. From the very first they had assumed a hostile attitude towards the Bill. In the Committee a proposal was moved that they should be a constituent college, and the hon. Member himself said that they would never by any possibility agree to forego the claim of that college to be a constituent college. It was absolutely impossible for him to adhere to the bargain because the bargain was never struck. The offer was made to them, but they never accepted it. All through the attitude of Magee College put aside altogether the way out of the difficulty which Dr. Hamilton suggested at Dublin Castle, and they fought the Bill at every step, mostly on the right that Magee College should be a constituent college. Accordingly it became quite impossible for him, after they had been beaten on the point of becoming a constituent college, to fall back upon the arrangement which they had never agreed to that they should be affiliated by charter. This was a matter in which discretion should be given to the governing body of the University. He, therefore, considered himself relieved not from the bargain, because there never was a bargain, but from the proposals made by Dr. Hamilton. If the principal of Magee College had written to him saying that he withdrew his claim for the college to be made a constituent college, he would have supported at any cost the proposal that it should be affiliated by charter. But they never did. He did not know if the hon. Gentleman opposite was entitled at what he called the eleventh hour to make any proposal. The time had gone by and the opportunity had been

409
lost, although he would do all he could to see that the claim of Magee College was fully and frankly considered by the Belfast Senate, and he could hardly doubt that Dr. Hamilton also would do his best to secure the recognition of Magee College, if it was brought up to the proper University standard and was a college where students might reside. To say that Magee College was entitled to complain of his not carrying out a bargain which they never accepted was, he thought, a little too much.
*SIR PHILIP MAGNUShoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment to a division. Everybody recognised that the work done by Magee College was good, but having regard to the number of students in attendance and to the fact that it had no facilities for science studies he did not think it had a claim to become a constituent college. He scarcely thought that the Chief Secretary was wise in entering into any arrangement with respect to the affiliation by charter of Magee College. He thought that the question should be left either to the statutory Commissioners, or after the termination of their labours to the Senate of the Belfast University. Having regard to the excellent work done by the Arts faculty of that college the affiliation of that faculty alone was likely to take place.
MR. BUTCHERhad considerable sympathy with Magee College in this matter, because he thought there had been some real misunderstanding between them and the Chief Secretary. At the same time, he did not think that Magee College could reasonably make a claim to become a constituent college. Until very recently Magee College was essentially a denominational body, and on one side was still a seminary for the training of Presbyterian ministers. They proposed to alter its trusts so as to detach its Art faculty from the denominational college, but the college was very small. It had only between 55 and 60 students, the greater number of whom were preparing for the ministry; there was only a very small residum of Art students who were not going in for the ministry: The chief claim of Magee College to receive any
410
recognition under this Bill was the good work it had done for women's education in the North of Ireland. If they were to affiliate at all colleges of that type, then the Magee College would come in as an affiliated college.
*MR. BARRIEsaid the Chief Secretary had asked if he was an accredited representative of Magee College. He desired to say that since he had received the letters from the President which he had quoted he considered he was. In the Committee he acted entirely as a private Member, There seemed to him to be no failure of acceptance on the part of the Magee College of the terms arranged with the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. BIRRELL: Then what right had they afterwards to demand to be made a constituent college?
*MR. BARRIE: They did not do so officially. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was hardly quite fair in saying what he did. It seemed to him it was the duty of the friends of Magee College to point out that they had serious cause of complaint regarding the way in which the Chief Secretary had carried out his part of the bargain. That bargain was duly made, and a distinct breach of faith had taken place. He would go further and say that nothing they had heard from the Chief Secretary gave any encouragement to the friends of Magee College. As Member for a constituency greatly interested in Magee College, he much regretted the manner in which the Chief Secretary had acted, and the gross injustice which had been perpetrated.
THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he could not see his way to making Magee College a constituent college of Belfast University, it could be affiliated by Charter.
MR. BIRRELL: I do not think I can.
THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTONsaid he had the copy of a letter from Dr. Leebody, of Magee College, dated 2nd June, and addressed to the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said he had received

411
no communication from Magee College as to affiliation. This was the letter—
"I was greatly concerned to see from the reports of yesterday's committee meeting that you were under the impression that the authorities of Magee College did not wish the college to be affiliated by charter to the Belfast University. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course all its friends would prefer that it should be made a constituent college, but many, as well as myself, see the very serious difficulties in the way. All, however, recognise the vital importance of the boon you promised to Mr. Cooke and me in Dublin being granted. We rely on your not withholding this. It would be a pity that a measure which, it is to be hoped, will be a great and lasting benefit to Ireland, should needlessly involve the destruction of an institution which has been built up without State aid, and is certain to do good work if not crushed by the State. Failure to provide for our affiliation by charter will inflict upon us a deadly blow, for reasons of which you are aware."
MR. BIRRELLsaid his position was this. If Magee College had accepted Dr. Hamilton's proposal, he would have striven by his own vote and support to have got Magee College affiliated by charter. He would certainly have done that, but then he had never had any assurance from the time of the meeting in Dublin Castle to the time of the letter of 2nd June, when the Committee stage had begun, that Magee accepted those terms. On the contrary, he had seen in the newspapers that they were still striving to become a constituent college, either of the new University or of Trinity College, Dublin, with whom they had some negotiations. Therefore, it was impossible for him while the Bill was going through Committee, and while he had all these difficulties to consider in relation to Maynooth and other places, to adhere to the bargain, unless he was satisfied that Magee accepted it. But that they had not done. The hon. Member had got up and said that Magee did not feel itself bound by the bargain, and claimed to be a constituent college.
*MR. BARRIEsaid, in justice to himself, he ought to explain that he could not possibly have made the remark which the right hon. Gentleman attributed to him, because he had not been authorised to make it. What he had said was that he understood—and he was speaking as a private Member—that the offer had been made to affiliate, but he
412
claimed that Magee should be made a constituent college.
MR. JOHN REDMONDexpressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not listen at this stage to the suggestion o that Magee College should now be affiliated by Charter. The feeling amongst all who knew anything at all about Magee College was one of friendliness, and he would be the last in the world to do anything injurious to that college. He thought the most Magee College could say was that they should be put on the same footing as every other college in Ireland outside the constituent colleges. If Magee was to be affiliated to the University by charter, it would be a fatal course to pursue, because naturally every other college in Ireland who thought they had a claim, would come forward and seek to put pressure on the right hon. Gentleman to affiliate them by charter. With regard to Maynooth, Magee, or any other college, the one ground which the right hon. Gentleman had taken was to leave the question to be decided by the Senate of the University, He hoped, therefore, under the circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman would not dream of acceding at this stage to the proposal. When first it was brought forward, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a great mistake in making the offer which he did. He was now relieved from the consequences of that mistake, and he could leave Magee College, like every other college in Ireland, to be dealt with by the Senate of the University.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that although this question was not one of supreme importance to the Bill, it was one of considerable importance to Magee College. He regretted himself that Magee College should have imagined that this question was going to be settled as a matter of bargain between this or that college and the Chief Secretary. He did not think that it mattered in the least now whether or not there had been a misunderstanding in Committee between the college and the right hon. Gentleman. He could not see what that had to do with the question. The sole question was whether it was right or not to make

413
it a constituent college. Personally, looking at this Bill, he did not think that they ought to decide any of these points on small grounds. On the other hand, the Chief Secretary would not in the least blame Magee College for having done their best to be made a constituent college. They had fought it to the last. It was to Magee a much more important question than anything else. He thought they had been perfectly right to fight it out to the last, and he did not think that they could take what had occurred in Committee as any reason for saying that the time had now lapsed, and that they could not deal with it. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than to give that kind of answer to the college. Magee College was in very considerable difficulties; it had done a great work for a particular part of the community in the past; and he gathered from the Chief Secretary, he might be wrong, that at some stage of the proceedings he would have been willing to affiliate the college by charter to Belfast University. If he had been of that opinion why had he changed it, and why should he not attempt to do it now? He understood that the hon. Gentleman who had moved this Amendment, and the noble Lord who had supported it—both, of course, understood a great deal about the matter—were in a position to say that Magee College desired to be affiliated by charter. If that were so, then there should be some real answer, without these references to what had taken place in Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Irish Party had said that Magee College ought to be left in the same position as Maynooth. That sounded a very excellent argument to anybody who did not know the reality of the case, but they must look at the circumstances. Everybody knew that just as surely as the Bill passed, the Dublin University must necessarily affiliate Maynooth. Nobody for a moment could put forward any pretext for saying that it would not. Naturally Maynooth would be affiliated when there was power to affiliate in the new University. He did not in the least object, if it was desired by both parties that it should be done. But would anybody say that the circumstances were the same as regarded Magee College and Belfast University? It was exactly
414
the other way. Everybody knew that if left alone Magee would not be affiliated. The Senate of the new Belfast University had not the least intention of affiliating Magee College. He had heard a good deal about it, and that was the actual state of affairs; therefore, there was no use in telling them that the two cases stood on the same lines. He had never been connected with Magee College, which was in a part of Ireland about which he did not profess to know a great deal. His acquaintance lay with a less law-abiding part of the country. But all along, in any observations which he had made on the Bill, he had expressed a wish that a settlement should be come to with as little friction, and leaving behind as little bad feeling as possible, giving to all parties in the matter a real good start. On these grounds he hoped that there would be some other answer than that which had already been put forward for refusing to have this college affiliated.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that if he looked back to what had taken place on this subject, he found that the proposal for affiliation by charter had never been put forward on his part. It was a proposal which emanated, not from him, but from Dr. Hamilton. He knew that when they met round the table he had never any intention whatever of suggesting the affiliation of Magee by charter. It was not in his thoughts. Dr. Hamilton produced out of his pocket, rather to his surprise, a written document, to which, he was bound to say, the representatives of Magee, being more concerned to defend their case from becoming a constituent college, did not pay that close and particular attention that they might have done. They took it away, and were prepared to consider it. From that time forth until the letter referred to in June, and when the Committee had got into full existence, he heard nothing more from them. The difficulty was the course the debate took in Committee. It was perfectly plain that the Committee would not have consented, and he did not believe that the proposal for the affiliation of Magee College would have passed. He did not consider himself in any sense bound. Having regard to the course which Magee had followed,

415
if they had withdrawn their opposition on all other grounds, he certainly should have felt himself bound to exercise his influence in favour of affiliation and would have voted for it. But what would have happened he did not know. He did not think it would have passed. The thing had, however, gone past the stage where it was any longer possible to go back on that position, and he had the satisfaction of thinking that Magee College might have put him into a different position, and forced him to take that course.
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had decided this question. He had told them that it was not the intention of the Senate of Belfast University to affiliate Magee College. [Cries of "No, no."] It was proposed to override the Senate. He did not believe that the House would sanction such interference.
Amendment negatived.
CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG moved an Amendment providing that His Majesty may, if pleased to do so, by charter, found a new "undenominational" college to have its scat at Dublin. He said he wished to insert the word "undenominational" because they had had from time to time pledges given by the Government that no money voted by Parliament should be spent for denominational purposes. Although promises made by Ministers were binding on them they were not binding on those who came after them. Could anything be fairer than to ask the large body of Nonconformists in the House to erect an undenominational college in Dublin? It was fair and it accorded with the traditions of the great Liberal Party as pronounced prior to the last general election. The Chief Secretary and others had been attempting to legislate for education in England in the direction of undenominationalism, and he was now asking the great Liberal Party and the Nonconformist conscience to go with him into the lobby and vote for undenominationalism about which they shouted so loudly outside the House, and he was sure they would jump
416
at this early opportunity of being able to vote for it.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 22, after the word 'new,' to insert the word 'undenominational.'"—(Captain Craig.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'undenominational' be there inserted."
MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that it would be an improvement on the word "undenominational" if the hon. and gallant Member put in the word "un-Christian."
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I am afraid I could not give way in that matter. I prefer the word "undenominational."
MR. BIRRELLsaid the wording of several of the clauses, and particularly of the very remarkable Clause 3, justified, in his opinion, the statement that this was as undenominational a University as any law could make any body of men undenominational. They were often told that these words counted for nothing, that it did not matter that they said anybody could go to the Universities, that nobody was to be met at their thresholds by any test requiring them to say what religion they belonged to or to produce a certificate of baptism, that it was no use to say that every prize, every exhibition, and every scholarship was open, that there were no restrictions of any kind, and that the governing body after the first five years were to be elected by professors and graduates. All that, in the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not worth the paper it was written on, and the University would be denominational. And yet now he, in rhetorical manner and in striking tones bade them put in. the word "undenominational," and then he said all would be well. He did not attach the importance to words which the hon. and gallant Gentleman did. But hon. Members could form their own opinion of this Bill, not from a word here or a word there, but from the general nature of its contents and the provisions they had inserted in it, and he did not think the

417
addition of this word would be of any use whatever.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the right hon. Gentleman had indulged, as he was very fond of doing, in the very art which he criticised so strongly when anybody else ventured to follow in his footsteps. He had found great fault with his hon. and gallant friend for his rhetorical display, but the Chief Secretary was by no means unproficient in the art of rhetorical display and those who might be inclined harshly to criticise his action would say that rhetoric frequently took the place of argument. In his opinion, ninety-nine people out of 100 who knew anything of Ireland and of the question of higher education in Ireland believed that the ultimate result would be that these Universities would be very largely favoured in a denominational manner. The right hon. Gentleman's defence was that he had done everything already in the Bill to give these Universities an undenominational character. If that was his object and if that would be the result of the provisions of the Bill, why on earth did he refuse to accept one word which would make it perfectly clear, and that the intention of the Government was that not only should the Bill be drafted and carried through Parliament so as to make it undenominational, but that something more should be done, that every obstacle that Parliament could fairly put in the way of tuning this into a denominational measure should be put there. Surely that was not unfair if it really was the intention of the Government that this should be an undenominational University. He wondered at this persistent refusal to accept Amendments, the only object of which was to carry out what the Government were never tired of declaring was their intention.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsuggested that the word "untruthful" should be substituted for the word "undenominational." After listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down it was quite clear that in the opinion of everybody the word "undenominational" would be an untruthful description of the University, and he should vote against any attempt to make these
418
Universities by phraseology what they were not going to be in practice. He thought it far better to take up a consistent attitude whichever side or the question their inclination might be on.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite. His hon. friend desired that the Bill should be an undenominational Bill, and hoped to effect that by introducing the word "undenominational" in the second clause. His hon. friend must know perfectly well that the introduction of the word "undenominational" would be only an expression of a pious intention—of his intention. But it was not the intention of the Government or of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and it was not his intention. He quite admitted that he did not like the Bill in its present form. His dislike to it was, put shortly, that he thought it fa too clerical. His objection was not that it was denominational. The whole object of the Bill was to provide education which would meet the requirements of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. What was the use of calling that anything but denominational, and what was the use of the Government coming forward and pointing to Clause 3 or Clause 4 and saying they did not mean to have a denominational Bill? If the Government did not mean to have a denominational Bill, they did not mean to have a Bill which would carry out the object of the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who desired higher education to be given to Roman Catholics, two-thirds of the Irish people. It was only by making this a denominational University that they would attain that object. He did not mean by that, that they must have a system of tests or exclude Protestants or put all the disqualifications with which Clause 3 dealt. What he meant was that the intention of the Government from the beginning had plainly been to create a University which was denominational, and he suggested to his hon. and gallant friend that he should not press his Amendment, because he could not really conceive why they should put on the face of the Bill something so obviously mendacious as was implied, in the use of this word.

419
If this was not a denominational Bill it had no raison d'etre, and to put "undenominational" in big characters in the Second clause was not to make it undenominational, but to make it hypocritical. If his hon. and gallant friend went to a division, which he hoped he would not, he should be compelled in the interests of veracity and sincerity to vote against him.
MR. DILLONsaid he very much wished those who had repeatedly and emphatically declared that this Bill set up a denominational University in Ireland would take the trouble to define what they meant by denominational. The Universities would be no more denominational than those of Manchester, Liverpool, Oxford, Cambridge, or Edinburgh, and less denominational than Trinity College, Dublin. How could hon. Members, with any sense of justice or fair play, call this a denominational University, when they made no proposal to alter the constitution of Trinity College, which was far more denominational? Were the othre Universities denominational?
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid the University of Liverpool would not admit theology within its walls.
MR. DILLONsaid that the University set up under this Bill would be free. When the hon. Member opposite spoke of the Liverpool University did he know what the University of Dublin did at the present time? Was he aware that they had theology and theological professors who had the same standing as other professors? Did he know that they had a chapel in the University? Yet hon. Members got up and said that the Universities proposed to be set up under this Bill were denominational. He asked the hon. Member for the Morley division of Yorkshire, who opposed this Bill on its Second Reading, to explain what he meant by a denominational University, and he said he meant a University where the professors and students were overwhelmingly of one denomination. What University in the world could be free from that charge? He contended that the proposed Universities were no more denominational than any other University in this country, and
420
they would be less denominational than the University of Edinburgh. The new Universities would be less denominational than the University of Dublin was at the present time, and it was not true to state that no scheme could be brought forward to meet the requirements of the Catholics of Ireland which was not based upon the denominational principle. It was true that the great majority of the governing body and professors might be Catholic, because the Bill was intended to serve the needs of a Catholic people. He hoped hon. Members would have the common fairness, before calling the new institutions in Ireland denominational, to define for the enlightenment of the public what they meant by denominational.
MR. HUTTONsaid that having listened to all the demands made in years gone by by Catholics upon one Government and another, he could not understand when a Bill was brought forward to meet the demands of Catholics for a denominational University why it should be called undenominational. The hon. Member for East Mayo had said that it was not proposed to set up a denominational University and that it was not meant in that sense. If that was the case why were the Catholics dissatisfied with the present Queen's Colleges? If a college or University which was free and undenominational would content hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends, why could they not be content with the present Queen's Colleges in Galway and Cork, and with the opportunity of securing degrees through the Royal University? The hon. Member for East Mayo had asked him to define what he meant by a denominational University, and he had quoted him as stating that it meant a University where the majority of the professors and students belonged to one denomination. He doubted very much whether he ever said that. The hon. Member had said that the new University would not be so denominational in its character as Trinity College; but the Catholics objected to Trinity College because it was denominational, and that was why Catholic students did not frequent it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was going to supply three colleges in which Catholics would have no fear of meeting the Episcopalian or Presbyterian influence. The right hon. Gentleman had described this Bill as one which

421
was trying to set up the lowest common denominator, but it seemed to him that he was going to set up three denominational Universities. He could quite understand the speech of the Loader of the Opposition and his intervention was not surprising, because the whole Tory Party were going to support an Amendment to create a great undenominational University. Under those circumstances he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman desired the withdrawal of this Amendment.
MR. GWYNNsaid that what they were asking for in Ireland was not a denominational, but a free University. They had been asked why they were not content with Queen's Colleges. They were discontented with those colleges because they had no freedom, because their professors were Crown nominees, and suffered under disabilities as Civil servants, and because the teaching in those colleges was restricted and hampered in a way which was unknown in any other University. If it were true that the University of Liverpool had debarred its professors from teaching theology, it was not a free University. The Irish Party had asked over and over again not for a Catholic University but for a national democratic University, and in this Bill there was the making of a free University, and for that reason they accepted it, English Liberals could label it denominational or not, as they liked. There was, however, one denominational feature in the Bill, and it was that a test was imposed upon the professors, and to that extent they did not possess unlimited freedom. What he meant was that there was a limitation imposed upon the freedom of the teachers, because it was suggested that their teaching should not offend religious susceptibilities, and in that sense it was a negative test. What did "undenominational" mean in Ireland? When hon. Members understood that they would understand the zeal of the Ulster Party for undenominationalism. The majority of the people of Ireland were Catholics, and when a Board was called undenominational it meant that it consisted of an equal number of Catholics and Protestants, and therefore it meant a strict religious test. It came to this, that the Protestant minority had guaranteed to them more than their fair proportion of jobs. That
422
was the true account of the zeal for undenominationalism which had signalised the Liberal Party. For these reasons he would vote against the Amendment.
MR. VERNEYsaid it appeared to him that there was a test in this matter which was worth considering. What was Oxford University fifty years ago? He thought there was only one reply. It was a thoroughly denominational University. Since the abolition of tests it had become undenominational. Only half a century ago Oxford University was fettered by tests, and it was proposed to set up these new Universities in Ireland unfettered by denominational tests such as had been known in days gone by. In taking that course they were keeping to the new model and not the old.
*SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid he served on the Committee upstairs on this Bill, and, so far as he could, he had worked for the establishment in Ireland of a University which would be compatible with what was called an undenominational settlement of this question. He did not think it very much mattered whether the word "undenominational" was inserted here or not. The question was not what they called it, but what they were going to make it. He was bound to confess that during the progress of the Bill through Committee it appeared to him the Bill had suffered in its title to be regarded as undenominational, because amongst other things an addition was made to Clause 3 whereby the prohibition of tests was not to apply to theological professors. Allusion has been made by the hon. Member for East Mayo to the University of Liverpool, and other recently created Universities. The question he said was not so much whether this new University was denominational or undenominational, but whether it was as undenominational as some of the new Universities in the north of England. The Charter of Liverpool University contained the following—
"It is a, fundamental condition of the constitution of the University that no religions test shall be imposed upon any person in order to entitle him to be admitted as a member, professor, teacher, or student of the University, or

423
to hold office therein, or to graduate thereat, or to hold any advantage or privilege thereof, and that no theological teaching shall be given by or under the authority of the University."
Clearly, therefore, the proposed new University in Dublin differed to some extent from the model of the University of Liverpool. It also differed from the University of Manchester. The University of London was the only one in the United Kingdom which owed its constitution, entirely to Act of Parliament. The Act laid down that—
"No religious test shall be adopted or imposed, and no applicant for a University appointment shall be at any disadvantage on the ground of religious opinions."
There was no reservation in the Act in regard to the appointment of theological professors. The extent to which the prohibition of tests was removed in the case of the Irish Universities in regard to theological professors was not in accordance with the undenominational character of the Universities which had received their Charters or had been created by Act of Parliament in recent years. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would be prepared to remove that objection to the measure. The more they tried to make the Universities free, democratic and undenominational the more likely they were to be acceptable to the Irish people.
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELLobjected to breaking up the young men of Ireland into three sectarian groups. Such a policy was un-national, and he feared this Bill would do more injury to Home Rule than anything which had ever occurred in Ireland.
*MR. SPEAKER: It is really not necessary to discuss the whole Bill on this Amendment. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid he had no wish to transgress against that ruling, but he was merely replying to statements which had been made in course of the discussion.
MR. MOOREsaid that many hon. Members had treated this as merely a question of description, and had used the argument that it made very little
424
difference whether they applied a particular name to a particular University or not. The majority of hon. Members appeared to admit, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for East Mayo had said, that whatever they called the new University, the fact was that it would be what the Chief Secretary was most anxious to disavow, namely, a real denominational University. It was not a mere matter of description, for this reason. It was not like Oxford or Cambridge, supported entirely from private endowments. It was a University for which that House was to find the money, and it would be liable to the ordinary control of the Courts in Ireland with respect to the misapplication of funds. If the Bill contained a statement that a college was undenominational, and it was found that funds voted by that House were being applied to denominational purposes, that would at once give groundwork for the intervention of the Court of Chancery by injunction or otherwise to restrain such application of the money. That could not be done unless it was the intention of the Bill to make the University undenominational. That was why he attached a great deal of value to the Amendment proposed by his hon. and gallant friend. He thought that all those who were interested in seeing that the money was applied to the needs of the new University and in accordance with the feelings and wishes of the people, and who did not wish to see clericalism triumphant, should support the Amendment.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that he attached so much importance to the Amendment that he would be obliged to go to a division. He could not see why anyone who desired the establishment of an undenominational University in Dublin should have the slightest hesitation in voting for the Amendment. He understood that the hon. Member for East Mayo looked upon the new University as undenominational, and therefore be hoped to find him in the same lobby as himself. He thought they must have consistency somewhere. If the House was to vote money on the distinct understanding that not a penny of it was to go to denominationalism, let them sack up that view in the division lobby,

425
and say that the Bill would be made, as far as possible, undenominational.
*MR. MASSIEsaid that the outcome of this part of the debate seemed to him to be that denominationalism or undenominationalism was a question of management. If a University was managed by Protestants, then it might be undenominational; if it was managed by Catholics, then it could not be. The logical issue of this attitude of mind was that, if every man in Ireland was a Catholic, then it would be wrong to give Ireland any University at all. If a University was to be suited to the population, it must be managed by the
population, or it would not be democratic. The popula-
tion of Ireland being in its large majority Catholic, one University at least should be managed by Catholics. If a Catholic country was to have a University, then the University constituted by the Bill, if not absolutely undenominational, was as undenominational as an Act of Parliament could make it. This was the intention of the Government, and as to the particular Amendment, it did not matter so much what they called the University, as whether the University was likely to turn out what the Government intended it to be.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 32; Noes, 273. (Division List No. 215.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Hamilton, Marquess of

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee

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

Hill, Sir Clement

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Clark, George Smith

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Thornton, Percy M.

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

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

M'Arthur, Charles

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Moore, William

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Charles Craig.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nield, Herbert

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Oddy, John James

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dalziel, James Henry

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burke, E. Haviland-

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Delany, William

Ambrose, Robert

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Devlin, Joseph

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Byles, William Pollard

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

Ashley, W. W.

Cameron, Robert

Dillon, John

Balcarres, Lord

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Donelan, Captain A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Duckworth, James

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Duffy, William J.

Barnard, E. B.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Barnes, G. N.

Cecil Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Chance, Frederick William

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Beale, W. P.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Beck, A. Cecil

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Erskine, David C.

Bell, Richard

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Bellairs, Carlyon

Clancy, John Joseph

Esslemont, George Birnie

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

Cleland, J. W.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Bennett, E. N.

Clough, Willian

Everett, R. Lacey

Berridge, T. H. D.

Clynes, J. R.

Farrell, James Patrick

Bertram, Julius

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fenwick, Charles

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

Ferens, T. R.

Boland, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Brace, William

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ffrench, Peter

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Field, William

Branch, James

Cowan, W. H.

Findlay, Alexander

Brigg, John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Flynn, James Christopher

Brodie, H. C.

Crean, Eugene

Fuller, John Michael F.

Brooke, Stopford

Crooks, William

Fullerton, Hugh

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

Cullinan, J.

Gill, A. H.

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

Curran, Peter Francis

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Glendinning, R. G.

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

Russell T. W.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Micking, Major G.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Griffiths, Ellis J.

Marnham, F. J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Meagher, Michael

Seaverns, J. H.

Halpin, J.

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Seddon, J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Menzies, Walter

Seely, Colonel

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

Mooney, J. J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Morse, L. L.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Harrington, Timothy

Murnaghan, George

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Myer, Horatio

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Napier, T. B.

Snowden, P.

Hazelton, Richard

Nicholson, Charles N. (D'ncast'r

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Steadman, W. C.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Henry, Charles S.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nuttall, Harry

Summerbell, T.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Tomkinson, James

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Doherty, Philip

Toulmin, George

Hudson, Walter

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hyde, Clarendon

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

Verney, F. W.

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Dowd, John

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Walsh, Stephen

Jackson, R. S.

O'Malley, William

Walters, John Tudor

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Walton, Joseph

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Joyce, Michael

Partington, Oswald

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wardle, George J.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

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

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Percy, Earl

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Kilbride, Denis

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Whitbread, Howard

Laidlaw, Robert

Power, Patrick Joseph

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lamont, Norman

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Radford, G. H.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, John Henry (Halifax)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Lehmann, R. C.

Reddy, M.

Wiles, Thomas

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Williamson, A.

Lundon, W.

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

Wills, Arthur Walters

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Lynch, H. B.

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Robinson, S.

Young, Samuel

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Yoxall, James Henry

Maclean, Donald

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Roe, Sir Thomas

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

M'Killop, W.

Rowlands, J.

CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG moved an Amendment to provide that the governing body of the new college to be established in Dublin should be constituted of laymen. On looking through the Charter it appeared to him that there were far too many rev. gentlemen upon the
428
governing body, and a limit should be put on that somewhere. Hon. Members below the gangway said that this was a democratic Bill, but he would like to know where there was any more autocratic body in the whole world than the Church to which they belonged. Were

429
those hon. Members going to maintain the same position they had done in Committee upstairs? The hon. Member for Mayo there stated that he himself had felt the pressure which was brought to bear upon him by the Church to which he belonged, and that he was not able to take the Arts course in the college at his own home, and that all he could do was to join the college for the sake of seeing the books in the library. That was an intolerable state of affairs. Of course, he quite understood that the hon. Member for East Tyrone would be one of those mentioned in the schedule as belonging to the governing body, and that he would like to have as many as possible of his own clerical friends with him.
*MR. KETTLEsaid that he had suggested that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should try to have the governing body composed of undenominational laymen.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that as the charter at present stood there would be six clerygmen in connection with the governing body of the college, and he did not quite know the necessity there was for them at all. He was not objecting in any sense of the word to Roman Catholics being properly educated. All that he said was that they should be kept as far as possible from the clerical element, and that the University should be run by laymen. It was evident that, although the Bill was claimed to be undenominational it was being made as denominational as could be—undenominational being meant, for consumption outside.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was replying on the whole of the debate, but must confine himself to the Amendment.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he was sorry, but he felt so very strongly on the Bill that he had been carried away. He hoped that the House, even at the last moment, would say that, the governing body of this new college in Dublin should be composed of laymen. There were many good Roman Catholic laymen in Ireland; he had had many good
430
friends amongst them; and there was no reason why Roman Catholic laymen should not manage the college, just as much as the University. He would trust these men if the Government would let them have a trial; and the Liberal Party would never regret it. He begged to move.
MR. LONSDALEseconded the, Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 25, after the word 'constituted,' to insert the words 'of laymen,'"—(Captain Craig.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'of laymen' be there inserted."
MR. MOOREsaid that this was a somewhat similar Amendment to that dealing with the governing body of the University which had been debated at an earlier stage, and he did not feel at liberty to repeat any of the arguments he had used on that Amendment. But it was their duty at every stage to enter a protest against the provisions in the Bill which left the governing body, either of the University or of the college, at the mercy of a potential majority of clerics as opposed, to laymen. The Amendment of his hon. and gallant friend was simply a struggle for supremacy between the lay and the clerical element, and he was sure that if the party whip were taken off, the House would decide that laymen, as men of the world, should have control of the college. If his hon. and gallant friend went to a division he would vote with him as a protest against the Bill as it was drawn, which allowed the clerical element to predominate.
*SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid he desired to dissociate himself from all the attempts that were being made to disqualify the clergy from taking part in the government of the Universities.
Amendment negatived.
*MR. BUTCHERsaid the object of the Amendment he now proposed and of the consequential Amendment lower down on the Paper was to get the constitution of

431
the governing bodies of the three constituent colleges of the University of Dublin out of the charter into the Bill. Already the Bill contained the constitution of the governing bodies of the two Universities, and surely it was equally important that they should be able to debate in the House the constitution of the governing bodies of the three constituent colleges of the new University at Dublin. He would remind the House that these colleges would exercise a very powerful influence on the University itself. No less than seventeen of the members of the governing body of the University of Dublin were to be appointed by the constituent colleges of Dublin, Cork, and Galway. More than half the non-co-opted members of the Senate of the new University were appointed by the governing bodies of these three constituent colleges. It was therefore perfectly plain that these colleges would have a vital influence on the policy and government of the new University as a whole. Moreover, it must be remembered that these colleges virtually appointed their own professors, for they selected three names to be submitted to the Senate. He would not now go into the detailed differences between the schedule he had put down as an Amendment and the schedule of the Bill. He would only say that the main difference, almost the only difference, between them lay in the representation they respectively proposed to give to the municipal and county bodies. In the case of the college at Dublin, out of thirty four members the charter proposed to give ten representatives to local bodies. Out of the twenty-eight for the College of Cork these were given eight, and in the case of the College of Galway out of twenty-six seven were to be representatives of local bodies. If the academic element were compared with the local or civic element, it would be found that in the governing body of the college at Dublin the academic element, including the President, the persons nominated by the Senate, the representatives of professors and graduates, amounted to sixteen, and that the civic or local element numbered ten. In Cork the academic element was sixteen and the civic eight; in Galway the academic element was twelve and the civic seven. It was right, he thought, to stimulate local interest and generosity by putting some representatives on the governing bodies of
432
these constituent colleges. But it was obvious that the proportion in the charters overdid the representation of the civic element; nobody would maintain for a moment that members of the I county councils of Ireland were persons to whom should be entrusted the difficult duty of choosing candidates for various professorial chairs. It might of course be urged that the local element was not in the majority, but when it came to a divided vote it was perfectly clear that so large a representation as ten representatives of one particular interest might turn the scale, with the result that the best men would not be elected, but the second or third best. Without going further into details he asked the Chief Secretary to recognise the great importance of having the bodies constituted in such a way that the colleges themselves would be academic in principle and in policy. Edinburgh University was an instance of what he had in mind. For some centuries the College of Edinburgh, founded by the city, was governed by the town. It was only within comparatively recent years that it became an entirely independent and self-governing university. If ever there was a case in which, both from its history, from the generosity shown by the citizens, and from the interest taken in that University by the neighbouring counties, local representation was right and necessary, it was the case, of Edinburgh. But how did it stand? The governing body of the University of Edinburgh contained only one representative of the civic element in the Lord Provost. His proposal was that each of the governing bodies in Ireland should have at lease two representatives of the civic element in place of ten, eight and seven which were given them by the charter.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUSformally seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 26, to leave out the word 'charter,' and to insert the words 'Schedule to this Act entitled, "Constitution of Governing Bodies of Constituent Colleges."'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
Question proposed, "that the word 'charter' stand part."
MR. BIRRELLsaid the hon Member's point seemed to be two-fold, viz., that

433
the governing bodies of these colleges should be inserted in the Act, and that the bodies as they appeared in the charter were unsatisfactory. The reason he was not disposed to put the governing bodies in the Act was that he thought it was best to proceed experimentally with regard to them and see how far they worked well. The bodies as constituted in the charters contained a liberal proportion of the civic element which he was anxious indeed to encourage. He would be very sorry to see the proposed limit restricting the civic element, or to see his own more liberal measure stereotyped into an Act of Parliament. If that were done it would require another Act of Parliament to modify or alter it. It was much preferable to proceed experimentally by charter which could be modified. The bodies as constituted by the charters had been known for some time and any alteration they had undergone had been in the direction of increasing the academic representation. He took the College of Dublin. What the hon. Gentleman had said was true. The body consisted of twenty purely academic persons. The hon. Gentleman asked what right they had to include four Crown nominees as academic persons. The Crown, in exercising its rights, would see to it that the representatives it selected were persons of academic character and who would give academic weight to the governing body. It was not likely that the Crown would go into the highways and byways and select county councillors and other persons of whom the hon. Gentleman seemed to be a little suspicious. He imagined that the governing body would be very careful in exercising its right of co-option to choose persons of academic character. At any rate, leaving them out of the question, they had twenty academic persons as against ten civic persons. He attached very great importance in Ireland to enlisting the interest and support of the civic authorities. It had become very necessary in England in the administration of endowed schools and the like. People were no longer content to stand by—great municipalities and authorities—and see old grammar schools and other places where the children of their towns were educated entirely arranged by academic persons without civic authority or control. He had very frequently had to deal with that question, and experience had
434
shown that the introduction of a liberal number of civic people into the governing bodies of secondary schools and colleges did a great deal of good. He did not think the case of Edinburgh was exactly in point. The University of Edinburgh was celebrated, ancient, and known throughout Europe. It did not require to be nursed and protected by the Lord Provost and Corporation, and, therefore, it might very well be that the City of Edinburgh was content to allow its civic representation on the governing body of that great University to be confined to the Lord Provost. But this was a very different affair. Here they had a struggling and new university, not only poor in its financial resources, but poor having regard to the character of the young men and women who were to attend it. They would require all the support they could get from bursaries and the like, and from the rates; and he thought it would be very foolish indeed in this great matter to be slow to recognise civic authority. He quite agreed that in the recent observations which he made he had not in his mind at the moment the proportion which would exist between the academically selected body and the civic authorities. He knew that civic authorities would have to be there in a limited form in the proposed schedule, but he had not these particular figures in his mind. He thought, however, on the whole that twenty academic persons as against ton civic persons was a fair proportion. He did not pretend to have the intimate acquaintance with Ireland which belonged to people born and bred there, but really he had sufficient confidence in their good sense and in the good sense of the civic authorities to imagine that they would not be hostile or interfere with the election of professors of Greek, of languages, or of philosophy; he did not think that they would seek to thrust some one man among the three to be selected by the governing body, and to be adjudicated upon by the supreme Senate of the federated Universities. In regard to a professor of agriculture they might have ideas of their own, and he dared say that they were entitled to have ideas of their own on that subject. But that was not a very difficult subject to determine. Therefore, he did not think it ought to be brought up against these persons that they would seek to adjudicate on the appointment of

435
professors. He thought that their influence could be usefully employed for the advantage of the college, and he did not suppose for a moment that they would ever interfere in the selection of professors of Greek, languages, or philosophy. If they did they were in a permanent minority, and it might he relied upon that those who were elected by the academic council to the colleges and the Universities were as much likely to be present at the selection as were the members representing the county councils. At all events, he was willing to give the matter a fair trial. They had all said that the thing was to be democratic. He did not know exactly what it meant in all its branches, but it certainly did mean that the governing body should be wisely selected, and should be based not merely on the academic side, but also upon the popular and civic side of the locality where the University was situate. He was, therefore, very much disposed, although he did not like the part of haggling over one portion more than another, to think the final proportion—a body of thirty-four for Dublin, would be better than his hon. friend's schedule, which would reduce the thirty-four to twenty-five, and would only allow the civic authorities to have two representatives—the Lord Mayor of the City of Dublin, and a person representing the council. There would be only two civic representatives out of a body of thirty-four. He thought, on the whole, it would be better to have the larger body of thirty-four, in which there would be an enormous majority on the academic side. He thought eight or ten representatives of the civic authorities was better than two, which alone the hon. Member would give them. In the same way at Cork, he proposed to have a body of twenty-eight, whereas the hon. Member proposed to have one of twenty-three.
MR. BUTCHER: It is twenty-four. That is a mistake.
MR. BIRRELLsaid the hon. Gentleman confined the civic authority to the Lord Mayor or other person representing the County Council of Cork, whereas he had himself gone carefully into this matter in conjunction with the hon. Member for Cork, and the President, who attached the very greatest importance to the cooperation of the Lord Mayor of Cork,
436
the Mayor of Limerick, the Mayor of Waterford, and the chairmen or other persons representing the County Councils of Cork, Waterford, Kerry, and Limerick. They wanted to enlist the support of those persons in order that the people in those districts might feel that they had a voice in the representation. He thought, therefore, that it was better to have the larger body of twenty-eight rather than his hon. friend's smaller body of twenty-four, and instead of having two they would have eight representatives of civic authorities. Galway was a very difficult case indeed. The fortunes of that college largely depended upon their being able to enlist the interest of the locality round about Roscommon, Sligo, and other towns. Unless they could make these representative bodies of the localities feel that they had a University within reach of Galway he was afraid the institution might have a stiff time before it, whereas, if they really could under the new constitution make the people in all these towns surrounding Galway feel that they had a University of their own the institution would feel a beneficial effect. To do that it would be better to have twenty-six, including seven civic representatives. After all, there again the civic representatives would be in a permanent minority. On the whole, therefore, he thought they were bound to give those places a chance, and for his part he would not be in the least frightened of their behaving in an unreasonable manner, or interfering with matters in regard to which they obviously did not possess the necessary knowledge. He thought, on the other hand, they would take a great part in the future development of the colleges. He would not care to say that these figures, made after elaborate consultation and enormous correspondence, were final. He preferred to leave it to experiment, and after a few years they might possibly make some alteration in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. He could not accept the Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he was glad to hear the Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Gentleman, who, he hoped, would not further press his Amendment. Though the hon. Member was a distinguished and worthy academic authority, yet he was perhaps not so well acquainted as men of the world

437
with all the necessities of the case. The hon. Gentleman had very frankly admitted that his object was to cut down the popular representation to the minimum and to flood the governing bodies with professorial and academic dignities. To do that would, in his opinion, destroy one of the healthiest principles of this Bill, which was that these Universities were to be the people's Universities, to which representatives of the people were expected to contribute, and in whose management consequently the representatives of the people would be entitled to have a voice. He did not share the alarm of the hon. Gentleman that the academic element on those governing bodies would be weakened. He thought the danger was rather the other way. It might be too predominant, and it might be that these academic personages would fall into a condition of sleepiness and inertia unless they had a healthy public opinion behind them. He thought the Chief Secretary was absolutely right in anticipating that these terrible lord mayors and county councillors would really have no ambition to teach Greek or physical science. So far as Cork College was concerned, at all events, he thought they would rather act in the direction followed by Birmingham University of encouraging local initiative, with a view to the development of special local industries and the practical moans of life. With that object, in his opinion, the presence on these head bodies of local business men of capacity, skilled agriculturists, and others, was quite as essential an ingredient of success as the presence of more learned professors would be. The Chief Secretary had pointed out that the effect of this consequential Amendment would be that outside Cork no corporation or county council would have any representation whatever, and the result would be to deprive Cork of any reasonable claim it might have for the assistance of other counties. There was really no earthly reason that he could understand why the desire of these popular bodies to give a helping hand to the great work of Cork College should be deliberately cut out. In every matter connected with the Bill they would really have to trust people, and the more influence théy gave to sturdy democratic opinion the surer they
438
might be of the success of these Universities in an academic and every other way.
*MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he give this proposal his hearty support. The position which the Chief Secretary had taken up was to a very large extent different from that which he took up on the First Reading. He said then, speaking, it was true of the Senate of the Universities, and not of the governing bodies of the colleges, that the Senates would be academically elected bodies, and anybody who had the honour of finding himself a member thereafter of either of these Senates would be so because he had received the votes of the professors and graduates of the Universities. The same idea ran through his whole speech when dealing with the question of the governing bodies, and he said it was thought three years would be sufficient as the period of nomination, and after these three years they also would be academically elected bodies. The impression left on his mind from the Chief Secretary's speech was totally different from the impression which he obtained from reading the Charter himself. The case of the Dublin college was nearer perfection than either of the other two, although it was still a long way from perfection, but he found that taking those who were nominated by the Crown as academic members, which of course did not necessarily follow, there were on a board of thirty-four fourteen members who were not academic members. The duties which fell on the governing body of a college were purely academic duties, so technical that a person who had not gone through a University himself would be very ill-adapted to carry them out. In the case of Galway and Cork the proportion was still more gross. In the case of Cork they had twelve unacademic members of the governing body, and sixteen academic members. In that case they were almost approaching the point where the unacademic equalled the academic members. In the case of Galway it was even worse. There was an assortment of ten persons drawn from counties all around Galway, to sixteen academically appointed members. The Chief Secretary gave it as a reason for the appointment of these non-academic members that without interesting the counties the Universities would be

439
a failure. He begged to differ altogether on that point. If the Universities could only be made a success by allowing the counties of Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, and Clare as well as Galway, to elect representatives to the governing body of the colleges, and if it was necessary to resort to these means of exciting public interest in the college, it was not likely to be a success under any circumstances. On the contrary, just as he believed Queen's College, Galway, would have been a success long ago had it not been for the ban of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and would at present be a thriving and a highly useful institution, so would the new college which had the approval of the hierarchy be a success so far as numbers were concerned. The same thing applied to Cork. He had not the slightest doubt that under the new scheme proposed by the Bill, both Galway and Cork, when the edict went forth that Roman Catholics might make use of them, would be filled in a very short time. It was a great deal better, in his view, that purely academic and purely technical University affairs connected with the colleges should be left in the hands of men who had themselves gone through a University, and who knew something about its management. Such persons were obviously better fitted to manage the University than persons who would be sent there by various municipal and county authorities outside. He had had some small experience in the management of a hospital and he was on the governing body of a large hospital in Belfast, and his experience there was that on technical questions the whole tendency was to leave the settlement in the hands of those members of the governing body who happened to be doctors. The same thing would happen in this case, and the locally elected members of the governing body would have to leave the management of purely technical affairs to the academic part of the council, and it would be much better that local representation should be minimised as much as possible. He had also found that the professional part of the governing body in the case of the hospital he had spoken of was always very much less liable to be influenced by outside pressure. If a new doctor was to be appointed very great pressure was brought to bear on the members of the governing body who were not professional
440
men. That pressure was much more seldom brought to bear on the doctors, and even if it was they were always inclined to look at the thing much more from a purely professional point of view than were the outside members of the governing body, and precisely the same thing would happen in the case of the governing bodies of the colleges. In Galway he could quite imagine, when the question came up of the appointment of a professor, there would be an enormous number of outsiders who really knew very little about the qualifications of the applicants, and he was quite sure these various representatives in the seven or eight counties would be liable to a very great deal of pressure, and the chances of the wrong man being elected would be very much greater in the case of a body formed as it was under the Chief Secretary's scheme than it would be under the scheme which his hon. friend proposed. This was a purely technical point, into which the question of denominationalism or undenominationalism did not enter very much, but he thought it a most important one, and he hoped the House would very seriously consider it before they rejected the proposal.
MR. MOOREsaid they had heard a great deal in the course of the argument about the desirability of giving these civic bodies representation. He thought as much interest would be taken by local people in the local University whether members of the county councils were on the governing body or not. All this proceeded from the mistaken application of the theory that where there was a contribution coming from a local body, the local body was entitled to representation. But it was not suggested here that there was any contribution from local bodies, and they had no right to be represented. If they put people who were themselves elected into a position of responsibility on the governing bodies, they would be exposing those people to very severe pressure from their own electors. He did not think the members would value it at all. They knew very well in local government administration the intense pressure, in some cases bribery, he was sorry to say, especially in the south and west of Ireland. [Cries of "No."] It was quite easy to say "No," but cases were in the public knowledge—charges,

441
at any rate, had been made and tried. If this happened in local administration, he fancied the local administrators who were placed on these bodies would be exposed to very much the same influences, and he did not think it was to their good, or that it added anything to the stability of the University. They would canvass for the election of professors just as they would for the appointment of a charwoman or a gate porter. But there were many more important points to deal with. The proposal in the Bill was that the entire constitution of the governing body of the three local colleges was to be carried out by charter. As a matter of fact they knew that a charter was the act of the Sovereign and it was only by the courtesy of the Chief Secretary that they had been able to see the draft charter. The House had no power to control the issue to-morrow of another revised draft charter in entirely different terms. When these colleges had been in existence six months and the money had been voted, there was nothing to prevent another charter being issued, and the House would have no control whatsoever over the governing bodies of those colleges, and the whole face of their creation could be changed without the intervention of the House. Surely this was a case in which it was both possible and desirable that the constitution of the governing bodies should be laid down by statute. The Bill itself contained the constitution of the governing bodies of the Universities. That was provided for by statute, and when the Chief Secretary said that he did not want a stereotyped form that was his way of altering by charter what did not suit him. He thought that argument would apply equally to creating the governing body of the University by charter, but the right hon. Gentleman had not done that and he could not see any reason why the constitution of the colleges should not be controlled by the House. Why was it not done in this case, because that was the popular tendency? London University was controlled by Act of Parliament, and surely it was right that where Parliament voted money it should impose conditions which could only be altered by the consent of Parliament. Notwithstanding this the Chief Secretary said that he was not going to put the constitution of these
442
colleges into a Bill on account of the inconvenience of having them altered by Parliament. The moment he said that he gave the whole of his case away. Those who were jealous of the privileges of the House ought to insist that the rights and the power to control the collges now being created should be protected in. this way. He thought his hon. friend had done a valuable service in drawing the attention of the House to this kind of interference by charter, because they were losing by this procedure all control of the governing bodies of these three colleges. Unless some reason was given for differentiating the treatment between the Universities and these three colleges, he hoped the House in defence of its own interests and in accordance with more recent developments would vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought this was a matter of very great importance and he regretted that the Chief Secretary had been obliged to leave the House. The question was not whether the schedule of his hon. friend or that of the Chief Secretary was the better. Local authorities played a large part in the schedules of the Chief Secretary, and he would be the last person to contest the right of local authorities to be represented on the governing bodies and institutions to which they made contributions or in which they were necessarily locally interested. He knew the value of the assistance which local authorities had given in education in this country too well to doubt that in Ireland they would be efficient and desirous of promoting education in the areas over which they presided. He did not wish to raise any question of the merits of these two governing bodies proposed respectively by the Chief Secretary and the Member for Cambridge University. What he wished was to impress upon the House that after a large sum of money had been allocated by Parliament, it was not right that the House should be debarred from considering what was to be the constitution of the bodies by whom the money was going to be spent. It seemed to him that to leave this matter

443
to be dealt with by charter was quite contrary to the spirit in which they had been in the habit of dealing with such matters. He was not speaking with any hostility to the measure before them, and there was no question of denominationalism or undenominationalism in the matter. He simply wanted to insist upon the right of the House of Commons to determine the constitution of bodies which were going to spend a large sum of public money, and as he had not heard a single argument against that point from the other side he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
*MR. BUTCHERsaid he would like to reply to one or two of the speeches. The Chief Secretary had said that the constitution of these colleges was entirely experimental and, therefore, ought to be put in the charter rather than in the Act. But if the constitution of the colleges was experimental, so, too, was the constitution of the Universities, and as had already been pointed out, the Chief Secretary had not ventured on that account to withdraw the constitution of the two Universities from discussion in the House. They all held together, those five bodies, the two Universities, and the three constituent colleges. In comparing the different elements which went to form these governing bodies of the colleges it had been assumed that the nominees of the Crown should be regarded as an academic clement. Looking at the history of appointments in Ireland he was not quite able to assume that the nominees of the Crown would be of that character. In Committee, he had moved to reduce the nominees of the Crown, but he did not wish to have instead a preponderating element of councillors. At the same time let it be understood that he was not against a mixed constitution, for he desired that there should be others than academic persons on those bodies. He had seen himself in the practical working of such governing bodies great advantage come from the introduction into academic bodies of men of business with civic experience, in close touch with the communities they represented. Therefore, he desired that this element
444
should be represented only not in any undue proportion. The hon. Member for Cork had spoken of the advantage that came from bringing a whiff or breach of public air into those closer academic bodies and he quite agreed with him. If he were dealing only with the College of Cork he would be strongly tempted to leave the constitution as it was, because he had already seen partly in the munificent action of the hon. Member for Cork himself and in the keen interest which a great many persons in Cork had taken in this question a pledge and promise that popular representation in Cork would not be tempted to abuse its powers. But they were now laying down a constitution which was to last for years, and be applicable to all the Colleges. The Chief Secretary had said that he had perfect confidence that the county councils of Ireland would not interfere with patronage; but if that was so it would be the very first instance in which the county councils had refrained from exercising the privilege. If there was one thing above another that brought together county councillors from the remotest parts of the country it was the exercise of patronage. He did not suggest that they would have some malign influence over the college in their own neighbourhood; but whatever they knew about other things, they did not know much about the government and policy of Universities. They might or might not have a political bias. He did not rest it on that, but on the fact that though it was wise to excite their interest and elicit their generosity, it was not wise to put so much power in their hands. To sum it all up, his one object in this Amendment, as in the others that he had put down, was to start these Universities and colleges on lines that would ensure a successful future. In order to do that, his confident belief was that they should be kept free as far as possible from all religious and political outside influences, and that the University element, as distinct from the civic element, ought largely to preponderate in the government.
MR. BIRRELLagreed that the problem was to combine the academic and civic

445
elements. No University had been established of late years on any other principle than that of invoking the aid of the locality were it was situated, and anybody who knew anything of the work of primary or secondary education knew that it was hopeless to establish a University without the presence on the governing body of representatives of the locality. It was most desirable that they should reserve to themselves greater liberty to try the experiment of these governing bodies rather than, to stereotype them in the Bill; but the House would never consent to the minimising of the civic element that was contained in the hon. Member's schedule.
The whole question was what proportion they were to fix between the civic and academic elements. There was a very considerable difference between the hon. Gentleman and himself. The hon. Gentleman cut the civic representatives in Cork down to two; while preserving the academic majority he desired to enlist the sympathy of the county councils of that great province which the University would serve, and he could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 38. (Division List No. 216.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Curran, Peter Francis

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dalziel, James Henry

Hazleton, Richard

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Ambrose, Robert

Delany, William

Hemmerde, Edward George

Armitage, R.

Devlin, Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Henry, Charles S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dillon, John

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Barnard, E. B.

Donelan, Captain A.

Higham, John Sharp

Barnes, G. N.

Duckworth, James

Hogan, Michael

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Duffy, William J.

Horniman, Emslie John

Beale, W. P.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hudson, Walter

Beauchamp, E.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hyde, Clarendon

Beck, A. Cecil

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Idris, T. H. W.

Bell, Richard

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Erskine, David C.

Jackson, R. S.

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

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Bennett, E. N.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Everett, R. Lacey

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Boland, John

Farrell, James Patrick

Joyce, Michael

Boulton, A. C. F.

Fenwick, Charles

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Brace, William

Ferens, T. R.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Branch, James

Ffrench, Peter

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Brigg, John

Field, William

Kilbride, Denis

Brooke, Stopford

Findlay, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Burke, E. Haviland-

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Burns, Rt. Hon, John

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lehmann, R. C.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fullerton, Hugh

Lewis, John Herbert

Byles, William Pollard

Gill, A. H.

Lundon, W.

Cameron, Robert

Glendinning, R. G.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Chance, Fredreick William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Clancy, John Joseph

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Maclean, Donald

Cleland, J. W.

Griffith, Ellis J.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Clough, William

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Clynes, J. R.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Halpin, J.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

M'Killop, W.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Micking, Major G.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Harrington, Timothy

Markham, Arthur Basil

Cowan, W. H.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Marnham, F. J.

Crean, Eugene

Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Meagher, Michael

Crooks, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

Cullinan, J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Menzies, Walter

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Steadman, W. C.

Micklem, Natheniel

Radford, G. H.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Raphael, Herbert H.

Summerbell, T.

Mooney, J. J.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Reddy, M.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Morse, L. L.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Murnaghan, George

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Tomkinson, James

Murphey, John (Kerry, East)

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

Toulmin, George

Myer, Horatio

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Verney, F. W.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Napier, T. B.

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Nolan, Joseph

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Walsh, Stephen

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Robinson, S.

Walton, Joseph

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Wardle, George J.

Nuttall, Harry

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Roe, Sir Thomas

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Rowlands, J.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Russell, T. W.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

O'Doherty, Philip

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Sears, J. E.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

O'Dowd, John

Seaverns, J. H.

Wiles, Thomas

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Seddon, J.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Malley, William

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wood, T. McKinnon

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Young, Samuel

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Pollard, Dr.

Snowden, P.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Spicer, Sir Albert

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Massie, J.

Ashley, W. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Moore, William

Balcarres, Lord

Hill, Sir Clement

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hills, J. W.

Percy, Earl

Cave, George

Holt, Richard Durning

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Clark, George Smith

Joynson-Hicks, William

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Butcher and Mr. Hugh Barrie.

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Charles

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Magnus, Sir Philip

Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 11, to leave out the word 'the,' and to insert the words 'any such new.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 11, after the word 'Charter,' to insert the words 'or an alteration of an existing Charter.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
Amendment agreed to.
*SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid that in the absence of the hon. Member for Cambridge University he wished to move an Amendment, of which he himself had also given notice. The main object of his Amendment was to give in the first instance powers of recognising institutions and teachers to the Statutory Commissioners rather than to the Senate. As soon as the functions of the Statutory Commissioners ceased it would be in the power of the Senate of the University to recognise any institution

449
that they liked. Personally, he thought that it would be a very great advantage if, in the first instance, the Statutory Commissioners should be empowered, as they were not by the Bill, to recognise institutions which would receive the privileges referred to in the clause. There were many reasons why it was desirable that those powers should be given to the Statutory Commissioners. In the first place, the Statutory Commissioners might be said, without any disrespect to the new Senate, to be a more judicial body than the Senate. They would be altogether freer from external influences or pressure being brought to bear upon them. Further than that, they were a very much smaller body, ten in the case of the Dublin University, and seven in the case of the Belfast University. He thought that such a body would be able to consider the evidence that might be submitted, and adjudicate on the claims of institutions to be recognised as part of the University very much better than the Senate which consisted of thirty or forty members. He must say that there was a good precedent for the course he recommended. In the case of the London University, the Statutory Commissioners actually put into the Schedule of the Statutes certain schools which became schools of the University. Moreover, they scheduled at the same time the first list of teachers who were to be regarded as recognised teachers of the University. There were special reasons why the Statutory Commissioners should exercise that power in the case of the two new Universities in Ireland. He did not think there could be any doubt whatever that the Statutory Commissioners as well as the Senate of the University which was to have its seat in Dublin, would recognise Maynooth as one of the colleges to which this privilege was to be given. Personally, he had never seen any objection to the recognition of Maynooth, although similar objections applied to Maynooth which had been urged against Magee College. He did not think there was any likelihood of the Statutory Commissioners, with the strong evidence which would be brought before then as to the importance of recognising the College of Maynooth, refusing to do so. But there was another
450
college much more closely connected with the educational life of Ireland, which it seemed to him it was still more important should be recognised in the new University to be established in Dublin. He was not so certain that the Royal College of Science would receive the same measure of recognition from the Senate to be appointed as he believed it would from the Statutory Commissioners, after hearing all the evidence as to its claims. He referred, as he had done in the Committee upstairs, to the importance of closely associating one of these new Universities with the Royal College of Science; and there were several reasons why that College should be associated with the new University at Dublin. He ventured to think that one of the first duties of the Commissioners would be so to arrange matters that there should be no overlapping nor cause of friction between the Royal College of Science and the University to be established in Dublin. The time had long since pissed when humanistic studies were regarded as the main subject upon which a course of University education should be founded. Oxford and Cambridge had both created schools of applied science in which engineering and agriculture were taught, and every new University which had been established in this country had made its faculty of applied science one of the most important in the University. If they looked abroad they found the same thing. In France new Universities had been established in many towns, and attached to them all were what were called special schools, in which some branch of applied science or technology was made an essential part of the instruction. In Germany, for a long period, two sets of Universities had been in existence. That was to say, the teaching of applied science had been divorced from University education. The Germans themselves acknowledged that no greater mistake was ever made, and that if they were establishing their Universities afresh, they would attach the faculties of engineering and applied science to the Universities. In Ireland, of all countries, it was very important; that great prominence should be given to the teaching of applied science and technology, and for that reason he strongly urged that the Commissioners to

451
be appointed should have the power of recognising the Royal College of Science. There could be no doubt whatever that in the new University at Dublin applied science would be taught, and he had no hesitation in saying there was no room in Dublin for three efficient schools of applied science. There was already such a school in connection with Trinity College, and there was the Royal College of Science, and it would be a lamentable waste of effort and money if separate laboratories were to be established in connection with the new University, having regard to the excellent arrangements that now existed for the teaching of different branches of pure and applied science in the Royal College of Science. Complaint was made that the amount of money placed at the disposal of the new University for building and maintenance was insufficient, but if use were made of the facilities for the teaching of science which already existed in connection with the Royal College of Science, a large amount of money would be set free for the purpose of establishing those hostels which were such an important part of the organisation of a University. Only recently a Departmental Committee, of which the Minister for War was Chairman and of which he himself had been a member, recommended that the Royal College of Science and School of Mines at South Kensington, together with the City Guilds Technical College should be united in a new Institution to be known as the Imperial College of Science and Technology and should be affiliated to the University of London, and only yesterday it was admitted as a school of the University. But for that recommendation the Imperial College might have preferred to remain apart. It was for that reason that he wished the Statutory Commissioners to have power to recognise such colleges as they might think should be at once affiliated. Suppose that recognition did not take place, what would happen? How were the students of the Royal College of Science to obtain University degrees? The Royal University was already abolished, and the students of applied science would not be able to obtain a degree at all unless this college was recognised as part of the University. The students of this institution, which had done a most important work for the last forty years, would not
452
otherwise be able to obtain degrees from the new University. What he had said with regard to Dublin applied equally to the University at Belfast. He had an Amendment on the Paper that the Technical Institute of Belfast should be represented on the governing body of the University of Belfast. It was essential that there should be the closest intimacy between the two. There were branches of engineering taught at the Queen's College and other branches taught at the Technical Institute, and it was essential that there should be no overlapping. The amount of money at the disposal of the new University was not too great, and it was most important that the teaching should be properly coordinated, and that these institutions, which were at present giving instruction in applied science, should be affiliated. He begged to move.
*MR. BUTCHERseconded the Amendment. As the Bill at present stood affiliation could be carried out only by the University governing body. But there would be an interval of two, perhaps of three years, during which the Commissioners were exercising their powers and no affiliation would be possible. During this interregnum the affiliation of a particular college or institute might become pressing, for one of the first duties of the Commissioners would be to draw out the general framework of study and to organise the faculties. Now the faculty of science could hardly be constituted unless the existing machinery for the teaching of science in Dublin was at once utilised. He reminded the House that the Royal College of Science was the only college in Ireland which the Robertson Commission recommended for immediate affiliation. As the Bill stood, however, the whole organisation of the science faculty would have to be postponed for two or three years until the powers of the Commissioners expired, and the Senate became the body responsible for the government of the University. This was a matter of urgent importance, and he could not conceive any reason why the Commissioners should not be entrusted with the power. The Chief Secretary said he desired to leave the governing body of the University free; but the Statutory Commissioners were a body

453
quite as responsible as would be the new governing bodies, and were, moreover, invested with powers far greater than this which was denied them. Possibly there were one or two, other affiliations which ought to be carried out at once. He thought it extremely likely that the Royal College of Surgeons ought to be affiliated without delay; but in proposing that the Commissioners should have this power, he was not suggesting that reluctant bodies should be affiliated by force.
Amendment proposed—
"In page2, line 15, after the word 'which' to insert the words 'the Commissioners, and after the powers of the Commissioners determine."—(Sir Philip Magnus.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. BIRRELLsaid that whilst in accord with a great deal of what the hon. Members had said, he really did not see the necessity of the Amendment. He was the last person in the world to doubt the qualifications of the body of gentlemen who, at great self-sacrifice, had consented to take upon themselves onerous duties, and to become Commissioners. The proposal of the Amendment was that the actual power of affiliation of any institution under the Bill should be taken away, at all events for the time being, from the Senate and conferred upon the statutory body of Commissioners. He did not think that would be wise or desirable. The Commissioners would have full power to make such recommendations as they might think fit as to what bodies should be affiliated, and it would be in the power of, the Senate to come to a decision upon any matter that might be of urgent importance. It would be impossible for the Commissioners to proceed with the determination of the faculty of science without knowing whether the College of Surgeons was willing to be affiliated, and whether the Senate intended to affiliate it. Supposing the Senate found that the college was willing to be affiliated, it would be quite possible for it to meet and decide the question, and the responsibility should be upon them rather than upon the Commissioners, whose powers were already sufficiently great to excite
454
a certain amount of alarm amongst people interested in the subject. The Senate would be able to meet immediately after the passing of the Act for the purpose of electing Chancellors, and it would also meet from time to time for the purpose of relieving the work of the Commissioners and enabling them to know exactly what form their statutes were to take. The Senate would be able to meet at any time to consider any point that might be submitted to it, and he was quite sure they would give every consideration to any recommendation, aye or no, coming from a body so competent to perform their duties as the Commissioners, whether the College of Surgeons or the College of Science should be affiliated. He regarded the power of recognising courses of study in external colleges with a good deal of suspicion, and, if the Senate exercised any freedom which they must allow them, he hoped they would do so in a jealous and guarded spirit. He quite recognised that the case of the College of Science in Dublin presented difficulties, and that it would be a difficult thing to organise the faculty of science of the new University leaving that body altogether out of consideration. Many of the Commissioners were well acquainted with Dublin and the work of the College of Science, and, if these eminent men were to come to the conclusion that it was necessary for the working out of their scheme that the College of Science should be taken in, and they made a recommendation of that kind, he was quite sure the Senate would give that recommendation every consideration.
MR. WALTER LONG: said he was sorry the Chief Secretary could not meet the difficulty raised by his hon. friends. It would, of course, be the aim and object of the new University to extend its area as widely as it could and offer as great facilities as possible for higher education in every branch. The College of Surgeons and the College of Science were two institutions which had attained a high position amongst educational establishments in the world, and they had gone through a very serious period of development in their history. The Chief Secretary, he thought, ignored the fact that they were endowing this new

455
University with a large amount of public money; and surely he knew that to argue that the Senate could give effect to this or that desire was really rather misleading. The powers of the Commissioners took precedence of any powers the Senate might have, and, assuming it to be the desire of the new University to offer facilities for education in science or surgery, it was quite conceivable that using the endowment Parliament was giving they might arrive at some scheme offering improved facilities on those of the College of Science and College of Surgeons at lower terms. He did not think it would have been outrageous to demand that those institutions should be affiliated, presuming they were willing. If they did not desire to be affiliated, well and good; but, assuming that they did, were they going to leave it open to the new University to destroy them by creating competing institutions? The Chief Secretary did not think it would happen. They did not ask that the colleges should have priority; all they asked was that it should be obligatory on the part of the Commissioners to hear and consider the case whether they should be affiliated; and, if the case was proved, to do what was necessary to affiliate them Was it to be left to the Senate to decide, aye or no, according as cheaper and better facilities might be offered by the new Universities? Surely the Chief Secretary must see that that was not treating the colleges fairly. These institutions were absolutely undenominational, and there could be no arguments similar to those used in connection with Amendments previously moved. They occupied special positions not only in Ireland but throughout the world. Did the Chief Secretary really believe he was giving them a fair chance by refusing the Amendment? He could answer for it that there was a very widespread feeling in Ireland, not by any means confined to one side of politics or creed, in support of the view put forward, and he profoundly regretted that the Chief Secretary had been unable to meet it, because he believed that by rejecting Amendments of this kind he was not giving his Bill the fair start which it ought to be given if it was to prove the success which it ought to be.
Amendment negatived.
*MR. BUTCHER*MR. BUTCHER moved an Amendment to provide that affiliation should be "by statute." The question was whether this very important question of affiliation—because there was no other word which expressed the meaning—should be carried out by statute or by resolution. For the moment, he would ask the House to put out of their heads the question of Maynooth, on which he would not enter, although it was the one which was most prominent in their minds when the word affiliation was mentioned. Maynooth was not the only body in Ireland which might be affiliated. Probably many hon. Members were not aware that there were many other seminaries in Ireland besides Maynooth, and bodies which would undoubtedly desire to get University degrees. It was given in evidence before the Robertson Commission by Dr. O'Dea, then Vice-President of Maynooth, that among the religious orders in Ireland there would probably be a hundred at any given moment who might wish to attend University courses in Arts. There were in Ireland altogether fourteen orders which embraced something like 600 priests. In addition to the religious orders, there was another class of clerical students who were preparing in their own seminaries for work in England or the Colonies, and that work was carried out at All Hallows College, Dublin, and also at four diocesan colleges. There were over 300 of these students, and they had been told on the same authoritative evidence that there would probally be about 100 candidates who would desire to graduate in Arts. It was quite clear that very great pressure would be brought to bear by all the seminaries in Ireland to get the same privileges which were given to any one seminary. But it was not merely a seminary question. There were a great many other colleges in Ireland which had nothing to do with clerics, where laymen would seek to get degrees by living in them as affiliated institutions without the necessity of residence at the seat of one of the constituent colleges. He mentioned this merely to show that affiliation ought to be guarded by the most stringent provisions that the House could provide, not from a religious or denominational,

457
but from a purely educational point of view. If the Universites they were now setting up were to be teaching Universities, residential Universities in the real sense, the facilities for affiliation must be limited to the very utmost of their power, otherwise it was frankly his belief that they might as well maintain the Royal University as an examining body and not disturb existing arrangements and waste an enormous amount of public money. If that was so the privilege ought to be granted in a very guarded and restricted manner, and a mere resolution of the governing body should not be sufficient to carry out affiliation. There were two other considerations in this federal University, which made it all the more important that the procedure should be careful and deliberate. The first was this. The new University of Dublin was a federal University, and one of the weaknesses of a federal University was that its component elements were rather loosely compacted. It had not that degree of unity which obtained in the single independent University. It was always tending to disintegration, and disintegrated the new University would surely be, if they attempted affiliation on any large scale. The other consideration arose from the fact that according to the Bill and the charter read together, affiliation might take place on the proposal of any one of these constituent colleges without the consent of the other colleges. To take a single instance; suppose the college in Dublin desired that certain institutions should be affiliated to itself that were not even in the Province of Leinster, but in Munster, and within the sphere of influence of the college of Cork. This would at once withdraw students who would naturally have gone to the college in Cork. Therefore, they needed a method of procedure more careful and stringent than they had in the Bill. In the United Kingdom there was in existence one other federal University only, namely, the University of Wales, and affiliation in the University of Wales could only be done by statute. It required, moreover, the approval of the visitor, that is, the King acting through the Lord President of the Council. There they went so
458
far as to make a two-thirds majority of those present and voting necessary for the making of the statute for carrying out affiliation. In the Scottish Universities affiliation could only be carried out by ordinance, which corresponded to a statute, and lay on the Table of the two Houses, from which there was an appeal to the Privy Council. There was also an elaborate arrangement in the newer Universities of Manchester, Leeds, and Liverpool, to safeguard the procedure of affiliation. Knowing what the dangers of affiliation were—dangers to the very existence of the new Universities—he thought it would be hardly possible for the Chief Secretary to refuse the Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 16, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'by statute.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BIRRELLsaid that to impose the obligation referred to by statute would defeat the object of the hon. Member. The words of the clause were—
"Nothing in this section shall prevent provision being made by the charter of the new Universities under which the University may give to students who are pursuing a course of study of a University type approved by the governing body of the University in any recognised college in Ireland under teachers recognised by the governing body for the purpose, the benefit of any privileges of matriculated students of the University, or the right of obtaining a University degree, subject to any conditions or limitations contained in the charter or statutes of the University."
Having once gone the length of recognising courses of study and teachers by statute they would not watch them with the same care afterwards. He shared entirely the hon. Member's anxiety upon this subject, and he was all the more anxious that the University should keep in their own hands the constant power of altering and withdrawing the privileges conferred by the clause. Supposing Dublin solemnly recognised Maynooth or some other place by statute, they could only take it away by statute, and thus instead of strengthening the hands of the

459
University they would put obstacles in their way. Procedure by statute in a Ministerial Act of this sort, which had to be taken almost from term to term, was not the ordinary way in the case of other Universities. There was however, a good deal of force in the point with regard to the fact that Dublin was a federated University, having colleges outside at Cork and Galway. It was very desirable that it should not be in the power of the senate of the University to recognise an affiliated institution within the area of influence of one of the outlying constituent colleges without the consent of the governing body of that college. He was not sure that the charter as drawn up was as precise as it ought to be, and he was prepared to make an alteration so as to prevent the governing body at headquarters from coming within the immediate sphere of influence of either Cork or Galway, and so affiliating institutions they would not otherwise have affiliated. In consultation with the hon. Member he would see that the charter was altered in that respect.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the point in dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. friend was really one of procedure. He thought the whole future of the University scheme which was being set up would practically depend upon how the procedure worked out. He believed that the Senate of the new University would do all they could to make it a success, and for his own part he hoped they would succeed. The question of the affiliation of schools was of extreme importance, and surely the Chief Secretary knew that in a country like Ireland it was not merely a question of what was said at Maynooth, but it was a matter of external pressure. It was that pressure which they ought to take care should be minimised as much as possible by the House of Commons as regarded the Senate. If he was right in his contention that it was merely a question of procedure, surely they ought to adopt that method which was the most deliberate, and which gave the greatest possible power to the Senate in resisting the pressure that might be put upon them from outside. Instead of having a mere resolution which might be carried to affiliate any of those colleges or seminaries, he thought it should be done by the statute of the University. That
460
was a matter which ought to be fully considered, not merely with a view to the Senate passing a resolution, but also with a view to the statutes being laid upon the Table of the House. The Bill gave an enormous power to the Senate, and the Senate ought to have every opportunity of resisting outside pressure. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had given any real answer as to why the more deliberate form of affiliation should not be adopted. His hon. friend behind him had quoted two precedents—one, the precedent of Wales, which was a federated University wherein such a matter could only be done by the statute, Not only that, but there must be a considerable majority—a majority of two-thirds—in favour of the statute being passed. The other precedent quoted by his hon. friend was the Scottish precedent, which was in the same direction. Those precedents were founded upon commonsense and upon the idea that such a matter as this ought to be done with the greatest possible deliberation in regard to schools which it might not be advisable to admit to the position of affiliated colleges. In all goodwill he pressed this upon the Chief Secretary as a matter which might have far-reaching results upon the position which the University would attain not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout the Empire. If it came to be believed outside of Ireland that there were schools attached to the University which should not be attached to it, the University would never reach a position of eminence in the world of Universities, and in the world of science and art. This was a matter which ought not to be hastily dealt with. It ought to have very grave consideration. He thought the Chief Secretary should provide some safeguard to ensure that affiliations would be carried out in the best interests of the University.
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid that the Amendment was based on a suspicion that these bodies would not have at heart the interests of the Universities that they represented. Why should the Universities be tied down in swaddling clothes from the very outset? It was obvious that the persons who would have the greatest interest in the Universities would be the members of the Seriate, and he did not think that they should be hampered in matters in regard to which they would

461
be very much better informed than anybody else could be. On that side of the House they believed that the fifty-two bodies would be more or less representative, and that their work should not be made more difficult by unnecessary restrictions.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid this was a matter of the greatest importance to the future of the Universities, and he hoped that hon. Members below the gangway would understand that, whatever criticisms he had to offer in regard to the proposals of the Government, he heartily desired these Universities to be a success. He wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to this point. The conditions under which affiliation was to take place were indeterminate. There seemed to be a risk that the University might be flooded by extraneous students who had no opportunities for building up the traditions on which a University must afterwards live, and who might damage and disparage its character with the outside world. The affiliation of a college ought to be a matter of serious consideration to the body undertaking it. Although the Chief Secretary had said that it was so delicate a matter that it ought not to be stereotyped in any way by statute, he ventured to say that it was one of those things which could not be undone readily. Once done, it could not easily be undone, and if the University was to stand on its own foundation it ought not to be flooded at the outset with extraneous students who had no opportunity of associating themselves with the life of the University.
MR. BIRRELLsaid the clause provided that the benefit of the privileges of the University or the right of obtaining a University degree, were only to be extended to students of affiliated colleges "subject to any conditions or limitations contained in the Charter or Statutes of the University."
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that might be done or undone by a body sitting in private, and there was nothing in the whole of the conditions of affiliation to prevent provisions being made for the affiliation of colleges contrary to the wish of the general body of the University.
MR. BIRRELLsaid there was the statute of the University.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid a statute of the University was passed by the governing body of the University, and not by the general body of the University. The University public had no opportunity of considering whether it was or was not to the advantage of the University that an affiliation should take place. Affiliation should not be allowed to take place except after the fullest publicity and consideration. He had no desire to check the progress of affiliation in the case of institutions which it was desirable to affiliate, but it was most important when a new University was to be built up that its life and tradition should not suffer from the affiliation of institutions which ought not to be affiliated.
Amendment negatived.
*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS moved to amend subsection (4) of the clause so as to provide that the University might "recognise any college or institution in Ireland" by giving to students the privileges mentioned in the subsection. The purpose of this Amendment was, he said, to give a definition of what the recognition of a college really meant. He would point out that there was a little more in the Amendment than might appear at first sight. He would like the Chief Secretary to explain whether he intended that a set of teachers or a particular teacher, who might give education of a University character, should be recognised as such, notwithstanding any conditions under which that teaching was given. That was to say, was the right hon. gentleman prepared to give recognition to institutions in which the education provided was clearly of University type, or to teachers in Colleges whether or no they were properly equipped.
MR. RAWLINSONseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 16, to leave out the word 'give,' and insert the words "recognise any college or institution in Ireland by giving.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)
MR. BIRRELLsaid he could not possibly accept the Amendment, which

463
would completely upset the whole purport of the clause. The clause did not propose to recognise any college or institution whatever in Ireland, as such; it would simply ascertain whether in any particular college or institution there were teachers of a particular University type, giving teaching of a particular character. He would point out that they were making very slow progress, and that they had to get somewhere or other through a whole number of Amendments, and nobody wished to sit late that night or beyond a comparatively reasonable hour to-morrow.
Question proposed, "That the word 'give' stand part of the Bill."
Amendment negatived.
MR. BIRRELL MR. BIRRELL moved the insertion of the word "matriculated" before, "students." It was obviously a mistake to have omitted the word in drafting the subsection, because it was perfectly plain that the benefit was to be conferred only on matriculated students.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 16, after the words 'give to' insert 'matriculated.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'matriculated' be there inserted."
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that a considerable number of colleges considered that the provisions of the Bill would exclude a very large number of extern students from the benefits of the measure As the merits or demerits of the Bill were bound up with the question whether extern students could get a degree under its proposals it seemed to him that the only opportunity which the House would have of discussing the question of extern students would be on the Amendment of the Chief Secretary.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that even if an extern student were to be admitted he would have to be matriculated.
CAPTAIN CRAIGunderstood that it did not entail the student's being resident in the University.
MR. BIRRELL: No.
MR. MOOREasked whether the matriculation to be recognised was to be at Maynooth or at the University.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that matriculation was a University performance.
MR. MOOREsaid that that was quite inconsistent with the clause. If it was to be matriculation at the University these students could not be denied the same privileges as the students of the University.
MR. BIRRELLpointed out that a student could not matriculate at Maynooth. Maynooth was not a University.
MR. MOOREcontended in that case that it went further than the Chief Secretary intended, and that the word was being put in the wrong place. If the right hon. Gentleman read the clause with the word "matriculate" put in after "pursuing" he would find that the student would matriculate in a recognised college.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment agreed to.
CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG moved to omit the provision that the course of study of a University type giving students the right of obtaining a University degree should be "approved by the governing body of the University, in any recognised college in Ireland under teachers recognised by the governing body for that purpose." He said that the point raised by the Amendment was very important. Under Clause 2 as it at present stood there was no power whatever to provide that an external student should be treated in a similar manner to that in which he would in the Royal University of Ireland. A great hardship would be done thereby to Irish national school teachers whose case could be dealt with by leaving out the words suggested in the Amendment. He submitted that as these teachers were worse paid than similar teachers anywhere else they should at least be given the privilege under the Bill of attending the University and paying half fees. Outside that there was the question of the various county councils of Ireland sending privleged men in their area to be taught in the University. There were people in

465
Ireland who could not go and ask for special treatment such as that, and to that class his Amendment specially applied. The rule would prove a great success to those who were able to pass the qualifying examination, if this clause passed. But if it was confined to those students who were students of an affiliated institution, those who did not belong to such an institution would be cut off from all privileges which all persons in the category had been anxious to obtain in the Royal University of Ireland. The institutions to be affiliated to the Universities proposed by this Bill were already known. It was also well known that none of the county councils of Ireland would send up to the Universities anyone but their own particular proteges. And nobody believed that in certain parts of the south and west of Ireland such toleration would exist as the extension of this privilege by the county councils to the small minority of Protestant parents who resided there, or that their children would ever be sent to the University at the expense of the rates. That being so, they would refuse to go to the county councils for assistance to obtain the privileges they had had in the past. One of the greatest blots on the Bill was that it excluded entirely the external students. Under it they had no opportunities. There need be no question of bigotry, because the Amendment covered both Universities. He submitted that they should not give all these privileges to the students of these affiliated colleges and keep them from a man who desired to take a degree at the University as a reward for his own hard work at the cost of his own small savings. The amendment was absolutely necessary in order to protect the Universities in Ireland. County councils were all very well, but they were not to be trusted to treat the Universities as they ought to be treated; and in their interest, and particularly in the interest of the established body of national school teachers, he hoped the Chief Secretary would allow the Amendment.
*MR. CHARLES CRAIGcommended the Amendment to the House as one of the utmost importance. There were at the present time in Ireland 4,000 students of the Royal University, and of these there were probably 2,500 who had worked in their own time, and had perfected themselves for examination for a
466
degree at the Royal University. The Bill would absolutely exclude these students from the right which every Irishman had enjoyed for a great number of years, to present themselves for examination at the Royal University and to obtain a degree. This was a very serious step for the Government to take. The Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Cambridge University, and other Members, contended that the most valuable part of University education was the association with one's fellows, and in this he was to a certain extent in agreement; but he would ask the House to remember that there were fundamental differences between England and Ireland in this respect. There were many more Universities in England, and it was much more easy for an individual to become a student of a University. Ireland was comparatively a much poorer country, and the proportion of persons who could afford the time and money to go to a University was much smaller; in fact, the number who would be able to avail themselves of the University to be set up would be comparatively small. Everybody agreed it was desirable that people should obtain sufficient knowledge to take a degree, and, whilst he admitted there were a great many arguments in favour of the association of persons in a University, he believed nothing but good could be said to have come from the system which at present existed in Ireland, and by which anybody could get a University degree if sufficiently clever. He had not heard any sufficient argument why the right which had been enjoyed in Ireland for a great many years should be suddenly cut off. The case of the national school teacher would be particularly hard. If anybody ought to be able to obtain a degree with the least amount of trouble, it was the person who had to impart instruction to others. He could not understand what argument could be put forward why this deserving class should be deprived of the right of taking a degree at the Royal University. There was also a large number of clergy who were too poor to go either to Trinity College or to one of the Queen's Colleges, and who, in their leisure hours had worked, and had finally presented themselves and obtained a degree at the Royal University. They, too, were going to be cut off from the right.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 17, to leave out from the Word 'type' to the second 'the' in line 20."—(Captain Craig.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'for' in line 19, stand part of the Bill."
MR. BIRRELLsaid that were the Amendment carried, the Bill, in his opinion, would be worthless; certainly from that moment all his interest in it would cease. They had all along made it perfectly plain that their object was to try and establish a University of the same kind as the Universities of England and Scotland, not merely a University where degrees should be obtained, but a University which should in fact be a teaching institution. It was no use saying the University would have the power of recognising teaching in another place. That in no way disproved the value of the new University they were setting up, because the rights of affiliation where used would be used in respect of places where University teaching was given. The case of the national school teachers could easily be provided for by the rules and regulations of the Universities.
*SIR W. J. COLLINSventured to hope that this Amendment would be withdrawn. He himself had an Amendment on the Paper which raised the question of the external students, quite independently of these matters, and he thought it would be better raised on that Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed:—
"In page 2, line 19, after the word 'body,' to insert the words 'of the University':"—Captain Craig.
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
*SIR W. J. COLLINS, in moving an Amendment in the interests of extern students, said that not with standing what had fallen from the Chief Secretary, he ventured to appeal on behalf of the external students, because the opportunity
468
of residential instruction in colleges in Dublin was not necessarily incompatible with external graduation on the part of those who had neither time nor money to provide for residential courses. After all, residence was not everything. In these days, when examinations were so much disparaged, it was nevertheless something to prove a knowledge of any particular subject. The Chief Secretary would not run down examinations. He had quoted Melancthon to prove they were an antidote alike to sloth and to arrogance. The importtance of the University of London in this regard was to the point. Some ten years ago the University was reconstructed by this House, and made a teaching University. But it was not thought wise to shut the door to external students, and that door had remained open ever since, and not with standing the fact that it had been made a teaching University the external side was as large now as it was in 1898, or larger. It was stated in the Committee upstairs that this difficulty could be got over by providing bursaries, scholarships, and so forth. There were two types of knowledge which came to the door of the modern democratic University, and asked for recognition. On the one hand there were those who proceeded along the approved course of residential teaching with examinations conducted largely by their own teachers; and on the other hand there was a high standard of pass degrees conducted by independent examiners for those who had been unable to avail themselves of the residential facilities. Many of the most worthy candidates would have the door shut in their faces if this clause as it stood was sanctioned by the House. Not only would the national school teachers be prevented from obtaining degrees, but many who were engaged in commercial pursuits and technical work and training, and who, after their day's work was over, sat down and studied the theoretical side of the practical work they had done during the day, and who desired to register the result of their studies in it by taking a degree. In his opinion the University of London ought to be a guide to the Government in this matter, and it was for that reason he proposed this Amendment. For the first twenty years of its existence the constitution of the London University was very much the same as that of the University of this Bill. Its candidates came only from affiliated

469
institutions. But it was soon found that this was very little guarantee of any academic attainment whatsoever. It was in 1858 that it threw open its doors to the external student, and from then up to 1898 all the students were external students. When in 1898 it was made a teaching University it was thought unwise to shut the external door. He thought the same experience would repeat itself in Ireland. He thought in carrying out affiliation the tendency would be for the affiliated colleges to degenerate. The University of London maintained a system of high standard examination which kept the door open to all who applied. In that way they would be recognising a class of knowledge the recognition of which ought not to be denied to anybody in a democratic free University such as they were told the new Universities were going to he in Ireland.
MR. SEDDONsaid he would not repeat speeches which had been made upstairs. He understood that some of the opposition of the Chief Secretary was due to the fact that he was afraid this would lead to students cramming, and that University degrees might be obtained in that way. Personally, he had the same detestation in regard to cramming. So far as the degree was concerned it merely marked in these cases the standard of education attained, and was not worth much to those who received it. That might be the idea of the Chief Secretary, because they all knew his great scholastic attainments, but that was not the idea in the mind of the average Irish student. The average student trained in a college liked to feel that by energy and industry he would have a chance of getting one of those degrees. What would be the result if this Amendment was not carried? There were a great number of obscure people who through poverty could not obtain the highest form of education in the usual way, and they resorted to secondary and technical schools, burning the midnight oil, and in his opinion nobody ought to be more encouraged in this form of education than those who did all this by their own solitary efforts. It was easy for the Senates to exercise some control over the crammer, because they might
470
inquire as to what method a candidate had adopted to gain the knowledge he possessed. He was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman would be consulting the needs of the poor if he would consider the advisability of accepting the. Amendment. He could not see what danger there was in allowing these external students to come in. They had to show evidence that they had attained a high standard of education or they would not get their degree, and then they would have paid all their money without any result. External students were not any danger to college life, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he accepted this Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 19, after the word "purpose," to insert the words "or to students who are pursuing studies otherwise than in a recognised college."—(Sir William Collins.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid that for over thirty years the Royal University had allowed external students to come in, and he had never heard any opposition from hon. Gentlemen representing Ireland, and there had been no condemnation of the system. Now the proposal was being made to exclude externs although everybody in Ireland approved of the system. He found that the association of Catholic graduates met in Dublin and condemned this proposal, and the Convocation of the Royal University, representing 7,000 graduates, demanded the inclusion of externs. The Rev. Dr. Delany, the Rector of the Catholic University College, also condemned the proposal to exclude externs. He was quite certain that the Chief Secretary would not be able to mention one single authority in the whole length and breadth of Ireland which approved of this great desire to have nothing but strictly residential college education in Ireland. There was nothing more honourable in the whole field of education than the giving of every assistance and opportunity to the poor student to win a high position in the academic world. Such opportunities were necessary for

471
the great body of teachers. It was well known that when a teacher was in the lower ranks of his profession he could not rise unless he got a University degree. Another objection to the Government proposal was that it would practically exclude women. Other Universities gave degrees to women, and he noticed recently in an Irish newspaper the fact that some nuns had obtained degrees at the Royal Universities. If the right hon. Gentleman would not yield on this point he felt sure he would be doing a great injury to education in Ireland, for he would be closing the door which had been open for thirty years to external students and slamming it in the face of the poor of Ireland. Even the University of London found it necessary to open its doors to extern students. He felt strongly that the proposal to exclude external students was a retrograde and undemocratic idea which would prevent poor students from obtaining degrees in Ireland.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that those who were acquainted with the conditions of the people of Ireland knew that this was an exceedingly difficult question. If they were going to have this system of external students, why should the Royal University be abolished? The Royal University had existed as a degree conferring University, and he supposed it was because it had not sufficiently met the wants of the people that the now Universities were being set up. If they adopted this Amendment they might as well retain the old Royal University. He did not see the distinction. At the same time he thought they had gone a considerable way towards that in the provision which had been adopted with respect to affiliation of schools and colleges throughout Ireland. He doubted whether the students would be anything but external students, unless great care was taken in regard to affiliation. He would point out to the mover and seconder of the Amendment that the teaching obtained in affiliated schools would count as if the students had come up to live in the University. So far from approving of that, he thought it was a blot on the Bill. He felt perfectly certain that they ought not to go further in putting an end to the Bill by inserting provisions
472
which would really be equivalent to the retention of the old Royal University.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the hon. Member for Walworth was a member of the Committee upstairs, but not during the whole of its deliberations. He gathered from the hon. Member's remarks that he must have been absent when this matter was under discussion. If he was present, he could not understand his statement that no people representing Ireland were in favour of this provision in the Bill, because if he was present he would have known that the Nationalist Members spoke and voted against the Amendment.
MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I said no public body in Ireland.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he regarded the elected representatives of the people as fulfilling that definition. The objection which he and his colleagues took to the Amendment had been stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. The grievance which they had against the system of University education which had existed up to the present time had been that the Royal University had simply been an examining board, and that there had been nothing in the nature of a teaching residential University. They desired that that University should be abolished, and that there should be established a teaching residential University. They were anxious to attract students to Dublin to take their course in that University. He regarded the obtaining of degrees by external students who were crammed for examinations down in the country, and who had no share in University life, as of little value whatever. The value which he attached to University life was to be found, he might almost say, more in the associations and life of the University than in examinations. He was not at all sure that it was a good thing for a boy living down in the country to be crammed, and then sent up to take a degree. They wanted to attract students to the great central institution which they hoped would be established. The only arguments against that was that there would be many poor but clever boys whose

473
parents would not be able to pay for their coming up to take the teaching in the University. That argument was met by the provisions in the Bill which enabled county councils, and the Intermediate Board of Education, which had large funds at its disposal, to establish exhibitions and bursaries to enable clever boys to come up to Dublin. These exhibitions and bursaries would, of course, be properly distributed. He was sure no one would pay any attention to the unworthy insinuations thrown out by some hon. Gentlemen that these exhibitions and bursaries would not be given impartially. They would be offered to clever boys whatever the creed or the politics of their parents might be. He would regret extremely if the Amendment were carried. It would destroy the Bill and leave them still with the system of which they complained under the Royal University.
*MR. BUTCHERsaid he agreed with what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would be inexorable on this point. The Amendment went to the very heart of the Bill. It would establish in the new University two competing principles which would continue to compete until the one had finally vanquished and subjugated the other. He believed that when the system of examination was brought in under the Royal University, classes in the teaching institutions were depleted and men ceased to learn in the old way, and, what was more, the idea of University education almost ceased to exist in Ireland. He thought London University was a most dangerous precedent, and to him it was an example to be avoided in regard to Ireland. He did not mean to say that London was a failure in its own line, but he thought that if the London system were transferred to Ireland it would be an absolute failure in regard to the new University. He admitted that the poverty of Ireland was a matter which deserved consideration in this matter, and when he supported the principle of the Bill as against a system of external students, he did not do it on the high and lofty ground of academic principle, but on the ground of the experience of Ireland itself. The canker of examination had eaten into the whole educational system of Ireland. He opposed the Amendment not on any a priori or
474
academic ground, but in order to remedy an evil which had been recognised by everybody in Ireland who had given serious consideration to the question. One hon. Gentleman had said that he did not know who had ever condemned the system of the Royal University of Ireland. He did not know anyone out of this House who had ever defended the Royal University system. In three volumes of evidence given before the Robertson Commission he did not remember the name of one single witness who had defended it. The one thing on which everyone was agreed was that the system must be brought to an end. He admitted that the poverty disability was undoubtedly a real one; but other countries had proved that their love of learning could prevail even over conditions of poverty. Everybody who knew Scotland was aware that though there was poverty in that country, thousands of young Scotsmen flocked to their Universities; and once the love of learning was kindled in the people, poverty would be no bar to its acquisition. As the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said there were provisions in the Bill which would make it possible for the poorer young men in, Ireland through the Intermediate Board and through the county councils to be aided in their University education, by way of scholarships, bursaries, and payment of fees. And it was to be remembered that a certain period of grace was given. The system was not to be brought to an end at once; at least five or possibly seven years interval would elapse during which candidates would be able to adjust themselves to the new conditions. He would only say that if he had to choose between an academic degree without academic training and academic life on the one hand; and an academic training and academic life without a degree, he should choose the latter.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that for reasons he had already expressed on other occasions, and for the reasons stated by previous speakers, it was perfectly impossible for him to accept the Amendment. The effect of it would be to

475
continue the existence of the Royal University as a mere examining body with students coming up to it and taking their degree, and the new University would not be able to compete with it. An hon. Member below the gangway had spoken of getting rid of the crammer; but he did not believe it posssible that any University body could dodge the crammer. If they kept the Royal University alive, by which men could get a degree by simply passing its examinations, they would never get rid of the canker which was eating the heart out of true learning in Ireland. It was therefore absolutely essential to get the Royal University out of the way after a period of at least five years.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he should vote for the Government on this occasion on account of the Chief Secretary. He was in favour of the Amendment. He
should vote against it, but he had not time to state the reasons.
MR. MOOREhoped the mover of the Amendment would go to a division, because to pass the clause as it stood meant a great hardship to many students. It was not necessary to go to London to see how the Amendment would work. In Trinity College, Dublin, there was a system whereby extern and residential students obtained degrees together, and it had worked exceedingly well so long as the standard was kept up. The experience of London University showed that the two systems could grow up together, and he saw no reason why the two systems should not prevail in the new University.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 38; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 217.)

AYES.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rowlands, J.

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

Gretton, John

Sears, J. E.

Bennett, E. N.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Starkey, John R.

Brace, William

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hill, Sir Clement

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Clough, William

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Collins and Mr. Seddon.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Bertram, Julius

Clancy, John Joseph

Acland, Francis Dyke

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Clynes, J. R.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Boland, John

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Bowerman, C. W.

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

Ambrose, Robert

Bramsdon, T. A.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brigg, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Armitage, R.

Brodie, H. C.

Cooper, G. J.

Balcarres, Lord

Brooke, Stopford

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Barnard, E. B.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Cowan, W. H.

Barnes, G. N.

Byles, William Pollard

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Beale, W. P.

Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

Crean, Eugene

Beauchamp, E.

Cave, George

Crooks, William

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Cullinan, J.

Beck, A. Cecil

Chance, Frederick William

Curran, Peter Francis

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cheetham, John Frederick

Dalziel, James Henry

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

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Delany, William

Kekewich, Sir George

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Devlin, Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Kettle, Thomas Michael

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

Dillon, John

Kilbride, Denis

Radford, G. H.

Donelan, Captain A.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Doughty, Sir George

Laidlaw, Robert

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Duckworth, James

Lamont, Norman

Reddy, M.

Duffy, William J.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lehmann, R. C.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Erskine David C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lundon, W.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Robinson, S.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Farrell, James Patrick

Lynch, H. B.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Fenwick, Charles

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ffrench, Peter

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Russell, T. W.

Field, William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Findlay, Alexander

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Seaverns, J. H.

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Killop, W.

Seely, Colonel

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Micking, Major G.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Gill, A. H.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Glendinning, R. G.

Marnham, F. J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Simon, John Allsebrook)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Massie, J.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Gulland, John W.

Meagher, Michael

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Harcourt, Rt Hn. L. (Rossendale

Micklem, Nathaniel

Strachey, Sir Edward

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Middlebrook, William

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Harrington, Timothy

Mooney, J. J.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morrell, Philip

Summerbell, T.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morse, L. L.

Sutherland, J. E.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Murnaghan, George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nicholls, George

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hazleton, Richard

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Hemmerde, Edward George

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Tomkinson, James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Toulmin, George

Henry, Charles S.

Nuttall, Harry

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Verney, F. W.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Walsh, Stephen

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wardle, George J.

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Doherty, Philip

Waterlow, D. S.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Hudson, Walter

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Dowd, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

Wiles, Thomas

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Malley, William

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

Jackson, R. S.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Partington, Oswald

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Joyce, Michael

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Pollard, Dr.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of the debts due to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland from certain Railway Companies, in pursuance of any Act of the present session, to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give the explanation I asked him for last night?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,)said the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman desired was in respect of Clauses 4 and 5. The history of this transaction, which went back to no inconsiderable date was practically this. The railway was constructed out of a loan which originally came to about £20,000. It was raised partly by subscription, in which he thought the Spinners Company was largely concerned, and partly by subscriptions by local residents, and partly by grants from the Treasury to £100,000. The estimated revenue of something like £4,000 was found to be very much overestimated, and it eventually proved to be about £2,000, having a net deficiency of £49,450. The position came to this, that the local railway which was at that
480
time working the line on behalf of the original constructors, found they were working it at a loss of £4,000 or £5,000 a year, and they made an offer of £2,000 to buy the line. The question arose whether it was wise to scrap the railway or to leave it, to be worked at a loss, to the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company, or, as it subsequently became, the Midland Company. By scrapping it a sum of something like £6,000 might have been obtained to cover the small sum advanced for construction, but looking at it from the point of view of those who held the mortgage it was thought better to let it go on being worked, and a sum of £2,000 was eventually accepted for the line. It then became necessary, in order to restore to the Public Works Loan Fund this sum of £17,000, to come to Parliament with this Act. The whole thing was an unfortunate speculation. Railway experts were sent down from time to time to inquire into the working of the line. The first two greatly over-estimated the traffic returns and under-estimated the cost of the line. That led to the unfortunate financial state of things which existed when the bargain was struck. It had not injured in any way the persons who subscribed originally to construct the railway, and on the whole he thought the best thing that could have been done was to have continued the line by letting it be taken over by the Midland.
MR. T. M. HEALYadmitted that the present Government had no responsibility for the transaction, but he wished to denounce the British Treasury. This was one of the grossest instances of the stupidity, neglect, and absolute incompetence of the British Treasury. He attacked the job at the time, and said it was a humbug. He told them they should dandle this little railway on their knee, and instead they threw it to the wolves. The Treasury concealed from Parliament that there was this loan

481
in the background. They did not dare disclose it, as money was being actually thrown away. This was a little railway made locally. The local people put their money in it, and got a little loan from the Treasury. The loan was not being paid, but he supposed the railway was far more valuable than the loan. The gentlemen connected with the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway had a secret deal with the Midland Railway Company to whom they intended selling the line, and they kept it from the Government, and persuaded some gentleman in the Treasury to foreclose the mortgage. Irishmen did not know how these suggestions were driven into the minds of the Treasury. They did not know the Treasury clerks; but gentlemen in England who had the ear of the Treasury and the advantage of their society and could make suggestions to them, did get them at times to do what turned out to be gross and scandalous jobs. They foreclosed their mortgage, and, through the Member for East Worcestershire, said—"Oh, what are we to do? These little Irish shareholders are poor people, and have just sold and destroyed their little railway." That was very good, but the following year the great Midland Railway of England came and bought up the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway and this little railway. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of the day come forward then and insist on recovering from the Midland Railway Company, who had a most valuable bargain, this £17,000 for the taxpayers? Where were the watch dogs of the Treasury? They talked about the way in which the Irish peasants did not pay their debts and the insolvency of the Irish ratepayers; but why did not the Treasury of that date say that, in addition to giving them this ten miles of railway for £2,000, there was £17,000 which they were not charging them and which they
482
would bring forward when the new Government came into office? Whoever was the Treasury clerk responsible for keeping from Parliament a transaction by which they made a present to the great Midland Railway Company of £17,000 ought to be bastinadoed. He considered the matter one of such grave importance that in his view a Select Committee ought to be appointed to inquire into it. It was inaccurate, he believed, to say that the shareholders lost no money by the transaction. He thought they lost the whole of their money, and they, at any rate, got no satisfaction out of the business. Parliament had had to wait until the year 1908 for the sequel to this transaction. Why did the Public Loans Bill of 1908 contain this sum of £17,000? Why was it not proposed in 1907, 1906, or 1905? Why had there been all this delay? It was because the Treasury hoped that Parliament would have forgotten, and that the Irish Members would have been away from the House. They hoped to put the matter through in the small hours of the morning, and that the history of the miserable transaction would not be exposed. It was, however, a matter that was far too serious to be allowed to slip by without protest, because it showed how Irish affairs were dealt with at Downing Street. Hon. Members were entitled to know who were the clerks and others who had kept from Parliament all knowledge of this unhappy transaction. Whether it was John Smith or John Brown, they ought to have the name of the man. These were the gentlemen who were lording it over Ireland. There must be some man with a name who was responsible for the transaction. Let the Treasury representative say who he was. He supposed it was somebody who had a C.B. or a knighthood. He repeated with all the emphasis he could use that they were entitled to know from the Secretary to the Treasury who was the individual

483
responsible for having kept such an unfortunate transaction from the knowledge of Parliament for at least five years.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that the picturesqueness of the description of the hon. and learned Gentleman of this transaction was a little spoiled by the fact that the final part of the transaction was not concluded until the passing of the Midland Railway Act of 1907. Therefore, this was the first opportunity there had been of bringing the matter before the notice of the House, and there had in fact been no delay whatever in acquainting Parliament with the transaction. He wished to make it quite clear that as the representative of the Treasury in the House of Commons he and he alone, under the authority, of course, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was responsible to the House, and not the Treasury clerks, who had no opportunity of defending themselves in that Chamber. He repeated that this was the first opportunity the Treasury could have had of putting the facts of the case before the House. It was true that there had been a loss to the shareholders. There had also been a loss to the Treasury; but there had been no present at all to the Midland Railway Company. What were the facts? The line was worked at a loss and it was very liable, therefore, to collapse from want of funds. He could assure the hon. and learned Member that, as far as he could trace the history of the case, if the line, had been left to its own unaided resources it must have been closed down. That would have been a very regrettable thing from the public point of view, as well as, he should think, from the point of view of the hon. and learned Member. They must sympathise, of course, with those who regretted that what was once an independent Irish local line should have been transferred to a large British railway company. Still it was better, it seemed to him, from the point of view of the district itself that the railway should continue to be worked by a real live
484
company than that it should have been allowed to collapse altogether. He hoped that the explanation he had given would satisfy the hon. and learned Member.
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I point out that the Secretary to the Treasury is entirely mistaken. The true fact is that the Midland Company did not acquire the line in 1907, but in 1903.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that the Midland Railway Act was not passed until last year. If the hon. and learned Member looked at Clause 4 he would see that it read—
"And whereas by the Midland Railway Act, 1907, an agreement for sale of the said railway to the Midland Railway Company, freed and discharged from all encumbrances, liabilities, contracts, debts and engagements of the Limavady and Dungiven Railway Company, for the sum of £2,000 was confirmed, and the said purchase money has since been paid."
The agreement was not, therefore, confirmed until 1907, and the Act of that year obtained by the Midland Railway Company was really the one under which the transaction took place.
MR. T. M. HEALYdid not blame the Secretary to the Treasury in the least for the inaccuracy, but he was entirely mistaken. He (Mr. Healy) debated the matter in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman to the best of his recollection became Chancellor of the Exchequer in or about the year 1904. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer when he (Mr. Healy) debated the matter with him. The Act under which the Midland Railway Company acquired the line was passed as far back as 1903. There was no doubt about it. He would not oppose the Bill at that hour of the morning, and he had no hesitation in saying that the Secretary to the Treasury was free from responsibility in the matter. He was not attacking the hon. Gentleman,

485
but the system which was altogether at fault. Why on earth did these great Treasury experts, whose names were never mentioned, delay five years before bringing this matter before the notice of Parliament? Of course, the hon. Gentleman had a complete answer to him. He said that the officials were not responsible to Parliament, but to the heads of the Department. He (Mr. Healy) knew the hon. Gentleman's statements were inaccurate having regard to the true facts, but he did not care to enter into a controversy with him on that score. The hon. Gentleman was wrong, but did not know it. He was quite bona fide. There must, however, be some person in the Treasury who was individually responsible for the matter, and they should know who he was, even though, as the hon. Gentleman said, he was not directly responsible to Parliament. Somebody must have made the suggestion of foreclosing on this little line and selling it to the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway for a mere song. He would like to know who made that suggestion to the Treasury. Then the idea of the bargain with the Midland Railway Company must have existed in somebody's mind. What he wanted to know was this: why five years had been allowed to elapse before the matter was brought to the attention of Parliament? Why was it not brought before them last year? This Government were in office last year. They were as ignorant of the matter last year as they were to-day, and, therefore, quite as competent to deal with it. He respectfully protested against the system, and said that every Public Works Loans Bill covered a job. This had been the case ever since he had been in Parliament. These Bills were brought forward year after year by the Treasury clerks, who pretended to be great experts and who lorded it over Ireland, as well as over England and Scotland. In future he would try to peel the mask oft the face of these
486
gentlemen, and when this sort of thing occurred again he would demand to know who was the individual responsible for it.
MR. FORSTERsaid he was not conversant with the details of the question under discussion, but he rose to make an emphatic protest against the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, whose appearances in the House were all too rare. The hon. and learned Member had seen fit to make a gross and unfounded charge against the Treasury officials. It has been his (Mr. Forster's) happy lot only a few years ago to serve at the Treasury and he said emphatically that no permanent official of that Department was open to the grave charge which the hon. and learned Member had formulated. Anybody who knew these gentlemen would ridicule the suggestion that they could in any way be associated with a grave and scandalous job. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been a Member of the House long enough to know that if he had any charge to bring against any official of the Treasury, that charge must be directed against the representative of that Department in the House of Commons. The Secretary to the Treasury had told them that the operative date in connection with this transaction was in the year 1907.
MR. T. M. HEALY: It was not.
MR. FORSTER: I said the operative date. The Secretary to the Treasury has read the clause in the Bill.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I adhere to my statement. The Bill was passed in 1903.
MR. FORSTERsaid that the Bill might have been passed in 1903, but clearly the operative date was not until 1907. All he had risen to do, however, was to protest against the action which

487
the hon. and learned Member had seen fit to take that night, an action which he thought was not usual with gentlemen who represented Nationalist constituencies in Ireland. He was sure that on calmer reflection, the hon. and learned Member would see that his protest should have been directed against the representative of the Treasury on the Government bench, and not against the permanent officials who were not there to defend themselves.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid that he and several other hon. Members who were interested in railways thought it was highly desirable that, if possible, they should have exact information of what had happened. The Treasury appeared to have lost £17,601 which they had advanced to this railway. They all agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that whatever was done, the Government in power at the time and not the permanent officials of a particular department, were responsible. Having advanced £17,000 to the railway in question, the Treasury eventually foreclosed, and there was no doubt that they were perfectly justified in doing this.
MR. HOBHOUSE: They lost £17,601.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid the point to be borne in mind was that the Treasury foreclosed and became the owners of the little railway which they had been told was ten miles long. Then it appeared that the railway was sold to the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company for £2,000. Everybody, either in that House or out of it, who was acquainted with the working of railways knew that the rails alone in this case were worth a great deal more than £2,000. They could only suppose that if the railway was sold for that ridiculously small sum there was some arrangement whereby it should be worked for the convenience of the public. They ought to be told what that arrange-
488
ment was. The small railway was eventually sold to the Midland Railway Co., and nobody would deny that each railway company was bound to make the best bargain it could for itself. What they wanted to know was this: The railway, having been parted with for a scrap-iron price, what quid pro quo was given for it? Was it to secure advantages for the public that this sacrifice of public money had been made? He hoped that if the Bill passed through Committee that night the Secretary to the Treasury would undertake to give them exact particulars of the transaction on the Report stage.
MR. T.M. HEALYsaid it was not to be supposed, if the Treasury had been frank about the matter when the Midland Railway Company were negotiating for this railway, that Parliament would have allowed the transaction to go through in the way it had done. The Midland Company got this line costing £50,000 for £2,000, so that at the very smallest computation they were making £48,000 on the deal. The British Government allowed the Midland Company of England to get hold of that valuable bit of property for £2,000, concealing from the House of Commons the fact that there was due to the nation this money. England as well as Ireland, the English taxpayer as well as the Irish, was being swindled. He only raised the question because he knew the facts and he wanted to know why in 1903 when this vigilant watch-dog of the Treasury was standing sniffing over the cash and when the Member for Sevenoaks was—he did not know what he was, he never paid any attention to what any man in the Government was, they were all the same to him, "a row of jealous individuals," as the late Mr. Biggar said—when the Member for Sevenoaks was at the Treasury which he so eloquently defended, he concealed, if he was responsible, the facts. The Member for Sevenoaks said

489
that he (Mr. Healy) ought to attack him. He did not know what the Member for Sevenoaks sins were, but he would like to be told why that transaction was not revealed to the House of Commons in 1903. They had on the Treasury Bench great zealots of economy, and the matter did not affect the Liberal Party; they were entirely free from it, because the Tory Government was in office. Was esprit de corps so strong with regard to a transaction like that that the present Government would shield the Treasury Clerk responsible from exposure and in the meantime, for all they knew, were distributing C.B.-ships and baronetcies and knighthoods and all that kind of thing, old-age pensions perhaps? A Gentleman in the House of Lords was so strongly opposed to old-age pensions that he took £2,000 a year for himself. Let that be as it might, he asked why this Government, in regard to a past transaction where not one of them was concerned and not one of them was affected, stood over this transaction, covering up the conduct of Gentlemen who were their predecessors in office? It was really a serious matter. The First Lord of the Admiralty used to be Secretary to the Treasury. He understood the transaction. He was now a member of the Cabinet. Was it not a pretty example to Irishmen to know that an Irish line worth £50,000 could be sold for £2,000 to an English railway Company, and a debt of £17,000 left to the British Government; and if a humble Irish Member with a memory of the transaction had not raised it, the Bill would have passed smack-smooth and without the Treasury making a single comment. The Treasury put the Public Works Loans Bill into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman who was now Secretary. He did not know a bit about it. There ought to be a phonograph on that Bench. He (Mr. Healy), asked the Financial Secretary last night, and he knew absolutely nothing. And yet such
490
was the system of legislation in the House of Commons that he was put forward to pass this transaction, and they were supposed to give their great respect to him. He was doing the Treasury's job. It was really extraordinary that not one single member of the bench responsible for that transaction raised his voice in condemnation of what was done eight years ago.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he really thought the language which had been used and the insinuations which had been made by the hon. and learned Member were absolutely and entirely unjustifiable. What took place? The line was attempted to be made by private subscription, but it could not be so completed, and the promoters came to the Treasury for a loan. That loan was eventually made, nominally £20,000, actually rather less. When the line was completed it was never worked by the company as many small lines were never worked by the company which constructed them. It was worked by the Belfast Northern Counties Company by arrangement. The company had never from the first moment paid a single penny of interest upon the money advanced by the Treasury. That very clause which wiped off the principal had to wipe off the whole of the interest which ought to have been paid in return for the loan.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Why were we not told this six or seven years ago?
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he was not on that bench seven years ago. He was now explaining the actual, not the imaginary facts to the House. If it was the desire of the hon. and learned Member that no money should ever again go to an Irish loan, nobody would be better pleased than the Treasury. Whether that would prove to the satisfaction of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House below the gangway

491
he was not quite certain, but as Secretary to the Treasury he would second his endeavour. Returning to the actual facts of the case this company, as he said, failed to pay a single penny of interest and therefore not only the principal, but a large sum of interest had accumulated in arrears. The hon. Member who sat for Argyllshire said: "What a bad bargain the Treasury made!" Again look at the facts. The Treasury tried to get £5,000 for the railway. Nobody would pay it. The best they could get for it was £2,000. They were informed at the time the sale took place that at least a sum of £8,000 would have to be spent on sleepers alone. On the report on which the Treasury acted, he asked would any Member of the House have advanced any large sum such as that which the Member for Argyllshire suggested ought to have been advanced upon a railway which was worked at a loss, whose permanent way was in so bad a condition that a sum of £8,000 for sleepers alone would have to be spent on a line ten and a quarter miles long which had not paid a single penny of interest from the day it was constructed? The only alternative to taking the sum which the Treasury eventually accepted would have been to break up the whole line with great detriment to the district concerned. Though a larger sum would have been realised to the Treasury he thought that course would have been harsh and ungracious.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid his hon. friend did not see his point. Whatever the line was worth, it was worth the value of the rails. Everybody must see that the rails of a line ten and a quarter miles long must be worth more than £2,000. The hon. Gentleman's predecessors were perfectly right in helping the line if they could, but the point was, how much public money were they to sacrifice to do that? What were the terms of the bargain? He did not say they were not justified in handing over the line to the Befast
492
and Northern Counties Railway for £2,000, but what guarantee did they get that the line would be worked in the interests of the public and at reasonable rates? Would the right hon. Gentleman bring that up on Report?
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid there was nothing to bring up on Report further than the explanation which he thought he had offered at great length. The Treasury, as he had told the House, could have got a sum of £6,000 if they had broken up the line. That was what they were told they could have got if they had broken up everything and carted it away. They preferred to take a smaller sum and keep the railway for the inhabitants. The bargain was that they got £2,000, and the railway instead of being dead was now alive, and being worked for the benefit of the inhabitants.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he objected to the Secretary to the Treasury giving information to the House unless he had verified that information. He had stated to the House that the sleepers alone for the line would cost £8,000. A railway did not take more than 2,000 sleepers to the mile. The cost would not at the most exceed 3s. 6d. per sleeper, and the total cost of the sleepers could not in any case come to more than £3,500. How did they get the balance of £4,500?
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he did not blame the present Secretary to the Treasury, personally. What he did was simply to expose the Treasury tricks and methods. It was nothing to him; no doubt the line was a good line, and he wished its possessors joy of it, but why were the facts concealed from the House of Commons for seven years? Why was this in the Bill of 1908 only?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL): Order, order. The hon.

493
and learned Member has repeated that several times.
MR. T. M. HEALY: But I never got an answer.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member cannot go on repeating it.
MR. T. M. HEALY: All I want is an answer. I do not want to keep the House of Commons up, but I do respectfully submit that we are entitled to know who is the person responsible for having kept from the House of Commons the facts for over five years. Why not have put it over for another five years?
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Secretary to the Treasury has stated that he is responsible for whatever fault is in the Treasury. The hon. and learned Member has got his answer that the Treasury Bench accept full responsibility. Obviously, there can be no further answer.
MR. HUDSONasked how long the rails on that line had been laid down, and how many locomotives the line possessed. Surely locomotives would be required on the line.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he had already explained that a very small line had been worked by the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company, and therefore, they required no locomotives but their own.
*MR. HUDSONsaid there was the line at least, and there were stations and buildings and some railway stock of some description. There were the land, stations and buildings, and even if two-thirds of the estimated cost as
494
mentioned by the Secretary to the Treasury was necessary to re-sleeper the line, that line would at least be worth three times as much as the amount in question, and therefore, the transaction on the face of it bad been a very bad one indeed. He was really astonished at the explanation which had been given. To put it at its lowest value the railway was worth ten times as much as it had been given away for.
Resolution to be reported this day.

NAVAL LANDS (VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.

NAVAL MARRIAGES BILL.
Read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for this day.—(Mr. McKenna.)

REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS].
As amended, considered.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, S. Shields)THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, S. Shields) moved that the Bill be read a third time.
Mr. FORSTERsaid an Amendment was accepted by the Attorney-General on a previous stage, but it did not appear in the Bill. He took it that the reason for that was that the Bill had not been reprinted.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that that was the case.

GRAND JURY (IRELAND) ACT (1836), AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended considered.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that before the Bill was read a third time he would like to say that he regretted very much that another Bill which had been introduced for a similar purpose had been withdrawn some days previously. The Bill which had been withdrawn enabled a larger sum to be devoted by the Irish county councils for the construction of marine works, while the Bill they were now considering only allowed them to spend £1,500. He considered £1,500 was not an adequate sum so far as his particular district was concerned. £1,500 would not enable them to do the work they ought to do, and the Bill which had been withdrawn was much more satisfactory. He did not blame the Department of Agriculture, which he had no doubt had done its best, but he wished to know why the previous Bill had been withdrawn and this Bill substituted. All the Bill did was to allow the Irish county councils to spend their own money, the rates of the Irish taxpayer, for the improvement of marine works on their coast. What object could anyone have in objecting to their spending their own money? He was told the Treasury objected, but what business had the Treasury to object seeing that it did not contribute any money to their marine works? He might be wrong in supposing that the Treasury was the evil genius, but if it was perhaps the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture would say so. He wished to know why the objection was made if it was the Treasury which objected. If the Treasury really wanted to put its finger into every Irish pie it was quite time they had some representation on the Treasury. It had been agreed in 1817 that there should be an Irish Vice-Chancellor attached to the Treasury, but that arrangement, like a great many
496
other arrangements in regard to Ireland, had been broken. They ought to have a representative in the Treasury, and the Government might consider the advisbility, if that House was to be of any real use in local matters, of bringing in a Bill to re-establish the Irish Vice-Chancellor, and thus give Ireland some voice in the Treasury. It might, of course, be that that small Bill had been substituted for the larger Bill in consequence of representations which had been made, but in any case he was sorry that it had been substituted. The Bill was at the best bound to have a very small result. If he received no answer from the Treasury Bench he would divide against the Bill.
MR. CONOR O'KELLYasked if the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture would give an answer to the questions which had been raised. It was a very serious matter connected with the county councils of Ireland that they were considering, and surely the right hon. Gentleman was not wanting in that courtesy which was usually extended from the Treasury Bench to hon. Members.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had done his best in difficult circumstances in order that the county councils might co-operate in small works and it was not the fault of his Department that the smaller sum only had been allowed.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he was quite satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman had said. He knew it was not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, but he extremely regretted the course that had been adopted.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Sixteen minutes before One o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Hampton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
London United Tramways Bill.—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill.—Read 3a, and passed.
Manchester Corporation Bill; Burnley Corporation Bill; Blackburn Corporation Bill.—Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered and dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 3a, agreed to; Bills read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
Holderness Water Bill.—The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Provisional Orders (Procedure) Bill [H.L.].—Reported from Standing Committee without further amendment; the Report of the Amendments made
254
in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Monday next.

PETITION.
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  Petition against proceeding until the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law has been issued; of persons signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
  Report, dated 18th July, 1908, by the Director-General of the Army Medical Service, as to the progress made in constituting the medical service of the Territorial Force.

  SHIPPING CASUALTIES.
  Shipping casualities which occurred on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of the United Kingdom, from 1st July, 1906, to 30th June, 1907; and shipping casualties which occurred to British vessels elsewhere than on the coasts of the United Kingdom, and to foreign vessels on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of British Possessions abroad, reported during the same period, etc.; with Charts and Appendices.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON CORPORATION.
  Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London, for the year 1907.

  PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS.
  Treasury Minute, dated 21st July, 1908, directing that the annual account required by the Uganda Railway Act, 1896, shall be discontinued.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with a further Amendment. The Report

  255
  of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 177.]

  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 178.]
  COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Joint Committee on the Companies (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.], the Post Office Consolidation Bill [H.L.], and the Statute Law Revision Bill [H.L.], that the Companies (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.] ought to be allowed to proceed. The said Report (with the Proceedings of the Committee), to be printed. [No. 175.] Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out; Bill reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next and to be printed as amended. [No. 176.]
  TOBACCO GROWING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Report from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (MERCANTILE CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES BILL) [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Monday next.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this Bill is regarded as of considerable importance
  256
  by the friendly societies of this country' and as such I think it merits a few words of explanation to this House. When I say that the membership of the friendly societies includes some of the best elements of the working classes of this country and that the accumulated savings of those societies amount to over fifty millions, I am sure your Lordships will agree that their wishes deserve consideration, at all events, at the hands of the Legislature. This Bill has the unanimous support of the friendly societies in the country, and it has also received the unanimous support of all parties in another place. In fact it is really a non-contentious Bill. It has been supported consistently by the National Conference of Friendly [Societies] for some years past.
  The Bill is really an amending Bill. It seeks to alter the law in one or two cases, and also to make the law clear on one or two points which have arisen with regard to the constitution governing the friendly societies. But there is one clause in the Bill of particular importance which the friendly societies are most anxious of seeing passed into law—Clause 2. At present infants of or under one year cannot be admitted as members of friendly societies. This clause would permit them to be so registered. I believe that the age of one year was originally named because it was feared that people who had charge of infants might cause their death by neglect or otherwise in order to claim the insurance money from their society. But members of industrial insurance companies are able to insure their children from birth, and I am glad to say it has not been found in practice that the evil to which I have just alluded does exist, or, at all events, to any appreciable extent. Therefore this clause only puts the friendly societies on the same footing in this respect as industrial insurance companies; and as there is some competition, I understand, between the two classes of societies it is eminently fair to the friendly societies that this should be so. Having regard to the at least equally deserving character of friendly societies and to the fact that they are probably better supervised than the industrial insurance companies and that the members of friendly societies have interests in

  257
  common and acquaintanceship in common, it is far less likely that the evil I have just mentioned would occur in the case of friendly societies than in the case of industrial insurance companies.
  There are other points in the Bill, but they are really legal points of a rather complicated character, and I do not think that any detailed explanation of them is necessary at this stage. Clause 4 defines the word "security" in the Friendly Societies Act; and Clause 9 deals with the case of an officer of a society who is unable to account for moneys of the society but where the case is not strong enough to justify the allegation of fraud. This Bill, I may mention, is to be read in conjunction with the principal Act of 1896. It may appear, on the face of it, that the difficulties entailed by legislation by reference might ensue in relation to this Bill; but Clause 13 provides that, if the Bill passes into law, it shall be printed as one with the principal Act of 1896, and this confusion will, therefore, be avoided.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I do not interpose for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, but I cannot help thinking that one feature of the Bill to which the noble Lord has referred was passed over rather too lightly. I sat on the Committee which inquired into the subject of infant insurances, and I am bound to say that the tendency of the evidence was that this was a very serious evil. Although it may be true that there are societies which are entitled to do this, certainly the feeling on the Committee was that the power of doing it as it existed ought to be checked—I do not mean to say absolutely prohibited, but that, instead of being allowed to get the money, the parents should be compelled to take the amount that they would have received in money in the expenses of the funeral, which was, of course, the point on which it was said infant life was insured in that way. That seems to me a very serious question not lightly to be disposed of.
  258
  As to the legal question, I do not know what it is. The noble Lord did not expound what the question was, but merely said it was for the purpose partly of making the law clear—a very desirable object if it can be done. Then the noble Lord said there was some provision which altered the law; but he did not state what the law was or what the alteration consisted in. As I say, I have not risen for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading, but I shall certainly ask for more particulars when we go into Committee.
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of asking your Lordships to allow this Bill to pass through Committee pro forma so that it may be reprinted as amended and recommitted, thus following the precedent so recently put before your Lordships in dealing with the Nurses Registration Bill. As your Lordships will remember, this Bill came up from the House of Commons in a form which excited some very severe criticism, especially on the part of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, who objected altogether to its being entertained in the form in which it was presented. It is, in fact, a conspicuous example of legislation by reference.
  The subject of the Bill, however, recommended itself to your Lordships approval, and it was read a second time. Since then Amendments have been placed on the Paper which, if incorporated in the Bill, will meet the defect in form to which attention was properly directed. The Amendments standing in the name of the noble Viscount will entirely meet this objection. There is also an Amendment, standing in the name of Lord Ridley, to insert a new clause which was approved in another place. What I now propose is that your Lordships

  259
  should go into Committee pro forma so that these agreed Amendments should be accepted and incorporated in the Bill, after which it will be recommitted. We shall then begin again at the same stage, but with a Bill which presents an entirely new shape.
  There I might, perhaps, stop; but I am aware that there is some feeling in high quarters as to the possible reception of the Bill so amended in another place. It is suggested that if the Bill goes back so completely transformed, although it accomplishes exactly the same object and makes no greater or less change in the law, there may be some feeling in another place unfriendly to its reception. I have consulted the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Bill elsewhere and conducted it through all its stages, and he does not entertain any anxiety on this ground. He is, at all events, ready to run the risk. Moreover, there is little or no chance of the Bill getting through this House unless it is so transformed, as your Lordships would not willingly approve of such a conspicuous example of legislation by reference as the Bill presents in its present shape. I beg to move.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, ordinarily on this Motion there is no debate, but it may be convenient to say a word or two on the subject that has been broached by Lord Courtney. My desire is to further the Bill. That is my sole object. At present it is in a form in which it is not likely, I apprehend, to commend itself to the House. Indeed, it is in a very inconvenient form, because it is a rather extreme instance of legislation by reference. What, therefore, is to be done? The noble Lord proposes to go into Committee pro forma in order that the Bill may then be re-committed and come on again in October after the recess. So far as the postponement is concerned, I think that is the right course to take. But then what course is to be adopted?
  There are two courses open. One is that which commends itself to the noble
  260
  Lord in charge of the Bill and also, I understand, to Lord St. Aldwyn, namely, to strike out Clauses 1, 2, and 3—that is, all the clauses in the Bill—and substitute others incorporating the Act of which this purposes to be an Amendment, so that when the Bill went back to the House of Commons it would not be recognised even by those who claim its paternity, for there would not be a single word of the old Bill remaining. I am not putting it that that is an impossible view; on the contrary, if the noble Lord and the noble Viscount are convinced that it is the best course I would not put my view against theirs.
  But I consider that it is a preferable alternative to amend the Bill as it stands with all its defects and introduce a Bill alongside of it which shall be a real Consolidation Bill, consisting of the old Act and of this Bill as amended. I think that course would facilitate the progress of the Bill in another place. It is rather a piece of Parliamentary tactics. I do not wish to dogmatise, and still less to be obstinate; but I think that is the better course, for pure consolidation has never been objected to in this or in the other House.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I understand from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that he does not object to the proposal made by the noble Lord opposite, but that he prefers the alternative he has himself suggested. I confess that I very much prefer the proposal of the noble Lord opposite. I think it is important that we should take in hand so gross an example of bad drafting as this, and show the House of Commons that at any rate this House does not intend to pass legislation of that kind. Therefore, I should be very sorry if, concurrently with the Bill drafted as your Lordships would desire to see it drafted, a Consolidation Bill were sent down to the other House, because it would then be possible that the Commons might prefer the original Bill and negative our Bill. I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill does not intend to take any further stage beyond this formal stage until after the adjournment. The practical work of Committee would therefore be taken in October, which would give plenty of time for noble

  261
  Lords who desire to amend the Bill and put it in a proper shape to place their Amendments on the Paper.
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I have not said anything about deferring the further consideration of the Bill until October, but I think that course so desirable that I offer no objection to it.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived. Amendments made. Bill recommitted, and to be printed as amended. [No. 179.]

  TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships for Second Reading to-day is substantially the same Bill as the present Lord Derby introduced into the House of Commons when he was Postmaster-General. Its object is to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1907, with respect to the construction and maintenance of telegraph lines for telephonic and other telegraphic purposes. Your Lordships are aware that when the Postmaster-General desires to construct a telegraphic line along a road application is made to the local authorities, and if those authorities give leave the work is proceeded with; but in the event of a local authority objecting, the case is taken before a County Court Judge. In the case of a road where there is no grass margin, but only a hedge and ditch, the property generally of the adjacent landowner, and where permission is refused by this landowner, the Postmaster-General has no means whatever of constructing the line. In some cases this had led to considerable trouble, although I must say that during the time I have been connected with the Post Office—nearly three years—we have had very little trouble indeed with way-leaves. There have, however, been one or two occasions when the agents of the landowners have objected, but on the Postmaster-General approaching the land-
  262
  lords themselves they have invariably given us the facilities required. This Bill only gives us power in the case of land within 20 feet of any street or road; if the ditch or hedge is further than that the Bill is non operative. Another clause in the Bill deals with the cutting of corners. At the present time we have no power, where there is a corner, of going across another man's land, and we have to take the wires right along the road. This is not the case in a town, for under another Act we can take a telegraph wire across anybody's house. By this Bill we shall have similar powers in the country. The landowner is very carefully safeguarded, as if he objects to the carrying of the Wires over his land he can appeal before the two Railway Commissioners or the County Court Judge. There is one other question with regard to the lopping of trees. At the present moment a local authority has power to lop trees providing the owner refuses to do so. We have no such power, and we propose, subject to arbitration, to take this power in connection with trees which obstruct a telegraphic line on a street or road, giving the owner or occupier of the land one month's notice. These are the main provisions of the Bill, which, I may add, is strongly supported by the National Footpaths Preservation Society and the National Trust for the Preservation pf Historical Monuments. I beg to move.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Granard.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I do not wish to offer any objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, particularly as the Bill has been before both Houses of Parliament in previous sessions. But I wish to point out that it makes a somewhat new departure, because up to now, if the Postmaster-General proposed to place wires across the approach to a dwelling house or to erect a post within ten yards of a dwelling house, he could only do so with the consent of the occupier. This Bill would enable the Postmaster-General to put up a post and to carry wires along right in front of a person's window, so long as it was within twenty yards of the public road. That is a very considerable power to give to the Postmaster-General, and I think that

  263
  when your Lordships are giving a Second Beading to a Bill you ought to be aware of what the effect of it may possibly be.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose in any way the Second Reading of this Bill, but there is one clause in it to which the noble Earl omitted to call attention, and which, I understand, was put into the Bill during its passage through the other House. I refer to Clause 3, which runs—
  "Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act no telegraphic line shall be constructed on, over, along, or across any land dedicated to the recreation of the public, or any hedge or bank adjoining such land, without the consent of the person in whom such land is vested, or under whose control and management such land for the time being remains."
  It seems to me that if all the landowners in the country are to be taken to arbitration, it would only be reasonable that those in whom recreation grounds are technically vested should be similarly dealt with. You are just as likely to have persons unreasonably objecting in cases of this kind. As the clause now stands, there is absolute prohibition where the person in whom the recreation ground is vested refuses his consent. The noble Lord referred to the lopping of trees. At the top of page 3 of the Bill there is an expression which is now to me as far as the English language is concerned. The sentence runs—
  "The Postmaster-General shall issue instructions to his officers with a view to ensuring that trees shall be lopped in a husbandlike manner and so as to avoid injury to their growth."
  I understand the rules of good husbandry and also the proper management of trees, but I do not quite understand the expression "lopped in a husbandlike manner." In these days when ladies are so assertive of their rights, I am not quite sure what this is meant to imply. There may, however, be some authority for this word, but I think that before we give the sanction of Parliament to it it should be examined with care.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am rather anxious to do penance in a white sheet on the matter of the word "husbandlike," to which the noble Lord
  264
  has alluded. In the course of the proceedings on the Agricultural Holdings Act the noble Marquess opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, introduced an Amendment in which that word was included. I took upon myself to doubt whether it was familiar in Acts of Parliament; but the noble Marquess adduced such strong evidence that it was a word, not merely familiar in the English language, but completely proper to the occasion, that I was entirely convinced, and I am bound to support its retention on this occasion.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I do not know that I understood the remarks of Lord Balfour aright, but it seems to me questionable to extend the powers of the Post Office to lands which are dedicated to the recreation of the public. I do not know that such lands come entirely in the same category as lands privately owned. I think there ought to be absolute power to prevent telegraph wires being put across recreation grounds or any interference with the pleasure of the public. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not limit the rights of the public in any way.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I am glad that Lord Balfour drew my attention to Clause 3, which I had omitted to mention. This clause was introduced in the House of Commons, and it seems to me that some amendment is advisable. I therefore propose, subject to your Lordships' approval, to move, in Committee, to add at the end of the clause the following words—
  "Provided that if such consent is withheld or any condition is attached thereto to which the Postmaster General objects, a difference shall be deemed to have arisen between the Postmaster-General and that person, and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Telegraph Act shall apply as if the difference arose under that Act."
  The effect of that will be to put these public recreation grounds on exactly the same terms as everybody else in the Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships would object to that, but it seems to me to be the proper course to adopt.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  WILD BIRDS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING].
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this Bill refers to a not very important matter in relation to the Territorial Forces Act of last year, although it is one which has a certain bearing upon the efficiency of those Forces. The point arises in relation to the presidency of the Associations formed under that Act. Some of your Lordships may remember that when the Bill came up from the House of Commons it was left to the discretion of the Army Council as to whether or not the Lord-Lieutenant of the county should be the president of the Association, the idea being that there might be some cases in which the Lord-Lieutenant would obviously not be the person who ought to take charge of the organisation of the Territorial Forces in a particular county. When the clause came before the House in Committee the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumber land, moved to insert words that the Lord-Lieutenant should not act if he did not assent. That was objected to from this side of the House, and my noble friend Lord Portsmouth moved the insertion of the words which are now in the Act, empowering the appointment of the Lord-Lieutenant, or, failing him, such other person as the Army Council may think fit.
  I do not think at that time we were quite certain what the words "failing him" meant, whether they meant exactly the same thing as the noble Duke desired to insert—namely, that the Lord-Lieutenant should always be the president unless he agreed not to act, or whether they meant something different. As a matter of fact, we are now advised that they do mean practically the same thing as the noble Duke's words, and some inconvenience has arisen, and is likely to arise in future cases, owing to
  266
  the existence of this provision in the Act. Some of your Lordships may have noticed a correspondence which appeared in the newspapers a short time ago between the noble Earl, who I think has not yet taken his seat in your Lordships House, Lord Derby, and my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, in relation to the cast of Lancashire. That was a correspondence which, both for good taste and good feeling, reflected the highest credit on both parties, but it did draw the attention of the Army Council and of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War to the existence of a possible inconvenience in these cases. That inconvenience arises in this way. Where a man has been acting as chairman of the Association and has become de facto the president, a difficulty may arise if a new Lord-Lieutenant is appointed and becomes ipso facto president of the Association. If such a difficulty should arise your Lordships will see that the Government of the day would be confronted with a dilemma. Either they would feel themselves bound, for the sake of the efficiency of the Territorial Force, to appoint the chairman of the Association Lord-Lieutenant, which is not a reasonable thing to expect—the duties of Lord-Lieutenant are by no means confined to the administration of the County Association, and I think it would be generally agreed that to bind the Government of the day to appoint the chairman of the County Association Lord-Lieutenant, whoever he might be, would not be a desirable thing—or, on the other hand, they would run the risk of possibly losing a very efficient chairman of the Association, and, even if he agreed to remain on, of causing a good deal of unrest and disappointment in the Territorial Force itself, owing to the fact that they would believe that their chairman had been superseded.
  I need hardly say that in introducing this Bill, which leaves it open for the Army Council to appoint somebody else than the Lord-Lieutenant president of the association in special cases, no disrespect whatever is intended to that high office. I think that is sufficiently shown by the fact that so many Lords-Lieutenant have undertaken, not merely the duties of an honorary presidency but also those of active chairmanship; and I should hope, therefore, that this Bill will be generally agreed to because the case

  267
  is not in the position in which it was when the Bill was before the House last year. I think that the noble Duke opposite, in moving his Amendment, may have feared that the Army Council might introduce outsiders, and possibly military officers, who had no special connection with the county, and make them in some cases presidents of Associations; but the Associations are now formed; and even if the Army Council wished to do such a thing, which they certainly do not, it would not be in their power to do it. Therefore this Bill only meets the rare case to which I have referred, where the chairman ought to be allowed to go on being the principal person in relation to the County Association.
  It may be asked, What is the particular urgency of this matter? We have had one case in which very marked inconvenience has arisen. In that particular case it was not that Lord Derby felt that his personal position was compromised in any way, but I happen to know for a fact that the general body of the Territorial Association in Lancashire felt very strongly the idea of his being superseded in the principal place, and it caused a considerable degree of unrest in the county which was by no means confined to the political friends of the noble Earl, Lord Derby. Lord Derby certainly acted from no personal motives in the matter, but he was very anxious that, if possible, some steps should be taken to meet future cases. It was on that account, I think, that he acted, and I have no doubt that if he were in the House he would give his warm support to this Bill. These cases might arise in the future. I should be very sorry to discount the expectation of life of anybody, especially of a Lord-Lieutenant, but a vacancy might occur at any moment, and it is conceivably possible that we might be again confronted with the same difficulty. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will agree to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and if you are good enough to do so, allow it to pass so far as this House is concerned before we adjourn for the summer recess.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Crewe,)
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, as this matter arose
  268
  out of an Amendment of mine, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. I wish to dissociate myself altogether from any circumstances that have lately arisen. I know nothing about them more than all your Lordships do from the public prints, and I beg that in anything I may say I may not be supposed to be referring to this particular instance at all.
  It seems to me that this Bill is a rather more important one than the noble Earl who has just sat down would lead us to believe. The Lord Lieutenant occupies a double position; he is Lord-Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum, and I ask the noble Earl what the duties of a Lord-Lieutenant as such are. By his old duties as Lord-Lieutenant he was head of the Territorial Forces of the county. Under the Cardwell system that was changed, but he still remained the titular head, and when the Government introduced their scheme they very wisely made the Lord-Lieutenant again the head of the forces under the new condition of things. If you take away from him that right, what do you leave him? I believe that you leave him the recommendation of deputy lieutenants, and that is rather a peculiar duty for a Lord-Lieutenant who is not the head of the Territorial Force to perform, because all Lords-Lieutenant have been told that in future the deputy lieutenants are to be chosen from the ranks of those who have done good service in, or in connection with, the Territorial Force. Certainly, by excluding the Lord-Lieutenant from the Associations, you are going to deprive him of the means of judging of their services. I cannot think that that is a good step to take. You will reduce the Lord-Lieutenancy to a mere title.
  I do not, I confess, see why the Government have gone back from their intention, very deliberately expressed last year, to make the Lord-Lieutenant the chief head of the new organisation they were creating. We have heard from the noble Earl an account of the particular transaction to which I do not wish to allude further. But what does the noble Earl's argument amount to? It amounts to this. You have a Lord-Lieutenant and you have some one in a subordinate position to him—namely, the

  269
  chairman of the Association. The chairman of the Association has done such good work that it is for the advantage of the force that he should continue to do that work, and the Lord-Lieutenant has left most of the work to him. In order to get over that difficulty, which I should have thought was a very common difficulty in all relations of life—there are many instances in which a vice-chairman is more active than the chairman—you are going to sweep away the right of the Lord-Lieutenant altogether.
  I should have thought that one very simple way of getting over the difficulty, one which I have known in other connections carried out very successfully, would be to hint to the new Lord-Lieutenant the fact that the chairman should continue to take a leading part in the management of the Territorial Force. This Bill removes all duties from the Lord-Lieutenant. Is the case sufficiently common, is it one which is so difficult to get over in the way I have indicated or in some other way, that it is really necessary to disestablish the Lord-Lieutenant? I am particularly glad to hear that the Government did not know what the words "failing him" meant. I thought that was so at the time, and I think I have some ground for complaining, because I Only accepted them on the ground that the Government did know what they meant, and that they meant what they have turned out to mean.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I venture to express my, agreement with the noble Duke when he tells the House that this proposal is a rather more important one than the noble Earl in charge of the Bill seems to suppose. I have referred to the report of the debate upon the clause of the Act last year, and I have no doubt that what was present to all our minds on that occasion was that, unless there were very strong reasons to the contrary, the Lord-Lieutenant of the county was the proper person to be at the head of the Territorial Association. May I read from the report of what then took place? I said—
  "What I would rather like to elicit is whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give a Lord-Lieutenant at any rate the refusal of the honorary presidency, or whether they desire to preserve to themselves the right of refusing even an honorary presidency in certain cases."
  270
  Thereupon Lord Elgin, who spoke for the Government, said—
  "It was the, intention of the Bill that, the Lord-Lieutenant should be appointed in all cases in which that would be at all practicable, the only reason for putting in the reservation being that there might be cases in which it was inexpedient or inconvenient for the Lord-Lieutenant to act. Obviously if that were so the decision must rest with somebody, and His Majesty's Government thought that, on the whole, this being a scheme for military defence, it was better to put upon the Army Council the responsibility of giving or withholding approval."
  The end of that discussion was that some words which my noble friend behind me had moved were not accepted, but we did accept the words "failing him"—that is, the Lord-Lieutenant—at the suggestion of Lord Portsmouth, who was then Under-Secretary of State for War. That is the history of the case.
  It is now desired to alter the law, and to alter it in such manner as to dissolve the intimate relation which we desired to see between the Lord-Lieutenant and the presidency of the Territorial Association. That is, I think, a very considerable change, and my only doubt is whether the change which His Majesty's Government propose is not really one which goes beyond the necessities of the case. There was, as we all know, a leading case which attracted a good deal of attention the other day, and of which I venture to say, concurring with the noble Lord opposite, that the manner in which it was conducted, between the two parties was entirely creditable to both of them. A solution of the difficulty has been found, and now it is desired to prevent a recurrence of a similar difficulty. The noble Earl admitted that these cases were likely to be extremely rare, and I would put to him whether, in order to provide for cases so rare, it as desirable to strike what looks like a blow at the connection between the Lords-Lieutenant and the County Associations.
  The Lord-Lieutenant is responsible for the recommendation of deputy lieutenants, and I believe that quite lately—I shall be corrected by some of my noble friends if I am wrortg—the Lords-Lieutenant received a circular in which it Was put to them in very unambiguous terms that in future all deputy lieutenants were to hold office because they were persons likely to have special opportunities of

  271
  promoting the success of the Territorial Associations. This shows to my mind how necessary it is that the Lord-Lieutenant and the president of the Territorial Association shall be one and the same person. The noble Duke suggested that the difficulty might be met in some other manner, and the suggestion which I venture to make to noble Lords opposite is that as this cannot really be such an extremely urgent matter, the discussion of the Bill might be allowed to stand over and be resumed after we have had time to consider at our leisure the effects of the proposal put forward by the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, of course if the noble Marquess opposite makes that appeal we are really not in a position to resist it, and therefore we must give way, although I know my right hon. friend was anxious to have this matter settled. The noble Duke suggested that it might be possible to make it a condition of the appointment of a Lord-Lieutenant in certain cases that he should not act as president of the County Association. That seems to me to place a very invidious duty upon the Government of the day. It had occurred to us whether that course could be taken instead of the one we have adopted, but it certainly does seem to me that to exact from a Lord-Lieutenant on his appointment a promise that he will fail to act under the Ace of Parliament is a rather anomalous and inconvenient course to take. Of course, it is possible to do that, but it seems to me to place both the Government of the day and the man to whom the office is offered in an invidious and disagreeable position. It is perfectly true, of course, that these cases may not be very numerous, but when they do occur they are extremely important; and in the particular Lancashire case to which reference has been made the effect upon the Territorial Force there, connected with one of the most successful of County Associations, would have been, I am informed, very great indeed. I understand that there would have been something like a general resignation of all the people concerned in the promotion of the Territorial Force there, and that is a prospect which naturally my right hon. friend, however great his respect may be for Lords-Lieutenant, could not regard with equanimity.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Does the noble Earl mean that this consequence would follow the fact that the Lord-Lieutenant became president, or the fact that as president he would take an active and leading part in the management of the Association?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If a Lord-Lieutenant is appointed and is president of the County Association, what part he will take will be within his discretion, unless the expedient suggested by the noble Duke were adopted of, as a preliminary, exacting from the Lord-Lieutenant an honourable obligation that he would fail to act.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Not fail to be president, but fail to act; that is all.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If the noble Duke will look at the Act he will see that it is assumed all through that in ordinary cases the Lord-Lieutenant will be the president. Obviously it could not be to the interest of the Army Council to appoint any person other than the one to whom, in the particular circumstances, the duties ought to be entrusted. It is hardly to be supposed that the Army Council would go out of their way to appoint someone else to make the scheme a failure. In the great majority of cases I have no doubt that the Lord-Lieutenant would be the active chairman of the Association. However, I do not know that it is worth while labouring the matter further. If the noble Marquess desires to have it postponed, postponed of course it must be.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: To put myself in order I move the adjournment of the debate.
  Moved, that the debate be adjourned—(The Marquess of Lansdowne).
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned sine die.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I rise to move the addition of a new

  273
  clause to provide that a Justice in Ireland shall not be disqualified to act for any purpose under the Licensing Acts by reason only of his being interested in a railway company, which is a retailer of intoxicating liquor. A similar disqualification existed in this country until the Licensing Act of 1902, in which a clause was inserted precisely similar to the one I now move. I think it is quite manifest that it was not the intention of the legislature that a magistrate should be disqualified from sitting for such a cause, and as the disqualification has been removed in this country, I ask that the law in Ireland should be assimilated with that in England in this respect.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 2, to insert the following new clause: 'A Justice in Ireland shall not be disqualified to act for any purpose under the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906, or the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1905 or this Act, by reason only of his being interested in a railway company which is a retailer of intoxicating liquor.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the object of the noble Lord's Amendment I am in entire sympathy, but I think it is my duty to point out that the proposed new clause is hardly relevant to the purposes of this Bill. The Bill is one dealing with married persons when habitual drunkards and with persons found drunk in charge of children. It is quite true that it does deal with summary jurisdiction, but the Amendment is of a general kind, enacting that a Justice in Ireland shall not be disqualified to act "for any purpose" by reason only of his being interested in a railway company which is a retailer of intoxicating liquor. Having had some experience in the interpretation and administration of the law, I venture to say there is great inconvenience in a clause being inserted in a Bill which is not really germane to the purpose of the Bill; and I suggest that such an Amendment would not be held to be in order in the other House. I know that we are not so strict here, but I suggest to the noble Lord that his proposed new clause is not relevant to this Bill.
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, after what has been said by the noble and
  274
  learned Lord on the Woolsack, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  An Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill which is mostly consolidation. There are certain Amendments inserted in it which are the result of the recommendations of a Departmental Committee two or three years ago. They are not substantial Amendments, but they do tend to convenience. I think your Lordships would not wish me to enter in detail into the uninteresting subject of costs in criminal cases, but I shall be very glad to answer any question in Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor).
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Second Report of the Select Committee considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government, in view of the statement made by Lord Denman, when speaking on the Earl of Donoughmore's Motion on Wednesday, 15th July, that—
  "The Government were not prepared to ask British taxpayers for a further contribution; eliminating taxpayers and ratepayers, only the landlords and tenants remained, and it was evident that there would have to be a readjustment of existing contracts as far as those parties to the bargain were concerned.…";
  whether this is to be taken to mean that existing agreements between landlord and tenant that have been signed by both parties and lodged with the

  275
  Estate Commissioners are to be re-arranged between the said parties before the estate is declared to be an estate by the Commissioners and the closing day fixed.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the Question which the noble Earl has placed on the Paper arises out of a mistake in The Times report of something I said in your Lordships' House in the debate on the Irish Land Purchase Act. I do not think that the mistake was mine, because I noticed that in the report in Hansard and in other newspapers it was not as in The Times report. Referring to the bargain contained in the terms of the Act of 1903, I said a readjustment of the existing contract would be necessary. I made no reference whatever to existing agreements. I do not know whether the noble Earl requires any further information in answer to his Question.

  CRAN MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived. Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and dispensed with, and Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  IRELAND—PROCLAIMED COUNTIES.
  LORD KILLANINrose to ask His Majesty's Government: (1) Why the whole of the County of Galway was proclaimed instead of the restricted areas which are in a state of disturbance. (2) What are the legal grounds for the assertion of the Government that the expenses of extra forces of the Royal Irish Constabulary in disturbed areas can be made chargeable only on counties at large. (3) If the peremptory directions of the Irish Government to the Galway County Council to levy the demands for these expenses—made each half year from September, 1905 to September, 1907—of various districts and townlands were wrong and illegal. (4) Whether, if the laws is as they assert, they will immediately introduce legislation to remedy the glaring injustice of this indiscriminate mode of taxation in this matter. (5)
  276
  When and for what periods have counties in Ireland been proclaimed under 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 13, during the last thirty years; and what demands for the expenses of extra police were made on each such occasion; and on what areas—whether counties or baronies, districts, or other parts of a county—were these demands ordered to be levied; and to move for Papers.
  The noble Lord said, My Lords, in bringing this matter for a second time under your Lordships' notice when I have so recently raised it, I feel that possibly some apology is due to your Lordships; but my excuse must be that I consider the treatment of the proclaimed counties and the heavy expenditure both out of the Exchequer and locally—I understand something like £47,000 in the last year, and in the County of Galway something like £16,000 in one year—a subject of very great importance. I, therefore, think I am justified in bringing it again to the notice of the House and of the Government, and, so far as is in my power, to the notice of public opinion, especially in Ireland, where I hope by attending to this matter some improvement may take place.
  I also have this excuse for bringing the matter pertinaciously under your notice, that I am an elected county councillor in the County of Galway, and, as such, it is my duty to protect the interests of the ratepayers whom I have the honour to represent on that body, and who I consider, by the treatment of the Government in this matter, are being dealt with most unjustly. Furthermore, when I brought this matter before the House a fortnight or so ago the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office and the noble Earl the Leader of the House practically confessed that they were unable to answer the questions and the points I made; and the noble Earl, with his usual courtesy, asked me to bring up the matter again.
  I do not desire to go at great length into the whole story, but I think it is necessary more or less to describe the situation. Certain districts in Ireland are, unfortunately, in a state of disturbance. That is admitted by everyone. The Lord-Lieutenant has proclaimed the counties in which those

  277
  districts are; he has poured into those counties an immense number of police, and, thereby, a great expenditure has been incurred. This mode of dealing with the trouble does not commend itself to me, for the very simple reason that it is doing no good whatever and is absolutely ineffectual. In spite of the large numbers of police poured into these districts, in spite of new barracks being built, these crimes and outrages still go on unchecked and they even increase. The police seem to have no power of stopping them, and they actually take place in the presence of the police, who are simply spectators of what goes on. The reason for that is quite easy to see. The people know that whether they are arrested or not, they will not be punished and nothing will happen. Consequently, these practices, in spite of the presence of the police, continue.
  Possibly the contention of the Government is that, though this mode of treating the matter is not directly effectual, it may be effectual through the taxation which it is necessary to place on the districts. That is reasonable. I do not myself admire that mode of punishment, but I recognise that if this taxation was levied on the disturbed districts, if the taxation was made punitive, it would possibly deter the people from continuing these practices, and thus remedy the matter. But whatever chance there was of that form of dealing with the matter being effective, is completely destroyed by the fact that the Government, instead of levying the taxation for the extra forces of police on the disturbed areas where the outrages take place, levy it on counties at large, including districts that are peaceful and have no connection whatever, with the disturbances. It that way they are, to my mind, depriving this taxation of any possibility of being indirectly effective.
  I would also point out, in this connection,, that the districts in which these disturbances take place are not alone not being punished by the taxation, but they are actually deriving benefits from the presence, of the extra police. You have only to be acquainted with these small towns and villages in the West of Ireland, where the population
  278
  is numbered by hundreds, to know that the moving of a hundred policemen to that district is a great advantage. There are the most amazing stories in circulation as to what is going on in reference to private lodgings for the police, means of conveyance, and provisions. I have heard—and I believe it to be true—that in a certain town in the West of Ireland a house which is usually let at £30 a year has been taken by the police authorities at £30 a month; and cars are hired in these districts for the conveyance of the police at an expenditure for which you could get a special train from Dublin to Galway. The Royal Irish Constabulary was never, and is not now, an unpopular body in Ireland. It is composed of good-looking and attractive young Irishmen, and, therefore, in these districts they are a great addition to the society of the place, and, as a matter of fact, I have heard that in a small town in the West of Ireland there have been within the last month five marriages of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  There is another point of view, and it is the one which, as a county councillor, I admit more especially interests me, and that is that by levying this taxation over the whole county you are not alone not making the taxation punitive, but you are including within it A large number of people and great tracks of country which are as quiet and peaceable as possible, I am not referring to small districts where it is inevitable, perhaps, that those who are innocent should suffer. I am referring to the whole of the western half of the county of Galway. If the noble Lord wants to know what positions I am referring to I may mention them specifically. I refer to the rural district of Clifden, to the whole of the rural district of Oughterard, and to at least half of the rural district of Galway and also to the town of Galway, and I say that in all those districts there is no ground for taxing the people. I also wish to ask why the whole of the county of Galway was proclaimed. The section of the Act of Parliament which gives the Lord-Lieutenant the power, of proclaiming districts gives him full power—in. fact, directs him—to proclaim only

  279
  those portions of a county which are in a state of disturbance. It is Section 13 of 6 and 7 Wm. IV., c. 13, and is as follows—
  "The Lord-Lieutenant may declare by-proclamation that any county, county of a city, or county of a town in Ireland, or any barony or baronies, half barony or half baronies in any county at large, or any district of less extent than any barony or half barony, is or are in a state of disturbance and require an additional establishment of police."
  Will the noble Lord say that any of those districts to which I refer—they are fifty miles long and fifty miles broad—are in a state of disturbance requiring additional police? As a matter of fact, are there any additional police in those districts? Is it not rather the fact that police have been taken from those districts in order to be placed in the disturbed districts? I submit that that part of Galway is quite undisturbed, and that the people are living in that perfect peace which always obtains in Ireland when there are not agrarian troubles. Therefore I contend that to proclaim the whole county was an abuse of the Lord-Lieutenant's power considering the section I have just read, which expressly and wearisomely mentions the various sub-divisions of a county which he may declare to be in a state of disturbance requiring an additional establishment of police. I therefore deliberately ask His Majesty's Government to hive the whole of the western portion of the county of Galway unproclaimed.
  It is an insult to that part of the county to proclaim it; but far more important is the injury done to these people by inflicting the extra taxation upon them. It becomes worse when we recall that nearly all that district is scheduled as a congested area, and at this moment the county council of Galway are having to tax those districts for the purpose of starting relief works to prevent the inhabitants dying of starvation. Therefore I say it was tragic to include those districts. His Majesty's Government might just as well proclaim and levy this taxation off the county of Middlesex, and, in my humble opinion, it would be less absurd to do so, because at least in the county of Middlesex the noble Lord, Lord Denman, resides as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and, although I do not accuse them
  280
  of intentionally encouraging this disturbance, I do say that in fact they are more connected with this agrarian trouble than anyone living in the western half of the county of Galway.
  What is the answer of His Majesty's Government in this matter of levying the taxation on the whole county? I understood the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office to say that it was necessary to levy it on the whole county. I understood him to speak sympathetically the other evening, and to imply that if it could be levied on the districts they would do so, but that they were compelled to levy it on the whole county. Of course that is a legal matter, but I have looked as well as I could into it and I would refer the noble Lord to two sections in the Acts of Parliament which deal with this matter which I consider are very pertinent. I mentioned these sections to the noble Lord yesterday so that he would have time to give me an answer, because I desire the matter cleared up. I submit to His Majesty's Government that there are only two ways of putting extra police into a disturbed county—they must come either from another county or from the reserve depot in Dublin. In the case of police being moved from one county to another, Section 28 of 6 and 7 William IV., c. 13, decides what is to be the area of charge. That section says that in such a case the expenses of such police—
  "During such time as they shall be, or remain, in any county or any barony or half barony, or other division of a barony, or county of a city or county of a town, or town and liberties, shall be defrayed in the same manner in all respects by such county or barony or half barony, or other division of a barony or county of a city or county of a town, or town and liberties, in respect of which such expenses shall have been incurred, and to which it shall be by the said Lord-Lieutenant declared that such expenses relate."
  I therefore submit that, in so far as these police are moved from another county, the expenses must be defrayed by the district into which they are moved. But in the case of police sent into a county from the reserve in Dublin, Section 8 of 2 and 3 Vict., c. 75, says—
  "One moiety for the payment of police composing the said Reserve Force shall be raised off the county, county of a city or county of a town…provided always that it shall and may be lawful for the Lord-Lieutenant, if he thinks fit, to direct that the monies or any

  281
  proportion thereof, so payable in respect of the Reserve Force, shall be raised off any barony or baronies, half barony or half baronies, or other division of a barony, for the better execution of the law wherein such Reserve Force or any part thereof may have been employed, instead of the county at large."
  Therefore I contend that it is in the power of the Government, in so far as the police coming from another county or from the reserve depot in Dublin are concerned, to see that the expense is placed on the baronies and not on the counties at large.
  In conclusion, I would appeal to His Majesty's Government to give full and fair consideration to this matter. I have not raised it in any party spirit. In fact, I think that calling attention to it is of advantage to the Government and to Ireland in that it might lead to people realising what is occurring, and to a stop being put to these disturbances. I should be glad if that were the result. In that way I should be doing a friendly turn to His Majesty's Government. But I do most earnestly ask them to look into the whole question, and if they do they will see that the present mode of dealing with the matter is proving wholly ineffectual, that in the meantime there is a wasteful expenditure of public money, and that the manner in which the taxation is being levied is most unjust.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return showing the counties and portions of counties proclaimed under the above Act during the last thirty years, with the dates at which the proclamations were made and withdrawn."—(Lord Killanin.)
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, in the able and eloquent speech which the noble Lord has addressed to the House he has dealt with two separate and distinct questions; the first was a matter of law and the second a question of policy. I will endeavour to deal first with the question of law. The county of Galway was proclaimed because the Lord-Lieutenant in Council was satisfied that the county was "in a state of disturbance" such as to "require an additional establishment of police" within the terms of the Statute, 6 Will. IV., under which the proclamation was made. Police reports show a very considerable part
  282
  of the West Riding to be undoubtedly in a state of disturbance. But even assuming that certain limited areas were not disturbed to an extent that would require additional police, that would not affect the question about which Lord Killanin appears mainly concerned—namely, the charge upon the local authorities. Even if limited areas only were proclaimed, the county at large would equally have to bear the charge.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Under what section?
  LORD DENMAN: Under Section 37 of the Act of William IV. the amount chargeable for extra police under Section 13, sent in pursuance of a proclamation, has to be raised off the county at large. In 1880 and 1882, when a number of counties and parts of counties were proclaimed and the police forces largely increased, the law officers advised that the charge for additional police appointed in pursuance of the proclamation must be on the county at large and not on any limited district of the county. Some of the proclamations of 1880–2, as the noble Lord is aware, remained in force for many years. I think the last proclamation remained in force till the year 1899. In the case of Galway the additional police were withdrawn in 1898. Throughout, under both Liberal and Conservative Governments, the charges have been made on the counties at large.
  The present Law Officers agree that the law is as stated by their predecessors in 1880. The extra police for which charges were made against certain districts and townlands in Galway, as stated in the third part of the Question, were not additional police appointed under proclamation as in the present case, but consisted of detachments of the established police forces of other counties temporarily sent to County Galway Under 11 and 12 Viet., cap. 72, Section 6, the charge for such detachments—namely, a moiety of the cost—was made upon the county at large. In 1874 that was the opinion of the Law Officers of the day. In the year 1900, however, the then Law Officers of the Crown advised that the charge could be made

  283
  upon the rural or urban districts in which the men were employed, and this course appears to have been followed until March, 1906, after which date the original practice was reverted to on the advice of the present Law Officers, who agree with the view expressed by the Law Officers of 1874, that the charge should be on the county at large, a view which has been supported by judicial decision. Speaking generally, it may be said that it is open to any local authority who consider that the methods of charge for extra police are illegal to test the matter by proceedings in one of the superior Courts. I have stated the opinion of the present Law Officers, and that it is supported by a judicial decision.
  LORD ASHBOURNE; What is the judicial decision, and when was it given?
  LORD DENMAN: It was given by Mr. Justice Harrison at the Wexford Assizes in 1888. The noble Lord has quoted the case of the reserve force of police. It is true that in some cases the reserve force may be used for a rather similar purpose to those in counties; but the law regarding that force is that it is to be used for "sudden and extraordinary emergency." A continued state of disturbance requiring comparatively permanent additions to the police force, as in County Galway at the present time, must be treated under the Act of William IV. Even if the reserve force were used, I understand that it would not be sufficient, in the opinion of the Government, for the purpose of policing County Galway at the present time.
  In reply to the fifth question, I shall be glad to give the Return asked for, but to enumerate the extra expenses of police would entail enormous labour, and I hope the noble Lord will not press for that part of the Return. As to the question of injustice, I cannot admit that there is any injustice resulting from the mode of taxation. I admit that this is a rough-and-ready method of dealing with this matter, and in some cases no doubt innocent persons must suffer with the guilty. But what would be the effect of narrowing the area? Supposing a particular grazier has his cattle driven; he is probably the largest ratepayer in the district, and therefore if we narrowed
  284
  the area not only would that man suffer all the inconvenience and hardship of having his cattle driven, but in addition would have to pay the greater part of the expense of the police sent to protect his property. I quite admit that in the case of the noble Lord himself and of the neighbourhood in which he resides, it is a hardship to have to pay for the misdeeds of other people in a different part of the county. I admit that. But the question, I think, is whether some people should suffer a certain amount of hardship, or a much smaller number of people suffer considerably greater hardship. I gather from the tenor of the noble Lord's remarks that he was averse to drafting police into County Galway at all.
  LORD KILLANIN: I said it was use-less.
  LORD DENMAN: Well, my Lords, I submit that if the condition of County Galway is bad it would be considerably worse if the police already there were to be withdrawn. After all, the remedy is with the people of the County of Galway itself. Let thorn set their faces against cattle-driving and other forms of disturbance and then the police will be withdrawn, and if a hotter state of things should come to pass in that county there is nobody who would welcome such a state of things more warmly than the Chief Secretary.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I cannot allow this debate to terminate without saying a word with regard to the extraordinary statement to which we have just listened. The condition of things is entirely due to His Majesty's Government. They have not taken steps to put down cattle-driving, but have allowed it to go on increasing until it has spread over eight counties, and they have proclaimed six counties under the Act of William III. and placed enormous expense upon them for extra police. The law if properly administered is perfectly capable of dealing with cattle-driving, and I want to know why His Majesty's Government have not put into force the powers they already possess. The condition of Ireland is one of increasing lawlessness. The Chief Secretary in his speeches has tried to

  285
  gloss over the state of affairs, but there were during the first six months of this year, I believe, more cattle-drives than in the whole of last year and more people under police protection. Yet I think I have never heard a responsible Government make a weaker answer than that made by Lord Denman to my noble friend.
  *LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, in rising to speak on this subject I crave from your Lordships a full measure of that indulgence which of your goodness you concede to those who address you for the first time. I venture to address your Lordships to-day because I am familiar with the subject under your notice, because I have sympathy with the views of my noble friend Lord Killanin, and because the subject possesses certain aspects to which I wish to invite your Lordships' attention.
  My purpose will be facilitated if your Lordships will permit me to explain very briefly what the organisation of the Royal Irish Constabulary is, so far as that organisation is germane to the questions placed on the Paper by the noble Lord. The Royal Irish Constabulary is divided into two bodies, which are recruited under different legal provisions. One of these bodies is called the Free Force, and the other body is called the Reserve. The Free Force is limited by law to a maximum strength of 10,678 officers and men; the Reserve is similarly limited to a maximum strength of 412 officers and men. The Reserve Force, as its name implies, is intended for use on emergencies only. It is quartered in one body in the Constabulary Depôt in the Phoenix Park. On the other hand, the Free Force is divided, triennially, among the counties of Ireland and the City of Belfast, which for special reasons is policed by the Royal Irish Constabulary; and the number of men allocated to each county is technically called the Parliamentary quota of that county. It frequently happens that the quota of a particular county has proved inadequate for the county's needs and as the quota itself cannot be increased during the currency of the triennial allocation, other means are provided by law and practice for meeting the particular emergency or by
  286
  increasing its total police force of the county.
  Lord Killanin said there were only two ways of doing that, but there are four. One way is by the magistrates of the county, in special meeting assembled, requisitioning the Lord-Lieutenant for any increase. Another way is for the Lord-Lieutenant, on the advice of his Privy Council, to increase the police force of any particular county. A third way is to employ part of the reserve in the county, and the fourth and last way is to transfer for temporary service to the disturbed county part of the quotas of other countries, which, being in a peaceful condition, can afford to spare the men. No matter under which of these four methods the police quota of a county is reinforced, one-half of the cost of the reinforcement falls upon the rates. The important question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, really comes to this. Should the cost be recovered from the county at large, or should it fall on the disturbed districts alone?
  Where the police force of a county has been strengthened by the action of the magistrates or the initiation of the Lord-Lieutenant on the advice of the Privy Council, the invariable practice has, I believe, been to treat the cost as a county at large charge; where the reinforcement has come from the reserve, the practice has been to treat the cost as recoverable from the particular districts in which the additional police have been employed. But where the reinforcement has come from the Free Forces of other counties the practice has varied. Under the last and the present Liberal Administration it has been treated as a county at large charge. During the last five years, at all events, of the late Unionist Administration, the charge was recovered from the districts whose condition made necessary the introduction of the additional police.
  My Lords, it is, I think, very desirable that there should be uniformity of practice in this matter. I confess that, looking at the matter from the point of view of an executive officer, my preference is strongly in favour of the interpretation which the Unionist Law Officers have placed upon the law. I consider that it is in the interests

  287
  of peace and order and of fair play that those people who are peaceable and law-abiding should not be fined because of the sins of people who are disorderly. I think it is unfair that if three-fourths of the county are peaceable and orderly, those three-fourths should have to pay for the one-fourth which is disorderly. I have had much experience of the use of police in this way. In India we used to call them punitive police, and I found this method one of the most efficient in manitaining order. Under a Western as under an Eastern sun the most sensitive part of communities or of individuals is their purses, and if you bring sufficient force to bear in that direction you generally re-establish order and deter other people from breaking the law.
  I have only one remark more to make, and it is, with reference to what has fallen from the noble Marquess opposite. I am not here to speak for the Government; I speak for myself alone as a private Member of your Lordships' House, but, of course, I have had exceptional opportunities for acquiring information, and, indeed I feel that in addressing your Lordships I suffer from the inconvenience that I have so lately come from public service. But I think I may say that the enforcement of the Coercion Act did not relieve the Unionist Government from having recourse to this strengthening of the police force of the country. Speaking for myself alone, I am disposed to think that, when the Unionist Government, with intentions of which I completely approve, made its excursion into the fields of Liberalism in 1898, it introduced into the Local Government (Ireland) Act certain provisions which have had very great effect upon the magisterial benches throughout Ireland. I have belief and confidence in my countrymen that whatever hasty action was then taken will in time be justified; but in the meantime the action of the Unionist Government has had this effect, that it has compelled the Liberal-Government of this day to cope with disorder in Ireland with broken harness and with blunted weapons.
  LORD ATKINSON: My Lords, I have no desire to discuss the point of law, and I do not at all rise to enter upon the material question how far the action
  288
  of the Government of 1898 blunted the weapons for preserving law and order. I will only venture to say, in passing, that if they were blunted, at all events, we managed to maintain law and order in Ireland. But I rise for an entirely different purpose. I am one of those who had the good or evil fortune to give an opinion that it was not necessary to do such an extremely absurd, and, in my opinion, perfectly abortive, thing as when one division of a county was disturbed, to punish, not only that division, but its peaceful neighbours. Accordingly, we advised that under the statute it was competent, when a district was proclaimed, to send police to that district, and to charge its support upon that district. I now rise to make a suggestion. Lord Denman invited my noble friend to raise the question in a Court of law. That was a very barren and mocking invitation. He cannot raise it in a Court of law. The question is not whether the Lord-Lieutenant is bound to have the expenses raised from the disturbed districts; it is whether or not an option is given to him to direct that it be levied off the larger area. I suggest to the Government that in one of the proclaimed counties the Lord-Lieutenant should direct that a small sum should be levied on a particular area, whereupon the legal question whether the Lord-Lieutenant had or had not the jurisdiction to charge over the smaller area could be decided. If he has not, then I quite agree with Lord MacDonnell that unquestionably the law ought to be changed, for nothing could be more unjust than that people who have no connection with the disturbances should be mulcted for the support of the additional police that are necessary to check the disorder of their neighbours.
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the case presented with singular clearness and fairness by my noble friend Loud Killanin is that it seems unjust to tax the wider area, a substantial portion of which might be entirely innocent, if there is a power of concentrating the charge on the portion of the county which is disturbed. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Irish Office stated that until 1906 the practice had

  289
  been as stated by Lord Killanin, but that in that year a change was made, and instead of the smaller localities being charged the expenditure was, spread over the whole county. It is obvious, from the speech of Lord Macdonnell, that the practice which was stopped in 1906 had been acted upon on previous occasions by various Governments and under various Law Officers without question; and Lord Macdonnell has intimated very clearly that, in his opinion, the power of charging the smaller area was a wise and useful power, and that as a question of policy and prudence it would be well to adopt that course. Lord Atkinson has also presented the case in the fairest possible way. I venture to suggest that, by the light of what has fallen from both sides of the House, it would be only fair and reasonable for the Government to apply their minds to this question and see whether they have not a discretion to make the charge upon the narrower locality if they think it expedient in the interests of law and order.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite who replied on behalf of the Irish Office said, in the concluding words of his speech, that the people of Galway must set their faces against cattle-driving. I ask whether the Government have set their faces to the best of their ability against cattle-driving. The answer, I think, is, "No." The fact remains that after many months of their efforts cattle-driving still goes on, not alone in Galway but in other places. I should like to draw attention to a statement made by Judge Kenny at the Galway Assizes the other day. He said—
  "The only part of the County Galway not in a state of extreme lawlessness is Connemara."
  Connemara is the most congested part of County Galway. What, then, becomes of the argument that it is in the congested districts that the people want these extra grass lands? The fact is that this cattle-driving is engineered by the people in the small towns and by the young blackguards who gather round the public-houses at night. It is not the people in the congested dis-
  290
  tricts who indulge in these raids. Lord Denman said that the grazier would suffer if the extra rate was put on the particular district where the cattle were driven, but the truth is that he would much rather pay the extra rate and have his cattle protected. I admit that on the whole Ireland is peaceful, but there is, as I have said before in this House, a gangrene in the country that will spread if it is not stopped. We have to look forward—and next winter, if the measures that we are continually promised are not properly put into force, we shall have further trouble. The answer of the Government is an evasion of the actual question. I only hope that a little backbone will be put into this matter. The Government know as well as I do that cattle-driving could be stopped if they put into effect the remedies at their command.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, in spite of what the noble Earl has said it appears to me that the question raised by Lord Killanin is purely a legal question or, at any rate, almost entirely a legal question, and consequently the discussion has very properly in the main concentrated itself on the legal aspect of the case. Previous to the year 1900, owing to a decision, I imagine, of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ashbourne in 1874——
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I did not come in until 1877.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Well, owing to the decision of the Law Officers of the Conservative Government of that year the charge was placed on the county, and it so remained up to 1900, when the Law Officers of the then Government gave a different decision. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, stated that it would not be possible, for the reason he gave, for the county council of Galway or any other county council to do what my noble friend behind me invited them to do, which was to bring the matter into Court. The proposition, therefore, of Lord Atkinson, was this, that assuming the present Law Officers are right in denying a discretion to the Lord-Lieutenant, and in saying that he is

  291
  obliged to charge on the county, the Lord-Lieutenant should place himself within the possibility of an action being brought against him by making a small charge on some particular barony or half barony. I will consult my right hon. friend as to whether he is prepared to recommend any action of that kind. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot, of course, say what view he will take. I think there is no doubt that there is a very plausible case for saying that if this extra establishment of police is to be regarded as punitive, the punitive effect will be more concentrated if the charges are made on the particular district to which the police are sent. But at the same time, it does not do entirely to lose sight of the consideration mentioned by my noble friend behind me, namely, that if everybody in the disturbed area was guilty of disturbance, it would no doubt be a proper method to charge all the money on them; but even in this small area there would be a large proportion of innocent people, who would have to pay more per head if the whole charge was concentrated on the small district. I do not say that that is conclusive, but it is a point which has to be considered. I was a little amused at the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, seemed to me to give away Lord Killanin's case when he quoted the statement of Mr. Justice Kenny that the whole of county Galway, except South Connemara, was in a state of extreme lawlessness. If that is so, it is clear that the charge ought, at any rate, to be distributed over the greater part of the county.
  LORD KILLANIN: Judge Kenny said, I think, Connemara, and that would include the whole of the district which I referred to. I did not allude to the West Hiding but to the western part of the county, which is not disturbed and ought not to be included. With regard to the Return, could the noble Lord not make it a little fuller, showing on what areas these charges were levied? Perhaps it would be easier if I reduced the period to the last twenty years.
  LORD DENMAN: I should think that would entail an enormous amount of labour and correspondence. I will give the noble Lord the counties which have been proclaimed.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN CATTLE.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWrose to call attention to the report of a deputation which waited upon the Prime Minister to invite him to repeal the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, which prevents the importation alive of cattle into this country from abroad; and to ask what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government on the subject. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I observed in the usual channels of information a short time ago that a deputation had waited on the Prime Minister with respect to the state of the law affecting the introduction of live cattle from abroad. No very lengthy report of that deputation, or of the answer which was made to it, was given; but so far as I could gather, the right hon. Gentleman said that he came from a constituency interested in this question, and that he was prepared to give very favourable consideration to the introduction of live cattle into this country if he could be satisfied that they came from countries where there was no disease. But we also were informed that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture took a very different line, and was not at all sympathetic to the objects of the deputation. I confess that that is entirely in accord with everything we have heard from the noble Earl either in this House or elsewhere. The question was raised last session or the session before, and the noble Earl, with no uncertain voice, said he had no intention of departing from the policy of his predecessors. There has been some agitation in this matter, and it has been chiefly based on the idea that there is a scarcity—I believe it has been put as high as a famine—in the meat markets; but if your Lordships will look at the prices of recent months and of recent years you will see that meat is not really any dearer now than it has been on frequent occasions, due to temporary causes, in recent years. There have been some fluctuations, consequent, I believe, on a shortage of maize in America. As a result, the price of cattle went up in May and June, but I see from the official reports of the Board of Agriculture that it has gone back again. In the report dated July 2nd, I noticed that there was a marked fall in the price

  293
  of beef, and that all the dead meat markets, especially American and Argentine chilled, were dull. The following week all kinds were more or less down, and then on July 16th it is reported that, while Scottish and English beef remained firm, there were heavier supplies and prices were lower. I venture to think that there is no ground for the assertion that there is a marked scarcity in the supply of meat in this country, and that there is no difference between the present position and the position in recent years. Then it has been alleged that there is a feeling of grievance on the part of our Canadian brethren on this question. I should like to ask whether any, and if so, what representations have been made by the Government of Canada to this country as to the state of the law which prevents the importation alive of Canadian cattle. My own belief is that there is no feeling at all in Canada on the subject. I have heard it said by Canadians that at the time they were sending over store cattle to this country they were not alive to the fact that they were sending us the raw material and that this country was making the profit after fattening the cattle and turning out the finished article, but they now preferred to do the finishing off of the raw material at home and get the profit from both rearing and fattening the stock as well. I assume that there has been no great agitation on the part of our Canadian cousins to have cattle admitted alive into this country, and I venture to think that the recent rise in price is only one of those fluctuations in the market which we must anticipate. I hope to hear from the noble Earl opposite that he, at any rate, has not departed from the policy he has announced to Parliament, and that that policy is endorsed by his colleagues in the Cabinet.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, the Act of 1896, as your Lordships are aware, prohibits the importation of cattle unless they are slaughtered at ports of landing, such as Deptford, Liverpool, Bristol, and Glasgow. I have to say that the Government do not propose, in existing circumstances, to initiate any legislation on the subject. I may, perhaps, be permitted to add that the President of the Board of
  294
  Trade intends to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire how far, and in what mariner, the general supply, distribution, and price of meat in the United Kingdom are controlled or affected by any combination of firms or companies. I have had no representations lately from the Canadian Government on the subject, and I am informed on very high authority indeed, that whatever restrictions we are obliged to put on the importation of Canadian cattle will be loyally accepted.

  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  Moved, "That the Lord Balfour be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of the Whole House next week in the absence of the Chairman of Committees: That the Lord Balfour be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills next week in the absence of the Chairman of Committees;—(The Chairman of Committees)—agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock till Tomorrow, Ten o'clock.