said the Bill was, in fact, the identical Bill which was presented by the Company last year for the consideration of Parliament, and it would be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that on that occasion Parliament rejected the measure, not because of its merits or demerits, but because of the circumstances surrounding certain clauses which savoured of proceedings which he did not hesitate to describe as proceedings such as of low-class City company promoters. He had no desire to hinder the railway company in the conduct of its legitimate business, and if the rumour which he had heard was well founded, it would seem that the contention which he had put forward last year had had good effect, and had borne excellent fruit, because he Understood that the company had undertaken to rebuild certain houses, and put into repair other houses, and not to use a particular site until Parliament had given its sanction for the purposes of the railway. He would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the rumour to which he had referred was, or was not, correct. If it were correct, it would be the fact that the company had, under pressure of Parliament, tardily recognised its duty according to the law of the land. There had been a good deal of assiduous lobbying in connection with the Bill, but he hoped the effect would be to prove that the directors of railway companies could not expect to be successful when they were seeking to avoid their responsibilities in these matters. It was not his intention, providing he got an assurance that the rumour to which he had referred was correct, to further oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. His action had been dictated by motives of public policy, and all he had desired was to insist that public bodies should not evade their obligations under the law. He did not, consequently, propose to press the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper, and all he wished to do was to ask the Home Secretary if he could confirm the rumour he had before alluded to.

said he had received a communication from the London and North Western Railway Company to the effect that the buildings, the acquisition of which was one of the causes of the action taken by the House last year, would be repaired and let to the same class of tenants as before.

asked if there was any guarantee that the rents of the houses would not be raised.

said there was none, but no doubt the railway company would recognise it was not to their interest to raise the rents. He wished to point out, however, that the Bill before the House was of quite unobjectionable a character, and he thought his hon. friend had exercised a wise discretion in not pressing his opposition to its Second Heading.

said it was rather difficult to judge on the spur of the moment whether the assurances of the company, as conveyed by the Home Secretary, were sufficiently satisfactory. He thought that the Committee should have an opportunity of considering the matter, and of deciding whether or not some clause should be inserted in the Bill to secure the particular object they had in view.

That is nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

said that was unfortunately the difficulty they had to face, and it certainly should not be lost sight of. It was quite clear that this powerful railway corporation had practically intended to drive a coach and four through a statute of the House of Commons, and he congratulated the hon. Member on having so successfully raised an obstacle in their way.

said he did not intend to reply to the offensive epithets which had been thrown across the floor of the House in regard to the company. If hon. Members wanted any guarantee that they would carry out their word, surely the good name of the London and North Western Company was in itself a sufficient guarantee.

pointed out that there were certain duties imposed by law upon the company in regard to the housing, or rather the rehousing, of persons whom they dishoused, and it was essential that care should be taken to see they carried out their statutory obligations. He hoped the Home Secretary would see that the railway companies fulfilled their obligations, which had not always been the case in the past.

Order, order! I must point out that that is not the question before the House. The question of the housing of the working classes has nothing whatever to do with this matter.

protested against the language of the hon. Gentleman, and against the assumption that the Government had not compelled the railway companies to carry out their statutory obligations.

said he had pointed out that in the past the Home Office had not fulfilled its duty in regard to this matter, and to that statement he adhered, although he did not suggest that it was necessarily the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible. He could not be responsible for the mistakes of his predecessors in office.

suggested that it was important to include some provision in the Bill to prevent the undue raising of rents on the houses.

pointed out that the matter hardly arose on the Motion before the House.

said the opposition to Bills of this kind was a good thing, because it caused the companies to recognise that the House of Commons had a certain amount of authority in these matters, and was not a machine for the mere passing of legislation on their behalf. He had made several inquiries into this matter, and he thought that if the company gave an assurance to the President of the Board of Trade that the tenants of this property would not be dispossessed, the Bill ought to be allowed to pass its Second Reading. The suggestions of hon. Members opposite could be dealt with in Committee.

said the Instruction which he desired to move referred to Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, which gave power to the Corporation to acquire the land on which the Ulster Hall was built, and the building itself, and to make any alteration which they thought fit in the hall. As was well known to Members acquainted with Belfast, the Ulster Hall was the only hall in the city in which a really large public gathering could be held. It was a very fine hall—perhaps the best and finest in Ireland for that purpose. It had been owned and controlled hitherto by a private syndicate, who treated it as a commercial speculation and let it for public meetings of every character, with a few exceptions, and for public entertainments. He understood that, being a very large and valuable hall, it had not been a very successful speculation lately, and it was now desired, very naturally, to sell it to the Corporation to be used as a town hall or a place of public assembly. He asked hon. Members to observe that there was nothing in the terms of the Instruction to prevent the Corporation laying down any set of regulations which would render absolutely impossible any abuse in the way of hiring the hall or its devotion to any object of a generally objectionable character—he meant any improper or indecent exhibition. The Corporation under that Instruction would be perfectly at liberty to lay down any body of general regulations, covering the use and letting of the hall and the only object and effect of the Instruction would be that the Corporation should not be at liberty to boycott or exclude from the hall any body of citizens on religious or political grounds. Was it or was it not fair that the hall should be open to all who desired to use it for a fair and reasonable purpose, and that it should not be denied to any of the minority of the citizens who chanced to differ politically or religiously from the majority? In England, bodies of Irish Nationalists in the great cities were much less numerous as compared with their numbers in Belfast; and yet in Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, or London, the town halls were never denied to any body of Irish Nationalists who desired them for the purpose of holding meetings, and that was even true of periods when Party passion and Party feeling ran very high, and when the body of men who asked for them, was most violently opposed to the views of the majority of the ratepayers, and, of course, to the corporate bodies who controlled the town halls. He had never known an instance in which anyone suggested that the use of the town hall should he refused because his politics chanced to differ from theirs. He thought it was a recognised principle of public life in this country that no matter how much the majority in any meeting or Corporation might differ from the minority who desired to use the city hall for a political or religious character, that it was desirable that they should not be interfered with and that they should be at perfect liberty to state their views, so long as they observed law and preserved decency and order, and complied with the general regulations under which the hall was managed. That was all he asked for in this Instruction and nothing more. When he first put this Instruction on the Paper, he was under the impression, after a conversation with gentlemen representing the Corporation, that it would be unopposed, and he was sorry to find that that was not the case. The debate would chiefly turn upon the question—Were they justified on grounds of necessity in asking for this clause? He knew it would be said, and very strongly contended, that they were insulting the Corporation by asking for a security of this character. It had been said in the course of past debates concerning Belfast that the Corporation and the House of Commons had again and again decided—unwillingly, of course, and with considerable regret—that in Belfast Party feeling ran so high that it was necessary and just to apply some exceptional treatment in these matters. No man in Ireland regretted that more than he did, and he hoped the time would come before very long when that condition of things would have passed away, and when they would be able to trust the Corporation of Belfast to deal with the Nationalist minority in the same way that the Corporation of Glasgow, or Birmingham, or London dealt with the Nationalist minority in those centres. The experience of Irish Nationalists in this matter had been that this Ulster Hall had been in the hands of a syndicate of private individuals, who included amongst them some representatives of the Corporation of Belfast, and they, at all events, might be taken as a very fair average representation of the same sentiment which inspired the Corporation of Belfast. On more than one occasion in the past, application had been made by-men who represented 70,000—one-fourth of the population of the city—and the hall had been denied to them; and on one occasion, not very long ago, the owners of the hall said they would let it to the Nationalists, who had applied for it for a public meeting, for £100; whereas it was let to gatherings in sympathy with the Corporation and the majority in Belfast for £15. Was that fair? There was nothing in the Bill as it stood to prevent the Corporation doing exactly the same thing. A very curious thing happened last autumn. Again an application was made to the proprietors of the Ulster Hall for liberty to hold a meeting, which was to be addressed by the hon. Member for Waterford and himself, and again it was refused. But on further consideration—he would not say it was because this Bill was coming on—the trustees or owners of the hall sent word that they could have it on the same terms as it was usually let. He thought probably the shadow of this Bill had some effect upon it. They held their meeting, the hall was packed to the very doors by a very respectable audience, who paid a very high price to go in; and there was no mischief of any kind done, and the meeting was a great success. Why should one-fourth of the citizens be denied the use of the only great public hall of the city? That was the issue contained in the Instruction, and he thought hon. Members who approached this question in a fair spirit, when they had heard what had been their experience as regards the Ulster Hall in the past, and when they knew that those private individuals who had had control over the hall in the past might be fairly accepted as representatives of the spirit of the majority of the Corporation, would agree that there was nothing unreasonable in the fear that the same policy would be pursued in the future, if the Corporation were allowed without any check to acquire possession of the hall, as was pursued in the past by the private owners. But there was this great difference—that, of course, in any city in the world, however we might condemn their action and regret it, any body of private individuals who purchased a site or a hall were perfectly entitled to let or refuse to let it to whoever they liked. But it was a very different matter when the hall was purchased out of the pockets of the ratepayers of the city. It then became a great action of oppression and injustice if the majority of the Corporation were to deny to the minority the use of the Town Hall, for which they were paying as well as the other citizens. That was the reason why the claim he made was so great to have this provision inserted. On what ground did the Corporation object to the Instruction? He should wait with curiosity to hear. How could any member or representative of the Corporation say frankly or honestly that he believed that there was no risk or danger of the Corporation meeting in the way he had described and refusing the hall for meetings of a political complexion different from their own? Every man who knew Belfast, and anyone concerned with the honour and peace and the cultivation of goodwill amongst the different sections of the city, would be anxious that such a provision as this should be put into the Bill in order to protect the Corporation against themselves or against certain hot headed members of their body, and to secure that this additional subject of contention and bitter feeling should not be added to the many which already, unhappily, existed. There was only one other ground on which he could conceive any Member for Belfast objecting to the intoduction of this safeguarding clause. It might be said that the hall and the ratepayers must be protected against damage, the cost of which would fall upon them. That appeared to be a most preposterous argument. Surely those who were holding the meeting inside the hall were not going to damage it. The damage could only come from some crowd attacking the hall or interfering with the meeting, and he thought it was a very strange argument that the hall should not be let to a section of the population opposed to the Corporation in politics, for fear that any section of the population might attack the meeting and damage the hall. That appeared to be a kind of premium on rowdyism and riot, and intimating to the people who would cultivate those arts in Belfast that if they were only riotous they would succeed in their object of preventing the holding of meetings. But really it was not a good argument. Those who knew the topography of Belfast and the position of the hall knew that it was removed from what might be called the fighting district, and that it could not be interfered with by a mob if the police took ordinary precautions. What took place last Autumn when he spoke there? They had an immense meeting, and all kinds of threats and rumours were in the air. When the meeting assembled, a number of boys and noisy people assembled outside the doors of the hall, but a very few police dealt with them effectually, and not the slightest disturbance took place. The hall was so situated that proper police arrangements could absolutely secure it from the invasion of anything like a formidable mob. That was a question really of the rights of a minority, and if a similar case arose either in Dublin or Cork, and if the Nationalist Members had any reason to suppose that the Corporation of Dublin or Cork would seek to deny to an Orange meeting or a Tory meeting the use of the town hall, purchased and maintained out of the ratepayers' money they would be delighted to agree to any clause in the Bill restraining these Corporations from action such as that He appealed to hon. Members opposite in dealing with this question to dismiss from their minds for a moment Party feelings and Party considerations, and address themselves to it simply as a question of fair play to a minority, and of protection of the right of public meeting. He begged to move.

said he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion of his honourable friend, because if the instruction were inserted in the Bill it would, in his opinion, tend to break down the religions and political intolerance which unhappily characterise the dominant party in Belfast. Belfast was famed for its progress, its enlightenment, and, in some respects, its liberality; and he could not conceive how the Corporation could object to a large minority of the ratepayers being afforded the use of a hall purchased, to a considerable extent, with their own money. To his mind, the clause would be a relief to the Corporation, as it would get them out of a difficulty. There was a very intolerant section in Belfast, which had considerable voting interest, and if the Corporation would set that section an example of broad-mindedness, toleration, and liberality, it would be a great boon to the city. He had no doubt that nothing but good would come of it. It was quite time that the recurring riots which had drenched the streets of Belfast in blood should be put an end to, not only by the opinion of this House, but also by those who had the destinies of Belfast in their hands. The Corporation might say that what was proposed was coercion, but they were always ready in Belfast to use coercion against political opponents. It was not coercion, but a small modicum of that fair play and justice which the House accorded to minorities throughout the whole of the Empire. Why, then, should the Catholics and Nationalists of Belfast be exceptionally treated? He hoped the representatives of the Belfast Corporation in the House would rise above the narrow bigotry and intolerance which were a blot on Belfast, and had long been a by word among the civilised peoples of the world. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Belfast Corporation Bill to insert a clause providing that the Ulster Hall be available for the use of any section of the community of Belfast who comply with the general regulations laid down by the Corporation for the letting and use of the hall; and shall not be refused on religious or political grounds by the Corporation to any body of citizens who desire to use it."—(Mr. Dillon.)

said that the hon. Member for East Mayo had brought a very serious charge against the previous administration of the Ulster Hall, but the hon. Member did not make it clear that up to the present the Corporation had no power over the hall. The hon. Member also said that a large number of members of the Corporation were connected with the hall, either as owners or administrators; but that was not the case. The hall was built primarily, to a large extent, for the purposes of literature and music. It had within its walls one of the finest organs in Ireland, the gift of one of Belfast's noblest citizens. The hall was built by share capital, and, not being profitable, owing to the enormous expense of keeping it up, it went into the market, and the Corporation ultimately agreed to buy it. An Act of Parliament was required, and it was duly advertised, and subsequently a plebiscite was demanded, which resulted in a majority of four to one in favour of the purchase of the hall. No meeting against the purchase had been held in Belfast, and the hon. Member for East Mayo had received no evidence whatever which could justify him in moving his Motion. No doubt the hon. Member was discharging a splendid duty, and earning for himself a large amount of advertisement in connection with affairs in Belfast, but he was acting without the fiat of the citizens, and his action was self-devoted and not representative. Of course, according to the hon. Member, Belfast was a most bigoted place, but what was the fact? Could the hon. Member name any other city of the same political complexion in which he and the hon. Member for Waterford could hold a large meeting without the slightest interference?

said he gave the cases of Birmingham, Manchester, London, and Glasgow.

said he was dealing with Ireland. If he went to Limerick and called a similar meeting, he would be pelted through the city. What were the facts in regard to Belfast? For some years past the Corporation had had a public hall under its own administration, and he challenged hon. Members to produce a single instance in which the Roman Catholics had asked for and been refused the use of that hall. On the contrary, although they were less than one-fourth of the population, they had had more than one-fourth of the occupation of the hall, at a purely nominal rate, for their religious and charitable gatherings.

asked in what hall under the control of the Corporation Nationalists had ever been permitted to hold a meeting in Belfast.

instanced the Exhibition Hall, but said he did not refer to Nationalists. A considerable proportion of the Catholics of Belfast, so far from being Nationalists, utterly abhorred Nationalism. If this Instruction were passed, the Corporation, even though the city were in a state of riot, would be unable to refuse the use of the hall for a political meeting.

said the hon. Member was putting a wrong interpretation on the Motion. If the city were in a state of riot, any general regulations would not apply, either to Nationalist or Orange meetings.

contended that, as no bye-law could be greater than the Act under which it was made, the Corporation would be unable to refuse any such application. The ground on which this Motion was put forward was that the Belfast Corporation was intolerant. That charge had been made often before, and had been refuted as often as made. Hon. Members declared that Ireland should be allowed to manage her own affairs. Why did they not apply that principle to Belfast, instead of asking the Imperial Parliament to interfere in a matter of this kind? The past history of Belfast bore testimony to its fair treatment of minorities. The hon. Member for East Mayo always received a kindly welcome when he visited Belfast.

said the last time but one he was there he was received with a perfect whirlwind of nuts and stones.

said that at any rate the hon. Member had been more kindly received in Belfast than in certain places in the south and west of Ireland, where he appeared to be dominant. He had never been charged with deserting the people whom he had betrayed, or of leaving people on the roadside not provided for—

intimated to the hon. Member was going into matters not relevant to the proposal before the House.

pointed out that Belfast had agreed to acquire this hall; its citizens had declared their satisfaction that the Corporation should acquire it, and they had not demanded the imposition of the slightest embargo. There was a constitutional way of expressing opinion on such matters, but no action had been taken against the Corporation. On the contrary, the citizens had expressed their opinion fully, and the hon. Member opposite stood alone in his opposition. He in no sense represented the general feeling of the people; he did not represent Belfast.

I represent one-fourth of the people.

did not admit that. He claimed that he, as a representative of Belfast, and his hon. friends around him, represented the citizens, while the hon. Member for East Mayo in no sense represented them or their opinions in relation to this hall.

greatly regretted the tone of the speech of the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat. He could not see any reason why this question should not be discussed with perfect calmness, and without importing those elements of bitterness into the debate, which, unfortunately, were too much in evidence in the public mind in the north of Ireland. The House must really be getting tired of debates about Belfast. Belfast was, in many respects, a very great and prosperous city, but it was the only city in the United Kingdom which invariably came before Parliament in discussions, which raged around these questions of bigotry and intolerance. The hon. Gentleman opposite had complained that the bon. Member for East Mayo had no right to speak on behalf of the Nationalists of Belfast, and he contended that the Nationalists, if they wanted to make their voices heard, should do so in a constitutional way. What more constitutional way could there be than that of speaking through a Member of the House who represented their political opinions? They comprised one-fourth of the population of Belfast; they had no direct representative in the House, because their opinions were swamped by the anti-Nationalist majority around them, and when they sought to put their views before the House, through a Member who represented their political views, the hon. Member who came forward on their behalf was told that he had no right to speak for them. The position of the hon. Gentleman was absurd. One would think from the his speech that the hon. Member for East Mayo had in some way opposed the principle of the Bill, and that he was opposed to giving to the Corporation the ownership and control of this hall. But the hon. Member had taken up no such position. The hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to a plebiscite, and said that an overwhelming majority of votes was cast in favour of the Corporation obtaining the ownership of the hall. Quite so. He was himself in favour of the Corporation owning the hall. It was proper that the municipal authority in a great city like Belfast should have the ownership of a large hall such as the Ulster Hall, which could be used for the purposes for which town halls in England were used. All that was asked was that some guarantee should be given that the use of the Hall should not be confined to one section of the population. The hon. Member opposite had laboured the point very much that this was a Motion made in the interests of the Catholics of Belfast, and he had asserted—although it was not fully correct—that there were a large number of Catholics who were not Nationalists. But what had they to say to this question? The proposal was simply that a guarantee should be given, that when the regulations which the Corporation were to be perfectly free to make—they might be as rigid and strict as possible—were complied with, the use of the hall should not be denied to any section of the population on purely religious or political grounds. The hon. Gentleman had declared that no instance could be given of halls in Belfast being refused for such reasons. He was sadly misinformed about his own constituency

I said there was no instance in which the Corporation of Belfast had refused the hall under their control.

said that did not meet the case at all. The Corporation had had under their control only one hall, and that was a hall never used for political purposes. It was, in point of fact, a concert or dancing-hall, a hall of amusement. That hall had been given by the Corporation for Catholic bazaars. But that did not touch the question at all. They were now speaking of the use of the hall for political purposes, and of its being granted to the Party out of sympathy with the Corporation. There had been such instances. There was an occasion two years ago when, accompanied by his hon. friend, he went to Belfast to address a great public political meeting. The use of this very Ulster Hall was refused, and they were obliged to hold the meeting in a wretchedly small hall which could not accomodate one-fourth of the people who desired to get in. The result was that there were thousands of people surging around the hall, to the great danger of the public peace. They wanted to prevent the possibility of that happening. The men who refused Ulster Hall to them were precisely the same class and the same political Party that was dominant today in the Corporation, and he did not know that they had any reason to believe if the Ulster Hall was refused two years ago by these gentlemen it would not be refused a year hence by the Corporation, who represented the same class and the same political Party in Belfast. They were not making an unreasonable demand. If the House would consider this question fairly they would come to the conclusion that a hall of this kind ought to be under proper regulations and at the disposal of all sections of the population. If hon. Members would look back to the history of Belfast, they would see that they had a strong justification for fearing that this would not take place if the hall were given to the Corporation without some such Instruction as his hon. friend had moved. He believed that this Instruction, if put into the Bill, would tend to break down that wretched feeling of religious and political bigotry which was the disgrace of Belfast today. If this Instruction were passed it would be a warning to all sections of the population of Belfast that in the opinion of this House freedom of speech ought to be accorded to all sections of the community; and it would be a declaration by this House that one fourth of the population, because they held views which were repugnant to the majority of their fellow townsmen, ought not to be denied their right of free speech and public meeting. He believed that by putting this Instruction in the Bill this House would not only secure the right of free speech in Belfast, but it would also have, generally, a most valuaable effect in hastening the arrival of the day which he, and others who thought with him, had perhaps more reason to wish hastened than any other people in Ireland, when the reproach and disgrace which rested upon it at the present moment would be lifted off the north of Ireland, when this feeling of religious and political bigotry will cease to exist, and cease to menace, as it did at present, the peace of the city every day that passed over the heads of the citizens.

said the hon. Member for Waterford had spoken about the religious bigotry which prevailed in Belfast. He did not wish to enter fully into this matter, but he agreed with what had been said that it was a great pity that no Bill which had the object of effecting an improvement in Belfast, could be brought into this House without there being a bitter political and religious element introduced. He was pleased to say that on this occasion that feeling had not originated on the ministerial side of the House. Any feeling of religious antagonism which had been imported into this debate had been brought in by the supporters of the Resolution which had been proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo. With regard to the Resolution itself there were two questions to be asked in connection with it. The first was, was it reasonable, and the second, was it necessary? If the hon. Member for East Mayo meant that in the letting of this hall no distinction at all should be made to any Party, then he entirely agreed with it; but if he went further and said that this Resolution was necessary to procure equality of treatment, then he differed from him entirely. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said he had no assurance that the Corporation would carry out any such undertaking. In this he was mistaken. He was afraid he had not taken into consideration the change which had taken place in the composition of the Corporation since the last Bill for the enlargement of the boundaries was passed. He could not see any reason why such dangers should be entertained. No instance had been quoted in which the Corporation refused to let the hall. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that Ulster Hall was refused to him, but that hall had no connection whatever with the Corporation. He thought it was very unfortunate that such a Motion as this should be made. Hon. Members opposite had complained about the prejudices of one Party against another in Belfast, which resulted in not. If they thought it was absolutely necessary that something should be put into the Bill to compel the Corporation to cease to let the hall to all parties, surely the evidence in support of that course could be brought before the Committee, and it could then be decided on the evidence of witnesses whether it was necessary to put such a clause in the Bill or not. But why should a Resolution be passed by the House binding the Committee hard and fast without any proof whatever? He thought it would be very much better if the hon. Member were to withdraw his Motion, get his evidence together, and place it before the Committee, and having got the witnesses before them, the Committee could put in a clause to safeguard the interests of the Party with which the hon. Member for East Mayo was connected if they thought the evidence justified it. He strongly objected to such an imputation being put upon the Belfast Corporation as was implied in this Resolution without any evidence whatever.

said he intervened for one moment for one specific purpose only. He wanted to call attention to the very large and important question about which, in his humble judgment, the Committee ought to be authoritatively advised before it proceeded to deal with this Bill at all one way or the other. He wanted to know what was the law of Ireland on the main point involved in the Instruction which had beon moved by his hon. friend. The main thing about the Instruction was that the Ulster Hall should be available for any section of the community of Belfast who complied with the general regulations laid down by the Corporation for the letting and use of the Hall. That was the essential portion of the Instruction, and the rest of it might be subject to some misinterpretation. He wanted to know what was the law in Ireland now upon this point.

What is the law in Great Britain?

said he was not prepared to say, and it was not his business to advise the House. He wished to know if it was lawful to discriminate in the use of corporate property between one class of ratepayers and another. Was that possible under the existing law? It was most unreasonable that any such power should belong to a municipal Corporation.

Section 5 says the Corporation shall have power to let the premises from time to time for such purposes and on such terms as they may think proper. They are to be the judges of the purposes.

said that clause seemed to be an additional reason for moving this Instruction, and he felt bound to support it unless it could be shown that according to law it was not necessary. He thought the Attorney General ought to make it clear whether this Bill, if passed, would allow the Belfast Corporation to discriminate between Catholics and Protestants or between Nationalists and Unionists as to the use of this hall.

said he was sorry that he could not give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he asked for. He could, however, give the House this assurance. He knew from the legal adviser of the Corporation of Belfast that it would be quite impossible for the Corporation to discriminate between the various classes of ratepayers, and if such discrimination did occur the ratepayers had the remedy against the Corporation. The House, however, had to consider whether any case had been made out for discrimination between the Corporation of Belfast and any other Corporation in the United Kingdom. What was really the object of the Instruction which had been moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo? It would place a compulsion on the Corporation of Belfast, which no other Corporation was under in the United Kingdom, to let this hall to any ratepayers who applied for it. Let him give an illustration as to how that might place the Corporation in a very great difficulty. Take the case in which the hon. Member for Waterford and his friends went down from Belfast, and were unable to obtain the use of the Ulster Hall. It was then private property. The friends of the hon. Member for Waterford who applied for the use of that hall were not in a position to enter into the security which was required by the proprietors of the hall, who did not regard them as sufficient security. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Every hall in the country was let under certain conditions of security. The proprietors of the Ulster Hall said, "We are prepared to let you have the use of the hall for £100." This was only an alternative way of getting hold of a certain sum of money as security; and because the persons connected with the meeting which the hon. Member for Waterford wished to address were not considered to be sufficient security for £100, the hall was refused to them.

They asked £100 for the use of the hall for the night. The regular price is only £15.

said he did not in the least accuse the hon. Gentleman of making a mis-statement. He was only explaining the reason why £100 was asked for the use of the hall. They would have got the hall at the ordinary price if they could have become security for a further sum of £100, but the proprietors of the hall did not consider that they were sufficient security. The Corporation of Belfast had had, for the past seven years, the management of a large hall as their own property, and no complaints had been made that any section of the community had been favoured. Neither inside nor outside of the Council Chamber in Belfast had any one raised this point, which was supposed to emanate from Belfast. Therefore he submitted that the hon. Member for East Mayo was not justified in asking the House to take this exceptional course of applying to the Corporation of Belfast a compulsion which no other Corporation in the United Kingdom was under at the present time. If there was a real case of injustice lying behind the case presented by the hon. Member for East Mayo, there would, he submitted, be ample opportunity of proving it before the Committee, and he should be the last person to offer any objection to that. The hon. Member for East Mayo was not even supported by the Nationalist members on the Corporation or by Nationalist opinion in the city of Belfast. In conclusion, he submitted that the evidence did not justify the House in taking the very exceptional course which had been proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo.

said that, as a Protestant himself, and as representing a very large Roman Catholic constituency in the north of Ireland, he wished to ask the House to pass this Instruction. There was no doubt that under the clauses of the proposed Bill the Corporation of Belfast would have the absolute control over the Ulster Hall, and could withhold the use of that hall from any party applying for it. They were the trustees of the parties who had constituted them the Council, but as long as they were there they were the absolute owners of the hall, and could refuse the use of it to any body or party who applied for it. They were exactly in the same position as private individuals. If they abused their trust by withholding the hall from proper persons or bodies, the remedy was in the hands of those who had elected them, when the next opportunity came, not to renew their mandate. He asked the House to pass this Resolution because the tone of the hon. Member who first spoke against it must show the House what an amount of odium theologicum prevailed in Belfast, and how much that accounted for the unhappy religious and political strife which had been for so many centuries the bane of Ireland. Passing this Instruction would be, at all events to the public at large, an indication that this House strongly reprobated the notion that any body of citizens who complied with the regulations for controlling and regulating the Ulster Hall, or any other hall, should not have free access to it and full use of it. One point put by the hon. Member who spoke last showed how impossible it would be for the Roman Catholics of Belfast, who were a considerable body, to hope to have the advantage and the use of the hall, which the Bill was about to vest in the Corporation of Belfast, because it was manifest that by putting a prohibitive price like £100, as contrasted with £15, they would be able, in the absence of such an Instruction as this, to exclude the representatives of some particular religion or party from the use of the hall.

said there was no prohibitive price on the use of the hall; it was £15, provided security could be given for £100. In this particular case, the persons were not sufficient security, and they were asked to put down £100. If they had been sufficient security, they would have got the hall. The Corporation could not have two prices; it must have one price fixed for the use of the hall.

asked if it was supposed that persons animated by the feeling of some of the Northern Members would ever consider that Roman Catholics or Nationalists could be sufficient security for anything. This was, apparently, a legal way of carrying out the object of excluding the party they disapproved of from the use of the hall. But why should not a large proportion of the inhabitants of Belfast, who were willing to comply with any reasonable regulations imposed by the Corporation, have permission (if they were vesting the hall in the Corporation) to use it for all purposes? How weak the cause of Toryism or Protestantism must be in Belfast, if it conld not bear the light of public opinion to be thrown upon it, and was afraid to hear the arguments of some of his good friends below the gangway. It was the very worst compliment hon. Gentlemen opposite could pay the cause they so strongly and vehemently attempted to uphold. The other hon. Member for Belfast was much more moderate in his tone, and, he thought, spoke as a man who felt conscious that an injustice was being done. He thought, at this time of day, the House of Commons ought to affirm the principle that every public building should be open to every advocate of any cause, so long as the meeting was properly and legally conducted. This was only a declaration that the Corporation should keep that principle in view, and if they wished to get this hall, they must get it subject to that condition.

I may be allowed, as a Member for Belfast, to add my word in support of what was said by my colleague. I am not in the least surprised that this matter has been brought before the House, because I am well aware that there is a disposition always to challenge and to criticise anything that is done in Belfast, because that city is still a considerable obstacle in the way of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!"] If it is the desire of hon. Members to treat others as they desire to be treated, then they should apply to the Corporation of Belfast the same conditions which are applied to other Corporations in the cities in which they live. It has not been proved that there is any probability that the power of the Corporation of the city of Belfast will be abused any more than the power of the Corporation of any great city, and until that proof has been brought forward and substantiated, I maintain that we should not be asked to inflict this disability on the Corporation of Belfast. The hon. Member for Dundee said that the whole thing desired to be accomplished is really accomplished in the first part of this proviso.

If I withdraw the last part, will you agree to the Instruction?

I think the first part is already included in the law but I should be willing to agree that the Corporation should make reasonable regulations, to apply to all parties alike. That would be perfectly reasonable. It is proposed to impose a condition on the Corporation of Belfast which you do not impose on any other Corporation. If you tried to impose on the Corporation of London or Manchester, or any other city, such a condition as this, you would signally fail in the attempt. Politics and religion may come in many guises. I cannot support the proposal to make this exceptional legislation apply to Belfast only, of all the Corporations in the United Kingdom. I support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Belfast that the House might let this matter go to the Committee in the ordinary way, being perfectly certain that the House can entrust to the judgment of that fair-minded body—one of its own Committees—the task of securing that what is just and reasonable shall be incorporated in this Bill.

said they had had the unique spectacle of the present and the late Secretaries to the Admiralty joining together as happy brothers in opposing this Instruction. He thought it was only religious intolerance and bigoted Unionism that could produce this coalition. Most Members of the House would be struck by the difference in tone between the speeches of the Members for Belfast. The hon. Member for East Belfast thought the Instruction was a reasonable one, but pleaded that it was not necessary. The hon. Member for North Belfast, who was the chief wirepuller of the Corporation, did not give even a promise on behalf of the Corporation that the hall would not be used as they were led to believe that it would be used when the Corporation got possession of it. He found that the Belfast Evening Telegraph said—

"It must be admitted that the owners of the Ulster Hall have power to refuse any application they like, and when a possible breach of the peace is anticipated or where speakers whose views are antagonistic to the majority of the citizens are present, we consider the owners ate perfectly justified in refusing the use of the hall."

He hoped hon. Members would note that declaration on the part of a leading Unionist organ in Belfast, and that they would deduce from that what were the intentions of the Belfast Corporation in reference to the management of the hall in future. If his hon. friends the Members for Last Mayo and Waterford desired to address a meeting in the Ulster Hall, they would doubtless be told that their views were antagonistic to the majority of the citizens. If the First Lord of the Treasury went there to proclaim his views on a Catholic University for Ireland, he would receive a similar answer. He would ask the House to consider in whose hands the letting of the hall would be. It would practically mean that the hall would be managed by the town clerk of Belfast, who he believed was now in the gallery of the House. That gentleman swore once before a Royal Commission that he could tell a Catholic by looking at his face. They were expected to hand over the rights of Catholic citizens of Belfast, in the matter of the use of this hall, to this expert in religious and political physiognomy. The hon. Member for North Belfast stated that the Belfast Corporation had always treated the Catholics of Belfast with the greatest generosity, but as a matter of fact until the House interfered, under a Conservative Government, no Catholic was allowed to join the Corporation or obtain any appointment under it. Since the last Act was passed, the hon. Member for East Belfast said the representation had been broadened and that all religious bodies now had representation. He forgot to tell the House, however, that he himself and those who sat with him opposed that Rill when it was before the House. That Corporation, moreover, which was said to be a model of toleration, and which the hon. Baronet opposite cited as such, excluded Catholics from its employment, and, both before the Royal Commission in 1887 and the Parliamentary Committee in 1892, the town clerk of Belfast admitted that there were only two Catholic employees out of ninety-one in responsible positions; and he admitted also that only £250 out of nearly £17,000 paid in salaries by the Corporation went to those who constituted nearly one-fourth of the city's population. The hon Baronet shook his head, but between the sworn testimony of his own town, clerk and the shaking of the hon. Baronet's head, he was bound to abide by the evidence. It was also an instructive fact that a few days ago the Belfast Corporation, in making the appointment of manager to the public baths, situated in the Catholic quarter of the city, absolutely refused to entertain the claims of Catholic applicants for the appointment. The hon. Baronet and the ex-Secretary to the Admiralty, and others, had protested against that Motion on the grounds that it was very exceptional legislative action, and that nothing of the kind had been done with regard to other Corporations. But the whole history of Belfast legislation had been exceptional. The representation to which reference had been made was secured by the direct intervention of all Members in that House. In the year 1892 the Parliamentary Committee refused to pass the preamble of a Bill promoted by the Belfast Corporation until that Corporation abandoned its right to interfere with local Catholic reformatories, to the maintenance of which the ratepayers contributed—a decision which was inevitable, but which stood absolutely without parallel in the history of municipal institutions. Hon. Members opposite had their faults, God knew; but there was one they had not been accused of—religious bigotry, and he contended that any hon. Member who had listened to that discussion with an unbiassed mind would say that a conclusive case had been made out that Catholic rights in the management of that hall should be protected, and that the arguments of the supporters of the Bill had completely failed. The hon. Member for East Belfast, addressing a gathering of working men in Queen's Island, said—

"We cannot do anything without the help of England, and you have disgusted the English people. They will say, 'What is the good of us doing anything for the Ulster fellows if they will not behave themselves?' If you have a bit of common sense, you will just drop it."

That was an excellent speech, and he would say to the opponents of the Instruction that if they had a bit of common sense they would just drop it. It was very little they asked, and there had been no argument worthy of consideration advanced against this Instruction. If they honestly desired to have freedom of speech in Belfast, why did they not accept the Instruction, which inflicted no indignity; and only ensured that all people in the city should be treated alike? The Belfast Corporation the other day decided that if that Instruction were deemed necessary by the House, there should be some provision inserted for the protection of the ratepayers. That was a more reasonable spirit than that exhibited by the representatives of the city in that House that day, who had out-Heroded Herod, and declined to accept even what the Corporation were prepared to adopt. He appealed with every confidence to hon. Members on the opposite side of the House to give one more evidence, as they had done again and again before, that they were determined not to allow their public action to be controlled or dictated by political or religious bigotry.

said he rose only to occupy the time of the House for a few moments, but this matter so vitally affected the interests of the great city of which he had the honour to be one of the Members, that he appealed to the House to grant him its indulgence. It was desired by this Instruction to place Belfast in a unique position. It was desired to stigmatise it as unworthy of municipal government. It was desired to place it in a position of inferiority to the great cities of England and Scotland, which had been entrusted with the management of their own affairs. He confidently appealed to the House—at any rate, he appealed to hon. Members on his own side of the House—not to allow that stigma to be attached to one of the great strongholds of loyalty and law in Ireland; a city which had sent out its soldiers to maintain the honour of the British flag; a city which year after year—he might almost say century after century—had been extending and progressing and prospering in a way which he should be glad indeed to see the other cities of Ireland emulating. Something had been said about the town clerk of Belfast, and something about the population. He need say nothing about the town clerk: it was unnecessary to those who knew him. For many years he had devoted enterprise and energy and abilities of no mean order to the development of the industrial resources of Belfast. He was a party, when the boundaries of Belfast were extended, to the arrangement by which the Roman Catholics participated in the divisions of the city in order that they might be represented in the Corporation; and he ventured to assert of the Corporation of Belfast that it was as generous, as large-minded, and as ready to give fair play to the Roman Catholics as to the Protestants in any question that came before it. He was an Orangeman, and it was part of the Orange obligation not to wrong any man on account of his religious opinions. Very few members of the Corporation of Belfast were Orangemen, but he thought he spoke their sentiments when he said they did not attach any stigma or inflict any penalty on a Roman Catholic because he happened to belong to the Roman Catholic Church and reside in Belfast. But this Instruction had been moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo. He would like the House to listen to some words used by the hon. Member for East Mayo in Glasgow on the 16th March. He concluded his speech as follows—

"They were disloyal and would remain disloyal until they got their freedom. When the compact was made between the two countries it would never be a compact between a slave and his master."

The hon. Member is going beyond the question now before the House.

said of course he would bow to the ruling of the Chair, not like the hon. Member for East Mayo, and he would not challenge the ruling of the Chair by a Resolution of the House as was proposed by the hon. Member for Waterford. Heonly desired to quote the speeches of the hon. Member in order to show the improper use to which the Ulster Hall might be put. He should, however, keep the quotations until the hon. Member for Waterford brought forward his Resolution with reference to the Speaker's ruling. In conclusion he asked the House to continue to the Corporation of Belfast the power to manage their own affairs without any mandatory Instruction which would not be tolerated by any city in England or Scotland. He asked the House to refuse to sanction the Instruction on the ground that it would put a stigma on Belfast, and mark it out as the only city in the British Empire unworthy to be trusted with the management of its own affairs.

said if any justification were needed for the Instruction moved by his hon. friend it had been afforded by the speeches delivered by hon. Members opposite. Every speaker who had opposed the Instruction had given the cue to the Corporation of Belfast to restrict the use of the Ulster Hall to those who agreed with the majority of the Corporation. No one could have listened to the speeches of those who addressed the House in opposition to the Motion, without being forced to the conclusion that every Member representing Belfast desired to keep the use of the Ulster Hall from the minority. From the Secretary to the Treasury they would have expected a statement of greater moderation, but even he had directly laid it down that the Corporation should be free to judge, and he further said religious and political questions were the most dangerous. If this were a case of there being a large number of halls available for public use in Belfast it would be a different matter, but this was a case of limiting the accommodation which all sections of the community hitherto enjoyed according to the rent they paid. It was the property of a syndicate, and as they paid the rent so all sections of the community could enjoy the use of it. Now the hall was to be taken over by the Corporation, that in itself was a limitation; and was it unreasonable to ask, having regard to all the circumstances of Belfast, that in this Bill should be a provision safeguarding the interests of every section of the community, and to insure that this Hall should not be used by one section and denied to another; that it should not be allowed for the use of the majority and denied to the minority of the population in Belfast. The opposition taken to this Bill by hon. Members for Belfast was that this Instruction was an insult to the Corporation of Belfast, but behind the Corporation there were the people who brought pressure on that body. He thought this Instruction, if inserted in the Bill, would be of great assistance to the Corporation of Belfast, because if it were incorporated in the Bill it would place a reply in the hands of the Corporation which they could make to everybody who objected to the letting of the Hall. What would take place would be this. If the hon. Member for East Mayo were to be asked to address a meeting in Belfast, the Corporation would be threatened by the majority of opinion in Belfast, and there would be rioting in Belfast in one form and another, and a state of things which would make it impossible for those who were not in sympathy with the views of the majority to express their views to those with whom they were in sympathy in politics or religion. The whole strength of the argument in favour of the Motion lay in the fact that the accommodation for public meetings in the city of Belfast was being limited. He was not afraid of the action which the Corporation might take, because being a mixed body he believed their action would be fair, but he was afraid of the pressure that would, undoubtedly, be brought to bear upon them from the outside, and he thought the greatest argument in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo was in the character of the speeches made in opposition by hon. Members representing Belfast. He hoped the Instruction would be passed.

said that, from the point of view of an outsider, what struck him as being so remarkable was that so much time should be taken up by this discussion simply because the Nationalists were afraid of the Belfast people treating them as they (the Nationalists) had treated everybody else. That appeared to him to be the exact position. He could not help being

said he should not have intervened in the debate but for the serious charge that had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Belfast (Sir James Haslett) against the city of Limerick. Such charges were flung broadcast at Nationalist Members sitting in this House, but when proof was asked for it was not forthcoming. The hon. Baronet had said that no one who was not in sympathy with the politics and religion of Limerick could get a hall there. It was absolutely untrue, it was only when political firebrands came to Limerick that they ran them out of the city, and they would, always would, run them out by the blessing of God. He thought it would be better if hon. Members opposite confined themselves to refuting the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and did not make these baseless charges.

indignantly repudiated the statement made by the hon. Member for North Islington, which he said was absolutely incorrect.

reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That, at the meeting of the Committee this day, a communication was received from Mr. Partington, one of the members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable, on account of illness, to attend the Committee this day.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner are still debarred from expressing any opinion to the Boer leaders upon the suggestion made by them in the course of the current negotiations; if so, will the Government, with the view of promoting the conclusion of peace, now give these noblemen greater discretion.

I cannot at the present time make any statement on the subject of communications with the Boers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the policy of selling the farms of Boers on commando is still being carried out; whether, in the case of farms already sold, he has any information how the authorities in South Africa ascertained that the owners were alive and on commando at the time when such sales were made; and whether he will direct Lord Milner to hand over the proceeds of the sales of farms belonging to Boers who have fallen in the field to the widows and relatives.

I am not aware that any further sales have taken place since my reply to the Hon. Member for East Northamptonshire on the 8th of this month.† I cannot say what steps are taken by the local authorities to ascertain that the owners were alive and on commando, but this is a matter which may be safely left to Lord Milner. I am not aware that there have been any cases of the sale of farms belonging to Boers who have fallen in the field.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for

† See preceding volume, p. 1249.

the Colonies whether he is aware that the High Commissioner of South Rhodesia has sanctioned an ordinance imposing a tax of 10s. on each adult inmate of a hut; will he state what sum was formerly collected on each hut irrespective of the number of adult inmates, the amount which the new tax is estimated to produce; and whether the High Commissioner has acted on his own initiative in the matter, or under instructions from the Colonial Office.

The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The previous ordinance of 1894 imposed a tax of the same amount—10s. on each hut simply. I understand that the present tax is estimated to produce £105,000 for the year 1902–3. The tax was recommended by the Resident Commissioner and assented to by the High Commissioner with my authority.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War for what length of time and under what conditions, after the expiry of his sentence, it is intended to detain Mr. Albert Cartwright in South Africa, on the ground that, if permitted to return to this country, he might disseminate anti-British opinions in Croat Britain.

Mr. Cartwright is detained under supervision. The period of such detention rests with the authorities in South Africa. If any sufficient undertaking can be given as to Mr. Cartwright's conduct in the event of his leaving South Africa, I will communicate with Lord Kitchener with a view to reconsidering his case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform us what kind of conduct and what sort of particulars he desires on the satisfaction of which depends the granting of the release?

I should regard an undertaking to avoid the course of conduct which has brought Mr. Cartwright to his present situation as probably a satisfactory one.

What brought him into his present trouble was the publication of what was pronounced by a jury to be a seditions libel; Mr. Cartwright, I understand, will undertake not to publish another seditious libel; will that satisfy the right hon. Gentleman?

The question is a difficult one to deal with by question and answer, but obviously the authorities in South Africa, having had to condemn Mr. Cartwright for conduct which was of a very grave character from the point of view of the hostilities now proceeding, would desire to obtain some means of preventing the pursuance of the same action on the part of Mr. Cartwright, whether in South Africa or in this country.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that The Times published the very same libel, and will he export to South Africa everybody who holds the same opinion as Mr. Cartwright?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the widows, if any, of the soldiers who were killed in the recent disastrous railway accidents in South Africa will be treated in the same way in regard to pensions as if their husbands had fallen in action.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that there are more than 3,000 imperial Yeomen enlisted at 5s. a day now employed in England; and how long it is proposed to continue to pay soldiers serving at home on that scale.

I have nothing to add to the replies which have been already given to my hon. friend on this subject. I am not prepared to send these Yeomanry to South Africa till the Commander-in-Chief pronounces them fit.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the reply given to me by the noble Lord was that he did not know how many of these men remained serving at home, and that it is for that reason I have been compelled to put the Question down in its present form?

The number varies from day to day.

Then, roughly.

You are embarrassing the Government

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the instructions given to officers buying horses abroad are the same as those given to officers purchasing in England, or whether the question of age and value are left to the discretion and judgment of every buyer.

The instructions are practically the same for all purchasing officers, and are not left to the discretion of individuals. The question of age is the same for all countries. The price is fixed according to the market value of the animals in each country as reported by the officer in charge of the purchasing operations to the Inspector General of Remounts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, before the new regulations were issued for the change of the distinctive dress of the Scotch regiments, the colonels and officers of each regiment were consulted.

It has already been explained to the House that there is no intention of abolishing the kilt.

That docs not answer my Question. I asked whether the officers of the regiments have been consulted.

The hon. Gentleman asked, I think, with reference to the distinctive dress of the Scotch regiments, which I believe to be the kilt.

Not necessarily.

Were the colonels and other officers consulted?

In all questions as to the dress of regiments those who will be affected are always consulted.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that paragraph 38 of Army Order dated 1st May 1901, does not provide for the registration at War Office expense of letters containing money orders; and in view of the fact that on the 11th July last a letter addressed to a private in the 3rd Seaforth Highlanders containing a money order for upwards of £10, representing part of the money due to him on his regiment being disembodied, fell into the hands of some other person by whom the order was fraudulently cashed, will he consider the expediency of arranging for the registration of letters of value such as that indicated.

The attention of the Secretary of State for War has been drawn to this matter, and he is considering the best means of minimising the danger of improper payment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when the new Volunteer Regulations will be promulgated.

I hope that the new conditions for efficiency will shortly be promulgated. A new book such as the "Volunteer Regulations" cannot be got ready very easily, but every effort shall be made to expedite its issue.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of calling upon commanding officers of Metropolitan Volunteer battalions to supply the War Office with a statement as to the steps they have taken up to the present time to carry out the Volunteer training scheme now in force, and how far they have met with success.

Presumably officers commanding Metropolitan Volunteer corps are awaiting the issue of amended regulations before taking any steps.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that to obtain an authority for one Volunteer in one battalion in London to be attached temporarily to another battalion in Nottinghamshire, as laid down in Section 10, Part VIII. of Special Army Order of 27th November, 1901, it is necessary for the application to pass through the Home District, the North West District, the North Eastern District, the districts of Chester, York, Derby, and Newark, involving the signatures of twelve colonels, lieutenant colonels, and commanding officers, and a delay of twenty-four days; and whether this is required by the new decentralization system established last year.

Under existing regulations the authority is required of the general officers commanding the districts concerned, the officers commanding the regimental districts concerned, and the officers commanding the two Volunteer corps. This, however, is considered too cumbrous a procedure, and measures are being taken to simplify it.

Is it not a fact that; under the old system there was simply needed an application from one corps to the other?

I am not aware of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been railed to the fact that, in addition to the number of discharges which have recently taken place from Woolwich Arsenal, no fewer than 171 have been effected during the past fortnight in the Rifle Shell Factory alone; and, seeing that a number of those discharged were men with long service, a score of them having served for more than twenty years and many for more than ten, whether he will consider the advisability of putting a stop to any further reduction of the working staff of the Woolwich Arsenal.

It has been decided to work the Shell Factory on day shift only, and consequently the redundant employees could no longer be given work. It is true that a few men of long service have been discharged, but the selection has been made with a proper consideration of time-keeping, efficiency, and general character.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any increase has been made during the past year in the daily payments to soldiers who served in the Crimean campaign; and, if so, what are the present authorised rates of pension.

Special increases of pension are being awarded to such soldiers. Each case is treated on its merits and in accordance with the extent of the disability from which the claimant is suffering. This information was recently published.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he explain why the use of Richmond Park as an exercising ground is forbidden to any branch of His Majesty's regular or auxiliary forces, whereas all civilians are allowed the free use of the park for taking exercise, either on horseback or on foot, and whether, in view of the restricted facilities for giving practical training to Volunteer corps in the Metropolitan area, and in view of the suitability of Richmond Park for this purpose, he will endeavour to obtain the necessary permission from the responsible authorities for the occasional use of this park as a military exercising ground. I beg at the same time to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will state who is the authority responsible for the issue of regulations respecting the use of Richmond Park; what sum if any, is voted by the public for the maintenance of this park; and what are the specific objects for which this park is maintained at the public expense.

My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question, and perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to answer this and the next Question together. The rules for the management of Richmond Park, in accordance with the Parks Regulation Act of 1872, are made by the Ranger and the Commissioners of Works jointly. The sum voted out of public funds for the park last year was £5,030, but there are certain credits by way of receipts amounting to about £600 a year. The park is maintained out of moneys voted by Parliament for the general enjoyment of the public. To allow Richmond Park to be used as an exercise ground for troops would limit its enjoyment by the public, inasmuch as there would be a consider able risk of damage to the fine plantations, rhododendrons, and shrubs, as well as danger of injury to the deer and the wild birds, especially the herons, preserved in the interests of the public as one of the principal amenities of the park. A considerable area between the Sheen and Richmond Gates is already used, by permission, for Volunteer drills but though I am prepared to consider with the Ranger whether this area might be extended, I can hold out no hope of allowing the park generally to be used as an exercise ground.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty is he aware that quantities o£ loaves of bread are thrown overboard and wasted by the crews of His Majesty's ships of war, so that in one port alone as many as fifty loaves of bread are seen floating about a ship at one time. Is he aware that, in consequence of the men not being allowed to take up savings in the shape of money allowances in the case of bread, as they are allowed to do for everything else, the messes habitually order more bread than they require and habitually throw overboard the excess on any one day so as to make room for fresh bread on the next day; and will the Admiralty consider the desirability of baking bread for the men of each ship on board the ship itself, as was done in H.M.S. "Centurion," when on the China Station, with success for four months, the ship's galley being used for the purpose; or, failing this, will the Admiralty allow the men to take up savings for bread as they do for beef.

The Admiralty are not aware of the circumstance mentioned in the first paragraph of the Question. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in respect to the issue of bread. Savings may be, and are, taken up in respect of bread; therefore the reason for the alleged waste does not exist. No information has been received at the Admiralty as to any special practice on board H.M.S. "Centurion," but the question of baking bread on board His Majesty's slips was fully considered by the Committee on Navy Rations, and it was recommended that the practice should not be adopted. This recomendation was approved by the Admiralty. In view of the fact that savings are allowed on bread, the action suggested in the last paragraph of my hon. friend's Question is not necessary.

With reference to the doubt suggested by the hon. Gentleman as to the accuracy of my information, will he make inquiry at Devonport and ascertain whether, in March last, more than fifty loaves were not seen floating round about one ship?

I do not suggest a doubt as to the hon. Gentleman's information. I say the Admiralty have no information as to the circumstances, and the suggested motive for waste does not exist.

Shall we have an opportunity afforded us of discussing the Departmental Vote on the Victualling Vote? Will the hon. Gentleman put it down first?

It is not within my province to give any pledge, but I believe a pledge has been given in regard to another very important Vote, which is entitled to consideration.

The hon. Gentleman says he has no knowledge of what was done on the "Centurion." Will he kindly inquire?

Yes, inquiry shall be made. The commanding officer did not happen to be at the Admiralty today, or I would have asked him.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what is the nature of the repairs to the Belleville boilers of H.M.S "Diadem," if such repairs involve new boilers, and if tenders are being asked from private firms for the work; if so, what are the quoted amounts of each firm, and what is the tenour of the specification on which the tenders are based.

Will the Secretary to the Admiralty also state the causes which have led to he withdrawal of the "Diadem" from the Channel Squadron; whether this vessel has been ordered to be re-boilered; and, if so, will he state what make of boilers she was originally fitted with when she hoisted her pennant on joining the Channel Squadron, and what will be the cost of the re-boilering.

The work to be done on the boilers of the "Diadem" is the repair of the boiler casings, and is part of the general refit of the ship after three and a half years service. The repairs will not involve new boilers. It is proposed to carry out the repairs by contract. Tenders will be invited as soon as the list of the principal items of the work has been received from the Dockyard. It is intended to adopt the principle of working upon a schedule of prices.

May I ask if this new vessel is absolutely unfit for sea?

At the present moment, certainly. Most vessels are, after being three and a half years in commission.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that vessels have run twenty years without requiring such expenditure?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will say what is the nature of the repairs to H.M.S. "Spartiate" which prevents her trials; when will she be ready for trial; what has been the cost of these repairs; and if this cost is borne by the contractors for the machinery or by the country.

The delay in completion of H.M.S. "Spartiate" is due to the necessity for replacing the Condenser Tubes which were found to be defective and unsuitable. New tubes have been supplied by the manufacturers at a reduced price. The cost of the work will be borne by the Crown, as the machinery contractors are in liquidation. It will not be possible to state the cost of the work on the condensers as apart from the cost of other work until the complete accounts of the expenditure have been supplied. It is expected that the ship will be completed and able to resume her trials by the end of the month. If the hon. Member will repeat his Question with regard to the cost of the replacing of the Condenser Tubes at a later date. I will endeavour to give him the information he requires.

Is it simply the condenser which causes the trouble?

Yes, that is so.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information showing that the Government of Russia contemplate taking steps to obtain a revision of the Treaties of 1841, 1856, and 1871, whereby the passage of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles is prohibited to Foreign ships of war, with a view of obtaining the removal of the prohibitions for Russian vessels of war only, and not for the vessels of other Powers parties to the Treaty; and if any Papers on the subject can be laid upon the Table.

The answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the total amount of money expended on the Uganda Railway up to the 31st March in this year.

The total amount of money expended on the Uganda Railway up to the 31st ultimo was £4,982,468 3s. 2d., of which £4,907,239 19s. 4d. was from the Imperial Grant and the balance from receipts from traffic accounts and a few other small miscellaneous receipts.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether conditions with regard to the handing back of territory at Teintsin have been agreed upon by the Allied Commanders, one of the conditions being that Chinese troops are not to approach within thirty kilometres either of the Native city or of the railway, the conditions also containing stipulations with regard to the hills west of Peking and Chinese warships at Taku; and, if so, whether the British Minister at Peking has been consulted upon and has given his consent to any such conditions. At the request of my hon. friend the Member for the Barnsley Division, may I at the same time ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Commander at Teintsin was authorised by His Majesty's Government to insist on the conditions announced in connection with the proposed handing back of the City of Teintsin to Chinese jurisdiction; and whether His Majesty's Government will facilitate the transfer by supporting a modification of the demands.

We have not yet received information as to the details of the recommendations which have been made by the Military Commanders to the diplomatic body at Peking, but it was expected that these would have been submitted about the 14th instant, and a Report no doubt will be made by Sir E. Satow after they have been discussed by the Representatives of the Powers. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will put a further Question on a later day.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers relating to the recent Conference on Sugar Bounties at Brussels will be presented to Parliament.

The Papers will be distributed on Tuesday next.

Will they be laid in dummy?

No they will be distributed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the assurances given by the United States Government to His Majesty's Government, on the annexation of the Philippines, that no preferential tariffs should be imposed detrimental to any old established trades between this Country and the Philippines, he proposes calling the attention of the United States Government to the fact that a preferential tariff, which will be of moment to the rope industry in the United Kingdom, has been enacted in favour of American manufacturers competing with this country.

As I have already stated general representations were made to the United States on behalf of British Trade in the Philippines in 1898. His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington will be instructed to draw the attention of the United States Government to the effect upon the rope industry in this country of the exemption of Manilla fibre, exported to the United States from export duty in the Archipelago.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has any information of a projected Italian military expedition to Tripoli; whether His Majesty's Government has inquired from the Italian Government the object of the special military preparations referred to by Signor Prinnetti in the Italian Chamber: and whether instructions will be issued to the Mediterranean Fleet to prevent the landing of any Italian military expedition in Tripoli.

His Majesty's Government have no such information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of the State for the Colonies whether he can sec his way to direct local inquiry to be held in Barbados as to the system of parochial administration, rating, and administration of poor relief, as well as into the working of the Agricultural Aids Act.

I am not aware on what particular grounds inquiry should be held into the subjects mentioned in the right hon. Member's Question, but if he will inform me of the special points to which he wishes to call attention. I shall be happy to communicate with the Governor.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that when, in accordance with The Finance Act, 1894, the fixed duty of £2 10s. has been paid on an estate not exceeding £500 gross, and when, on the subsequent discovery of further property raising the estate to a value of over £500, that further property is brought into account by the executors and the full duty on the whole estate paid, or 2 or more per cent. on the amended account, no return is made of the £2 10s. originally paid; and whether he will consider the propriety of so amending The Finance Act, 1894, as to cause credit to be allowed for duties already paid under conditions superseded by a subsequent account and payment.

I am not aware that any hardship arises under the present law in cases where there is a will and probate, and to alter the law might encourage wrongful applications under Section 16 (1) of the Finance Act, 1894, in order to evade the larger fees which are payable on ordinary applications for probate. But the matter is a very technical one, and if the hon. Member will send me a statement of his reasons for desiring an alteration of the law, and any suggestions he may like to make as to what alteration should be made, it shall be considered before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total number of persons in the United Kingdom paying income tax; how many of the total pay on the full amount of their declared incomes and how many pay subject to abatements; and it he can state what proportion of the total tax was paid subject to abatements for the year ending 31st December, 1901.

The number of abatements allowed in the year ending 31st March. 1901, the latest year for which figures are available, was about 600,000. It is not possible to say what portion of the total tax was paid by the 600,000 persons in question, nor what the total number of persons paying income tax was in that, or any other year. For it must be remembered that about two-thirds of the income tax is collected, not from the individuals who finally enjoy the income, but at the source from which the income is derived. It is therefore impossible ever, to say from the income tax returns either what the number of income tax payers may be, or what is the aggregate income of individual taxpayers.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the yield per penny of Income Tax in Ireland in the years 1901–1902, 1891–1892.

In 1891–2, the yield per penny of Income Tax collected in Ireland, was approximately, £92,000. For 1901–02 the figures cannot yet be given, but for the year 1900–01 the figure was approximately £81,000. The diminution in yield is due to the abatements on small incomes accorded in 1894 and 1898.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount was originally assessed, 1901–1902, under Schedule B, Income Tax in England; what remissions have been made; and how much it is estimated collections under Schedule B will realise in England.

The exact figures for 1901–1902 will not be available until the autumn. The yield of the Income Tax under Schedule B in England, for the year 1901–02 may be estimated at £190,000.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the remissions for the year?

No.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount included in the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1901–02 for terminal charges on the conclusion of the war in South Africa, including cost of transport for the returning troops and gratuities to the soldiers.

The amount was £10,528,000.

Would the right hon. Gentleman state what sum if any is included for this purpose in the Estimates for the current year.

I have already stated that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War said he did not include it in the Estimates for the current year.