Commons Sitting of 7 March 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I do not think, after the Debate which occurred last Friday, it will be necessary for me to move the Resolution of which I have given notice, "That this Bill be read a second time this day six months." I do, however, think it opportune and right that we should take this opportunity of saying a few words with regard

    1225
    to the charges of this Railway Company. This is not a personal matter with me, but it is a matter which affects the traders and agriculturists all over the country. It may be asked, What has a Private Bill got to do with railway charges? It may not have much of itself to do with railway charges, but it is well to bear in mind that Parliament has granted to these Railway Companies powers which give them a monopoly, the idea being, in the first place, that such monopolies were granted in the interests of the people, and not in the interests merely of syndicates and companies. Therefore, I think the time has very probably nearly arrived when we should say to these companies—and this one in particular, as we are only dealing with it at present—that unless you work fairly and properly, and use this monopoly which Parliament has given you in the interests of the people of the country as well as yourselves, the time has arrived when we will refuse the concession of all further powers to you whatever. As far as I am personally concerned, although I represent a small constituency, still it is one largely connected with trade, and is a large railway centre, and I am continually having letters and resolutions sent to me with regard to these charges. Of course, I know the promise that has been made that the Companies are going to consider the matter, and the President of the Board of Trade the other night asked us not to be ungenerous or vindictive. I do not desire to be ungenerous or vindictive, and if I did, this is about the last Company in the United Kingdom I desire to show that feeling towards. But we have got to bear in mind the position of affairs. This Company last year, with the other Companies, promised that, although the maximum rates were fixed at a certain high rate, they would not use those powers and charge those maximum rates. But they have entirely broken that promise, and on the 1st January they raised the rates in an extraordinary manner, and practically upset and injured the whole trade and agricultural prospects of this country. Therefore, the Companies cannot charge us with vindictiveness, because it is their own action which has caused us to move in the matter. It is very nearly time this House considered the position of these Companies, and hon. Members
    1226
    asked themselves whether the period had not nearly arrived when they should refuse to grant further powers until we have got these matters settled. I am aware that Parliament last year and the year before granted these powers, but they were granted under the mistaken notion that the Companies would not use them in the way they have. We are told that you can bring goods from America to London for much less than it costs to send goods to London from some parts of Scotland. I am told the charges on this railway are six or seven times what the charges for similar classes of goods in the United States are; but one would think that we could do this work much cheaper in this country than they could in the United States. I have a letter from a constituent of my own, in which he complains of the extraordinary way in which the Companies make up their accounts. He says that in the case of 2½ cwt. of flour at Is. per cwt. they make it 2s. 9d. instead of 2s. 6d.; and so on with many other charges. This same constituent tells me that the companies have increased the charge for carriage of another article from 7s. 6d. to 12s. 11d. Another gentleman writes to me and says, "Do not be misled by the Railway Companies, if Mr. Mundella is." I am afraid the Board of Trade itself—through its officials—do not look upon this matter from the traders and agriculturists point of view at all, and that, in all these cases, the companies practically get something a little more than fair play. There are many other matters in connection with these charges that I could bring forward, but all I will say now is, that I do not desire to act vindictively towards this particular company, neither do I desire on the present occasion to take a division on my Amendment. I bear in mind that in the ordinary course this Bill will have to come back again to this House after it has passed the Committee, and then, unless we get these matters satisfactorily settled, I shall reserve my right to move a similar Resolution when the Bill comes on for Third Reading.
    SIB JAMES WHITEHEAD: I put down a notice in opposition to this Bill because I saw an opportunity of discussing the whole question of railway rates. But since I

    1227
    gave notice to oppose the Second Reading an occasion has arisen and an opportunity given to this House for an ample discussion of the subject. That being so, I do not intend to proceed with my opposition. I trust that the results of the promised Special Committee will be to give to the traders and agriculturists of the country an equality with the Railway Companies, so that fair and equitable charges may be arrived at. At present the traders are left entirely at the mercy of the Railway Companies. I hope the Special Committee will make such recommendations as will induce the House to pass a Bill that will obviate this. I trust between this and the Third Reading of the Bill for some satisfactory arrangement, but if such an arrangement is not arrived at I shall again address the House on the subject.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDEIXA,): I am glad my hon. Friends have indicated their intention of withdrawing their opposition to this Bill, and I hope others will follow their example, and all the opposition to this Railway Bill disappear. I say so for this reason: they could not render any service to the traders and public by opposing such Bills as the Bill I have before me. I am quite sure, if they will read the provisions of this Bill, they will see they are mainly to enable the Railway Company to discharge public obligations which the Board of Trade have impressed upon them; to enable them to give greater facilities to traders in their business, to abolish level crossings, and put bridges over the lines in place of them, and for the widening of the line. These are matters entirely outside the question of rates, and it is to the interest of the public, and to the interest of this House, that these Bills should follow the usual course. I am glad, therefore, that my hon. Friends have taken the course they have, and I hope we shall deal with railway rates entirely apart from these questions. With respect to railway rates, I do not want to dwell upon that matter further than to say I am in receipt daily of many letters thanking the Board of Trade for their intervention, and stating that there is every prospect of a good understanding being arrived at. I trust when the time comes we shall be able to report
    1228
    to the House that we have brought matters to a very satisfactory conclusion, and I hope the Railway Companies will exercise the opportunity that has been given to them to meet the traders in this matter by reducing the rates to a point which will be satisfactory. I trust the House will allow this Bill to be read a second time.
    MR. WEIR: I regret very much that my hon. Friend does not intend to press the Motion to a Division. I look upon these great Railway Companies as monopolists, who are like Irish and Highland landlords—they have no mercy. As a result of the excessive charges which they have imposed, the Companies have seriously crippled the resources of the traders everywhere, and if these charges are allowed to remain trade will be driven out of the country, and thousands of honest traders will be ruined; and the consumer will have to pay a higher price for his goods. I have a letter from a gentleman in Arbroath (Mr. James Keith), an engineer, in which he says, among other things—
    "We do a large traffic in rough metal castings made in our works in Arbroath, and all of which nearly have to come to London. The traffic is a staple and constant one, and yet the railway rates are prohibitive, so much so that we have to send the whole by steamer from Dundee. We cannot, however, even send these goods by steamer in this way without sending them over the Dundee and Arbroath Railway for 16 miles from Arbroath to Dundee by rail, which means that the Railway Company can so raise this short rail rate as almost to make it prohibitive on the 'through' traffic rate by steamer or Shipping Company. This the Railway Company have actually done, and they refuse point blank to the Board of Trade to reduce it.…. Even the old rates, 41s. 8d. a ton, for such traffic were at least 50 per cent, too high, and they are now much higher. When I state that the same goods are sent from New York to Chicago, a distance of 1,000 miles by rail, for 16s. 8d. per ton, you will see that, even at the old rate of 41s. 8d. per ton for 450 miles by rail from Arbroath to London, the charge is seven times what it is over the American railways when proportionate distance is taken into account. Also be it noted that the Americans can send similar goods to ours from New York to Glasgow by sea, and then from Glasgow to London by rail in this country, and deliver these goods in London, for one-half the carriage charge that we have to pay should we dare to send the same goods only from Glasgow to London over the same rails."
    I think the Board of Trade is much too gentle with the Railway Companies, and that more drastic measures ought to be adopted towards them.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade expressed the official view on this question, but I question very much whether that will turn out to be the view of the House of Commons. I received a letter a day or two ago from a constituent of mine, a manufacturer in the County Tyrone, who distinctly stated that the difference between the rates make it a question whether the small factories in that country should be continued, or whether in the future Belfast should mot be allowed to have a monopoly. I can tell the President of the Board of Trade that no official view will be allowed to prevail over our constituencies, and that if he does not stir himself to bring the Railway Companies to their senses they will take the matter into their own hands.
    MR. TOMLINSON: In this case the traders have undoubtedly had extreme provocation, but under the circumstances stated by the President of the Board of Trade I quite agree with the view that it is undesirable to press this opposition to a Division. At the same time, I do desire to enter a protest against the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He has spoken of the satisfaction with which he has received certain representations from the Railway Company.
    MR. MUNDELLA: No. I spoke of the communications I had received from traders.
    MR. TOMLINSON: No doubt it is easy enough for the companies to come to some arrangements with the large traders, but the chief difficulty arises in the case of the small traders, of whom—in my constituency, for instance—a large number have been hardly hit by the increase in the rates. There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. The Railway Companies are using their powers of charging short-distance rates in a very unfair manner. A clause was inserted in the London and North Western Act dealing with this question, and under that clause the company is claiming the right to alter their charges in a very peculiar way. I will give an instance. Goods are carried by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company partly over the Lancashire and Yorkshire and partly over the North Western line, and instead of there being one rate for the
    1230
    whole distance, the latter company, by mutual arrangement, take over the traffic at a point only a quarter of a mile distant from the destination of the goods, a long way past the junction between the lines of the two Companies, and then for the extra quarter of a mile a fresh and short-distance rate is imposed. I do not think Parliament ever intended that short-distance rates should be imposed in that way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, amongst other matters, take into his consideration the manner in which short-distance charges are attempted to be imposed.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he fully appreciated the statement of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, that American metal goods can be sent to New York from Glasgow by steamer, and from Glasgow to London by train, and yet be delivered at half the cost which would be incurred for the transit of English goods from Glasgow to London by train? I earnestly press him to use every power he possesses as President of the Board of Trade to prevent preferential rates thus being granted to foreign goods as against our own traders.
    SIR THOMAS LEA (Londonderry, S.): I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is quite right in his advice as regards this Bill, which is as much in the interests of the public as of the Railway Company. But it affords our only chance of attacking the companies, and hence the justification for opposing it. Some years ago I was interested in a large building in the centre of England, and we found it was actually cheaper to purchase the iron girders used in it in Belgium and bring them over here, because the cost of transit was so much less than that which would be incurred if the girders were obtained from an English manufacturer. The State railways in Belgium charge far lower rates than any of the English lines, and as our own companies give preferential rates to Continental goods traffic a premium is placed upon foreign manufactures, to the great detriment of home trade and labour.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I do not intend to withdraw my opposition to the other Bills, unless the companies satisfy the public demands.
    SIR F. MAPPIN: I think all Members of the House may well be satisfied with the statement given by the President of the Board of Trade last Friday night, on the strength of the communications he had received from several of the principal Railway Companies, in which a pledge was given that no rates should be advanced more than 5 per cent, unless under very exceptional circumstances. I may say, on behalf of the Midland Company, that they arrived at that decision on the 17th February, and their determination, no doubt, influenced the other companies very considerably in coming to a like arrangement. I therefore hope that the House will not reject this Bill, knowing, as hon. Members must do, that the Midland Company has always endeavoured to benefit the working public, and to carry the produce of the country at reasonable and moderate rates.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.
    MR. WHITMORE: When will the Instruction be moved?
    MR. M'LAGAN: On Thursday.

QUESTIONS.

  FOREIGN IMPORT TARIFFS.
  MR. H. FARQUHARSON (Dorset, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what countries permit the importation of goods from any foreign country at a more favourable rate than goods from the United Kingdom?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): In the Spanish West Indies, Brazil, and San Domingo the produce of the United States is admitted at a more favourable rate than the produce of the United Kingdom. Brazil and Portugal grant more favourable treatment to goods from each other than they extend to like products imported from elsewhere.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Have any attempts been made to obtain the introduction into Brazil of British goods on equally advantageous terms with American?
  SIR E. GREY: Yes, Sir; efforts have been made and negotiations opened, but Brazil has not at present shown any willingness to enter into an arrangement.

  FREE EDUCATION IN LIVERPOOL.
  MR. SNAPE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that Mrs. Annie Jones, a widow, applied at the end of January last at Walton Lane School, under the Liverpool School Board, for free education for her four children, which was refused until she had been subjected to an inquiry into her circumstances, and until the matter had been submitted to the School Attendance Committee, and that in consequence of this delay she is still required to pay fees; and whether such inquiries into the circumstances of the parents who request free education for their children are sanctioned by the Department?
  MR. LAWRENCE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask him if it is a fact that no school authority whatever refused Mrs. Jones's request; that no inquiries whatever were made into her circumstances; that the delay of the school managers in replying to her application was due to the fact that it arrived just after one meeting, and that the next meeting in the ordinary course had to be postponed in consequence of the visit of Her Majesty's Inspector; that there are plenty of free schools in the same neighbourhood; and that the matter got into the local newspapers owing to a manager who found time to write to them rather than to summon his colleagues to deal with the case.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACEAND,): I will state the facts of the case. I understand that Mrs. Jones, whose husband was refused free education for his children at Walton Lane School last autumn, went to the head master in January last after her husband's death and applied for free education. This request was not granted till Thursday last, after consideration of her case by a meeting of the managers. The managers have now made new arrangements to avoid such delay. As to whether the head master asked any questions as to her circumstances, the statements are con-

  1233
  flicting, and I am unable to give positive information. Subject to what I have now said, the statement of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lawrence) is, I believe, generally correct. There may be free schools within reach of Mrs. Jones, but it is not a matter of surprise that she wishes to keep her children in the school to which they have been accustomed to go, even if her case has to be specially considered. I much regret that the Liverpool School Board has not seen its way to make all its schools free, like many other large School Boards, so that there might be no delay, or any kind of inquiry. The Department strongly discountenances all inquiries into the circumstances of parents in connection with their right to free education under the Act of 1891.
  MR. LAWRENCE: Is not my statement absolutely correct: that there was no inquiry?
  MR. ACLAND: As to that, the statements are conflicting, and I can give no decided opinion one way or the other.

  TRADE DEPRESSION.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state in how many industries there have been reductions of wages between 1st September, 1892, and 28th February 1893; how many cotton mills and tinplate mills have suspended working during that period; and how many thousand operatives were thereby deprived of their means of livelihood?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Particulars as to changes of wages, as far as Trade Unions are affected, are published in the Annual Trade Union Reports, and the figures or 1892 will be published shortly. The Labour Department is informed that between September 1st, 1892, and February 28th, 1893, 45 tinplate mills were suspended; 41 mills which had suspended before September 1st were still closed at the end of February, 3,000 operatives were affected by the suspension of the total 86 mills. No reduction of wages has taken place. With regard to cotton mills, owing to the dispute in that trade, which has lasted now for 17 weeks, 410 mills and sheds have been suspended, and 50,000 operatives directly affected thereby. No reduction of wages has taken place.
  MR. FLYNN: Was the closing of the tinplate mills due to the operation of the M'Kinley Tariff?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly.

  THE COLERAINE REFUSE DEPÔT.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is aware that on the 26th of May, 1892, a letter was written to the Secretary to the Local Government Board, on behalf of a number of influential inhabitants, calling attention to the fact that the Coleraine Town Commissioners, as the Urban Sanitary Authority, had established a depot for the sweepings of the streets, at the corner of Circular Road, Coleraine, opposite a number of dwelling-houses, and on the way to the leading road from Portrush and Portstewart; (2) if complaint was made that the depot was an eyesore, and, in warm weather, a nuisance; (3) and if, through the intervention of the Local Government Board, any action was taken by the Town Commissioners to abate the nuisance; and, if not, will he see his way, in the interest of the public health, to cause its removal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The facts are as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2. As regards paragraph 3, the Local Government Board report that the Commissioners have secured a new site for the deposit of the street sweepings.

  BOARD OF TRADE CERTIFICATES IN THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
  SIR EDWARD HILL (Bristol, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that no officers can be employed in merchant vessels whose knowledge and competency have not been certified by the Board of Trade, the Board has the power of dismissing or suspending them without reference to the owner?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Only officers of foreign-going ships, or of home trade passenger ships, are required to hold certificates. The Board of Trade have no power to dismiss or suspend officers, but the Merchant Shipping Acts provide machinery for depriving them of their certificates where incompetency or misconduct may be proved.

  OUTRAGES ON CATTLE IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to his knowledge that within the last 10 days cattle, belonging to Mr. John Bolton Massy, of Ballywine, County Tipperary, were brutally maimed and houghed during the night; and if he can devise any means of protection for dumb and helpless animals from cruelty of this kind?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have received a Report of this brutal outrage, and the police are, I can assure the hon. Member, using every endeavour to discover and bring to justice the perpetrators. The hon. Member is well aware of the difficulties that meet every Irish Government in connection with cruel and detestable offences of this kind.

  PRIESTS AND THE MEATH ELECTION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the Rev. Father Casey, of County Meath, who was returned for trial, in August last, to the next Assizes for occasioning grievous bodily harm to an old man of 70, and who has been tried at the recent Assizes in the county where the offence was committed, and acquitted; why he was not tried at the next Assizes after the commission of the offence, to wit, the Whiter Assizes; and whether, if he had been so tried, the trial would have taken place in another county?
  MR. J. JORDAN (Meath, S.): Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to the Charge of Mr. Justice Johnson to the Grand Jury, in which he said he condemned the conduct of this man said to be 70 years of age, and did he not justify the conduct of Father Casey, and virtually charge the Jury in favour of his acquittal?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I believe the man assaulted was not 70 years old.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The story is this. Two clergymen, the Rev. Mr. Clarke and the Rev. Mr. Casey, were tried at the recent Assizes for assaults alleged to have been committed at the Meath elections. Mr. Clarke was convicted and Mr. Casey was acquitted. The Judge laid stress upon the evidence in
  1236
  favour of Mr. Casey, which led to the conclusion that he had acted in self-defence. The Judge was not only satisfied with the verdict of acquittal, but also expressed his entire and absolute approval of all the verdicts, both of conviction and acquittal, that had been found by the Meath jurors during the Assizes in question.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not told the House why Father Casey was not tried at the Winter Assizes.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The answer to that question is perfectly simple. He was not tried because he was a bailed prisoner, and it is not usual to try bailed prisoners at the Winter Assizes unless there are special reasons to the contrary.

  EDINBURGH SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM.
  MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there is any reason why the attendants in the Science and Art Museum at Edinburgh should be treated less favourably than those at South Kensington, first in receiving as their highest rate of pay 8d. an hour instead of Is., and secondly in attaining that rate only by chance when a vacancy occurs, and not after a term of years as a matter of right; and if there is no sufficient ground for maintaining the inequality, whether he will give South Kensington terms to the attendants at Edinburgh?
  MR. ACLAND: I believe the facts mentioned in the hon. Member's question are substantially correct. The pay of the attendants in the Science and Art Museum in Edinburgh was settled with the Treasury in 1874, and I presume the scale was then fixed bearing in mind the relative cost of living, &c, in Edinburgh and London respectively. But I will inquire into the matter, and if necessary I will apply to the Treasury for a modification of the present scale.

  POTATO DISEASE IN IRELAND.
  MR. E. BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what Report did the Land Commission issue on the subject of the experiments made last year, with a view to checking the spread of the

  1237
  potato disease in Clonakilty and other unions throughout Ireland; if the experiments were successful, will the Land Commission cause posters to be printed and circulated, for the information of potato planters, showing the different chemicals used, distinguishing the proportion of chemicals in such mixture, and the weight of sound and diseased potatoes obtained from the treated and untreated plots; if Boards of Guardians may procure spraying machines for use throughout the several unions of Ireland, in order to familiarise the people with the means of destroying this national pest; and is it the intention of the Land Commission to continue the experiments this year, and whether they will commence operations in the South earlier than they did last year?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Report of the Land Commission on the subject mentioned has not yet been issued, and is at present in the hands of the printer. Upon its submission to the Lord Lieutenant the whole matter will receive the careful attention of Government.

  THE CASE OF WILLIAM CALLAGHAN.
  MR. MAINS (Donegal, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he would state the grounds on which the Board have declined to act upon the recommendation of the Irish Lights Board, and grant William Callaghan, lightkeeper, full pension upon his services from 1848; and whether his case will be re-considered?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BURT,): I answered this question on a previous occasion, but I may now add that the Board of Trade have agreed to the grant of a pension to William Callaghan in respect of his services from 1859, the year in which he was appointed an assistant lightkeeper under the Irish Lights Commissioners. I am informed that for some years previous to 1859 William Callaghan was employed as a painter by the Lights Board, but in accordance with the general rule of the Public Service this period has not been taken into account in calculating the amount of the pension.

  OUTDOOR OFFICERS OF CUSTOMS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the reply recently given to the Memorial from the outdoor officers of the Customs Department, to the effect that the Treasury refuse to re-open the question of the alleged grievances of the Memorialists on the ground that these have been already dealt with by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a Minute dated 24th March, 1891, whether he is aware that that Minute does not deal with the chief grievance urged by the Memorialists—namely, that since the salary of their grade was fixed they have come to be employed on entirely different work, requiring a high degree of intelligence and involving largely increased responsibility; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now institute an inquiry into the claim of the Memorialists to increased salary?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I have satisfied myself, by personally reading the evidence and proceedings before the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the question of the salaries of outdoor officers of Customs was fully and specifically considered by him, and I cannot admit that the question was not dealt with in the Minute referred to. On the contrary, that Minute expressly declares that the concessions made must be held to cover the whole ground. In these circumstances, there is no ground for instituting a further inquiry.

  IRISH CIVIL GOVERNMENT CHARGES.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the particulars of the estimated Civil Government charges in Ireland which are met out of Local Taxation Revenue, amounting this year to £358,000, as stated on page 5 of the Return showing the effect of the financial proposals in the Government of Ireland Bill, in the same way as the particulars are given on page 4 of the Civil Government charges which are charged on the Votes; and whether he will give similar particulars of the Civil Government charges which are met from the

  1239
  Exchequer Contribution charged on the Consolidated Fund by "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1881," in the same way as the particulars are given on page 4 of the other Civil charges which are charged on that Fund?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: On the assumption that the estimated figures of Revenue for 1892–3 are realised the Local Taxation Revenue of Ireland would be appropriated as follows:—Out of the £234,000 on account of half the Probate Duties (51 and 52 Vict., cap. 60) £5,000 would go to the Royal Dublin Society for improving the breed of horses and cattle, £114,500 (half the balance) to Boards of Guardians in fixed proportions in aid of poor rate, and £114,500 (the other half of the balance) to Road Authorities, urban and rural, in aid of their rates. Of the £124,000 under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, £78,000 would be appropriated for National schools in proportion to numbers in attendance, and the balance of £46,000 to the Intermediate Education Board. As regards the Exchequer Contribution of £40,000,1 should explain that this sum at present goes to form a reserve fund under the Purchase of Land Act, 1891; and when that fund has reached the sum of £200,000 the animal contribution would be applicable towards providing labourers' cottages.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay that answer on the Table of the House?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I hope it will appear in the papers to-morrow.

  CORDTTE.
  MR. COCHRANE (Ayshire, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Cordite gunpowder, as now being introduced into both Services (and mentioned in the First Lord of the Admiralty's Memorandum), is claimed to be an infringement of Nobel's patent; whether notice of this was given to the War Office two years ago, and ever since has been under their consideration; whether any litigation on this subject is pending, and whether the War Office will take every step in their power to obtain an early decision of the Law Courts to this long-pending controversy; and if he will state when a judgment on the matter may be anticipated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The answer to the first three paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is, Yes. The question is before the Law Courts, and beyond the control of the War Office. I am not able to say when judgment will be pronounced.

  THE IRISH POLICE AND PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the statement is correct that the police in the Newry district have orders to attend all Unionist meetings and report the speeches and what takes place; and, if so, whether it is intended this should be extended to all meetings in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The statement is not correct. There is no foundation for it.
  MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that at Unionist meetings in Ulster speakers are now in the habit of giving expression to the most disloyal sentiments?
  MR. WEBB (Waterford, W.): Is it not the fact that for years past Government reporters have attended out-door meetings all over Ireland in favour of Home Rule and Land Reform where united armed resistance to the law has never been counselled?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe the statements of the hon. Gentleman are generally correct.

  IRISH FARM PRODUCE.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Return of comparative prices of Irish farm produce will be ready for circulation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Inquiry is being made.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN CANADA.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a Report, presented to the Canadian Parliament, declaring that no case of pleuro-pneu-monia had existed in the Dominion for several years past; and whether he pro-

  1241
  poses to take any further action with regard to the importation of Canadian cattle in consequence of this Report?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I have received, through the Colonial Office, a copy of a Report of a Committee of the Canadian Privy Council, in which it is stated that the Reports of the Veterinary Surgeons who have been engaged in an investigation of the matter establish that pleuro-pneumonia was not found in any of the localities whence the animals exported by the Monkseaton and Hurona were traced to have come, and further, that the disease had never been known or heard of in any of them. The Reports in question are equally positive in their declaration of such freedom from disease in relation to the whole of the Dominion. The Report of the Committee and other documents on the same subject are at the present moment under my consideration, and I hope in the course of a few days to announce the course which we propose to take in the matter.

  SCOTCH PRISON CLERKS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any progress has been made with the inquiry into the complaints of the Scotch prison clerks during the last month; and if he can name a date not later than which he will be able to come to a decision upon this subject?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The inquiry was concluded, and the recommendations of the Scottish Office were sent on to the Treasury, with whom the question now rests.

  TUBERCULOSIS.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state the number of home-bred cattle whose carcases were condemned on account of tuberculosis during last year?
  MR. H. GARDNER: The condemnation of tuberculous carcases, on the ground that they are unfit for the food of man, takes place at the instance of the Medical Officer of Health or Inspector of Nuisances in conformity with the provisions of Sections 116 and 117 of the
  1242
  Public Health Act, 1875, and I possess no information with regard to the proceedings so taken.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON LAND.
  MR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the fishermen from the Isle of Skye and other parts of the West Coast must soon leave their homes for the Spring fishing, he will arrange that the Royal Commission on Land should begin its labours at an early date so as to enable these men to give the necessary evidence before the Commission?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Royal Commission expect to begin their inquiry about the end of this month or the beginning of April. It must be left to them to arrange the order of their proceedings, so as best to attain their object; but I shall be happy to call the notice of the Chairman to the suggestion of the hon. Member. I believe the Commission will meet this week in Edinburgh.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman also suggest to the Royal Commission on Deer Forests to visit the island of Lewis at an early date?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The gentlemen who compose that Commission will no doubt arrange their order of procedure.

  IRISH LOCAL GRANTS IN AID.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the total amount of Imperial grants for local purposes in Ireland voted by Parliament, and issued under the authority of "The Appropriation Act, 1892?"
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: If the hon. Member refers to the grants for local purposes for 1892–3 as set out in the Purchase of Land Act, 1891, Section 5 (1) b, the provision voted under the several heads amounts to £1,006,326, made up as follows:—Rates, £33,000; Model Schools and National Schools, £744,995; Industrial Schools, £11,418; Workhouse Schools, Poor Law Medical Grants, and Health Officers, £99,700; Pauper Lunatics, £117,213. The Treasury cannot say how much of this, being payable to towns, is not applicable to the contingent portion of the Guarantee Fund under the Act.

  INFANTRY DRILL BOOK.
  VISCOUNT NEWARK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Provisional Infantry Drill Book issued last year has now been finally adopted; and, if not, whether the Auxiliary Forces are, in future, to be required to learn and unlearn experimental systems?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Infantry Drill Book of 1892 is still provisional. When it is finally adopted a revised edition, showing the alterations which have been approved, will be issued; the Militia and Volunteers are required to practise the drill in force for the time being for the Regular Forces.

  THE LANCASHIRE COTTON STRIKE.
  MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement in The Middleton Guardian and Prestwich Advertiser of 4th March, that at Bury eight men from Roy ton and Oldham were lately brought before the Magistrates for seeking help from their friendly neighbours during the strike which is now proceeding in the cotton districts of Lancashire; whether it is a fact that they were all found to be genuine operatives, and that four were playing musical instruments, whilst four collected from the charitable public; whether the Magistrates were correct in telling them that they were violating the law; and is it illegal for cotton operatives to play musical instruments in the streets and to collect funds from passers by?
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone his question, as I have not at present had time to receive a reply from the Magistrates with whom I am in communication on the subject.
  MR. J. BURNS: I hope the Home Secretary, while making the investigation, will ascertain if among the Magistrates were any masters whose men are on strike, or who are in any way involved in the dispute.

  SCOTCH OFFICE MESSENGERS.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state what
  1244
  progress has been made with the inquiry into the question of messengers and others in the Scotch Public Departments taking remunerative employment as waiters during office hours; and what he proposes to do in the matter?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The inquiry has been made. The Treasury inform us that in the Department for which they are responsible they find that the messengers go out only after office hours, or on days which are invariably deducted from their annual leave. Even under these circumstances the Treasury have ordered that no leave shall be granted unless the duties of the office clearly admit it. The other Departments all answer in the same sense. In the Register House, which is perhaps the largest, there are eight attendants, only one of whom ever takes occasional employment as a waiter' after office hours or in his holidays.

  DISMISSAL OF PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE (West Ham, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds the Governor has refused to-state the reasons two warders named Potter and Winn were dismissed from Strangeways Prison, Manchester, on 24th January, 1893; and whether it is in accordance with the conditions regulating. the employment of warders to dismiss them without assigning any reason for so doing; and, if not, will he state the reasons which induced the Governor of Strangeways Prison to dismiss these men?
  MR. ASQUITH: By a telegram just received from the Governor of the prison I learn that he did, in the presence of the chief warder, acquaint the two officers with the reasons for their discharge on the morning of the day on which they were dismissed. Potter and Winn were both discharged by the Prison Commissioners for trafficking and general inefficiency as prison officers.

  ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether on the 13th December, 1892, a summons, at the instance of Mr. E. Gould, a Factory Inspector, against a

  1245
  printer named Robson for an infringement of the Factory and Workshops Act, was called at the Mansion House Police Court, and allowed to drop owing to Mr. Gould not putting in an appearance; and whether he can inform the House why Mr. Gould was absent?
  MR. ASQUITH: Mr. Gould made a mistake in the day, and consequently did not appear as prosecutor in December; but he subsequently prosecuted the firm for a similar offence on the 16th February, and obtained a conviction.

  THE STATIONERY OFFICE AND BOOK BINDERS.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in the Daily Chronicle of 6th March, signed by Frederick Rogers, President of the Vellum Binders Trade Society, in which it is stated that account book binding executed for Her Majesty's Stationery Office is performed at "very nearly starvation wages;" whether there is any foundation for such statement; and whether, in regard to such work, steps are taken to ensure that the Resolution of the House respecting the payment of Trade Union rate of wages is adhered to?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have seen the letter referred to, but I have no reason to believe that the contractors for book binding are not complying with the terms of the Resolution of the House of Commons of February 13th, 1891. The Stationery Office have already taken steps for insuring compliance with that Resolution by the issue of a Circular to contractors.

  SENIOR TELEGRAPHISTS AT THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the decision of his Department, with regard to the Petition received on 12th April last from the Senior Telegraphists employed at the Central Telegraph Office setting forth certain alleged grievances, has not yet been made known?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The Petition referred to repeated a number of points on which decisions had been previously conveyed to the petitioners,
  1246
  and I fear that with the exception of an addition to the number of the class of Assistant Superintendents, which, I am glad to say, has now been sanctioned by the Treasury, I am not in a position to accede to the prayer of the Petition. The answer has been delayed pending the decision of the Treasury on the point mentioned.

  THE IRISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD AND RELIEF WORKS.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Freeman's Journal of 3rd March, 1893, and other newspapers, to the effect that the Congested Districts Board are about to expend £9,520 on relief works in County Donegal; whether, as a matter of Law, expenditure upon relief works, in the ordinary acceptance of the term, is within the powers of the Board; and whether he is aware that the works projected in County Donegal have reference only to permanent improvement of certain congested areas, although their execution may in some cases be timed so as to avert exceptional distress?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I would ask the hon. Member to postpone this question until Friday next, when I hope to be able to reply to it and another on the same subject, which was addressed to me last night.

  THE SHIPWASH LIGHT.
  MR. EVERETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give instructions to have the Shipwash Light connected by wire with the Aid-borough Lifeboat Station?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The connection of the Shipwash Light Vessel and the Aldborough Coast Guard Station is one of the recommendations made in the recent Report of the Royal Commission. This Report is still under the consideration of the Treasury and the Postmaster General.

  REDUCTION OF STAFF IN THE ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of

  1247
  State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the staff at the Enfield Small Arms Factory is being still further reduced; and, if so, whether the work is being given to private factories as last year?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOOD ALL,): As stated on Thursday last, it is feared that further reduction in the amount of labour at Enfield and elsewhere will have to take place. As regards rifles, no fresh orders have been given to the trade since 1890; but for swords and sword-bayonets the usual allocation of orders between Enfield and private factories has been made.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of Royal Irish Constabulary now serving in Ireland in addition to the free quota triennially distributed, distinguishing between the reserve force, the revenue force, Constabulary in excess of the normal establishment (a) in counties at the requisition of Magistrates, (b) in counties proclaimed as disturbed by the Lord Lieutenant, (c) in cities under special legislation; and whether, in view of the admitted inability of the Government to augment during this year the free quota in Clare, he will consider the expediency of providing additional forces from the reserve or by other methods, rather than by recruiting, which must entail the creation of fresh vested interests?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The present authorised strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary is as follows:—Free quota, 10,006; reserve force, 400; revenue force, 400; extra force—(a) In counties, at the requisition of Magistrates, 181; (b) under proclamation, 525; (c) in cities, under special Acts, 348; total force, 11,860. Arrangements have been made for sending at once 50 men of the reserve force to Clare.
  MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.): May I ask whether the Government will re-consider their intention in regard to reinforcing the police in Clare, having in view the fact that that county is in a better state now than it was last year when the late Government withdrew the police force?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In some respects, no doubt, the county is in a better state, but in some respects it is not. I do not think we are likely to re-consider a decision arrived at only 48 hours ago.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to give notice that at the proper time on the Estimates I will call attention to this matter.

  CONSTABULARY IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the actual strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary establishment in the County Clare on the 1st March, 1st April, and 22nd August, 1892, respectively? The hon. Gentleman had also given notice of the following question:—To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Grand Jury of the County Clare, in their resolution of 3rd March, 1892, recommended the reduction of the county establishment as stated by the Chief Secretary, or only the reduction of the extra force and the increase of the "Free" force?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In regard to these questions inquiry is being made.

  THE COLLOONEY AND CLAEEMORRIS RAILWAY.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH (Leitrim, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether all provisional contracts for the construction of the Collooney and Claremorris line of railway are now closed; and, if so, for what period has all work on the proposed line been stopped; has any contract been entered into for the completion of the line; and, if so, with whom, and when will the work of construction be resumed; is he aware that in their last Report the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland) give as the probable date of the completion of this line the end of 1893, and under existing circumstances will the line be completed at that date; is he also aware that the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company are at present promoting in the House of Lords an Act to empower them, amongst other things, to abandon and relinquish the construction of the Collooney and Claremorris line; and does he propose to take any steps; and,

  1249
  if so, what steps, to secure the speedy completion of this line?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: This question only appeared on the Notice Paper this morning, and I, therefore, have to ask the hon. Member to postpone it for a day or two.

  THE SANDGATE DISASTER.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the catastrophe which has befallen the town of Sandgate by a serious landslip, resulting in the destruction of some 200 houses, and whether he is aware that this disaster has been attributed by a public meeting of the inhabitants to the use of dynamite in connection with the blowing-up of the wrecks of the Calypso and the Benvenue; whether he is also aware that in September last, prior to the destruction of the latter vessel, a public meeting was held at which, in view of the damage done to property by the explosives employed in the destruction of the Calypso, the authorities were urged to abandon their determination to blow up the Benvenue, and whether a resolution protesting against the proposed explosions was passed by this meeting and forwarded to every member of the Trinity Board; and whether, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give compensation for the damage which has been done?
  MR. MUNDELLA: My attention has been called to the sad calamity which has befallen the town of Saudgate, and to the public meeting which has been subsequently held there on the subject. In June last, I understand, the Sandgate Local Board called the attention of the Board of Trade to the rumoured intention of dispersing the wreck of the Benvenue by explosives, but the Board of Trade had no power to interfere with the statutory discretion vested in the Trinity House by the Removal of Wrecks Act. There is no evidence that the recent subsidence has been caused by the dispersion of the wreck; indeed, I have seen it attributed to a more probable cause. But in no case can Her Majesty's Government be held to be liable to pay compensation.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Do I understand that the Trinity Board is an irresponsible body, not subject to the control of Parliament?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Trinity Board is subject to the control of Parliament. They act under statutory powers in the removal of wrecks. It is not believed that what the Trinity Board did in this case had anything to do with the recent unfortunate occurrence.

  THE KINSALE HARBOUR PIER DEBT.
  MR. MORROGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Treasury has yet arrived at a decision with respect to the statement forwarded, November last, by the Kinsale Harbour Commissioners, referring to the harbour pier debt; and, if so, when will he submit such decision to the Kinsale Harbour Board?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury have carefully considered this question, and have come to the conclusion that if any arrears of principal and interest now outstanding are discharged, and if the current instalments of interest and principal are paid in full, and punctually, this year, they will ask Parliament to vote in the Estimates for 1894–5 a sum of £1,000 as a grant in reduction of the loan.

  RIGHTS OF FISHING IN SCOTCH WATERS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, inasmuch as prescriptive possession of salmon fishings and foreshores may make good certain rights under the Law of Scotland, similar rights can be acquired by the public, in regard to trout fishing in public rivers; whether he is aware that upwards of a century ago the River Spey was held, by judicial decision of the Supreme Court of Scotland, affirmed by the House of Lords, to be a public river, and that the public have exercised the right of fishing therein for trout and other fish, not of the salmon kind, from time immemorial; whether his attention has been called to a judgment, pronounced on the 16th February by Lord Kyllachy, interdicting such fishing on the ground that the Spey is not a public river, whereby the public are deprived of a valuable right long held by prescription; whether he is aware that great difficulty

  1251
  is likely to arise in appealing this question to the highest Courts in consequence of want of funds; and whether, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government can take any steps to prevent the destruction of such public rights, or will support a measure framed with that object?
  SIR W. PEARCE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I would ask whether the action was not brought by a public servant?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member who has just sat down will, perhaps, give me notice of his question. I am not aware of any authority for holding that a public right of trout fishing can be acquired by prescriptive possession in a Scotch river where it is not tidal, the public having no title to which the possession can be referred. It was decided, more than a century ago, that the upper heritors on the Spey had a right of floating rafts of timber down that river; but it has not, in so far as I know, been determined by decision that the Spey, above the point to which the tide ascends, is public for the purpose of any question relative to fishing. I have no information as to whether the public have fished in the Spey for trout or other fish not of the salmon kind from time immemorial. I have seen the judgment of Lord Kyllachy, pronounced on February 16th, interdicting such fishing; but, as it may be, and I am told probably will be, taken to review, it would be premature to consider whether the matter to which it relates should be dealt with by legislation.

  THE WELSH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Welsh Church Bill, now before the House, includes in its operation portions of several English dioceses, but excludes portions of several Welsh dioceses; and, if so, whether he will state the names of those dioceses and the number of the parishes respectively included and excluded, with their aggregate population and the aggregate value of their livings?
  MR. ASQUTTH: The geographical limits of the Bill include one benefice in the diocese of Chester, one in the diocese
  1252
  of Lichfield, and 10 in the diocese of Hereford, which are situate wholly in Wales. There are two benefices in the diocese of Chester and 10 in the diocese of Hereford which are situate partly in England and partly in Wales. The only Welsh diocese, any part of which lies outside the geographical limits of the Bill, is that of St. Asaph, in which there are 14 benefices situate wholly in England and three benefices situate partly in England and partly in Wales. The detailed information asked for in the last part of the question cannot be conveniently given in an answer, but will be laid on the Table if the hon. Member will move for a Return.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce into his Bill an Amendment dealing with the parishes which are partly in England and partly in Wales?
  MR. ASQUITH: I should like the noble Lord to give notice of the Question.

  SCOTCH COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience, at the recent County Council Elections in Scotland, arising out of the lateness of the date fixed by the Local Government Act for these elections, and the consequent inclemency of the weather; whether he is aware that, in some outlying districts in the Highlands, owing to the state of the weather, these elections were carried out under circumstances of great difficulty and disadvantage to both officials and electors, while in one or two localities irregularities occurred from the same cause; whether there are any insuperable difficulties in the way of holding the County Council elections in Scotland on the first Tuesday of November, as in the case of the municipal elections, or even in October, instead of on the first Tuesday of December as at present; and whether, in proposing any amendment of "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," the Government will keep in view the desirability of fixing the date of the County Council elections in Scotland at a more suitable season than mid-winter as at present?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The difficulties attending the last elections for County Councils in the North of Scotland were brought to my notice at the time, and the alteration of their date in future is among the amendments to the Local Government of Scotland Act, which are now under consideration.

  CONVICTS (EARLY RELEASE) IRELAND.
  MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.): Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland give the following Return (No. 9) as an Unopposed Return:—
  "Return of all Convicts who were granted an Early Release on licence or by absolute discharge, or whose sentences were reduced in Ireland, from the 21st day of August, 1892, to the 29th day of February, 1893; showing the dates of conviction, the sentence awarded, the crimes for which they were convicted, and the amount of the remission of sentence."
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes; the Return shall be given if the hon. Member will add to it similar statistics relating to the administration of the late Government.

  THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
  MR. HANBURY: I do not gee the Secretary for War in his place, but perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury or the Chief Secretary for Ireland could tell me whether the Supplementary Army Estimates will be taken first on Thursday, or the ordinary Estimates?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,): The Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): On what day is it proposed to take Vote 1 of the Army Estimates?
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: On the same day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Unless Vote 1 is put down as the first Order of the Day it will be impossible to discuss questions on the Question "That the Speaker do leave the Chair."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  76,700 men and boys for the Navy.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): Mr.
  1254
  Mellor,—Before the Committee proceed to consider in detail the Estimates which it is my duty to bring before the House, I propose briefly to put before the Committee a few salient points. I have no desire to trouble the Committee with a long speech, but would rather confine the few observations I wish to make to a business-like statement. I would refer the Committee, if they desire a fuller statement on these points, or if they desire informations on other points which I may not think it necessary to dwell upon, to the statement circulated to Members of the House in the name of the First Lord of the Admiralty. I can also refer them to the Estimates themselves and to the programme which they contain for matters of detail to which I do not refer. As this is the first time that I have the honour to represent the Admiralty in the House of Commons, I think I may confidently appeal to the kindness of hon. Members and the readiness of the House to make reasonable allowances for one who has only been in Office six months, and who necessarily has to deal with a vast amount of detail that has been altogether new to him. I think I may at the outset take credit on behalf of the Board of Admiralty on one point—namely, that the Estimates have been in the hands of Members of the House at an earlier date than for many years past. When I first went to the Admiralty one of my earnest wishes was that the Estimates might be prepared in better time than they have been for years past, and I desire to thank not only in this, but in a great many other respects, the permanent officials at the Admiralty for the loyal, hearty, and able assistance they have rendered in preparing them. Now, I would first of all, with the permission of the Committee, deal with the question of numbers, which is the point immediately before the Committee in this Vote. There has been a continuous increase from year to year in the numbers proposed to this House. That increase affects the year in which it is proposed only partially, but it affects also the subsequent year. I will not trouble the House with many figures on the subject, but it is proposed that 76,700 men and boys should be voted for 1893–94; that is 2,600 in excess of the numbers voted last year, and 7,900 in excess of those voted

  1255
  three years ago. I will mention what is the consequent annual increase of charge on Votes 1 and 2. The increase in those Votes in 1891 was £134,000, in 1892 nearly £186,000, and in the Estimates I am now proposing it will be nearly £146,000. It would be more but for a fact which bas fortunately come to my rescue—namely, the fall in prices that has taken place during the past year. But for the fall in prices the increase on the Victualling and Clothing Vote would have been very much greater. In connection with the subject of the increase of numbers, I think I ought at once to refer to what was begun under the late Government and what is being now completed—namely, a thorough inquiry into the important question of the manning of the Fleet. The need for an increased number of men is obviously consequent on the increased number of ships under the Northbrook and Naval Defence Act programmes. In the summer of 1891 the difficulty of manning the ships as they were got ready for commission became acute. Consequently, the Admiralty appointed a very strong Manning Committee to consider the subject of manning the ships. It consisted of the First, Second, and Junior Naval Lords of the Admiralty, and two secretaries, of whose labours and the services they rendered I ought to speak in the highest terms. The objects of the Committee were manifold. They considered the needs of the 1894 Fleet, when the ships constructed under the Naval Defence Act were completed; and, first, what ships would constitute the War Fleet, and, secondly, whether the complements for the new ships needed revision. Action was at once taken. The complements were revised and brought up to date. The whole question of the manning of the ships had never before been considered. The complements of old sailing ships—and in this the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Admiral Field) will bear me out—had been patched, and altered, and revised according to the needs or to the altered circumstances which had arisen with the introduction of steam, and other changes in the Fleet. But no regular inquiry had taken place as to what should be the complement of each individual ship. But after the inquiry which has taken place
  1256
  and the Report to the Board of Admiralty, every new complement of every ship in commission will be based on the Report of that Committee. I think the noble Lord opposite will be interested to know—if he does not know already— that this has been done within the last few days in the case of the new ship, the Royal Arthur, which was commissioned on March 2, and also in the case of the Victoria, which was re-commissioned and received a new crew on the same date. The complement of a ship will now be what an efficient Committee of great authority has judged to be necessary. The number of men needed for the Fleet of 1894 has been accurately ascertained. In order to carry out the arrangements it was necessary to increase the number of boys, at all events, for a time, and for the two years 1892–93 and 1893–94 the entry of boys has been raised up to 3,700 a year. It is calculated that the effect of that will be to more than cover the annual waste of the Fleet, and add considerably to the numbers in relation to the largely-increased number of ships. I have so far dealt mainly with the question of the War Fleet, but the needs of the Peace Fleet have also to be considered, and these have altered very remarkably. I do not know whether I need explain to the Committee the great change that has been introduced by the system of a Fleet Reserve. The large increase of ships in reserve rendered necessary the introduction of a new scheme for care and maintenance, and the ships are now put under the care of the Commander-in-Chief at each of the Home Ports as soon as completed. They are only put into the Reserve when they are quite complete, and skeleton crews are placed on board for their care and maintenance. One most important point in connection with these ships is that there should be a sufficient complement of men to keep the engines and the delicate machinery in perfect order. And the hon. Member for Lewisham (Mr. Penn) will be glad to hear that a proportionate addition of engine-room and artificer ratings is contemplated for such service. I may say, in passing, referring to the question which the hon. Member for Lewisham asked last night in respect to the Fleet at sea, that the number of engine-room artificers was very thoroughly considered,

  1257
  and referred by the Manning Committee to an Engineer Committee, which was composed of some of the most experienced men. The result was a very elaborate Report, which stated the number of engine-room ratings necessary for each ship in the Navy. They went into the matter carefully, and one result of their Report is, no doubt, that the number of engine-room artificers told off to each particular ship may be somewhat reduced, but the number of chief stokers will be increased. I will not explain why it is felt necessary to increase the number of stokers in order to make provision for the care of the engines of the ships when at sea. That is a subject of detail on which, if the hon. Member for Lewisham desires further information, I shall be happy to give it. There is another part of the Report which I ought to refer to, and that is the increase of 500 in the number of Marines. The increase in the number of ships obviously necessitated an increase in the number of Marines. This increase, the Manning Committee advised the Admiralty, should go on for two years more, until we have a total of 16,000 Marines, which is the number the Manning Committee consider will be necessary for the Fleet in 1894. Now, I think I have, perhaps, said enough on the subject of numbers. Returning to the question of money, I should like to explain the actual amount which we are about to expend during the ensuing year. In spite of the increase to which I have just alluded in respect of numbers, and the consequent effect upon the Votes for Men and Clothing and other items, we are now able to propose practically the same amount of money as was estimated for last year by the noble Lord opposite. Although the sum is £25,000 more than the Estimates of 1891–2, it is nearly £38,000 less than the expenditure of that year, because the expenditure of 1891–2 considerably exceeded the Estimate. But this result —of Estimates practically equal to those of a year ago—has been brought about not by cutting down new construction, but by a careful examination of each Vote, and the inclusion only of what is necessary, in the opinion of the Admiralty, for the efficiency of the Navy. I will at once come to what I think the noble Lord opposite and other Members
  1258
  of the House will be most anxious that I should dwell on—namely, the question of shipbuilding. I do not propose to enter upon details, because they will be dealt with on the Shipbuilding Vote. I recognise that it is usual to have a general discussion on Vote "A," therefore I will deal generally with the question of shipbuilding. The question has been asked, What is the amount which should annually be spent on shipbuilding? Though I do not propose to advance any reply of my own to that question, I will quote the figures estimated by my predecessor. We have followed the example of our predecessors in printing an estimate of the depreciation of our ships. Last year the waste of depreciation of the Navy was put down at £2,060,000, but, taking into consideration the increase of the Fleet, that figure has now risen to £2,150,000. Last year the late First Lord estimated in his Statement that an expenditure of a "constant annual amount" of £2,350,000 was necessary to keep the Navy up to the proper level. The amount the present Board propose to spend on shipbuilding is just under £3,000,000.
  MR. FORWOOD: Does that include the armaments?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No, it does not. It includes the expenditure for the year on contract ships under the Naval Defence Act. For the contract ships the expenditure is £538,000, for the dockyard ships under the Naval Defence Act it is £1,381,572, and for the further programme, £1,062,159—making a total, to give the exact figures, of £2,982,086. These figures cut the ground from under the feet of those who either anticipated a prompt check to shipbuilding, or thought that in proposing the same Estimates we should have to cut that part of them down heavily. Adding the armaments, the expenditure this year will be over £4,000,000. You must remember that there is a charge on the Consolidated Fund of £1,428,571, which extends over seven years under the Naval Defence Act for contract ships, and, therefore, the charge on the taxes during the present year for shipbuilding and armaments is upwards of £4,400,000. I do not think I need dwell any longer on these figures. I will at once come to a point to which the old Board of Admiralty and the

  1259
  present Board of Admiralty equally attach great importance—namely, that when a ship is in hand—taking into consideration certain difficulties, and making a reservation with regard to them—it is desirable to complete her as rapidly as possible. We have had experience of the saving of money effected by the rapid completion of ships in two remarkable cases—that of the Royal Sovereign, in which the cost came under the estimate by over £32,000, and that of the Hood, where the saving is estimated at between £25,000 and £30,000. There are two great advantages besides economy in this rapid completion of certain ships. One of them is that we have ships immediately available in case of war. The Royal Sovereign and the Hood were available for war purposes at a much earlier date than would otherwise have been the case. There is another advantage of which we are now reaping the benefit—namely, that if you complete a ship, commission her, and send her to sea, you obtain valuable experience to guide you in designing future ships. There is another point to which the Admiralty attach great importance, and which is explained in the Statement issued by Lord Spencer—I refer to the re-construction of some of the older ships. The Admiralty are very much alive to the importance of what is called the second line of defence. For a second line some of the older ships are of great value if a certain amount of money is spent upon their reconstruction. That point has not been left out of sight either by the present or the late Board of Admiralty. I pass on now to some points connected with construction, which are of considerable moment. One is the construction of a number of smaller ships remarkable for their great speed, and commonly called torpedo-boat destroyers. The Board have been enabled by the arrangements they have made in the course of the last few months to build six of these ships in three different private yards. As soon as these are completed, and we have the experience which will be gained from their trials, it is proposed to construct 14 more, making 20 in all. These will be built by contract. I pass on to what is perhaps the most important feature of the contract work proposed by the present Board of Admiralty. It will be seen
  1260
  from the Estimates that it is proposed to build two great new cruisers. In the present Estimates only £57,500 are taken for each. The ships are to be called the Powerful and the Terrible, and their total cost will probably be over £700,000 each. They will be superior in speed, in coal capacity, in defence, and in armament to any cruisers that have been built or are building in any part of the world. Their construction has been forced upon the Admiralty by what is going on abroad. I do not think it is desirable that I should enter fully into this matter, but I may say the Admiralty have come to the conclusion that there is no part of our Programme of greater importance, or, indeed, more absolutely necessary for the defence of our great commerce than the construction of cruisers which will be superior to any existing in any part of the world. I may point out to the Committee that the possession by even a weak Power of cruisers more formidable than any possessed by ourselves might constitute a serious danger to British commerce. We may learn from the experience not of a weak Power but of a great Power—the United States in the case of the Alabama—what havoc a single cruiser can make in the commerce of a nation. It is thought by our advisers that there is nothing more important than that we should have cruisers surpassing in speed, coal-capacity, defence and armament, any cruiser that exists or is now building. So much for the contract work.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: What are to be the dimensions of the new cruisers?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am not prepared to give the dimensions. The designs are not yet completed, and, even if they were, I should ask the noble Lord not to press me too much on the point, because I do not think it is desirable that these details should be given too soon. I have said generally that it is contemplated that the cruisers shall be superior to any which either are in existence or are building. Leaving contract ships and coming to the dockyard work, it is proposed to build two battleships, which it was necessary to postpone last year, partly because of the hastening of the completion of the Hood and the Empress of India, and partly

  1261
  because of the necessity of getting on with the six torpedo-boat destroyers. These two battle-ships, three second-class cruisers, and two sloops, which are called in the Estimates "station gunboats," and are meant for foreign stations, constitute our dockyard programme. The two battle-ships are to be on similar lines to the Royal Sovereign. We are, however, profiting by the experience we have gained in the design of the Renown, and are increasing the auxiliary or secondary armament, substituting 12-inch for 13·5-inch guns, giving casemate protection to part of the secondary armament, and providing much stronger defence. These great battleships are thought necessary to enable us to keep up with the ships which are building in other countries. It is considered that the new ships will constitute sufficient provision for the coming year in view of the completion of five or six Naval Defence Act battle-ships during the year.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: What are to be the dimensions?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am not quite sure that it would be wise to give the dimensions because the designs are not yet quite complete, and I do not think it well that details should be given too early. The two ships will be larger than, and will cost rather more than the Royal Sovereign. The second-class cruisers will be called the Talbot, the Eclipse, and the Minerva. They will follow pretty closely while improving upon the Astrea cruisers of the late Government, and they are also designed to meet vessels which are being built abroad. I now come to the sloops, which are to be called the Torch and the Alert. They will have single screws and sails and are intended for foreign stations. An argument is sometimes used that we are going back a hundred years in resorting to sail power. In reply to that, I would mention that there is an immense advantage on certain of our stations, and particularly the Australian and Pacific stations, in having sail power for the purpose of saving coal. I will give an illustration. The Daphne was lately ordered to proceed from Esquimault to Hong Kong. After she had passed Honolulu the nearest coaling station in the direction of Hong-Kong was Yokohama, which was 3,600 miles distant. The vessel carries coal which is supposed to take her 3,400
  1262
  miles, but a margin has to be added for contingencies, and probably a distance of 400 or 500 miles is the least that should be thus added. Under these circumstances she had to proceed by way of Fiji and the Torres Strait, a distance of 2,700 miles greater, although it was the hurricane season in the Pacific Islands, and she was likely to encounter dirty weather. The distance between Esquimault and Hong Kong for a steamer with sail power is 7,560 miles, and for a full-power steamer, viâ Yokohama, 7,840 miles, whilst the distance which the Daphne had to traverse was 10,540 miles. The Board of Admiralty recognised the importance of bearing these points in mind, and we think it well under the circumstances to have these two sloops constructed with masts and full sail power. As to the policy of the present Board of Admiralty I may say generally that it is like that of former Boards of Admiralty, to keep the Navy in such a condition that it will be able to give a good account of the fleets of more than one foreign nation, and to maintain the command of the seas for the protection of our commerce. The Board are satisfied that for the year 1893–4 the commencement of two battleships and two great cruisers is the proper way of fully discharging that duty, and that two cruisers are a more urgent need than the addition of more than two to our exceptional strength in battleships. There is another advantage to be gained by building these two cruisers rather than four battle-ships—namely, that the cost will fit in far more conveniently with the expenditure of the year 1894–5. That is a point which the Board of Admiralty cannot overlook, although I merely mention it as one of secondary importance. The noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Hamilton) asked a question yesterday as to the cost of our new ships. Although I do not wish to be absolutely bound by the figure, I may say that approximately his estimate of £5,000,000 as the total cost of the new ships proposed, including the torpedo boat destroyers, is about right. Perhaps I ought to say a word on the programme generally. I do not desire at this moment to re-open the old controversy as to the Naval Defence Act. I think it is quite sufficient to guard myself and those with whom I have the honour to act by saying

  1263
  that we on this side of the House are not enamoured of the policy of Acts of Parliament for these purposes. I will not enter into the objections, constitutional and administrative, which we entertain with regard to that system. We lay stress on the difference between a Naval Defence Act and a Naval Defence programme. I will admit at once that a programme is desirable. "We are only proposing a programme for one year. But I will not conceal from the House that we have examined the effects of our programme on the year 1894–5. This is a new Government, however, and we prefer to restrict our public announcements, to a programme for one year, and in the long run that will be found the best course. This, however, I will say: that we fully recognize the value of continuity of policy in naval administration, and confidently claim that we have done nothing inconsistent with a broad and wise interpretation of that term, continuity. In that sense and in that spirit I commend these proposals to the kind consideration of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That 76,700 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, including 15,005 Royal Marines."
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid: The right boil. Gentleman has given us a very fair statement as far as it goes, and when he asks for the consideration of the House, we, of course, are entitled to hear what he has to lay before us, and when, further, he tells us that his Government are acting in the direction of giving effect to the policy of the late Government, he may be confident that he will have the utmost consideration and support from this side of the House. But, Sir, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's clear and lucid speech and the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the information placed before the Committee is not to be compared with that which in previous years has been presented. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the Government propose a large increase in men and a reduction of expenditure. The increased cost of the extra men will amount to £145,000, and so it is we have the fact that the Admiralty are trying to carry
  1264
  on an increased amount of work on an expenditure reduced by £145,000. When I was at the Admiralty I made a forecast of what the Estimates this year would be, and I calculated that, making every possible reduction, it would not be possible to provide the necessary services except by an increased expenditure of from £150,000 to £200,000 over the Estimates of last year. Therefore the present Estimates are, I hold, £200,000 short of what they ought to be. But it it impossible to eliminate from our consideration the discussion in regard to Navy matters which took place last night. The right hon. Gentleman appears to give great consideration to the appeals made by the Representatives of the Dockyard towns. But I would point out to him that what these gentlemen wanted was not consideration, but cash, and cash and consideration are not convertible terms, and anybody who pretends that he would favourably consider any proposal unless he had cash would not be very popular in the Dockyards. The late Government thought they did more for the Dockyards than any former Government; but the requests made by the Representatives amounted to an increase of £300,000 a year, and I say unhesitatingly that if the late Government had chosen to increase the Votes by that amount every Dockyard Member in the House of Commons now would be a Unionist. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are in this position. These gentlemen who represent the Dockyards have made promises to their constituents, and right hon. Gentlemen must do something to satisfy them, otherwise they may lose their support, and the hon. Gentlemen may lose their seats. But how is this extra sum to be provided? The right hon. Gentleman only explained to us Votes which have not been cut down. The Ordnance Vote has been cut down by £83,000, and the Works Vote has been cut down by £68,000. I say unhesitatingly, from my knowledge of the requirements of these branches, that both of them ought to have been higher than they were last year, and it is only by delaying the commencement of necessary and urgent work, or by transferring a sum which ought to be in the Estimates from the Consolidated Fund, that the reduction can be made. In considering the Navy Estimates, it is

  1265
  always to be remembered that there are only three Votes which are compressible or expansible. We compressed two of these to the lowest possible point, and they will, I feel sure, have to be increased next year. With regard to Vote 8, which provides for men and material at the Dockyards, I would point out that we were last year completing our great naval programme, and as a ship approaches completion the nature of the expenditure changes. Well, now, the great bulk of the expenditure at the completion of a ship is on labour, while the great bulk at the commencement is, as the House will understand, on material. The Admiralty are now under the necessity of commencing a large new programme, and the main item of expenditure will be the provision of material. Therefore, that part of Vote 8 relating to material cannot be cut down, and the only other part is that for labour. The result of cutting down the Estimates by £200,000 and of making promises to the Dockyard Representatives is that, although we may improve the position of the dockyard men, we will have during the next few years very largely to reduce their number. I have no comment to make on that part of the Vote with regard to the increase in the number of men, but Lord Spencer in his Memorandum makes the following observation:—
  "So long as the requirements of the nation for vessels of war continue as they are, it will be impossible to reduce the number of officers and men serving in the Fleet, and I am not prepared to suggest any change in this direction at the present time."
  Now that is a statement misleading both as regards the basis on which the increase is founded and as regards its conclusion. No First Lord of the Admiralty can hold out any hope either for the present or for the future of any reduction in the number of men voted for the Navy. The country has determined that the Navy is to be equal in force to the combined fleets of any two nations, and the inference that at some future time a reduction in the number of men is to be made is altogether erroneous.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No inference like that suggested can be drawn from the words. Nothing of the kind was in the mind of my noble Friend.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the
  1266
  Memorandum itself. It says:—"I am not prepared to suggest any change in this direction," and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested the words "at the present time." The Secretary to the Admiralty will agree that in order to give effect to the recommendations of Admiral Hoskin's Committee a steady increase in the strength will be necessary for the next two or three years. The hon. Member for Lewisham (Mr. Penn) last evening criticised the policy of substituting a certain number of chief stokers for chief engine-room artificers. The justification is that every year, as education progresses, there are more men who can manage and drive engines, and it is fitting that some of the arduous work of the more highly paid men should be transferred to men of rather inferior position who are yet quite competent to discharge the duties so given to them. Last night various suggestions were also made as to the desirability of meeting the request of the warrant officers to be placed on the same footing with respect to commissions as that of warrant officers in the Army. There are difficulties in the way of granting that request. We recognised them last year; and were then asked that a rank should be given to them which would rank them as commissioned officers equivalent to that of chief officers in the Coastguard. One way to carry out this Policy was to increase the number of chief warrant officers and to find some new denomination for them. If the subject were taken in hand and a slight increase of pay were granted, the grievance could be removed in a manner which would be satisfactory to the men themselves and to all concerned. With the new construction programme I have little fault to find, but my figures do not quite agree with those of the right hon. Gentleman, for I calculate that the provision in this year's Estimates is rather less than that in last year's. There is an impression abroad that because the Naval Defence Act has been passed the equality of our fleet with the fleets of any other two nations has been achieved; but it has not yet been achieved and will not be until next year. In that year it will be necessary to consider carefully the condition of Foreign Navies and their ship-building programmes, and it may be found necessary to do something more than make good the wear and tear of the

  1267
  existing British Fleet. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not propose to embody his programme in an Act of Parliament. That I consider a mistake, because the only way by which a Government can give permanent effect to their wishes is by Statute. If the admitted wants of the Navy are not provided for in that, way they may be disregarded at a future time and relegated to a second place by a Government anxious to meet financial exigencies, or they may be overlooked in some way. The objection to legislation like the Naval Defence Act chiefly came from the officials of the Treasury. Such legislation it would seem is contrary to their instincts and traditions. There is no department of State that wants reform; so much as the Treasury. It is the most antiquated and unbusiness-like of all our institutions. The moment a common-sense proposal is made it is opposed by the Treasury, with its obsolete notions of financial administration. I venture to prophesy that unless the representatives of the Admiralty guard themselves by putting their proposals in an Act of Parliament it will be found impossible to give effect to them. The procedure of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to his programme is distinctly open to criticism, and it might be useful if we were to put in contrast the policy of the' present and the late Governments with respect to the amount of information laid before the House. The Committee are asked to sanction the building of four very large ships, and no detailed information has been given respecting them. I have great belief in the genius of the head of the constructive department, Mr. White, and in the ability of the Naval Lords, but it is rather a strong order to ask the Committee to assent to so very large a programme without giving them more information. I estimate that the programme will cost £5,000,000. I suppose the two cruisers, which are to cost £700,000, are substitutes for two new battle-ships which it was proposed to build last year. I intended when in office to build three new battle ships. I had passed the designs of one, and had left the other two over for the financial year terminating April next. I assume that the two cruisers proposed to be built by the Government are in substitution for the two battle-ships I proposed to construct. It is a substitution
  1268
  of two cruisers for two battle-ships. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman has good reasons for this course; but it must be recollected that if we ever get engaged in a really serious war, the command of the seas will really rest with that Power which has the most battle-ships and the most fighting power. The judiciousness of this substitution of cruisers for battleships, therefore, depends on the arms and armament of the cruisers, and it is difficult for us, without information as to the size and equipment of these cruisers, to decide whether or not this is a proper course. I suppose they are to be faster and better armed than the Russian war vessel which is described as the largest and most heavily armed now afloat. I suppose the clear tonnage will be 13,000 tons.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am not in a position to give the details in respect to the cruisers just now.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman puts rather a high test on the confidence of the House. When will the right hon. Gentleman have full details of these vessels? I think-we must insist on them. Last year I undertook to lay the designs of the vessels before Parliament before any money was spent on these vessels. I think the House has a right to this information. There is a very important question at stake which is the distribution of the guns on board the vessels. These vessels are more heavily armed, and, therefore, comes in the most important question, how are the guns to be distributed. At present we have a disposition of the guns on board these vessels which we believe to be most effective. The great thing is to be able to work the guns above without interfering with the guns below. I attach great importance to the fact that the guns may be fired independently of each other, because in the heat of action it is impossible to have concerted action in the firing of the guns, and what happens is that one gun goes off and then another. I must, therefore, urge the right hon. Gentleman, without wishing to embarrass or impede the Admiralty in any way, to give full details of these vessels—the dimensions, armour, and armament, as well as the cost— before we are asked to assent to what is undoubtedly a departure from the existing practice. I only want an approximate estimate. I do not know whether the

  1269
  Government realise the great change which has taken place in Naval policy since we were in office. We need to work to a standard, and it is impossible to work to that standard unless you make out in advance the exact sum that is to be spent year by year. I cannot help thinking that in the course of procedure which they have adopted the Government next year will find themselves in a difficulty, because of the encroachments that have been made on money appropriated by Act of Parliament to new construction, and which will prevent the completion of the new ships as soon as has been promised. As regards the distribution of work, I am not quite satisfied with the distribution between the dockyards and the private yards. I think it likely to lead to great reduction in dockyard labour, because while the expenditure for material goes up the expenditure for labour goes down. The Admiralty will find great difficulty in providing material for the employment of the necessary dockyard hands. The larger the ship the smaller the proportion of the expenditure which goes to labour, and the smaller the ship the larger the proportion of the expenditure that goes to labour. For instance, in the case of the Royal Sovereign, the tonnage of which was upwards of 14,000 tons, the cost of material was £388,000, and the cost of labour £190,000. Therefore, for every £1 spent on material there was only 10s. spent on labour. On the other hand, in the case of the Edgar, of 7,300 tons, the cost of material was £95,000, and the cost of labour £134,000, which gave £1 to material for £1 8s. to labour. In the case of the Circe, of only 830 tons, an expenditure on material of £9,000 afforded occupation for £20,000 worth of labour, which gave £1 to material for £2 Is. to labour. The Government now proposed to put the whole of the torpedo destroyers, 20 in number, out to contract. A better distribution would be to retain a certain number of these vessels for dockyard work. The dockyards would be able to build the engines and boilers of these vessels, and in this way labour in the dockyards would be employed more efficiently than can be done under the proposed allocation of the work. Then, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor Earl Spencer has given us any informa-
  1270
  tion as to the class of armour-plate to be used in these new vessels. Experiments in armour-plate have been rapidly developed during the last year, and there is now no doubt that certain American patents with respect to these plates have been very successful. I would like to know whether the Admiralty propose to protect these new vessels with that type of armour, and, if not, with what type of armour? I wish also to point out that the boilers in these vessels have given a great amount of trouble, and I hope the Admiralty will bear in mind that there should be a large margin of boiler power in vessels destined for high speed. I now turn to the Ordnance Vote, and I find that the amount of money ordered to be spent under the Naval Defence Act, £600,000, has been cut down to £450,000. I do not know on what grounds that has been done, and it seems to me an infraction of the principle of the Naval Defence Act. The great object of that Act was that ships when built should have not only guns, but a reserve of ammunition and stores. Taking into consideration that there was a small reserve for eon-tract-built ships, I, when in Office, after full consideration with my advisers, fixed the amount of the reserve for dockyard-built ships at £2,500,000, as the amount which must be appropriated to the armament of these vessels. That was a reduced amount, but the Admiralty have cut it down by £150,000. I want to know is it proposed to transfer the sum to the Consolidated Fund?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am assured, by the same authorities who advised the noble Lord, that no ship that is to be completed will be completed without its guns; but, as certain of the ships are not to be completed within the time contemplated by the Naval Defence Act, so, also, their armament was not required so soon. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no depletion contemplated in reserves of armaments.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I knew what amounts were necessary six months ago, and I cannot tell how the remarkable change has been brought about. However, I will raise the question on Vote 9, and then the right hon. Gentleman may be in a position to answer. I think the inevitable result will be that next year the Armament Vote will go up, and if the Vote for material goes up also,

  1271
  it is clear that next year you will be in great financial difficulties. The same observation applies to the Works Vote. I calculated that the Works Vote would go up by £20,000 this year, instead of which it has gone down £68,000. I see that some very pressing matters have been postponed. The Gibraltar Mole and the Naval Barracks at Portsmouth have disappeared from the Vote. These were large works that were contemplated. My general criticism upon the Vote is that, while certain works have been completed, an insufficient number of new works have been proceeded with, which will undoubtedly result, in years to come, in a large increase of expenditure. But the most important reduction in the Estimates is that by which the subsidy to the merchant cruisers was reduced from £60,000 to £22,000.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: That is only in consequence of a decision to keep one year's amount in hand.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: This is a very important point, and one in which the House takes a great interest. The late Government introduced a plan by which the steamers of the Peninsular and Oriental and the great Atlantic liners were subsidized for the conveyance of troops, on the shortest notice, at a fixed rate, and whenever the Admiralty chose. The great merit of the scheme is that if we became involved in any large Naval war operations the whole resources of these Companies would be at our disposal. It is difficult to over-estimate the value of that plan, and I wish to know whether the Government propose to continue it.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The policy will be continued in the present year.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Do I understand that the intention is to change the policy?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The subject will be further considered, but for the present it is proposed to continue the system.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I know what the words "farther considered" means. I may take them as a warning, and I wish now to utter my protest against any interference with the plan. The subsisting system has the additional advantage of encouraging the employ-
  1272
  ment of British seamen on board of the, subsidized liners, and it sets an example: for others to follow in this respect. I was astonished to find that one-third of the number of petty officers in the Mercantile Marine were foreigners. So in drawing the contracts with the companies a clause was inserted subjecting them to a penalty unless they carried a certain number of Naval Reserve men on board. I hope nothing will be done to interfere with the efficiency and scope of that policy, for it is one on which I and my friends feel strongly. There is only one other matter of importance to which I would like to call the attention of the Committee. When in office it was my duty to make myself acquainted with the opinion of foreign experts as to the condition of our sea-going fleet, and I think I may say that they have a high opinion of its efficiency and organisation. The improvement during the last six or seven years has been very remarkable. But there is one point in our defence to which I desire to call particular attention, and about which these experts are not so enthusiastic, and that is, the parts the Army and the Navy are to take in it. Every country except our own entrusts to the Navy and not to the Army the defence of great Naval ports and stations. In every one of these countries the Army is the first line of defence; but here, where the Navy is the first line of defence, we reverse the policy. The present system of coast defence is wrong, and every year the work connected with that defence is becoming more marine and more aquatic in its character. Writing to the United States Government in June, 1888, Lieutenant Colwell said—
  "The coast defence of Great Britain is notably the most inefficient of any of the great European Powers, owing to the divided control, lack of co-operation, absence of digested schemes for mutual support, and the mixing of Naval and Military duties. The defence is unwieldly in its administration, unprepared for sudden work, and labours under the disadvantage of placing Military men outside their legitimate sphere of work."
  To entrust our coast defence to the Army is a wrong system, and the longer it is in the hands of the Army the more difficult it will be to work it. Holding these views, I am very anxious that, if the House wishes it, nothing should be done by either the Admiralty or the War Office

  1273
  to impede the gradual transfer of the defence of Naval ports and stations from the Army to the Navy. If it was ever proposed to arm the Army or Navy with obsolete weapons there is not a man in this House who would not protest against placing them upon such unequal conditions. In my judgment, an obsolete system of organisation is as bad or even worse than an obsolete system of arms. Obsolete arms can easily be replaced, but an obsolete system of organisation eats into the very roots of the country's resources, and cannot be altered at a moment's notice, and in a time of emergency and danger. Let the Committee for a moment consider under what conditions alone the stationary defence by the Naval force can be tested. It cannot be tested except under circumstances of adversity. It is only so long as our Navy is supreme in her command of the sea that no serious attack can take place; it is only when it is demoralised at sea that the conditions under which it would be necessary to work a mixed system of this kind could be tested. And I hold very strongly that we ought to look at this question from one point of view alone—which of the two services is best to undertake the work, and if it is decided that the Navy, and the Navy alone, can adequately undertake that work, I think that gradually there should be transferred to them the men, materials, and money necessary to enable them to perform the duty which their training, service, and experience specially qualify them to undertake. I admit it might result in a very considerable difference between the dimensions of the two services, and entail a considerable transfer of money from the Army to the Navy Votes. It is the only sphere of action where two services overlap; and if this question is discussed and considered the almost unanimous opinion of those who have gone into it would be that the change I have pointed out would be one that should be gradually undertaken upon the decision of the House. I apologise to the Committee for having spoken at such considerable length, and I will sum up what I have said in one or two sentences. The proposals with regard to the men are satisfactory, and also the new Shipbuilding Vote, as far as money is concerned. We are short, however, of information, and
  1274
  we must have that before these vessels are built. The work to be done, in my judgment, is insufficient, but even if it be insufficient, and the Admiralty have those demands pressed upon them that were made last night, it is essential if they wish to give effect to the programme which they have laid before the Committee, that they should try and adopt our dockyard procedure and pass an Act of Parliament. I am perfectly satisfied that unless they do so they will find they will be unable to hold their own against the financial exigencies of the Treasury or against personal or political pressure from Members representing dockyard constituencies. On the other hand, if they will follow our procedure, all they will have to do will be to admit they have made a mistake, and they have often done that in other matters, and they will meet with almost unanimous support on this side of the House. Having got the assent of the House to this Shipbuilding Vote, and the House having declared this shipbuilding programme is to be completed in a certain time, they will be in an impregnable position, and they would find that they would be able to defy alike the pressure of the Treasury and their friends, and bring to a rapid and effective realisation the large shipbuilding proposals they have placed before us.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)did not desire to speak upon technical matters, but there were one or two questions which seemed to him essential for the Committee to take into account with the distinct object of making a change. The noble Lord who had just sat down had given him a good introduction to the matter he wished to call attention to in the suggestion for further employment of the Royal Marines. He was not aware whether the Committee realised what a large proportion of their Naval forces the Royal Marines at present constituted. The number of men had been increased, and was now no less than 14,500, out of a total of 71,000 combatants in the Naval and Marine Service, and would shortly be 16,000. They had in their possession a force of soldiers absolutely without rival, and yet at this moment they were acting in a manner calculated to deprive that body of men of the services of the most competent officers; they were at

  1275
  present handicapping the Royal Marines by a system they adopted of non-employment of the officers. Physically the Royal Marines was one of the finest corps they had, and only last year the recruiting standard went up to 5 ft. 10 in., but they laboured under one very great disadvantage. Every one knew that so far as the men were concerned they were not only treated well, but they found no difficulty in obtaining employment on leaving the service, but the officers laboured under very great disadvantages. He had been making an examination of the chances of employment for the officers, and he found that the chance of employment on active service was only one—namely, that of Deputy Adjutant General, whose active service immediately relegated him to a stool in an office in Whitehall. The first condition of his being placed upon the active list, was that he should become inactive. In the Army, however, he found there were on the active list 188 Generals, and in the Navy there were 21 "Flag" officers actively employed; therefore, the chances held out to the Royal Marine officer was out of all proportion inferior to those in the Army or Navy, whichever basis they took it upon. The chances offered to the Royal Marine Officers ought to be at least six times what they were. He did not wish to say anything discourteous, but the obvious conclusion to be drawn was that they were not likely to get the exact class of men they ought to get when they narrowed the field of promotion. They could not and must not expect to get the best work from any class of men if they did not give them a reasonable chance of promotion. A remedy for this state of things was easy. What was wanted was to give a wider sphere of responsibility and employment to the officers of the Royal Marines. At present the only posts open to officers in this branch of the Service who had succeeded in their career was that of Commandant at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Devonport, and the post he had referred to at Whitehall. They wanted a wider field, and what he would suggest was that the Commandant's post should be extended, and there was ample opportunity in various parts of the world. They had coaling stations, which were what he might call amphibious positions which required to be manned by men accus-
  1276
  tomed to the sea and acquainted with the working of navy guns. For these stations they required men who could be easily transferred by our ships from one point to another; there were points that might become threatened which would require the assistance of men who could be rapidly moved without liability to the disadvantages of sea sickness, and the disorganisation that attended the embarkation of troops; men who could be moved without throwing out of gear the whole Army organisation. What they wanted was a force that could easily be transferred from one place to another and made effective at whatever place it was sent to. Such a force existed to their hands in the Royal Marines. He did not propose to discuss the details of this question as they had been discussed at great length and with great ability elsewhere, but they must not forget that the Royal Marines happened to be a service that did fall somewhat between two stools, and did not receive the amount of encouragement and approval that they should receive, either at the Admiralty or the War Office. This was a grievance which was making men discontented, and he thought it was a matter that the Committee might very well press upon the attention of the Board of Admiralty. There was one other matter he would like to call attention to. A document had recently been brought before the attention of the Admiralty which was the result of a statement made by a large number of officers in Her Majesty's ships sailing in foreign waters. One of the matters in this document affected the personal comfort of the officers, and should receive some consideration. It was a well-known fact that officers in the Army received a large amount of leave on return from foreign service, as a matter of right. In the Navy the leave given was six weeks, and after that time the officer was on half-pay, which meant in the case of a lieutenant that he received about 2s. a day less than was received by the compositors who set up the Parliamentary Papers they read day by day. The conditions of sea-life were also very different to those in the Army, where an officer carried about with him all his paraphernalia, and was frequently accompanied by his wife, and therefore he did not think

  1277
  he was going too far in commending this matter to the representatives of the Admiralty, and urging that something should be done to put the officers of the Royal Navy on something approaching an equality with officers in the Army. Before sitting down there was just one other matter that he should like to call attention to it, and it arose out of the speech of the noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton). It was proposed by the Admiralty to build a large number of extra torpedo boats. He did not know what provision was made for the manning of them, but under the present circumstances whenever the torpedo boats were called out the greatest difficulty was found in manning them. What happened was that when the best men were called away from the sea-going ships, the best artificers were taken from the engine-room, and the best officers were taken from the ward-room in order that the boats might be sent to sea. These officers and men were put into boats with which they had no acquaintance, a most wasteful process, and a process which no captain who had ever been in command of a ship would recommend. In that connection he would suggest the propriety of utilising what was ready to their hand at this moment. They had lying up at Devonport, Portsmouth, and Chatham some four score of what were called first-class torpedo boats, which were only taken out once a year. The boats were of no real use where they were, and as they had all round the coast an incomparable force in their yachtsmen and crews, who knew the territorial waters fifty times better than the majority of officers in the Navy could, he would suggest that these boats should be handed over to some properly-constituted volunteer force that would be responsible for providing crews, and who would undertake to be responsible for housing, and for any damage to the boats. He believed that in this way an excellent force would be given to the Navy.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid he was in a great difficulty. He gave notice of a special character regarding the Admiralty Minute with reference to the Howe court-martial, and he sat for five hours last night desiring to bring the question forward. Now, he had heard some rumours that if he tried to bring it on he would be stopped, and,
  1278
  therefore, he wished to ask whether he could raise the question of the Admiralty Minute upon this Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. MELLOR,): I think it would probably come either under the Admiralty Vote or the Vote for Martial Law.
  MR. HANBURY: On a point of order, Sir, I wish to ask a question. We have been discussing the Shipbuilding and Admiralty Vote on this Vote, and it is treated as a general discussion. May I ask what distinction you draw between the Shipbuilding Vote and the Admiralty Vote?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The distinction is this: on the first Vote of the Navy Estimates it is usual for a general discussion to take place, which is opened by the Secretary to the Admiralty. It is not competent on that to go into matters of detail, or any special matter that does not concern the Vote itself. With regard to the Shipbuilding Vote, the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) confined himself to discussing that generally and not on any particular details.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Might I, on a point of Order, point out that we are discussing a Vote in which is included Admiral Fairfax and the other officers whose conduct my hon. Friend desires to call attention to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No, it is not the action of those officers to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to draw attention, but to the Admiralty Note.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid he bowed to the decision without further question, though it was a little troublesome, after having prepared one's mind for a particular subject, to have to throw all that on one side, and take up another question. However, he would do his best. Let him say, speaking for himself and his brother officers, they heartily congratulated the right hon. Gentleman (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth) upon the new honour conferred upon him, and they thanked him for the manner in which he had introduced these Estimates. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman a warm support from naval men, but he should like to ask why the right hon. Gentleman had parted with the only naval man on the opposite side who might have assisted him; instead of letting him (Mr. R. Duff) go to the Admiralty they

  1279
  had sent him to New South Wales, so that the Admiralty was left with a poor landsman without any professional assistance. There was another hon. Gentleman who ought to have been sitting on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. J. Reed). That hon. Member knew a great deal about naval matters, and he should like to ask why the Government had not obtained his services. He did not know whether they had broken their alliance with him, but he offered the Government his sincere condolence for not having the hon. Gentleman to explain difficult questions. He would now say a word with reference to the suggestions of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Arnold-Forster). The Navy thoroughly understood the object of his hon. Friend, and fully recognised the valuable services he had rendered the Navy in former years. The hon. Member touched on the question of the employment of the officers of the Royal Marines. Every naval officer would go with him and beyond him, if that were possible, on the question. Though a limited number, they were most valuable in time of war, and in times of peace he thought it would be most advantageous to employ them at the various coaling stations. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) promised to try the experiment at the Falkland Island coaling station, and he would like to know if that had been carried out. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but he believed that if it were tried it would turn out to be a very great success. The noble Lord raised a very important and grave question about the dual control in various naval ports. Of course, theoretically, the Navy quite endorsed his views. The noble Lord said this should be carried out gradually. It would take a long time to carry it out, for they had neither officers, nor men, nor forces adequate for such a thing, and before it could be carried out effectually there would have to be a very large increase in the Navy and the Marines. There was, however, no difficulty in garrisoning the distant coaling stations. He came now to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it was to a certain extent gratifying to naval men that there had been no attempt to cut down the expenditure and minimise the policy initiated by the noble Lord (Lord George
  1280
  Hamilton and his Board in 1888. But, looking at the statement as a whole, it seemed to him an apologetic kind of statement. It appeared to have been drawn up with great caution, and with a view to gratify certain supporters of the Government. There was an apology for the increase in the number of men shown in the Estimates. The statement ran something like this: "That the cost of the medical attendance had increased correspondingly with the increase in the number of men, and we apologise for it." Were they ashamed of this increase? The Government proposed to increase the personnel of the Navy by 2,600 men; but, as far as he could make out, there was to be no increase in the number of the boys. He took it there was to be an increase of 2,600 men, including 500 Marines. Was that so, or were there boys? The feeling was that they ought to have at least 2,000 more men for the Marines; 500 more was not a number nearly sufficient, and this branch of the Service should be brought up to a strength of 20,000 men. He believed the Government were leaning too much on the Royal Naval Reserve, which ought not to be looked npon as a force to compose the first line they sent out to meet the enemy. These, however, were matters of detail which the House could not possibly be competent to deal with. He was grateful that they had appointed a Manning Committee to whose knowledge these questions could be referred, and whom they could rely upon to give a wise decision. The only doubt he had was whether the Executive would carry out their recommendations.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I can re-assure my hon. and gallant Friend; they are carrying out all the recommendations of the Manning Committee.
  ADMIRAL FIELDwas glad to hear it. He was glad to see that the Admiralty were proposing a new kind of armament for the Renown. He also found in the new ship it was proposed to introduce a new kind of gun, and he was glad to notice that a new quick-firing gun was being introduced. He complained that little or no information was given as to the number of guns in reserve, and in process of manufacture. Last year the First Lord of the Admiralty gave full information on these points, but this

  1281
  year they had no such particulars for their guidance. He should like to ask the Secretary for the Admiralty for some information about public works. The statement intimated that arrangements were being made for rapid coaling at certain ports, but nothing was said as to the new dock at Gibraltar. Naval men had been pressing this question upon the late Government, as they recognised a new dock at Gibraltar was necessary. He should like to know whether the Admiralty had taken any steps in the matter. We should not give up that point. He saw no mention of the Repulse. What had become of her? Were they ashamed of her? She was a very fine ship, and was certainly worth mentioning. As to the Royal Naval Reserve, there was no information about the number the Reserve was to consist of, although last year they were told it was to be raised to 27,000. The late Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) started the policy of inducing promising young officers in the Mercantile Marine to enrol themselves and receive 12 months' training. Now, a mercantile officer, unless he were trained for a time on board a man-of-war, would be practically useless, and it was quite right for the late Lord of the Admiralty to give them facilities for being trained. But what was said in the first paragraph of the present First Lord's statement on this subject?
  "It has not been possible, for financial and other reasons, to accept all the candidates who offered themselves."
  "For financial and other reasons! He did not admit that was a sufficient reason. Were they to depend on financial reasons for an officer being trained or untrained? They might have war breaking upon them, and were they to be told that these young men had not been trained for financial reasons? The cost was, comparatively speaking, so small that the objection was not worthy of notice. If they insisted on economising, for mercy's sake, do not economise on the training of officers, and 12 months' time was a short enough period for such training. Another paragraph which he had noted with displeasure was that one which stated that the system of training of the Second Class Reserve men was going to be changed, and that, instead of taking their drill annually as heretofore,
  1282
  they were going to be put on board a man-of-war and take their training for a month once every five years. One month's training in five years was absolutely useless, for in such a long interval they would have forgotten all they had previously learned. Three years should be the minimum. He was pleased to note that a little money was to be spent on clothing the Naval Reserve men in a proper uniform. The Secretary to the Admiralty stated that it was the desire of the Government to maintain the position taken up by the late Government, namely, that the Navy of England should be on a par with any combination of any two Powers. But the Government were departing from that policy now. He was credibly informed that the Admiralty already ought to be increasing their shipbuilding, because other nations had already increased theirs—since this policy was inaugurated by the late Government in the Naval Defence Act. France and Russia had built or were about to build new ships. France was going to build 10 additional armour-clads, and Russia eight, making 18, so that we should want 18 more ships according to that to maintain the standard. Then France and Russia were making, or were going to make, additions to various other classes of vessels, so that if the Admiralty really intended to carry out the policy they had stated they were desirous of carrying out they would have to make many additions to the Navy. One word as to the standard of comparison, namely, that the Navy of England should be on a par with any combination of any two Powers. Naval men accepted that as a minimum and not as the standard. The standard they considered should alone be regarded was one which should be according to the measure of the work to be done. He had in his hand a letter from the distinguished Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Geoffrey Hornby, who said—
  "Personally I have never assented to the measure of the force assumed by the Admiralty, namely, that it should be equal to that of two foreign nations. It should depend first, on the tonnage of the Mercantile Marine which it has to protect, and then on the degree to which that marine is spread over the globe."
  Yes, but the Admiralty had never studied that particular question, but they had fixed as their standard what might have been suitable in Nelson's time, namely,

  1283
  double the force of any foreign Power against whom the Navy might have to fight. The position of the problem, however, had changed since Nelson's time. Allusion had been made to the mercantile cruisers. He had seen with much concern that the Inman Line, to whom the Government had been paying £15,000 per ship, had now been converted into a company called, he believed, the International Line running from America to Southampton. We had lost these ships, and paid our money for practically nothing. The Admiralty ought to consider this question anew. There ought to be something more than a mere holding of 12 months' money in hand, and there ought to be some penalty attached to a breach of the arrangement between the Admiralty and mercantile firms, otherwise what was to prevent firms receiving our money and then selling their ships? It was not of much practical use to have merely an honourable understanding on such a matter, and he suggested to the Admiralty there should be a hard-and-fast agreement, with penalties attaching to a breach of the same. He asked for some assurance that the training squadron was not to be done away with; most naval men were holding that, in these times at all events, it would be premature to adopt such a course. He now came to a few grievances. They had heard the Members from the five dockyard seats trying their level best to ventilate the grievances of the dockyard employés and to carry, out the promises they had made, and by which they had won these seats. For his part he would much rather these seats should be lost to the Unionist Party than that the late Government should have done what they knew to be wrong in the management in the great dockyards. He believed the policy the late Government initiated in the dockyards was the best possible for the Service, and the good of the Service ought to be the only consideration that ought to weigh. He contended that the system of classification at the dockyards was the very essence of their successful administration; the whole Navy was based upon it, and it was the only successful policy to adopt in the administration of a great Department. He hoped, therefore, that this system of classification would be con-
  1284
  tinued. It should be remembered that the Fleet did not exist for the dockyards, but the dockyards for the Fleet, and the grievances of the seamen and officers were entitled to some consideration. He endorsed what had been said about creating a new rank for warrant officers. There should be a new rank created for meeting the aspirations of this deserving body of men. They had fleet surgeons and fleet engineers, and why not have fleet gunners, fleet boatswains, and fleet carpenters? That was a small thing to ask for, and surely it was worth while to meet that claim and make these men contented and happy. There was not a more loyal body of men under the Crown. He also endorsed what had been said as to considering the grievances of the chief petty officers which he thought ought to be considered and remedied. There were grievances which were scarcely, if at all, touched upon by the noble Lord. The coastguardsmen suffered under grievances for the last 10 years. He (Admiral Field) pressed them on the attention of the Members of the existing Government in 1886, and he had continued to mention the matter since then. The coastguardsmen held very strong views about the indifference with which they were being treated. It was most unfair to allow this difference to continue between one section of men-of-war's-men and another section—for they were all men of war, and, although the coastguards might not be in active service, they were quite as active as the others. The great grievance was in the matter of payment, and it ought to be remedied without delay. There were other grievances, but he would not go into detail on the points involved. He had had a conversation with an officer in the higher ranks of the Service, who admitted to him that these grievances existed, and said they ought to be remedied; but the blessed Treasury always stepped in the way of a remedy. He had left the case of the officers to the last, because he thought the case of the men ought to be considered first. They had a body of lieutenants who had very little hope of promotion. It was heart-breaking to ask these men to give their services, and, as the numbers were greatly in excess, something should be done to assuage their feelings on the score of promotion. This

  1285
  grievance was a very great one, and he believed not half enough had been said about it. It was well known that a lieutenant coming home after an absence of four years, and paying off, had been ordered off again without any consideration. He did not see how they could get the present state of things remedied except through the House, as they could get no satisfaction from the heads of Departments. Would the right hon. Gentleman make a note of it? The lieutenants undoubtedly felt very sore about the matter of leave of absence and the matter of appointments. The matter of leave of absence, as a general principle, should be carried out in a regular and proper way. In a time of war everyone must go; but in a time of peace these officers should be allowed some time to see their friends, and they should even be allowed to marry, another privilege of which they were at present deprived. Another thing was that it was now no longer necessary to keep ships for lengthened periods on foreign stations. The feeling generally was that two years should be the maximum. Three or four years was a very long time to be away, and there was no reason why, in these days of steam and telegraph, there should not be more frequent changes — exchanges, perhaps, he should say—of our vessels from the Mediterranean to China, and another from China to the Mediterranean. The maximum term of service in such cases in the French Navy was two years, and he did not see that they should not adopt that period in England. Anything, indeed, that would bring contentment to a service upon which the Empire depended for its very existence merited the attention of the Government. He wished to know whether the gunnery school started at Sheerness had its full complement of men and appliances and was working efficiently. Another thing was the statement in the Memorandum that the Sultan would be completed in 1894. He did not blame the present Government for the delay. The noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) and his friends on that (the Conservative) side of the House were largely, if not wholly, responsible. But he thought they ought to make an effort to turn out the Sultan to take the place of the Howe. He found that right hon. Gentlemen were proud of the rapidity with which the Royal Sovereign
  1286
  was completed and put in commission. The period was two years and eight months. Surely, if that were so, the Sultan ought to be available within a period of 12 months? They began last year and they ought to have the work finished this year. He would not trouble the House by going into other matters as he simply rose to speak on one subject. He hoped the matters which had been mentioned would have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government. He had no doubt that if proper attention were given to them contentment would be restored to the Service. So little was required, and that little would so help to remove the unpleasant feeling that existed, that he could not but expect that the Government would yield to the request put forward by the Service and by its friends in that House.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I will not attempt to follow at any length the genial speech which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just delivered. He is our only Admiral, and any remarks or suggestions he addresses to the House are sure to be listened to with respect and attention. I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman into all details, but I would like to say that, while he told us that this point and that had not been attended to, those are the very points which have received the most careful attention of the Admiralty. Now, with regard to the men, the coast-guards and their officers, the Admiralty will take care to bear in mind the friendly suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friend. The reconstruction of the Sultan will be completed in 1894 or 1895. It could not be much sooner, for the work has only just commenced. The comments which have been passed upon the conclusions arrived at by the Manning Committee will also be carefully considered. I have to thank the noble Lord opposite for the friendly tone of his remarks. The noble Lord seems to think that we are doing an increased amount of work on a reduced sum of money, and he referred to the Armament Vote, but the reduction on the expenditure of this year is really very small.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I quoted the figures, and they are large enough.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Armament Vote of last year proved to be unnecessarily large, by a sum of at least £80;000, and the present Board of Admiralty had this to guide them. The noble Lord also inquired about the saving of £442,000 on the armament of the Dockyard ships, under the Naval Defence Act. There was a reduction in the original Estimate in respect of ammunition, due to a decision of the late Board in 1890, that the proportion of reserves of ammunition for the Fleet was too high. If we were to maintain this reserve, in accordance with the original Estimate given in the Naval Defence Act, we should be landed in considerable rejections of obsolete ammunition. Again, there is a saving of about £138,000 owing to the cost of stores manufactured in Government factories, and also in private trade, being cheaper than originally estimated. As an instance, I may mention that the 6-in. quick-firing brass case has come down in price by one-half. Nothing has been done, in the direction of cutting down the Estimate for armaments, which will endanger the absolute efficiency of our ships. No ship is to be without her guns. The noble Lord said the Works Vote should be higher. But he cannot point to any work of importance which has been left out. We are going on with the Gibraltar Mole, and we propose to spend £5,000 during the year upon it. We have no intention of shirking expenditure upon the barracks at Portsmouth. Sooner or later something will have to be done there, but I may say that there is a prospect that we shall be able to turn the convict prison at Portsmouth to account. Hence the delay. Attention has been called to the coaling station at Devonport. We have been advised not to proceed with this until we have experience of the coaling arrangements that are being provided at Portland. In spite of the suggestions made, the Dockyard Members need be under no apprehension that the wages in the Dockyards will have to be cut down. The Government have no intention of initiating any spasmodic reductions in numbers, but we expect that by a gradual process of waste they will come down to their normal strength. From what I gather the last Government must have been an uncommonly happy family.
  1288
  Last night the late Secretary of the Treasury (Sir John Gorst) attacked the late Admiralty; while the late Solicitor General condemned the system of classification which they introduced. And to-day I have been greatly amused at the observations of the noble Lord regarding the Treasury. I can assure the House that there are no differences between the present Board of Admiralty and the Treasury. Their relations form an acute contrast to those which evidently existed between certain Members of the late Government. With regard to new ships, I must decline to give detailed information in public which might be used by foreign Governments to the detriment of this country. If, however, the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of the Admiralty desire fuller information, I shall be happy to show them the designs of the proposed new vessels when they are complete. The noble Lord says we should give information to the House of our intentions in regard to all these matters; but I would remind him that in last year's Estimates he gave less information as regards his ships of the Further Programme than we are giving of those which we propose to commence.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I proposed to spend a very small sum towards the end of the financial year. The House should have a guarantee of the manner in which this money is to be spent.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: One point to which the noble Lord alluded was his scheme of defence of naval ports by naval forces, but his views now differ from those which he held in February, 1891, and embodied in his statement to Parliament on the Estimates. He then said—
  "I admit that if such a change could be carried out it would tend to secure unity of action and responsibility, and would, in an emergency, secure at the great naval ports the rapid utilization of all available resources, for whatever movement the exigency of the moment might require. But it is a proposal that involves so immense a change, that it is not under any conditions practicable in the immediate future. The transfers of men and money, material and buildings, which it entails would revolutionise the proportions the Army and Navy now bear to one another, and many experienced naval officers are averse to the change. Moreover, its increased cost in one direction is certain, whilst the counterbalancing savings are problematical. Still, looking to the fact that nearly

  1289
  every Foreign Power has adopted the principle of placing their Naval Authorities in charge of maritime defences, care should be taken that the various alterations which from time to time must occur in the organisation both of the Army and Navy do not increase the obstacles to such a transfer of duties. Further investigation and experience can alone determine whether the change is desirable in the common interests of both Services, and nothing in the meantime should be done to prejudice that future decision."
  Under these circumstances we may fairly ask the House to pause before it commits itself to so great a change.
  MR. FORWOOD: I do not rise for the purpose of stopping the Vote, though I do not think that three hours' discussion is very long for such important subjects as have been before us. Three hours is a very short time when you consider the importance of the Vote. I promise, however, that I will not occupy more than a few moments. As I have said, I am not going to object to the Vote, and I do not propose to go into detail; but there are one or two points upon which we might reasonably ask for further information. There are one or two points to which I wish to allude. I think it was very satisfactory to read in the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that the programme of construction under the Naval Defence Act has been fully realised, and that at the end of this year only nine vessels out of the 70 which are ordered will remain unfinished, and that they would have been finished had it not been necessary to adjust the labour question at the dockyards. In reference to the boilers and machinery for the vessels of the Navy, a very interesting and important Report has been published by a Committee, and I venture to say that a more valuable document has seldom been introduced in a Public Department. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not allow that Report, or portions of it, to be made public, as it will be of considerable value to the Mercantile Marine of the country. I should have liked to know what was done with the £100,000 which was taken for boilers last year. No doubt it has been used for other purposes and used advantageously, but it would have been advantageous if we could have had information on that point. It is satisfactory to see that the transfer of the Naval Ordnance Department to the Navy
  1290
  has worked so well for eighteen months. The deficiencies in Naval Ordnance at this moment are less than they were expected to be. Another point that is satisfactory is that only £2,200,000 remains to complete the vessels that are left on hand under the Naval Defence Act. That compares most favourably with the £6,000,000 the late Government had to provide to complete the vessels when my noble Friend took charge at the Admiralty. Another point of satisfaction is that the Dockyard and contract ships under the Naval Defence Act, which were estimated roughly to cost £21,500,000, have been constructed within £650,000 of the estimates; but probably the whole difference between the estimated cost and that accounted for only amounts to something less than £100,000. The Secretary to the Admiralty alluded to the Programme, and to the depreciation of the Navy; but the strength of the Navy will not be considered sufficient until the whole of the Naval Defence ships have been added to it. When they have been added the amount necessary to meet depreciation, and to keep up the Navy will be £2,350,000, as stated by my noble Friend. As to the two cruisers, each of them is to cost roughly £700,000. I want the House to understand what a marvellous departure that means—what a great change in naval shipbuilding policy. The cost of a cruiser may be taken at £35 per ton of displacement; therefore, these vessels are to be of the approximately enormous size of 20,000 tons displacement, which is practically the size of the largest vessel that crosses the Atlantic, and we are to jump up from 9,000 to 20,000 tons. That is an enormous advance, which requires some consideration and thought. At present we have no particulars about it. Upon the question of the Works Vote, I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one point. I observe that in the expenditure proposed this year no less a sum than £20,000 has been unspent. I think it is not a good principle that large sums of money should be voted for works which are not carried out, and the money devoted to other purposes. Among these works there is the Sheerness Gunnery School, which is to cost £9,000. £3,000 was provided in last year's Estimate, but it has dis-

  1291
  appeared altogether in the succeeding year's Estimate. I do not know whether the school is completed, or whether the idea of constructing it has been abandoned. As to the merchant cruisers, there seems to have been a misapprehension on the part of some hon. Members in reference to the Inman ships which have been transferred to the American flag. We pay to the owners of these vessels a certain sum every year on condition that if the Admiralty require the vessels their services are at their command. It is provided that the year's hire shall always be kept in hand, so that if the owners desire to sell the ships, and the Admiralty do not take them or hire them, the hire of each ship will be sacrificed by the owners, and some £18,000 or £20,000 will remain in the hands of the Admiralty that might have been claimed by the owners. I hope the policy which was carefully thought out and considered by this House is not now going to be abandoned by the Government; but that, instead of reducing they will rather increase the number of really the best of the merchant ships now in use.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I feel obliged to appeal to the House to allow this Vote to pass. Everybody knows that arrangements have been made (which it would be inconvenient to alter) for taking the Army Estimates on Thursday. I hope that arrangement will not be altered. I trust that hon. Members, of whom I have no doubt there are many, who desire to offer further observations on the Vote under consideration will reserve those observations.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): The situation, as I understand it, is this: We were engaged last night in discussing certain questions relating to the Navy Vote, but those questions were not in reality Navy questions but Labour questions, and they were of great importance. The Vote now before us, which bears upon Naval policy, has been debated now for only three hours, perhaps through the necessities of the case, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken a leading part in the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman now suggests that such observations as Members may desire to make should be made on a later stage of the Vote. But as the right hon.
  1292
  Gentleman is aware, you, Mr. Mellor, have quite rightly, in the exercise of your office, strictly confined the discussion to questions relevant to the Vote before the House. A stringency not undue, but still a considerable stringency has been shown by the Chair in limiting the discussion; and, therefore, it would not be safe for any hon. Gentleman to defer to a later Vote any observations he may desire to make which would be in "Order" on this Vote, but which might turn out to be out of "Order" on other Votes. I would venture to suggest as a compromise that the Vote for the men should be taken, and that there should be a brief discussion on the Vote for money—Vote 2—which should be taken at a later date. That would conciliate all opinions on both sides of the House, and I do not believe that in the long run the Government will make any less rapid progress by agreeing to this compromise.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Unless the Money Vote is taken we shall do nothing at all to-day. It has been the practice to take a large discussion on this Vote, it has also been considered in "Order" to discuss on this Vote subjects which might be discussed on the Victualling Vote. I think I am correct in this, and therefore I hope there will be no objection to allowing the Money Vote to be taken, and the discussion to be resumed on the Victualling Vote.
  MR. HANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot direct the Chairman, who has taken up a new position—a proper position — against which the Opposition are not going to protest in any way. It certainly, however, has the effect of altering the circumstances under which we discuss these Votes. We have no guarantee whatever that we can discuss on the Victualling Vote matters which we are perfectly entitled to discuss on the first Vote. That being the case, I do hope that the Leader of the Opposition will be no party to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that he will reserve our full right to discuss the Votes on some subsequent day.
  THE CHAIRMAN: On this first Vote I allowed a general discussion on topics connected with the Admiralty, and the only restriction I laid down was what I found to be according to the

  1293
  Rules of the House—namely, that specific matters which ought to come under some other Vote could not come under this, nor could anyone go into matters of detail on other Votes, but only on matters contained in this Vote.
  MR. T. G. BOWLES: This is a Vote for 76,600 men. I desire to move a reduction of that, and I wish to know whether I shall be able to do so. The reduction I should propose would be of one man—namely, the Admiral at Portsmouth. Shall I be in Order in doing that, and in giving my reasons for the Motion?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The reduction must be a substantial one. That has been ruled over and over again.
  MR. T. G. BOWLES: He is an Admiral, Sir.
  Mr. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.)rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair.
  House resumed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what will be the first Order on Thursday?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There might be some inconvenience in proceeding with the Navy Estimates. The Army Estimates will be taken on Thursday.
  MR. HANBURYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to stand by the arrangement announced at the commencement of the Sitting, namely, that the Supplementary Army Estimates would be taken first. If that course was not pursued, he should like to know what precedent there was for taking money for the coming year before the money for the past year had been obtained.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If it was stated at the commencement of the Sitting that the Supplementary Army Estimates were to be taken first on Thursday, I think it must have been
  1294
  owing to a misunderstanding, I have consulted the Authorities of the House, and I find that the Supplementary Estimates can be taken either before or after the Ordinary Estimates. It seems to me convenient that we should take the first Vote in the regular Estimates first, and afterwards the Supplementary Estimates. The latter do not contain any specific items, but are mainly representative of certain overcharges that have to be paid in connection with the first Vote of the Army Estimates.
  MR. HANBURY: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is according to the practice of the House to take money for the coming year before the Supplementary Estimates for the past year are before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: It was done in 1889 and on other occasions.

EVENING SITTING.
  MOTIONS.
    PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.

      RESOLUTION.
      MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)rose to call attention to the introduction of pleuro-pneumonia into the United Kingdom by the importation of foreign cattle affected with that disease in the month of September last, and to move the following Resolution:—
      "That this House is of opinion that, subject to the exemptions contained in Section 2 of the fifth Schedule of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, no foreign animal landing in the country should be allowed to leave the wharf alive."
      He said he claimed for this Motion that it was not open to the objections very often urged against proposals made on these occasions by non-official Members of the House, namely, that their scope was limited, their area restricted, and their proposals indefinitely vague. He believed that, whatever might be the views which Members in various quarters of the House might take of his Motion, no one would deny for a moment that it dealt with a matter of the most vital importance to one of the greatest interests of this country. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) had placed an Amendment on the Paper, it would be necessary

      1295
      for him (Mr. Macartney) to deal with the conditions under which the importation of foreign cattle into this country had been carried on during the last 40 or 50 years. Since 1846 the importation of foreign cattle had been absolutely free, subject to the restrictions imposed from time to time under legislation authorised by the House of Commons for the purpose of preventing the introduction of disease from foreign countries. The two principal measures under which the importation of foreign cattle had been dealt with were the Acts of 1869 and that of 1878. The Act of 1869 laid down the principle that the importation of foreign cattle should be absoluely free, subject only to certain powers reserved to the Privy Council, enabling that Body to prohibit, either absolutely or partially, the importation of foreign cattle, and also enabling them to order the slaughter of such cattle at certain specified ports. The experience of the working of that Act showed that it was not a sufficient remedy against the importation and spread of contagious diseases amongst animals, and it was followed by the Act of 1878. The last-named Act was an entirely new departure, and constituted an almost complete reversal of the principle on which the Act of 1869 was based. It laid down as its primary principle that all foreign cattle should be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. It reserved to the Privy Council the powers of prohibition given by the Act of 1869, but provided that when any foreign country could show that the laws enforced within its borders respecting the importation and exportation of cattle, and respecting the contagious diseases of animals were sufficient, the Privy Council might allow the importation of live cattle from that country into the United Kingdom. It was the 5th Schedule of the Act of 1878 which governed the question, and it was under these conditions that the trade was now being carried on. He should have to ask the House to consider whether, under these varying restrictions, the object towards which they had been directed had been successfully carried out. He fancied that very few Members who had not made a study of the question or were not interested in agriculture could have any conception of the great destruction of cattle which had been occasioned by
      1296
      the introduction of pleuro-pneumonia and other contagious diseases. One occasionally saw a small paragraph in the newspapers stating that pleuro-pneumonia had suddenly burst out in one or two districts, but it was difficult to conceive what a vast amount of injury was done in those districts, and probably in a large area outside them, by such outbreaks. During the first 10 years after the passing of the Act of 1869, the average yearly number of fresh outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in this country was 2,159. During the 10 years from 1880 to 1889 inclusive, the average number of fresh outbreaks had fallen to 549, and in 1891 the number was 192. What was the effect of these outbreaks in the United Kingdom, as far as the loss of cattle was concerned? From 1890 to 1891 the number of cattle attacked exceeded 78,000, the number killed exceeded 65,000, the number that died of the complaint exceeded 7,000, and, what was more important and significant than all, the number of healthy beasts slaughtered because they had been in contact with diseased cattle exceeded 67,000. Thus in those, 22 years the total loss of cattle in England, Scotland, and Wales exceeded 139,000. The figures for Ireland covered a different period, but he might mention that during the 13 years from 1878 to 1891 inclusive, the number of cattle slaughtered or that died in consequence of outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia exceeded 25,000. He contended that the mischief and the loss sustained by this country was not to be measured, however, entirely by the number of cattled killed. It was necessary also to bear in mind the amount of compensation that had to be paid by the taxpayers to those who suffered under the provisions for restraining the disease. Only last year a sum of £18,000 had to be spent in compensation for outbreaks of pleuro-pneumouia, which were traced to the importation of two cargoes of Canadian cattle. We sustained a further loss from the impoverishment of our breeding resources, and no inconsiderable loss arose also from the dislocation of trade consequent upon the necessarily uncertain, though temporary, regulations adopted for isolating infected and scheduled districts. In 1888 a very important Departmental Committee sat to consider the question. They declared

      1297
      that pleuro-pneumonia was an imported, and not an indigenous, disease. Further, they declared that pleuro-pneumonia was an incurable disease, and that the only proper treatment was the preventive treatment. In the third place, they reported that the disease was communicable to living animals through their respiratory organs. Bearing this fact in mind, and remembering, also, that Departmental Committees reported that slaughter had always been successful, he thought the House had now sufficient and ample grounds for forming an opinion as to what should be the next step we should take in order to secure those who were engaged in the cattle trade in this country from further loss from this disease. The only step Parliament was warranted in taking—and it was a step clearly indicated by the experience which had been gained in the administration of the Acts and by the evidence of all the scientific authorities—was to make the slaughter of all foreign animals at the port of debarkation arbitrary and absolute. If that step were not taken Parliament left open one certain road by which the cattle trade of this country would always be exposed to risk of contagion. One of the greatest difficulties in dealing with this disease was the fact that it might be latent for two, two and a-half, three, or even a greater number of months, and all scientific evidence that had been given showed that the closest examinations carried on at the port of debarkation was not sufficient to secure the country against the importation of diseased animals. One or two diseased animals passing through a port might carry into the centre of the country the seeds of an outbreak of disease, which might cost the ratepayers large sums of money and result in the destruction of enormous numbers of cattle. Of course, much had already been done to secure the agricultural interest from this mischief, but it was clear that further restrictions would be the most effectual safeguards against pleuro-pneumonia. He urged the House to consider what objections could be urged against taking a course which experience and scientific authority pointed out as the only effectual one to be adopted in dealing with this disease. It had been said that pleuro-pneumonia had been brought into Great Britain from Ireland
      1298
      through the medium of Irish store cattle. He did not know what foundation there might have been for this suggestion some years ago, but at the present moment there was very little substance in it. The Departmental Committee of 1888 investigated the question very thoroughly, and reported that the allegations made by the Scotch witnesses on the subject had not been proved conclusively. They pointed out that the Irish cattle going into the Scotch markets might have contracted the disease originally from Scotch beasts with which they were brought into contact. The Committee also said that of late years pleuro-pneumonia had been entirely confined to Dublin and the districts into which Dublin dairy cows were introduced. The Dublin dairy districts had quite recently been placed under the most stringent regulations. A district called "the Dublin Scheduled District" had been formed, and no cattle could be moved outside the district except for slaughter, whilst none could be moved within it except on certificate. Thus the regulations in force in the one district in Ireland in which the Departmental Committee found outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia to be most frequent were now so stringent that it was almost impossible for any great risk to be incurred by the trans-channel trade between Ireland and Scotland. The statistics connected with the outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia showed that a very considerable decrease had taken place in the disease. For instance, the percentage of diseased cattle amongst those slaughtered through having been in contact with infected animals was in 1888, 28·6, and in 1891 it was only 8·6 per cent. But there was another argument which would conclusively dispose of the assertion that the north-eastern districts of Scotland were infected from Ireland. Almost all the store cattle going across the Channel to the north-eastern districts of Scotland were drawn from the northern part of Ireland. The cattle crossing from Dublin went almost entirely to Liverpool. The number taken across in 1892 amounted to 78,000. The cattle to the south-east of Scotland from the North of Ireland had been declared to be free from pleuro-pneumonia, and the Committee of 1888 had found Bristol and the neighbourhood into which a large number of Irish

      1299
      cattle were imported comparatively free from the disease. So far as the accusation made against Irish cattle was concerned—whatever might have been the case some years ago, and whatever foundation there might be for it at the present moment—there was no reason to suppose there was any danger in the future. There was another objection, which, if it was true, would undoubtedly be a strong and valid reason for opposing the Motion—namely, that this interference with the importation of foreign cattle would be unfair to the consumer by limiting the supply and, he presumed, in all probability, by enhancing the price of meat. But it would be impossible for the hon. Member for Dundee to lay any figures before the House which could for a moment sustain that argument. The case, to his mind, was perfectly clear the other way. Formerly Germany, Schleswig-Holstein, Portugal, Spain, and France used to import live cattle into this country. This importation was now prohibited, and Returns showed that since the prohibition the supply of meat had increased, whilst the price had diminished. The most significant example of all was the case of the United States. Up to 1879 the United States cattle were imported free to this country. Something over 68,000 head were imported.in 1879, but after the prohibition in 1891 the number of carcases imported was 314,000, showing that the trade had largely increased. As to prices, he found that in the Metropolitan Market in 1871 they ranged from 5¾d. per lb. to 8¾d, whereas in 1891 they had fallen to from 4½d to 7½d. In Glasgow in 1871 the prices were from 6¼d. to 7½d.; in 1891 they were from 4d. to 5¾d. In Liverpool there was an even more extraordinary reduction in prices, for whilst in 1871 they were from 5¼d. to 7d., in 1891 they were from 2¾d. to 5¾d. And at the same time the Returns from the Metropolitan and Deptford Markets showed that the amount of foreign cattle, instead of decreasing under the restrictions, had gone on increasing. In 1872 the number of foreign cattle in these two markets was 108,000; in 1882 it had risen to 157,000, and in 1891 to 168,000. The only grounds, therefore, upon which the Member for Dundee could defend his Amendment to the Motion were swept away by the figures which the official
      1300
      Returns showed. Clearly the Motion on the Paper was in the interest both of the consumer and the producer. He submitted that neither the hon. Member for West Aberdeen nor the Member for Dundee would be able to deduce a single argument based on general facts and applicable to the whole trade of the country that ought to weigh with hon. Members in inducing them to support the Amendment. Then, he came to consider what was the real object underlying the Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee was based not upon any general concern for the consumer of the United Kingdom, but in the interest of a small, though, no doubt, important section of the farmers of this country. He should be the last person to deprecate the interests of the farmers of any district in Scotland receiving due attention from the House. But he did say this, that when he looked at the great interests that had been threatened and had been seriously injured in the past, no hon. Member had a right to intervene and prevent that which experience and science declared to be the only practicable step to protect the cattle producer in the United Kingdom, especially when that intervention was only in the interest of a small, though highly intelligent and important section of the agricultural community. If his arguments were to hold good they would have to introduce legislation for every small division of agriculture. But surely they were entitled to deal with the whole question in a broad spirit, and he submitted that so far from it being prejudicial it would be advantageous to the interests of the consumers themselves that every precaution should be taken against one of the most fatal influences that had ever invaded the agriculture of the United Kingdom. The Aberdeen-shire farmers, who desired that there should be no restriction upon the importation of Canadian cattle, were actuated by a natural but selfish motive. The Canadian trade in live stock had, since 1875, increased enormously, and of the 108,000 head imported alive in 1891, Scotland took 54,000, the greater number of which went to Glasgow, to Aberdeen-shire, and to Dundee. Hence the Aberdeen farmers had strong reasons for opposing any restrictions on this trade. He was willing to admit that the Aberdeen-

      1301
      shire farmers found that Canadian store cattle were more profitable for fattening purposes than English or Irish store cattle were, but he submitted that that House was not bound to give more weight to the interests of Aberdeenshire than they did to those of the general agricultural community. It was a curious fact that the importation of these Canadian cattle into Aberdeenshire and Forfarshire was accompanied by an abnormal amount of pleuro-pneumonia in those districts. In Aberdeenshire there had been five or six outbreaks, and in Forfarshire there had been six outbreaks of disease during the last year. There was, therefore, considerable ground for connecting those outbreaks with the importation of these cattle. This was a significant fact. As long as the importation of Canadian live stock was permitted, and as long as they left a road, he did not care how narrow, for the disease to find its way into this country so long would it be impossible to take any effectual steps in the way of isolation and of stamping out the disease. He trusted that he had been able to justify the Motion he had placed upon the Paper, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House seeing the important bearing it had upon the agricultural interests of the United Kingdom would deal with it upon its merits. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
      SIR MARK J. STEWARTsaid, he had much pleasure and satisfaction in seconding the Resolution. His hon. Friend had dealt with the subject in so comprehensive a manner and had put the House so completely in possession of the main facts that little was left for him to say. He was, however, glad to congratulate the House on the fact that it was approaching the discussion of this subject in a calm and reasonable manner, and not in that spirit of terror and anxiety which characterised the passing of the Act of 1877. There was at the present time in this country comparative immunity from pleuro-pneumonia, thanks to the action of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire and to the right hon. Gentleman who acted as Minister for Agriculture, and Members on his side of the House were certainly prepared to endorse and thank them for
      1302
      the policy which had been pursued. There could be no doubt that there had been an unfortunate outbreak of cattle disease in Aberdeenshire last year, although there was a dispute as to whether it was pleuro-pneumonia or not. When doctors differed it was difficult for an ordinary individual to arrive at a right conclusion, but the Board of Agriculture were fully convinced that it was that disease, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman opposite could not do otherwise than follow the course of his Predecessor in Office. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire had referred to the fact that the farmers of Aberdeenshire had proved Canadian cattle to be the most profitable for fattening purposes. But his own opinion was that there was so little difference between Canadian, Irish, and Scotch store stock, that it did not justify the risk which the importation from Canada involved. He believed, too, that the Scotch and Irish animals were more early matured than Canadian, and produced better meat. Aberdeenshire farmers had always been noted for sending the best meat to Islington, and they gained that character long before Canadian stock was imported. In his opinion the restriction upon the importation of those cattle would be of the greatest service to the consumer, especially in view of the enormous increase in the dead meat trade from New Zealand and elsewhere. It had been proved over and over again, and for the last 20 years, that consumers did not lose by these restrictions. In 1877 the Radical Party asserted that the effect of passing the Bill brought in that year would be to raise the prices, but instead of that prices had been dropping, and would continue to do so. Only the previous day a steamer capable of carrying 1,000 carcases was launched in the interests of the New Zealand frozen meat trade, and there was, therefore, no fear of the consumer suffering. On the contrary; the imposition of restrictions calculated to prevent the disease breaking out would benefit the consumer and the farmer alike, and would help agriculture to rally from the depression under which it was now suffering. The benefit to the farmers of the country arising out of the restriction of the import of live stock might be estimated when he told the House that during the last few years

      1303
      139,000 cattle had been compulsorily slaughtered in consequence of the prevalence of cattle disease imported from abroad, while the taxpayer had had to pay between £17,000 and £18,000 per annum for stamping out the disease. In the face of testimony like that, they ought to be careful as to the policy they adopted. There were, they were told, three ways of dealing with the disease: First, there was isolation; then inoculation, and as to that he would point out that inoculation for the purpose of preventing the spread of the disease was practically useless owing to the length of time that was required for it to become effective—i.e., three months. The third point was the strongest of all—namely, slaughter. A Committee which had fully considered this subject had reported in favour of cattle being slaughtered at the port of debarkation, and the object of this Motion was to put in practice that recommendation. If the House adopted it as the main-sheet of its policy, it would, at any rate, have passed one good Resolution this year. Pleuro-pneumonia was a foreign disease; it was incurable, and it was communicable by contact and through the respiratory organs of other animals. The Netherlands had been free from the disease since they adopted the policy of slaughter. Prior to 1885 their herds and flocks were simply decimated by it. As to Ireland, he could corroborate from personal experience what his hon. Friend had said upon that point. At the time of the Commission of 1878 nearly every Scotch farmer stated that the disease came from Ireland. He was, however, informed by the Member for Tewkesbury that during the last 14 years no pleuro-pneumonia had been imported from Ireland, notwithstanding that Bristol was the second largest port in respect of the importation of Irish cattle. That showed that the Irish farmers were taking more trouble and pains to keep their herds healthy, and it was one of the results of the action of the Local Authorities in working heartily with the Privy Council in its efforts to stamp out disease. He hoped the Minister for Agriculture would remember that this disease was of foreign origin. If it were stamped out by slaughter at the port of debarkation, they had done with it; but if it were allowed to get into a central district, it would spread all over the
      1304
      country, and then their restrictions by Act of Parliament would be found to be futile for the purpose of getting rid of it.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House is of opinion that, subject to the exemptions contained in Section 2 of the fifth Schedule of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, no Foreign animal landing in the country should be allowed to leave the wharf alive."—(Mr. Macartney.)
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir RIGBY,): I desire to intervene in this Debate at this moment, not that I lack sympathy with the object of the Mover of the Resolution, but rather in order to point out to the House that the Resolution proposes to do nothing more nor less than to repeal an Act of Parliament. I express no opinion on the merits of the Motion. I simply warn the House what is its purport. Indeed, I am inclined to think the hon. Member's scheme may be a very fit subject for discussion by the House. What he asks is that, subject to certain exceptions contained in the 2nd section of the 5th Schedule of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act, 1878, no foreign animal landed in this country shall be allowed to leave the wharf alive. The exceptions are very narrow; they are limited to animals intended for exhibition and for other exceptional purposes, and in these cases they are subjected to quarantine. It is perfectly plain, from the further provisions of the Act, that if the Privy Council (which Body is now represented by the Board of Agriculture) is reasonably satisfied that the introduction of foreign animals will not produce disease, then their introduction "shall" be allowed independently of the 1st clause; that is to say, the most responsible question is left to the Board of Agriculture to decide. They have to say upon the facts before them whether they are reasonably satisfied that there is no danger, and if they so find they must admit the animals. It is a question of fact. No Resolution of the House can properly over-ride an Act of Parliament. If there is danger, and if the Board so find, their duty is plain, and they must not allow the introduction of the animals; but, if there is no reasonable danger, the Board are ordered by the Act of Parliament to permit their introduction. I repeat that I have nothing to say as to the

      1305
      merits on one side or the other. I only wish to call attention to the existing state of things, and to point out that the Act of Parliament is clear upon the point.
      MR. DARLINGremarked that no one in the House was half so much indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General as he himself was. He had just conclusively shown what no one before doubted—that, when an Act of Parliament contained the word "shall," it left no option to the Minister who was to carry it out. Yet every candidate who had been sent down to Deptford in the Radical interest had told his constituents that the word was entirely permissive, as they would find out if they changed their Representative. It had also been asserted that when the animals were excluded from Deptford it was because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford was an inveterate Protectionist; and that if he were replaced by another and more eminent gentleman, they would find that the Minister for Agriculture would construe the word entirely as he pleased. He had spent a good deal of time in trying to convince people that the word "shall," whether in or out of an Act of Parliament, could have but one meaning, and he would, in future, cite the hon. and learned Gentleman as an authority in support of that view. He only wished that Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice had been acquainted with that opinion when he was contesting Deptford a few months ago. Still, the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be of great use in the constituency of Deptford on all future occasions. His interest in the question was purely local and personal. The hon. Member who had brought the question forward had reproached the Scotch for one of their chief virtues—their selfishness. The hon. Member had regretted that the Scotch were selfish. He might as well have regretted that the Scotch were Scotch. The Scotch did not take a Canadian or a South American view of this matter—they took a Scotch view of it, and the people of Deptford, for whom he was concerned, took mutatis mutandis a Scotch view of it also. The people of Deptford took the view of it that they had been carrying on a lucrative business before they were interfered with by
      1306
      Ministers of Agriculture, all of whom they placed in the same bad category. The people of Deptford had been accustomed for years, until the Act of 1884 was passed, to carry on the business of killing cattle in their markets, and the people of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe turned the hides and bones of the cattle into useful articles. These industries had been interfered with it was alleged simply because the agriculturist desired protection not against disease, but against the fall of prices in the home markets. Parliament, as the Solicitor General had truly said, had passed an Act which gave the agriculturist that protection, and the Solicitor General was shocked—in fact, he had never seen anyone more horrified — at the notion of repealing an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman was like our ancestors—he was unwilling to change the laws of England. He reminded him (Mr. Darling) of King John at Runnymede. He only wished that the Solicitor General was surrounded by hon. Members who shared his sentiments. The Motion which he supported desired to repeal not one Act, but two Acts of Parliament—it desired to repeal the Acts of 1878 and 1884. So lost to all sense of shame was this Motion that it went the length of desiring to turn the word "shall" into "may." It desired to give the Minister of Agriculture an option. The aim of the present Government seemed to be to give everyone an option, and why should not the Minister of Agriculture have an option as well as the rest? He had frequently brought before the House a modest proposal to change the word "shall" in the Act of 1884. into "may"; but this Motion went much further, for it proposed that no foreign cattle should leave the wharf alive, and the slaughter of the cattle at the wharf admirably suited the end he had in view. How did the matter stand at present? Until the Act of 1884 the common practice under the Act of 1878 was to allow animals coming from infected countries to be landed at places where preparations had been made for their reception.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,)pointed out that the Motion before the House dealt only with pleuro-pneumonia.
      MR. DARLINGsaid, he would show the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion was of a much wider scope. It referred generally to "foreign cattle," and not only to foreign cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia. Whether the cattle were infected, or whether they were not, the Motion declared that they should be slaughtered at the wharfs.
      SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that if the hon. Member referred to a clause in the Act of 1884, he would find that what he had said was strictly accurate—that the Privy Council, for which the Board of Agriculture had been substituted— might, if they were satisfied, allow these animals to be introduced into the country.
      MR. DARLINGsaid, he knew that that exactly was the law, and it was that law he desired to repeal. He had said that this question was to him a local one, but it was no more local in that respect than it was when viewed as affecting the agricultural interest, for after all the agricultural interest was an interest affecting a number of individuals. The interest of his constituents in this matter was a similar interest. A huge Metropolitan Market had been set up at Deptford by the City of London, at a great cost, and provided with every kind of appliance for preventing the spread of disease. The policy of Parliament at that time was that animals from infected countries should be allowed to land on the condition that they should be instantly slaughtered, and not allowed to go alive into the country. There congregated round the market at Deptford many hundreds of people who got their living directly by the slaughter of these animals, and there also grew up a number of subsidiary industries depending upon the skins and other portions of the animals killed in the market, which employed hundreds of people. The Act of 1884 was passed by Parliament, and it was first put into operation, owing to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease abroad, by the Minister of Agriculture in the late Government, and it had been continued in operation, in every particular, by the present occupant of the office. What was the consequence? The purpose for which the Deptford Market had been established was now a thing of the past. The old policy had been altered by Act of Parliament, and the Solicitor
      1308
      General was horrified because he desired to repeal that Act of Parliament. But really one would go that length when the lives and fortunes of his constituents were at stake. The industries to which he had referred had also languished. The thousands of pounds which used to go to Deptford, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Greenwich did not go there now. The market was not carried on because the animals were not brought there. There had hardly been a sheep in the market for years, though a certain amount of cattle still went there, but the number was nothing like what used to go there before the Act of 1884 was passed. These facts were perfectly well-known to the House. They were perfectly well-known to the Minister of Agriculture, because one of the right hon. Gentleman's first acts, after taking Office, was to receive a deputation from the South-East of London representing all shades of political opinion, which pressed him, in the interest of the whole South-East of London, to repeal the Act of 1884, or that, at all events, he should allow the importation of cattle from the various countries from which he had prohibited importation. The right hon. Gentleman had been placed in possession of the case of these people, and of the hardship to which they had been subjected by reason in the change of the policy of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had explained to the deputation that he had no option in the matter but to carry out the law. Would he welcome a change in the law? Would he either have the word "shall" in the Act changed into "may," or would he agree to the second part of the Motion, that no imported animal should be allowed to leave the market in London alive? If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to that, he would perhaps win the Deptford seat for his Party, among other minor advantages. No animals coming from countries in which there was the slightest chance of infection were allowed to go out of the markets alive, for this Act of Parliament was applied not only to countries affected with pleuro-pneumonia, but was applied also to countries in which, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, the laws relating to cattle were unsatisfactory. In fact, the prohibition extended to so many instances that really it would be better to have a hard-and-fast law prohibiting live

      1309
      animals from going alive about the country at all. The question was really a question between absolute prohibition and having dead meat in the country for the benefit of the consumer. It had been said that to prevent, in the interest of agriculture, foreign cattle from coming into the country would be an injustice to the consumer. His constituents were unwilling that that injustice should be done to the consumer; they were perfectly willing that the consumer should have his dinner from abroad. If the prohibition was given up in favour of the landing and slaughter of cattle at places like Deptford, then the smaller difficulty about the consumer would be got over. What was the case against Deptford? It was simply this: that some years ago a case of foot-and-mouth disease got away from the Deptford Market, and affected animals in London and the rest of England. There was only the very slightest evidence in support of that case. In the Veterinary Report the experts, in a couple of lines, gave it as their opinion that the animal which had caused foot-and-mouth disease had arrived at Deptford, and had got away from there. But the amount of evidence in support of that statement was very slight. It had failed to convince a large number of persons, and he had constantly heard it said by political allies of the Minister of Agriculture that it only convinced his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in the late Government (Mr. Chaplin) because he had been already half-convinced as a Protectionist. Under these circumstances, he trusted that he would not be alone amongst Members of the Metropolis in supporting the Motion; and if the Motion, in addition to doing good to hardly-pressed industries of the Metropolis, and to hardly-pressed people engaged in them, did also do some good to agriculturists and stock raisers, would it not, he asked, be better than following the maxims of a too prudish political economy?
      DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)said that, however selfish the Scotch might be in a general way, that did not affect the question now under consideration. He, at least, was sufficiently patriotic to give his adhesion to the Mover of the Motion in his desire to exclude disease from the flocks and herds of the country They had already
      1310
      succeeded in stamping out the cattle plague, and he believed that the foot-and-mouth disease was already a thing of the past, and he quite agreed with the Mover of the Motion as to the great destruction caused to the flocks and herds—the great expense and money and inconvenience which had come upon the agricultural community, by the recurrence of attacks of pleuro-pneumonia throughout the country. He also agreed with the Mover of the Motion that pleuro-pneumonia was purely an exotic disease. It had no power to spring up spontaneously in this country; and if they could stamp it out at once, and if they could draw an effective cordon round the disease, there was no reason why the country should not be always free from the scourge. He wished to give his cordial support and concurrence to the way in which the Board of Agriculture, under the late and under the present Administrations, had carried out its functions with regard to stamping out this disease. The Board had a policy which was coherent, cohesive, firm, consistent, and which in every way was a great improvement on the old system. He would like to ask whether it would not have been better, before the recent Regulations of the Board of Agriculture dealing with this disease had been put into operation, to have carried out some kind of scientific investigation, by inoculation of cattle or by contact, by which it would have been discovered whether the disease was really pleuro-pneumonia or not? Probably, before the discussion terminated, the Minister of Agriculture would tell the House what truth there was in the rumours circulated lately that an inquiry instituted by the Canadian Government had found that Canada was, and had been for a good many years, entirely free from this very infectious disease. It was worth considering, therefore, whether it was, not better for agriculturists to take the chance of a little disease coming in from abroad than to be shut out altogether from the introduction of store cattle, from which at the present time they were deriving great benefits. He would also like to ask whether this Motion was not, after all, a mode of protection for a particular form of home industry—a mode of protection which had been entirely negatived

      1311
      by the exhaustive inquiry of the Select Committee in 1873? The Scotch Members had been told that they were selfish in their policy of bringing forward the views which in this matter their constituents desired them to bring forward. He supposed they were all selfish, more or less. Every Member almost was sent to the House to advocate a special and individual interest, and what the Government had to do when they had the bulk of the evidence before them was to consider what was best, to be done for the advantage of the country at large. The importation of cattle to the North of Scotland was a young industry. He was bound to say that it had been originally established on account of the great inconvenience and loss which the farmers of Aberdeen-shire and the North of Scotland had suffered by the spreading of disease by Irish cattle; but he was quite prepared to accept the statement that, owing to better regulations and sanitary conditions, Ireland was now freer from cattle disease than it used to be. The House would hardly credit the great extent of the importation of Canadian cattle to the North of Scotland. The trade began in 1887, with only 700 cattle; but in 1890 the importation had risen to 20,000 head of cattle. Dundee and Newcastle followed in the trade, and in one year 183,000 head of Canadian cattle were introduced into the country. The animals were well-bred, and came from a climate which was specially suited to their growing and thriving in Scotland. The business paid the farmers well. He was bound to say that he had always regretted the small farmers in Aberdeen-shire and the North generally did not breed more store cattle. They were told that these Canadian cattle lowered the quality of Aberdeen-shire beef. There was no doubt that the highest quality of beef in Aberdeen-shire was fed up from the best stock; but, in his opinion, if the Canadian store cattle fed in Aberdeen-shire were fairly well-bred and well-handled they would run the first-class beef in the London market very closely indeed. The only effect of excluding them would be to increase the competition from abroad. There was no doubt that a great many of our home-fed animals were now very much affected with tuberculosis, which he feared had now got a very firm hold on cattle in the
      1312
      country. It had been suggested—and the suggestion was not a bad one—that if their breeders were to breed from clean Canadian animals, coming from a country where there was not and never had been any tuberculosis, and where, he believed, there was no pleuro-pneumonia, they would introduce into their flocks and herds fresh blood, which might go a considerable way towards eradicating tuberculosis. He hoped the House would reject the Motion. He did not propose to move the Amendment on the Paper, but merely to move a simple negative to the Motion before the House. He believed that the Motion, if carried, would raise the price of animal food to the people of the country, lower the quality of beef, and hamper seriously, and depress still more, a greatly depressed industry.
      MR. J. LENGsaid, he would like to know the real motive for the submission of this very drastic Motion. It had been admitted that for years the cattle in Ireland were suspected of having introduced pleuro-pneumonia into Great Britain. What would have been thought if, on the first occasion that such an outbreak occurred, it had been proposed that no Irish cattle landed at Liverpool or Glasgow should be allowed to leave the wharf alive? The hon. Member for South Antrim had spoken as if there had been several outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia last September, whereas there had only been two such outbreaks, which originated with two cargoes of Canadian cattle. To the present moment it was a disputable question whether it was pleuro-pneumonia or not on those occasions. He admitted that the Board of Agriculture had emphatically declared that it was pleuro-pneumonia, but that conclusion had been disputed. Without entering into controversial matter, he thought there was some cause to complain that the Board of Agriculture was not willing to submit to the scientific tests to which the hon. Member for West Aberdeen-shire had alluded. The hon. Mover had attributed the views of Scotch Members on this matter to local considerations, but he thought the retort might be made that the solicitude of the hon. Member for the health of cattle in Scotland was attributable to his desire that Canadian cattle should not come in conflict with the trade in Irish cattle.

      1313
      The healthiest cattle in Scotland were those brought from Canada. They benefited by the sea voyage; they weighed more, and were in better condition on their arrival in this country than when they were placed on board ship at Montreal. If they asked 99 out of 100 Scotch agriculturists what their experience was, they would declare that these Canadian cattle, the moment they were put into the field, had a good appetite, fattened rapidly, and could be sent to market sooner and in a better condition than a corresponding number of Irish cattle. Not only for feeding purposes, but for breeding purposes they were most useful. It was found that it led to an improvement of the stock to cross with these Canadian cattle. In these times, when they heard so much of agricultural depression and of dulness of trade, it was somewhat remarkable that the hand raised to deal a blow against an important branch of agriculture in Scotland was the hand of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. He would like to point out to them that it was not simply a question of the cattle feeders; there were landed proprietors in Forfarshire and the adjacent counties who had spent large sums in this direction. Besides, if they stopped this branch of business they would seriously affect a large number of people and diminish their means of occupation. Then, as his hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen-shire had said, they would not, by adopting this Resolution, really affect the supply of meat coming to their markets. The vessels which now brought live animals would in future bring cargoes of dead meat. But they would have destroyed an important branch of Scottish agriculture and Scottish enterprise, and an important branch of shipping would also be interfered with, for steamers had been specially built for the purpose, each costing £50,000. They were going to do all this in the interest of what was undoubtedly a revival of Protection. The men of the South were benighted on this question; they should look to the men of light and leading in the North. He was an Englishman, but he had lived 42 years in Scotland, and had learned during that time to admire the intelligence of the Scotch people. Why should they fetter them? He would warn hon. Members not to pursue
      1314
      that course. Even if they were temporarily to succeed, they would find that the intelligence and enterprise of Scotland would ultimately vanquish them. If they should adopt this extraordinary Resolution, they would be doing injury and mischief to a class of deserving and intelligent men, and he cordially seconded the Amendment.
      MR. W. WHITELAWsaid, he held that this question was one of vital importance to the farmers and cattle dealers of the North and North-Eastern Counties of Scotland, and he did not apologise for raising his voice against the Resolution. Scotch farmers and Scotch capitalists last September stated that there was no convincing evidence that pleuro-pneumonia existed in Canada, or that cattle which were said to be suffering from the disease were in reality suffering from it. But they all admitted at once that when the Board of Agriculture called in certain veterinary advisers, and those advisers unanimously declared that certain cattle were suffering from a certain disease, the Board had no option but to prohibit the importation of such cattle. They did not complain of the steps taken by the Board last September, but they claimed that time had proved that pleuro-pneumonia did not exist in Canada. He believed that the Canadian authorities communicated with the authorities of this country, and requested them to join in an inquiry into the health of the Canadian cattle; but the authorities here did not see their way to joining them, and consequently the Canadian Government had had to make the inquiry themselves, and a Report had been laid before the Canadian Parliament declaring that there had not been a case of pleuro-pneumonia in the Dominion for several years past. Therefore, there was no ground for the fears that had been expressed with regard to the danger incurred here by the importation of Canadian cattle. But there was one other possibility which had been pointed out. The President of the Board of Agriculture had said that, although there might be no pleuro-pneumonia in Canada itself, it was quite possible that cattle were being imported into Canada from an infected area; but owing to the restrictions which had been imposed upon that importation, it was impossible that diseased cattle could pass through her

      1315
      territory. Canada was now protected on all sides by a stringent Regulation which would prevent effectually the importation of cattle into Canada from infected areas. The Scotch cattle dealers and farmers demanded that the restriction should be taken off, for several reasons. They held that pleuro-pneumonia did not exist in Canada; and, further in Scotland they could not do without Canadian cattle, both for feeding and for breeding purposes. He was aware that English cattle breeders were of opinion that the importation of Canadian cattle was detrimental to their trade, but, on the other hand, Scotch breeders asserted that there was no better cross for breeding purposes than Canadian cattle. They held that the most dangerous of all cattle to import into Scotland were those from Yorkshire and from Ireland. He denied that this agitation in favour of the unrestricted importation of Canadian cattle had been got up by a few dealers, and by auctioneers and shipowners, and assured the House that it was the Scotch farmers themselves who were in favour of the abolition of all restrictions upon the trade. He sincerely hoped the House would reject the Resolution, and that the Government would shortly remove the restrictions altogether.
      MR. HERBERT GARDNER: Before I answer some of the speeches made this evening, I should like, in the first place, to say that I recognise that agriculture has been for some years suffering from depression, and that that depression is probably accentuated and sharper at the present moment than it has been heretofore. But in that depression there has always been one bright spot, and that has been the healthiness, and the increasing healthiness, of our flocks and herds. The Mover of the Motion has already pointed out the great decrease there has been in the number of outbreaks of disease in this country since what I regard as beneficial legislation was first, passed by this House in 1878. I think no one can deny the exceeding benefit that these Acts have been to the agricultural classes generally, nor that they have saved very probably millions of money by their beneficial operation. That being the case, I am the very last man in the world to deny that; whilst it is at all times of the greatest importance that the Government
      1316
      of the day should exercise the utmost caution in order to guard our flocks and herds from disease, whether native or imported, at the present moment they are doubly bound not to relax by one jot or tittle their efforts in this direction, but to do everything in their power to prevent the importation of disease from abroad. Having said so much, it is my duty to consider very closely, and to invite the House to consider, what the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman really means. There certainly seems to have been some doubt in the House on the subject, because I find that the hon. and learned Member for Deptford is absolutely going to vote in favour of the Resolution, because he considers it will facilitate the importation of foreign animals at Deptford. I should like to know whether that is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, who lately presided over the Department I have the honour to represent, and who, I understand, is going to vote for this Resolution. As I read the Resolution, there is no reference to foot-and-mouth disease, and I think the Member for Sleaford would be the last person in the world to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Deptford that it would be to the advantage of this country that animals coming from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is suspected to exist, or does exist, should be allowed to land at Deptford and he slaughtered at that port. I should like to know if that is the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Resolution? The right hon. Gentleman knows that by the Act of 1884, in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, it is distinctly laid down that no animals coming from countries infected, or reasonably suspected of being infected with the foot-and-mouth disease, shall be allowed to be imported to this country, and certainly not brought here to be slaughtered at the ports, but the hon. Member for Deptford seems to think that the effect of the Resolution will be to allow that to be done. When the House examines the Resolution closely, I think they will find it is a most drastic and stringent measure. The hon. Gentleman is not content with the law as it stands. He is not satisfied to leave the matter to the limited and definite discretion of the President of the Board of Agriculture for the time being; he is not content to know that

      1317
      when disease exists in another country, or when there is reasonable suspicion that it may be imported from that country, the Act, as it stands, absolutely compels the Minister to prohibit the importation of cattle from that country. I think the present system as it exists has certainly been a sensible system. It is a system which can be modified as the circumstances and interests of this country demand, and it is certainly a system which we all ought to support. But the hon. Gentleman opposite does not like the system. He wants to prohibit for ever all foreign importation from whatever country, whether it is suspected of disease or not, and to enact that we are to draw a sort of brazen wall of Protection round our coasts, and without any appeal, except by the somewhat laborious process of Acts of Parliament, to deprive our farmers for all time of the benefit they may derive from the free importation of cattle from foreign countries. I think the House will perceive that is a very serious proposition, and one which ought to be very carefully considered. This is not the first time that this especial proposition has been brought before the House and decided. The proposition of the Member for South Antrim, with a very small exception, was practically the proposal of the Government in their Bill which they brought in in 1878. That Bill was brought in by a Conservative Ministry and supported by a Conservative majority. It was introduced into the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond, who was then Lord President of the Council. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and when that Committee examined witnesses and experts brought before it they decided at once that with regard to North America discretion should be left to the Privy Council.
      MR. CHAPLIN: What Committee?
      MR. GARDNER: The Select Committee appointed by the House of Lords to consider the Bill of 1878. This measure of 1878 came down to this House and was debated for four nights; and on going into Committee Sir Selwin Ibbetson, who was the Member of the Conservative Party in charge of the Bill, proposed on behalf of the Government that several European countries free from disease should also, as well as North
      1318
      America, be left to the discretion of the Privy Council. What happened then? On going into Committee my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) moved. a proviso to Clause 1 to the effect that no Order of the Privy Council should be valid if its operation should be inconsistent with the obligations existing under any commercial Treaty for the time being. This raised a very long Debate in the House, and the subject most prominently brought before the House was what is known as the Most Favoured Nation Clause, the object being to show it was not justifiable to differentiate by Statute in the manner proposed, such action being an infraction of our Treaty obligations. Eventually the Conservative Government gave way all along the line, and the Bill of 1878 was framed on the lines on which we at the present moment administer these Acts. The House will thus see that this is not the first time this subject has been brought forward. When it was brought forward in 1878, with all the authority of the Conservative Party and backed by a Conservative majority, Parliament in its wisdom declared the course proposed to be undesirable, and unhesitatingly condemned it. I want to know from the Mover of the Resolution what has happened since that decision was arrived at by a Conservative Government to make it necessary or expedient that we should alter the law as it was then ordained, and has existed during all this time? I want to ask him and his friends who support him why the present moment and this special time is the psychological moment for bringing it forward?
      MR. MACARTNEY: This is the first opportunity I could get.
      MR. GARDNER: I can hardly think seriously the hon. Gentleman waited until the four diseased animals had come from Canada, and restrictions have been put on in that case. He has sat in the House for the last six years, during the whole of which time his political friends (the Conservatives) have been in power, and why did he never urge this proposition, so beneficial and so desirable in his opinion, when his own friends were in power, and when he would have had an opportunity of carrying it into effect? I am bound to draw only one conclusion from

      1319
      that fact, and that is, the Resolution is meant to be a censure on the conduct of the Agricultural Department during the short, time I have been in office.
      MR. MACARTNEY: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but my reason for bringing on the Resolution was in consequence of the Resolution arrived at by the Royal Agricultural Society of England embodying the opinions of the agriculturists.
      MR. GARDNER: I should like to ask the Royal Agricultural Society and the Central Chamber of Agriculture why this is the psychological moment and why they did not bring it forward during the last six years? I can explain it on very high authority. The reason is that so long as a Conservative Government is in power these gentlemen think the interests of agriculture are perfectly safe. [Opposition cheers.] I thought I should elicit that cheer, and I may say they had very high authority for that cheer and opinion, because in the Debates in the House of Lords in 1878 Lord Salisbury said—
      "They must have a fixed policy. They all had confidence in his noble Friend the Lord President of the Privy Council, and if they could pass an Act of Parliament that he should live for ever, and hold Office for ever, no doubt all would be right, and there would be no necessity for their enacting a fixed policy. But since they could insert neither of these provisions they must take precautions that their policy must not be the caprice of the Executive Government in power."
      That was the policy of the Conservative Party at that time and is at the present time. If the House of Commons could pass an Act that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford should have a perennial existence—which I and all his friends in this House wish he could have, and could remain a sort of perpetual Pope of Agriculture, why then, Sir, I do not suppose there would be any question of Resolutions being brought forward. But, however much that may be the opinion of the Party opposite on that question, that is not our opinion, and I do not think it is the opinion, of the country generally. But, Sir, I do not think the hon. Gentleman opposite has quite studied the law as it stands. By the present Act you have what Lord Salisbury said he desired—a fixed policy. If hon. Members take the trouble to read the Act they will find, as
      1320
      the Attorney General pointed out, that it is compulsory and not permissive on the Board of Agriculture. I always held that was what this Act meant; and when the Canadian business arose last autumn, I took the opinion of the highest legal authorities in the laud, and they arrived at the conclusion that it was compulsory on the President of the Board of Agriculture, by the Act, to impose restriction in regard to cattle when he felt any reasonable suspicion existed that disease was prevalent in the country from which they were imported. It would, therefore, be very hard for anyone in responsible office at the Board of Agriculture to alter the policy or not to enforce the restriction when it became necessary to do so, and I do not think the hon. Member opposite need be under any fear either as to the fixity or continuity of what I hold to be the beneficial operation of the Act in regard to preventing disease in our flocks and herds. It has been said that the Member for South Antrim brought forward this Resolution in the interests of Ireland. I do not believe that for a single moment, and for this reason: the hon. Gentleman knows as well as we do that Ireland was specially exempted in that Act of 1878. We do not look upon Ireland as a foreign country, and we do believe it to be part of the United Kingdom. That being the case, I do not see what reason there is for the hon. Gentleman to suspect that there is any question of Ireland being concerned in the matter, because whatever happens I hope we shall always consider that Ireland shall be treated in the same way. Now, Sir, with regard to the cost which has been alluded to by the Mover of the Resolution. He tried to make out that the cost of this special business, with regard to pleuro-pneumonia and other attacks, was so great that this House ought to adopt this measure in order to protect the impoverished taxpayer being mulcted in an enormous manner, as he was likely to be. In the first place, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that his estimate of the cost of that particular matter is entirely wrong. It is perfectly true that £21,285 was the original sum paid for compensation, but the hon. Gentleman forgets that from salvage we received a sum of £8,860, so that the real cost of the outbreak amounted to the sum of £12,630. I

      1321
      understand the hon. Gentleman to say what an enormous sum this is to pay for four animals, and that, practically, the country is asked to pay £3,000 apiece for four animals imported from Canada. That is not the state of the case at all. The hon. Gentleman must look back to what has happened in the past—to the number of animals which have been imported into this country without pleuro-pneumonia at all. The hon. Gentleman said that pleuro-pneumonia was not indigenous, but had been imported. Will he be surprised to learn that, with the exception of these four cases, not one single case of pleuro-pneumonia which has occurred since the Board of Agriculture has taken over the duties of the Privy Council has ever been traced to an imported animal? The four cases to which he alluded were the only cases which have occurred. Therefore, that is not the proper way of looking at it, and you ought to distribute that sum of £12,000 over all the animals imported into this country for the benefit of this country for the last 10 or 12 years. We have had 821,325 cattle imported from Canada into this country, without one single case of pleuro-pneumonia until the other day; and if you divide the £12,000 among all these cattle, I do not think it comes to a very large sum, so that I say the argument of the hon. Gentleman as regards that falls to the ground. There is one argument which I wish to use before I sit down, and I know when I do state it I shall be met with laughter, and probably denial, by hon. Gentlemen opposite. This Resolution, Sir, is a protective measure, and we in this country are Free Traders, and we mean to remain a Free Trade country. No one in his senses can surely deny that the total prohibition of the entry of live cattle from foreign countries must be a measure of protective tendency. It may be what the Americans call incidental Protection; but whether you call it incidental Protection, or whether Protection pure and simple, it is obviously a measure which in its direction is opposed to Free Trade. Moreover, it is also opposed to the best interests of Protection, because, by letting in the dead meat, as you propose to do, and excluding the store cattle, as you propose to do, you are practically encouraging the admission of the manu-
      1322
      factured article—that is, the dead meat—and you are excluding the raw material—that is, the store cattle—which the graziers of England, Scotland, and elsewhere are anxious to work up into the manufactured article. So long as I hold the office which I do at the present moment, I am determined to do my utmost to protect the flocks and herds from the importation of disease; but I am equally determined to oppose any measure which in any form deprives the people of this country from the benefits of competition, whether in their own country or abroad. I should like to say one word on Canada, and I will say it very briefly. The House knows that during last autumn it was the misfortune of the Government to be obliged to prohibit the landing of live cattle from Canada. We arrived at that conclusion after much consideration, and on the authoritative and unanimous opinion of the best veterinary authorities of the day; and, Sir, when we did so, we did so with the utmost regret. We shall welcome the first opportunity that occurs to us of taking off these restrictions with regard to Canada. But, Sir, what does the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman mean? If it is not a protective measure, if it is not a censure on my Department, what is it? It is aimed at Canada, and Canada alone. It is quite obvious that at the present moment there is only one country, and that is Canada, with regard to which there would be any opportunity of taking off the restrictions. In Europe foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent; in the United States constant cases of pleuro-pneumonia render it impossible for us to allow them to send cattle here. But in regard to Canada, if we are thoroughly assured that that country is free from disease, and adopting proper measures for preventing the introduction of disease, we should gladly welcome the opportunity of taking off the restrictions. That does not seem to be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite. This Resolution is aimed at Canada, and Canada alone. That is an unfortunate point. Canada is one of our most loyal colonies; this trade is of the utmost importance to Canada, and of the greatest advantage to Scotland; and if the Resolution does not mean what I say, hon. Gentlemen can have brought it forward for one purpose, and one purpose

      1323
      alone—and that is, to prevent the taking off the restrictions as regards Canada when the time arrives. I think this is an unfortunate Motion to have been brought forward by the Conservative Party, and to be supported officially by the Conservative Front Bench. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think, I believe, that they are very soon about to return to Office. I do not offer any opinion on that subject, and all I can say is this: that if this Resolution be directed against Canada, and Canada alone, I do not envy their Colonial Minister, whoever he may be. I think I have shown the House that this Resolution is objectionable and inopportune, and I strongly hope it will be rejected by a large majority.
      MR. CHAPLIN: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being taken for a benighted Southerner by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, I am afraid it will be my duty to support the Motion which the Member for Antrim has submitted with so much ability to the House. And, in the first place, I should like to be allowed to say that so far from regarding this as a Motion of Censure upon the administration of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gardner), I do not think there is a single gentleman, on this side of the House, at all events, and I doubt whether there is on that, except the right hon. Gentleman himself, into whose head the idea could have entered for a single moment. If the right hon. Gentleman had been Minister of Agriculture for the Dominion of Canada the speech to which the House had just listened would have been appropriate in the extreme; but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that charity begins at home. He says this is a protective Motion. It is a protective Motion in the same sense that vaccination is a protection against disease, and I trust the House will be unanimous in its opinion upon that point. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to place my interpretation upon the Motion, and he asked whether we agree with the hon. Member for Deptford. That hon. Gentleman was speaking in the interests of his own constituency; and as Deptford was one of the ports of debarkation, it must greatly benefit by the passing of the Motion. The law presumes that no imported animal shall leave the wharf alive; that all animals imported to this country shall be
      1324
      slaughtered, and not allowed to go into the country at all; but there is a discretion to make an exemption in favour of certain countries in certain conditions; discretion and to make the law absolute, and what is desired is to remove the When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the raising of the question in 1878 I can tell him I recollect the matter perfectly, and the policy that was then agreed to. It was the exercise of the discretion existing now—it was the exercise of that in last September, in the case of four wretched animals from two wretched cargoes from Canada, that involved us in the risk of infecting the whole country, and that infected 79 districts in Scotland.
      MR. GARDNER: There was no infection.
      MR. CHAPLIN: Well, we were so liable to infection in this country that many animals had to be destroyed by the right hon. Gentleman's orders. Seventy-nine places were rendered liable to infection, and many animals had to be destroyed. The Motion would only carry one step further the policy which has been pursued for eight or 10 years with such beneficial results. In 1890 the control of this matter was taken out of the hands of the Local Authorities. In 1889 there were 474 outbreaks of disease; in the succeeding years the numbers were 484, 192, 21; and in the present year none. And what has been the result of the adoption of this policy? Why, that there has been a great increase in our flocks and herds, and a corresponding decrease in the price of meat. There is an increase of over 1,000,000 cattle and 4,000,000 sheep. And we have now arrived at a time when we are within measurable distance of being freed from pleuro-pneumonia altogether. We can hardly say that we are absolutely free yet. One peculiarity of the disease is that it may be dormant for even as long as two years; and although we may appear to be free, we must not relax any precautions for a considerable period. One thing that is essential is that cattle should be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. In order to convey contagion there must be actual contact. There is no comparison to be made with cholera, because that disease manifests itself at once, and you can take what precautions you please. Thousands of

      1325
      living animals have been passed by the veterinary surgeon, and found, when dead, to be infected with the disease. Before the Act of 1878 the principle on which the Government acted was to permit the free importation of all animals, except where they were known to be diseased; but since then a wiser policy has been adopted. I have pointed out the risk incurred by the unfortunate importation of Canadian animals. The country is not yet freed from that risk, and the time has now come when the Act should be repealed. The right hon. Gentleman may ask why these steps were not taken under the Conservative Government. I must bear my share of blame for having so long allowed Canadian animals to be imported. My great misgivings at the time prompted me to make frequent communications to the Canadian Government, but I always received the most positive assurances that Canada was free from the disease. But now the country has learnt what such assurances from foreign countries interested in the trade are worth. Similar assurances have over and over again been received from the United States; and the greatest pressure was put on me to admit cattle from the United States free. But, acting on the best advice, I always refused. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, in reply to my question about a month ago, 18 cargoes of cattle from the United States, in which 41 animals were found to be actually affected. How many hundred cattle in those cargoes were affected without being detected? The United States, was full of this disease, and with the length of frontier between Canada and the United States it is impossible to insure immunity for Canada. I say the risk is intolerable. There may be hundreds in a ship, and we should not know of them. I am afraid we are rather late in appealing to Canada—[Mr. Gardner was about to rise.] I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do me the favour of listening to my argument. How are we going to say, if we admit animals from Canada, on the plea that disease does not prevail in that country—how can we say that those animals are not taken from across the United States frontier, where the disease does prevail? How can we tell whether an animal has crossed from one country into another? Then, Sir, I say that a great many gentlemen hold
      1326
      with me, that after all the exertions and sacrifices that have been made to get rid of the disease here, we ought to do everything in our power to prevent its return. The only effectual way of doing that is by making the law for the slaughter of imported animals universal, subject to the exceptions dealt with in the Motion. I have heard only two objections to the Motion. One was that it would interfere with trade. I should be sorry to interfere with the trade with Canada; but the interests of.our own country must be considered first. There are farmers in the North who object to the proposed measures, but their interests should give way to the general good, and they will really suffer no material injury, because Irish stock was never more plentiful or cheaper. It is also directly to the interests of the consumer that the Motion should be carried. The worst thing for the consumer is that the animals should come into the country perfectly free and be sold when the market is most advantageous for selling them. As far as the consumer is concerned, it is infinitely more to his advantage that the Motion should be accepted than rejected by the House of Commons. With the exception of a limited number of farmers in the North, I believe that nine out of every 10 agriculturists in the country are heartily in favour of the Motion. On every ground—on the ground of obtaining complete freedom from disease, on the ground of the interests of nine out of 10 farmers in the country, on the ground of the interests of the Irish breeders of stock, and, above all, in the interests of the consumers, I have no hesitation—on the contrary, I have the greatest pleasure—in giving my hearty support to the Motion.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 186.—(Division List, No. 22.)

    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 159.)

      OMMITTEE.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would appeal to the Government to consider whether there

      1327
      could not be engrafted on this Bill an Amendment which would deal with many grievous cases in Ireland, where the minority of the population was deprived of representation on Municipal Corporations? He was glad to think that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill was in sympathy with them. It would he well to defer the Bill for a day or two.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to raise that question. He must do it at some other stage, or in some other way. At present the Question before the House is Clause 1.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Tanner.)
      Motion agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

      POOR LAW UNION OFFICERS (IRELAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. T. W. Russell, Bill to make better provision for the Superannuation of the Officers of Poor Law Unions in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Farquharson, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, and Mr. John Redmond.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 249.]

      MEDICAL CHARITIES LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. T. W. Russell, Bill to amend the Medical Charities Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell, Sir Edward Harland, Dr. Farquharson, and Mr. Justin M'Carthy.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 250.]

      TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT, 1883, AMENDMENT BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Tully, Bill to amend "The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tully, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Knox, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. P. A M'Hugh, and Mr. Edward Barry.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 251.]

      SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL COMMITTEE BORROWING POWERS BILL.
      Select Committee nominated of,—Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Quilter, and Mr. Francis Stevenson, with Two to be appointed by the Committee of Selection.—(Mr. Francis Stevenson.)

      ARCHITECTS' REGISTRATION BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Atherley-Jones, Bill to provide for the Registration of Architects, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, and Mr. Coddington.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 252.]

      MINING EASEMENTS BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Atherley-Jones, Bill to provide for fixing a fair rent in respect of Way-leaves and other Mining Easements, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Joicey, Mr. Joseph Pease, Mr. John Wilson, and Mr. Fenwick.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 253.]

    REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 202.)
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

    STATUTE LAW REVISION.
    Lords Message [28th February] communicating the following Resolution, namely,
    "That it is desirable that all Statute Law Revision Bills of the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament," considered.
    Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.
    Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)

    SEAMEN'S PROVISIONS BILL.—(No. 191.)
    Read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL, 1893 (CONSTITUENCIES).
    Copy ordered—
    "Of Return showing, as regards the First Schedule to the Government of Ireland Bill, 1893, the Population, total Rateable Value, number of Ratings valued over £20, and number of Councillors returnable to the Legislative Council; and, as regards the Second Schedule, the Population, total Rateable Value, number of Registered Electors, and the present and future number of Members for the House of Commons returnable by Ireland."—(Mr. John Morley.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 104.)
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.