Sitting of 11 May 1908

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN- QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders

  675
  not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Great Western Railway Bill [Lords]; Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords]; Swansea Valley Gas Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COM- PLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Huddersfield Water Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed without Amendment.
  Garw and Ogmore Gas Bill.—Order for consideration, as amended, read, and discharged. Bill re-committed to the former Committee.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Interoceanic Railway of Mexico Bill [Lords].—Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Southwell District Gas Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Edinburgh Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill; Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill.—Read the third time and passed.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Clydesdale; Coatbridge; Langside; and Motherwell (two); to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Dreghorn; Govan Colliery; Wet Earth Colliery; and Whaley Bridge; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petition from Finedon, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Morley; Northleach; and West Dorset; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Ardrossan, Bedhampton, Beeston, Beith; Bethnal Green (two); Bishop Auckland; Chidswell; Clayton le Moors; Craigneuk; Dalry (four); Darvel (three); Dornoch; Earlsfield; Engie; Fairlie; Farnworth; Fenwick; Glasgow; Gosport; Gordon; Hinckley (two); Kilbirnie (three); Kilmains; Kilmarnock (two); Kilwinning (two); Largs (six); Leeds; London, E.; Luddenden; Luncarty; Manor Park; Motherwell (seven); Newmilns (four); Oxford; Pendleton; Richmond; Romford; Saint Pancras Road; Saltcoats (six); Shetland; Stevenston (two); Stewarton (two); Struther Dunlop; Temperance Union of Scotland; Troon; Wemyss; and Windsor; to lie upon the Table.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Petition from Newcastle-on-Tyne and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Anstruther; Beith; Kilbirnie and Dalry; Kilmarnock; and Kilwinning; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Ardrossan; Cambuslang; Coupar Angus (two); Deerness; Edinburgh; Motherwell (three); and Stevenston; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of Durham altering the Polling Place for the Morton Grange Polling District, in the Houghtonle-Spring Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL DEBT ACT, 1883 (TERMINABLE ANNUITIES).
  Copy presented, of Treasury Warrants, dated 6th May, 1908, for the Adjustment of the Terminable Annuities created under the Finance Act, 1899, and held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Trustee and Post Office Savings Banks [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 12, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Protocol recording Accession of Russia to the International Sugar Convention of 5th March, 1902, and Additional Act of 28th August, 1907. Signed at Brussels, 10th December 1907. Proces Verbaux recording Deposit of Ratifications, 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TURKEY (No. 3, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence respecting the Affairs of South Eastern Europe (in continuation of Turkey, No. 1, 1907) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (ESTIMATE).
  Copy presented, of Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of India for 1907–8, compared with the results of 1906–7 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 139.]
  EAST INDIA (FINANCE AND REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented of Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India for 1906–7 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (HOME ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented, of Home Accounts of the Government of India [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 140.]
  EAST INDIAN RAILWAY FINANCE.
  Copy presented, of Report of Committee on East Indian Railway Finance and Administration for 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 50 (British Cotton Cultivation. Reports on the Quality of Cotton grown in British Possessions, by Professor Wyndham Dunstan) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORT (MISCELLANEOUS).
  Copy presented, of Report, No. 51 (Southern Nigeria. Report on the Forest Administration of Southern Nigeria for 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 18) Warrant, 1908, dated 11th April, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy—Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made, the number of Patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics between 1st October, 1907, and 31st March, 1908 [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Education (Scotland) Bill—Amounts referred to in Clause 13.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what was the amount received during the financial year ending 31st March, 1908, in respect of each of the sums referred to in Clause 13 of the Education (Scotland) Bill; and what was the total credit balance remaining in respect of each of these sums at the close of that financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The amount received during the financial year ended 31st March, 1908, in respect of each of the sums referred to in Clause 13 of the Education (Scotland) Bill was as follows: (1) £40,000; (2) £61,097 0s. 2d.; (3) £60,000; (4) £69,396 15s. 3d. (an unusually heavy payment); (5) £38,185 1s. 5d.; (6) £158,678. The amount under (6) is the sum voted as a general aid grant for 1907–8 less the re-vote of £75,000 and less the sum of £72,000 which would have been required to maintain the fee grant at the rate of 12s. per child in average attendance. It is impossible to state separately the total credit balance remaining in respect of each of these sums at the close of the financial year ended 31st March, 1908. (1) and (4) were paid into the Scottish Education Department's fee grant account, and the balance of the credit of that account at 31st March, 1908, is state in the reply to another Question by the hon. member. The amount under (2) was distributed as directed in Section 2 (iii) (b) of The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890. The amounts under (3) and (5) were distributed in full. The sum under (6) was all spent in accordance with the terms of the various sections of the general aid grant minute of 9th March, 1907.

  Balances in Hands of Scottish Education Department.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what was the total amount of the balances remaining in the hands of the Scottish Education Department, as the end of the financial
  680
  year ending 31st March, 1908, of the sums paid to them prior to that date under Sub-section 2 of Section 2 of The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, and Sub-section 6 of Section 2 of The Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, referred to in Clause 17 of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The balance of the sums received under the Acts cited, as at 31st March, 1908, was £140,148 14s. 10d.

  Kingston-on-Thames Post Office.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether Belgian natural cement is being used for work in connection with the Post Office at Kingston-on-Thames; whether he is aware that this article does not comply with the British standard or any other specification used for genuine Portland cement, and is of inferior quality; and whether he can see his way to issue instructions that works under his department should adopt the British standard specification in accordance with the practice of other departments.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The contract for this work (as in all other contracts of the kind) provides that Portland cement of the best quality shall be used. A test of the cement in this case showed that this provision was not complied with, but I am unable to ascertain whether the cement used was or was not Belgian cement. I am considering what further steps shall be taken in the matter.

  Tea Imports.
  MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the quantity and value of the tea imported into the United Kingdom in each of the years 1906 and 1907, distinguishing between that from India and Ceylon, and that from China, and that from Java, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) A Statement of the Quantity and Value of the Tea imported into the United

  681
  Kingdom in each of the years 1906 and 1907, distinguishing between that

  Consigned from

  1906.

  1907.

  Quantity.

  Value.

  Quantity.

  Value.

  lbs.

  £

  lbs.

  £

  India

  183,417,038

  5,709,842

  171,592,930

  5,752,918

  Ceylon and Dependencies

  106,368,346

  3,208,096

  107,409,770

  3,608,616

  Total from India and Ceylon

  289,785,384

  8,917,938

  279,002,700

  9,361,534

  China

  13,538,653

  505,401

  19,113,963

  773,709

  Java

  12,726,518

  328,349

  11,936,373

  377,336

  Other Countries

  5,139,509

  152,397

  7,074,022

  232,140

  Total imported

  321,190,064

  9,904,085

  314,127,058

  10,744,719

  Ex-Soldiers and the Post Office.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he could, in consultation with the Secretary of State for War, so alter the regulations governing the employment of ex-soldiers in the postal service as to permit such of them as are in possession of Army first-class certificates to be employed permanently as sorters, in view of the fact that the Civil Service examination required for sorters is not so severe as that for an Army first.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Sorters' appointments are gained by competition, and the hon. Member's suggestion, if adopted, would involve the appointment of ex-soldiers without the competition. I regret that I do not think that such a course would be expedient.

  Position of Militia Officers Compulsorily Retired.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Militia officers compulsorily retired under the new regulations for the Special Reserve, who have almost served the qualifying
  from India and Ceylon, and that from China, and that from Java, respectively—
  period for promotion, will be granted a step in rank and permission to wear the uniform of the regiment to which they belonged.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that Militia officers are to be compulsorily retired. The conditions of transfer to the Special Reserve are laid down in Paragraphs 72 and 73 of the Army Order of 23rd December last for the various ranks of Militia officers except lieutenant-colonels. In the case of the latter it is proposed to place them, if they so desire, on an unattached list for the Special Reserve. Honorary rank will cease to be given after this year's training. Officers who do not earn it by Militia service in accordance with Paragraph 45, Militia Regulations, prior to the date fixed for their transfer to the Special Reserve will not receive honorary rank.

  Pay of Colour-Sergeants of the Special Reserve.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the colour-sergeants of

  683
  the Special Reserve will be paid on the same scale as Line colour-sergeants; and, if not, for what reason.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Colour-sergeants of the Special Reserve will continue in receipt of the same rate of pay as colour-sergeants in the Militia. The reasons for the difference of pay between colour-sergeants of the Line and the Militia have been fully explained to the hon. Member in answer to a Question he put to me in November, 1906.

  Recruiting for the Special Reserve.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the age limit for recruiting for Special Reserve to thirty-five years, as the present limit of thirty years renders it practically impossible for ex-soldiers to join, and recruits for Militia were formerly accepted up to forty-five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This question has been considered, and it is not proposed to make any alteration in the age limit in the manner suggested.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that a fee of 2s. 4d. is paid in respect of a line recruit while only 1s. 6d. is paid for a recruit for the Reserve; and is it proposed to continue this arrangement, which naturally causes colour-sergeants to use all their efforts against the Reserve recruiting.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The fees are as stated, and the 1s. 6d. levy money paid for a Special Reserve recruit is exactly the same amount as was paid in the past for a Militia recruit. It was not found that this rate of levy money prevented recruiters from raising recruits for the Militia, and it is not expected that it will militate against recruiting for the Special Reserve.

  Status of Quartermasters.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to make any alterations in the
  684
  status of quartermasters under the new regulations which will entitle them to draw pay, when retired for age, according to rank, instead of, as at present, only the retired pay of a lieutenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I fear that at present I have nothing to add to the full reply given to the hon. Member for Newmarket on 19th February.

  Position of War Office Writers.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the position of writers in the several departments of the War Office was analogous to that of assistant clerks in the Civil Service, he will consider the desirability of abolishing the gratuity system, and treat them in the same way as assistant clerks, viz., place them under a pension scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is considered that the position of these writers is not really analogous to that of assistant clerks in the War Office, the conditions of entry and of service being dissimilar. The question of a pension scheme for the writers has been fully considered, and it was decided that the proposal could not be entertained as the proposal put forward was found to be actuarially unsound.

  Pay of War Office Storehouse Clerks.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that for the London district the War Office have fixed a minimum of 26s. a week for clerks, ex-soldiers, attached to the headquarters offices, Territorial division, with an increment of 3s. after three years service, he can see his way clear to grant the same conditions to the storehouse clerks who perform similar duties at Woolwich and elsewhere under the War Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question in regard to storehouse clerks put by my hon. friend the Member for North Paddington on the 30th ultimo, to which I have nothing to add.

  Army Expenditure on Gun Ammunition.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can say what was the approximate expenditure by the War Office on guns and gun ammunition during each of the four financial years ending 31st March, 1907; and what amount in each of those years represents expenditure in the Ordnance factories.
  (Answered by Mr. Acland.) The expenditure on guns (including mountings and spare parts) and gun ammunition (including cordite for filling) was as follows:—

  Year ended.

  Total. £

  Ordnance Factories. £

  31st March, 1904

  1,835,000

  848,000

  31st March 1905

  1,015,000

  698,000

  31st March 1906

  2,457,000

  903,000

  31st March 1907

  1,955,000

  651,000

  The figures given above for the two years ended 31st March, 1906, and 31st March, 1907, include the expenditure on the rearmament of the Horse and Field Artillery. The expenditure in this case covers orders placed in respect of India and the Colonies, as well as for the War Office.

  Army Razor Contract.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can say when the new specifications for razors for the use of the Army will be issued and fresh tenders invited.
  (Answered by Mr. Acland.) After consideration it has been decided to make no change in the specification at present.

  Civil Service—Class I. Clerkships.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Prime Minister whether the system of recruiting clerks by means of the Class I. open competition is found to yield men fully qualified for the duties to be performed; and, if so, why it was found necessary, in the case of the Colonial Office, the Board of Trade, and the Post Office, to import over the heads of the existing clerks into the headships of those departments men who were not admitted by open competition.
  686
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have no doubt that my right hon. friends who were responsible for the appointments in question selected the gentlemen whom they considered to be best qualified to fill the vacant posts.

  Conviction of Lord Ashtown's Game- keeper.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the conduct of the majority of the magistrates on the Ballymacarbery bench, who on 13th January convicted Lord Ashtown's gamekeeper and his assistant of an assault and condemned them to fourteen days imprisonment, and refused to extend the imprisonment to thirty days so that the accused should have a right to appeal, and whose conviction was quashed within twenty-four hours by the Lords Justices and the accused set free, has been brought before the Lord Chancellor with a view to their being removed from the magistracy.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Answer is in the negative. The magistrates, in declining to increase the term of imprisonment awarded by them, acted quite within their powers. The conviction was not quashed, as alleged in the Question. The Lord Chancellor does not interfere with the judicial discretion vested ill magistrates.

  Dismissal of Mrs. Moule from Purley National School.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Moule, the schoolmistress of Purley national school, who has been dismissed from her post by the managers; whether he is aware that she was dismissed for no fault on her part or any want of capacity, that one of the managers resigned by way of protest against her dismissal, and that the Education Committee of the Berks County Council was equally divided, and confirmed the dismissal only by the casting vote of the chairman; whether he is aware that Mrs. Moule has conducted her school for twelve Years without complaint from either Government or diocesan inspectors; whether he is aware of any just cause for

  687
  her dismissal; and, if not, whether he will take steps to have her case reconsidered.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) My only information as to this matter is derived from a newspaper report. On the facts there stated, I am of opinion that the case is one in which the Education Committee might reasonably have exercised their right of withholding consent to the teacher's dismissal. The Act, however, gives no right of appeal to the Board of Education, and I regret, therefore, that I have no power to intervene.

  Indian Cotton Trade.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the production per spindle in India is 122½ lbs. of yarn per annum as against 240 lbs. in China; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State will, in view of the importance of the cotton trade to India, bear this fact in mind when fresh restrictions upon labour in Indian mills are proposed, which must affect the competition of the Indian industry with its chief competitor.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) I have seen in a report of the proceedings of a meeting of the Bombay Mill Owners' Association a statement to the effect mentioned by the hon. Member, but with the explanation that the higher production per spindle of Chinese mills is due to their working day and night without intermission. This system is not one which could usefully serve as a model for Indian legislation especially as regards the employment of women on night work.

  Garrisons at Tinnevelly and Tuticorin.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, when the recent riots occurred at Tinnevelly and Tuticorin, the Native infantry regiment at Trichinopoly was reduced to a strength less than that of a single company; and whether, since no regiments are now stationed at Palamcottah or Guilon, a regiment of full strength should be maintained at Trichinopoly.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) With the exception of a small detachment of sixty men at Tivandrum, a whole batta-
  688
  lion of Indian infantry is stationed at Trichinopoly, and there is no intention of reducing the garrison. The strength of the regiment was considerably reduced at the time mentioned by the hon. Member owing to the fact that a larger number of men than usual had been allowed to go on leave on account of the recent return of the regiment from service in Ceylon.

  The Loishilman Railway.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the frontier railway known as the Loishilman railway is still under construction, or whether further progress with it has been abandoned.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The construction of the railway up to "mile 300" was sanctioned in July 1905. Owing to the condition of the frontier no work is at present in progress.

  Cattle-Driving at Brierfield.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a cattle drive took place on 30th April on the lands of a Mr. Morris, at Brierfield, County Galway, when forty-six head of cattle, six horses, eighty-three sheep, and ninety-seven lambs were driven a distance of eighteen miles; and how many of the thirty-five persons who have been arrested in connection with the offence have been convicted.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The number of persons arrested for taking part in the cattle-drive in question was forty-six, of whom forty-two were bound to keep the peace and the remaining four were discharged.

  Intimidation at Athlone.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the local branch of the United Irish League at Athlone ordered a certain farm of 70 acres, near Athlone, to be kept unlet so that it might be purchased by the Estates Commissioners for distribution; whether he is aware that on 1st May members of the local vigilance committee patrolled the district, and when two men

  689
  attempted to put cattle on the farm the animals were worried by dogs and hunted away; and what steps he proposed to take to protect persons from being interfered with in the prosecution of their legitimate business, and what arrests have been made.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 1st May a man was taking a heifer to graze on a farm at Mount William, near Athlone, when he was met on the road by several men who set dogs on the heifer and drove her away. Three of the offenders who were identified were proceeded against and pound over to keep the peace. The police have no information as to the alleged action of the United Irish League in regard to this farm. The police will afford full protection to persons who may send cattle to graze on the farm.

  Poor Law Returns—Extra Work Entailed.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the Returns required by the Vice-Regal Commission on Poor Law for the House of Commons, a vast amount of labour was thrown on the clerk, master, and relieving officers of each union; and whether the Government will allow anything in payment for those services.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Several boards of guardians have passed resolutions proposing to remunerate their officials for the extra duty cast On them in the preparation of the Return in question, and asking for the sanction of the Local Government Board to such proposals. The Board have replied that when the Returns have been examined they will be prepared to consider favourably the requests of the guardians.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Thomas Devereux.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Thomas Devereux, Broom Cottage, Drinagh, who was a tenant on the Furlong estate and was evicted twenty-one years ago, has made application to be restored to his home; whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any action in this
  690
  case; and whether it is known if the landlord who has this farm on his own hands is prepared to sell to the evicted tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The application in question is under the consideration of the Estates Commissioners, who have not yet decided what action, if any, they will take upon it. Some time ago the landlord informed the Commissioners that he required the evicted farm for his own use, but the Commissioners are now making further inquiries in the matter.

  Railway Extension at Belmullet.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the present position of the negotiations respecting the scheme of railway extension to Belmullet projected by the late Government; and whether he can hold out any hope that such extension will be undertaken.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I understand that the scheme of railway extension to Belmullet, to which the hon. Member refers as having been projected by the late Government, is the scheme for the construction of a railway from Mullaranny to Belmullet. His Majesty's present Government, after careful consideration, and as the result of protracted negotiations, made a definite offer to the Midland Great Western Railway Company of a large sum of public money as a free grant conditional upon the construction and equipment of the proposed line by the company. This offer the company did not see their way to accept, and the Government have since had under consideration an alternative scheme for a line from Killala to Belmullet. The promoters of this scheme, however, have not satisfied the Government, as at present advised, that the prospects of the scheme are such as to promise success, but I have been asked to receive further representations on the subject, and the matter therefore must be regarded as still pending.

  Progress of Marine Works in Cos. Wicklow and Down.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

  691
  Ireland if he will state what progress has been made with the marine works at Wicklow and Arklow, county Wicklow, and at Portavogie, county Down, for which grants were made by the late Government; and when it is expected these works will be completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The marine works at Wicklow are in the hands of the Wicklow Harbour Board. The Government have already paid to the Harbour Board sums amounting to over £18,000 out of the total grant of £22,000. I am informed by the Board that the foreshore protection works are practically finished, and that a considerable part of the new main breakwater has been built. It is expected that the works will be completed in about six months. The works at Arklow are being carried out by the Department of Agriculture. A great part of the dredging of the river has been done; the new road giving access to the pier of the south side of the proposed basin has been completed; and some progress has been made with the construction of basin walls. The works at Portavogie were commenced by the Board of Works about two months ago, and will, it is expected, be completed by the autumn of next year. The work at present in hand consists of the excavation of rock in clearing the sites for the permanent concrete quay and pier, and the collection of materials for the concrete.

  Civilian Rights of Belfast Corporation Employees.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the regulations for motor-men and conductors recently issued by the Belfast Corporation, and in particular to a rule prohibiting such persons from taking any active part in any municipal or general election, whether on or off duty, under penalty of dismissal; and whether, in view of the interference of this rule with the men's rights as citizens, and of the fact that it is not in existence even in Government departments, the Local Government Board will refuse their sanction to its being enforced.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that the regulations in question
  692
  were issued by the general manager of the Belfast Corporation tramways for the purpose of maintaining discipline among the employees. I have been referred to a copy of the particular rule alluded to in the Question, which states that motor-men and conductors are expected to refrain from taking active part in any municipal or general election, whether on or off duty, but the penalty of dismissal applies only to a breach of the rule committed while on duty. The right of voting is not interfered with. The necessity for the rule is alleged to have been demonstrated by a recent instance in which a conductor canvassed the passengers in his car. The Local Government Board have no powers in respect of these regulations, which are not subject to their confirmation.

  Amalgamation of Commissionership of Irish Prisons Board and Inspectorship of Reformatories.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any official record of a proposal by the late Government to amalgamate the inspectorship of reformatory and industrial schools with one of the commissionerships of the Prisons Board when the opportunity presented itself; and if he will cause inquiry to be made whether the union of offices which the present Government decided to bring about in September 1906, was anticipated three years previously.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) There is no official record of an actual proposal by the late Government to amalgamate the offices in question, but I find that in 1903 it was put on record that the question of uniting these offices would be a proper subject for consideration when opportunity offered. I may mention that the Irish Prisons Act of 1877 provides that any member of the Prisons Board may hold the office of inspector of reformatories, and that, as a matter of fact, the two offices were held by the same person from the passing of the Act until the year 1890.

  Irish Primary Education Estimates.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now

  693
  in a position to state the additional amount that is to be added to this year's Estimates for Irish primary education.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am not in a position to state the precise amount, but I anticipate that it will be over £100,000. There are some details which are still the subject of discussion between the Government and the Board of National Education, but the matter is, I trust, approaching completion.

  Cattle-Driving at Boyle.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any information respecting the driving of cattle off lands at Boyle in the possession of the Estates Commissioners and let by them for grazing purposes; and whether the gates which were removed from the property have been recovered.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The lands referred to consist of a small part of the King-Harman estate purchased by the Estates Commissioners, but not yet resold. The local police have reported that there is no truth in the newspaper statement that cattle were driven off the lands in question. No cattle, in fact, were on the farm when the drive is alleged to have taken place. A gate on the farm was found to have been broken on that occasion, and this appears to have given rise to the rumour in question.

  Recruiting Area for the Scots Greys.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present recruiting area for the Scots Greys.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) When recruits are required for the Scots Greys endeavours are always made to obtain the men in Scotland. At present the regiment, being over establishment, is not recruiting.

  Education of Children in Workhouses.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the difficulty of education of children in workhouses, the Board of Education
  694
  will consider the question of the repeal of Section 40 of the Education Act, 1876.
  (Answered by Mr. McKinnon Wood.) Section 40 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, embodies the principle that outdoor relief to paupers shall not be continued unless their children of school age are regularly attending school. It does not apply to children in workhouses. I do not think the present moment would be opportune for dealing with the general question involved, which will no doubt receive consideration, among other matters, at the hands of the Poor Law Commission which is now sitting. Certain administrative difficulties which have arisen can be dealt with without resorting to legislation.

  Cab Licences.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can inform the House how many licences were in existence in London for two-wheeled horse-drawn hackney carriages, four-wheeled, and mechanically propelled cabs.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The numbers of hackney carriages which were licensed by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police in 1907 were as follows: 5,952 two-wheeled horsed cabs, 3,866 four-wheeled horsed cabs, and 723 mechanically propelled cabs. The corresponding figures for the year 1906 were 6,648, 3,844, and 96.

  Board of Trade Appointments in Glasgow.
  MR. WATT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the four appointments made in Glasgow in the years 1906 and 1907 under his Department which were filled by candidates from outside.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The appointments were one sanitary surveyor, one messenger, and two boy clerks.

  Mails to the Far East—Siberian Railway Route.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any steps are at present being taken to make arrangements for the despatch, to and from the countries of the Far East, of

  695
  newspapers and commercial papers sent at the usual special rate for the latter over the Siberian Railway route.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As I recently informed the hon. Member for the Hexham Division of Northumberland, the charges for the conveyance of mails via Siberia are so high that the British Post Office has been compelled, in common with other European Post Offices, to restrict the use of this route to specially addressed letters and postcards. I am endeavouring, in concert with other postal administrations interested in the matter, to effect a reduction in the present cost of transit.

  Direct Parcels Service to Cuba, Ecuador, etc.
  MR. AGNEW: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can arrange for a direct parcels post service from Great Britain to Cuba, Ecuador, and Venezuela, and so obviate the necessity for sending British samples to those countries via France or Germany.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Negotiations are in progress for the establishment of a direct parcel post with each of the countries in question.

  Glasgow Telephone Employees.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has decided to dispense with the services of some of the telephone employees at Glasgow who were brought under the State as a result of the transfer of the corporation telephone system to the Post Office; whether, as the result of the adoption of the principle of the nationalisation of the telephone system at Glasgow, capable members of the telephone staff are to be added to the unemployed, although the service is extending rapidly; and whether he will state the reason of this action, and, pending reconsideration, retain the persons at the work upon which they are now engaged.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The services of certain persons taken over from the Glasgow Corporation have been or shortly will be dispensed with, because of inefficiency, unsatisfactory
  696
  conduct, or misconduct, and one because the condition of her health was a source of danger to the rest of the staff. No capable officers of approved character have been discharged.

  Post Office Contractors and the Fair Wages Resolution.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the India Rubber and Telegraph Company, of Silvertown, and the Great Western Electric Company, of North Woolwich, who contract for work and supply articles to the Post Office, pay many of their workmen less than the standard rate of wage, the amount in some instances being 8s. per week less than the recognised rate of the district; and whether he will take steps to induce these firms to comply with the fair wages clause.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Perhaps the hon. Member will be so good as to let me know to what particular class or classes of workmen he refers, giving the rate of wages received by them. I will then have full inquiry made.

  Report of Committee on the Baronetage.
  EARL PERCY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention to take any action on the Report of the Committee on the Baronetage issued last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Report of this Committee is still under my consideration, but I hope to deal with it shortly.

  Admiralty Contractors and the Fair Wages Resolution.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firms of W. T. Henley and Company, the Western Electric Company, of North Woolwich, the India Rubber and Telegraph Company, of Silvertown, and Johnson and Phillips, of Charlton, who contract for and supply goods to the Admiralty, pay from 2s. to 8s. per week less than the standard rate of wage to many of the workmen in their employ; and whether,

  697
  seeing that this is unfair both to the workmen and to firms that compete with them who do pay the standard rate of wage, he will take steps to induce those firms to pay the standard rate, or otherwise strike them off the list of firms that are allowed to contract for Admiralty work.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Admiralty is not aware that the firms in question are paying wages below the current rate of the district. All contracts with those firms contain the usual clause as to the payment of the current rate, and no complaint of any breach of that clause has reached the Admiralty. If specific details of any cases of underpayment are furnished in respect of Admiralty contracts full inquiry into the matter shall be made and suitable action taken according to the result of any such inquiry.

  Increase of Irish Teachers' Salaries— Issue of Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the Supplementary Estimate

  Estimated War Debt outstanding.

  Estimated Interest payable thereon.

  £

  £

  On 31st March, 1903

  159,000,000

  4,328,000

  On 31st March, 1904

  153,243,000

  4,074,000

  On 31st March, 1905

  151,466,000

  3,992,000

  On 31st March, 1906

  144,077,000

  3,735,000

  On 31st March, 1907

  133,206,000

  3,421,000

  On 31st March, 1908

  117,049,000

  3,017,000

  Duty on Voyage Marine Policies.
  MR. GIBB: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the further loss to the revenue if the duty on voyage marine policies were made 1d. per policy, as is now the case with voyage marine policies in which the premium does not exceed 2s. 6d. per cent. and also with fire policies, instead of, as proposed in the Prime Minister's statement, 1d. per cent.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The further loss to the revenue would pro-
  for the increase of national school teachers' salaries in Ireland will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse). Subject to a reply to a recent letter addressed by the Treasury to the Irish Government, I hope to present this, along with any other Supplementary Estimates that may be required, at the usual time, namely, in July next.

  Outstanding War Debt.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the total amount of war debt remaining unpaid at the end of the financial years ending 31st March, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, and 1908 respectively; and whether he can state approximately what was the interest payable on the war debt in each of those years.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Question only admits of a hypothetical reply. On the assumption that all the reductions of debt, funded and unfunded, that have been effected during the years in question were reductions of War Debt, the Answer would be as follows—
  bably be about £40,000 a year; but it is impossible on the information available to forecast with any approach to accuracy the effect of my hon. friend proposal.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Hayes and Mrs. O'Shaughnessy.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of delay in reinstating Mrs. Hayes and Mrs. O'Shaughnessy in their respective holdings at Aughanish Island, near

  699
  Borrigone, in the county of Limerick, from which they were evicted by the landlord, William Lane Joynt; and will the Commissioners see that they be no longer kept out of them.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners' offer for the purchase of the two evicted farms in this case was refused, but it is understood that proceedings for the sale to the Commissioners of the entire estate are about to be instituted; and, in the event of their acquiring the property, they will deal with the question of reinstating the evicted tenants named.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Scanlan.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what are the Estates Commissioners doing in the case of Mrs. Scanlan, of Knockaderry, who, with her husband, since deceased, were evicted from their holding at Kilgulvan, Knockaderry in the County of Limerick.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I refer to my Answer to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on 2nd April, to which the Estates Commissioners have as yet nothing to add.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Robert and Jeremiah Dunworth.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the inspector of the Estates Commissioners has yet inquired into the case of Robert and Jeremiah Dunworth, of Garryfine, Bruree, in the County of Limerick, evicted tenants, and, if so, with what result; and if he can say how long they will be kept out of their holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his Question of 2nd April on this subject. The inspector has not yet reported to the Estates Commissioners the result of his inquiry into the case.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Grant to James Reardon, of Rathkeale.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  700
  of Ireland if he can say why it is that James Reardon, of Blossom Hill, Rathkeale, evicted tenant on the estate of General Lloyd, did not get the grant he was promised by the inspector of the Estates Commissioners to enable him to work his little holding, in which he has been reinstated; and will the Commissioners see to his case without delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The question whether the Estates Commissioners will make a grant in such case as is referred to in the Question is one entirely for the Commissioners themselves. An inspector has no power to promise a grant. The Commissioners have received from Reardon an application for a free grant, and will consider it when they have received the inspector's report upon it.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of William Bourke, of Ballinagould.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say why the Estates Commissioners are not reinstating a William Bourke, of Ballinagould, in the County of Limerick, and the other evicted tenants on the Waller property, having regard to the fact that the landlord has given up the evicted farms to the Commissioners; and when may they expect to be reinstated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The owner has signified his willingness to accept the Estates Commissioners' provisional offer for the evicted holdings in this case, and the necessary formal proceedings will shortly be instituted. There will be no unnecessary delay in completing the arrangements for purchase.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Grant to Mrs. M. R. Conway.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say why it is that Mrs. Margaret Sheehy, of Raheen, Croagh, in the County of Limerick, evicted tenant on the estate of Mrs. M. R. Conway, of Ballinaguile, Croagh, did not get the grant that was promised to her by the inspector of the Estates Commissioners to enable her to stock her evicted farm, although the two other evicted tenants on the same property

  701
  got theirs; and whether the Commissioners will see that she gets this grant at once.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The question of making a grant in such case is one for the determination of the Estates Commissioners themselves. The case is being inquired into.

  Reform of Irish Poor Laws.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions from various public bodies in Ireland, representative of all classes and creeds, urging speedy legislation for reform of the Irish Poor Laws on the lines indicated by the Vice-Regal Commission; and whether, seeing that legislation on this matter would be practically non-contentious, he will see his way to give instructions for the preparation of a Bill calculated to carry out the recommendations of the Vice-Regal Commission Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on 3rd April in the debate on the Second Reading of the Poor Law (Ireland) Bill. The importance of dealing with the question of Poor Law reform in Ireland is fully recognised by the Government, and it is intended to introduce a Bill on the subject with as little delay as possible. It is, however, out of the question to introduce such a measure during the current session, but I hope it will be one of the first to be introduced next year.

  Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops (Ireland) Order.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps, if any, have been taken by the Local Government Board for Ireland to carry into effect the provisions of their General Order with respect to dairies, cowsheds, and milkshops, which was to come into force on the 1st of the present month.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The execution of the General Order rests with the local authorities and their officers. The
  702
  Local Government Board, when issuing the Order, addressed a circular letter to all of the local authorities explanatory of their duties and of the objects and of the principal provisions of the Order.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of John Keating.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, when an estate is being sold under the Land Act of 1903, the Estates Commissioners are bound to see that there is sufficient accommodation for the labourers on that estate; and, if so, will the Estates Commissioners make inquiries with a view to giving John Keating, who was evicted by a middleman named Gahan, a purchasing tenant on the Ely estate, a house and an acre of land on Gahan's farm, as provided for by the Labourers Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) When the estate referred to reaches its turn to be inspected the Estates Commissioners will, in accordance with the provisions of Section 96 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as amended by the Labourers Act of 1906, cause inquiries to be made as to the necessity for accommodation for labourers on the estate, and if of opinion that such accommodation is needed they will make the necessary representation to the Local Government Board.

  Money-lending Cases at Belfast— Excessive Interest.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the comment of Dr. Todd, K.C., Acting Recorder at Belfast, on 30th April last, with regard to the rates of interest charged in a number of money-lending cases which came before him, the interest amounting in some cases to about 100 per cent., and to the suggestion of Dr. Todd that if the poor people understood the nature of the promissory notes which they signed they would be very careful before doing so; and whether he would advise the Government to take action in this matter with a view to preventing the hardship which the present system inflicts on ignorant borrowers.

  703
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Money Lenders Act, 1900, provides relief in such cases as are referred to in the Question. In proceedings taken by a money-lender for the recovery of money lent, the Court, if satisfied that the interest charged is excessive, may take an account between the parties and relieve the borrower from payment for interest or otherwise of any sum in excess of that which the Court adjudges to be reasonable. I gather from a newspaper report, to which my attention has been called, that the cases in question were referred by the Acting Recorder to the registrar of the Court in order that a proper rate of interest should be fixed.

  British Manufactured Glucose and Invert Sugar and the Reduction in the Sugar Duty.
  MR. BARNARD: To ask the Prime Minister whether the proposed reduction in the sugar duty will affect British manufactured glucose and invert sugar as from 18th May or from 1st July; and is he aware that if the reduction takes effect from 18th May, the British manufactured article will be prejudiced in favour of the foreign manufactured article now lying in bond, as the latter will be benefited immediately owing to the reduced duty, while the home product will have to pay the whole duty until the stocks are exhausted.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) British manufactured glucose and invert sugar will be liable to duty at the present rates until the 18th instant and at the reduced rates thereafter. The matter raised in the second part of my hon. friend's Question is receiving my careful consideration.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  H. M. S. "Vanguard."
  MR. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why the "Vanguard," a battleship of the Estimates, 1907–8, was not laid down
  704
  until 3rd April last, during the period 1908–9.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The exact date of laying the keel of a contract-built vessel is one that is left to the discretion of the builder. In the case of the "Vanguard" a considerable amount of work was done and expenditure incurred in the financial year 1907–8, although the stage technically known as "laid down" was not reached till 2nd April last.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately how much money was spent last year?
  MR. MCKENNA: Not without notice.

  Battleship Construction.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will issue a Return of the ships of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" types now completed or which are expected to be completed by December, 1911, by Great Britain, Germany, and the United States respectively.
  MR. MCKENNA: Information of the nature of that for which the hon. Member asks would be so unreliable that the public might be misled if such a Return was issued under the apparent sanction of the Admiralty.

  Brazilian Battleships.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in the event of the battleships building in this country for Brazil being placed upon the market the Government will give the House an assurance that their sale shall not be permitted detrimentally to disturb the balance of naval power, as might be the case if they were acquired by a nation possibly hostile in international and maritime interests.
  MR. MCKENNA: Unless and until the ships referred to are placed upon the

  705
  market, it seems premature to discuss the question of their purchase.

  H.M.S. "Vanguard."
  MR. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the new battleship "Vanguard" is expected to be completed within twenty-four months of her commencement, and from what date is the commencement of her construction to be reckoned.
  MR. MCKENNA: Messrs. Vickers contracted to complete and deliver the "Vanguard" in twenty-four months from 1st March last, viz., 1st March, 1910. It is expected that the vessel will be completed and delivered by that date. The vessel may be reckoned as having been effectively commenced on 1st March last.

  Naval Cordite.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the unanimous Resolution passed by Lord Rayleigh's Committee on 25th February of this year, to the effect that they could not recommend that any of the explosives therein referred to could, consistently with the public safety, be put to any useful purpose or dealt with otherwise than by destruction, on the ground that such explosives contained an unauthorised ingredient which masked the official test; whether this Resolution in any way affected naval cordite containing mercuric chloride; and whether Lord Rayleigh's Committee made any similar recommendation in respect of the naval cordite containing mercuric chloride, and whether the Admiralty are complying with the recommendations of that Committee.
  MR. MCKENNA: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. This Resolution did not affect naval cordite. Lord Rayleigh's Committee made no similar recommendation as regards naval cordite.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Are the Admiralty complying with the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee?
  MR. MCKENNA: Those regulations referred to blasting explosives and had nothing to do with mercuric chloride.
  MR. BELLAIRS: But did not the Secretary to the Admiralty state that that Committee would deal with cordite containing mercuric chloride?
  MR. MCKENNA: Well, I can only say it did not deal with it.
  MR. ASHLEY: Do they not make any recommendation applicable to naval cordite?
  MR. MCKENNA: None at all.

  Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any instructions have been issued to the officers commanding His Majesty's ships with reference to their compliance or otherwise with the regulations made by Order in Council for preventing collisions at sea; and, if so, can he lay a copy of those instructions upon the Table or state their effect to the House.
  MR. MCKENNA: The rules for preventing collisions at sea which have to be complied with by officers commanding His Majesty's ships, are stated in Article 1035 of the King's Regulations, to which I beg to refer the hon. Member.

  London Territorials—Sergeant- Instructors.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the number of sergeant-instructors of each Territorial battalion in the London District has been reduced to two as compared with three in the old Volunteer Force.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The minimum establishment of three sergeant-instructors to each battalion applies to the troops in the London District.

  Officers on the Regular Establishment.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of officers are needed to complete the establishment of the Regular Forces.
  MR. HALDANE: There are six vacancies in the Household Cavalry and eighteen in the Cavalry of the Line. In the Artillery there are twenty-three supernumerary to establishment. In the Royal Engineers there are twelve vacancies which will be filled by the batch of cadets from the Royal Military Academy in July next. As to the Infantry there are fifteen vacancies in the Foot Guards and seventy-two in the Line, but sixty are due from the Militia for first appointments, and vacancies will be required in August for twenty University candidates and 160 Sandhurst candidates; so that practically there are no vacancies. In the Army Service Corps there are seventeen vacancies, but eleven officers are expected to return from the seconded list during the present year.

  Territorials' Walking-out Uniform.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the walking-out uniform of the Territorial soldier will be issued; and whether, when issued, it will preserve the national and peculiar characteristics of individual corps.
  MR. HALDANE: No new walking-out uniform has been specially approved for the Territorial Force. The uniforms are purchased by the County Associations and are not issued from Government store. In most cases corps will continue to wear the old uniform, or they may have two suits of service dress and wear no walking-out uniform. If Associations are desirous of providing a walking-out uniform of a new pattern, they are obliged to secure official approval.
  MR. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the War Office have nothing to do except to approve the pattern of the walking-out dress?
  MR. HALDANE: The County Associations are to purchase them.
  MR. ASHLEY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman send a Memorandum to the
  708
  County Associations telling them not to purchase these walking-out uniforms until further, notice?
  MR. HALDANE: They have instructions and know what to do.
  EARL WINTERTON: What instructions have been given then to the Associations?
  MR. HALDANE: They have been informed that the old uniform may be used until the new pattern has been adopted.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the Territorial soldier have a walking-out uniform—whether the old pattern or new?
  MR. HALDANE: Certainly.

  Pay of Infantry Sergeant-Instructors.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the colour-sergeants of the Regular Forces who took up the appointments of sergeant-major and sergeant-instructor to the infantry battalions of the old Volunteer Force are now, on being transferred to the new Territorial Force, to receive only about 50 per cent. of their former corps pay.
  MR. HALDANE: The Army emoluments of the permanent staff are given to remunerate them for their military duties which they can be called upon to perform as soldiers. Extra remuneration was permitted to be given by their corps and is permitted to be given by the County Associations for extra work performed in addition to military duty. It is the business of the Associations for whom the work is done to fix the rates subject to the approval of the Army Council. The Army Council, however, cannot approve of payments made simply for the purpose of increasing the regulated emoluments of the permanent staff without any reference to the amount of extra work which they are required to do.
  MR. ASHLEY: Are these Regular non-commissioned officers to have less work than under the old Volunteer system?
  MR. HALDANE: In some cases less, and in others more. The remuneration will be according to the work they do.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it quite fair to these men who left the Army and took these posts on the distinct understanding that they should have a certain amount of pay to have that pay reduced through no fault of their own?
  MR. HALDANE'Sreply was inaudible.
  MR. REES: If the County Association makes up the pay of these non-commissioned officers to the full amount will there be any recoupment from the State?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, that is provided for.

  Duke of York's School.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has taken into consideration, or will take into consideration, the desirability of establishing a secondary school on part of the site vacated by the Duke of York's School, in connection with the new school at Dover, so as to keep up the traditional connection with Chelsea.
  MR. HALDANE: The Army Council considered that it was not satisfactory to keep a school of this character in London, and decided to remove it to Dover. There is no intention of establishing a secondary school at Chelsea.

  Wireless Telephony at Paris.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to certain experiments in wireless telephony round Paris which are said to be quite successful; and if he has any official information as to whether any such experiments have taken, or are likely to take, place in this country.
  MR. HALDANE: My attention has been called to these experiments. I have no information as to similar experiments being carried out in this country

  Bulford Isolation Hospital.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the accommodation in the Bulford Isolation Hospital for scarlet fever cases, when this isolation hospital was erected, and how long it has been used for that purpose; and what is the total number of regiments and batteries within a six-mile radius of Bulford.
  MR. HALDANE: This hospital has accommodation for four beds; it was completed in January, 1904, and has been used as an isolation hospital since that date. This accommodation has been supplemented by a hospital marquee erected in the infectious enclosure on 23rd April, 1908, but this has not yet been required. The number of regiments, and batteries within a radius of six miles is eighteen.
  MR. PIRIE: Is there a cavalry regiment quartered at Bulford?
  MR. HALDANE: No. Sir.
  MR. PIRIE: Is there one in the vicinity?
  [No Answer was audible.]

  Norfolk Militia Garrison Artillery.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many rounds of ammunition have been fired by the Prince of Wales' Own Norfolk Garrison Artillery (Militia) during their last two trainings.
  MR. HALDANE: No ammunition has been fired by this regiment during its last two trainings.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Have the officers and men of this regiment been transferred to the Special Reserve?
  MR. HALDANE: We hope they will be, and arrangements are being made, but I cannot say what progress has been made in the matter.

  War Office Cordite.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is

  711
  aware of the unanimous resolution passed by Lord Rayleigh's Committee on 25th February of this year, to the effect that they could not recommend that any of the explosives therein referred to could, consistently with the public safety, be put to any useful purpose or dealt with otherwise than by destruction on the ground that such explosives contained an unauthorised constituent which masked the official test; whether this resolution in any way affected cordite containing mercuric chloride; whether Lord Rayleigh's Committee made any similar recommendation in respect of the War Office cordite containing mercuric chloride; and whether it is proposed to comply with the recommendations of that Committee.
  MR. HALDANE: I am aware of the resolution referred to. It has no reference to cordite. As regards the rest of the Question I have nothing to add to the information which I have already given to my hon. friend.
  LORD R. CECILasked whether there was any similar recommendations as to the destruction of cordite.
  MR. HALDANE: I think not, but I should like notice of that Question.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee have been carried out?
  MR. HALDANE: So far as we are concerned we have taken care to comply with them. We have carried them out with regard to cordite ammunition.

  Pay of Territorial Non-Commissioned Officers.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if non-commissioned officers who were serving in the Volunteers as such on 31st March last and have since re-engaged into the Territorial Forces will be paid full rates according to their rank, if embodied, and during the annual encampment, in those cases where they are in excess of the proportionate numbers as laid down in War Office Letter
  712
  No. 9 (General Number) 701 (A.G. 5), dated 24th April, 1908 (C.R., N.C., A (37,456), dated 27th April, 1908, but not in excess of the authorised establishment; and, if so, will he take steps to make the above intention clear.
  MR. HALDANE: Any Volunteer noncommissioned officer who comes under the provision of Paragraph 79 of Army Order of 18th March, 1908, i.e., who belongs to a transferred unit and is attested to his own unit, will remain a non-commissioned officer and draw pay as such, although he is in excess not only of the proportionate number but also of the authorised establishment of non-commissioned officers. A non-commissioned officer who comes under Paragraph 80 of that Order, i.e., who wishes to enlist into another unit or arm will be permitted to enlist as a non-commissioned officer and draw pay as such provided the new commanding officer is willing to accept him, and provided there is a vacancy in the proportionate number.
  MR. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
  MR. HALDANE: We have taken steps to make it quite clear. If there is any ambiguity about it still it shall be dealt with.

  Supply of Army Horses.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now furnish any information as to the arrangement arrived at with the Board of Agriculture regarding the adequate supply of horses for military service in case of war.
  MR. HALDANE: I am not yet in a position to give the House any further information on this subject.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Were we not promised a definite solution of the matter early this week?
  MR. HALDANE: Certainly not by me.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Then it was by your deputy.

  Bulford Cavalry Stables.
  *MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War at what date the cavalry stables at Bulford will be completed.
  MR. HALDANE: My hon. and gallant friend evidently refers to the cavalry barracks now building at Tidworth. Eight blocks should be ready for occupation on 2nd June, and the other six blocks on 30th June.
  EARL WINTERTON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of debate, promise that these stables should be completed before this?
  MR. HALDANE: I said so, subject to certain contingencies. I have good hopes they will be finished by the time I have now stated.
  MR. PIRIE: Where are the Scots Greys quartered?
  MR. ASHLEY: Are not the horses a long way from the men?
  MR. HALDANE: They are quite near enough.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not a fact that a great many of the horses are in one place and the men in another?
  MR. HALDANE: They have been kept as close together as possible having regard to human contingencies.
  MR. PIRIE: Would it not be more advantageous to military interests to have the men and horses at the same place?
  MR. HALDANE'Sreply was inaudible.
  *MAJOR RENTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there were two inches of snow in the stables of the Scots Greys last month?
  MR. HALDANE: It may have been so.

  Suicides at Bulford.
  MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many suicides and attempted suicides have
  714
  taken place at Bulford since 1st January, 1904.
  MR. HALDANE: There has been one case of suicide and three of attempted suicide at Bulford since 1st January, 1904.

  Territorial New Service Jacket.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the price of the new service jacket supplied by the Pimlico stores to the Territorial Force, the inclusive cost of material, and the cost for civilian labour.
  MR. HALDANE: The garment in question is not supplied to the Territorial Force in a made up condition, but only cut out, without buttons and titles. The inclusive cost of the material supplied, plus carriage, is on the average (including 3d. for cost of cutting out) 6s., and this is the rate charged. The cost of the labour of making up the garments is met under local arrangements by the various County Associations.

  Camp Leave Regulations.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what instructions have been issued by the military authorities with reference to granting leave from annual training in camp this year to the Territorial soldier.
  MR. HALDANE: No instructions have yet been issued on this subject, but it is hoped they will be published by the end of next month.
  MR. ASHLEY: In the London district have not instructions been given that no man need attend training if he would thereby lose his employment?
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to say that the spirit of this instruction was intended to apply to the whole force. His answer had been with regard to the formal notification.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: And what was the distinction in this case between the informal and formal notification? Has it been intimated to the whole

  715
  Territorial Army that they need not go into camp?
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the reason why a special announcement had been made in the case of London was that a rumour had got abroad that the military authorities would insist on a man's going to camp, although it involved the forfeiture of his employment. If the commanding officer had reason to be satisfied that attendance would be followed by such a result it would not be insisted upon. There was no intention of adopting any other order for the rest of the country.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Are we to understand that any territorial soldier who states that he will lose his employment if he goes into camp for eight days is to be excused from complying with the terms of the Act?
  MR. HALDANE: No, that would be trusting too much to human nature. The object of the regulations is to give as much camp training as possible to as many men as possible.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: But will not this have the effect of discouraging employers from granting leave?
  MR. HALDANE: No; on the contrary, if you say to the employers: "We are going to trust you, and we will not put you in a hole in case of emergency," they will co-operate with us. It is not always expedient to exercise one's full legal right. The experience which I have had during the last few days in negotiating with the great railway companies bears out the view that to trust employers and ask for their co-operation has the effect of inducing them to come forward to the assistance of the force in the most marked manner.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is it the intention of the regulations to provide for a minimum amount of training during the Territorials' years of service, and at the same time give elasticity as to the amount from year to year?
  MR. HALDANE: The object is to secure as much training as possible for as many men as possible, and we think we
  716
  can best do that by showing confidence in both employers and employed.

  Territorial Clothing Contracts.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that instructions have been sent by the Territorial Forces Association of the County of London to the commanding officer of each regiment of the above force, giving instruction to such officers to procure clothing outfits for non-commissioned officers and men, the tenders of the same to be up to Pimlico sealed patterns, the tenders not to exceed £1 1s. 8d. for dismounted men's outfit, viz., jacket, trousers, cap, and puttees; for mounted men, £1 11s. 7d., the oufit to consist of jacket, trousers, cap, puttees, and spurs; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to secure that the Fair Wages Resolution of the House shall apply to such contracts.
  MR. HALDANE: I have given the question careful consideration, and I am of opinion that this matter should be left to the discretion of the County Associations.
  MR. ALDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any real control over the manufacture of clothing for the Territorial Force?
  MR. HALDANE: Under the Act we have a good deal of general control, but this question is essentially one that should be left to commanding officers.
  MR. CROOKS: If the uniforms are paid for out of national funds, surely there ought to be some control?
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Will the spirit of the Fair Wages Resolution of this House apply in these cases?
  MR. HALDANE: I think so, for the Pimlico prices are to be the basis.

  Saving on Army Expenditure.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what he estimates will be the actual

  717
  saving upon Army expenditure charged to Army Votes in the year 1908–9 as compared with the year 1905–6.
  MR. HALDANE: The Estimates for 1908–9 show a reduction of £1,020,000 on the actual expenditure of 1905–6, and I have no present reason for revising this Estimate.

  Enlistments for Special Reserve.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of Special Reservists have been enlisted for the Infantry of the Line and the Horse and Field Artillery respectively up to 1st May; and what number of Special Reservists were being trained by the thirty-three batteries of training brigades on that date.
  MR. HALDANE: The number of men who enlisted for the Special Reserve from 15th January to 1st May was as follows: Royal Field Artillery, 1,406; Infantry, 10,830. The number drilling with the training brigades on 1st May was 934.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Are 80 or 90 per cent. of these men nominally enlisted for the Special Reserve known to be going on to the Line and necessary for the Line?
  MR. HALDANE: No doubt a good many will go into the Line, but I do not know how many. Where you enlist men from seventeen upwards a good many do go into the line.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not a fact that unless 10,000 of these men pass on to the Line, the Line will be short of the establishment?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not know. Recruiting for the Line has very much improved of late and we hope there will be a considerable number for the Line—very likely 10,000. I see no reason why we should not get them.

  Gun with Alleged Remarkable Range.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has any cognisance of a gun alleged to have a range of over 100 miles:
  718
  and whether this weapon has been acquired by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. HALDANE: The War Office has no official cognisance of a gun with this remarkable range and has not had the good fortune to acquire such a wonderful weapon.
  MR. HART-DAVIESwas understood to ask if the War Office would take steps to inquire further?
  MR. HALDANE: I am getting old, and more and more sceptical, but we watch these things closely, and should the gun turn out as it is said to be going to, my hon. friend may be sure that it will not escape our attention.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: If the projectile had such a velocity as is suggested—50,000 ft. a second—would it not be melted before it could reach its objective?
  MR. HALDANE: I am only a humble layman, but I have Do reason to question the conclusion put forward by the hon. and gallant Member.

  Argyll and Bute Volunteer Artillery.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how soon he expects to be able to supply the guns for the mountain batteries of the 1st Argyll and Bute Royal Garrison Artlilery (Volunteers).
  MR. HALDANE: Four guns have been ordered to be issued next week and the remainder can be issued whenever the corps are ready to receive them.

  Army Cordite.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any cordite containing mercuric chloride has been used in the service during the last twelve months.
  MR. HALDANE: It is not possible to say definitely without reference to the various stations whether such cordite has been fired.
  LORD BALCARRES: Has any such cordite passed into the service?
  MR. HALDANE: Certainly not, unless it has been previously tested.
  LORD BALCARRES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire how much cordite containing mercuric chloride has passed into the service?
  MR. HALDANE: It will be extremely difficult to find out, but I will do my best.

  Comparisons of Actual with Estimated Expenditure.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the Memorandum accompanying the Army Estimates a comparison is made between the estimated expenditure of the current year and the estimated expenditure of the year 1905–1906, although the latter Estimate was no less than £1,335,000 in excess of the actual expenditure; whether it is the custom in the War Office to base the Estimates of a future year upon the inaccurate Estimates of past years; and whether he anticipates that the actual expenditure in the current year will differ as greatly from the estimated expenditure as was the case in 1905–1906.
  MR. HALDANE: My hon. friend will find in the Memorandum on page 11 a very full comparison of the actual expenditure for several years past. Estimates are not based upon the Estimates of past years, but on anticipated expenditure. The reply to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  Comparisons between British and German Armies.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the total strength of the British land forces in the year 1907, including Yeomanry and Volunteers and Native troops in India and the Crown Colonies; what was the total strength of the German Army in the same year; and what was the total cost of the British land forces, including expenditure charged to India, to Egypt, and to the Crown Colonies, and what was the total cost of the German Army.
  MR. HALDANE: The figures are approximately as follows:—British Forces: Strength (excluding Army Reserve), 790,000; cost, £49,000,000. The latter figures include £1,200,000 for the pay of the Army Reserve. German Forces: Established peace strength, 625,000; cost, £49,000,000.

  Purchase of Horses for Military Purposes.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Twelfth Report of the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding to the effect that horses are bought for military purposes now in the United Kingdom at the age of three years by representatives of foreign countries, and consequently the best are gone before the English authorities come into the market; and what steps he intends to take to secure the best horses for our own Army.
  MR. HALDANE: The attention of the Army Council has been drawn to this report and the whole question is at present receiving their consideration.

  Officers' Costs on Transfer.
  CAPTAIN MORRISON-BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that a number of captains and subalterns in the Northumberland Fusiliers, Royal Warwickshire Regiment, Lancashire Fusiliers, and Manchester Regiment are being transferred to other battalions, on account of the reduction of the personnel of the Army, much against their wish, he will say what will be the cost to imperial funds for compensation for change of uniform, and cost of passages involved; will those officers be called upon to pay, out of their own pockets, the usual mess subscriptions on transfer to their new units; and, taking into consideration the shortage of officers in the imperial forces, will he take steps to avoid the necessity for these compulsory transfers which are likely to discourage the entrance into the service of young officers.
  MR. HALDANE: It is quite impracticable at the present moment to

  721
  give any estimate of the cost referred to in the first part of the Question. The question of the mess contribution is now under consideration. In regard to the last part of the Question, as I have just explained to the House, there is practically no shortage of officers for the peace establishment of the Regular Forces. The reasons for the necessity for the transfers have been explained to the House on a previous occasion.
  EARL WINTERTON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement as to the cost?
  MR. HALDANE: When our inquiries are completed.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will the officers know beforehand what the transfer will cost them?
  MR. HALDANE'Sreply was inaudible.

  Repatriation of Chinese Coolies from the Transvaal.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Chinese coolies have applied to be repatriated since the repatriation notices were posted in the Transvaal mines, on the grounds that they considered the conditions under which they worked to be tantamount to slavery.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): I cannot add anything to the Answer given by my predecessor to a similar Question by the hon. and gallant Member on 27th February of last year.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Has a single case arisen, since the repatriation notices were posted, in which any one of these Chinese coolies has asked to be repatriated on the ground that his service was tantamount to slavery?
  COLONEL SEELY: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer given last year. As he has asked this Question three times already, surely he must be cognisant of the Answer.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: In view of the importance of the matter, may I press for information as to what has happened during the past year.
  COLONEL SEELY: The hon. Gentleman asks as to what the Chinese themselves consider conditions of slavery. It is impossible for me to see into the minds of the Chinese labourer.
  MR. MOORE: Are we to understand that since the Question referred to no applications for repatriation have been made?
  COLONEL SEELYreplied that the hon. Member must understand nothing of the kind. The Question was whether a certain number of Chinese asked to be repatriated on certain grounds existing in their own minds as to their service. If the hon. Member would put down a definite Question he would endeavour to answer it.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGinquired whether it had not been stated again and again by the Party opposite that the Chinese coolies must assign a reason for claiming repatriation. In view of that, he asked if any Chinese coolie had assigned as a reason for repatriation that he considered his terms of labour tantamount to slavery.
  COLONEL SEELYreplied that if the hon. Member would put down a Question as to the reasons assigned he would be happy to answer it.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGrose to ask another Question, but Mr. SPEAKER intervening, pointed out that the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had already invited him to put down a further Question.

  The Congo.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the representations made that, when the Treaty of Transfer and the Colonial Law came before the Belgian Parliament, representations would be made by this Government to the Government of Belgium upon the abolition of the present system of appropriation of the soil and the products

  723
  of the soil in districts of the Congo inhabited by natives and where natives have tenure, whether he can now publish the Memorandum presented by the British Government to the Belgian Government upon the question.
  MR. J. A. PEASE (for Sir E. GREY): We have made the communications to the Belgian Government to which the Question refers. My right hon. friend has no objection to their publication; but, when they are published, it will be of equal importance that the communications made by the Belgian Government should also be known, and the time for the publication of these must depend upon the Belgian Government. My right hon. friend cannot, at the present moment, do more than repeat the statement already made that they will be laid before Parliament, before His Majesty's Government take any step committing them to recognition of a transfer of the Congo State.

  Grants for Horse Breeding.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the funds granted to the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding, as expressed in their Reports of 1895, 1899, 1901, 1903, 1905, and 1907, and to the recommendations of this Commission as regards the supply of horses for military purposes; and whether, in view of these facts, he can see his way to increase the grant for this purpose.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The Report of the Royal Commission is under the consideration of the Government, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at present.

  Poole By-Law Prosecution.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a sentence of two months' imprisonment recently passed by the Poole bench of magistrates upon Thomas Taylor, a cobbler, upon failure of distraint for a fine in
  724
  respect of an infringement of a local by-law by carrying on his trade in a wooden shed in his own garden; and whether he will consider the justice of advising a mitigation of such sentence.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLAD-STONE,): I have made inquiry in this case, and find it was one of persistent refusal to comply with the law; every effort seems to have been made to induce the defendent to comply, but in the end there was no alternative but to commit him to prison. The prisoner has now undertaken to do what is necessary, and at the instance of the town council who prosecuted in this case, I have recommended the remission of the remainder of the sentence.

  Control of London Street Traffic.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, under the Burgh Police Act in Scotland, and under various local Acts in England powers are given to Scottish municipal authorities, and to various provincial municipalities in England to prescribe the routes to be followed within their boundaries by different kinds of traffic; and whether there is any objection to the grant of similar powers to municipal authorities in the metropolis.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware that such powers exist under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and under certain local Acts in Scotland; and there are probably a few cases in which similar powers are given in England under old local Acts. But I see serious objections to the hon. Member's suggestion as regards the Metropolis. The Royal Commission on Locomotion and Transport in London stated in their Report that "it would be impossible to confer the necessary powers" for the general control of locomotion and transport in London "on the London County Council or any other existing local authority or body"; and, if the power were given to the Metropolitan Borough Councils, the exclusion of traffic, such as that of motor omnibuses, from one road and its diversion to another by orders of the

  725
  various authorities would give rise to constant friction and grievance.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKasked if any such friction had arisen in the case of municipalities in Scotland where similar powers were exercised.
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied that, as the hon. Member knew, the conditions which attached to municipal authorities in Scotland were different from those which attached to municipal authorities in London.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: In what way?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Because you have in London nearly thirty different authorities with different jurisdictions.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: Is it to be understood that the authorities in the Metropolis do not possess over the traffic the powers which are granted to every burgh in Scotland and many municipalities in England?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can only refer the hon. Member to the authority of the Royal Commission.

  Club Entertainments.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the rooms of clubs and institutes in which stage plays, variety performances, and cinematograph exhibitions are constantly given are subject to any inspection, especially in respect of the means of ingress and egress; and, if not, whether he will insert provisions in the Licensing Bill which will have the effect of rendering these rooms as safe as public halls, theatres, and music halls, in which similar performances are given.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The suggestion of the hon. Member forms part of the large question whether and to what extent the law which now regulates places of public entertainment in the interests of public safety should be applied to private premises, including clubs, where large gatherings are held or entertainments are given. It would be outside the scope of the Licensing Bill to deal
  726
  with the matter on a broad basis, and I think that it will be found undesirable to deal with only a small part of it.
  MR. MYER: Will there be any inspection of some of the West-énd clubs where gambling goes on?
  MR. BOWLESasked whether, as a matter of fact, these places referred to in the first part of the question were subject to any inspection.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I imagine they are not.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make certain about it? It is a very important point.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am pretty certain about it.

  Hove Conservative Club.
  MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the evidence given in a case of murderous assault lately committed at Sackville Road, Hove, in which it was stated that the ground of quarrel was the non-payment of a sum of £15 put on by one man for the other at a club; if he can state the name of the club; where the alleged transactions were carried on; and whether he will direct the attention of the authorities to that institution.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have obtained a report relating to the assault mentioned by my hon. friend, and find that the man who committed it is now under remand on the charge of feloniously wounding with intent to murder. While the case is sub judice I do not think it would be right for me to discuss any incidents of it.
  MR. RIDSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the club?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. The Hove Conservative Club.

  Flogging Sentences at Cardiff Assizes.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State

  727
  for the Home Department how many convicts at the recent Assizes at Cardiff were sentenced to the punishment of flogging, what was the total number of lashes inflicted, and what was the greatest number of lashes inflicted on one individual; whether any, and, if so, which, of the cases in which at these Assizes prisoners were sentenced to be flogged were considered by the Home Secretary with a view to the remission or reduction of the penalty of the lash; whether the fact that these sentences of flogging had been passed came to his knowledge before the floggings were inflicted; and, if so, what steps, if any, did he take, having regard to the moral degradation produced and pain inflicted by such punishment, to satisfy himself of its absolute necessity in the interests of justice and for the preservation of social order.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Fourteen men were convicted of robbery with violence at the recent Assizes at Cardiff, and sentenced to corporal punishment, in addition to terms of penal servitude or imprisonment. The corporal punishment was twelve strokes with the cat in ten of the cases, fifteen strokes in three, and six strokes in one. Some of these cases were brought to my notice by the hon. Member at the time, and I obtained particulars of the punishments ordered, but, as I then informed him, the sentences were passed by humane; and careful Judges, and I saw no reason for interference. Three of the men petitioned, and their petitions were considered before the infliction of the punishment, but they disclosed no ground for interference. An outbreak of these crimes of robbery with violence had recently taken place at Cardiff. The records of the prisoners showed that all but two of them had been previously convicted, several of them many times, and that ordinary sentences of imprisonment had failed to check their criminal tendencies.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did the right hon. Gentleman consider each of the cases?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I considered those that were brought to my notice.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But I brought every case to the right hon. Gentleman's notice.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am referring to the cases in which petitions were sent in.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: There were only three out of fourteen who petitioned. Was it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to consider every case?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, my jurisdiction is not that of a Court of Appeal.
  MR. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the infliction of these sentences there has not been a single case of robbery with violence in this district?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe that is the fact.

  The Cat-o'-Nine Tails.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weight of the cat-o'-nine-tails used in the infliction of the punishment of the lash on prisoners sentenced to be flogged, and whether each stroke of the cat-o'-nine-tails inflicts at least nine stripes on the person flogged; by whom are the floggings ordered by Judges inflicted, and whether the persons on whom this office devolves get additional remuneration for its discharge; if so, what is the scale of the pay thus earned; are the sentences of floggings carried out in their entirety at once, or are the floggings administered by instalments at intervals; what time elapses between the pronouncement of a sentence of flogging and its infliction; whether persons on whom floggings are inflicted are immediately after the administration of the flogging conveyed to hospital; and what period of time on the average elapses from the infliction of the flogging to the convalescence of the prisoner.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The weight of the cat is 9 ounces, of which the handle weighs 6¾ ounces and the tails 2¼. Nine stripes would be inflicted if each of the

  729
  nine tails struck separately. The sentences are carried out by prison officers, who receive 2s. 6d. extra remuneration on each occasion. They are carried out in their entirety, and not by instalments, as soon as possible after the expiration of the time within which notice of an appeal or of an application for leave to appeal may be given under the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907. A prisoner who has been flogged is not conveyed to hospital unless there is some special reason for so doing, which is very rarely the case, but is kept in the separate cell until the medical officer thinks him fit to resume work, a period which varies from half a day, to three days.

  Flogging Statistics.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons on conviction in Great Britain were sentenced to be flogged in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907, respectively; what were the total numbers of the lashes inflicted in each year, and what was the greatest number of lashes inflicted on an individual in each of these years; and whether he will state the names of the Judges who, in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907, sentenced men to be flogged, and the number of cases in which each of these Judges sentenced prisoners to the punishment of the lash.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. and learned Member will find the information he desires for the years 1905 and 1906 in Returns laid before this House in 1906 and 1907 (No. 217 of 1906, and No. 224 of 1907). Similar information for 1907 is being collected in response to an Address moved on the 7th instant.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in each of these years the number of flogging sentences was less than at the recent Cardiff Assizes?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Return will show.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But does not the right hon. Gentleman know it is the fact?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Pay of High Wycombe Postal Officials.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is intended to retain High Wycombe in Class 5 for purposes of scale of pay of sorting clerks and telegraphists; and whether, having regard to the fact that such classification purports to be based upon volume of work and cost of living, it is proposed to classify along with the smallest rural post office the office in a manufacturing town having no less than 130 chair factories.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): High Wycombe was in the old Class VI. for sorting clerks and telegraphists and goes, on the system of classification proposed by the Committee, into Class V. for sorting clerks and telegraphists. The cost of living is not yet ascertained.

  Pay of Auxiliary Rural Postmen.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the pay of existing auxiliary rural postmen on Bank Holidays has been reduced owing to the Hobhouse Report; and, if so, by how much, and for what reason.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Auxiliary rural postmen are treated in accordance with the recommendation in Paragraph 34 of the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office servants that: "Any officer who works on Bank Holiday should receive a day's leave in lieu, and that every postal servant, whether he works on Bank Holiday or not, should receive the full ordinary week's pay for the week in which the Bank Holiday falls, that if the time worked on Bank Holiday, reckoned at time and a half, exceeds the officer's normal duty on that day, the excess should be paid for at single rate and added to the normal week's pay."

  The Murray Creed System of Telegraphy.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Report of the Committee on Press Telegrams states that the Murray Creed system is not ready; whether he could inform the House as to the expense that has already been incurred in connection

  731
  with this system, the amount that has been paid to Mr. Murray, and the length of time it has been under discussion; and whether he will explain why the Department has refused to test or examine an English invention which has actually been in successful operation for the last twelve months in London.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. Member seems to be under some misapprehension. The statement in the Report in question is merely that the Murray Creed System (as at present developed) is too delicate to be recommended for general use. But it has been in use by the Post Office for about two years with satisfactory results, and I am satisfied that the expenditure incurred in connection with it has been fully justified. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me know what is the invention he has in mind. A number have been tried within the last year or two.

  Lotteries for Religious Objects.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he is aware that packages containing lottery circulars are permitted to go through the post when they relate to religious objects; and whether he will direct the attention of the Public Prosecutor to the matter.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,): I have no information on the subject, which is one for the Postmaster General to deal with.

  Register House, Edinburgh.
  MR. A. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to a Minute issued on 14th September, 1893, by the Secretary for Scotland, with the consent of the Treasury, regulating the terms and conditions on which the engrossing clerks in the Register House, Edinburgh, were to receive gratuities on retirement, and that the said terms and conditions were to the effect that the gratuity should be calculated on £120 a year or the average of three years, whichever was greater; whether, until May, 1906, the Treasury recognised that this Minute formed an essential part of the contract between the
  732
  engrossing clerks and the Government, and regularly paid gratuities to retiring clerks calculated on the larger of the two sums; whether the said Minute still regulates the rate of gratuities paid; whether clerks who have retired since 1906 have been paid at the same rate as those who retired before that date; and, if not, why not.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): I fear I can add nothing to the Answer given by my predecessor on 19th August last to a similar Question by the hon. Member.
  MR. A. DEWAR: May I ask whether those clerks who have retired since 1906 are receiving a different rate of gratuitous pay from those who retired formerly?
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid it was impossible for the Treasury to pay a larger pension than that to which the clerks were legally entitled.
  MR. A. DEWARsaid that did not answer his Question. What he wanted to know was whether a lower pension rate was now paid than was paid eighteen months ago, and if so why.
  MR. HOBHOUSEreplied that in certain cases he believed that was the case.
  MR. A. DEWAR: Has the hon. Gentleman given notice to the officials that their pay will be reduced while they are yet in the service, or is it reduced without notice?
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked for notice of the Question.
  MR. A. DEWARgave notice that he would call attention to the matter at the earliest possible moment.

  Circle Trawl in the Firth of Forth.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, having in view the evil effects of the circle trawl in the upper reaches of the Firth of Forth, whereby large quantities of immature herrings are destroyed, the bulk of which have been disposed of as manure, causing loss to the fishing

  733
  communities on both sides of the Firth of Forth, he will cause a searching inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to taking such action as may be necessary.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): Investigation shall certainly be made into this matter, which has not hitherto been brought under my notice.

  Gillespie v. Riddell—Sheep Farm Leases.
  MAJOR MCMICKING: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the insecurity caused to sheep farming in Scotland by the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session in the case of Gillespie v. Riddell, on 20th February, 1908, when it was held that the tenant of a sheep farm upon an entailed estate in right of a lease granted by one heir of entail in possession cannot enforce against a succeeding heir of entail in possession, as such, an obligation in the lease on the landlord to take over the sheep stock at the expiry of the tenancy; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I also beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to the decision of the Court of Session in the case of Gillespie v. Riddell (45 Scottish Law Reporter, 514), in which the Inner House, reversing the decision of the Lord Ordinary, held that the tenant of a sheep farm upon an entailed estate in right of a lease granted by one heir of entail in possession cannot enforce against a succeeding heir of entail in possession, as such, an obligation in the lease on the landlord to take over the sheep stock at the expiry of the tenancy; and whether, in view of the effect of that decision on sheep farming in Scotland, he will introduce remedial legislation.
  MR. SINCLAIR: My attention has been directed to this case, the importance of which I fully realise. I understand, however, that an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Session has been presented to the House of Lords, and it would be premature to consider as to the need for legislation until the
  734
  result of the proceedings in that tribunal are before me. My hon. friends may rest assured that in the meantime the Government will keep the point under close observation.

  Scottish Education Department.
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, seeing that the Scottish Local Government Board is already located in Edinburgh, and that he has introduced legislation to set up in the same city a Scottish Department of Agriculture, though expressing a conviction that the Scottish Education Department should not likewise be transferred thither until the Scottish Parliament has been re-established, he will consider the propriety of preparing a Scottish Home Rule Bill with a view to its introduction next session.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am not at present able to make any announcement as to legislation next session for Scotland.
  MR. AINSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, if he is not able to answer the larger question, whether he will consider the advisability of transferring the Board of Education to Edinburgh, seeing the strong feeling there is in favour of it among the Scottish Members?
  MR. SINCLAIR: There will be ample opportunity to consider this point. The point has already been suggested to the Government and considered by them, but they have not made any proposal on the subject.
  MR. PIRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an Amendment to the Education Bill on the Paper dealing with this question, and will he give his special consideration to it?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Yes.

  Carlisle Pier, Kingstown.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will allow the hon. Member for Waterford to inspect the Report of Captain Meldrum, nautical adviser to the Post Office, as to the feasibility of sailing two lines of steamers from Carlisle

  735
  Pier, Kingstown, without interference with the mail service.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; this was a confidential Report by Captain Meldrum to the Post Office, and I regret that I cannot comply with the hon. Member's wishes.

  Derry City Factory Prosecution.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case heard at the Derry City Petty Sessions on 30th April last, in which Messrs. Tillie and Henderson, Foyle Factory, were summoned by Miss Hilda Martindale, inspector of factories, for having failed to take adequate measures for securing and maintaining a reasonable temperature in a room in the factory so as not to interfere with the purity of the air; whether he is aware that it was given in evidence that in one of the rooms where eighty-six women and girls were working the temperature was found to be 46 degrees in one part and 49 degrees in another, that the room was not provided with any means of securing warmth and the twenty-six windows in it were closed owing to the cold, that it was contended by the defence that the breath of the workers was sufficient to heat the rooms properly, that medical evidence given was to the effect that a temperature of 46 to 49 degrees induced lung trouble, neuralgia, and rheumatism, and that the warmth produced by the breath of the workers vitiated the air; is he aware that it was contended by the defence that the temperature of prisons was good enough for the workers, and that the Bench by a majority dismissed the case, and refused to state a case except on a point of law; and whether, in view of the importance to the workers of the issue raised in this case, he proposes to take any further action with regard to it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have received a Report of the proceedings in this case, and the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. I cannot agree with the view taken by the Court that a temperature of 46 degrees was a reasonable temperature for persons engaged in a sedentary occupation; and it is a
  736
  view I think which few, if any, other Courts would take. No other case of the kind has come to my notice. I am advised that there is no appeal from the decision, but the matter shall have my consideration with a view to seeing what further steps may be desirable.

  Irish Treasury Remembrancer.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say if any, and how many, Irishmen applied for the position of Treasury Remembrancer, recently filled by an imported English official; whether he will give the names of the Irish applicants, and the departments to which they belong, their length of service, and positions in their several departments and whether he will explain in what respect or qualifications the English gentleman appointed is superior to the Irishmen rejected.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: So far as I am aware, no Irishman applied for the appointment in question.

  Carlisle Pier Correspondence.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state on what date he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which has passed on the subject of the use of the Carlisle Pier, Kingstown, by vessels other than the mail steamers, between the Treasury and the Commissioners of Public Works, the Commissioners of Kingstown Harbour, the London and North Western Railway Company, and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and any other steamboat company or Government Department, between 1st January, 1907, and the present date.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: All the correspondence on this subject which can be published has been laid already and was issued to hon. Members on the 8th instant.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Why have not the other Papers promised by the Postmaster-General been given?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware any others were promised.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is stated in one of the letters that further communication will be made to the London and North Western Company on the subject of the dues to be paid by the company. That further communication is not included in the Papers, however.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I must ask for notice.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What is the reason why the Government are afraid to produce these letters?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. DELANY: Is it not the fact that the London and North Western Company have, since they got access to Carlisle Pier, raised their rates considerably?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I must have notice of that.

  Irish Universities Bill.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELLasked leave, it being a quarter to four, to put the following Question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland: Whether he was aware that the Convocation of the Royal University of Ireland, representing more than 6,000 Irish graduates, would meet on Tuesday, when several Resolutions condemnatory of the new Universities Bill would be discussed; whether—considering that the city and corporation of Cork had already condemned the subordination of Cork College to the new Dublin University; that the Catholics of Belfast had condemned the proposal to limit the Catholic representaton on the proposed Belfast Senate to one member in thirty-five, though Catholics formed half the total population of Ulster; that the General Assembly of the Irish Presbyterian Church had condemned by a large majority the sectarian character of the new Bill; and that the annual congress of the Irish school teachers, representing more than 8,000 schools, had condemned the proposed exclusion of home students from graduation—he would delay the Second Reading until the House had had time to be informed of the results of the meeting of Convocation.
  738
  The request was met with cries of "No" from the NATIONALIST Benches, and on Mr. BIRRELL rising to reply the objection was renewed, whereupon the right hon. Gentleman resumed his seat.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: Is it just or seemly that this Bill should be rushed through?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Question of which the hon. Gentleman has given notice is a proper and urgent one, and that is why I called on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Without entering into the details of the various matters mentioned in the Question, there is not, so far as I am aware, any substantial reason why this House should not at once proceed to the discussion of the Irish Universities Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will you give a ruling, Sir, on the point of order whether a Question on the Paper can be put and answered after the time for questioning has elapsed?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Yes, if it is urgent, and relates to the business of the day. It is obvious that if this Question had been postponed the time would have gone by for asking it and getting an answer.

  Empire Day.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing desire among British subjects at home and abroad officially to recognise Empire Day, His Majesty's Government will prescribe 24th May as a day on which the British flag is henceforth to be flown over Government buildings, including those of the War Office and Board of Trade.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I can only repeat the Answer given last year by the late Prime Minister, with which I agree, namely, that he had already given this matter his consideration, and that he did not think it advisable that any order should be

  739
  issued with regard to the hoisting of flags on Government buildings on the day in question.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask whether the Cabinet as a whole have any objection to each Minister in charge of a Department having the flag flown over his own Department?
  MR. ASQUITH: Not the faintest.
  MR. DELANY: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what Ireland has gained from the Imperial policy of the late Government that her people should take off their hats and shout on Empire Day?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  By-Elections and the Corrupt Practices Act.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that several hundred canvassers and similar agents were sent to Wolverhamption during the recent contest to work on behalf of one of the candidates, but for whom the candidate is not held to be financially or otherwise responsible; and whether he proposes to abolish the Corrupt Practices Act so that candidates who desire to respect its spirit as well as its letter may not be hampered by its continued existence in its present form, or whether he has any intention of amending it so as to give effect to the desire of Parliament that the expenses of elections should be kept within reasonable and definite limits, and responsibility for all expenditure incurred placed upon the candidate and his accredited agent.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no information as to what happened at the contest referred to beyond what has appeared in the public Press. The impression left on my mind is that so far as by-elections are concerned the Corrupt Practices Act is being rapidly reduced to a dead-letter. I cannot at this moment promise legislation on the subject, but the matter is one that deserves, and will receive, grave consideration.
  MR. LUPTON: May I ask whether canvassing and urging
  740
  electors to vote in a certain direction is not the highest and noblest duty in which a man can engage?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Public Trustee.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether Mr. C. J. Stewart, the Public Trustee, has definitely resigned all directorships of public companies held by him.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member last Tuesday.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: The Answer then was that the Public Trustee was willing to resign these appointments? I now ask, has he done so?
  MR. ASQUITH: I can add nothing to my Answer.

  Autumn Session
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can now say whether there will be an autumn session, and from what date it is likely to commence.
  MR. ASQUITH: I think that an autumn session is inevitable; but I cannot at present forecast the date at which it is likely to commence. I am glad, judging from the cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they approve this.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recommendations of the Select Committee to allow the House to adjourn early in the summer?
  MR. ASQUITH: My sympathies are entirely with the hon. Member.
  EARL WINTERTON: In view of the need by hon. Members to make engagements some time before, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making an announcement by Whit-suntide?
  MR. ASQUITH: I will not say by Whitsuntide, but I will consult the general convenience.

  Old Age Pensions.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what is the position of a pauper aged seventy with regard to an old-age pension; will such a person be entitled to receive a pension if he ceases from being a charge on the rates; and will the same rules apply both to outdoor and indoor relief.
  MR. ASQUITH: I should be glad that Questions in regard to the details of the scheme should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the President of the Local Government Board according to the subject matter. As I stated in my Budget Speech it is not the intention, at any rate during the first year, to extend the benefits of the scheme to existing paupers. Actual receipt of Poor Law relief, whether outdoor or indoor, at the time of application or within a time which I will not at present definitely fix, but which will not be unduly long, will be a disqualification. It is necessary that some such provision should be made to prevent the transfer of the cost of Poor Law relief from rates to taxes and to keep entirely separate Poor Law and pension administration. As I pointed out, this part of the scheme is necessarily provisional, and without prejudice to changes in the law and administration of poor relief which may result from the recommendations of the Poor Law Commission.

  Education Bill.
  MR. BOWLESasked whether there was any truth in the report that the Government intended to take the Second Reading of the Education Bill next Monday.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY,): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask the Prime Minister on Thursday.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
The Right Hon. Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, for the Parliamentary Burgh of Dundee.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B. (in respect of the Children Bill): Mr. Kennedy; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Children Bill): Mr. Lardner.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Hop Industry.—That they give leave to the Lord Eversley to attend in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on the Hop Industry as desired by this House, his Lordship consenting.
NEW BILL.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION (No. 2) BILL.
  "To prevent the destruction of children during birth," presented by Lord Robert Cecil; supported by Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Chiozza Money, and Mr. Simon; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]
  UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to the University of Durham," presented by Mr. Hills; supported by Sir William Anson, Sir David Brynmor-Jones, and Mr. Hudson; to be read a second time upon Monday, 25th May, and to be printed.[Bill 221.]
  CHEAP TRAINS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Cheap Trains for the working classes," presented by Mr. Bowerman; supported by Mr. Hodge, Mr. Hudson, Mr. J. W. Taylor, Mr. Wardle, and Mr. Thorne; to be read a second time upon Monday, 25th May, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]

CHILDREN (EXPENSES).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question again proposed, "That it is expedient to

743
authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any Expenses that may be incurred and of any contributions that may be made under the provisions of any Act of the present session to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Protection of Children and Young Persons."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
SIR F. BANBURYmoved to leave out the words "and of any contributions that may be made." He was afraid that the Motion was not understood by Members either on his own side of the House or on the opposite side. That was because the hon. Gentleman opposite had persisted in refusing to put the Resolution upon the Order Paper so that every Member of the House might have an opportunity of seeing it. He did not propose on that occasion again to refer to speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, when Resolutions of that kind were introduced into the last Parliament by the then Government. On every occasion—and they were rare; he did not think more than one or two in the whole of the last Parliament—right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite vied with each other, first of all in saying that those Resolutions ought to be put upon the Order Paper so that Members might know what they were doing, and also in saying that the House should not vote unknown sums of money. The attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been called to that by hon. Members on his side of the House, including himself; they had read their speeches to them, but he was sorry to say that they did not seem inclined to profit by their own speeches, and, therefore, as he feared it was useless to expect that they, when in power, would adhere to any principle expressed by them in opposition, he did not propose to trouble the House with their speeches upon that occasion. He might say that all the Resolutions which he remembered until this one, of which, by the courtesy of the Clerk, he had been empowered to obtain a copy, had provided for the payment out of the Treasury of certain expenses. There was only one payment; it was to be for expenses incurred under the Bill, but
744
this Resolution was different from all the others, because it provided for two objects, for "any contributions that may be made," and for "expenses." He had two Amendments down, the one he was now proposing, and the other to omit the expenses. As regarded the first, it seemed to him that the words were very vague, and that it was impossible to know what they covered. The object might be perfectly good, but the House was committing itself by the Resolution to approve of any contritions that might be made under any Act. At the present moment they were pledging themselves to he did not know what next year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was present, and he hoped to have his support when he went into the division lobby. His solicitude for the reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year was one of the reasons why he desired to leave out those words. The right hon. Gentleman had a very hard task, and if he was to be bound by that Resolution all he could say was that he was very sorry for the taxpayer and also for the right hon. Gentleman. A few days ago the Under-Secretary, in asking him to assent after twelve o'clock to the passing of that Resolution, was most enticing in his manner, and he was not at all sure that had it not been for the stern sense of duty which animated him on that occasion he might not have succumbed to the wiles of the hon. Gentleman, but he put duty above everything, and did not succumb. The Under-Secretary said that the Resolution had nothing whatever to do with salaries. But it was not salaries that they objected to. It was the question of expense. They wanted to know what the expense was going to be and what the contributions were. He presumed that the Home Office had made some calculation as to what the cost and the contributions were going to be. If he was right in that assumption he wanted to know why the contributions were not specified. Why were they to give a blank cheque, even to the Home Secretary? He did not know anybody on that side of the House to whom he should have greater pleasure in giving a blank cheque, but he objected to giving blank cheques, even to hon. Members on his own side of the

745
House, and he objected to giving blank cheques to hon. Gentlemen on the other. Therefore he wanted to know, first of all, whether or not the Home Office had made any calculations as to the amount of the contributions; secondly, if they had made those calculations, what they were; thirdly, why they had not been put in the Resolution; and fourthly, who was to contribute and to what. He begged to move—
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, to leave out from the word 'incurred,' to the word 'under'"—(Sir Frederick Banbury).
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said that perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if he saved time by saying a few words of explanation at once. The form of the Resolution he was told was precisely the usual form that it had always been the practice for the House to pass on occasions such as that. The House was not asked, as the hon. Baronet suggested, to sanction any contribution offhand that might be asked, or to give a blank cheque to the Home Secretary or anybody else. All that was asked was that it should grant permission to the Grand Committee upstairs now considering the Bill to make such monetary provisions in the Bill as might seem suitable to that Committee, and before any money could be granted under this money Resolution it must first have the sanction of the Standing Committee upstairs; secondly, the sanction of the House on the Report stage; thirdly, the approval of the Secretary of State before the grants could be made; fourthly, the approval of the Treasury; and fifthly, it would be subject to the review of the House when the grants were made on the Estimates that would be presented to it The Children Bill, in addition to its numerous other good qualities, had this virtue, that it did not create any new offices and that it did not propose any new salaries. There were three purposes with which the
746
money Resolution would deal. In the first place the grants to day industrial schools were now limited to a very low figure. Only 1s. per week per child could be given as a maximum, and the result was that schools were being closed and day industrial schools were nowhere being developed. The Government proposed that the Secretary of State and the Treasury should be given power to increase the grants above the present low limit. This change was recommended by the Departmental Committee on Reformatories and industrial Schools, of which his predecessor the hon. Member for Ayrshire was chairman. This additional expenditure would, they believed, indirectly result in economies as children in future might be committed to a day industrial school instead of the much more expensive industrial schools now available. The second object for which money was required was to enable a lump sum to be paid so that children from industrial schools might be emigrated at the end of their sentences. At present there was no statutory power to make such grants. Money could only be granted for custody and maintenance. This change was also recommended by the Departmental Committee. The third and only other purpose for which money was needed under the Bill was to enable grants to be paid for the maintenance of children to be committed to places of detention instead of to prison. These grants would not be additional expenditure; they would be in substitution for existing expenditure. Children, instead of being sent to prison, would be sent to places of detention, and it was obvious that the money which would have been paid for them in prison should be diverted for their maintenance in places of detention. It was wholly impossible to estimate the cost of the various grants. They could not form a lump sum estimate of grants to be made per capita. They could not say how far the magistrates would commit children to day industrial schools instead of to other schools, and it was equally impossible to know how many children would be committed by the magistrates to places of detention. In these circumstances it was perfectly hopeless to expect any exact estimate, and he should not venture

747
to lay before the Committee any figure. It must necessarily depend on the working of the Act when it came into operation, and upon the extent to which the magistrates made use of the various powers. If the grants were too high they would be criticised on the Estimates when they came before Parliament. He asked if the Committee would consent to the passing of the Resolution so that the Standing Committee which was now sitting week by week to examine the clauses of the Bill might not be hindered.
MR. ASHLEYsaid the Under-Secretary had given many excellent reasons with which he cordially agreed why the Bill should be passed, and had then proceeded to say that it was impossible to estimate what the expenses would be. The Under-Secretary had referred the Committee to the safeguards in the matter of expenditure, but it appeared to him that what the hon. Gentleman had said gave all the more reason why they should be very careful in parting with the powers which were inherent in this House, and why they should support the Amendment. It seemed to him that the Government were unduly hurrying the Resolution. He understood that the Standing Committee had dealt with only thirteen clauses of the Children Bill which contained altogether 119 clauses. Surely if they were going to pass a Resolution such as this, it would be better to wait until the discussion upstairs was finished. Then they would be more likely to know to what the expenses would amount.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he did not understand the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment to ask exact figures as to the expenses; he merely stated that no approximation as to the amount had been put before the Committee. The Under-Secretary had asked the Committee to pass the Resolution so that the Standing Committee upstairs might be enabled to go on with its work.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really not discussing the Amendment. I allowed the hon. Baronet to discuss the Resolution in moving the Amendment, as indeed was his right, but I must, now that the Amendment has been
748
put from the Chair, ask those Members of the Committee who wish to speak to confine themselves to the Amendment.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he would not transgress the ruling of the Chairman. He understood the Amendment to mean that, although this Resolution might possibly refer to the Children Bill, yet according to the wording it might refer to any Act and the present session.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That has nothing to do with this Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was sorry that the Under-Secretary had not satisfied him in any way. They were told also that the Home Office was to be given power to increase grants to any extent.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Treasury has control over all these grants, and they all have to be voted by Parliament.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that what he wanted to do was to keep the power in this House. It was all very well for the Under-Secretary to say that there were so many safeguards, but they all knew what that amounted to. The Estimates might come on at the end of August at four o'clock in the morning when there were only a few Members in the House. It would be foolish for the House of Commons to part with the power which it had at the present moment. He had no idea that the words which he proposed to leave out went so far as appeared from the hon. Gentleman's statement. When he asked the hon. Gentleman for some estimate of the expenses, he did not wish him to set it down exactly in pounds, shillings and pence, but he thought that the Home Office and the Treasury ought to have some idea of what the amount would be. They had none, and in these circumstances he would certainly divide the House. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members below the gangway said "Oh!" He knew that the Irish Party were always very anxious to spend other people's, money. He hoped he would have the support of hon. Members opposite who were pledged to economy.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that Resolutions of the kind they were now considering were either a farce or they were of some use to the House of Commons. He understood that they were the most important business of the House. Hon. Members on the Ministerial side were in the habit when in Opposition of objecting to blank cheques being given to the then Government. It was idle to say that the safeguards were sufficient. It was more and more the tendency of Governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, to propose that work which ought to be done by the House itself should be handed over to Departments of the State. They had now the power of saving whether these contributions should be allowed to be made or not. He had no doubt that the emigration of children was an excellent idea, but the Committee ought to be told approximately what the cost would be. They were asked to sanction the expenditure in advance, and there would be, he understood, words put in the Bill to limit the amount. He ventured to submit that the question was far greater than the mere amount of money necessary for the expenses of the Children Bill; and he thought that these formal Resolutions should be protested against by the private Members on both sides of the House. He took exception to them on two occasions when his own party was in power. At the same time he had to confess that

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cleland, J. W.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bertram, Julius

Clough, William

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

Agnew, George William

Black, Arthur W.

Cooper, G. J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Boland, John

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

Alden, Percy

Boulton, A. C. F.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Ambrose, Robert

Bowerman, C. W.

Crean, Eugene

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Branch, James

Crooks, William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Brooke, Stopford

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Astbury, John Meir

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bryce, J. Annan

Delany, William

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Devlin, Joseph

Barker, John

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Barnes, G. N.

Byles, William Pollard

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

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Beale, W. P.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dillon, John

Beauchamp, E.

Chance, Frederick William

Donelan, Captain A.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

if he were in the position of the Under-Secretary he should do practically what the hon. Gentleman was doing, for it was an exceedingly convenient procedure.
MR. BOWLESsaid he understood from the speech of the Under-Secretary that the only purposes under the Bill for which new expenditure would be required were first, for day industrial schools; secondly, a lump sum in aid of the emigration of children detained in industrial schools; and thirdly, for the maintenance of children who instead of being sent to prison would be sent to places of detention. All those were clearly expenses that would be incurred under the Act. Why then did the Government think it so necessary to take power there and then by that Resolution, not only for expenses under the Act but for any other contributions that might be made? What were those contributions? The Under-Secretary had told the Committee nothing about them. The only thing he told the Committee was the absolutely clear expenses under the Act. He hoped the Under-Secretary would reconsider the matter. Certainly if his hon. friend went to a division he should support him.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 264; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 82.)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lloyd-Georgo, Rt. Hon. David

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Elibank, Master of

Lupton, Arnold

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Reddy, M.

Erskine, David C.

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Redmond, William (Clare)

Essex, R. W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rees. J. D.

Everett, R. Lacey

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Findlay, Alexander

M'Callum, John M.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Kean, John

Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Micking, Major G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Mallet, Charles E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Massie, J.

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

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Masterman, C. F. C.

Seely, Colonel

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Meagher, Michael

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Halpin, J.

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Sheehy, David

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Menzies, Walter

Silcoek, Thomas Ball

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Mond, A.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hart-Davies, T.

Montagu, E. S.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hayden, John Patrick

Mooney, J. J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stanger, H. Y.

Hazleton, Richard

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Steadman, W. C.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Morrell, Philip

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hedges, A. Paget

Morse, L. L.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Muldoon, John

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Henry, Charles S.

Murnaghan, George

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Higham, John Sharp

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Toulmin, George

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Myer, Horatio

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hodge, John

Napier, T. B.

Verney, F. W.

Hogan, Michael

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Vivian, Henry

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Holt, Richard Durning

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Horniman, Emslie John

Nuttall, Harry

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

Wardle, George J.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Waring, Walter

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Jackson, R. S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Waterlow, D. S.

Jenkins, J.

O'Doherty, Philip

Watt, Henry A.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Weir, James Galloway

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Grady, J.

Whitbread, Howard

Jowett, F. W.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Joyce, Michael

O'Malley, William

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Kavanagh, Walter M.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Shee, James John

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wiles, Thomas

Kilbride, Denis

Partington, Oswald

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Perks, Robert William

Winfrey, R.

Lambert, George

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lamont, Norman

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Young, Samuel

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Pirie, Duncan V.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Power, Patrick Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

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

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Pullar, Sir Robert

Pease.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Radford, G. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Raphael, Herbert H.

NOES.

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

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Balcarres, Lord

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Ashley, W. W.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

752

753

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

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Valentia, Viscount

Clive, Percy Archer

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

Winterton, Earl

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Craik, Sir Henry

Moore, William

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

Cross, Alexander

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Fell, Arthur

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Frederick Banbury and Mr.

Gordon, J.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Lonsdale.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Main Question again proposed.
CAPTAIN CRAIGmoved to omit the words, "any Act of the present session," in order to insert the words, "the Bill now in Committee." He thought that any business man in any quarter of the House would support that Amendment, because the Motion made by the Under-Secretary as it stood on the Paper, applied to money that might be expended under the provisions of any Act relating to young persons, passed during the present session. He had gone to considerable trouble in searching through other public Bills in order to discover whether any of them would apply in this matter; and he could only narrow them down to the Infant Life Protection Bill, several Bills relating to health, and several charitable Bills. There were several charities dealt with in the public Bills. He had tried to find out whether any of these fell within the wording of the Resolution, and although the hon. Member might say that the terms of his Motion were the same as those which had been moved from year to year, he thought that in a House dominated by Radical principles he might have considered it fair to break through traditions, and frame his Motion in somewhat more business-like terms. If his Amendment were accepted, it simply meant that the Government would get what they wanted, and what they were asking for. They asked, with regard to the Children Bill, that the Committee should be empowered to go on with its work, but this Resolution referred to any Act of the present session, and not to the specific Bill under consideration. Although that might, to those hon. Members who took no interest whatever in these financial Resolu-
754
tions, appear to be a trivial matter, he did not suppose that even the most sanguine Member on either side of the House expected to get more than one measure of such importance dealing with the protection of children and young persons through the House this session. That being so, surely it was not extravagant to ask the Government to nail down their Resolution to that specific Bill. The House would be most wrongly parting with its rights and privileges if it passed the Resolution without amendment. When he received his Order Paper he thought that perhaps a misprint had occurred, and that instead of "an" the word "any" had been printed, but on his arrival at the House he found that the copy handed to him in the Vote Office corresponded with that which he had received. He hoped the Government would see the importance of the subject, and if they were, as they had already stated, only following precedent, he asked them to take a bold step and create a precedent, by making the Resolution read so that anyone could understand it, and depriving it of the omnibus character which it now bore. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 4 to leave out from the first word, 'of' to the word 'to,' in line 4, and insert the words 'the Bill now in Committee,'"—(Captain Craig)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Member proposed to omit the words of the Resolution applying it to any Act of the present session, and to insert the words "the Bill now in Committee," but no expenditure could be

755
made necessary by a Bill. The hon. Member's Amendment, if accepted, would make nonsense of the Resolution, because no expenditure could be incurred under a Bill, but could only be made necessary by an Act of Parliament. The Resolution, as it stood, was in accordance with invariable practice and precedent, and there was no reason for altering it.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had never heard a lamer statement. The Under-Secretary had taken refuge in the fact that the Resolution was in the usual form, and therefore no change would be made—and he belonged to the Radical Party, who thought that the procedure of the House was slow and clogged the wheels of progress! A greater confession of the hollowness of Radical professions had never before been made. He thought the thanks of all the hon. Members on that side of the House were due to his hon. friend for his researches in this branch of procedure. The Under-Secretary said that no Bill could confer powers of expenditure, but his hon. friend could amend his Amendment and use the word "Act" instead of "Bill," and put in the title of the Bill and call it an enactment.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The title may be altered.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that if they were going to fall back upon technical

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Clancy, John Joseph

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bertram, Julius

Cleland, J. W.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

Clough, William

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

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Agnew, George William

Black, Arthur W.

Cooper, G. J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Boland, John

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

Alden, Percy

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Ambrose, Robert

Bowerman, C. W.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Ashton, Thomas Clair

Branch, James

Crean, Eugene

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Brooke, Stopford

Crooks, William

Astbury, John Meir

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

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T. (Cheshire

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bryce, J. Annan

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Delany, William

Barker, John.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Devlin, Joseph

Barnes, G. N.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

Byles, William Pollard

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Beale, W. P.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Beauchamp, E.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dillon, John

Bellairs, Carlyon

Chance, Frederick William

Donelan, Captain A.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Utley)

objections and precedents, of course many could be found ready, but, as the hon. Member for Preston said the other day, there were many foolish precedents for everything, and the Under-Secretary was falling back upon one of these old precedents. His hon. friend's Amendment must commend itself to everyone who was an economist and desired that the finance of the country should be administered in a proper manner. The passing of slipshod Resolutions of this sort was absolutely abhorrent, because they did not know what they were laying themselves open to by putting in the words "any Act of the present session." If his Amendment had been accepted there would not have been quite so much force in this one, but if this were rejected, money might be devoted to any Act dealing with children. He challenged any hon. Member on the other side of the House to get up and say that that statement was wrong. Under these circumstances he would have great pleasure in supporting his hon. and gallant friend if he went to a division as he hoped he would. It showed the weakness of the case of the Under-Secretary that there was not one single Member opposite who would get up and support the Government view.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 266; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 83.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lupton, Arnold

Reddy, M.

Elibank, Master of

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Maclean, Donald

Redmond, William (Clare)

Erskine, David C.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rees, J. D.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Essex, R. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Ferens, T. R.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Ffreneh, Peter

M'Kean, John

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Findlay, Alexander

M'Micking, Major G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Flynn, James Christopher

Mallet, Charles E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Fuller, John Michael F.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Furness, Sir Christopher

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Masterman, C. F. G.

Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

Meagher, Michael

Seely, Colonel

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Griffith, Ellis J.

Menzies, Walter

Sheehy, David

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

Micklem, Nathaniel

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Mond, A.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Montagu, E. S.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Halpin, J.

Mooney, J. J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Soares, Ernest J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Stanger, H. Y.

Hart-Davies, T.

Morrell, Philip

Steadman, W. C.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morse, L. L.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Muldoon, John

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hedges, A. Paget

Murnaghan, George

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Henry, Charles S.

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Tennant, H.J. (Berwickshire)

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

Murphy, N.J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Napier, T. B.

Toulmin, George

Hodge, John

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hogan, Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Verney, F. W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Vivian, Henry

Holt, Richard Durning

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Horniman, Emslie John

Nuttall, Harry

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wardle, George J.

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Waring, Walter

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Jackson. R. S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Waterlow, D. S.

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Doherty, Philip

Watt, Henry A.

Jenkins, J.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Weir, James Galloway

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

O'Malley, William

Whitbread, Howard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Shee, James John

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Joyce, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whitehead, Rowland

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Partington, Oswald

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Paulton, James Mellor

Wiles, Thomas

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Perks, Robert William

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

Laidlaw, Robert

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Winfrey, R.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lambert, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Young, Samuel

Lamont, Norman

Pirie, Duncan V.

Yoxall, James Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Lehmann, R. C.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Whiteley and Mr. Lonsdale.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Radford, G. H.

Lever, W H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Raphael, Herbert H.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Balcarres, Lord

Bignold, Sir Arthur

758

759

Bowles, G. Stewart

Heaton, John Henniker

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kerry, Earl of

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Clive, Percy Archer

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Moore, William

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Younger, George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Gordon, J.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Guinness, Walter Edward

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Captain Craig and Mr.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUELrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Adkins. W. Ryland D.

Clancy, John Joseph

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

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

Cleland, J. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Agnew, George William

Clough, William

Halpin, J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Alden, Percy

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Ambrose, Robert

Cooper, G. J.

Hart-Davies, T.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Astbury, John Meir

Cox, Harold

Hedges, A. Paget

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Henry, Charles S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crean, Eugene

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Crooks, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Barker, John

Crosfield, A. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hodge, John

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Delany, William

Hogan, Michael

Beale, W. P.

Devlin, Joseph

Holland, Sir William Henry

Beauchamp, E.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Dillon, John

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Berridge, T. H. D.

Donelan, Captain A.

Idris, T. H. W.

Bertram, Julius

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jackson, R. S.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Jardine, Sir J.

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jenkins, J.

Boland, John

Elibank, Master of

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Boulton, A. C. F.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Bowerman, C. W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jowett, F. W.

Branch, James

Essex, R. W.

Joyce, Michael

Brooke, Stopford

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

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

Everett, R. Lacey

Kearley, Hudson E.

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T (Cheshire

Ferens, T. R.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Bryce, J. Annan

Ffrench, Peter

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Findlay, Alexander

Laidlaw, Robert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Flynn, James Christopher

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lambert, George

Byles, William Pollard

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lamont, Norman

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Chance, Frederick William

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lehmann, R. C.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 268; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 84.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Lupton, Arnold

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Stanger, H. Y.

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

O'Doherty, Philip

Steadman, W. C.

Maclean, Donald

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

O'Malley, William

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Summerbell, T.

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

O'Shee, James John

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

M'Callum, John M.

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

M'Kean, John

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

M'Micking, Major G.

Perks, Robert William

Toulmin, George

Mallet, Charles E.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Verney, F. W.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Vivian, Henry

Marnham, F. J.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Massie, J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Masterman, C. F. G.

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

Meagher, Michael

Puller, Sir Robert

Wardle, George J.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Radford, G. H.

Waring, Walter

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Menzies, Walter

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Mond, A.

Reddy, M.

Waterlow, D. S.

Montagu, E. S.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Watt, Henry A.

Mooney, J. J.

Rees, J. D.

Weir, James Galloway

Morgan, G, Hay (Cornwall)

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

Whitbread, Howard

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Ridsdale, E. A.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Morrell, Philip

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Morse, L. L.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whitehead, Rowland

Muldoon, John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Murnaghan, George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Wiles, Thomas

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Winfrey, R.

Myer, Horatio

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Napier, T. B.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Young, Samuel

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Seely, Colonel

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Nuttall, Harry

Sheehy, David

Pease.

O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

NOES.

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fell, Arthur

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Ashley, W. W.

Gordon. J.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Guinness, Walter Edward

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Balcarres, Lord

Heaton, John Henniker

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Valentia, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

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

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

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Moore, William

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Craik, Sir Henry

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Frederick Banbury and

Cross, Alexander

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Captain Craig.

Question put accordingly.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lewis, John Herbert

Agnew, George William

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lupton, Arnold

Alden, Percy

Elibank, Master of

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Ambrose, Robert

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Essex, R. W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Astbury, John Meir

Everett, R. Lacey

MaeVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Callum, John M.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Barker, John

Findlay, Alexander

M'Kean, John

Barnard, E. B.

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Micking, Major G.

Barnes, G. N.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mallet, Charles E.

Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Beale, W. P.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Marnham, F. J.

Beauchamp, E.

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

Massie, J.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Meagher, Michael

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Bertram, Julius

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Menzies, Walter

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Halpin, J.

Mond, A.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Montagu, E. S.

Black, Arthur W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Mooney, J. J.

Boland, John

Hart-Davies, T.

Morgan. G. Hay (Cornwall)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Morrell, Philip

Branch, James

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

Morse, L. L.

Brooke, Stopford

Henry, Charles S.

Muldoon, John

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

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

Murnaghan, George

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T. (Cheshire

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Bryce, J. Annan

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hodge, John

Myer, Horatio

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hogan, Michael

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Bytes, William Pollard

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Horniman, Emslie John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nuttall, Harry

Chance, Frederick William

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Clancy, John Joseph

Jackson, R. S.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Cleland, J. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Clough, William

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jenkins, J.

O'Doherty, Philip

Cooper, G. J.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jowett, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Crean, Eugene

Kavanagh, Walter M.

O'Shee, James John

Crooks, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Crosfield, A. H.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Partington, Oswald

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Paulton, James Mellor

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Delany, William

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Perks, Robert William

Devlin, Joseph

Lambert, George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dillon, John

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Lehmann, R. C.

Pullar, Sir Robert

The Committee, divided:—Ayes, 266; Noes, 35. (Division List No. 85.)

Radford, G. H.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Waterlow, D. S.

Reddy, M.

Soares, Ernest J.

Watt, Henry A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Stanger, H. Y.

Weir, James Galloway

Rees, J. D.

Steadman, W. C.

Whitbread, Howard

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Summerbell, T.

Whitehead, Rowland

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wiles, Thomas

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Winfrey, R.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Toulmin, George

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Verney, F. W.

Young, Samuel

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Vivian, Henry

Yoxall, James Henry

Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Seely, Colonel

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wardle, George J.

Pease.

Sheehy, David

Waring, Walter

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Gordon, J.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balearres, Lord

Guinness, Walter Edward

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Heaton, John Henniker

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kimber, Sir Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Younger, George

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Craik, Sir Henry

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Cross, Alexander

Morpeth, Viscount

Frederick Banbury and Cap-

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

tain Craig.

Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any Expenses that may be incurred and of any contributions that may be made under the provisions of any Act of the present session to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Protection of Children and Young Persons."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. HUTTON, in moving, "That this House refuses to take any step which would increase the strength for denominational interests in any branch of education in Ireland, believing that the interests of
766
truth and the welfare of the nation demanded the "maintenance of an entirely free atmosphere, particularly in the region of higher education, and that this cannot be secured on a denominational basis" said, and therefore declines to provide further with the measure, that it was to him a matter of sincere regret that he should find himself in opposition to his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There was no man in the House for whom he had a higher personal regard, and there were no proposals to which he would give a more sympathetic consideration than those coming from his right hon. friend. They all knew and recognised his great passion for furthering the interests of education, both in England, for whose educational interests he was responsible a short tune ago, and in Ireland, for which country he was responsible at the present time. But having regard to the proposal which he had laid

767
before the House he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could be at all surprised, nor indeed would he complain, if he or some other Member put down an Amendment such as he now rose to move. He thought the Chief Secretary would naturally look for some sort of criticism or some kind of opposition from those who had been accustomed to look upon the matters dealt with in this Bill from the position which he (Mr. Hutton) and his friends occupied. That position was not so popular to-day as it was a few years ago; and it was a position which seemed to be becoming rather old-fashioned, but one which they had the honour to fill. A generation ago, the views which he held to-day in respect to education and religion and their common relation to the State were very prevalent in the Liberal Party, especially that section of it associated with Non- conformity. Though he could not hope to put their case before the House with the force he desired, at any rate, he was glad of the opportunity of stating in regard to this Bill some of the positions which he thought the Liberal Party ought not to desert. He recognised the courage of the right hon. Gentleman in tackling this question. Whether at the present moment it was politic was another matter. He believed the Government had taken on its shoulders the consideration of a great many topics of first-class importance, and he was a little surprised that they should have chosen the present moment for shouldering this question, which was a very thorny one indeed, and might prove thornier still before this Bill became law. The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were, he thought, of a frankly denominational character. He had brought forward a proposal for the settlement of what had been a very difficult question, and no doubt he hoped to pass a measure which should be a settlement for a very considerable time. He was always suspicious of proposals which were to achieve a permanent settlement. He did not think when they looked back, at any rate on questions that related to education and religion, that they had been very successful with proposals that were to be far-reaching and effect a settlement. It was far wiser to proceed
768
by steps in these matters rather than to attempt a revolutionary proposal and build on a foundation which the House and the country had never hitherto accepted. The Bill was frankly on a denominational basis. It might be said that there were no denominational tests, and that there were provisions to avoid all appearance at any rate of any denominational basis, but he thought it was well to brush away all these considerations, and frankly recognise at the beginning that the Bill proposed to settle the University question of Ireland upon a denominational basis. They had had from the hon. Member for East Mayo, in his speech upon the First Reading of the Bill, a reference to the Catholic demand in regard to this question. He understood that the Bill met their wishes. Of course he made no complaint about it on that ground. He was always very glad if any wishes as regarded education were met by the Government without departing from what he believed to be sound principles. But this Bill met what the hon. Member spoke of as the Catholic demand. He was always at a loss to know what were the Catholic demands. He made no pretence to an intimate knowledge of the question. All he could say about it was that he did not think he had ever missed a single debate upon the question. Though he never offered any remarks himself he had always during the time that he had had a seat in the House been an attentive listener to the interesting discussion of the question. What was it that constituted the Catholic demand in regard to the University question? The Queen's Colleges did not meet it. They were under the Episcopal ban, and because of that he supposed they had to go. There was instituted a Royal University. That had not met the Catholic demand, so he supposed it had to go. In addition they had Maynooth, which was in possession of a very handsome endowment, and another College. None of these met what the hon. Member spoke of as the Catholic demand. But this Bill did, and he thought that that was a confession, whether it appeared on the face of the clauses or of the grant charge, that it was frankly a denominational proposal. He did not know whether a

769
University upon denominational basis met with the ideal of his right hon. friend or not. He did not know, if he were beginning de novo, whether he would set up a University on a denominational basis or not. But what he asked for was that, in treating this question, they should be frank with one another and say what were their ideals in regard to University education in Ireland or anywhere else, and ask the House if they could not get all they wanted at a time to take one step in the right direction. He frankly said that the denominational basis for Universities was not his ideal, and this Bill took not only one step but many steps in what he conceived to be a wrong direction. If he had any quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman it was that in a Bill of this kind they were taking substantial steps in a direction which led towards an ideal in regard to education which he believed to be fundamentally wrong. He could not presume to say what ought to be the characteristics of a University; he did not pretend to have made a sufficient study or to have sufficient knowledge, but he ventured to lay down two principles with which he did not think his right hon. friend or anybody in the House ought to quarrel. The first was that it ought to be open to and frequented by all classes of the community. It was all very well to say there was no prohibition, but every provision was taken with the exception of prohibiting the attendance of those who did not belong to the particular denomination. Otherwise every inducement was offered to students of a particular denomination to attend a particular University, and it was so arranged and so provided that what was bound to happen was that in the Belfast University they would have Presbyterians in a large majority; at Trinity there would be Anglicans and very few others; and in the other University there would be Roman Catholics and not many others. That was not carrying out, at any rate, the first principle he laid down, that any satisfactory University ought to offer every inducement to all classes of the community to attend. And in this particular case they were making the difficulty so obvious that they would have the three Universities, however free they might be on paper, actually available only
770
to those belonging to one particular denomination or another. The other principle that he would lay down was that in all branches of learning there should be absolute freedom in regard to study, research, and teaching. He did not mean to say that any University must be expected to provide teaching upon every subject that might be desired, but where there were subjects provided for by University chairs, they ought to be assured that there was absolute freedom in study, in research, and in teaching. Was it likely that in regard to a University where they had secured a denominational atmosphere at any rate they were likely to have this absolute freedom? It was perfectly certain that although they might not have tests on paper they might have indirect as well as direct tests. A professor might find his classroom vacant because he had gone in his teaching beyond the limits prescribed by the doctrine of his Church. If he had been so venturesome as to do that, and no pressure could be brought to bear upon him individually and personally, pressure could be brought upon the students, and directly or indirectly they could very successfully bring tests to bear when they had provided that the Universities were to be frequented only by those of a particular denomination. The result of that would be that they would take every possible precaution to have theological "pens" and not Universities in the proper sense of the term. He always looked for education to be assisted by the State, and if it was to fulfil what he believed to be its proper functions, he always looked upon it as a unifying force. Where they had in an educational institution people of different classes and different denominations it brought out what was common to all and unified them. By this Bill they were making the Universities a dividing and not a unifying force, and that was a deplorable result. His right hon. friend was aware of the examples of other countries in regard to the development of University education. He did not pretend to be well acquainted with any particular style of University that had been established recently or the developments that had taken place. The only knowledge he had was from the Paper laid on the

771
Table by the Government something like ten years ago as the result of inquiries in regard to Universities in all countries on the Continent. He did not see any grounds of encouragement from the result of those inquiries to give any support to this proposal of his right hon. friend. On the contrary, it seemed to him that the whole tendency was in the opposite direction, that Universities that had been denominational were all growing out of that atmosphere and spirit, and it seemed to him a deplorable thing that in these days they should be taking the utmost pains to go back to a state of things which it was hoped they had left behind. He believed there were many experiments in this direction in the United States of America. He believed there were a great many denominational Universities there. He should hardly think his right hon. friend would justify this experiment on the ground of the tendency that had exhibited itself in the United States, in the private establishment of denominational Universities. He did not suppose there was a single denominational University in the United States that had received any assistance out of State funds. All of them were the result of private benevolence and private charity. However they came into existence, they were there. Would his right hon. friend suggest that those Universities were equal to those that were not narrowed down in their view and outlook by denominational interests? Would he choose to send someone over whom he had influence to a denominational University? He knew of no experiments in any country that would give any encouragement to the new proposals which the right hon. Gentleman was asking the House to adopt. Thirty or forty years ago the question of tests in Oxford and Cambridge was dealt with. What would the right hon. Gentleman have said if at that time the Nonconformists had said: "That is not enough for us. We cannot send our sons to Oxford or Cambridge, because the influence of the Anglican Church will be too powerful for them; you must make provision which will prevent them from being contaminated? "He did not claim that Nonconformists should have a University established for their benefit, but the great thing was that they should be
772
permitted to make the best use of their opportunities. The Episcopal authorities did their utmost to prevent the sons of Roman Catholics frequenting Oxford and Cambridge; but now that official ban had been removed, and the sons of Roman Catholics frequented Oxford and Cambridge Universities, to the advantage of themselves and of those two institutions. But, supposing the Government of that day had treated that demand in the same hesitating way as the Governments in days gone by had treated the Roman Catholic demand for University education in Ireland, what would have been the result? That ban would never have been removed. If the Government had not continually made concessions abolishing this, that, and the other in Ireland in order to meet denominational differences, long ago they would have had a University in Ireland which would have been agreeable to all denominations. The demand put forward in this Bill was exceedingly difficult to justify. It was rather extraordinary that under the Education Bill for England a special type of schools had been promised for Catholics, and under this Bill they were proposing a special type of University. The reason given in the case of the special schools was that Catholics were to have special treatment because they were in a minority and poor, and could not properly protect their own interests; on the other hand, Catholics in Ireland were to have this special kind of University because they were in a large majority. That was the whole theory of endowment at the hands of the State by a Liberal Government. It should be noted that this experiment was going to be tried in a country where they no longer had an Established Church. It was a most amazing result, after they had secured the disestablishment of one Church to proceed by statute with the endowment of all kinds of Churches when they came forward and demanded special consideration. In introducing this Bill his right hon. friend made special reference to the affiliation of colleges, and said that it would be done only under the most stringent restrictions. He did not understand that there were any restrictions of any kind upon the affiliation of colleges with the Universities. If those colleges were affiliated they were

773
to have all the privileges that any constituent college could claim.
MR. DILLON: No.
MR. HUTTONsaid that that was his reading of the Bill. At any rate they were to have all the University privileges and degrees. At present Maynooth College possessed a handsome endowment. It had over 600 students, mostly clerical, who were pursuing their theological studies, and they were to have a full opportunity for receiving their degrees, after residence at Maynooth College. Did Maynooth College come under the clause referred to by the Chief Secretary in regard to tests? He considered that Maynooth or any other college would, under the educational restrictions laid down, have the full advantage of the University. In that case the education would be devoted to clerical students alone and Maynooth would be in a position to apply any kind of test they might choose. In that case it would be a very simple thing to have colleges affiliated with all the tests they might desire. He did not want to press that too hard, but it was a proof that there were ample opportunities provided, directly and indirectly, for making these Universities absolutely denominational in character, and that would be a disaster to education. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Mayo had made a statement to the effect that to have a high standard of University education was far more important than a high standard of elementary education; and that in the interests of the country it was necessary, first of all, to have a satisfactory standard of University education. He was not going to challenge that statement for a moment, because the type of education given at the University would stamp itself upon the elementary education, and the secondary schools, as well as on the men who were passing through the University. They were establishing three Universities for Ireland of a purely denominational order, which stamped denominationalism upon the students from the earliest days of their education through all its stages.
MR. DILLONasked what the hon. Member meant by a denominational University.
MR. HUTTONsaid he meant a University frequented, if not entirely, at least overwhelmingly, by people of one denomination. If they had the denominational atmosphere which it was the aim of Catholics to secure, they were bound to have these three Universities denominational in every sense of the word. They might have affiliated colleges with every kind of test.
MR. LUPTONsaid the Bill clearly laid down that "in no constituent college shall there be any test whatever."
MR. HUTTONsaid it had already been pointed out that there was no other example in history where they had a college confined to clerical teaching recognised in a University system. If that was recognised there was no reason why many others should not be recognised. He regretted exceedingly that he had to offer opposition to the measure proposed by his right hon. friend, but he must say that his ideas of what ought to be the duty of the State with regard to the provision of education, and especially when it came into contact with religion, were directly contrary to the directions and intentions of this Bill, and, therefore, he was obliged to move the Amendment.
*DR. HAZEL, in seconding the Amendment, said that the House might be disposed to regard his hon. friend and himself as facing fearful odds in the course they were taking, but he was fortified by the remark which fell the other day from his hon. friend the Member for Preston that when this House was most unanimous it was generally most wrong. He must admit certain misgiving at finding himself for the time acting with the hon. Member for North Armagh and his friends. He comforted himself with the reflection that consistency like adversity sometimes brought strange bed-fellows. He seconded the Amendment of his hon. friend because he came to the House pledged to his constituents to vote against the endowment of a

775
denominational University whether overt or covert. Whatever the paper constitution, who would deny that in intention and in fact they had here two denominational Universities? He might not be able to answer the demand of the hon. Member for East Mayo to define a denominational University, but he knew one when he saw it, and there were two of them in this Bill. It really did seem passing strange to an sophisticated back bencher like himself that the Liberal Party should be asked to spend part of the session in endeavouring to expel the denominational atmosphere from the State-supported elementary schools in England and Wales, and another part of the same session in introducing the denominational atmosphere into State-supported Universities in Ireland. The Bill was against Liberal principles. It was one of the most cherished principles of the Liberal Party that State-endowed higher education should be undenominational. Here they had the concurrent endowment, as he took it, of three distinct denominations. They had one University mainly intended for Roman Catholics, and another in Belfast mainly intended for Presbyterians, while Trinity College tertius gaudens got away with endowments free to apply them to the uses of the Episcopalian Church. He supported the Amendment because what the Bill proposed was against the trend of modern educational policy in this and in every other country. The older Universities were getting rid as fast as they could of their denominational atmosphere, and the new Universities did not allow that atmosphere to be introduced. So far as regarded Belfast the attitude of that city was one at most of acquiescence. Belfast, before the Robertson Commission, repudiated any desire for a University, and now it was to have a University foisted upon it as a makeweight. What was the dose which had put to sleep the Nonconformist watchdogs while the right hon. Gentleman was burgling their safe? It appeared to be Clause 3 which prohibited tests—
"No test whatever of religious belief shall be imposed on any person as a condition of his becoming or continuing to be a professor, lecturer, fellow, scholar, exhibitioner, graduate, or student of, or of his holding any office or
776
emolument, or exercising any privilege in either of the two new Universities, or any constituent college; nor in connection with either of those Universities or any such constituent college shall any preference be given to or advantage be withheld from any person on the ground of religious belief."
If that clause was relied upon by his Liberal or Nonconformist friends, either as a guarantee of undenominationalism or as a guarantee for the freedom of the teaching of the professors, they were relying upon something which was utterly illusory. In the first place, the very constitution of the governing bodies of these new Universities would mean in itself a de facto religious test. They had it on record in the evidence of the ecclesiastical witnesses before the Robertson Commission and the Fry Commission that the governing body of a college or University to satisfy the Catholic demand must be dominantly Roman Catholic. They had it on record from another ecclesiastical witness that the laymen on the governing body must be such as would "generally defer at once to the ascertained wishes of the bishops." Any applicant for the post of professor or teacher in Belfast or Dublin might not legally be asked the question: "What is your religious belief? Are you of this, that, or the other faith?" But under this clause he might be asked questions which would amount equally to a religious test. He might be asked as a condition of his appointment whether he would teach or abstain from teaching a particular view, say, of history or of science. That being so, if he were rejected on that inquiry, and if a complaint were made, the governing body would be entitled to say: "We were not testing his religious belief. We were merely ascertaining whether he would be an efficient and suitable teacher," That was de facto a religious test. They had it further in the evidence of the ecclesiastical witnesses that it was the bishops who must determine the "boundaries of the scientific region" in secular subjects. The right hon. Gentleman took credit to himself in the able speech in which he introduced the Bill that he was sweeping away the declaration which at present had to be made by those who were appointed professors in the Queen's colleges at Cork and Galway.

777
A portion of that declaration said that the professor was—
"Not to make any statement…injurious, or disrespectful to the religious opinion of any portion of my class."
MR. DILLON: There is more than that. Read it all.
*DR. HAZELsaid he proposed to apply his remarks to the portion he had read. Any hon. Member who wished to comment on any other portion could read it. He held that the abolition of declaration opened the way for denominational teaching of the most pronounced character. It made it perfectly possible in any one of these State-endowed colleges to carry on open proselytising, whether on the Protestant or the Roman Catholic side. It proved that the colleges which were to be provided for the benefit of the Roman Catholics would satisfy the requirements laid down by one of their ecclesiastical witnesses, who stated that the college must be "substantially a denominational college without tests." Referring to the question of the tenure of the present professors, the hon. Member said that was a matter on which considerable interest and even perturbation had been excited in the minds of the present staff at Cork and Galway. The Chief Secretary, in introducing the Bill, referring to Cork and Galway, used these words—
"Existing professors will of course go on and be professors of the new University, but upon the old terms. When they die or retire the Senate will appoint their successors."
In the Bill, as printed, Clauses 12 and 13 proposed not that these gentlemen should go on as before but that on the "appointed day"—which was likely to be a fatal day to some of them—their places were to become vacant, and they were only to take them up again if they were reappointed by the Dublin Commission, whose names he did not at present know. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to relieve the minds of those gentlemen, for at the present time the position seemed to them to be that they might lose their posts. Further, he asked, was this Bill to be a final settlement of the question?
778
He knew perfectly well that some of his hon. friends on those benches had waived the objection which they held to denominational endowment, and had supported this Bill in the belief that it would at last settle the religious difficulty in regard to University education in Ireland, and would allow the education of that country, too long neglected, to advance as it ought to advance. What was the position? It was perfectly certain that the arbiters of the success or non-success of the scheme would be the Roman Catholic hierarchy. He found in an article which had recently attracted a good deal of attention, that a most distinguished Bishop well-qualified to speak for the Roman Catholics in Ireland, Dr. O'Dwyer, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick, had expressed his great disappointment with the Bill. He said "it hurts the religious sense of the people," he objected to the omission of the bishops qua bishops from the governing bodies, and declared that their claim to be on the Senate should be pressed as a matter of principle. If Dr. O'Dwyer was speaking for any considerable number of Roman Catholic Bishops, he foresaw that this settlement, welcomed by almost everyone when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill, was likely to be no settlement at all. He thought, therefore, they were justified in asking, and insisting on asking, whether this would be accepted as a final settlement or whether it would be used as a lever to get further concessions. He desired to say a word as to the position of Trinity College. He hoped he would be acquitted of any desire of making an attack on Trinity. Trinity was an Alma Mater of his, and he happened to be the possessor of a couple of her degrees, and to be misrepresented in this House by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for the University of Dublin. He fully admitted the great traditions and possibilities that there were in Trinity for the advancement of the higher education of Ireland. He regretted exceedingly that it seemed likely that under this Bill and by the policy of those responsible for the government of Trinity, those great traditions and possibilities instead of being put to the service of the nation, were to be devoted to interests of a denomination or a party.

779
It was intended, when Trinity was founded that she should be the nucleus of a great National University. That position was put forward with great force in the appendix of the Lord Chief Baron, Dr. Hyde, and Dr. Coffey, to the Report of the Trinity College (Dublin) Commission, and their arguments had never been answered. He contended that to reserve Trinity, as it would be practically reserved under this Bill, for the Unionists and for the episcopalian portion of the inhabitants of Ireland was an abuse of the intentions of the foundress. He did not want to enlarge at length on the position of Trinity, but he would say that so far as that college was concerned, he, for his own part, would have much preferred the scheme of Mr. Bryce. That scheme was based on the great conception, the magnificent ideal of a National University, with Trinity at its head. But Trinity would have none of it. The distinguished advocates who represented Dublin University, aided by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, who was a safer guide on the aspects of Greek genius than on the aspects of Irish politics, carried the fiery cross round the Combination rooms of Cambridge and the Common rooms of Oxford, and raised a considerable academic uproar against the proposals of Mr. Bryce, with the result that they appeared to have frightened the present Chief Secretary into giving up the Bryce scheme. They said: "Trinity is saved." But saved from what, and saved for what? Saved from the possibility of being a great National University; saved for the use of the Ascendency Party and of the Episcopalian Church: That might be a victory, but from the general standpoint of education in Ireland it was not a victory to be proud of. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman who seemed to have set out on a crusade of University reform would not stop at this Bill. He hoped that something would be done to carry out the recommendations of the Commission in regard to Trinity College. It called for reform at every turn. Anybody who examined the constitution and emoluments of the present governing body of Trinity would admit that it was not unfair to say that at the present moment Trinity was ruled
780
by an elderly and highly-paid oligarchy. Another great institution that would be affected by this Bill was the Royal University of Ireland. The Royal University of Ireland was to be abolished. He held no brief for an examining University. It was by no means the best form of a University; but it was better than none at all. The Royal University, as everybody would admit, had done great and useful service to education in Ireland. Here he would like to drop a tear over the grave of the external student. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to kill him off at the end of a time-limit of five years, thereby axtending to him less mercy then was granted to the licensee. He thought that if the external student was to be entirely abolished in Ireland as the right hon. Gentleman proposed—as the Trinity College Commission proposed to abolish him also, so far as Trinity was concerned—if it were impossible to get a degree except by attendance at lectures not only would great injury be done to education generally, but injustice inflicted on teachers, clergymen, Nonconformist ministers, and many others of both sexes, who were content for the sake of education and of their own advancement, to work hard and long in order to be fitted to present themselves for examination. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would make some provision for external students alongside the new foundation as was at present done in the University of London. He did not want to go into a disquisition on the value of examinations and an examining body. They were discussed when the Bill was introduced. He remembered the Leader of the Opposition denouncing examinations amid the sympathetic cheers of his supporters behind him, some of whom had been ploughed with painful frequency in the more elementary examinations at 0xford and Cambridge. [OPPOSITION cries of "Name."] He could understand the right hon. Gentleman himself saying that he himself was not a success as an examinee. It was very difficult to imagine any undertaking in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would not be a brilliant success; but from his own experience of examinations, active and passive, examiners liked definite answers; and

781
if the present was any indication of the past he could quite believe that the answers of the right hon. Gentleman to questions on political economy would be a little too vague to earn the highest marks. At any rate, whether examinations were the best method of testing knowledge or not, they were a useful method and a very valuable incentive to the acquisition of knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary proposed that nobody should get a degree unless he attended college lectures. There was no educational magic about college lectures. He had heard and delivered too many to be under any delusion about their value. A young man or woman might obtain knowledge from admirably written text-books just as well as from badly taken lecture notes. That was rather a technical point, but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman, before this Bill passed into law, would hear that there was in educational circles a very strong consensus of opinion that it would be from an educational point of view a great mistake entirely to abolish the external student. There was one other point he would like to touch upon. The hon. Member for Cork, in the very eloquent speech in which he supported the introduction of the Bill—a speech which was a delight to everyone who heard it—said that one of the results of the Bill would be—
"The emancipation of the Catholic youth of Ireland from intellectual penal laws."
It might be that the Catholic youth of Ireland did labour under intellectual penal laws; but who imposed them? If there were any they were not imposed by Parliament or by the Universities at present existing in Ireland, but by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. He did not want to trouble the House with minute details; but on this point it was necessary to remind it that in Trinity College, Dublin, Roman Catholics were admitted to degrees in 1793, and it had been open to them ever since. And it was stated in the Robertson Commission Report that—
"For fifty years after that date there was hardly a Roman Catholic layman of eminence who had not been educated at Trinity."
Why did that stop? It was because of the episcopal ban which enacted the
782
intellectual penal laws. Here was what the Report of the Royal Commission stated—
"There is a considerable body of Roman Catholic laymen in Ireland who would gladly send their sons to Trinity if they could do so with the approbation of their Church, and their views have been presented to us in evidence."
They obeyed the ban and kept their sons away from Trinity; and, therefore, the intellectual penal laws, so far as they applied to young Catholics, were imposed not by Parliament, not by Trinity, not by the Royal Irish University, not by the Queen's Colleges, but by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. He knew that it was put on record by two Prime Ministers, by Mr. Gladstone and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London that: "They had no right to go behind the Episcopal veto and ask whether it was justified or not"; but he contended that they were entitled to inquire how far the Episcopal demand was consistent. Anyone who had traced the course of events during the last few years would admit that there had been a gradual fall in the demand. Changing times changed the attitude; and he was not without the hope expressed by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that if this Bill had not been brought forward at this juncture they would have had a still further development and that Irish Catholic youths would have been allowed to go to an Irish University with the same freedom as English Catholics without injury to their faith or morals went to Oxford and Cambridge and to the other English and to the Scottish Universities. He believed that among the laity of Ireland there was no great desire for any special denominational University of this kind. He would quote from the Appendix to the Trinity College Commission Report a statement by a member of that Commission, a Roman Catholic, a gentleman of note in the educational world, a layman and a fellow of Trinity. That gentleman used these weighty words—
"I believe the demand (for the establishment of a college for Catholics in Dublin) is unreasonable and could not be conceded without grave injury to the interests of Irish lay Catholics and grave danger at no distant date to the peace of the country."
AN HON. MEMBER (on the IRISH Benches): A minority of one.
*DR. HAZELsaid he quoted the gentleman as one, as a fellow of Trinity, as a Roman Catholic, and as a gentleman of weight in the educational world. Well, that unreasonable demand was now being conceded. But they were having more than that. They were having, not one denominational University in Ireland, buy three. He objected, to a Presbyterian University and to an Episcopalian University as much as to a Roman Catholic University. He objected to the whole scheme of tripartite denominationalism and this Trinity of sectarian Universities, and preferred the scheme of Mr. Bryce of a single National University. There they would have had undoubtedly colleges at first denominational; they might have met and probably would have met with difficulties of administration, but there was in that scheme the potentiality in the future of a great National University. The difficulties would have disappeared with experience and before the integrating influence of a common interest in higher education. What were the Government doing by this scheme? They were stereotyping denominationalism. They were penning the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, and the Roman Catholic, each in his own fold, leaving the Methodists bleating outside for admission. Higher education could be and ought to be a unifying force, an influence to break down the barriers and to lessen the differences that separated parties and creeds, and the right hon. Gentleman was using it in this scheme to strengthen those barriers and to perpetuate those differences. For these reasons, because he believed the Bill to be a social mistake, a political mistake, and an educational mistake, he begged to second the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out all after the word 'that' and insert the words 'this House refuses to take any step which would tend to increase the strength of denominational interests in any branch of education in Ireland, believing that the interests of truth and the welfare of the nation demand the maintenance of an entirely free atmosphere, particularly in the region of higher education, and that this cannot be secured on a denominational basis, and there-
784
fore declines to proceed further with the measure.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not rise for the purpose of entering upon any elaborate argument to prove the existence of the grievance from which the great majority of the people of Ireland have been suffering for generations and for centuries in this matter of Irish University education; because, I beg leave to say, with the utmost deference and respect to the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, that grievance has come to be admitted by both the great Parties in the State. Neither do I rise for the purpose of entering upon an elaborate and detailed criticism of the clauses of this Bill, although upon one or two details of a vital character I shall have a word or two to say; but I recognise that in speaking of the clauses and details of the Bill generally it is more convenient and more regular to discuss them in Committee rather than upon Second Reading. Still less do I rise for the purpose of entering upon a prolonged answer to the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. Before I sit down I shall endeavour to deal with the main arguments which they put before the House, but I would like to say that although I differ profoundly from the view that they have expressed, I make no complaint whatever of the manner in which they have put that view before the House or in which they have dealt with this question. I have been concerned in many debates upon this question in the past, and I recognise in the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, if I may be allowed to use the expression, a softer tone than that which we were accustomed to hear from the Gentlemen who represented what was called in these days the extreme Nonconformist view. I make no complaint whatever of their speeches. In fact, I rather gather from the speech of the seconder of the Amendment that he would have been in favour of passing Mr. Bryce's scheme.
*DR. HAZEL: May I point out that as between this scheme and Mr. Bryce's

785
scheme, I prefer Mr. Bryce's. I prefer a single national University.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I notice that it is always the scheme that is dead that is approved. "You praise the prophets that your fathers stoned and you stone the prophets of to-day." I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he prefers Mr. Bryce's scheme. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that he would have supported that scheme or nothing of the kind. I gather that all he will say is that that is a better scheme, but he would have opposed it. I am sorry to have elicited that from the hon. Gentleman, because I was going on to give him some credit for having made some advance and for being willing to go as far as Mr. Bryce's scheme. But my object in rising is far different from this. I consider it desirable, and I think it is due to the Chief Secretary and to this House, to make plain at the earliest possible moment, and in the most direct and unequivocal manner, what is the attitude which the Irish Party take up with regard to the main principles of this measure, speaking, as I claim they are entitled to do, for the general body of the Catholic people of Ireland. I said that as to the existence of this grievance I will not say many words, and as to the urgent need for the redress of that grievance for forty years at least, it has been admitted by the leading statesmen of both Parties in this House that the majority of the people in Ireland have been suffering from a grievance in this matter. It is thirty-five years since Mr. Gladstone introduced his University Bill, and from that day to this various Ministers have made various attempts to settle the question. Almost every leading statesman on one side or the other has admitted that the grievance existed, and the plain facts of the case admit of no doubt or controversy. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment complained of a phrase used by my hon. friend the Member for the City of Cork about penal laws upon the intellect of young Irishmen in this matter of University education, and he tried to lead us to believe that these penal laws were really of their own making or of the making of the
786
Church or the clergy of the Church to which they belonged. Why, the plain fact of the matter is that for over 300 years, a small—a very small—minority of the people of Ireland, have had the advantage of a highly endowed University institution in the shape of Trinity College, Dublin, but the overwhelming majority of the population, 75 per cent. of the population, until recent years, have been denied facilities for University education altogether, and down to this hour are deprived of any real University institution deserving that name except one to which their religious convictions make them object. The hon. Gentleman says that they ought not to have these religious convictions, but surely in this matter if you attempt to decide what is right or wrong in the religious convictions of your neighbours you are exercising religious tyranny. If 75 per cent. of the people of Ireland have a religious objection to going to a Protestant denominational University institution, surely they are entitled to ask that an institution shall be provided to which they can go. The only University institution that has been open to them up to to-day has been the Royal University. That is only a University in name. The hon. Member has quoted copiously from the Reports of some of the recent Royal Commissions, but he has not quoted what the Royal Commission to whose authority he adverted has said about this Royal University. What did that Royal Commission say? It described the Royal University—
"As an institution which suffered from incurable defects and which had lowered the ideal of University life and education in Ireland."
While in Scotland you have four democratic Universities all in harmony with the religious feeling of the people, while you have in England a number of University institutions none of which are abhorrent to the religious opinions of the people in England, in Ireland there is practically none existing, except the Royal University, which is not a University at all, but a mere examining board. That is a grievance which has been admitted by both Parties in the State and by all enlightened statesmen of the last thirty or forty years. Neither

787
need I dwell upon the incalculable injury done to Ireland by the delay in the settlement of the question. It is unnecessary to point out the consequence of this denial of University facilities to the youth of Ireland. We have been repeatedly told from the Front Bench, when we complained that Englishmen and Scotsmen were given office in connection with the government of Ireland—I never admitted it was a sufficient answer—that those in authority found it impossible to find men in Ireland qualified to fill those offices. In every walk of life Ireland has suffered from this want of University education. Now, Sir, this Bill undoubtedly affords a remedy. There have been many schemes proposed, and many advocated. There has been a good deal of difference among competent men as to what is the best scheme. We have various ideals: I do not say that I myself personally think this an ideal scheme. If I personally had the power to draft and carry a scheme it probably would be different in some essentials, perhaps in many, from this scheme, but let me point out how pathetic has been the attitude of the Catholics of Ireland upon this question. They have been willing all through the last thirty-five years to sink their individual preferences for this or that scheme. They have been willing to accept any scheme so long as it contained the vital essential principle of equality of treatment as between Catholics and Protestants in the matter of University education. I remember in 1889 when the Leader of the Opposition made his famous speech in which he said that the Catholics must give up all idea of a University; that they should be content to take a college and not a University; and then laid down three hard and fast conditions which he said the Catholics must accept before his Party would advocate that scheme. Well, Sir, the laity and clergy of Ireland accepted his conditions and agreed to his proposals, and then his proposals were dropped and never heard of after. Then in 1904 Lord Dunraven brought forward a scheme—nominally it was Lord Dunraven's scheme, but it was well known it was put forward on behalf of the Government of that day,
788
and had the sanction and the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. Again conditions were formulated and the men who did not approve of that particular scheme were approached. Concessions again were made, and all men, whatever their ideas, recognising in this scheme something which approached equality of treatment, sank their differences and accepted it, clergy and laity alike; once again that scheme was dropped and never heard of again. Then Mr. Bryce proposed a scheme, and again there were differences of opinion as to whether it was the best or not, and again concessions were asked and again were made. Again men sank their differences of opinion, and all agreed—clergy and laity—to accept Mr. Bryce's scheme which we were told was the scheme of the Government. I think I am justified in saying on behalf of the Catholics of Ireland that, though there may be differences of opinion as to whether this is precisely the best and most ideal scheme or not, if they can recognise in it, and I believe they do, the beginning, at any rate, of a settlement of this University education question, and an element of equality, they will sink their differences and once again accept the scheme you propose. Is it to be conceived that under these circumstances any Members in this House, no matter how strong their views may be, will attempt to step in and after all these generations of young Irishmen have gone out into the world unequipped for the struggle of life, owing to the unsettlement of this question, take the responsibility of standing between Ireland and this boon, as I believe it will be? I said the details of the matter had better be left to the committee. There is one detail only that I will deal with, but it is a vital one. As I understand the finance of the Bill, no provision is made for the erection of a residential college. I speak my own view, and it is most strongly that that strikes at the very root of the matter. I take the view that the common life of the University which springs from residence is the most valuable part of University life. I confess I dread the idea of young men being brought up from all parts of Ireland to attend lectures in this new college and University, and instead of living in a residential college being scattered out in poor lodgings in back

789
streets of the city. On this question I might also quote the authority of the Royal Commission. What will strike the imagination of the Irish people if there is no residential college? We are asking for equality. There in Trinity College, Dublin, before the eyes of the people, is the most magnificent residential college in the three Kingdoms. You propose to set up in Dublin a college without any residence whatever. Will that strike the people of Ireland as equality? The Royal Commission used these words—
"Unless what is done is done on an adequate and impressive scale it need not be done at all. It is necessary that in the majority of the buildings, the emoluments of the teachers and the equipment of the establishment, the institution should command respect and inspire enthusiasm."
I most strongly urge upon the Government and upon those responsible in particular for the finance of this Bill that they should increase the finances so as to enable the building fund to include the building of residential quarters. Those who are interested in university education questions will remember Cardinal Newman's declaration upon this point. He went to the extreme of saying that he would rather have a University with residents and without teachers or lecturers or examiners at all, than the best teachers and lecturers and no University life. Let me read his words—they are very striking, and very short—
"I protest to you, gentlemen, that if I had to choose between a so-called University which dispensed with residence and tutorial superintendence and gave its degrees to any person who passed an examination in a wide range of subjects, and a University which had no professor or examiners at all, but merely brought a number of young men together for three or four years, if I must determine which of the two courses was the more successful in training, moulding, enlarging the mind, which sent out men the more fitted for their secular duties, which produced better public men, men of the world, men whose names would descend to posterity, I have no hesitation in giving the preference to the University which did nothing."
That is an extreme presentation of the view which I for one hold strongly, and which. I believe, is held strongly in Ireland, and I urge upon the Government in the interests of equality and in the interest of the success of their scheme to enlarge the building grants which are proposed, so as to enable them to build residential quarters. Let me say just one or two
790
words now in answer to the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment described this as the erection of a frankly denominational University, and a frank endowment of a particular religion. I cannot for the life of me understand what he means. My hon. friend the Member for East Mayo asked him what he meant, but he did not give a very precise or intelligible answer. Is this a denominational University—a University where there is no test for anybody, students, Senate, governing body or teachers, which is open to all classes, where there is no inducement to one man more than another to enter? The hon. Gentleman failed altogether to substantiate his statement that you were holding out inducements to Catholics to go into the so-called Catholic College in Dublin—inducements which we are not to hold out to Protestants or members of any other creed—where there is no inducement to any particular student of a particular denomination to enter, where the governing body is elective, where there is no endowment whatever of any religious teaching, where the professors are freely chosen and elected by the Senate, and where, even in the case of dismissal there is a power of appeal to a board of visitors. On that point I ought to safeguard myself by saying I think the provision of the Bill on this matter is far too stringent and is most unsatisfactory. If I understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, what he meant by a denominational University was an institution in which the atmosphere was denominational. How is he going to get away from that? Is there any University which by that test is not a denominational University? According to that test Trinity College is a denominational University, and so are Queen's College, Belfast, the Scottish Universities, and Oxford and Cambridge. You established a University at Khartoum the other day. I am sure the majority of students attending it are Mohammedans, and it has a denominational atmosphere. I was amazed at reading a letter the other day from a very eminent Presbyterian, County Court Judge Shaw. Here is what he said, after having reminded the Presbyterians that they had been battling for half a century for an undenominational or non sectarian system,

791
and that they had got it embodied in the right hon. Gentleman's Bill—
"The undenominational system is all right, it appears, as long as it is worked by a majority of Protestants, but all wrong when it is worked by a majority of Catholics."
In that sense this college in Dublin will have a denominational atmosphere. The majority of the students going there will be Catholics. You cannot help it. If the majority of the people in Ireland who are deprived of University facilities happened to be Mahomedans or Buddhists the institution would take their colour; but because the majority in Ireland happen to be Catholic, to say that you are in the name of undenominationalism to refuse to give an institution which has no tests, and which has the other characteristics that I have mentioned, seems to me an inconsistent and an unworthy attitude to take up. This scheme is not all that we have asked for. At one time or another the Catholics of Ireland have asked a good deal more than is contained in this Bill. In some respects I hope we shall be able to amend and enlarge it, but it will create a beginning. It will create a free University institution to which the Catholic youth of the country can freely go. It will open at last the gates of University education for the mass of common men in Ireland. Believing as I do that after freedom there is nothing more precious to a nation than enlightenment, my colleagues and I will accept the Bill, and after discussion in Committee upon these points, and other points of a similar character, will do all in our power to have it passed into law.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford has touched on several points on which I do not propose to follow him now, and on one point I am not sure that I quite share his view. I think he attaches undue importance to the point of a residential college with all that a residential college carries with it. The tendency of modern Universities has been to get away as rapidly as possible from bricks and mortar, and concentrate effort on lecture halls for teaching, and not to set up residential buildings. However, it is not necessary to to go into that question just now. I can point to illustrations. I can tell the hon. Member for Waterford that
792
excepting Trinity College and Oxford and Cambridge, I know of no University at this time that has got colleges such as the hon. and learned Member seems to desire on behalf the new University. But hostels and places of residence may be a very different thing, something on a more modest scale, which gives the lodgings which may be required for the students. That question remains open for discussion, and I only wish to guard myself from being thought to accept the views attached, not only by the hon. and learned Member but by others, to the importance of the collegiate buildings of Universities such as this. But I do not rise to deal with any point of such secondary importance in this great matter. I want to state the case of the Government for this Bill, and it is a very simple case. We hold that justice and expedience alike call for the redress of the great wrong under which Ireland continues to suffer. We hold that as year succeeds year, and that as in other countries besides our own, the development of higher education reaches greater and greater degrees, it is wholly indefensible that Ireland should be left without any participation in the advance which higher education is meted out elsewhere. The scheme of this Bill is one which has been designed to meet the difficulties of the situation. I wholly differ from my hon. friend the Member for Morley in his view that this is the response to a Catholic demand. It is a response to nothing of the kind. It is a response to an educational claim, a claim which we maintain has been deferred so long that it is one of the duties of this vigorous Parliament, which in other matters has succeeded where other Parliaments have failed, to take it up and try to provide the remedy required.
MR. HUTTON: Who has made that educational claim except on behalf of the Roman Catholics?
MR. HALDANE: Of all the narrow questions I have heard put to this House I think the question of my hon. friend is one of the narrowest. Does he imagine that nobody in Ireland cares for higher education except the Roman Catholics? Has he ever been to Belfast and looked into the question, or does he say that Roman Catholics are not entitled to ask for higher education?

793
Is a man, because he happens to be of a kind of religion which is different from that of my hon. friend, to be penalised and denied the rights of a citizen? No such doctrine would be accepted by any large section of people at this hour of the day. What is the proposition in this Bill? It is to deal with a situation in which there is altogether inadequate provision for higher education in Ireland. Of course in doing that you have to deal with denominational difficulties, and the principle which underlies the Bill is this: We seek to put the educational case first, and then to reduce the denominational element to the very smallest we can possibly encompass. I venture to say that if this Bill passes, and if the system which it seeks to erect becomes a reality, then the case in Ireland will not be a case materially different from the case of those on this side of the Irish Channel. If my hon. friend will come to me and discuss the University question, I will take him into places where there is a denominational atmosphere pervading everything, but not in an offensive and mischievous way, and it will not prevail in an offensive or mischievous way if this Bill passes. I will show him that the whole atmosphere of the Scottish Universities is Presbyterian, and that the teaching of some of the professors is, and must be, based on Presbyterian lines. Yet I do not hear from my hon. friend any disposition to throw any difficulties in the way of those Universities. I can take him again to London University, with which is incorporated King's College, a denominational college, a college which justice demanded should be incorporated when we set up the new teaching University for London. I will take him to Oxford and to Cambridge, and in each the denominational atmosphere pervades everything. You cannot get rid of these things—you cannot eliminate them altogether. What you can do is to make sure that they do not interfere with education, and that they make no special demands on the funds of the State. Having defined in that way the purposes of the Bill, let us see what is the broad case on which it rests. In England we have within the last nine years created six new teaching Universities, and we now have ten of them. London University was called into existence some ten years ago, and since that Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield,
794
and we hear talk to-day of Bristol, have teaching Universities. That is an analogy which you cannot leave out of account in a Parliament which is responsible for the well-being of Ireland. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, who leads the Opposition, stated in 1899 to his constituents at Manchester that it was a blot upon Unionism that this state of things should exist, and that Ireland should be left out in this fashion; and it would be a blot upon the records of this Parliament if we did not do our best to deal with this question. Take Scotland, which has a population very nearly the same as that of Ireland. She has four teaching Universities. What is the result? The highest education is within the reach of every young man and young woman. They have the means by which they can take an honourable part in the life of the State, and by which they can rise to almost every position. But in Ireland there is a wholly different condition of matters. The state of things which is produced is, I think, really lamentable. A young Irishman of talent, cut off from the highest education, is debarred from many things which are open, with great advantage, to the poorer classes in this country, with the result that offices in Ireland tend to become filled up by those who are of one religious opinion, and that in Ireland there is a condition of things which we could not tolerate if we had to be responsible for it here. I remember some time ago talking this over with one of the most eminent Unionists in Ireland, a man of great knowledge of the country, and he read some words to me containing the point of view of the Catholic hierarchy. I would like to read what he stated. He said—
"The point of view of the hierarchy was to discourage young Catholics from passing from spheres of primary and intermediate education, which were in substance denominational, into the only higher sphere of University education which was at present open to them in Ireland."
That is the denominational sphere.
"The concern of the bishops was not so much for denominational University teaching as lest under a mixed or undenominational system Catholic students should be exposed to agnostic influences, or influences positively hostile to Catholic doctrine. The result was that no really devout Catholic would go to any of the present teaching Universities or Colleges, with the exception of the one or two miserably equipped Catholic colleges, which, under the present system, struggled on unendowed

795
It followed that the larger number of the most intelligent students, who had been drawn by the intermediate education system from the lower order of the Roman Catholics, were thrown upon the world with an incomplete education, without the ability to see how little they really knew, and so spoilt, by their success in their intermediate career that they had either lost or had not acquired the habit of self-control. These students found themselves with sufficient knowledge to be dissatisfied with the lot of their parents, but without sufficient education to fulfil their proper function of advancing through competitive examinations to the posts in the Civil Service, the Indian Service, etc., which, had they University education, many of them would have reached—they become an idle, discontented lot, picking up a precarious livelihood by occasional journalism, and, by their discontent, filling the Press with that underspirit of disloyalty and hatred of England which all self-respecting Irishmen deplored."
I am giving the Unionist view of the effect of the want of higher education in Ireland. The quotation goes on—
"And I am certain it is true to this extent, that many positions in Ireland which could be filled honourably by Irishmen are not filled by Irishmen, or if they are they are positions filled by Protestant Irishmen, which ought to be filled in proportion to the opinions of the people"
The plan of the Bill is to avoid as far as possible the rocks on which Sir Robert Peel's Queen's College system and Mr. Gladstone's attempt failed. In those days the religious question preponderated over education. To-day in Ireland we have an indication that the educational question is preponderating over the religious question. There has been a disposition to give up extreme claims, which was noted in the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford, and to accept things which twenty-five years ago would not have been accepted, One of most notable advances is that upon which this Bill is very much based, the declaration by which the Catholic bishops at Maynooth, in June, 1899, laid down four things which were in fact the giving up of claims which had been made in days gone by, and which certainly would be made on behalf of strictly Catholic Universities. In the first place they said they were prepared to give up all claim to State funds for the teaching of religion. Secondly, they were prepared to accept the principle of the Test Act and to exclude all tests from their University. Thirdly, there was to be security of tenure to teachers. Fourthly, they were prepared to accept the principle, however reluctantly—though the time has come
796
when they are ready to accept it for the great benefits of higher education to be given in the future for the people—that a majority of laymen should be on the governing body of the, University, and that is a marked and a great advance. Then there was a marked advance in the Assembly at Belfast, a few months afterwards. The University question was discussed and the Committee on Higher Education made a recommendation to the Assembly which, so far as I know, and I have watched the records ever since, has not been changed, that there should be equal treatment on the footing of two open Universities, one for the north of Ireland and one for the south of Ireland.
MR. SLOANWhen was that?
MR. HALDANE: It was in 1898. It was the statement of the Committee on Higher Education, published to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Dr. Leach, Moderator, on the 29th March, 1898. The proposition of it was that to this new northern University should be extended whatever independence or self-government may be accorded to the proposed Roman Catholic University. Then they went on to say that it was really a question of atmosphere. I want to come to what lies at the root of the whole matter. What is being asked for by the Catholics and Presbyterians in Ireland? What is it that they are desirous of having? They are anxious that the students who go to the University should not be, exposed to influences which would directly militate against their religious faith; in other words, they do not want their religion taught there, they do not want State funds used for the setting up of denominational teaching, but what they want is some security against their young men having their minds influenced by teaching of a kind which is directly hostile to the religions teaching to which they have been brought up. We have heard of something of that kind in other Universities, but they ask for it in Ireland in a very moderate form. They are content that in the appointment of the governing body, which for the first five years is to be appointed by the Crown, care should be taken in the selection

797
of that body, so as to see that, while those constituting it are laymen—and laymen of distinction in science and learning, and by their representation of great commercial interests in the country—they should be people who would be trusted to see that no attack was made upon the religious faith of the students. I think in a country like that that demand is a very reasonable one, and one that we should accede to, and it is the only touch of denominationalism that there is in this scheme. In Ireland the question arises in a particularly direct way. Four-fifths of the Irish people are Catholics. ["No."] Very nearly, but I will not dispute about decimals. But suppose it is two-thirds, or three-fourths, and, as regards the south, far more than four-fifths of the people who would go to the southern University are Catholics. What we want is to secure, not only to them, but in the northern University also, that the governing body shall be men who can be relied upon to exercise a just judgment in this matter, and who will not try to run particularly hostile influences against the teaching of the students. For instance, they would not like in Belfast that the governing body should consist entirely of Episcopalians, nor would my hon. friend from Yorkshire like the governing body of the institution with which he is associated to consist entirely of Episcopalians. He would say—and very fairly—that it should be representative of the feeling of the locality, and I think both my hon. friends the Member for Morley and the Member for West Bromwich would agree that it is perfectly reasonable in the North of England, where feeling runs high upon religious questions, that you should try to avoid having a governing body of an aggressive kind which should interfere with the teaching. In fact, something of that kind underlies the feeling against untested teachers coming into our elementary schools. That is the plan of the Bill—simply through care taken by the Government in the choice of the governing body to give this moderate amount of security. But the primary purpose in selecting the governing body is to select the men who are most eminent in education, most representative of great interests, and who can be most trusted to make things a reality.
798
Now, I come to another point. The hon. Member for Morley said—
"Oh, but your University is going to become denominational right through, because you have taken power to affiliate colleges, and these affiliated colleges will have all the privileges of the constituent bodies."
He has not read the Bill or, if he has, he has not read the Charter. I will tell him the origin of the doctrine of affiliated colleges in the Bill. When we reconstituted in this House the teaching University of London in 1898, not only had we to provide for teaching by University professors in what was only an examining University up to that time, but we had to provide for teaching by teachers in colleges which were colleges of the University, and of colleges which were not even colleges of the University. There were institutions like King's College and University College which were autonomous, which we could not interfere with, and we had to do the best we could in the way of recognising the teachers of those institutions. We said to them: "If you will lay out proper courses for students who want to take University degrees, and if you will appoint proper teachers or submit the names of existing teachers whom we consider and approve, then teaching under those recognised teachers shall be recognised as qualifying for the work of the University, and we shall recognise your institution as a school of the University." In that way King's College and University College became in the first instance schools of the University, and subsequently, by special statute, colleges of the University. But there are many other institutions which were then and have since remained schools of the University. Now, what is a school of the University? It is a place where the student goes and pursues his course of training under particular teachers who have been approved by the University itself, and, permeated by its atmosphere, goes up to the University to be examined for his degree. It often happens that the teachers themselves are associated with the primary examination; that may or may not be. Well, that is just the plan we have taken here. There are the constituent colleges, which are the main bodies, but there are also the schools of the University—which are those affiliated institutions

799
which will only be affiliated if and when the governing body has considered the quality of the teaching and the general surroundings of the institutions, and has determined that a student can qualify himself, by attending the teaching there, to come up for examination at the school. It does not make the school a constituent college of the University, and it does not give it any voice in the management of the University. The head of the affiliated college does not come under the governing body of the new University. Now I come to the reasons why we have interfered with the old state of things. Complaint was made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich that we had given the go-by to the external system, under which the University was a mere examining University, like the Royal University of Ireland, and it is said it was a retrograde step to abolish the only Irish University which was free from everything denominational. Whether the Royal University was as free from denominationalism as my hon. friends think, I am not sure, and there are questions of its fellowships which I do not wish to enter upon now. But the system of a federal examining University stands condemned to-day by the very highest educational tribunal. In 1892, Liverpool sought to get a separate charter, and Manchester and Leeds demurred to the break-up of the Victoria University which that involved. They said that the federal system worked admirably, and that it was a good thing for those students to come up and be examined by a wholly independent body. Liverpool replied that you cannot make your degree of the highest educational value unless education and examination go together, and while the independent element is brought into the test, the teacher is still there to certify what the pupil is, and to assist in judging his capacity. That matter was referred to the strongest educational tribunal which, I think, has ever sat in this country—a Special Committee of the Privy Council, presided over by the late Duke of Devonshire, on which sat Lord Rosebery, Lord Balfour, Lord James of Hereford, and Sir Edward Fry. Some of us who were keen about it gave evidence and were severely cross-examined, and a long and searching inquiry ended in a pronouncement which was designed as a
800
guidance for the Government of the day in the grant of these charters. Under that pronouncement the federal system—and the system of the examining University a fortiori—stood condemned, and the Government was recommended to concentrate itself upon the principle of the teaching University, with close association between the teacher and the examiner. That is the great objection to the system which existed in Ireland. There there is a comparatively small teaching University—the University of Dublin. For the rest, three colleges, one in Belfast, the students of which have to go up to Dublin to be examined, one in Cork, and one in Galway, both at a great distance. Thus you have complete divorce between the testing and the teaching. Besides that, there is the little University College in Dublin which has a most honourable record, and which has kept its standard high against great and almost overwhelming difficulties—the college over which Dr. Delany has presided with great ability; further, a certain amount of teaching at Maynooth and Blackrock, but very little else. You have none of those magnificent technical colleges such as we have in Scotland, like the West of Scotland, the Heriot-Watt, and the other great colleges in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and like those great institutions which are springing up at South Kensington, and are beginning to a bound all over England. Ireland is deprived of the highest education, and the system is such as prevents the highest education growing up and exercising its influence on the moulding of the people. Is it tolerable that that condition of things should continue? I say that the time has come when it is an imperative duty on the part of this Government to take up the thing in the spirit in which it has been taken up here, where we are trying more and more to bring University education as close as possible to our doors, and to extend it to people who need it, if possible, more than it is needed here where there are other facilities for education open which are not available there. The case is one of a crying injustice, and when history comes to be written and this Bill has passed, the wonder will be, not that it passed, but that Parliament should have tolerated so long a refusal of this measure of justice. I have touched

801
upon the main points with which we have to deal, and I have stated why we propose to deal with them in this fashion. I was astonished to hear my hon. friend the Member for West Bromwich speak well of Mr. Bryce's scheme. It was admirable in many respects, but in the forefront of it was a Catholic college alongside an Anglican college and a Presbyterian college. There was denominationalism writ large. My own view is that it is a mistake to meddle with existing institutions in Ireland. You want to add to them, not to destroy them. Trinity College has a great and honourable record, and it is one of the bodies most dangerous to meddle with. The English statesman who lays his hand on that Ark of the Covenant shall surely perish. It is better to look to two great independent teaching Universities of a democratic type to which students can go at no great expense, which shall draw on the whole of Ireland and have affiliated and constituent colleges, presenting avenues through which the young people of Ireland may get access to the higher education hitherto denied to them. As to the suggestion that Belfast is having a University foisted upon it against its will, let me remind the House of the splendid contributions made by the citizens of Belfast for the development of the Queen's College, and their demand that the case of Belfast should be recognised. [Cries of "0h."] Is it not intolerable that hon. Members should demur to the proposition to recognise that this great city, with all its technical industries, should actually at this time of day in the year of grace 1908 come forward and say that a city like Belfast is to be denied the benefit of University education?
MR. GORDON: There was no suggestion of denial, but only that Belfast had not asked for it.
MR. HALDANE: Then so much the worse for Belfast. But the hon. Member is somewhat slandering the reputation of Belfast, which has taken an active part in calling for this higher education. To-day the leading citizens insist that, owing to the status and growth of the city, it is imperatively necessary that higher education should be available. The case of Belfast is not weaker than that
802
of the rest of Ireland, and could be argued on the same grounds of justice and expediency. I believe our plan is the best plan. But one question I will ask hon. Gentlemen opposite. What is it you propose? Is it to do nothing? Is it to leave the present grievances unredressed—to say that there is no case for higher education, and that Ireland is not to have the same proportion of Universities as the other parts of the kingdom? Or have you some other proposal to make? If you have, then I trust that we shall hear something more of it, for as one concerned with education, I feel that the debate would be most barren and most unsatisfactory if we cannot in the course of it induce hon. Members who are resisting this Bill to come out into the, open and say what they propose. Is it to give no University to Ireland beyond what she has at present? There is silence, a silence that is eloquent. The Government's plan stands as a plan without a rival. In the name of education, of expediency, and of justice to Ireland I appeal to the House to give a vote in favour of this Bill which will mark without any possibility of ambiguity the determination of this progressive Parliament to redress a great wrong.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: The position of the Chief Secretary is not an easy one. For four years this country has been in the throes of educational controversy on the question of religious teaching in primary schools; and hon. Members opposite have declared their undying hostility to providing denominational teaching at the expense of the State. A few years ago the Chief Secretary was the champion of his Party in that respect. He was the great foe to clericalism in primary education. Every one thought that he and his friends believed in those imperishable principles, and like the Pilgrim Fathers or the Covenanters, were ready to sacrifice everything for their undying hostility to clericalism and sectarianism in matters of education. What is the true position? Is it possible that these Gentlemen are now going to rivet the chains of clericalism, not upon young children, but on the rising manhood of Ireland? My hope for a solution of this question is of a totally different

803
character. The hon. Member for West Bromwich twitted my right hon. friend and myself who represent the University of Dublin in this House, that we had lent our voices and aid to preventing the University of Dublin from accepting the possible position open to it as the great national University in Ireland. My withers are unwrung on this matter because I have on the public platform and on the platform of the College Historical Society declared that it is my hope and dream that Irishmen should refuse any solution which would shut students up in hostile sectarian camps; I had hoped that by contact and association the young men of different denominations would learn that toleration and respect without which progress is impossible, and the absence of which has destroyed every movement for the, social regeneration of Ireland. The feeling is ripe for such a solution, and the means are at hand. Trinity College, by a toleration far in advance of its time, opened its doors to Catholics in 1793; and in 1873 abolished all religious tests. Every prize and every position of emolument has been open to all since 1873, without distinction of creed or class. But, though this is the solution I had hoped for, I found no suggestion of it in the scheme associated with Mr. Bryce's name. That scheme was denominationalism in its worst form because it proposed not one great national University, but a separate and distinct college reserved exclusively for Roman Catholics, conducting its own examinations and conferring its own degrees. That would have been an intolerable position, which would have resulted in the degradation of Trinity College, and would not have advanced the interests of higher education in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if his assertions are worth anything, the proposition which I have suggested would never have been accepted by the Roman Catholic, hierarchy, and without their consent the whole scheme would have been abortive.
MR. HALDANE: Was the offer ever made?
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: The right Gentleman ought to know the
804
history of the matter. There have been repeated and progressive advances made by the governing body which the Roman Catholics have rejected with scorn at the very outset, because it was plain the thing would not be possible. The idea in my mind, which I have frequently expressed, is that while in that particular I differ from the views of my right hon. colleague in the representation of the University, at the same time, seeing the attitude that was being taken up by the Roman Catholic hierachy on this question, and having regard to the attitude of the majority of the hon. Members below the gangway, I came to the conclusion, and to that conclusion adhere, that it was no right of mine to delay this matter of the grant of higher education to all my fellow-countrymen, or, at any rate, placing it within their grasp, and that my views should give way to that which apparently afforded the only possibility of a practical solution. Let me say also that I considered it an essential condition of any such scheme as that introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the skeleton of which is contained in the Bill, that it should be conditional upon its being impossible, so far as human foresight could provide against it, that such an institution should respond to the claims of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to be the sole arbiters in matters of higher education in Ireland. Does the Bill comply with that condition? When we speak of a denominational University as applied to Ireland we are speaking of a matter capable of a double sense. A denominational University may be denominational and yet free from ecclesiastical control. It may be that in a University of this kind in Ireland it is almost inevitable that it must be mainly, if not altogether, frequented by sons of Roman Catholics, and in that sense it is denominational; but that is not what is in the minds of those who dread and fear that it will become in fact and reality a strictly denominational University. What they dread is that it will become a University subject to and under the control of ecclesiastics, of the Roman Catholic Church. What will be the result of that? The right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill claimed great credit for the provisions which, according to him, were to prevent

805
the possibility of any religious inequality or religious injustice. I confess that I think the right hon. Gentleman would have contributed to the future successful passage of the Bill if he had been more frank with the House, and had told it plainly that this was at least, in the narrower sense I have mentioned, a denominational University, and is so intended to be. But, so far from making that claim for it, he rather took credit in the opposite direction, and he relied on Clause 3, as affording an almost impregnable guarantee against this University lapsing into strict denominationalism. What is Clause 3? The first five or six lines provide that there shall be no tests. Will anyone pretend that that is any protection? There are no tests, political or religious, in the Local Government Act, 1898, and we all know how that has been administered in different parts of Ireland. What security is it, in face of the fact which has been alleged by those who support the Bill, that the best justification for it is that you have in the University of Dublin a denominational University, although for forty years there have been no tests of any kind possible or permissible within the walls of the University? Therefore it is plain, and the framers of the Bill are perfectly well aware, that no provision as to tests will be worth the paper it is written on. The third section concludes—
"Nor in connection with either of these Universities or any such constituent college shall any preference be given to or any advantage withheld from any person on the ground of his religious belief."
What does that Mean? What is the sanction for it? Who is going to take care that that is enforced? You might as well let a cat loose in a room with a mouse and imagine there will be no undue interference with the liberty of the mouse. Let me test it. The remarkable thing about the Bill we are asked to discuss on Second Reading is that we have nothing but the skeleton in the Bill. The real substance is to be found in the Charters, which are not yet printed. Those Charters cannot be changed in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, opposite said that practically there is no provision for application in the Bill; it is all to be found in the Charter; and yet
806
the House has no voice in the framing of the Charters. Just consider the efficacy or utility of Clause 3. Suppose the Senate were to appoint to some of the professorships persons of the Protestant creed. What would be the result? The very next day the Roman Catholic hierarchy would publish their ban and anathema against the University. And they are bound to do so, for this reason—because they have declared time after time, as a matter of conscience and of religious faith and belief, that higher education is a question of faith and morals, and that it would be a deadly danger to the faith and morals of any of the Roman Catholic youth of Ireland to have, under any conditions or any safeguards, their teaching entrusted to any persons but teachers of their own faith. They have never departed nor receded from that decision, and I challenge anyone to contradict me on that point.
MR. GWYNN: Since the hon. Member makes that challenge, I would point out that in the Catholic College conducted by the Jesuits at Dublin there are three Protestant professors.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: That is no answer. The hon. Member knows perfectly well what are the relations between the Roman Catholics and the Jesuits in the matter of teaching. I am speaking of the Roman Catholic bishops, not of Jesuits, and they have affirmed solemnly that under no conditions will they be any party to, nor can they as a question of religious conviction permit, the teaching of the Roman Catholic young men being entrusted to any except teachers of their own religious persuasion. So long as that is so it is perfectly ludicrous to talk about this abolition of any provision for tests as being a guarantee against its becoming a University of the strictest form. While I was perfectly willing to accept the principle of this Bill had I found in it a provision which would have prevented the possibility of such a danger, I can only say that when I come to call the attention of the House to a few of the more important provisions in it as supplemented by the Charter I shall demonstrate that it is not only a possibility, but almost a certainty, that it will ultimately become in the strictest

807
ecclesiastical sense a denominational University. There were some precautions which the right hon. Gentleman might have taken to obviate such a result, but these he has deliberately thrown over. First of all, about the matter of affiliation. The right hon. Gentleman stated courageously and candidly on the First Reading of the Bill that he was quite certain that one of the things that ought to be done by the new Senate of the new University was to affiliate Maynooth. Let me tell the House that among the provisions of this Charter which you can neither alter nor amend——
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. BIRRELL,): The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Charter. He knows perfectly well that the Charter is a matter of Royal prerogative, and therefore strictly speaking there is no Charter in existence, but, feeling as I did that it would be impossible for the House to get any fair view of this question until we gave some indication of what in all probability would be in these Charters, I have circulated what I have called preliminary draft Charters.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: Of course that makes matters worse, because certain things are to be provided for in the Charters which do not yet exist, and over which this House will have no control whatever. In dealing with the question of affiliation under the provisions of the contemplated Charters it will be possible to affiliate Maynooth and for all its students to obtain the degrees of this University without ever spending an hour within its walls or attending a single lecture given by its professors and without passing a single examination conducted within it. That is the consummation which they wish for. What will be the effect? The result of that will be to turn this institution into a glorified seminary. There is absolutely no provision in the Bill, and there is nothing in the contemplated Charters, which would prevent the Senate from filling up every vacancy by the appointment of a Roman Catholic bishop. When we come to look at the persons who have been nominated by the right hon. Gentleman for the Senate as
808
result of the information conveyed by what he called his theological scouts, the whole thing seems like a gigantic joke. There are, I admit, a few names of distinguished men among them, but they are merely purple patches on a motley garment. A large proportion of them are men who are not distinguished in education or in any ordinary walk of life. Twelve out of the thirty-five are medical doctors, six of them being professors of the St. Cecilia School of Medicine, and all of them probably candidates for professorships in the new University. But the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to go to Belfast for two members of the Senate, and who do you think these are? One of them Thomas McGuire, who seems to have no qualification of any sort or kind. I never heard of him in connection with a University. But the mystery was solved on Saturday, when the Irish Times pointed out that he was a practising solicitor in Belfast who happens to be a member of the United Irish League. I have practised in Belfast for years, and while I have not a word to say against the respectability of this Thomas McGuire, he is by no means in the front rank of his profession. Then there is Mr. Alexander Dempsey; his only qualification is that he is a doctor, who has been brought in to make up the twelve doctors, except the other reason be that he also is a member of the United Irish League. Then we are told that there is a clerk in the Civil Service put on the Senate. I have the misfortune never to have heard of him before, but I find he owes his qualification, for he does not profess academic——
MR. BIRRELL: Who are you referring to?
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: Mr. MacNeill.
MR. BIRRELL: You are quite mistaken.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: Well, I never heard of him in connection with academic or educational matters, and the only qualification I can find that he possesses is that he is vice-president of the Gaelic League, which may be a very

809
excellent qualification. But there is one other vital defect in connection with this Bill—the worst and the most serious blot of all—and that is the gross injustice it seeks to perpetrate on the School of Medicine in connection with the College of Surgeons in Dublin. I am convinced that when the right hon. Gentleman has the facts presented to him he will realise the injustice that he has unintentionally inflicted on this old institution. I do not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to weaken the safeguards in the Bill by which the youth of Ireland may be able to receive the benefits of a University education as far as possible free from ecclesiastical supervision or domination. In regard to this School of Medicine attached to the College of Surgeons in Dublin, let me state briefly what the position is. There are three Schools of Medicine in Dublin. Besides the Medical School attached to the College of Surgeons, there is Trinity College, in the University of Dublin, a school in which the students have to engage not merely in a long scientific medical training, but in an Arts course for the purpose of obtaining an Arts Degree. Its fees are comparatively high, and therefore it is not available to students whose means do not enable them to pay them, nor is it available to students who do not want to take out the Arts course, but want to curtail their training to acquiring the Medical Degree. Then there is St. Cecilia. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this has been the medical faculty of the Catholic College, and, of course, it will become the medical school of this new University. That is, this school will be controlled by the Catholic bishops, who are governors of it, and are in possession of it. They run it; not only do they encourage it in every way in their power, but it is now notorious that in the south and west of Ireland no medical applicant for any post has any chance of appointment by local bodies unless he can show that he has a diploma of the St. Cecilia School. Therefore that school has a tremendous advantage as compared with the School of Medicine running in connection with the College of Surgeons. That school was established in 1734, and from that day to this it has been run
810
most successfully. It has had no endowment from the State, and has lived on its own merits. I therefore commend these facts to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are interested in this matter of undenominational education, because it is a school that has had neither politics, nor particular religious views. It has been governed by gentlemen of all politics and creeds, and it has been gladly resorted to by many Roman Catholic students, who in a way disliked the atmosphere of St. Cecilia, while they were not prepared to enter the Trinity Medical School. This Medical School attached to the College of Surgeons has been, as I have said, a con-spacious success. There are three thousand graduates from it scattered over Ireland and other parts of the world holding its diploma. What is to be their position under this University Bill? As I have said, the University when created under this Bill will at once adopt St Cecilia as its School of Medicine. It will have all the benefits of magnificent equipments and State money, of prizes, scholarships, bursaries, and professorships; and how then will it be possible for the School of Medicine attached to the College of Surgeons to compete with it? It will inevitably go under, and in the result you will have set up a denominational University in Dublin, and, in so far as in you lies, and you are able to accomplish it, every man who comes out of Dublin with a medical degree is to bear a religious brand upon him, because you will have killed the only undenominational School of Medicine that at present exists in Ireland. Why should that be done? If you are going to set up a richly-equipped and endowed School of Medicine in competition or rivalry with the Medical School of the College of Surgeons, how can you resist a demand which is consistent with ordinary justice, consistent with the practice of this House, in regard to an institution created by Charter, and carried on successfully, as this has been, for 150 years, and to the satisfaction of public—which will enable this institution to compete with some degree of success with its endowed and dangerous rival? These are matters in which it seems to me this

811
Bill is deficient. I do not apologise for dwelling on these points now. They are not Committee points, the more especially when, owing to a system which is unavoidable—for these Charters we have not yet seen, or only imaginary or suggested drafts of them—it is absolutely necessary that we should discuss them to-night, or if not, never get another chance. This Bill is capable, I believe, of providing possibly the only solution of a settlement of this vexed question of higher education in Ireland. But it will be only possible if it does so on lines which will prevent the institution from falling into the hands and under the complete control and domination of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland and becoming a glorified seminary. We have advanced very far, I fear, in that direction when we have made it possible and almost certain, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted, that the first thing this new Senate will do will be to affiliate Maynooth, and enable this large body of ecclastical students, not merely in Maynooth, but in every other institution in Ireland—for the provision which enables affiliation actually extends not merely to Maynooth, but to every institution which provides teaching. It is a most extraordinarily wide clause, and runs—
"Provided the University may accept the examinations and periods of study passed by students in the University or at other Universities or places of learning."
So that in order to be affiliated to this new University all that is required is a "place of learning." It may not be a college or a University, but only a "place of learning." I would like very much to know who is to limit that definition. What I say is that it is wide enough to include and contemplate the affiliation of Maynooth. I say that under it it will be possible to turn out, as graduates of this new University, hundreds of young clergymen with a University Degree in Arts who have never spent one hour in a class-room in a University, never listened to one lecture, and never passed through a curriculum which the University prescribes. I say, that as long as that is in this Bill, as long as the system of election of the Senate is such as it is, the measure will be objectionable, because the system proposed enables
812
only six out of thirty-five members of the Senate to be directly elected by Convocation. The rest are elected by small governing bodies inside the University, and there are only these six who are to be elected directly by Convocation. I think that is a very grave mistake, and that it gets rid of the suggestion that these men are going to be academically elected men. [An HON. MEMBER: There are only five not six.] I overstate the case, and I hear there are only five out of thirty-five, so that I gather that there is only one-sixth or one-seventh of the governing body directly elected by the graduates themselves. I feel deeply interested in the medical school attached to the College of Surgeons, although I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I hold no brief for them. On the contrary, their interests are contrary to those of Trinity College, Dublin, because they are rivals of the University of Dublin, though they are a considerable distance away. All that they ask is that they should be left alone, and not have a competitor, who up to the present has been on level terms with them and with whom they have been able to compete successfully, given the immeasurable advantage of being provided with State money, and enabled to obtain expensive equipments of the most modern and up-to-date kind, by means of which it will crush the School of Medicine by decreasing the number of students and the number of licentiates, and necessarily decreasing the number who apply for the Fellowship of the College of Surgeons. It will strangle the College if that is done; that will be inevitable under this Bill. Unless precautions are taken you will destroy the only extra-University qualification in the whole of Ireland. To show how that problem will work out, let me tell the House that in the year 1906 there were sixty-eight students who obtained the qualification of the College of Surgeons, and there were only forty who obtained the qualification of the University of Dublin and only fifty-eight who obtained the qualification of the Royal University, showing that that extra-University qualification is a most popular one among medical students in Ireland. What is the case in England in the same year, 1906? Why, the conjoint qualifications of the College

813
of Surgeons and the College of Physicians was conferred on 390 students, the total number from all the Universities in England being only 184, so that there were 390 young men in England who preferred to take this conjoint qualification of the College of Surgeons and the College of Physicians, as against the qualification at the same time conferred by the Universities in England. I make a strong appeal that the right hon. Gentleman will do something in this matter. They do not want to have their industry cramped in any way; they wish to go on with the same establishment and the same efforts which they have hitherto been making. They have contracted obligations of a pecuniary character which will last for many years to come in regard to their professors and their staff. I think it is a cruel injustice on the part of the State, and one which I do not think this House will tolerate, that a competing school should be set up by the State to crush out for the benefit of a rival an institution established a century and a half ago. If this is done there will be no school left for those students who detest the religious atmosphere in connection with their professional studies and who would like still to be allowed the opportunity of going to a school in which they can obtain excellent medical teaching, and at the same time breathe the pure atmosphere of civil and religious liberty.
MR. MCKEANthought the Chief Secretary was heartily to be congratulated upon the fact that the Amendment had been proposed and seconded and supported as it had been by the speeches to which they had listened. He would deal briefly with the speech of the last speaker. At first he thought from his action on the first Reading of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the measure. Therefore, he did not pay particular attention to the early part of his speech, but as the right hon. Gentleman continued, he found he occupied the unique position of being both for and against the Bill at the same time.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: If the hon. Member had taken the trouble to read the Votes he would have found that
814
I did not vote for the Bill on its First Reading.
MR. MCKEAN: I did not state that the right hon. Gentleman had voted for it. I referred to the position he had taken up, which is a totally different thing.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: What was the position?
MR. MCKEAN: You know your position. It is unnecessary for me to tell you what it was. Continuing the hon. Member repeated that the right hon. Gentleman occupied the remarkable position of being for and against the measure at the same time. One of the statements which the right hon. Gentleman made was that the bishops of Ireland would not allow a professor who was not a member of the Catholic faith to teach in any University institution there.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to do me the justice not to misrepresent what I said.
MR. MCKEAN: What did you say?
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I did not say what you suggested. What I said was that the Roman Catholic bishops have time after time declared as a matter of faith and morals, that it is a religious duty to prevent the Roman Catholic youth of Ireland being taught by any teachers except those who belong to their creed.
MR. MCKEAN: Is not that the same thing put in circumlocutory language? The right hon. Gentleman had set aside, or was not aware of the fact that three of the professors of Catholic College were of the Protestant faith, and that college was approved by all the bishops of Ireland. It was not only owned, but approved by all the bishops of Ireland. That statement was a very fair specimen of the character of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Another remark he made as showing the results of this Bill had reference to what had happened

815
in consequence of the Local Government Act of 1898, all over Ireland. But what about Belfast? The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the appointments on these local councils were all going to Catholics. But again he asked, what about Belfast and the Unionist districts; they, of course, appointed Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be briefed by the Royal College of Surgeons. [An HON. MEMBER: What about Belfast?] What he had asked was whether the corporation of Belfast employed Catholics. How many Catholics were in their employment, and what were the emoluments which they enjoyed? He ventured to say that in Belfast the Catholic employees did not receive one five-hundredth part of what the Protestants did. [An HON. MEMBER: Figures.] The hon. Member could give the figures; he made the statement.
MR. MOORE: Is the hon. Member aware that the county surveyor is a Roman Catholic?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
MR. MCKEAN, referring to the speech of the seconder, said that as the result of the culture which resulted from his University training the hon. Member had referred to a higgledy-piggledy lecture-room, and he hoped when the new University was started in Ireland it would cultivate more refined language than some of the English Universities. If it was the desire of the English people to have undenominational education it was the duty of the Government to satisfy the electorate. On the other hand, if the people of Ireland wanted denominationalism they had a constitutional right to it. They had to pay for it. The majority of the people of Ireland were Catholics, and they asked only that part of the money which they contributed to the Imperial Exchequer should be devoted to giving their children education such as they themselves wished for. In regard to tests for teachers he, as an Irish Catholic, objected entirely to the clause in the Bill which prohibited them. It would be an injustice to the teacher if he were shut out in this way from infusing into his teaching an element of religion,
816
so far as he thought it right to do so. They knew that moral and religious principles were often much better infused in giving instruction than in a religious lecture. He objected in the strongest possible way to subsection 4 of Clause 7. He objected to anything which placed an official ban on religious teaching. The money of the State could be used for teaching geology or Sanscrit, or any thing else. The one thing it could not be devoted to was teaching religion. Why should it not be devoted to teaching religion? They did not ask for English money, or for Protestant money. All they asked was that a certain portion of the money contributed by Roman Catholics should be devoted to teaching not only what they required in the way of secular instruction, but also religious teaching. He spoke for himself in this connection, and also he believed for a considerable section of educated public opinion in Ireland. The Government, with State money, maintained police and prisons for the detection and punishment of crime, but they refused to devote a cent to the propagation of that influence which was calculated to prevent crime—the greatest of all human influences—religion. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had pointed to the one great blot of this Bill, namely, the utter inadequacy of its financial provisions. Having regard to the fact that according to the findings of the Financial Relations Committee of 1894, Ireland was being overtaxed to the extent of £1,750,000 at that time, and to the fact that she had been overtaxed ever since to the extent of over £2,000,000 annually, she was entitled to more generous treatment in this matter. His hon. friend had estimated that the amount of conscience money owed by this country to Ireland was some hundreds of millions of pounds sterling, and they had, therefore, a right to claim more generous treatment from the Government. It was a shocking and scandalous thing that a rich country like England should plunder Ireland in this way, and that when it attempted to do something for Ireland in the way of higher education it should come forward in such a niggardly fashion. Maynooth had been referred to, and they were

817
told of the endowment that that college had. Yes, but what about Trinity College, with an endowment of over £90,000? Some of that came from the State, but the greater part came from Catholic monasteries and the property of Catholic noblemen and gentlemen confiscated centuries ago. Because Maynooth got an endowment grant at one time, and at another a lump sum, that was held up as a reason why this Catholic University could not be established at all, or, if it was, it should be inadequately provided for. The Bill failed in the point of equality. All they asked for was equality of endowment. In the Bill the Government provided only £32,000 for the new college in Dublin, which was supposed to meet the wants of the Catholics of Ireland. According to the figures given by one hon. Gentleman, Trinity College had an endowment of £68,000. But that figure was incorrect. The total income of Trinity College was £95,000 a year. He agreed with the previous speaker in a great deal of his criticism of the Senate. As usual the hierarchy of Ireland had been attacked for the action they had taken in connection with Catholic education in Ireland, and as usual they had been lectured by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Armagh—
"This was a Bill for the bishops—a scheme to satisfy the bishops."
Had not the bishops of Ireland a right to their views and convictions? Had they not a right to be heard? The hon. and learned Gentleman would not be satisfied until he saw all their heads on spikes placed round the Tower of London.
MR. HALDANE: Was the offer ever made?
MR. MOORE: I said the Roman Catholic bishops had a perfect right to their views and convictions, but they had no right to State money.
MR. MCKEAN: State money! What was State money? Where did it come from? Was "the State" superior to the people? Was it not the people of Ireland who constituted the State of Ireland? Yet 3,300,000 people, who paid
818
taxes far beyond their proper proportion were not to be allowed education such as they wanted. Such a thing was unconstitutional; it was unjust. The Bill, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said, had the support, and all similar solutions had had, and would have, the support, of all the enlightened men in this House and the nation. When the Second Reading was taken, in one lobby would be found all the enlightenment of the House and in the other all the bigotry. There would be found supporting the Bill every man who was a true friend of Ireland and every true Imperialist, for this was a measure of Imperial importance. While he disagreed with the financial provisions, he believed that the Bill would conduce in some way to better education in Ireland, and believing the right hon. Gentleman would accept many Amendments in Committee he wished him and his Bill Godspeed through Committee.
MR. SLOANsaid it was astonishing to him to see how the Government, which on the one hand was trying to undenominationalise education in England, was on the other trying to denominationalise public education in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said that every true friend of Ireland would be found in the lobby in favour of this Bill. He hoped the hon. Gentleman was not sincere in that remark, because many true friends of Ireland would be unable to vote for it. They could not lose sight of the facts, and the facts were simple. Belfast, he thought, did not ask for the Bill. Neither did he think Belfast wanted it at the price. And it could not be good for democracy that the youth of Ireland should be divided in this manner. They were going to make their protest, and to do the best they could to state their views impartially. The hierarchy in Ireland had been negotiating with the Chief Secretary, and he understood that the Presbyterian body, and all those directly concerned in the Bill, had been communicated with. But there was a body in Ireland of some real importance which had never been consulted one way or the other, and that was the Methodists, who were concerned, not so much about the Bill, as about the extern students, for a great

819
many young men in Ireland would suffer from being isolated, because while using their spare time in trying to raise their standard of education they would be excluded from the facilities that they would otherwise have had at Trinity and Queen's Colleges. He did not think that was a thing which could be very well overlooked, though he supposed it was a matter for Committee. But how they were going to bring the young men of Ireland, who were indeed that country's hope for the future, to a better understanding of each other if they divided them up into sections, building ecclesiastical walls between them, was more than he could tell. Sectarian bitterness and bigotry would not be lessened by the Bill. They had in Belfast one of the finest technical institutions in the United Kingdom; but, even when that institution was built, and there was every facility given for technical instruction, the Roman Catholic bishop in the diocese of Belfast went to the corporation of that City and absolutely refused to allow Roman Catholic youths to go to that institute because the atmosphere was not a Roman Catholic one. The Protestant Corporation of Belfast, who were charged with bigotry, gave a special grant to the Roman Catholic body in Belfast for technical instruction of the Roman Catholic youth, and allowed the members of the Roman Catholic Church to ignore the facilities supplied in the ordinary course of events for Belfast. How were they going to get sectarian bitterness brought down if they allowed that sort of thing to go on? Trinity College was saved; the cry had been "Hands off our property." Trinity College and those associated with it, therefore, were quite prepared to support this measure, which was undoubtedly a denominational Bill. Of course there was to be no test; the University was to be open to everybody. But Episcopalians would be expected to go to Trinity College, and, in regard to the new University in Dublin, it was an understood thing, though it was not mentioned in the Bill, that in a short time the Roman Catholics would go there. Then as to the composition of the governing body, there was no getting away from the fact that it was ecclesiastical. He thought that they had in
820
Ireland enough ecclesiastical law at the present time, and there was nothing democratic about this governing body.
MR. DILLON: Everything about it is democratic. It is the most democratic University in the United Kingdom.
MR. SLOAN: I fail to see anything democratic about the governing body; it is undoubtedly ecclesiastical.
MR. DILLON: Nothing of the sort. The hon. Member cannot have read the Charter or the Bill. It is not ecclesiastical in the least degree. It is the least ecclesiastical in the United Kingdom, and entirely democratic.
MR. SLOANsaid that if that was so, he accepted the statement of the hon. Gentleman; he certainly did not wish to dispute so high an authority. If he thought that the Senate was democratic, and that the extern students would have adequate facilities for home study, if he thought that it was a final settlement, and that it would remove a great injustice from the people of Ireland, he would not take up his present attitude towards the Bill. But he was not satisfied of that. He did not suppose that any man who wanted to see Ireland better than she was, who wanted to see the facilities for education better than what they were, would stand in the way of a just and reasonable reform for the betterment of the people. But it was because they were not satisfied that the Bill would effect those objects that they took up their present position. If they divided the youth of Ireland into sections how could they expect them to understand each other? There would be no social intercourse, and how could it be expected that they would understand what would be for the good and happiness of them all? If that could be brought about by the Chief Secretary and those who assisted him in introducing this Bill, he would be glad. But the Liberal Party would have to exercise a great deal of ingenuity to persuade the people of this country that their programme of denominational education for Ireland could be reconciled with their undenominational programme for England. He supported the education

821
proposals of the Government in 1906 because he believed them to be sound, and because the teachers were free from the system of religious tests. He had also supported those proposals because he believed they would benefit elementary education in England, and he could not, in his conscience, vote for denominational education in Ireland coming from the same Party. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment, and he thought that it must be the sound conviction of every true and conscientious Nonconformist in that House that if he supported the Government proposals for education in England, he could not conscientiously, or with any degree of satisfaction, support this proposal for the endowment of denominationalism in Ireland. The scheme of the Bill was very cleverly developed, but it was intended—no one denied it, even the hon, and learned Gentleman deliberately said it was so intended—for Roman Catholics. Why not call it a Roman Catholic University, and then they would know where they were? The Government had told them that this was not to be a State endowed Roman Catholic University, and in the next breath they were told that it might be so. If the Bill passed, as he supposed it would, he wanted to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he would convey to the Chief Secretary this point. Under the Bill the national school teachers of Ireland had no opportunity either by their social position or by their means of getting a University training, and the question he wanted to put was whether those facilities which now existed would be given to them, whereby they might be able to do home study or to work in their spare time, and so equip themselves for a University degree without having to go to the University. There were serious obstacles in the way of national school teachers, and only some five or six of them had a University degree. The Government would do well to declare that this was a Roman Catholic Bill, or tell them what their object was. They all knew the Chief Secretary's courage and his troubles, and if he was going to sink with this Bill, he was afraid his sinking would not be a very honourable one. He was a man of strong
822
educational views, and he believed he had good intentions towards Ireland, though sometimes he thought his judgment was carried away with his good intentions; but if he succeeded by this Bill in satisfying one Party it would be to the disagreement of another Party, which was the worst thing for Ireland. For that reason he opposed the Bill. It was opposed to and inconsistent with the Government's educational policy and with educational progress; it would separate more widely the youth of Ireland, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, and it would create a denominational atmosphere in University education not at all likely to be good for those for whom it was intended.
LORD EDMUND TALBOT: As an English Catholic I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. During the First Reading, debate my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition stated that in his opinion he doubted whether a better plan could be devised than the one contained in this Bill. I do not know that anyone could be very much surprised at that statement coming from him, considering that this Bill, unlike the Government plan of last year, is drawn very much on the lines the right hon. Gentleman advocated as a settlement of this question for a great many years. I should like to be allowed to make one or two criticisms in reference to this measure. The first is with regard to money. I very much doubt whether there is enough money so far as the college to be founded in Dublin is concerned. It seems to me that if a scheme of this kind is promoted at all, it is worth doing thoroughly well. Hon. Members must remember that the students who will take advantage of this new University scheme will not belong to the wealthy or leisured classes. I observed that the Chief Secretary in his speech on the First Reading suggested that, while he thought adequate financial provision was made in the Bill, money from private sources might, in future, be found for further endowments. Well, that is the first time that I have ever heard that those who are likely to frequent this College in Dublin are over-burdened with the good things of this world. I feel that it is of real importance

823
that a college of this kind should be thoroughly equipped at first. It should be equipped absolutely up-to-date, so that the students taking advantage of it shall feel that they have a really good thing and start at once with a genuine pride, realising that it is their fault and theirs alone if they do not take full advantage of the educational facilities afforded them. I should like to criticise the non-residential character of the proposed college. I need not more than mention that, because that point has already been thoroughly well gone into by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford, and I should like respectfully to associate myself and agree with everything he said on that point. There is a third point upon which I am not satisfied, and that is the affiliation question, and here, perhaps, I am in the somewhat dangerous company of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morley who moved the Amendment this afternoon. Of course, I, like him, am thinking chiefly of Maynooth, but I remember in the evidence given by Dr. O'Dwyer, the Bishop of Limerick, before the Robertson Commission, a very striking passage indeed, in which he strongly advocated that in the Catholic University proposed at that time, the Maynooth students should come up to Dublin and take their two years' art course in Dublin and away from Maynooth. I venture to think that that would be a great advantage, both educationally and socially. Of course, I do not for a moment mean to suggest that these ecclesiastical students should lead a life not altogether in conformity with their position as ecclesiastical students, but I do mean that they should mix with the lay students in the lectures and in the classes, and I should hope, also in the games, and I believe that that would be a great advantage. Speaking of the Bishop of Limerick, I have observed in the Press that he has lately written an article; I have not seen or read the article myself, but I have seen comments in the Press on an article which he has written, severely criticising this Bill, and surprise seems to have been shown that he should have done so. I cannot say that it is any surprise to me at all, either that he or any other Catholic
824
Bishop should severely criticise this Bill. This is no Bishop's Bill. Speaking for myself, and with all possible respect, and in so far as I am capable of forming an opinion, I should regret very much if the Catholic Bishops of Ireland did not accept this Bill, but to ask them to swallow it offhand is indeed asking a Catholic Bishop to partake of a very heavy and remarkably indigestible meal. It has been urged, I think by the Mover of the Amendment, or the Seconder, that University education of Catholics need not be given in Ireland, because English Catholics can go to the Universities in England—Oxford and Cambridge. But surely sentiment cannot altogether be disregarded in connection with this matter. It is quite true that Catholics in England can now go, and I am glad to say do go, to Oxford and Cambridge under certain definite conditions, but it must be remembered that we Catholics in England are in far too small a minority to have a University of our own, and therefore if proper conditions can be devised for us it is only natural and reasonable that we should be allowed to go to the Universities of this country. But the thing is entirely different in Ireland. There three-fourths of the population are Catholics, and there is literally no Catholic University teaching worthy of the name of which they can take advantage. Of course, I know perfectly well that Catholics do go and are admitted to Trinity College, Dublin, but Trinity College is a legitimate Protestant institution. That is to say, I do not know if I am quite orthodox in admitting that anything Protestant can be legitimate, but it was intended to be a Protestant institution, and it was founded as a Protestant institution. I rather expect it was also founded as a proselytising institution, but it happily has singularly failed in that. The real question that ought to be considered in regard to the point is surely this. If Trinity College, Dublin, was as Catholic as it now is Protestant, would genuine earnest-minded Protestants send their sons to that College? If they would not do that, and I do not believe they would, then I say, in common justice, the Catholics of Ireland ought to be given higher University education for themselves. I

825
do not want to detain the House. I have always felt ever since I have been in this House, and ever since I have heard debates on this question both inside the House and outside, that on us Unionists a great responsibility rested in refusing a measure of this kind for the Catholics of Ireland. I do not believe that we can justify our opposition to Home Rule if we refuse University education to the Catholics who ask for it there; and I wish as an English Catholic to thank the Chief Secretary for having brought in this Bill and for having offered to my co-religionists in Ireland this boon of higher education. Of course it requires a very small elementary practical knowledge of politics to appreciate that there are in both Parties, and on both sides of the House, those who disagree with any proposition of this kind. It therefore is practically impossible for any Government to pass a Bill of this kind unless they have a large majority behind them, and I thank the Government, not only as a Catholic, but also as a Unionist, that they have seized this opportunity of giving to the Catholics of Ireland a boon which in my opinion has been too long deferred.
MR. KETTLEsaid the noble Lord had addressed himself to the Bill from the point of view of the English Catholic. He need hardly say that they welcomed his support. As to whether the establishment of two free Universities without tests would be a set-back to the cause of Home Rule, he was sure they might be allowed to form their own opinion, and his opinion, he must say, was not the noble Lord's. While he welcomed his support of the measure, the House would fully understand that between the Party on those benches, which represented a nation, and the noble Lord and his friends who represented a small section of opinion in this country, there was fixed a great and impassable gulf. Perhaps, therefore, it was all the more significant that those whom the noble Lord represented should join with the Nationalist Party in offering a cordial support to the measure introduced by the Chief Secretary. The position of the Nationalist Party had been made perfectly clear by the hon. Member
826
for Waterford. They did not welcome this measure because they believed it to be an ideal Bill, or even the best Bill possible and practicable in the circumstances. He, for his part, welcomed it because, having had some experience of University institutions at present open to Catholics in Ireland, he felt that any Bill was infinitely better than no Bill. When they condemned the Royal University as the Robertson Commission had done, Parliament was bound in honour and conscience to face at last the duty it had avoided and shrunk from for three generations. Such points as he wished to submit to the House would be mainly of an academical character. He did not want to prolong a discussion inspired mainly by religious prejudices—in some respects, he might almost say, by religious fanaticism—but let them get perfectly clear about the question of tests. The hon. Member for Monaghan had made a speech which it seemed to him might fairly represent the demand that could be put forward by Catholics in a purely Catholic country. He had made a speech representing the demand that was actually put forward, and he did not see why anyone should seek to go back upon it. Since 1897 they had been committed to the acceptance of a University Bill, introduced by either Party, entirely devoid of religious tests. The Chief Secretary had introduced that Bill, and they accepted it. He thought the mover of the Amendment was right when he said his views were somewhat old-fashioned; still more were those expressed by the junior Member for Trinity College. The attitude of mind of gentlemen from a certain part of Ulster would be that of the Chief Justice who once declared that the law of Ireland was not cognisant of such a being as an Irish Papist. The Catholic demand was simply that they in Ireland should have an opportunity of getting higher education without ceasing to be Catholics. The hon. Member was not content with no tests. He had in Clause 3 a most definite statement that no appointment would be governed by questions of religion. What he really wanted was a University with a positive test against Catholicism. They supported this Bill because it set up a University, the majority of whose students would naturally

827
be Catholics because the majority of the population were Catholics, whose doors, distinctions, and degrees would be absolutely open to persons of every creed or no creed. That was the position, he took it, so far as the purely religious question was concerned. They had been told that Belfast did not want a University. If he might contrast the position of Belfast with that of Cork it was a little strange that Belfast, in which some section of opinion had expressed itself opposed to the establishment of a University, should be given one, while Cork, which was entirely unanimous in favour of one, should be deprived of it. But they had the true explanation of the attitude of that section in Belfast given unconsciously by the hon. Member for South Belfast. It was that Belfast was not getting its price. Belfast had adopted this attitude in order to be in a better position to buy, and when the Chief Secretary pressed the measure on, and it became certain that it was passing into law, he would see that position drop away into nothingness. The demand which had led to the establishment of these Universities in Ireland was not specifically a Catholic or a religious demand. Their case had always been that they were stricken, not only in their consciences as Catholics, but in their right as citizens. They had asked for religious equality, and not for religious domination. Could anybody say, apart from the religious question, that the University equipment of Ireland was at present adequate? In the national University there was a steady decline in the number of students. In the Royal University, with all its defects, they had had a steady increase. The number passing through the Royal University had increased by 50 per cent. in seven years. It had sent through its hands more than 4,000 last year. There was a growing demand in Ireland for a University fully equipped which would turn forth men of disciplined and adventurous minds, develop the natural resources of Ireland, and substitute prosperity for its present wretchedness. If there were no religious questions in Ireland and no differences of religion, some such measure as this would be imperatively called for by purely educa-
828
tional needs. They were told by the junior Member for Trinity College that it was his hope and dream that all Irish University students should meet together in one institution. If that was good for Ireland why did they not apply it to England and Scotland? Why did they not have a Bill amalgamating the four Scottish Universities? He saw no reason why University students in Ireland should be mashed together in one academic tub more than University students anywhere else. To allow each province and each section of opinion to have its own characteristic mark or University institution was a thing to be welcomed and not deplored. These various Universities in Ireland would effect a real unification of feeling, first, by rivalry, and secondly, by good fellowship. He believed that in establishing these various Universities the Chief Secretary would contribute more to the unification of feeling in Ireland than if he were to secure any artificial and superficial unity by pressing all sections of opinion together within the walls of one University institution. Public opinion in Ireland regarded the constitution given to the University and the three colleges as on the whole satisfactory. When the hon. Member for South Belfast rose to oppose the Bill, though if he had not definitely said so he would have thought his speech was in support of it, the hon. Member for Mayo pointed out to him that it was the most democratic and self-governed University in the kingdom. He agreed that there were far too many doctors nominated to the Senate. That might perhaps be a new step in the campaign against consumption inaugurated by Lady Aberdeen. They all knew that the medical profession exercised a great and secret influence, and it could cause an extraordinary dislocation of society if it chose, by the simple but brutal expedient of sending in its bills. He owed a great deal too much to the medical profession to use any hard words about it. They were all very nice people. He knew most of them personally, but there were a great deal too many. There was a real danger that ought to be guarded against, that this new University institution in Dublin might become not in the least a glorified seminary but a glorified medical

829
school. He was certain that nobody wanted to inflict any injury on the College of Surgeons. It obviously had a case, but when they analysed the speech of the right hon. Member for Trinity College they recognised the old wail of the threatened vested interest. But he would be glad to lend his personal support to the right hon. Gentleman in the one object in which all Irish parties agreed, that they ought to get some more money out of the pockets of the British Treasury. On the question of finance the hon. Member for Waterford had drawn attention to the inadequacy of the amount provided; £150,000, the sum given for the building fund of the new Dublin Colleges, did not seem to him a proposal that could be treated seriously, and he could not conceive that it was put forward seriously. He could not understand how the Treasury, which only a couple of years ago were content to give £200,000 for the building of the new College of Science in Dublin, which was at best a technological institute representing one faculty, tried to pretend that the demands of this new college could be met by a building fund of £150,000. He thought the objection to the establishment of a residential University, an objection which, though he was in a small minority on those benches, he entirely shared, was not put forward on academic grounds or any grounds of any respectable character at all. It was put forward in order that the Treasury might be able to cut the building grant smaller. The Secretary of State for War had thrown out one suggestion which might meet the needs of the situation—the establishment of hostels and not, properly speaking, of halls of residence in connection with the new University. The idea of a residential University was, after all, almost purely an English one. It did not exist in Continental Universities, and he thought the experience of history was that in proportion as it was more English it was less likely to be successful in Ireland. To pass from the building grant to the annual endowment of the new college—£32,000—anybody who had attempted to work out in detail the allowance to the various faculties and the salaries to professors must admit that that was a mean and beggarly sum on which to endeavour to get the college
830
run satisfactorily. The college would make its mark mainly, if at all, in economics and in physical science. In physical science it would have to enter into very vigorous competition with the new English Universities. The professor of physics would be under continual temptation to go to Liverpool, Manchester, or somewhere else where the Chair carried a heavier salary. Unless they gave the Dublin College a fair start—or equal start in respect of money endowment—they could not hope that it would run satisfactorily. He wished to draw attention to what in his mind was a radical, though a very easily curable defect in the Bill. They had heard a good deal about external examiners. Article 19 provided that in every examination in the new University the papers should be set and the examination conducted by an external examiner who was not in any way associated or connected with the University itself. That seemed to him to have a little too much of the spirit of the Irish Council Bill. Were they going to build a University on a foundation of distrust of their own professors? It was quite true that the professors themselves were definitely placed in a subordinate position to the external examiners. The external examiner was to be appointed first and then to be associated with professors of the University itself to help. He protested most strongly against that. He held that Article 19 of Clause 1 bore out his contention in regard to the external examiners. The provision to be made with respect to them seemed to him to strike at the very root of academic automony. It was inspired with a spirit of absolute distrust of the men who were to be charged with the conduct of the new institutions. Were they going to perpetuate the old system which had ruined the Royal University? Were they going to compel men to teach a subject, not as they thought it ought to be taught, but as somebody else thought it ought to be taught? If that interpretation of the position of the external examiners were accurate, it went to the very foundation on which a University institution ought to be based. He thought they were all agreed that some provision must be made in regard to external students. A clear distinction must be made

831
between the man who had both attended regular lectures and examinations, and the man who had simply read up and passed examinations. As to the position of women in the new University, if the Chief Secretary would examine that part of the Charter of the new Dublin College which dealt with women he would see that as it stood it would exclude from membership of the new Dublin college far the greater part of the women graduates of the Royal University, Dublin. He did not think that that was the intention, but certainly it would be the effect. Believing that that did not carry the approval of anybody, he asked that this particular part of the college Charter should be examined and amended. Provision was made that the appointments to the professorial chairs should be for six years only. That, he supposed, was because these appointments were to be filled up by the statutory Commissioners. There was nothing in the Bill or the Charter to show whether these appointments were to be renewed or new men placed in the positions—whether the professors who held for terms of six years were to have fixity of tenure. Unless they gave the men who occupied the professorial chairs fixity of tenure during good conduct they would perpetuate another vice the existence of which everybody admitted in connection with the Royal University. If the men only held their chairs for the brief period of six years, all the inducements would be to keep quiet and say nothing which might give offence. It seemed to him that when they had professors duly elected by these bodies they must give them an ad vitem aut cul pam tenure. He was glad to gather that that was the opinion of the Chief Secretary, and he hoped it would be made more explicit in the Bill than it was now. He thought that the provision which placed the examinations entirely in the hands of external examiners would, if persisted in, bring on the measure in actual working the most complete disaster. He hoped that the generous spirit in which the Chief Secretary had approached the question of University education in Ireland would be seen in the details of the measure. Every measure passed through this House founded upon trust in the Irish principle had been a success, and every
832
measure founded upon distrust had been a dismal and melancholy failure.
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid that like most of the speakers who had taken part in the debate he approached the question from a strictly academic point of view. He wished to say something regarding what seemed to him would be the effect of the Bill on existing University systems in Ireland. The first result of the measure would be the destruction of the Royal University. He had not much affection for the Royal, because it displaced the Queen's University, of whch he was a graduate. The argument always had been that the Queen's University was a failure. It had been said that it was condemned by the Catholic Church, and that Catholics refused to attend it. There were few statements more inaccurate. Considering the poverty of the Irish people the attendance was fairly large. The main point about the Queen's was the intrinsic excellence of its education, although in the matter of scholarship endowment it was starved. The scholarships provided in that University were of the most pitiable kind. There were only ten of £24 each in each college. That was a beggarly allowance, and he attributed the relative failure in the numbers attending Queen's College to that cause alone. He had never met any young Catholic who failed to go to Queen's University because he was prevented by his Catholic clergy. The Catholic did not want to be coddled in his religion. As a Catholic himself he did not see why the Catholics in Ireland should receive this special treatment. The Catholics in Ireland were 3,250,000 and in England there were about 2,500,000, but in England there was a very much larger class of men who were fitted for University education. If there could be a reasonable demand for a special Catholic University within the United Kingdom it would be in England, but when Cardinal Manning attempted to establish a Catholic University at Kensington he could only get seventeen students. Although the Catholic hierarchy in this country issued in 1873 a synodical letter warning Catholic parents that they could not send their

833
sons to the national Universities without the peril of their losing either their faith or their morals, and that the sending them would be a grave sin, the reverend gentlemen who laid that down were wrong. The educated Catholics of England would not put up with that penal law. For twenty years they carried on an agitation, and in 1894 they submitted a Memorandum, signed by the Duke of Norfolk, the noble Lord the Member for Chichester, Lord Llandaff, and dozens of distinguished English Catholics, setting forth that if this principle of segregation was to be carried out it might be applied to Sandhurst, to the Inns of Court, and to other places where young Catholics came into contact with those of other religions. Those arguments were carried to Rome, and Rome was wise in giving full consent to Catholics sending their sons to Oxford and Cambridge. Their faith, instead of suffering, had been strengthened. A few days ago he received a letter from an English Catholic in which he said—
"English Catholics take the unassailable position that, whilst it is the parent's right to have his children thoroughly trained at school in his religion, its dogma, and its principles of conduct, it is absolutely necessary to give young men of ability, the future leaders of the community, the broadest and best education in the great National Universities. No sheep pens!"
Now, that was the real view of the Catholics of England, which he had tried to put into the Motion which he had placed on the Paper. He found that it was not only in England that this state of things obtained. Catholics of position and wealth everywhere insisted that their sons, while educated in the Catholic schools, should after that go into public Universities like other youths and join in the sports of the cricket field as well as in education. He did not like to say a hard word, but it was to his mind horrible to think of young Catholics being brought up to the age of twenty-two in sheep pens, and absolutely kept away from their brother Protestants in Ireland. Turn to Germany; there was not a more cultivated and distinguished body of Catholics anywhere than in Germany. They numbered close on 20,000,000; every man of them educated in a lay University; not only laymen, but also priests of the Catholic Church; and they took their degrees in a lay University.
834
What was the result? There was no more manly and virile race in the world than the Catholics of Germany.
*MR. MACVEAGH: Were, they excluded from professorships?
*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: No they were not, and when Bismarck tried to oppress them he was soon driven to Canossa. Compare them with the Catholic aristocracy of France, and the way in which these were brought up! When persecution fell on them they took refuge in Monte Carlo and the Folies Bergères. As to the question of tests, it was perfectly true that there were to be no tests for professors, but there were tests for the Senates. There was to be only one Catholic on the Senate of the University of Belfast. That was a test. In the same way, there was to be only seven Protestants on the Senate of the University of Dublin; and that again was a religious test. The graduates of the Royal University of Ireland had drawn particular attention to this question, and said that the pledge which professors had to give that they would not make any statement derogatory to religion had been the main protection to the minority, but that protection was going to be knocked on the head. What about the minority in Cork? Was there to be no protectionto Protestants there on to Catholics in Belfast? He did not propose to support the Amendment; it was just as sectarian as the Bill. Nonconformists on his side of the House had taken the opportunity of this Bill to hang on to it a general attack on denominational education in every branch of teaching. He would have nothing to do with it. In conclusion, he regarded the matter both from its educational standpoint, and also from the Nationalist point of view. As hon. Gentlemen opposite knew, he had been a Nationalist all the days of his life, and had always hoped in the development of the Irish race. The only possible hope of Home Rule and of that development was in the union of Catholics and Protestants, the union of the Orange and the Green. Would they get that ideal advanced, would they get nearer to Home Rule by bringing up the young

835
manhood of Ireland in three sectarian camps? He had always voted for Home Rule, but he would spare himself the trouble in future if this Bill became law. A nation which refused a national system of education was not worthy of self-government.
MR. DILLON: The hon. Member for Morley, who moved this Amendment grounded his attack upon the Bill upon the statement that the Universities which the Bill proposed to set up were frankly and purely denominational. I took the liberty of interrupting him and asking him to give us a definition of the term "denominational institution" which he had used in the course of his speech, and I believe I shall carry the opinion of the House when I say that the hon. Member failed to meet that request. His attempt to define a denominational institution was, I think, a dismal failure. What did he say? He said that a denominational institution was to his mind a University where the great majority who attended it and the great majority of the professors also belonged to one religious persuasion, and where inducements were given, he went on to say, to one particular religious persuasion to attend that University. I venture to say as regards the first assertion, that it applies to every University in the United Kingdom, and as regards the second, that it does not apply to those Universities which this Bill, if it passes, undertakes to set up. According to the hon. Member for Morley, so great is his intellectual prejudice on this question, if a University is attended by a preponderance of men and professors of one particular religious creed, it is a denominational institution. What University in England will escape from that definition? Does it not apply to Oxford and Cambridge, to the University of London, and to every University in Scotland? Did we not hear the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge declare the other day—I confess it amused me—that not only are the members of these Universities in enormous preponderance members of one religion, but that when he was called to be a professor in the Edinburgh
836
University, he was required to make a declaration that he would teach nothing which would interfere with the Westminster Confession. But has the indignation of the hon. Members opposite who moved and seconded the Amendment been roused by that declaration in favour of particular religious teaching? Why should the Catholics of Ireland be taken under the protection of this definition, and the Presbyterians of Scotland not? I say that the definition given by the hon. Member for Morley applies to every University in the United Kingdom; and what shall we say when we come to Ireland? Why has the indignation of the hon. Member slept so long in the case of Trinity College, Dublin, and the Queen's College, Belfast? Is Trinity College not attended by a vast preponderance of students of one denomination? In that College, where there are 100 Catholic students, making one-tenth or one-fifteenth of the whole, for 100 years there have been only two Catholic Fellows—one of whom was the most bitter anti-Catholic I have ever known—and, with one exception, there has never been a Provost who was not a clergyman of the Anglican Church, until the present Provost, Dr. Traill, was appointed. He was the first lay Protestant Provost for 100 years. And yet we are told that that is not a denominational institution! Take the Queen's College in Belfast. And here let me say that Presbyterians of Belfast have the sublime audacity by a deputation which, I understand, waited on hon. Members in this House to-day, to appeal against the institution of denominational education in Ireland as set up by this Bill. What is the history of the Queen's College in Belfast? Our opponents are proud to boast that the Queen's College, Belfast, has been an undenominational institution for forty or fifty years. A few Catholics have attended it, but the vast preponderence of students have been Presbyterians. But when I come to the professoriat, I find that when Queen's College was established, two Catholic professors were appointed, and from that day to this there has been only one Catholic and no head of the College who was not a Presbyterian

837
clergyman. That is undenominational. Now, contrast that with the denominational institutions which the right hon. Gentleman is going to start for Catholics in Ireland. The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment had evidently never read the Charters of these Universities, nor had the hon. Member for South Belfast, who abused measures which he had evidently entirely misconceived. What does the hon. Gentleman say for Cork, Galway, and Belfast, places where the population is not divided between Catholics and Protestants? Under this Bill it is proposed to establish colleges possibly to be used by Catholics. But do we propose to close the doors to Protestants in Dublin, Cork, and Belfast? In the new Dublin University one-fourth of the Senate will be Protestant. In the college in Galway, in a district where the Protestants do not number 5 per cent. of the population, one-third of the Senate are to be Protestant. In the college at Cork, where the Protestants are in a smaller proportion, the Protestant Bishop of Cork has been invited to join the governing body, a large proportion of which will be Protestants. That is an undenominational institution, where the vast majority of the population are Catholics; but in Belfast where you have a purely Presbyterian institution, where a Roman Catholic is not allowed to put his nose in, it is entirely undenominational because it is purely Presbyterian. That gives you an illustration of the fair-play which is given. We are charged with being advocates of clericalism and the slaves of the Bishops of Rome. Let us contrast these new institutions with the others. Trinity College for hundreds of years allowed no man to be Provost of the college except a Protestant. It was purely undenominational, because it was purely Protestant. Queen's College, Belfast, set up a claim that no man should be allowed to be head of the college unless he was a Protestant clergyman. In these new institutions it is proposed that a layman shall be at their head, and because it is proposed that they shall be open to all Irishmen, ineluding the Catholics of Ireland, it is said they are denominational. The truth of the case is that in these matters there is a great deal of hypocrisy. It is not true that these new institutions are
838
denominational; they are institutions which will give an opportunity to the majority of the population of Ireland to obtain a University education without submitting themselves to an atmosphere of ascendancy which is intolerable to the Catholics of Ireland. The only argument which has been used on the opposite side with more or less weight and efficacy, and which, I admit, has considerable force, is the action of the Catholic bishops of this country when they banned Oxford and Cambridge and then removed the ban. I am thankful that we have emancipated the Catholics in this country in spite of themselves, and maintained the cause when they turned tail, but it is particularly painful to us to know that the action of the English Catholic bishops is the single argument against us. But everyone knows that the argument, though superficially of some weight, has no reality. I have always maintained that in a country where any religious creed forms a small minority, the members of that creed must make the best of their evil case, and they must be content to avail themselves of the institutions of the country in which they live; but that is no reason why in a country and a nation like Ireland, where the Catholics form the vast majority, they should be compelled to enter into institutions which are dominated, and must for years and years to come be dominated by their bitter enemies, and by men of other creeds. I say that the case of the Catholics of Ireland rests upon an entirely different basis, because what was proposed to us was that our children should be sent into institutions where they would be exposed to the influence of a hostile atmosphere, which we have learned from bitter experience is most prejudicial to them. It is not as a concession, or as a favour that we demand University education suitable for the Catholics of Ireland. We demand it as a right, because in the unfortunate historic past the entire provision for higher education in Ireland has been placed in the hands of a small intolerant and domineering minority of that country. Let me go to another point, to which I attach enormous importance. Some of the hon. Members who have opposed this Bill have opposed

839
it on the ground of freedom of teaching. They say, "We want institutions in which we shall get freedom of teaching," and then, by a most extraordinary mental aberration, they proceed to complain of the action of the Chief Secretary in proposing to do away with the declarations now made by the Professors of the Queen's Colleges. Is not that a move in the direction of freedom of teaching? That declaration is to the following effect—
"I will carefully abstain from teaching or defending any doctrine or making any statement derogatory to the truths of revealed religion and disrespectful or injurious to the religion of any portion of my class."
I think that that is one of the most extraordinary declarations ever placed upon any body of teachers in the world. Of course, it is impossible to enforce that, and there is a denomination in the north of Ireland, which is well-known, who hold firmly and teach this view, that all the world goes to hell, without the smallest hope of redemption, except themselves, viz., the Covenanters, and this declaration, if it were strictly enforced, would place anybody under a ban who said anything calculated to advance the view that anyone may be saved hereafter who is not a Covenanter, because that would be calculated to be disrespectful to the religious creed of a portion of the class. The very men who complain of the Chief Secretary for interfering with freedom of teaching blame him for abolishing that declaration. I attach very little importance to it, and, in my opinion, none of these declarations amount to anything. The hon. Member for Cambridge, I have no doubt, made a declaration that he would not teach anything but the Westminster Confession, but I do not think he thought of that until he had made his speech, and we are making a concession to those who wish for freedom of teaching when we consent to the sweeping away of this declaration. I have examined into the case of my own college; formerly Dr. Newman's, now the college of Dr. Delany, and what do I find? At that college, which is governed by Jesuits, no declaration of any sort or kind is required. What the Catholics in Ireland want and do not hesitate to say they want is a college which their
840
sons can attend without being subjected to an atmosphere which, at every turn, will be hostile to the faith in which they have been brought up and to the national creed which is the creed of their fathers. This is not a Catholic but a national claim. We are asking for perfect freedom of teaching. It is not to be found in the Queen's Colleges or in Trinity College, but I believe it will be found in the system the right hon. Gentleman proposes. There has been criticism of the governing body of the college and the Senate, but that is only a temporary body. What I look to is the future, and I say that these institutions are democratic and mainly elected institutions, and that the governing bodies of the future will be moulded by the sons of the people who enter them. I have no hesitation in adopting what has been said by the chairman of our Party and our leader. So far as the principles of this Bill are concerned, we, who are entitled to speak for the general body of Catholics in Ireland, accept them and thank the right hon. Gentleman for having proposed them. In the hope of giving him courage to persevere with his Bill, I say that, if the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in turning it into an Act, he will render one of the greatest services to the Irish nation which it has ever been given to an English statesman to render.
MR. GORDONsaid he had had frequently to speak on the question of education in this House, and everyone knew that he was most anxious that education in Ireland should be placed on the soundest possible basis. Irishmen, whether they called themselves Nationalists or Unionists, were all agreed, not only that it was highly desirable that the best possible University system of education should exist in Ireland, but at the same time that it was desirable and essential that any system to be instituted should be instituted on lines which would not be injurious to the country. Several hon. Gentlemen had referred to the injury which would be inflicted upon the country if the young people of the country were segregated into different premises according to their religious views, and that was in accordance with what one of the greatest educationists in Ireland (Dr. Starkie) said,

841
as a part of his Report on the University question in Ireland. It was most desirable, necessary, and essential to the welfare of Ireland that the young men of Ireland should be brought into contact with each other in their early life. It would be the grossest injustice, not only to those whom he represented, but also to those represented by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, to say that their young men could not live together in one college. But that was what was going to be said by this Bill. The hon. Member for East Mayo had asked what was a denominational University. The House must remember that the very first thing they had to deal with in this matter was that they had two new Universities. There was already existing a University which Nationalist Members had always asserted was purely Protestant and Episcopalian. That was to remain and to carry on its work in that atmosphere of which they had heard so much. The Government were now creating two new Universities. If they were not to be denominational, why should there be two? Belfast was as near Dublin as Galway, and nearer than Cork. Was it not simply and solely because they must have a denominational University for one religious body, the Roman Catholics, in Ireland? He ventured to interrupt the Secretary of State for War when the right hon. Gentleman said they objected to any benefit being conferred on Belfast. Belfast did not ask for this University. He denied that the professors of Belfast Queen's College expressed the will of the people of Ireland in this matter. Those who were best able to express the views of the people of Belfast on the subject had spoken in no doubtful terms of this University. Because the right hon. Gentleman was driven to solve in some way this most difficult problem, in order to meet the requirements of one particular denomination in Ireland, he had to create two new Universities. One of them did not wish to be sectarian or denominational. Belfast University would try and avoid being so if it could, but the other could not help being so in every sense of the word. How was it that the Queen's Colleges, which were founded on lines similar to those on which the right hon. Gentleman had said he
842
intended to found these new Universities, were not accepted by the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland? They were nonsectarian. The religion of every student attending them was securely safeguarded. There Were no tests and no trace of denominationalism in them. But the Roman Catholic hierarchy would have none of them, and they banned and destroyed the University. The Government said they were not going to have a denominational University for the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He would call attention to the statement of the rev. Prelate, Dr. O'Dwyer, Bishop of Limerick, given in evidence before the Commission appointed to inquire into the question of Universities in Ireland in 1901, in which that gentleman said they could not have education divorced from religion. Was this Bill, therefore, likely to satisfy the requirements of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, unless, as he believed it would be, it was truly denominational in its character, however it might be described in an Act of Parliament. If it were not to be, why was the test of religion to be applied to the selection of the governing bodies? In Dublin there was to be a governing body of thirty-five, five of whom were to be Protestants. Why did the Government, at the very outset, begin by applying a religious list for Belfast if it was not to be a denominational institution. In Belfast, they had on the governing body, one Roman Catholic to thirty-four or thirty-five Protestants. Was it not a farce? Was it not because they knew that nothing would satisfy the Roman Catholics of Ireland in the shape of a University unless it was denominational? They would have this freedom from tests which would enable the professors to teach anything they pleased. The question of whether a University was denominational or not did not depend on the students who attended it. It depended upon what was the real tone and atmosphere that existed in it, and if they started by creating a particular atmosphere in these Universities that atmosphere would never be got rid of. The only thing that would make a University acceptable to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, was that it should have that atmosphere of which they had

843
heard so much since 1902. Everyone knew what the Government had said and done with regard to it since they came into office, and also when they were in opposition. On every occasion when the question had arisen in respect to the schools in England right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had said that when the State gave money they wanted it to be quite clear that there should be no denominational teaching supported by that money; that it was not enough to say that nothing was to be given for the purpose of denominational teaching in England. They would not tolerate it for a moment. But in this Bill they were appointing a governing body, which would appoint the professors of the Universities, and appointing that body with a preponderance of one denomination for the University in the South, and a preponderance of another denomination for the University in the North of Ireland. He would certainly be surprised to see hon. Members who had voted so long against denominationalism in England now apply a different rule, when it was a question of the education of Ireland and show that they were perfectly satisfied with denominationalism. He did not want to go into the matter at that late hour in any great detail, but there were one or two things that ought to be remembered in connection with the two Universities they were going to found. There were, he thought, 350 students in Belfast, 500 students in the three colleges at Cork, Galway, and the University College at Dublin, which they wanted to make constituent colleges. The chief body of the students who came up for examination in the Royal University were outside these colleges altogether. There were about 950 students who came from other institutions. About 280 students were taught privately. They wanted to provide University degrees and education for all the people in Ireland who were willing to accept them; but were these
844
students to be excluded? How were they going to deal with them? The Secretary of State for War objected that the claim did not come from the Roman Catholics; but, in truth, did it not? He did not blame them. They were quite right, if they thought they had a grievance, to make their claim; but, if they wanted Ireland to have a better education without having denominational control, which any person could see, on the face of it, was given by this Bill, then why did not they come forward and say: "Let us have a system like the old Queen's University?" Everybody in Ireland, outside the Roman Catholics, would be satisfied with it. He could not conceive why the Roman Catholic Church would not accept it, except that they were never satisfied because they did not control that institution, and they would never be satisfied unless they controlled this University. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, knew that as well as he did. The hon. Member for East Mayo had spoken of the whole of education in Ireland falling into the hands of a small, narrow, and intolerant minority. Any man who knew anything about education in Ireland knew that that was inaccurate. In the Royal University absolute equality was preserved upon the Senate by the Government of the day, so that no Party had any control whatever. The Dublin University had been open to Catholics for over a hundred years and many had availed themselves of it; all its emoluments and positions of trust had been absolutely open to everyone for thirty-five years. Surely, under those circumstances, it was idle to say that higher education—University education—was under the control of a small, narrow, or any one body in Ireland. Those whom he and his friends represented thought that if they passed the Bill they would inflict upon Ireland a gross injustice. They would put University education in a position which

845
existed in no other country in the world; they would injure education of the people; and the three Universities would lead to a state of affairs in Ireland which would be very much worse than anything which existed at the present moment and which the Government said they were seeking to remedy. He thought the House ought to be slow before it assented to anything of the kind. Universities could not be pulled up by the roots every year; they were of slow growth; and, when they set about to establish a new University, it required care and thoughtfulness to see they were not establishing something destructive of education. He asked the House not to inflict upon Ireland the injustice of having what would be to all interests and purposes three sectarian and denominational Universities.
SIR E. CARSON: I only rise to occupy the attention of the House for a very few minutes, because I think that the debate should not close without some speech being made different in tone from that which was delivered by my right hon. colleague representing the Dublin University. I say that for this reason: the House ought to recollect that this Bill has the support of the Leader of the Opposition, and whatever the responsibility of producing it may be, and whatever the effect in the country, I am sure that if he were here he would be the last to shirk the responsibility of supporting it. So far as I am concerned, I have supported the principle for many years, and intend to do so to-night and at the subsequent stages of the Bill. When we are granting this Bill to Ireland and are putting forward this measure of University reform, for heaven's sake let us do it in a spirit of generosity. I have heard a great deal said as to whether this is a denominational or undenominational Bill. I care not what you call it: I think it ought to be a Bill to satisfy the aspirations of those for the remedy of whose grievances it is put forward. We are
846
told it is a denominational Bill. I have always said that Trinity College, which I represent, was not a denominational University because there are no tests; any student of any creed is welcomed there, and every position in the University is open to him. I understand that that is the principle of the Bill before the House, and I do not see how I could consistently say that Trinity College is undenominational and at the same time deny the same description to the Bill now before the House. When we talk of denominational and undenominational the question of atmosphere must always be considered. That may be difficult to explain, but I will say this, that if Trinity College was as Roman Catholic in its atmosphere as it is undoubtedly Protestant, would I, as an Irish Protestant, think of sending my son there? I have no hesitation ill saying I would not. Then what right have I to go to my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen and say to them: "You make a mistake in not sending your sons to Trinity College; I can assure you there is nothing in the Protestant atmosphere of which they need be afraid?" That may be true, but I should be giving advice which I should not be prepared to accept. We are told that the setting up of these Universities is a retrograde movement. It will entirely depend on themselves as to whether they are a success or not. If, whether Roman Catholic or Presbyterian, they proceed to conduct their business and frame their curriculum on any narrow basis of sectarian differences they will be absolute failures. On the other hand, if they manage their business on the broad basis of liberty, which can alone gain success in education in any country, they will take their places as great Universities among those of the United Kingdom. I may hold views that do not entirely commend themselves even to many of those who think with me in Ireland; but I look forward to the day when these great, successful,

847
liberal seats of learning, having made their way and formed their constituencies, showing themselves worthy in the great race of science and art, will come forward and say, as I hope Trinity College will: "Let us join together and make one great national University." I believe it is the duty of every Irishman, of whatever creed or politics, to wish God-speed to these Universities, and to do his best in a spirit of noble generosity to make them a great success; and I hope that the bringing of them into existence may be a step forward in the union of all classes and religions in Ireland for the progress of our country and its education.
MR. BIRRELL: The remarkable and striking speech to which we have just listened has made me, I am willing to confess, a happy man. I own that during the years I have been a member of this Government I have too often been disposed to exclaim with the sad prophet Jeremiah: "Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast born me a man of strife and contention." The right hon. Gentleman opposite and I prefer the paths of peace; and, having spent a pleasant and agreeable evening, and having just listened to the speech from the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Trinity College, Dublin, I really feel that there is very little for me to say. And yet, Mr. Speaker, it should be a source of pride and satisfaction to all of us that upon this subject—which has long been considered one of the thorniest and most controversial that could ever stand in the way of any Government—we have, although many people's theories and hopes have not altogether been realised, been able to introduce to this House a measure which, I think now
848
we may safely say, is certain to pass—a measure which will, at all events, provide for a large section of the Irish people that higher education which, admittedly, they need; that, therefore, this difficult question has at last been solved, and that we are to-day taking part in what I hope will be the successful inauguration of liberal seats of learning in Ireland. I listened to the excellent speeches of my hon. friends behind me, but none of them approached this subject from the point of view that Ireland stands grievously in need of, and is entitled to have, immediately, a large measure of higher education. They ignored all these things. They spoke of what I might do were I at liberty to approach this question de novo. I am at liberty to approach no question de novo. What I should do under those singular circumstances I hardly know; I am sure it would be destructive to a great many gentlemen who have seats in this House. Happily for them, and happily for myself, I can do nothing of the kind. A certain amount of criticism has been passed with regard to why we have thought fit to establish a University in Belfast. Certain representatives of Ulster have assured me that Belfast does not want a University, that it stands in no need of a University, that no Member for Belfast or no member of the civic society of Belfast, has ever asked for a University, that I have, evidently, gone altogether out of my way to give them this boon, as many people consider it, as my own constituents in Bristol consider it, of a University; and that I have given it to them simply and solely for the purpose of setting up a Roman Catholic University in Dublin—that if it had not been for that it would never have occurred to anybody that Belfast should have had a University. That is not true at all.

849
I cannot say that the whole of Ulster have come into Old Queen Street demanding and beseeching a University; but this I can say, that for many months past I have been in communication with many persons in Ulster who I consider are better qualified to represent the wishes of that community for a seat of learning than certain other persons, and they, one and all, agreed that they really want a University, that Belfast is suited to a University, that Queen's College in Belfast has already produced men of the utmost distinction, that the studies in chemistry and other sciences are carried on to the admiration of the world, and that there is in the province of Ulster, and in that part of Ireland generally, a quite sufficient area to support a University just as there is in my own constituency of Bristol. Such, at all events, is what I have been assured. But I can tell the House that the weakness of this proposal, which has been objected to, in associating Cork and Galway as constituent colleges, is because it is a federated University. I wish to heaven Cork and Galway were strong enough to support Universities of their own. If they had been it would have made my task in the preparing of the Bill and in the drafting of these Charters much easier, and I should have escaped many of the criticisms to which I have been exposed. As it is, being obliged to deal with Cork and Galway as constituent colleges of Dublin, the difficulties necessarily arose, and, as a University man, I was very glad to get Belfast out of the way, and, as a University man, I did rejoice that the academic body of Belfast, distinguished professors, were deeply anxious there should be a University in Belfast. What is the good of saving that only the academic body, the president and the professors, wanted a University?
850
Surely that is a considerable admission to make when you are dealing with academic subjects. Then I also found there was a strong demand on the part of the young people of Ulster who had distinguished themselves highly in Arts and particularly in science. Here am I who have been accused of speaking disrespectfully of Ulster—which I never did and never shall—advocating the claim of Belfast to be on an equality with Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, even of Bristol, in having a University of its own. I hope hon. Members have read the letter which appears in The Times of to-day from Dr. Dill, a most distinguished member of a most distinguished academic body, an Irishman by birth and partly by education, who was a distinguished tutor at Corpus Christi, Oxford, and is author of a book the perusal of which has done much to mitigate my hard lot during the last eighteen months, a book on Roman society during the first four or five centuries. Dr. Dill has a letter in The Times of to-day, and I do not hesitate to say that in that letter alone the case for a University in Belfast is made out. I am not going to engage in the rather nice inquiry as to what constitutes a denominational University; all I can say is I have done my best to make this University undenominational. I have put in Clause 3—hon. Gentlemen have read it from beginning to end—in which I have done my utmost so far as words to make a law can go; I have taken every step I could take in the endeavour that the Universities in Dublin and Belfast shall be undenominational. Then I am told that all these provisions, all the protection in the clause, are not worth the paper they are written on; that whatever I do the Universities must become denominational. Very well, if that be so you must

851
have a denominational University or none at all. I cannot do more than take every step open to a man to secure that these Universities shall not be denominational. We know that in old days Oxford and Cambridge were directly denominational; they were intended only for members of the Church of England as by law established; you could not gain access to them unless you produced your certificate of baptism in the Established Church and were prepared to sign the Thirty-nine Articles. Then, after a time, you were allowed to enter as an undergraduate and to take a preliminary degree. But you were not allowed to become a Master of Arts, you could not become a fellow, or a member of the governing body of a college, or the head of a college. That was what we used to think was meant by the expression "denominational University." It meant a University confined by law to the members of a particular denomination. Nothing of that sort happens here. Anybody can go, and I am perfectly confident a great number of persons will go, to both these new Universities who do not belong either to the Presbyterian or to the Roman Catholic Church. We have done our best to secure that nobody shall be excluded from going, that every scholarship and every fellowship shall be open to everybody irrespective of religious opinions. We have done more than that, we have secured that the governing bodies of these Universities for all time, after you have got rid of the first five years, shall be composed of elected members, elected by the graduates, elected by the professors. Never mind the precise details, these are open to consideration; but what is not open to consideration is the perfectly free constitution of these governing bodies;
852
they will be democratic bodies. It is said: "Oh, what does that matter? Universities have to be governed by a Senate." Well, we secure that the Senate shall be freely elected. What more can we do? Some people push it even further. They say: "That is no good. Senates are composed of men and women, and men and women all of them in Ireland belong to one religious faith or another." You proceed to inquire to what religious faith they belong, and then you discover that you have set up a University in a province where most of the people are of one way of religious thinking; consequently the graduates are for the most part of one way of religious thinking; they elect the Senate, and freely choose the men they want, and then it turns out that in the north these men are mostly Presbyterians and in the south they are mostly Roman Catholics. How can I help that? If you push this matter home you will come to this—that everybody who objects to Universities constituted like this, because they will give predominance in certain way of religious thinking, thinks that these kind of persons ought not to have Universities at all. I challenge anybody, the most confirmed and determined Nonconformist in this House, to pursue this matter home, to push it to its final and ultima ratio; and he will find that if he objects to a University simply because it is set up in a country where most of the people belong to one way of religious faith, and as a consequence that religious faith, is freely represented on the governing body if he objects to that, his objection is not to my scheme, but to the religion of these people. I cannot pretend to say what the future of these Universities may

853
be, but really sonic people talk as if Roman Catholics had nothing to do with learning; as if a learned Roman Catholic hardly ever existed. I read in The Times to-day the obituary notice of a most distinguished Roman Catholic Jesuit priest who for forty long years played a great and distinguished part in the education of our fellow-subjects in India and whose studies were not directed to the humanities, which some people think are ghastly studies—I entirely differ from them—but to those exact, precise, scientific studies upon which so many people nowadays, and rightly I daresay, set so much account. Here was a most distinguished man, a doctor of science, a learned man, and some members who do not know an acid from an alkali talk in this way about Roman Catholic governing bodies. We Protestants, who have succeeded to Roman Catholic institutions and enjoyed our education in colleges founded by Williams of Wykeham and Lady Margarets and other devout Roman Catholic persons, have banged the doors of these institutions for centuries in the faces of people belonging to the same faith as their founders. We who have benefited by their education, enjoyed their literature, been brought up many of us in some places still under their influence, have the audacity to pretend that a University will be endangered and not be a true seat of learning because it may well be that Roman Catholics may have a predominant influence in it. I repudiate that from the bottom of my heart. Then we are told about those bishops who are going to destroy everything. The bishops in this matter have behaved with great generosity. They have withdrawn from their de jure representation, and have been content to rely so far as they need rely upon the
854
free votes which those of them who wish to serve on governing bodies may openly obtain from Roman Catholic graduates. Those bishops who care for education, and many of the existing bishops are authorities on that subject, will have no difficulty. They will remain for all time—unless persuaded, as some people seem to fear, to abandon their religion and adopt ours—which will be a long process—these Roman Catholic bishops will remain responsible members of the hierarchy and will have no difficulty—those who are educationally equipped and educationally minded—in playing as spirited and distinguished a part in the conduct of their Irish Universities as English clergy still maintain in our old Universities of Cambridge and Oxford. Many subjects of detail have been referred to. I need not enter into them. There is only one other question about which I want to say a word—the subject of affiliation. Every University must have the right and has the right under certain conditions which it imposes itself and makes itself of affiliating institutions in the educational qualities of whose teaching it has confidence. The right of affiliation of institutions capable of giving University training cannot be denied. Every University must possess it. I hope they will always exercise it with profound caution. We are founding an institution that may last for 500 or 1,000 years, and what colleges may be affiliated in time to conic I do not know. I hope they will start with a very high ideal and with a conviction of the necessity of not frittering away their revenues upon a number of colleges distributed over the country where the members of these colleges cannot possibly get the full benefit of University education and breathe a University atmosphere.

855
There is every indication that they will be very chary in granting their affiliation rights. Something has been said about external people who do not belong to the University, who read their text books at home and go to crammers and private institutions, whose object is to get letters after their name. In this matter of externals, although diplomas or anything else may be given to people who satisfy the examiners, I hope these Senates will be strenuous in their determination to secure that anybody who is a graduate of Dublin or Belfast is really a Dublin or a Belfast man. That will be the spirit in which we shall approach this question in Committee. In conclusion, I will only say that I am deeply grateful to the House for the kindly consideration given to this measure and to the right hon. Gentleman the senior member for Dublin University for predicting for this great institution a glorious and a long future.
MR. MOOREwished to protest against the manner in which this Bill was being rushed through. It had been condemned by every Protestant Church in Ireland. It had been condemned by Methodists and Presbyterians, and their deputations were coming over to protest, but the Bill had been put down because of the advice of Dr. Delany, who had been the Chief Secretary's adviser throughout. ["Oh."]
MR. BIRRELL: On behalf of Dr. Delany I beg to say no such communication has passed. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw, withdraw."]
MR. MOORE: Then it was the one solitary occasion upon which Dr. Delany's advice had not been taken. Although the Government had no time to receive deputations from the Presby-
856
terians or the Methodists, or from the Royal University, they found time last week to receive a deputation from the Irish pawnbrokers. Before the measure was rushed through the House and sent to a Committee upstairs, where its crude nature would not be brought to the minds of the English people, he wished to quote the opinion of one of their own leaders, uttered not so very long ago. This right hon. Gentleman, when in Opposition, said—
"The setting up of a University which is Catholic in tone, which is Catholic in atmosphere, which is really Catholic in every respect, is a thing which the vast majority of Members on this side of the House, who represent Nonconformist constituencies, will oppose. I have the greatest doubt about our own leaders.… We are rather afraid that our leaders will commit themselves to a proposal of this character which, if carried, will simply wreck the Party.… I sincerely trust our leaders will do nothing of the kind."
Those were the words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was a leader himself now. Was he going to follow his own brave words of ten years ago, or was he going meekly into the lobby to vote with the Irish Nationalists, who on behalf of the Roman Catholic bishops had accepted this scheme? Were the great Liberal Party prepared to swallow these brave words? In this Bill they were making a deal with clericalism, which the right hon. Gentlemen said was the enemy. The only difference was that it was Roman Catholic clericalism and not the clericalism of the Established Church of England. In two or three years they would find the clerical authority in Ireland moving to dispense with their restrictions, and this Bill would become waste paper, and the man who had led them into that morass would be the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
question put.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Clive, Percy Archer

Harwood, George

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Agnew, George William

Cooper, G. J.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hayden, John Patrick

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hazleton, Richard

Ambrose, Robert

Cowan, W. H.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Crean, Eugene

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Crooks, William

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crosfield, A. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Crossley, William J.

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

Astbury, John Meir

Cullinan, J.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Curran, Peter Francis

Higham, John Sharp

Baldwin, Stanley

Dalmeny, Lord

Hobart, Sir Robert

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hodge, John

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hogan, Michael

Barker, John

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Delany, William

Holt, Richard Durning

Barnard, E. B.

Devlin, Joseph

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Barnes, G. N.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Beale, W. P.

Dillon, John

Hudson, Walter

Beauchamp, E.

Donelan, Captain A.

Hyde, Clarendon

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Idris, T. H. W.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Duncan, J. H. (York. Otley)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Jardine, Sir J.

Bennett, E. N.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jenkins, J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Elibank, Master of

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jowett, F. W.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Joyce, Michael

Boland, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Joynson-Hicks, William

Bottomley, Horatio

Fell, Arthur

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Bowerman, C. W.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Ffrench, Peter

Kekewich, Sir George

Brigg, John

Field, William

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Bright, J. A.

Findlay, Alexander

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Brodie, H. C.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Kilbride, Denis

Brooke, Stopford

Flynn, James Christopher

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Laidlaw, Robert

Brunner, Rt Hn. Sir J.T (Cheshire

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Bryce, J. Annan

Gilhooly, James

Lamont, Norman

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bull, Sir William James

Glover, Thomas

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lehmann, R. C.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Levy, Sir Maurice

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lewis, John Herbert

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Guinness, Walter Edward

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Byles, William Pollard

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Lupton, Arnold

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hall, Frederick

Maclean, Donald

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Halpin, J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Chance, Frederick William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macpherson, J. T.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

M'Callum, John M.

Cleland, J. W.

Hart-Davies, T.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

The House divided:—Ayes, 352; Noes, 38. (Division List No. 86.)

M'Kean, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

O'Shee, James John

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

M'Micking, Major G.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Partington, Oswald

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Mallet, Charles E.

Paulton, James Mellor

Summerbell, T.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Marnham, F. J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Masterman, C. F. G.

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

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Meagher, Michael

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

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

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Radford, G. H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Menzies, Walter

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Middlebrook, William

Raphael, Herbert H.

Toulmin, George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Molteno, Percy Alport

Reddy, M.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Mond, A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Verney, F. W.

Montagu, E. S.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Vivian, Henry

Mooney, J. J.

Rees, J. D.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Morpeth, Viscount

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Morrell, Philip

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

Walsh, Stephen

Morse, L. L.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walters, John Tudor

Muldoon, John

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walton, Joseph

Murnaghan, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Waring, Walter

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Robinson, S.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Myer, Horatio

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Waterlow, D. S.

Napier, T. B.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Watt, Henry A.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Russell, T. W.

Whitbread, Howard

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Nield, Herbert

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nolan, Joseph

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whitehead, Rowland

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Wiles, Thomas

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Seely, Colonel

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Nuttall, Harry

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

Williamson, A.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull. W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sheehy, David

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wodehouse, Lord

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Doherty, Philip

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wyndham Rt. Hon. George

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Young, Samuel

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

Spicer, Sir Albert

O'Dowd, John

Stanger, H. Y.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

O'Grady, J.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Starkey, John R.

Pease.

O'Malley, William

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hedges, A. Paget

Seaverns, J. H.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Clough, William

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

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Valentia, Viscount

Cox, Harold

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Moore, William

Cross, Alexander

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

O'Neill Hon. Robert Torrens

Alfred Hutton and Dr.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pirie, Duncan V.

Hazel.

Main Question again proposed.
And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business.
The House divided:—Ayes, 328; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 87.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cooper, G. J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Agnew, George William

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

Hart-Davies, T.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harwood, George

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ambrose, Robert

Cowan, W. H.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Cox, Harold

Haworth, Arthur A.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hayden, John Patrick

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Crean, Eugene

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Astbury, John Meir

Crooks, William

Hazleton, Richard

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Crosfield, A. H.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crossley, William J.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cullinan, J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Barker, John

Curran, Peter Francis

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dalmeny, Lord

Henry, Charles S.

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Higham, John Sharp

Beale, W. P.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Beauchamp, E.

Delany, William

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Devlin, Joseph

Hodge, John

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hogan, Michael

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

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

Holland, Sir William Henry

Bennett, E. N.

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

Holt, Richard Durning

Berridge, T. H. D.

Dillon, John

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hudson, Walter

Boland, John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hyde, Clarendon

Bottomley, Horatio

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Idris, T. H. W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Brigg, John

Elibank, Master of

Jardine, Sir J.

Bright, J. A.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jenkins, J.

Brodie, H. C.

Essex, R. W.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Brooke, Stopford

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

Everett, R. Lacey

Jowett, F. W.

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T (Cheshire)

Ffrench, Peter

Joyce, Michael

Bryce, J. Annan

Field, William

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Findlay, Alexander

Kearley, Hudson E.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Kekewich, Sir George

Burke, E. Haviland-

Flynn, James Christopher

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Kilbride, Denis

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Gilhooly, James

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Byles, William Pollard

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Laidlaw, Robert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Glover, Thomas

Lamont, Norman

Chance, Frederick William

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lehmann, R. C.

Clancy, John Joseph

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Cleland, J. W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Levy, Sir Maurice

Clough, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lewis, John Herbert

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hall, Frederick

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Halpin, J.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Whereupon Mr. ASQUITH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Lupton, Arnold

O'Doherty, Philip

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Macdonald. J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Maclean, Donald

O'Dowd, John

Stranger, H. Y.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

O'Grady, J.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)

Macpherson. J. T.

O'Malley, William

Strachey, Sir Edward

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

O'Shee, James John

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

M'Callum, John M.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Partington, Oswald

Summerbell, T.

M'Kean, John

Paulton, James Mellor

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

M'Micking, Major G.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Mallet, Charles E.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thomasson, Franklin

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Thompson, J.W. H (Somerset, E

Marnham, F. J.

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Maso, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Masterman, C. F. G.

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

Toulmin, George

Meagher, Michael

Radford, G. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Verney, F. W.

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Menzies, Walter

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Walsh, Stephen

Middlebrook, William

Reddy, M.

Walters, John Tudor

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Walton, Joseph

Molteno, Percy Alport

Redmond, William (Clare)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Mond, A.

Rees, J. D.

Waring, Walter

Montagu, E. S.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Mooney, J. J.

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

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Waterlow, D. S.

Morrell, Philip

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Watt, Henry A.

Morse, L. L.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whitbread, Howard

Muldoon, John

Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Murnaghan, George

Robinson, S.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whitehead, Rowland

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Russell, T. W.

Wiles, Thomas

Napier, T. B.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Williamson, A.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Nolan, Joseph

Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Seely, Colonel

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Wodehouse, Lord

Nuttall, Harry

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

Sheehy, David

Young, Samuel

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Pease.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

NOES.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, Charles

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fell, Arthur

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Moore, William

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

Gordon, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Guinness, Walter Edward

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Nield, Herbert

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

O'Neil, Hon. Robert Torrens

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Castlereagh, Viscount

Houston, Robert Paterson

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cacil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Renton, Leslie

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cross, Alexander

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos, Myles

Solan, Thomas Henry

864

865

Starkey, John R.

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Frederick Banbury and

Thornton, Percy M.

Wolf, Gustav Wilhelm

Caption Craig.

Question put accordingly.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Clive, Percy Archer

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Clough, William

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Agnew, George William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hart-Davies, T.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Harwood, George

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cooper, G. J.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ambrose, Robert

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cowan. W. H.

Hayden, John Patrick

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hazleton, Richard

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crean, Eugene

Healy, Timothy Michael

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Crooks, William

Hemmerde, Edward George

Astbury, John Meir

Crosfield, A. H.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Crossley, William J.

Henry, Charles S.

Baldwin, Stanley

Cullinan, J.

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

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Curran, Peter Francis

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dalmeny, Lord

Higham, John Sharp

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co,

Hobart, Sir Robert

Barker, John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hodge, John

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hogan, Michael

Barnes, G. N.

Delany, William

Holland, Sir William Henry

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Devlin, Joseph

Holt, Richard Durning

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Beale, W. P.

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

Hope, W. Bateman (somerset, N

Beauchamp, E.

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Backett, Hon. Gervase

Dillon, John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Bellairs, Carlyon

Donelan, Captain A.

Hudson, Walter

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hyde, Clarendon

Bennett, E. N.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Idris, T. H. W.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jardine, Sir J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jenkins, J.

Boland, John

Elibank, Master of

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Bottomley, Horatio

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Bowerman, C. W.

Essex, R. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Joyce, Michael

Brigg, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Joynson-Hicks, William

Bright, J. A.

Fell, Arthur

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Brodie, H. C.

Ffrench, Peter

Kearley, Hudson E.

Brooke, Stopford

Field, William

Kekewich, Sir George

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

Findlay, Alexander

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T (Cheshire

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Bryce, J. Annan

Flynn, James Christopher

Kilbride, Denis

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fuller, John Michael F.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Laidlaw, Robert

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gilhooly, James

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lamont, Norman

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Glover, Thomas

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lehmann, R. C.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Guinness, Walter Edward

Levy, Sir Maurice

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Lewis, John Herbert

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Lloyd-George. Rt. Hon. David

Chance, Frederick William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hall, Frederick

Lupton, Arnold

Churchill Rt. Hon. Winston

Halpin, J.

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Clancy, John Joseph

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Maclean, Donald

Cleland, J.W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

The House divided:—Ayes, 344; Noes, 31. (Division List No, 88.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Grady, J.

Stanger, H. Y.

Macpherson, J. T.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

O'Malley, William

Starkey, John R.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

M'Callum, John M.

O'Shee, James John

Strachey, Sir Edward

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

M'Kean, John

Partington, Oswald

Straus, E. A. (Abingdon)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Paulton, James Mellor

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

M'Micking, Major G.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Summerbell, T.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Mallet, Charles E.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Marnham, F. J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Masterman, C. F. G.

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

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

Meagher, Michael

Radford, G. H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Bandies, Sir John Scurrah

Toulmin, George

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Menzies, Walter

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Verney, F. W.

Middlebrook, William

Reddy, M.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Molteno, Percy Alport

Redmond, William (Clare)

Walsh, Stephen

Mond, A.

Rees, J. D.

Walters, John Tudor

Montagu, E. S.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Walton, Joseph

Mooney, J. J.

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Waring, Walter

Morpeth, Viscount

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Morrell, Philip

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Morse, L. L.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Muldoon, John

Robinson, S.

Waterlow, D. S.

Murnaghan, George

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Watt, Henry A.

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whitbread, Howard

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Russell, T. W.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Napier, T. B.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Whitehead, Rowland

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wiles, Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Williamson, A.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Seely, Colonel

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Nuttall, Harry

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

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

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sheehy, David

Wodehouse, Lord

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Young, Samuel

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

O' Doherty, Philip

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

O'Dowd, John

Spicer, Sir Albert

Pease.

NOES.

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

Hedges, A. Paget

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Seaverns, J. H.

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

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Cox, Harold

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

M'Arthur, Charles

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cross, Alexander

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Gordon, J.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Frederick Banbury and

Hamilton, Marquess of

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Captain Craig.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bill read a second time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Com-

The House divided:—Ayes, 50; Noes 311. (Division List No. 89.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Moore, William

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morpeth, Viscount

Baldwin, Stanley

Gordon, J.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Guinness, Walter Edward

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renton, Leslie

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Castlereagh, Viscount

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Starkey, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

M'Arthur, Charles

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Cross, Alexander

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Viscount Valentia.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Byles, William Pollard

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Agnew, George William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Essex, R. W.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Chance, Frederick William

Everett, R. Lacey

Ambrose, Robert

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Ffreneh, Peter

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Field, William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Clancy, John Joseph

Findlay, Alexander

Astbury, John Meir

Cleland, J. W.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Clough, William

Flynn, James Christopher

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fuller, John Michael F.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Barker, John

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Gilhooly, James

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

cooper, G. J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Barnard, E. B.

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

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

Barnes, G. N.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Glover, Thomas

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cowan, W. H.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Beale, W. P.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Beauchamp, E.

Crean, Eugene

Gurdon, Rt Hon Sir W. Brampton

Bellairs, Carlyon

Crooks, William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

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

Crossley, William J.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Bennett, E. N.

Cullinan, J.

Hall, Frederick

Berridge, T. H. D.

Curran, Peter Francis

Halpin, J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dalmeny, Lord

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Boland, John

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bottomley, Horatio

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harwood, George

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Brigg, John

Delany, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Bright, J. A.

Devlin, Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

Brodie, H. C.

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

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

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

Hazleton, Richard

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T (Cheshire

Dillon, John

Healy, Timothy Michael

Bryce, J. Annan

Donelan, Captain A.

Hedges, A. Paget

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Henry, Charles S.

mittee of the Whole House."—(Sir Edward Carson.)

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

Montagu, E. S.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Mooney, J. J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Higham, John Sharp

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Seaverns, J. H.

Hodge, John

Morse, L. L.

Seely, Colonel

Hogan, Michael

Muldoon, John

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

Holland, Sir William Henry

Murnaghan, George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Holt, Richard Durning

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Sheehy, David

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Horniman, Emslie John

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Hudson, Walter

Napier, T. B.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hyde, Clarendon

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Idris, T. H. W.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Spicer, Sir Albert

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Jardine, Sir J.

Nurgent, Sir Walter Richard

Stewart-smith, D. (Kendal)

Jenkins, J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nuttall, Harry

Straus, B. S. (Mid End)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Joyce, Michael

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Summerbell, T.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Doherty, Philip

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

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

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Kilbride, Denis

O'Dowd, John

Thomasson, Franklin

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O'Grady, J.

Thompson, J.W.H (Somerset, E

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Lamont, Norman

O'Malley, William

Toulmin, George

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Shee, James John

Verney, F. W.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Parker, James (Halifax)

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Lehmann, R. C.

Partington, Oswald

Walsh, Stephen

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Paulton, James Mellor

Walters, John Tudor

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Walton, Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Waring, Walter

Lupton, Arnold

Pirie, Duncan V.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Maclean, Donald

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Waterlow, D. S.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Watt, Henry A.

Macpherson, J. T.

Radford, G. H.

Whitbread, Howard

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

M'Callum, John M.

Reddy, M.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Whitehead, Rowland

M'Kean, John

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rees, J. D.

Wiles, Thomas

Mallet, Charles E.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Williamson, A.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

Meagher, Michael

Robertson, Sir G Scoot (Bradf'rd

Wodehouse, Lord

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N

Robinson, S.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Young, Samuel

Menzies, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Middlebrook, William

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Russell, T. W.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Mond, A.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Pease.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned
the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at seven minutes before Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Great Eastern Railway (General Powers); Humber Commercial Railway and Dock; North Eastern Railway; Draycott Gas; Gosport Gas; Leicester Corporation; Motherwell Burgh Extension, etc.; Wishaw Burgh Electricity, etc.; Blandon and Ryton Water (Transfer); Louth and East Coast Railway (Transfer).
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) [H.L.].
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway—(Petition for Bill).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Honourable Artillery Company—(Petition for Bill); Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill—(Petition for additional Provision).—Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.].—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Bristol Tramways Bill [H.L.].—The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; The Orders made on 10th March and 1st April last discharged, and Bill committed.
Wath-upon-Dearne Urban District Council Gas Bill [H.L.].—The CHAIRMAN
650
of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on 19th February and 1st April last discharged, and Bill committed.
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway Bill [H. L.].—The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on 20th February and 1st April last discharged, and Bill committed.
Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Bill.—Read 2a, and committed.
King's College, London (Transfer) Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Rochester Bridge Bill [H.L.]; Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction Railway, Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction Railway, and East and West Junction Railway (Amalgamation) Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Monmouthshire County Council Bill [H.L.]; Stockport Corporation Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Sinclair be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Hardwicke; read, and agreed to.
Manchester Corporation Bill.—Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Great Western Railway (Superannuation Scheme) Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.].—Report by the Board of Trade respecting the above Bill and the objects thereof. Laid before the House (pursuant to Standing Order 158B), and ordered to lie on the Table.
Tramways Order Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.].—House in Committee (according to Order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  HURLY'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Eorl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I move to add, at the end of this clause, the following words—
  "The said Maurice Randall Hurly may from time to time have reasonable access to the said children, and in the event of any dispute as to what constitutes reasonable access the question of access shall be determined by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or the High Court of Justice in England as the case may require."
  When the hearing came on certain questions of detail arose, and we asked Lord Macnaghten and Lord Atkinson to hear the parties and to arrange proper clauses to carry out the desire, subject, of course, to the control of the House. This is the first of the Amendments in question.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 9, after the word 'minorities,' to add the words 'The said Maurice Randall Hurly may from time to time have reasonable access to the said children and in the event of any dispute as to what constitutes reasonable access the question of access shall be determined by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or the High Court of Justice in England as the case may require.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, at the beginning of the clause, to insert the words, 'Whereas the said Maurice Randall Hurly and the said Honoria Hurly have agreed as to the future maintenance of the said children and whereas it is expedient to give effect to the said agreement: 'Be t therefore enacted that.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 22, to leave out the word 'marry' and to insert the words 'attain twenty-one
  652
  years of age or marry under that age.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 7."(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 8."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  COLONIES: MISCELLANEOUS.
  No. 50. British Cotton Cultivation.—Reports on the quality of cotton grown in British Possessions by Professor Wyndham Dunstan, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., Director of the Imperial Institute.
  No. 51. Southern Nigeria.—Report on the Forest Administration of Southern Nigeria for 1906.

  Further correspondence relating to native affairs in Natal (in continuation of [Cd. 3888.], January, 1908).
  TURKEY No. 3 (1908).
  Further correspondence respecting the affairs of South-eastern Europe (in continuation of Turkey, No. 1. (1907), [Cd. 3454.]).

  TREATY SERIES, No. 12 (1908).
  Additional Act to the International Sugar Convention of 5th March, 1902, signed at Brussels, 28th August, 1907; Protocol recording accession of Russia to the International Sugar Convention of

  653
  5th March, 1902; and Additional Act of 28th August, 1907, signed at Brussels 10th December, 1907. (Proces-Verbaux recording deposit of ratifications, 31st March, 1908.)

  IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL, 1908.
  Lists of persons to be proposed for nomination to be members—Of the first governing body of the college to have its seat in Dublin; Of the first governing body under a new charter for the constituent college at Galway.

  EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS (IRE- LAND).
  Annual Report for the year 1907.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the visitors of lunatics, pursuant to the Lunacy Act, 1890, from 1st October, 1907, to 31st March, 1908.
  INDIA.
  Home Accounts of the Government of India; Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India, for the year 1906–1907; Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of India, for the year 1907–1908, compared with the results of 1906–1907.
  NATIONAL DEBT ACT, 1883 (TERMINABLE ANNUITIES).
  Treasury Warrants, dated 6th May, 1908, for the adjustment of the terminable annuities created under the Finance Act, 1899, and held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Trustee and Post Office Savings Banks.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DUR- HAM).
  Order made by the council of the County of Durham altering the polling place for the Morton Grange polling district in the Houghton-le-Spring Parliamentary Division.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HOP INDUSTRY.
  Message from the Commons for leave for the Lord Eversley to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House: Leave given for his Lordship to attend, if he think fit, and his Lordship consenting thereto, a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
NEW BILL
  REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the time for an Appeal from the decision of a Revising Barrister, and matters consequential thereon—Was presented by the Lord Alverstone; read 1a; and to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday, the 14th instant. (No. 61.)

THE HOP INDUSTRY.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I have the honour to move: "That the continued cultivation of the hop gardens of England is a matter of national concern, and that the present critical condition of the hop industry deserves the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government." I would not have brought forward this Motion while a Special Committee of the House of Commons is inquiring into the matter had I not remembered that no fewer than three Committees have, during the last half-century, sat on the subject; and while all have recognised the importation of foreign hops to be a great danger to an English industry, they have learned that a duty on the importation of foreign hops was the only remedy, yet none of them have had the courage to propose it. For the last fifty years Bavarian hops have been imported, and still will be imported. They are used in combination with English hops on account of the peculiar flavour they impart to the beer. But now the continued importation of hops from abroad, amounting to 200,000 cwt. a year, is depriving the English grower of the high prices which occasionally reimbursed him for losses in years of blight or of extraordinary over-production. The area of land under hops in England has been steadily decreasing. In the

655
ten years from 1877 to 1887 the acreage was 68,000; from 1887 to 1897, 56,000; and in the last ten years, 48,000. The present crisis has been brought about by the formation of a Pacific Coast Hop-growers' Union, who have frankly said that they wish to ruin the English hop industry. Hops can be produced on the Pacific Coast at about half the price they can be in England, and the output per acre on the Pacific Coast is 15 cwt., as against 9 cwt. in England. They are now being sold under cost price, at 25s. per cwt., this being the result of a corner made in hops in America two or three years ago. This is disastrous, not only to English growers, but to vast numbers employed in the industry. I will quote an extract on this subject from the Daily Express, and I may say that I have myself taken the trouble to verify the accuracy of the letter referred to—
"A complete exposure of the American plan to ruin the English hop industry by dumping all their surplus produce in this country has been made by Mr. Durst, the pioneer of the Pacific Coast Hopgrowers' Combine, in a letter to an English hopgrower. Mr. Durst writes—'What is the use of anyone thinking hop-growing in England can survive? In 1906 you had the smallest and most expensive crop on record. How many of the growers made a profit? In 1907 you lacked 245,000 cwt. of growing your annual requirements, and the United States of America only grew 280,000 bales; and yet you are selling hops at a heavy loss. What will happen when we grow from 350,000 to 400,000 bales, perhaps next year, which we can easily do?'"
Mr. Durst added, and here is the animus of the whole thing—
"We can afford to sell our surplus in a foreign country at 30 per cent. below the cost of production, if necessary, providing that by such handling of our surplus we can secure profitable prices for the hops we market at home."
An import duty is a perfectly proper remedy, and I urge the Government to consider most seriously the universal demand of every hop-growing county in England for an import duty of 40s.
In 1857, under Mr. Gladstone, there was an excise duty on hops. The duty was just under £1 on English hops, and 45s. on foreign hops. There you see a protective duty of 25s. in favour of English as against foreign hops. Would it not be wise now to add 15s. to the old 25s. and make an import duty of £40s.? I have been assured by gentlemen who
656
have spent their lives in hop-growing, and expended thousands of pounds in combating the defects of some parts of the hop-growing districts, that this is the one thing necessary. Lord George Hamilton, speaking at Ealing on 22nd October, 1903, said—
"I would not hesitate in a case at all similar to the sugar duties, if I thought that a great national industry was likely to be endangered or extinguished, to put on duties to prevent that unfortunate result."
The late Sir William Harcourt, speaking at Tredegar on 12th December, 1903, and referring to the question of steel dumping in this country, said—
"It is evidently a matter which requires very careful consideration. It must be considered with respect to the general interest of the iron trade, which is the greatest trade of this country. And I wish to say here, and to say very sincerely, that I should give the most careful attention to any proposal made by the Government or made by Mr. Chamberlain or anyone else to deal with that question."
And Sir Henry Fowler, in a speech at Wolverhampton on 12th January, 1904, said—
"He was quite ready to admit that if there was a case where a foreign combination, trust, or cartel exported to this country at a nominal price with the aim and intent of injuring and ultimately ruining a British industry, that would be a state of commercial war in which we might deal with the hostile country by exceptional measures."
On 15th April last The Times drew attention to this question, and said—
"The attack with which the hop industry is now faced is of a different kind from the ordinary stress of external competition which it has had to meet for many years past."
Here follow words which I should like to emphasise—
"It is based on a total subversion of the normal laws of demand and supply, and aims at speedily securing an absolute monopoly, which of all conceivable forms of trade is the most unfree."
Providence has blessed England, and particularly the counties of Kent and Worcester, with a soil which produces absolutely the best hops in the world. I ask His Majesty's Government to prevent the importation of low-class hops from California, which I am assured are rank and give a sleepy, heavy taste to beer manufactured from them. If only the Government would shake themselves free from the old prejudice against protection, they would do an act which

657
would really be to the interest of the working classes, and they could not have a simpler or a more grateful task. It is said to be a good thing to make two blades of grass grow where only one grew before. If the Government would only do what those engaged in English hop-growing desire them to do there would soon be three acres of hops where only one acre exists now. I have the honour to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, to resolve, "That the continued cultivation of the hop gardens of England is a matter of national concern, and that the present critical condition of the hop industry deserves the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government."—(Lord Addington.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I ask leave to say a very few words on this subject. In no kind of sense will I attempt to follow the noble Lord in his arguments on the financial aspects; nor am I qualified to speak upon the agricultural aspect, but I am of necessity very closely concerned with the welfare of the people of Kent. Apart from my wider duties and responsibilities, as the diocesan bishop I have to be in touch day by day with the life of the Kentish towns and villages, and I am simply aghast at the consternation which is at this moment prevailing in the villages of Kent at the prospects awaiting them if the present condition of matters should be allowed to go on and the hop industry should practically come to an end. It is not a matter of incidental and temporary loss in a particular branch of industry or trade, such as has occasionally arisen in manufacturing centres from some change in the manner of dealing with a particular raw product or from the introduction of new machinery or the like. I look with the greatest apprehension upon the changes which I am told must come about unless some prompt steps are taken. What those steps should be, I do not profess to know; but I should be wrong if, with the knowledge I possess of the towns and villages of Kent, I did not say how widespread is the feeling that this is not a matter of ordinary importance, but one which really concerns the industrial and social well-being of the communities both in
658
the towns and also the villages of Kent. The matter has been brought before me again and again by those who are qualified to speak soberly and quietly, and who have looked into the matter with no kind of object at heart but that of the well-being of the people at large. The matter is not one which can be lightly put aside. One of the very gravest disasters would befall the people of Kent if what at present is apprehended came to pass. Therefore I await with great interest to hear whether the Government can say anything to relieve the anxiety which now prevails.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, may I add a few words from the purely practical point of view? After my long acquaintance with this industry it may, perhaps, be legitimate that I should do so. What is observable now is a continuance of what has been going on for a good many years. There is no doubt that hops were grown in a great many English counties a hundred years ago, and in many villages where no hops are now grown you will frequently come across the name "hop yard." What brought about the extinction of cultivation in a great many counties and left the growing of hops to about five counties was the change in the demand of the public for a particular class of beer. By degrees the public has demanded a brighter and clearer beer, and the consequence is that those counties capable of growing a bright hop have been able to supply the demand at a lower price than the other counties, even if the latter ever were able to grow bright hops.
Another curious influence, so I am assured by a practical man, a brewer himself, is the substitution of glass for pewter in public-houses. In the old days, when pewter was almost entirely used, the drinking public did not notice how dark the beer was. It was not necessarily any worse because it was dark; its colour was due to its being brewed with a dark hop. When glass came to be used the public demanded a brighter beer, and the brighter hop has gradually pushed out the darker coloured hop. Reference has been made to Bavarian hops. Apart from the fact that the quality of those hops is good and that they command a

659
high price, they brew a light beer. That is a proof in the same direction. Another thing that has influenced hop growing is that the character of brewing has changed. Brewing in olden days used to be done at intervals of considerable length—two, three, or four times a year. Nowadays the brewer brews from hand to mouth, and consequently there is not so much preservative required in the beer and the quantity of hops per barrel has decreased.
Cold storage is another factor. Having laid in a large stock of good hops, purchased, perhaps, in a year when they were cheap, a brewer is able, by cold storage, to keep them for even longer than twelve months. The consequence is that the brewer can command the trade in hops the following year. This is a very important thing to the hop grower. His hops come into the market about the beginning of October. In the old days it was necessary for the brewer who had to do his October brewing to go to market and lay in the necessary supply of hops. But now, with the help of cold storage, and not having to lay in a large stock of hops in October, he is independent of the market. The foreign grower can, therefore, come in towards the end of October and compete with the English grower, whereas in the old days the English grower was first in the market and thereby got the advantage. Evidence has been given before the Committee in another place that the growth of hops per acre has increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech in another place on this subject, said that this was due to improved machinery. That made many of us smile, as it is hardly by the use of machinery so much as by attacking those pests which pursue the hop almost from the day that it emerges from the soil to the day that it is picked, that this result has been achieved. As the saying is—
"First the flea and then the fly,
Then the louse and then they die."
Washing to attack the fly, and the use of sulphur to attack the mould, has come into use in cultivation of late years, and it is largely by the application of those two remedies that an increased yield per acre has been procured.
660
I trust that we shall obtain a sympathetic reply from the noble Earl the s President of the Board of Agriculture. I would suggest to him that there is no occasion to fall back upon the formula of free trade as compared with protection. I suppose the two great advantages of free trade are the free introduction of raw material, which enables our superabundant population to find employment, and the free introduction of cheap food. Now, I have no recollection whatever of the price of beer being raised in consequence of hops being dear. I have known hops as high as £28; they are down to £3 now. It makes no difference what the price of hips is, the price of beer has always been the same. The quantity of hops used per barrel is very small, and that may be the reason why the price of beer has not been affected. There is no doubt that this country can easily grow the whole of the hops required by the trade. There is not the slightest question about that, and I think it has been stated in evidence before the House of Commons Committee.
The noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, has done his best to support the "back to the land" movement. I can assure him that if the cultivation of hops continues to decrease as it has done during the last two or three years in the county of Kent, which grows more hops than any other county, a still larger number of cottages will become vacant. In East Kent, almost every farm over a very wide area grows a certain number of hops, and there are additional cottages on those farms because of the extra demand for labour. Within the last two years it has been far easier to obtain cottages than it was a few years ago, and this is attributed, and truthfully attributed, to the decrease in the cultivation of hops. Here is a practical proof of a dislocation of population. Those men are being driven away somewhere. They may go to the towns. If so, the efforts the noble Earl is putting forward to get people back to the land are, in this particular instance, being frustrated, and I think we may legitimately appeal to his sympathy on this ground.
There is another argument I should like to advance. In 1885, the extraordinary

661
tithe was consolidated and fixed for ever upon the farms then paying it. When the Tithe Act was passed the Commissioners had to take notice in what parishes hops and fruit were being grown, and it depended upon the activity of the overseers whether extraordinary tithe was paid in certain parishes or not. Anomalies therefore will be found here and there, and in the case of two parishes alongside each other, apparently growing equally good hops, the extraordinary tithe is charged on one, but not on the other. But in 1885 those parishes which did pay the extraordinary tithe paid upon such acreage as was under fruit and under hops; and in that year, if my recollection is correct, those charges were fixed for ever upon those parishes. Therefore, they are, I believe, now paying, and will continue for ever to pay, a higher tithe whether they are growing hops and fruit or not. In those cases it is obvious that if the hop cultivation disappeared altogether they would suffer a real hardship.
I know that, compared with other agricultural interests, this is only a small matter, but it is no small matter for those counties in which hops are grown. In Kent, almost the whole of the agricultural interest in certain areas is centred upon hops. If any of your Lordships drive from Hastings to some of those beautiful ruins which are to be found in the neighbourhood, you will see indications that at one time there was considerable cultivation of hops in that part of England. That cultivation was killed by competition within this country, owing to other parts being able to grow brighter hops. But at this moment we are threatened, not with destruction from within, but from hops grown in foreign countries—countries which have imposed a heavy import duty against English hops. The other class for whom I would plead are the the labouring classes, both agricultural and urban. The urban labouring class are greatly interested in this industry, and they obtain as a result of their annual visit to the country immense benefit from the open air life they are able to lead. I am sure that even the most determined advocate of free trade must admit that, in the interest of these poor persons from urban centres, it would be a real misfortune if such an industry as this
662
were to be destroyed; and I say unhesitatingly—that, although I have been accustomed to agricultural grumbles all my life, I have never before heard such a positive opinion as is now generally held that this cultivation must, except in most favoured corners, gradually die out unless some artificial assistance can be secured from His Majesty's Government.
*LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, there can be no doubt whatever that the hop industry of England at the present moment is going through a very serious crisis, one which deserves our sympathy and requires inquiry; but I need not remind your Lordships that a Committee of the other House is inquiring into this subject, and I cannot but think that my noble friend Lord Addington would have done well if he had postponed his Motion until the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons could be in our hands. The noble Lord has anticipated the Report of the Committee by attributing the whole of the evils under which the hop industry is suffering to foreign competition, and particularly, as I understood him, to the competition of hops from the Pacific States. I think it will be shown before the Committee of the House of Commons that there are other causes at work to account for the present state of things. I speak with some confidence and with knowledge on the subject, for some years ago I presided over a similar Committee of the other House at the request of the then Government—namely, the Government of Lord Salisbury. It was in 1890, and at that time the hop industry was in an even worse state than it is at the present moment.
LORD HARRIS: Impossible.
*LORD EVERSLEY: Prices had ruled low for four or five years, and there was grave complaint from every part of England in which hops were grown as to the lowness of the price. No less than 17,000 acres—one-fourth of the total acreage of hops then existing—had been grubbed and universally the state of things was attributed to foreign competition, and especially to competition from the United States. The Committee over which I presided, and of which the great majority

663
were supporters of the then Government, inquired at length into the subject, and came to the conclusion that there were other causes for the then state of things. It was shown in evidence before us that there had been a very considerable reduction in the consumption of beer owing to the depression in trade. It had been taking place for something like five or six years, and the total reduction in the consumption amounted to no less than 12 per cent. Then, again, it was shown that the brewers had for some few years previously been able to economise the use of hops. In consequence of the demand of the public for a lighter and brighter beer they were able to use a very much smaller proportion of hops to the barrel than formerly, and this reduction in the use of hops in the manufacture of beer amounted to no less than another 12 per cent. of the total consumption. Then again, it was alleged that hop substitutes had to a certain extent been used. As a result of it all, there was certainly a reduced consumption of hops, as compared with five or six years previously, of no less than 24 per cent., which exactly corresponded to the reduction in the total acreage under hops.
It was also shown before the Committee that the proportion of foreign hops to English hops remained about the same as it had been for previous years, and had been reduced at about the same ration. It was also stated, with great confidence, that a certain proportion of foreign hops were absolutely required by English brewers for the purpose of mixing with British hops, and that, even if a high duty were imposed on foreign hops, there would still be a large importation for the purpose of meeting this demand. The Committee came to the conclusion that the importation of foreign hops was not the main cause of the depression, but that it was due to the causes to which I have adverted; and in view of the great reduction which had taken place in the acreage under hops they concluded their Report by saying that there was every reason to hope that in the near future prices would again rise and the industry again become profitable to those engaged in it. The predicton of the Committee was amply justified, for the very next year a great rise took place in
664
the price of hops, and for the following five years it averaged 40 per cent. more than in the previous Years, showing that in consequence of the reduced production of hops the supply was better proportioned to the demand. The price rose accordingly, and the industry went through a very profitable period.
That period was followed by ups and downs. There was a period of five years of bad trade, and then, from 1901 to 1904, there was another period of very good prices when the hop growers did well; but in 1905 here was an enormous crop, and it is one of the peculiarities of the hop trade that when there is a very large crop prices fall to such a point that the trade becomes very unprofitable to those engaged in it, and very often the price is so low that it hardly covers the cost of picking. In the two following years, again, prices remained much lower than was expected. I cannot but think, from all the information I have received, that other causes than foreign competition are again at work to account for this depression and for the low prices prevailing. It is quite certain that there has been a further large reduction in the consumption of hops owing to the changed taste of the public and to the demand for a lighter and brighter beer requiring a smaller proportion of hops. This is shown by the Returns laid before the Committee by the Inland Revenue, which indicate that the actual consumption of hops during the last five years has been reduced by no less than 17 per cent., and that I believe to be wholly due to the brewers using a smaller proportion of hops per barrel of beer than formerly.
Perhaps even more important has been the great improvement in the cultivation of hop gardens. For some years past there has been a great advance in cultivation, with the result that the difficulties of bad seasons have been to some extent overcome. The growth of hops per acre has, therefore, very much increased. I think your Lordships will be rather surprised to hear how far this has gone. Taking the five years prior to 1890, the time of the inquiry of which I speak, the acreage under hops in this country was 65,000, and there was then produced, on the average of the five years, 460,000

665
cwt., or about 7 cwt. per acre. During the last five years the acreage has been reduced to 48,000, but the production, in spite of that, has been increased from 460,000 cwt., to 471,000 cwt., while the average production per acre is now no less than 9½ cwts., thus showing the effect of a better and higher cultivation. Then there is another cause which has operated in the same direction. It has been discovered that by the use of cold storage the hops of one year which are superfluous in consequence of a good crop can be kept for one, two, or even three years, whereas formerly the surplus stocks of hops in any one year rapidly deteriorated and were hardly worth anything at the end of twelve months. The result of all that is, that during the last few years there has been, quite independent of the importation of foreign hops, a large excess in the supply of hops as compared with the demand. These, however, are matters which require careful consideration, and I cannot but think that your Lordships would do well to suspend your judgment until the Committee of the other House have reported upon the subject.
I must again state that even if a duty of £2 per cwt. were imposed upon foreign hops, there would still be a large importation for the purpose of mixing with English hops and for supplying qualities which are deficient in English hops. This is proved by the fact that, although in the United States there is a duty of no less than 56s. per cwt. upon imported hops, yet a very large proportion of German hops are imported into the United States every year for the purpose of being mixed with American hops and correcting the flavour of the home-grown hops to suit the taste of American consumers. The noble Lord, who initiated this discussion, adverted to hops from the pacific, and quoted the very low price at which they are being sold in England. I think he said that a large quantity of these hops were being offered in London at this moment at 25s. per cwt. Well, these hops cost, in freight and other expenses, 13s. a cwt. to bring over from America, and if you deduct this amount from the 25s. it leaves only 12s. as their value in the United States. I cannot but think that these hops
666
must be of very low quality, and they are probably not worth even 25s. in this market. At all events, I see no reason to be much frightened by them.
It is quite certain that, whatever may happen, a large quantity of British hops will always be necessary for brewing in England. Many of the best brewers in this country never use American hops, but find it absolutely essential to their business to confine themselves to English hops. And my belief is that the proportion of foreign hops to British hops will not be seriously altered, and that the real difficulty under which the industry suffers at the present moment is that for some years past the supply of hops has been in excess of the demand. That is being corrected by the great grubbing of acreage which has taken place. There has been grubbing also in Germany, and, I believe, of late in America, in consequence of low prices; and I cannot but hope that as in 1890 the reduction in acreage led to a better proportion between supply and demand and brought back prosperity to the hop industry, so we may before very long see the same causes again operating in producing renewed prosperity to hop growers in England.
LORD HARRIS: My impression is that the high price of £28 was realised a year or two before the sitting of the Committee over which the noble Lord presided.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I think the House will agree with my noble friend Lord Addington that this matter is one of national concern and deserves immediate attention. The Government quite agree with that. In fact, we have anticipated my noble friend by appointing a very strong Select Committee, presided over by Sir William Collins, who has been described in the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as one of the most able Members of the House. He is admirably supported, the Committee are giving the matter their most earnest attention, and their Report, I hope, will be in your Lordships' hands within six weeks. My noble friend Lord

667
Eversley has given the House an account of the Committee over which he presided in 1890. It will not be necessary, therefore, for me to detain your Lordships with any reference to that Committee, but I should like to allude to what happened in 1906 in the discussion in Committee of the other House on the Land Tenure Bill. Colonel Gardner, the Member for the Ross Division of Herefordshire, moved an Amendment, at the request of some of his Worcestershire and Herefordshire friends, to the effect that landlords should compensate tenants who had erected hop kilns, poles, screens, and wireworks without the landlord's consent. To this the Government could not, and did not, agree, and I am sure your Lordships will acknowledge that they acted rightly in that respect.
The annual consumption of hops in Great Britain averages 600,000 cwt. Two-thirds of that quantity are produced in Great Britain. Though the acreage has been reduced, the output and produce are the same, because the yield per acre has increased. But I do not deny that the situation is very serious. The hop acreage has decreased from 68,000 acres to 47,000 acres, and Kent is responsible for 60 per cent. of the whole of the hop growing in England. This great industry, besides employing 5,000 regular labourers, has for many years past given employment to a large number—estimated at 500,000—of casual labourers. The question that arises is, What ought to be done? Up to the present we have not received much assistance from the other side of the House. Mr. Akers-Douglas admitted in a speech this year that—
"We have not been able to suggest any remedy at all."
But the people of Kent, Worcester, and Hereford have been holding meetings, and the farmers' clubs and chambers of agriculture have been suggesting that it is imperative to put a 40s. per cwt. duty on imported hops. That is not recommended as a part of preference or tariff reform, but as a necessary step to save an industry in exceptional circumstances. But I must remind the House that such a duty would be none the less a tax on food.
LORD ADDINGTON: No, no.
EARL CARRINGTON: It would also be a tax on raw material. The express object of this proposed duty is to raise prices, and not to raise revenue. What would be the effect of such a duty on the brewers and the general public? A witness before the Select Committee said that a 40s. duty would mean an increase of 7¾d. a barrel on the cost of manufacture of beer. That means, "Your beer will cost you more." Sir Thomas Whittaker has given figures to show that out of eighty-two brewery companies twenty-nine pay no dividend on the ordinary shares, and thirty-three are in arrear on their preference shares. If these figures are correct, the duty of 40s. on hops would mean that every shareholder in these sixty-two companies who is now receiving £1 in dividend, would receive 3s. 8d. less. What will happen if the brewers are not able to raise the price of beer? In these circumstances, I might ask, what is to become of the shareholders, of the poor widows and orphans of whom so much has lately been heard?
Leaving the brewers' side of the subject, I turn to the position of the English hop growers, and I ask the noble Lord it he is absolutely certain that a 40s. per cwt. tax would save the British hop grower. It has been asserted that such a duty would not prevent foreign hops coming in, and that there is a necessity for them has been proved by the evidence of witnesses before the Committee. It has been stated that for some of the best beer brewed by the great firm of Bass a certain amount of Bavarian hops must be used. By necessity a 40s. tax would not then keep out all foreign hops, which are required to meet the taste to which consumers have been educated. Germany has a 10s. import duty on hops; Canada, 33s.; Australia, not a great rival with this country as yet, 56s.; and the United States, 56s. That is to say, America puts half as much again on hops as a protective duty as my noble friend proposes should be put upon foreign hops imported into England. The advantages of America in the cultivation are, of course, very obvious. Hops are grown in Oregon and California in great quantities, the country round Sacramento producing the commoner, cheaper

669
sorts. The cost of production in the United States is £23 5s. 9d. per acre. We have been told that in England hops cannot be grown under from £50 to £60 per acre.
LORD ADDINGTON: £42.
EARL CARRINGTON: The official figure that I have is £50 an acre. I think that is about the price.
LORD HARRIS: I think we may accept the price upon which there is a general agreement—£42.
EARL CARRINGTON: I accept that from the noble Lord's practical knowledge. The prices, then, are £42 to £60, as against £23. Hops planted in Oregon in February will yield a fairly good crop in September of the same year, but I believe I am right in saying that in England the first year there is no crop, the second year half a crop, and in the third year a good or full crop. In America, too, there is a better climate, no disease, thus saving washing and expenditure of that description, and virgin soil that requires no manuring. With these advantages it might be supposed, and it has been so stated, that hop-growing in America is a very profitable industry. It has been stated that they sell the best hops at very considerable profit and then send all their trash over here, and our brewers are unpatriotic enough to buy it. The complaint is that hops of a low grade and quality are dumped in this country, and that certainly would be good ground for complaint.
But I would refer the House to Consular reports which within the last few days have been sent by the Foreign Office to the Board of Agriculture. From these reports it appears that the hop-growing industry in America—I have forgotten the exact words—is in a very poor condition; I wish to avoid exaggeration and will say, not in a very satisfactory condition. It appears that practically there is no market at all, and that hops are being sold in the United States at from 2d. to 3d. per lb., while in England the average is something under a shilling. Besides this, there is the prospect of a
670
very full crop in Oregon this year, and it is absolutely necessary to reduce the output. During the last few months the Consul reports that an attempt has been made to form an association to dictate the amount of acreage that must be grubbed. An American expert has declared that 37 per cent. only should be harvested. So far the scheme for grubbing has failed, but it shows to my mind that a country with a 56s. duty on imported hops, nearly half as much again as my noble friend suggested, is in no better condition than England at this moment under free trade. Besides this, the Consul tells of 88,000 cwt. of the 1907 crop and 18,000 cwt. of the 1906 crop in cold storage in the hands of growers and dealers. Cold storage, it appears, does not affect hops to any great extent; they do not deteriorate.
What does it really come to? I think the whole thing can be summed up in a word—the whole difficulty of the position, the cause of all the distress and alarm, is over-production. I hope my remarks have shown no want of sympathy with the tenant farmers of Kent and Worcestershire and other hop-growing counties. I am glad to learn that the alarm is not so great in Worcestershire. I should be sorry if anything I had said seemed to show want of sympathy with the tenant farmers of Kent. They are a fair-minded people, and the House of Lords has the reputation of being a fair-minded Assembly. The Government cannot be accused of want of sympathy for tenant farmers, seeing the efforts we have made to improve the conditions under which they carry on their industry.
In the interest of all concerned, I hope the House will come to no hasty conclusion, but will await the Report of the Committee admirably selected to clear up doubts on the subject, a Report which I am not without hope will lead to some proposal to deal satisfactorily with a state of things which, if not an agricultural danger, is, I frankly admit, a difficulty of most formidable proportions. On behalf of the Government, I entirely agree with the Motion of the noble Lord, whom I thank for

671
having initiated a discussion on a subject of such great interest to farmers.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Does the noble Earl, in his allusion to over-production, mean over-production in America or generally?
EARL CARRINGTON: All over the world.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I rise merely to take exception to the noble Earl's statement that Worcestershire is not so much concerned in this matter as Kent. It is quite true that Worcestershire at the present moment is not nearly so hardly hit as Kent, but there is just as much fear of what will happen next year in Worcestershire as in Kent.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who placed this Motion on the Paper and my noble friends who have supported him on this side may, I think, be congratulated upon their success in placing before the House and before the public the very critical condition of this important industry. In particular, I congratulate the noble Lord upon his having been able to bring forward as a witness the most rev. Primate, who, although one of the most ardent advocates of temperance in Parliament, has, nevertheless, with that absolute fairness which distinguishes him, stood up to say a word in favour of the people whose interests are most in jeopardy. There can be no doubt, as the noble Lords who have spoken have shown us to-night, that the disappearance of this hop-growing industry would be a very heavy calamity indeed to certain portions of England. There is, I believe, no form of cultivation which employs a larger number of people in proportion to the acreage devoted to the particular crop; and there can be no doubt that if these plantations have to be grubbed and the land used for other purposes there will be serious dislocation of the rural population in some parts of England, and much individual suffering.
With regard to the causes of the failure of the hop industry, I think justice was scarcely done to my noble friends on this
672
side of the House when it was suggested, I think by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord at the Table (Lord Eversley), that they attributed all these misfortunes to foreign competition. They were, I think, careful to point out that there were other contributory causes. I noted down, for example, that they referred to the practice of cold storage, and to the introduction of substitutes for hops. Then there was the question of reduced consumption, which, of course, operates in the same direction—a fact of which we may make a note, in passing, in these days when so much is said as to the necessity for legislation for the promotion of temperance; for it is apparently conceded that within the last six or seven years the number of barrels of beer brewed in this country has fallen off by something like 4,000,000. There was another cause which was somewhat humorously touched upon by my noble friend behind me. Lord Harris pointed out that the demand for hops had diminished because malt liquors were now being divorced from what used to be called, in classic language, their native pewter, and put into glass vessels instead. There can be no doubt, however, that foreign competition is the main cause of the difficulty which has arisen; and I must say when I heard the account given of the circumstances in which that foreign competition takes place—the account given, first, by the noble Lord behind me, and then by the President of the Board of Agriculture—I could not help saying to myself that if ever there was a case of dumping in its most violent and aggressive form you certainly have it here.
The reply of His Majesty's Government was, on the whole, not a very unfriendly reply. The noble Earl pointed out that a Committee of the House of Commons was at the present moment conducting an inquiry into the conditions of the hop industry. I think it is very reasonable to suggest that we should reserve our judgment until we have the Report of that Committee before us. But the noble Earl was a little inconsistent when, immediately after making this suggestion, he proceeded to anticipate that Report and to give us a kind of Report of his own containing numerous, and, in his opinion,

673
no doubt, conclusive, reasons for his view that no relief could possibly be given to the hopgrowers by anything in the form of protection for their industry. I prefer to be more cautious, and, acting on the suggestion of the noble Earl, I withhold my opinion until I see what the Committee have to say on that subject. The statement of the noble Earl did not come to any of us as a great surprise, because we all know that, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the one remedy which is on no account to be even taken into consideration or discussed, no matter in what national or Imperial emergency, is that of any interference with our present tariff system. I understand from the noble Earl that he does not intend to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, and, if that is so, I suggest to my noble friend that he may well be content with the result of this discussion. If, however, the Motion goes to a division, I shall certainly vote with him, but I hope no opposition will be offered from the benches opposite.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his sympathetic reply I would urge His Majesty's Government to remember the necessity of acting quickly if the hop industry is not to be ruined by the deliberate intention of competitors abroad.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL [H.L.]
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The Official Secrets Bill has attracted a good deal of attention, and it would be a convenience to the House to know whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with it at the next sitting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I propose to postpone the Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill. I met a few days ago a deputation representing the Metropolitan Press on this subject, and they informed me of their anxiety lest this Bill should interfere with the legitimate enterprise and freedom of the Press. His Majesty's Government have no such design, I need hardly say, and
674
if I entered upon detail I could show that a great deal of misunderstanding exists as to the clauses of the Bill and their effect. But it should be clear that anyone in the Press conducting his duties honourably would be quite safe. I told the deputation that I would be very pleased to receive from them any communications or criticisms directed to this object, or to safeguard legitimate enterprise; and no doubt I shall soon have an opportunity of considering them. Your Lordships will recall that when I first introduced the Bill I invited attention to it because of the undoubted difficulty of the subject. On the one side is the necessity of respecting the just freedom of writing and of publication; on the other side is the danger to the public interests of the publication of important secret documents or information, either of a military or civil character. What I should like is that, if possible, those interested should arrive at a common agreement with the Government. I do not know if it is possible. I hope it may be, and I have thought it better to postpone the Second Reading in that hope, although, of course, this does not signify that the Government have any intention of dropping the subject.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four O'clock.