Commons Sitting of 6 April 1897

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  SPEECHES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MAJOR RASCH (): To call attention to the excessive duration of Speeches in the House of Commons; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 4th May.]
  CROWN LANDS (WALES).
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES (): To call attention to the administration of Crown Lands and the appropriation of Common Lands in Wales; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 4th May.]
QUESTIONS.

  ALBANY AND KING GEORGE'S SOUND GARRISON.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been recently brought to his knowledge that statements have been made affecting the present condition of the garrison in the neighbourhood of Albany and King George's Sound; and whether steps can be taken to cause inquiry to be made into the state of this important coaling station?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am very glad to say that, in reply to a telegram dispatched on April 3, the Governor of West Australia telegraphs that nothing unusual has happened, and that the condition of the garrison is efficient.

  BREWING MATERIALS.
  MR. ARTHUR BROOKFIELD (): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether every brewer has at present to fill in a return, giving, without any exception, the materials that he uses in the production or manufacture of beer; and whether the particulars supplied by the brewers to the Excise officials in this manner would include the case of minute quantities of chemicals used as hop substitutes or hop supplements?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The return to which the hon. Member refers is a return of the materials on which the Beer Duty charge is based. It does not show the quantities either of hops or of hop substitutes which the brewer may use.

  HAMPSTEAD UNION WORKHOUSE.
  MR. J. C. TALBOT (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the report of a recent meeting of the Hampstead Board of Guardians, at which a Guardian called the attention of the Board to the enormous waste of bread in the workhouse; whether this arises from the Regulations of the Local Government Board, which prescribe the same allowances to every inmate whether they desire them or not; whether the same Guardian was justified in saving that in another workhouse, by serving out only the bread which was really required, a ton of bread per month was saved; and whether, if this be so, the Local Government Board will consider the propriety of amending their Orders in the interests of economy?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): My attention had not been drawn to the matter prior to the notice of the Question. I have made inquiry, and am informed that the amount of waste which is represented by the bread which is not consumed is about three or four pounds a day. The dietary table in force in the parish provides for a certain quantity of bread being served out for each inmate, and if this quantity should be found to be in excess of what is require, it could, of course, be reduced; and I shall be happy to consider any representations which I may receive from the Guardians on the subject. With regard to the statement of an individual Guardian as to the saving of bread in another workhouse, I have no such information as would lead me to suppose that there has been any such saving as that suggested.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  GENERAL SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what arrangements it is proposed to make in order that the Volunteers outside of the London district may be present and adequately represented in the ceremony of the celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee in the 60th year of her reign; and what arrangements
  598
  will be made for individual Volunteer officers from all parts of the kingdom not present with troops being able to take part in the ceremony?
  MR. BRODRICK: Care will be taken that the Volunteers shall be fairly represented in the ceremony. ["Hear, hear!"] As regards Volunteers who do not take part in the ceremony, I am afraid they will only be in the same position as the rest of Her Majesty's subjects.
  SIR H. HAVELOCK-ALLANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the latter portion of his Question with regard to the Volunteer officers.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that the Volunteer officers will have to share the lot of the general body of Volunteers in this matter.
  GENERAL LAURIE (): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is proposed to make any provision for officers of the Navy and Army now serving on full pay in this country to enable them to witness the procession on the occasion of the celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I have caused an inquiry to be sent to the Naval and Military authorities requesting them to furnish me with the numbers of places likely to be required for the purpose referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question. On receiving a reply, I will endeavour to make arrangements for officers of the Navy and Army similar to those which are in contemplation for Members of the Civil Services.

  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE).
  MR. T. LOUGH (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the Returns of Imperial Revenue and Revenue and Expenditure, which appears on the Paper to-day, whether it will be possible to have these Returns prepared so that they might be in the hands of Members of the House during the early stages of the Debates on the Budget, instead of being kept back, as last year, until after Parliament had separated?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): These

  599
  Returns cannot be prepared until the Revenue Departments have got in their final accounts of all the various heads of Revenue in detail, and some little time must elapse before such information is available. But there shall be no unnecessary delay, and though no promise can be given that the Returns will be issued by the time of the Budget Debate, they shall be presented without fail in the course of the Session.

  FATAL ACCIDENTS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  SIR JOHN LENG (): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) if juries under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1895, are expressly precluded from making presentment, such as are frequently made by juries in coroners' inquests in England, relative to circumstances, or the conduct of persons, brought to light during the inquiries; if not, by whom the making of such presentments has been prohibited; and (2) whether, in view of the general dissatisfaction with the expense: of empannelling juries merely to record the time, place, and cause or causes of death, he will consider how the usage in Scotland can be conformed to that in England?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): In reply to the first part of the Question, there is nothing to preclude a jury summoned under the Act referred to from making any statement which could properly be made in returning a verdict under the Act. In reply to the second part of the Question, I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction; and I am not at present inclined to consider that the practice in Scotland requires alteration.

  LIGHTHOUSES AND FOG HORNS (SCOTLAND).
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he receives an annual Report by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, stating what progress is being made with the improvement of existing lights and the erection of new lighthouses and fog horns on the coasts of Scotland; and, if so, whether it can be published in addition to the Report of Inspection of Harbour and Local Lights?
  MR. HANBURY (on behalf of Mr. RITCHIE): No Report in the form suggested in the Question is made to the Board of Trade by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses. The Commissioners have to obtain the sanction of the Board of Trade to all expenditure on new works connected with lighthouses, and a statement, of the sums actually expended on such works will be found in the Civil Service Appropriation Accounts (Mercantile Marine Fund—Grant in Aid) which are annually presented to Parliament.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. J. G. WEIR (ROSS and): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that the system of withdrawal by telegraph has been so appreciated by depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank that the number of withdrawals by this means has risen from 44,163 in 1894 to 102,553 in 1896; (2) whether in order to meet the needs of those depositors who are not prepared to pay the cost of telegrams when requiring their money speedily, he will consider the advisability of enabling such depositors to withdraw sums up to £2 on demand, under some such system of Savings Bank Postal Orders as that which has recently been submitted to the Government by a retired officer of the Department, who has proposed that the Post Office Savings Bank should be empowered to issue to its depositors Savings Bank Postal Orders in books of eight at a charge of 1s. commission, or 1½d. each order; (3) whether he is aware that this system would not affect bankers' interests, inasmuch as the proposed orders would be of a fixed value, viz., of 10s., 15s., £1, or £2, and would not admit of the transfer of money, being payable to the depositor only on production of the deposit book at any Savings Bank Post Office; and (4) whether he is aware that the estimated profits accruing from the adoption of this system, would materially augment the Post Office Savings Bank revenue, and render a reduction in the rate of interest unnecessary?
  MR. HANBURY: The withdrawals by telegraph in 1894 were 49,006, or about 5,000 more than stated in the first Question. So far as the Post Office can judge, three-quarters of these are by the

  601
  working classes. The answer to the second Question is, No. It is difficult to say what would or would not affect bankers' interests. They sometimes contend that the Post Office is trenching on their functions already. It is not at all clear whether these Orders would admit of a transfer of money to a third person, just as the ordinary withdrawal warrant does now. If they did not, they might often cause much inconvenience, and, indeed, prove useless. The "estimated profits" are those estimated by the hon. Member. The Post Office estimates a loss. The decrease in the Telegraph and Postal revenue would he considerable, and the commission of 1½d. on each Order would not meet the additional working expenses. The Post Office Savings Bank was established in order to encourage thrift, and the Government has no intention of converting it into a banking institution.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that for the year ending the 31st December 1896, the Post Office Savings Bank contributed the sum of £66,040 to the Post Office Revenue, that sum being charged for postage in the expenses of management; (2) whether he is aware that under the new rule for withdrawal by telegraph, depositors contribute in a rapidly increasing ratio to the telegraph revenue, the amounts so contributed being £2,900 for 1894, £4,700 for 1895, and £6,200 for 1896; (3) whether he will take these facts into consideration when determining the question of a possible reduction in the rate of interest; (4) whether he is aware that on the 31st December 1895 there were 108,033 accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank with balances over £150, and that the amount standing to the credit of these accounts was as much as £21,620,115; and (5) whether, in view of the fact that a reduction in the rate of interest from 2½ to 2 per cent. on this amount will produce upwards of £108,000, mid affect only 108,033 accounts, he will, in the event of a reduction in the rate of interest becoming imperative, consider the advisability of confining such reduction to accounts showing balances in excess of £150?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The figures given in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question are correct, and were
  602
  furnished to him by the Postmaster General. But it must be remembered that the sums paid out of Savings Bank funds into the postal and telegraph revenue represent practically the cost of work done, and not profit to the Exchequer. I do not, therefore, see that the question of the rate of interest is so much affected by them as the hon. Member suggests. I have already stated that the reduction of the interest on deposits above a certain amount was under my consideration, but I doubt whether £150 would be a practical limit for that purpose.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, having regard to the fact that as much as £66,040 was charged for postage in the expenses of management of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December 1896, he will state why he objects to say on what basis the charge for postage is estimated; whether it is the fact that a depositor's book passing through the post is charged a penny, and whether the ordinary acknowledgment sent to the depositor in the case of money paid in is also charged a penny; whether it is practicable to treat such acknowledgments as receipted invoices at the halfpenny rate; and whether he will state what would be the saving in postage if such acknowledgments were so treated?
  MR. HANBURY: I do not know to what objection the hon. Member refers. The charge on depositors' books going to or from the head office is calculated according to weight—at a special rate— and works out at almost exactly 1d. It is not the fact that the charge for either acknowledgments of depositors or warrants and advices for withdrawal is calculated at 1d. They are charged at ½d., and the proposed calculation is therefore unnecessary.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVENTION.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, having regard to the fact that the Atlantic seaboard of the island of Lewis is not included in. the North Sea Convention, he will state whether it has been held desirable to consult the States signatories of that Convention before

  603
  making a bye-law to render beam and other trawling illegal within 13 miles of the Atlantic seaboard of the island of Lewis; and (2), if it is not held desirable to consult the States signatories of the Convention, will he state what prevents the making of the proposed bye-law?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The States signatories to the North Sea Fisheries Convention have not been consulted with reference to the making of a bye-law to render beam and other trawling illegal within 13 miles of the Atlantic seaboard of the island of Lewis. The second paragraph of the Question is, I think, rather a matter that concerns the Scottish Office.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN ()asked whether the signatories to the North Sea Convention had been consulted with regard to the 13 mile limit on the other coasts of Scotland?
  MR. CURZON: That is a Question not connected with that which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has just put, and I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will give notice of it.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (ELECTRIC LIGHTING).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state how much per unit is paid for electric current for the lighting of the Houses of Parliament; if he is aware that the cost of producing electric current varies from 1½d. to 2d. per unit; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing the necessary installation, seeing that there is ample space in the engine and boiler rooms of the House for such an installation?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The price paid under contract for a fixed period is sixpence per unit. It was found impossible to secure a lower price, seeing that the company specially provided plant for the building, including an alternative supply. There is no suitable space in the Houses of Parliament for a complete installation for the production of electric light; and it would be necessary to provide a site, as well as special buildings and machinery, at a great cost. This matter has received very careful consideration, and it has not been thought
  604
  desirable to embark upon so large an expenditure as would have to be incurred if the suggestion of the hon. Member were to be carried out.

  ALDERSHOT MANŒUVRES (ROYAL MARINGS).
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEY (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether the compensation, allowance of 4d. per day, as recently conceded to the troops which took part in the last Aldershot manœuvres, as compensation for extra, wear and tear of clothing, occasioned by the bad weather, will be made to the Royal Marines, who also took part in the same manœuvres; and (2) whether, in consideration of the amount of route marching and manœuvring now imposed on the corps, the same issue of boots as now received by the Army will for the future be granted?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second Question, the question of the issue of boots to the Royal Marines has been carefully considered, and it is not intended to alter the present regulations.

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he intends to publish the evidence taken by Lord Tweedmouth's Committee, in accordance with the definite promise to do so made by his predecessor in this House on 17th May 1895?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir.
  MR. D. MACALEESE (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if, in accordance with the Inter-Departmental Report, an auxiliary postman will be a person whose total period of duty does not exceed three hours daily, what provision will be made for rural auxiliaries in Ireland who perform four and four and a half hours' duty daily; whether four hours' rural men in Ireland, who discharge their duties under adverse conditions, will have the benefits accorded to five hours' men employed in towns and cities; and, can the Department see their way to give men doing

  605
  four hours' duty an extra hour's employment to bring them within the benefit of sick pay, boot money, and the prescribed holiday?
  MR. HANBURY: It is the arrangement under the recommendation of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee that in future an auxiliary postman will be a person whose total period of duty does not exceed three hours daily; but of course this change will be introduced gradually as opportunity offers, and will not necessitate the discharge of existing rural auxiliaries in Ireland or elsewhere who perform a longer period of duty daily. It is not understood what is meant by the reference to four hours' rural men in Ireland who discharge their duties under adverse conditions. The rural postmen in Ireland are paid on the same principle as those in Great Britain, and will share with them the benefits of the new scheme. But they cannot be accorded the privileges designed for the five hours' men, nor would it be possible to give them an extra hour's work in order to qualify them for those privileges.
  MR. MCCARTAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the rule laid down that postal and telegraphic officials can only complain to the postal authorities by way of memorial, in order to have their complaint considered, whether his attention has been called to the indignation meeting held by officials in Dublin last Saturday, about the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee; and whether he will state why postal and telegraphic officials are to be debarred the ordinary right of organisation, and of making representations to the Postmaster General by way of public meeting and resolutions, now open to all trades unionists and officials who have reason to make complaint to their employers?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has seen in the newspapers reports of a meeting held by officers of the Departments in Dublin on the subject of the Report of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee, but his attention has not so far been directed to the matter officially. It is not the fact that postal and telegraph officials are debarred the ordinary rights of organisation, which has been expressly conceded to them, and of which they
  606
  fully avail themselves. But the Postmaster General has always required that if as the result of their meetings or deliberation they should desire to approach him on any subject, they should do so by memorial through their superior officers. In the interests of the Service he considers it desirable to maintain the rule.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, under the Departmental Report on Post Office Establishments, the supervisors of the upper section employed in the London Postal Service Department will participate in the prospective promotions to assistant superintendentship?
  MR. HANBURY: One of the recommendations of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee is that the Supervisors of the upper section in the London Postal Service, who are six in number, should retain their present scale; but that no new appointment shall be made to this class. Whatever prospects in the past these officers had to promotion have not been affected by the Report; but it is only right to add that as a matter of fact it has not been the practice to promote them to the office of Assistant Superintendents.

  CUSTOM HOUSE, DUBLIN.
  MR. EDWARD CARSON (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can explain the cause of the delays existing at the Custom House in Dublin in adjudicating on documents lodged for the purpose of being adjudicated upon pursuant to Section 12 of The Stamp Act, 1891; and whether such documents are adjudicated upon in Dublin or are sent to London for that purpose?
  MR. HANBURY: The Board of Inland Revenue inform me that no unreasonable delay takes place except where the parties presenting the documents do not furnish the information which is necessary to enable the proper duty to be adjudicated. If the right hon. Member will mention to me any particular case of delay I will cause further inquiry to be made. The documents are adjudicated upon in Dublin, and only in exceptional cases is a reference to London required.

  PAROCHIAL RATES (LIVERPOOL).
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the demand notes for parochial rates in the parish of Liverpool contain the item, "Voluntary Rate, 189——, at 1d. in the £1. By order of the General Vestry, 'for Church and other purposes;'" and whether he will take steps to secure the omission of such item in future?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have communicated with the churchwardens and overseers, and in reply they have directed attention to the fact that the words "Voluntary Rate, 1896" is printed in a different colour to the remainder of the note, and is in conspicuous type. Notwithstanding this, I am of opinion that it is very undesirable that any item in respect of a voluntary rate should be included in a demand note for rates which are legally recoverable, and I have so informed the churchwardens and overseers. [Opposition cheers.]

  BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA (HEALTH).
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of carrying out the recommendation of the Committee of the Royal College of Physicians contained in their Report forwarded to the Secretary of State for India on the 29th March, that Medical Officers of the Army should give elementary reading room lectures on the preservation of health to young soldiers; and whether these lectures could especially be given before or during their voyage to India?
  MR. BRODRICK: The recommendation that Medical Officers of the Army should give lectures to young soldiers on the preservation, of their health is one to which great importance is attached, and the question of the time and manner in which such advice can be given is under consideration.

  BURIAL GROUND (DEBENHAM, SUFFOLK).
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON (): I beg to ask the President, of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, more than a year ago, the Parish Council of Debenham, Suffolk, purchased additional land for burial ac-
  608
  commodation, obtained the consent of the parish meeting and of the East Suffolk County Council to borrow £400 for the purpose, and received the necessary sanction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, after the receipt of a favourable report following upon inquiry by a medical officer from that Department; whether, in view of those facts, it is still his intention to direct a local inquiry to be held by an inspector of the Local Government Board; and upon whom the cost of the proposed inquiry will fall?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Local Government Board have no information as to the date of the purchase of the land referred to. The sanction of the County Council to the borrowing has been given, subject to the loan being sanctioned by the Board, and upon the particulars which have been furnished in connection with the application for their consent, the Board consider that a public local inquiry should be held in the matter by one of their inspectors. In the ordinary course the cost of the inquiry will be borne by the Parish Council. With, regard to the visits of two inspectors from two Departments to the same place, I am in communication with the Home Office—on the subject of these inquiries generally—and I should be very glad if it is found that the inquiry by the Local Government Board Inspector would render unnecessary inspection by the other Departments.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether action by the Commissioners of National Education in. Ireland is usually taken upon the advice of their official executive council; (2) whether the representations made to the Board on behalf of the work-mistresses in Irish national schools was or has been referred to this body, and was it for their proposals in relation thereto the Board, was waiting before giving a reply to the representations; (3) can he state the names of these Gentlemen; and (4) are their salaries on the Irish Estimates; if so, under what head?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The action of the Commissioners is entirely independent, and is

  609
  taken on the merits of the cases that come before them. The representations made on behalf of the workmistresses from time to time have been considered by the Board. My right hon. Friend has already stated that certain proposals in relation to the remuneration of the workmistresses were made by the Board to the Irish Government, but that the Treasury, having given these representations their best consideration, were unable to sanction the proposals of the Commissioners. I have no information as to the third paragraph, and as regards the fourth paragraph the hon. Member will observe on reference to the Estimates that the only paid Member of the Board whose salary is on the Estimates is the Resident Commissioner.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that in many poor districts in Ireland workmistresses in Irish national schools have to supply out of their slender earnings most of the materials upon working on which their young pupils are trained; (2) whether at examinations the children from fourth to sixth class have to exhibit articles worked by them at home for the examination of the inspector; (3) whether in the poor districts the workmistresses have usually to purchase material so that their pupils may be qualified for examination; and (4) will these matters be inquired into with a view to relieving the workmistresses of the burden?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The Commissioners of National Education are not aware that the fact is as alleged in the first paragraph. No such obligation exists as is suggested in the second paragraph. With regard to the third and fourth paragraphs, if the hon. Member will supply me with particulars of any case in which it is reported that a workmistress is required to purchase materials, the matter will be inquired into, and steps taken to discontinue the practice.

  LAND COMMISSION.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution adopted by the Midleton (County Cork)
  610
  Board of Guardians on the 27th ultimo, protesting against the action taken by certain receivers over properties in the Counties of Cork and Waterford (whose names are mentioned in the resolution), in endeavouring to frustrate the Land Act by suing for old arrears, by taking up mortgages (these receivers being agents in London lending companies), and thus obtaning possession of these properties, and by purchasing arrears and then collecting them by threatening eviction; and whether he will take steps to bring these practices to the notice of the Judges of the Land Court?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The hon. Member has sent me a copy of the resolution in question, and I have referred it to the Land Judge. I may observe, however, that a receiver cannot sue for any rents or arrears except by leave of the Land Judge, whose officer he is, and to whom he is responsible for the due discharge of his duties, and also that the Land Judge has no power to dispose of arrears to any person other than the purchaser of the land. This resolution contains several serious charges of misconduct against certain receivers. If any of these be well-founded, any of the parties interested can, on application to the Land Judge, get full redress, but the Executive have no power in the matter.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state for what reason the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners in fair-rent cases are not supplied to the solicitors appearing on the record for the parties; and whether, considering that the time for giving notice of appeal is limited, and for other reasons, he will consider the desirability of having some arrangements made, whether by insertion in the papers or by printed forms, whereby the solicitors for the parties shall be furnished with this information as soon as possible after the decisions have been given?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The decisions of the Sub-Commissioners, when announced, are communicated at once to the tenants, who are notified of the amount at which their rents are fixed. The Commissioners consider that it is better that the tenant should be so informed direct instead of through his solicitor. Some years ago,

  611
  when the solicitor, and not the tenant, was notified, there wag considerable complaint on behalf of the tenants of the delay in communicating the notification to them. The decisions in fail-rent cases, as a rule, appear in the local newspapers, but the Land Commission cannot undertake to communicate their decisions to the Press. It is understood that the Deputy Registrars frequently, at the request of the solicitors engaged who are unable to attend at the announcement of the decisions, notify the result to them, but the Commissioners do not propose to issue any direction on the subject.
  MR. McCARTAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that no notification whatever is given of the time the decisions are to be given?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: I believe no notification is given of the time the decision will be given, but the moment it is given it is communicated to the parties.
  MR. J. HAMMOND (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state when it is expected the Land Commissioners will visit Carlow for the purpose of disposing of cases listed for hearing in the Land Court?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: A list of cases for hearing at Carlow will shortly be issued by the Commissioners, but they have not yet been able to fix the exact date on which the hearing will be commenced.
  MR. JOHN DILLON (): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that notices under the 25th Section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, fixing the reductions to be allowed on the annuities payable to the Land Commissioners, have been issued to a number of purchasers; and how this can be legally done, in view of the fact that the rules under which these reductions were to be estimated have not been settled by the Treasury?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The notices referred to in the Question have reference only to annuities in respect of which ten years or more had, on the 1st of November, 1896, elapsed since the annuity began. In such cases the amount of the advance which has been repaid by means of the accumulation of that portion of the purchased
  612
  annuity which represents repayment of capital is properly ascertained under the tables prescribed by the Treasury, which were in force prior to the passing of the Act of 1896.

  REPLY LETTER CARDS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the resolutions concerning the reply letter card, which were unanimously passed at the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire, held in London last June, in regard to the difficulties correspondents experience in prepaying closed replies to letters sent to foreign countries, and especially the British colonies and dependencies (a facility which exists for open postcards and telegrams), when the Congress recommended the adoption of the reply letter card (used by France and Ceylon for inland correspondence), and to the extension of its use to international communication in the same way as the open reply postcard, and that, at the Postal Union Congress to be held at Washington, the British Postmaster General be requested to take steps for the extension of the reply letter card to international postage as an efficient substitute for the oft-proposed international postage stamp; and whether, in presence of this unanimous expression of opinion of the British trading world, the Postmaster General would direct the British Postal delegates to support the adoption of the international reply letter card project at the coming Congress?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General's attention has been directed to the resolution passed at the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire held in London last June in favour of reply letter cards for the use of persons wishing to prepay replies to letters of inquiry addressed to places abroad. In order to ascertain whether there was any effective demand for this facility, a circular was addressed to the Chambers of Commerce in this country in 1893. To this circular many of the Chambers sent no reply whatever, and the majority of those which did answer expressed the opinion that no real inconvenience existed from the absence of

  613
  facilities for prepaying replies to letters posted in this country. The difficulty in arranging for a reply letter arises from the different currencies of different countries. For instance, while only 96 2½d. stamps can be bought in this country for a sovereign, 100 can be bought for its equivalent of 25f. in France, and the difference in other countries is even greater. It is obvious that in any system of reply letter cards, the desire would be for the cards to be purchased in the country where they could be purchased most cheaply, and such a result would under existing arrangements be almost always adverse to the interests of this country. The question of a means of prepayment of international reply postage will, however, be brought forward at the Postal Congress about to be held at Washington. The British, delegates will, of course, take part in the discussion, and the Postmaster General will be glad if it be found possible to devise some satisfactory arrangement for the purpose, though he feels bound to say that he is not sanguine on the subject.

  INDIAN FAMINE.
  MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the total amount of subscriptions received and remitted to India up to the end of March, for the relief of the people suffering from famine, by the United Kingdom, the British Colonies, and the Russian dominions, for the money and grain contributions from which the thanks of Her Majesty's Government were recently conveyed to the Government of the Czar?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): In reply to a telegram asking for information as to the sums already transmitted, the Government of India telegraphed on the 3rd inst. the following statement:—
  "Total subscriptions Indian Famine Fund as follows:—Mansion House, £361,850; remainder of United Kingdom, £183,400; British colonies, £37,543, of winch Canada £25,000; India, £79,731; other parts of the world, £4,732; grand total, £667,256."
  (Cheers.] They add that no contribution in money has as yet been received from Russia; what may have been received
  614
  in kind I am at present unable to say; but Her Majesty's Government, having learned that gifts of grain were on their way from Russia, and that the Russian Government had given special facilities for their transport, lost no time in causing their thanks to be conveyed to that Government for their sympathetic action. [Cheers.] It will be observed that the sums of money received by the Government of India up to the 3rd inst. were considerably less than the amount which is known to have been subscribed or promised, and which cannot in all be less than £787,500.

  MULLINGAR UNION.
  MR. JASPER TULLY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at the sworn Inquiry held last year by the medical inspector of the Local Government Board into the irregularities in the contract for medicines in Mullingar Union, it was proven that the clerk of the Union issued one set of advertisements in the local papers and inserted advertisements with different conditions in the Dublin papers, which, had the effect of shutting out the competition of Dublin houses, and that the clerk of the Union stated publicly after the Inquiry at the Board of Guardians that he had received no censure from the Local Government Board; whether the same irregularities have taken place again this year; and, if he can state what action the Local Government Board intend to take towards the clerk of the Union?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The advertisements in the local papers set forth the conditions fully, whereas the advertisements in the Dublin papers, in order to save expense, only mentioned the fact that tenders would be considered on a particular day, and that forms could be had on application. These forms contained the conditions. This appears to have been the method adopted for many years previously. The clerk of the Union states that the advertisements for this year's contracts are in the same form both in the Dublin and local papers. No further action against the clerk of the Union is called for.

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (DEATH OF A FIREMAN).
  MR. F. A. CHANNING (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any representative of the Board of Trade was present at the inquest held by the Cheshire coroner on Richard Carter, a fireman on the London and North Western Railway, who was killed by his head coming in contact with a bridge; whether any inquiry has been or will be held by an inspector or sub-inspector of the Board; whether representations have been made to the Board of Trade on any previous occasion as to the danger to life from this bridge, and whether the Board of Trade made any recommendations to the Railway Company, and with what result; and, having regard to the rider passed by the jury at the inquest that structural alterations should at once be made, what steps the Board of Trade will take in the matter?
  MR. HANBURY (on behalf of Mr. RITCHIE): No representative attended the inquest. The Coroner did not ask for an Assessor. An Inquiry by a sub-inspector was ordered as soon as the Return of the accident was received. The Board of Trade do not appear to have had any representations as to danger to life from this bridge. The attention of the Company has, no doubt, been directed to the rider of the Coroner's jury. Whether any communication should be addressed to them by the Board of Trade will depend upon the Report of the sub-inspector.

  ASSIZES (CO. DOWN).
  MR. PATRICK A. M'HUGH (): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among professional gentlemen and their clients, owing to the delay in forwarding them the affirmances and reversals of decrees decided at the recent assizes for county of Down; and, if he will state the cause of delay, and the date at which they will be forwarded to the solicitors having charge of the cases?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The Clerk of the Crown and Peace received the affirmances and reversals taken out at the last Down Assizes on the 30th ultimo and 1st April, and issued them on the date of receipt to the
  616
  various solicitors concerned. No complaint was made to the Clerk of the Crown and Peace as to any delay in the issue of these documents, nor is he aware that any dissatisfaction, such as is alleged, was expressed.

  CRETE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House what arrangements the Admirals have made with a view to the distribution of certain food supplies where most required in the interior of Crete?
  MR. CURZON: We have had no fresh communication from the Admirals on the subject, nor am I aware that a, case for their action has yet arisen. On the contrary we heard yesterday from Her Majesty's Consul that it seemed likely that the Christians in the interior would before long have a double supply of grain, as they would gather the crops of the Mussulman Cretans as well as their own.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Proclamation under which the Blockade of Crete is carried on?
  MR. CURZON: There does not appear to be any necessity for laying the Proclamation separately, since; it has already appeared in the Gazette of March 19. Of course, it will be included in the Papers that will be presented later on.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Government will present further Papers on the affairs of Crete?
  MR. CURZON: Two collections of Papers about Crete are in preparation. The first containing information up to the beginning of the year will, I hope, be laid before the Easter recess. The second is being put together with as much rapidity as is possible.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Mahomedans were the aggressors in the fighting outside Canea on Saturday last; why the warships did not shell the Mahomedans; whether any of the men who had been rescued from Candano took part in the fight; and what steps will be taken to prevent the constant sallying forth of Bushi-Bazouks and

  617
  other armed bands from the cities occupied by the international forces to attack the Christians and commit depredations in the surrounding country?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Consul telegraphed on the 4th instant that owing to a report that the Admirals had authorised the insurgents on Akrotiri to cross overland to Apokorona, 600 or 800 armed Bashi-Bazouks proceeded to Akrotiri and opened fire on the insurgents. The Admirals intended shelling the Bashi-Bazouks, and were about to do so, when they noticed the Turkish Commander-in-Chief, Major Bor, and other officers approaching the Bashi-Bazouks. They accordingly refrained from firing. We have not heard that any of the men rescued from Candano took part in the fighting. On the contrary, the Mussulman authorities and the Turkish Commander-in-Chief deny in toto having given arms to them; but a strict inquiry into the matter is being held by order of the Admirals. In the meantime the latter have ordered all Bashi-Bazouks in Canea to be disarmed, and the operation has been successfully conducted. I should add, as there appears to be a general misunderstanding on the point, that these Bashi-Bazouks are not Turks, but Mahomedan Cretans.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask why the presence of the Turkish Commander was considered sufficient reason to prevent the Admirals shelling the Turks when no such reasons were allowed to prevail in the case of the insurgents; and also whether he can inform the House that steps will be taken at Candia and other ports to prevent these excursions and sallies of Bashi-Bazouks, no matter to what race they may belong?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (): Before the right hon. Gentleman answers I should like to ask whether these so-called Bashi-Bazouks are not Cretan Mussulmans, who have been robbed of their lands and all they possessed by these so-called Christian insurgents. [Cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. CURZON: I thought I had answered the Question of the hon. Member for East Mayo. It is perfectly obvious that the best method of preventing the Bashi-Bazouks sallying out is to disarm them, and I have already explained that this operation has been successfully conducted.
  MR. DILLON: At Canea only.
  MR. CURZON: I have not heard of heir sallying out at other places.
  MR. DILLON: Oh, every day.
  MR. CURZON: As I say, I have not heard of it. The hon. Member is better informed than I am. As regards the other point about the Turkish Commander-in-Chief, I do not know whether the hon. Member means to insinuate that the Admirals ought to have shot at the Turkish Commander-in-Chief when he was really doing his best to prevent these men from committing excesses.
  MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at Retimo, Candia, and other towns the sallies of the Bashi-Bazouks are going on almost every day?
  MR. CURZON: No; I am not.
  MR. J. MCLEOD (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now state if a Presbyterian chaplain has been appointed to the battalion of Seaforth Highlanders serving in Crete?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. The General Officer commanding at Malta telegraphed, on the 31st ultimo, that he was sending a Presbyterian chaplain to Crete.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE BOOTS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he purposes redeeming the promise he made recently in this House to take the opinion of the members of the Metropolitan Police Force as to whether they will sustain a loss in consequence of the method by which the change of system from contract boots to boot money is to be introduced?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I am afraid the hon. Member has misunderstood my answer to his supplemental Question on this subject. Probably I did not sufficiently hear the Question, and therefore my answer might have been misleading. I made no promise to consult the force now, but said I had already done so before the new system was introduced.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, am I justified in reading from the printed report which I have here of the answers given by the

  619
  right hon. Gentleman? He stated there would be no such—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must take the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to what his answer really was.

  WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been brought to his notice that great inconvenience is experienced by workmen engaged in the building trades owing to some railway companies failing to comply with the Cheap Trains Act of 1883; and whether he will use his influence with all railway companies to cause them to provide an ample service of workmen's trains up to 8 a.m.?
  MR. HANBURY (on behalf of Mr. RITCHIE): The attention of the Board of Trade has been directed to this subject, and the railway companies have been requested to furnish a Return showing the workmen's train accommodation on the respective lines. When the information is received the matter will have attention. The Board of Trade, however, cannot make any such general order as the Question seems to contemplate.

  CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
  Mr. HUBERT DUNCOMBE (): I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for War whether cavalry regiments on changing stations (H.M.O.) are directed to leave their horses behind them?
  MR. BRODRICK: Cavalry regiments moving between England and Ireland leave behind them the old horses and their youngest remounts. Cavalry regiments, on change of station in Great Britain or in Ireland, take all their horses with them.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in an order recently issued by the Inspector General of Cavalry, it is directed that cavalry men on active service are to wear jack boots only, and are not to carry ankle boots also, as in Home marching order?
  MR. BRODRICK: On active service the ankle boots of men belonging to cavalry regiments are not carried by the men, but in the squadron carts, in order to lighten the weight on the horses.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, under a recent War Office letter, men belonging to cavalry regiments are directed, when changing stations (H.M.O.), to carry their tunics in their horses' nosebags?
  MR. BRODRICK: In order to save the tunics from wear on the march men belonging to cavalry regiments are directed to carry them in their horses' nosebags. They are thus available for wear at any halting-place.
  MAJOR RASCH (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the cavalry has been reorganised into three service squadrons, with each squadron a major's command, will he state whether the regulations affecting seconded majors apply to cavalry, under these conditions, i.e., that when a major is seconded a captain is promoted to fill the vacancy?
  MR. BRODRICK: Existing regulations apply equally to cavalry and infantry. When a major is extra-regimentally employed he is not seconded, but the regiment is given an additional captain in his place.

  SWANSEA WORKHOUSE (ROMAN CATHOLIC CHILDREN).
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that a letter wag written by the Rev. C. J. Fitzgerald, Roman Catholic clergyman, St. Joseph's, Greenhill, Swansea, on the 15th February 1897, and addressed to Rev. J. Gower Lewis, D.D., Chairman of the Swansea Board of Guardians, applying for permission for two sisters of St. Joseph's Convent to visit the Roman Catholic children in the cottage home (workhouse); whether he is aware that Mr. Philip Jenkins, a member of the Board, stated, in reply to the letter of application, that the Roman Catholic nuns were members of a, secret society; and that Mr. David Jenkins, another member of the Board, moved the following resolution, which is recorded on the minutes of the Board, "That the letter be allowed to lay on the Table for an indefinite period, say, until Roman Catholic priests get married;" whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to hold an Inquiry into the treatment of the

  621
  Roman Catholic priest who visits and the Catholic children who are inmates of the cottage home (workhouse): and whether, in view of the language used by members of this Board, some reparation will he made, to the Roman Catholics concerned, and also that this insulting resolution be expunged from the records of the Board?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have not myself any information as to the facts beyond the statements in the (Question. If the Guardians passed such a resolution as that stated, it is very much to be regretted. I have, however, no authority to direct that any entry in the minutes of the Guardians should be expunged. Neither are the Board empowered to require that reparation should be made for the observation of individual Guardians in the course of discussion of a question at the meeting of the Guardians. If I am furnished with a statement of the facts on which complaint is made as to the treatment of the Roman Catholic priest who visits the School, or of the children who are inmates of the School, the matter will receive my attention.
  MR. FLAVIN: I should be very happy to furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the particulars, with a view that he might cause an Inquiry to be made.

  TRANSVAAL.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the recent disturbances at Krugersdorp, and especially as to the insults addressed to the British Uitlanders by Officers of the Transvaal Government and by other Boers whether telegrams containing information and complaints from the injured Uitlanders have been stopped by the Boer Government; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to see that the Uitlanders, who are already deprived of the right of public meeting and of their independent Press, are not prevented also from using the telegraph?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): On March 30 the British Agent at Pretoria telegraphed to the High Commissioner:—
  "Regret to have to report a most painful incident which occurred at race meeting at Krugersdorp on March 27, and which has been
  622
  brought to my notice officially by witnesses who were present, when a police officer of South African Republic, and wearing uniform of that Republic, permitted himself publicly to make, use of language which I must decline to repeat, in connection with the name of Her Majesty the Queen. I have, to-day addressed Note to Government of South African Republic representing occurrence. In my Note I stated that I feel sure His Honour the President will regret incident as deeply as I do, and that I place matter unreservedly in his hands, feeling confident that he will deal with it in a manner that will be satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, and will restore mutual good feeling between His Honour's citizens and subjects of Her Majesty. I shall inform you of reply of Government."
  On the 1st inst. I received the following additional message from Lord Rosmead:—
  "British Agent at Pretoria reports Government of South African Republic have provisionally suspended police officer referred to, and promised that matter shall be proceeded with in such manner as circumstances appear to require."
  And yesterday I received the following further telegram from Lord Rosmead:—
  "British Agent at Pretoria reports President of South African Republic has personally expressed regret at incident, and said that the matter was being investigated."
  I have no information as to telegrams being stopped by the Government of the South African Republic.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the assaults which are reported to have been committed on British subjects, some of whom are said to have been considerably injured, on the same occasion?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if Sir A. Milner will have instructions to visit Pretoria and confer with President Kruger on the matters at issue between this country and the South African Republic.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be premature for me to make any statement as to whether or when such a conference is probable.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1894.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, after a statement made by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, as to his intentions, and, as he thought, the intentions of Parliament, the Local Government Board intend to continue to act upon, the principle laid down by them in reference to applications from town councils, urban district councils, sanitary authorities, and representative bodies, to make orders conferring on them powers in relation to various matters mentioned in Section 33 of the Local Government Act 1894, namely, that the powers should not be conferred indiscriminately, and it has been our practice to ask for the reasons why such power is deemed desirable?
  MR. CHAPLIN: There has been no indisposition on the part of the Local Government Board to confer on the various bodies referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the powers mentioned in Section 33 of the Local Government Act 1894. But, inasmuch as the responsibility for conferring these powers was imposed by Parliament on the Local Government Board, it has hitherto been held that the Department should exercise some discretion in the matter, and not confer them indiscriminately as a matter of course. The number of cases that have been dealt with is very large. For instance, the power of appointing overseers has been given in 894 cases, and the power of appointing and revoking the appointment of assistant overseers in 750. The applications not disposed of are few, and with regard to these, after the explanation of the intentions of the Government, who were responsible for the Act which has been offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, I shall be disposed to act generally on the views he then expressed in all cases in which it can properly be done consistently with the discretionary power vested in the Board by Parliament.

  NIGER CAMPAIGN.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to accord any decoration or other recognition to the troops, both European and Native, for the good service rendered in the recent operations
  624
  carried on under the orders of the Royal Niger Company?
  MR. BRODRICK: This Question will be considered when the official reports on the operations are received.

  ALLOTMENTS (DEVON).
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state why the application of the Devon County Council for compulsory powers to acquire land for allotments at Wreyland, in the parish of Bovey Tracey, has been refused?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The order of the County Council provided for the compulsory hiring of a particular field about two acres one rood in extent, for allotment purposes. The number of persons applying for allotments was originally six, but two had since left the parish, and one had intimated that he no longer required an allotment. A public inquiry was held in the district by one of the Board's Inspectors, and the evidence of those interested in the question was taken. It appeared to the Board as the result of this inquiry that it had not been shown that the Parish Council were unable to acquire suitable land by agreement. For instance, it was stated at the inquiry by the lessee of the farm comprising the field proposed to be taken, which was alleged to be specially valuable, that no application had been made to him in respect of any land other than that field. He further stated that he was willing to let other land of the same area and situated at a convenient distance. The owner of the land also stated that the particular field was the only land in respect of which application was made to him. For these and other reasons the Local Government Board arrived at the conclusion that the order should not be confirmed by them.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: Did the inspector visit the field offered in lieu of that selected by the applicants?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, Sir, he did; and when the land was selected by the Committee instructed for the purpose it was not visited by them.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates,

  LONDON WATER SUPPLY (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with regard to that portion of the instructions to the Royal Commission on the London Water Companies which instructs them to inquire and Report whether the financial considerations of the question render it desirable that the undertakings of the water companies should be acquired by a public authority or authorities, will he state on what basis of purchase the Commissioners will be able to form an estimate of a fair price, whether it will be on the basis of proceedings under the Lands Clauses Act, under the so-called "Plunket" Clause, or under some other form of arbitration?
  MR. CHAPLIN: It appears to me that it will be for the Commissioners to form such estimates as they may consider necessary, and for that purpose to adopt such method or methods as they may deem desirable. They can, if they think fit, form alternative estimates on different bases, but this is n question for them to decide.

  IMMIGRANTS' INFORMATION OFFICE.
  MR. T. F. HOGAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it comes within the recognised duty of the Emigrants' Information Office to make inquiry into the credentials of agricultural settlements that are extensively advertised in the British Isles as being under the control and management of Colonial Governments; whether he is aware that the irrigation Colonies at Mildura, in Victoria, and Renmark, in South Australia, now in liquidation, were so advertised in Great Britain and Ireland for years; that a large number of persons were induced to emigrate on the strength of the alleged Governmental guarantee; that many of them are now ruined through the failure of the promoters to fulfil their promises and obligations; and that it transpired, in the course of evidence before the Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, that these settlements were in no sense regulated by Government, as advertised all over Great Britain and Ireland, but were entirely in the nature of private speculation; and
  626
  whether any effectual steps can be taken to put a stop to such fraudulent practices?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It would not be possible for the Emigrants' Information Office to inquire, in the absence of any special complaints, into all the various settlements and enterprises advertised to attract intending emigrants. All that can be done, as a rule, is to issue warnings, when necessary, and to answer as far as possible specific inquiries. The Secretary of State is not in a position to express an opinion as to the special cases referred to by the hon. Member.

  PRINCE OF WALES'S HOSPITAL FUND.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON (): I beg to ask the Secretary, to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether with the advice and assistance of the Controller of Stamps at Somerset House, Messrs. Thomas de la Rue and Co., the manufacturers of stamps for the Government, are now preparing stamps for issue to the public in. furtherance of the objects of the Prince of Wales's Hospital Fund by way of memento of the commemoration of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee; and (2) whether there is any truth in the statement that the Post Office authorities declined to lend any assistance in the distribution and sale of these stamps, although the Council of the fund offered to pay any expenses that might fall upon the Department for the rendering of that service; and, if so, what are the reasons for such action on the part of the Post Office authorites, seeing that the object is a national one directly connected with the commemoration of the 60 years' reign of the Sovereign?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has no knowledge of the facts stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question. The Postmaster General did decline—though with great regret—to undertake the sale of stamps for the benefit of the hospital fund, on the ground that if the Department once embarked on such an undertaking it could hardly refuse to extend it hereafter to other subscriptions of Imperial or national importance, and the Post Office would consequently commit itself to a new kind of business of almost indefinite amount, totally independent of that for

  627
  which the Post Office exists, and which, would impose a very serious strain on the heavily-burdened staff.

  POST OFFICE GUIDE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has observed that on page 2 of the cover of the Post Office quarterly Guide, just issued for April 1897, no notice is taken of the important alterations in the postal regulations which came into operation on 1st February, although it professes to give a list of the principal changes and alterations that have taken place since January and what officer in the Department is responsible for the editing and issuing of the Guide?
  MR. HANBURY: The omission to call attention on page 2 of the cover of the Post Office quarterly Guide for April to the alterations in Money Order Hates, to which it is presumed the hon. Member refers, was, it is regretted, the result of an oversight. The Secretary to the Post Office is responsible to the Postmaster General for the whole administration of the Post Office.

  LOCAL LOANS FUND (IRELAND).
  MR. RICHARD M. DANE (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the decision on appeal, at the recent assizes for the County Donegal, of Mr. Justice Holmes, in the case of Travers v. Doherty, affirming the decision of Judge Webb to the effect that the Local Loan Fund Boards cannot legally recover on foot of renewal bills of exchange; and (2) whether having regard to the recent Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the administration of the Loan Fund Acts in Ireland, and the memorial presented to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant by depositors in the loan funds, it is the intention of the Irish Government to take any steps, and if so what steps, to safeguard the interests of the many depositors whoso money has been illegally advanced to borrowers?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The fact is, I am informed, as stated in the first paragraph. With
  628
  regard to the concluding inquiry in the second paragraph, the Irish Government, as has already been pointed out, cannot accept any responsibility for losses incurred by depositors in the funds of these loan societies, or for the transactions of the officers of these bodies. I may state, however, that the whole question of the management of the loan societies is at present engaging the careful attention of the Loan Fund Board, and that the Government are also considering the question of the necessity of further legislation with a view to strengthen the administration and supervision of the Central Board.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (): Do the Government accept any responsibility (seeing that this Department is carried on by the Government and the Castle inspectors) for the depositors' money?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken in that view.

  WATERFORD, DUNGARVAN AND LISMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he is aware that the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway was opened for traffic in 1878, the ratepayers of the city and county of Waterford being bound to contribute £14,000 per annum for 40 years to enable the share capital of £280,000 to be raised, the Treasury advancing £93,000 on mortgage loan, and that the ratepayers have already contributed £300,000 in payment of dividends, and still have a liability of £250,000 to face; will he explain why the Treasury, though having received £22,000 in part payment of interest, now propose to adopt the extreme course of taking possession of the line, thus taking the management out of the hands of the directors, who, from their local knowledge and experience, are the best judges of how the line should be worked in the interests of the ratepayers; (2) is he aware that in 1888 the Board of Works sent down Mr. Cotton, general manager of the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway, to make a thorough examination of the line, and that his report practically approved of the working of the line as carried out by the directors; and that in February 1896

  629
  the Board of Works sent down their engineer, Mr. Haire, who made an exhaustive examination, and why, on the Company's applying for a copy of his report, they were refused it, the Board of Works stating that it was all the less necessary to send it as the engineer could not suggest any improvement; and (3) whether the Government will lay these reports of Mr. Cotton and Mr. Haire upon the Table for the information of the House, and meanwhile will undertake to restrain action on the part of the Board of Works until the Estimates for the Board of Works come before the House, in order that opportunity may be given for Debate, and the views of the ratepayers taken whose interests are so very much larger than the Treasury?
  MR. HANBURY: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph, except that the local contribution is for 35 and not for 40 years. The Treasury have as yet come to no final decision as implied in the second paragraph. I cannot undertake to lay on the Table confidential reports to a Government Department, nor to state the effect of portions of such reports, and I can give no pledge as to what action the Treasury may take before the Vote for the Board of Works is discussed.
  COLONEL WARING ()asked when the Board of Works would inform the directors of the intention to take possession of the line, and why they had adopted a course in regard to this railway different from that adopted to other lines?
  MR. HANBURY: Will the hon. Member put that Question on the Paper?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: In view of the importance of the facts, and that the Board of Works are threatening to take possession of the line, may I ask whether the Government will agree to leave the matter in suspense, at any rate during the Recess, and until the Estimates come up, so that the matter may be discussed before the step is taken?
  MR. HANBURY: I am afraid I cannot give such a pledge at once. But I will see what can be done in the matter.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me communicate with him again on the matter, as this is a very serious step?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, I shall be glad to receive any representations from the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (): Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the former instances in which the Board of Works have foreclosed?
  MR. HANBURY: I cannot answer that Question.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the permanent way of this line is in very excellent order—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That Question does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he has been consulted by the Irish Board of Works with regard to their correspondence with the Waterford and Lismore Railway, in which they threaten to foreclose their mortgage and sell the line for non-payment of interest; (2) is he aware that the late Duke of Devonshire advanced to this Company, practically without security and for public benefit, a sum nearly equal to the Government loan, in addition to making the connection with Fermoy at his own expense (now worked by the Waterford and Lismore Company); and (3) whether the Treasury, before sanctioning either a sale or foreclosure, will ascertain the views of the Duke of Devonshire as to the effect of such a step on the public interest and on the guaranteeing ratepayers of Waterford, who are now assessed £14,000 a year to maintain this railway?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first and second paragraphs is, Yes. The step suggested in the third paragraph has already been taken, and we are expecting a reply front the Duke of Devonshire within the next day or two.

  ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state when the Carloway Road, Island of Lewis, which has been in course of construction for several years, will be completed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The construction of the Carloway Road was stopped, as the hon. Member is aware, on account of the bankruptcy of the contractor and the arbitration consequent thereon, which is now concluded. The

  631
  road cannot be completed as contemplated, because its original cost was under-estimated by the engineer appointed by the County Council. After payment of the costs of arbitration out of the grant of £15,000, the sum of £2,455 remaining will be expended so as to make the road as useful as possible for the purposes for which it was originally intended.

  ICELAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the possibility of Iceland falling into the hands of a great unfriendly Power, and the fact that the island possesses good harbours open all the year round, he will consider the advisability of protecting the north-west coast of Scotland from possible attack?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Joint Naval and Military Committee do not consider Iceland as a source of danger—[laughter]— and have not recommended works on the north-west coast of Scotland. [Laughter and cheers.]

  NECESSITOUS BOARD SCHOOLS BILL.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND (): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can lay upon the Table of the House, before the Second Reading of the Necessitous Board Schools Bill, a statement showing the probable effect of the Bill upon the various School Board districts which will receive aid under the Bill, according to the latest returns available in the Education Department?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): I shall be happy to give a return which will show approximately the effect of the Bill. It will be ready for distribution in the course of next week. The return can, however, only be a rough statement. The materials for it in the hands of the Department are the financial statements of the School Boards for the year ended 29th September 1895 (the latest complete returns available), and those returns do not give with accuracy the data required for the purposes of the Bill.

  ASIA MINOR AND NORTHERN SYRIA.
  MR. JAMES BRYCE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the continued unrest and alarm which prevail among the Christian population in. Eastern Asia Minor and Northern Syria, and to the danger of fresh massacres there similar to that recently perpetrated at Tokat; what steps are being taken to guard against the risk of such massacres; and whether Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has been instructed to point out the desirability of recalling Shakir Pasha, whose character and career have made him, an object of dread to the Eastern Christians?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has reported apprehensions of disturbance at Bitlis, where some Mussulmans were, arrested who were supposed to be planning a massacre. At Behesni, near Birejik (Kharput Province), where there had been an attempt at a massacre a fortnight ago, which was suppressed. At Talori, where the Kurds were menacing the villages, and the Mutessarif at Moush had sent for troops. Her Majesty's ship Sybille is cruising along the coast from Mersyna to Alexandretta, and has on board Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Adana, who is visiting Payas and other districts. Constant representations are being made by the Ambassadors, and orders of the strictest kind have been sent by the Turkish Government to their officers throughout the Provinces. As the guilty officials at Tokat have been dismissed, and the Commandant of the troops has been arrested in consequence of the massacre that occurred there, there is reason to hope that these orders will be obeyed elsewhere. I do not know if the Shakir Pasha mentioned in the Question is the officer at the head of the Reforms Commission. The description given in the concluding paragraph does not appear to be applicable, to him.
  MR. BRYCE: It is applicable at least in this sense, that Shakir Pasha, rightly or wrongly, is in fact feared by the Christians.
  MR. CURZON: I am bound to say that that does not tally with what we have heard of him. He has always been

  633
  represented as one of the must distinguished and fair-minded of the Turkish officials.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS (): May I ask whether dismissal is the only punishment which has been inflicted on those whom the right hon. Gentleman has called "the guilty officials"?
  MR. CURZON: The investigation which, as I told the House a short time ago, has been authorised by the Turkish Government, has not yet taken place. Further punishment must depend upon the result of the investigation.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is it not the fact that these officials were immediately put under arrest, and are about to be tried by a Special Commission?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; if I am right in my recollection they were dismissed from their posts and subsequently put under arrest.
  MR. BRYCE: Is it not the fact that Shakir Pasha was the person who suggested the establishment of the Kurdish "Hamidieh" irregulars, who have been the cause of such frightful evils?
  MR. CURZON: I am not aware of it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): May I ask whether the Foreign Office have any evidence at all to justify the recall of Shakir Pasha?
  MR. CURZON: As far as I know we have none.

  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAXD).
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to state the amount paid to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account under the Local Taxation (Ireland) Estate Duty Act of 1896; and to what purpose the Government intend that the money shall be devoted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The sum of £74,870 13s. 2d. has been paid to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account under the Act of last year. The Irish Government are not yet in a position to state to what purpose this money will be allocated.

  LOCAL OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  MR. T. R. LEUTY (): I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he
  634
  has taken any steps to ascertain the feeling of the local authorities of England and Wales as to the provisions of the Local Officers' Superannuation Bill; and if he has, will he inform the House with what result?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board have not taken any steps to ascertain the views of the local authorities in England and Wales as to the provisions of the Bill mentioned. There are many thousands of such authorities with whom it would have been necessary to communicate for that purpose, and the Board have not seen any reason for adopting the unusual course of asking the authorities for their views as to the Measure.

  SWAZILAND.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to recent disturbances in Swaziland: and whether Her Majesty's Government have any special representative in Swaziland?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information of recent disturbances in Swaziland. If any serious disturbance had taken place the British Consul in Swaziland would no doubt have reported it to the High Commissioner?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I will, if the hon. Gentleman desires it; but it is really unnecessary to make these inquiries about unfounded rumours. ["Hear, hear!"]

  THIRD CLASS RAILWAY TICKETS (IRELAND).
  MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state if through third class tickets are to be issued to the south of Ireland from Euston, under the new accelerated mail service, continuing the arrangement of the London and North Western Railway to Holyhead?
  MR. HANBURY: It is not in contemplation, so far as the Postmaster General is aware, to issue through third class tickets to the South of Ireland from

  635
  Euston under the accelerated mail service. The London and North Western Railway Company are understood to be making preparations for the conveyance of third-class passengers by the mail trains between London and Holyhead, but there is no third-class accommodation provided on board the Holyhead and Kingstown packets. As regards the service from Dublin to the South of Ireland, the Postmaster General would welcome the change if the company desired to carry third-class passengers by the mail trains, provided punctuality in the working were maintained.

  PARISH MEETING (CAREW, PEMBROKESHIRE).
  MR. W. REES-DAVIES (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the action of the Chairman of the Parish Council of Carew, Pembrokeshire, relative to the recent annual parish meeting for the election of councillors; whether he is aware that the Parish Council met on the 6th ult., and, in accordance with Section 45 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1894, fixed Saturday evening the 20th ult. for the parish meeting as being the most convenient date for the electors to attend; and that the Chairman of the Parish Council, who was absent from the meeting referred to, subsequently issued notices convening the parish meeting for Thursday the 18th ult., a day unsuitable to the electors; whether the Chairman had any power to override the action of the Council, and whether the notices were consequently illegal; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent a recurrence of such action in future?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Parish Council were not empowered to fix the day on which the election of Parish Councillors should take place. The Regulations as to these elections provided that the parish meeting for the election of councillors should be held on the 18th March, or on such of the three preceding days as for special reasons might be fixed by the County Councils. No other day, as I understand, was fixed by the County Council, and I do not see that the Chairman acted illegally in the matter.

  DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS.
  MR. JAMES DALY (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps he intends to take to prevent the deportation of paupers from England and Wales to Ireland?
  MR. CHAPLIN: In January of last year the Local Government Board received a communication from the Local Government Board for Ireland, suggesting that a Departmental Committee should be appointed to consider the question of the existing law as regards the removal of poor persons from England and Scotland to Ireland. The Board replied that they would be prepared to nominate a member of the proposed Committee to represent England, but they have not received any further communication on the subject.

  MULLINGAR PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been directed to the complaint, publicly made by the Roman Catholic Administrator of Mullingar, at the meeting of the Labourers' Houses Committee, of the insulting language used on the Bench in the Petty Sessions Court of Mullingar by the resident magistrate, Major O'Brien, towards the priesthood of the town; and (2) whether it is the intention of the authorities to transfer this official to some other locality?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: My right hon. Friend bus communicated on the subject of this Question with Major O'Brien, who is quite unconscious of having used at any time language to which the description in the first paragraph could apply. The hon. Member apparently has in view a report which appeared in a local newspaper of a case heard before Major O'Brien on the 13th March, when a man named Gorry was prosecuted by the police for assaulting his wife, and Major O'Brien is alleged to have said to defendant either, "Don't mind what Father O'Reilly says at all," or. "Don't mind what Father O'Reilly said, as it is not evidence." Both of these remarks had reference to the legal objection to hearsay evidence, and could not be construed as disrespectful towards a

  637
  clergyman or any other person concerned. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the case of Corporal Francis Lynn, who served the British South Africa Company in the Matabele Mounted Police, entered the Transvaal under command of Dr. Jameson, was severely wounded in the subsequent engagement, and was removed to Durban, where after much suffering he died of his wounds; whether he is aware that the British South Africa Company have up till now refused all compensation to the father of the deceased in respect of the death of their servant caused as above stated, and have even declined to comply with the father's request that his son's effects should be sent home, but have allowed the same to be sold in Buluwayo; and whether the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to call the attention of the Company to the case, with the view of securing that just compensation shall be awarded in the circumstances?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Corporal Lynn's death does not appear to have been directly due to his wound, but to an attack of dysentery brought on by a combination of unfavourable conditions. The British South Africa Company deny all responsibility for Dr. Jameson's incursion and for its results to those who took part in it. I understand that Corporal Lynn's soiled effects were sold by auction at Salisbury, but that some letters and souvenirs were retained and sent to his father.

  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any steps have been taken by the Government to inquire into and remedy the grievances complained of by the higher officers in the British Museum; and whether, if a Committee of Inquiry has been appointed, he will lay upon the Table a, statement of their names and of the terms of reference?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Departmental Committee to which my hon. Friend referred has not yet met, but will do so after the Easter holidays. The names of the gentlemen composing it are Sir E. Hamilton, Sir A. Godley, and Mr. G. H. Murray. With regard to the terms of reference the Committee has been appointed to inquire into the organisation, pay, and duties of the Museum staff, including the system under which the staff is recruited and the reasons for or against competitive examination, either limited or otherwise the classification, scale of salary, and hours of attendance required to insure the efficient and proper discharge of the duties of the establishment; and whether it is practicable to assign clerical and routine work wholly or in part to clerks of the second division; and generally, any matters connected with the Museum establishment in regard to which they may be of opinion that alteration of existing regulations is desirable.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND).
  MR. W. THORBURN (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give an assurance that the Bill dealing with Private Bill Procedure in Scotland will be introduced during the present Session; and, if so, when he hopes to be able to introduce it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I can give no pledge when it can be introduced, but the Scotch Office have a Bill prepared on the subject.

  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present Session for the acquisition of Land for the Extension of the Patent Office, and for purposes connected therewith (Queen's recommendation signified), upon Thursday.—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  RESTRAINT OF EVICTIONS (LONDON) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 28th April.
  REGULAR AND ELDERS' WIDOWS FUND [CONTRIBUTION].
  Committee to consider of authorising the Secretary of State in Council of India to contribute out of the Revenues of India such sums as may be required to meet certain liabilities under any Act of the present Session to make provision for the transfer of the assets, liabilities, and management of the Regular Widows' Fund and of the Elder Widows' Fund to the Secretary of State in. Council of India (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Thursday.—(Lord George Hamilton.)
  EAST INDIA COMPANY'S OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  Committee to consider of authorising the Charge on the Revenues of India of any addition to the Superannuation or Retiring Allowances, which may become payable under any Act of the present Session, to remove doubts as to the power of the Secretary of State in Council of India to grant Superannuation and Compensation Allowances in certain cases to Officers on his Establishment (Queen's Recommendation signified).—(Lord George Hamilton.)

  CRETE (MINISTERIAL POLICY).
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (): I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will assign a day for the discussion of the Address to the Crown of which I have given notice? [Ministerial cries of No!"]—[The Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman was as follows: Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT,— Greece and Crete (Employment of British Forces),—That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that the Forces of the Crown may not be employed against the Kingdom of Greece or the people of Crete.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As there is not a word in the
  640
  Motion of the right hon. Gentleman which explicitly expresses condemnation of anything we have done, are doing, or have announced our intention of doing or our preparedness to do, I am forced to the conclusion that the object of the right hon. Gentleman is not to put a direct issue but to evade one. [Ministerial cheers.] In these circumstances I do not think it would be in the interests of the conduct of business in the House that I should grant a day. [Ministerial cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT, who was received with Opposition cheers: The right hon. Gentleman appears entirely to have misconceived the object and the intention of that Motion. I may be permitted to explain the purport of it. The right hon. Gentleman asked me yesterday whether the Motion was a Vote of Censure on the Government. I should not say that it was a Vote of Censure on the Government, because a Vote of Censure can only be addressed to something that has actually been done; but there may be a want of confidence if we anticipate what is likely to be done, and what the Government have expressed their intention of doing. I will state what the Motion is. The Executive Government, of course, are primarily responsible for the employment of the forces of the Crown. This Motion is addressed to the Crown, praying that these forces shall not be employed against the Greek Kingdom or the Cretan people. That Motion, if it was carried, would be a restraint on the action of the Government if they propose so to employ them. Now, the Opposition have a right, and it is their duty, to put on record their view of the present situation. The right hon. Gentleman the other day invited us to raise some definite issue. We propose to raise such an issue; and it is this. So far as the information given us as yet by the Government goes, we hold that there is no justification for the employment of the forces of the Crown against the Greek Kingdom or the Cretan people. We challenge the policy of the Government on that point. [Opposition cheers.] It is necessary to do so now immediately before the Recess, because when Parliament met again we might find the country embarked in hostilities with the Greek Kingdom without any declaration by the Government to Parliament as to the object of such a policy. [Opposition

  641
  cheers.] From that point of view this is, of course, a Motion of want of confidence in the Government. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the terms of his Motion are studiously ambiguous. [Ministerial cheers.] We have stated in the most explicit terms, we have by our action shown, that we are prepared to use the forces of the Crown to resist certain action of the insurgents in Crete. Is that or is that not using the forces of the Crown against the Cretan people? We have announced that we are prepared to blockade Greece, as the right hon. Gentleman did on a previous occasion. [Ministerial cheers.] Is that using the forces of the Crown against the Greek Kingdom? The right hon. Gentleman has only to modify his Resolutions so as to condemn one of these two propositions, the first of which deals with what we are actually doing in Crete, and the other of which deals with the announcement of our intention to do something in certain contingencies, and a direct issue will be raised between the two sides of the House. Unless he is prepared to make that modification in his Resolution, it does not seem to me that any other course is open to us except the one I have adopted. [Ministerial cheers.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid it might be for the convenience of the House to state that on Friday next the English Votes in Class I. and the English Votes in Class III. would be taken.
  In answer to Mr. DILLON,
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he did not imagine that there was any ground for taking the Report of the Resolution as to necessitous Board Schools before Twelve o'clock, because the midnight rule did not apply to it.

  COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 27th April.
  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Tuesday 4th May.
MOTIONS.
  TRAWLERS' LICENSING.
  Bill to establish the Licensing and Registration of Trawlers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hedderwick, Mr. Haldane, Sir William Wedderburn, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Crombie; presented, and Head the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Tuesday, 4th May, and to be printed.—[Bill 191.]
  WINE AND BEERHOUSE ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Licensing of Beerhouses and Places for the Sale of Cider and Wine by Retail in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Lewis. Mr. Courtney, Sir Cameron Gull, and Mr. Cameron Corbett; presented and Read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 192.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FOOD SUPPLIES (UNITED) KINGDOM).
  MR. HENRY SETON-KARR ()rose to call attention to the wholly inadequate production of food supplies within the area of the United Kingdom in relation to its large and increasing population, and to move:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the dependence of the United Kingdom on foreign imports for the necessaries of life, and the consequences that might arise therefrom in the event of war, demands the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government."
  He stated that since he had placed his Motion on the Paper numerous letters had been received by him from all parts of the country supporting it, and urging the necessity for its discussion in the House of Commons. The terms of his Motion had also been unanimously endorsed by a conference of delegates at Ross on March 19th, convened by the Midland Union of Conservative Associations, by whom it was treated as a non-Party Question. The Motion was also

  643
  adopted in a similar manner by a large conference of over 400 delegates of the Lancashire and Cheshire Conservative Working Men's Federation held at Bolton on Saturday, and the substance of it had been confirmed by the executive committee of the National Agricultural Union. It was now an established fact that the United Kingdom was largely dependent on foreign imports for the necessaries of life. We imported most of our breadstuffs, while, in addition, butter, eggs, cheese, meat, fruit, sugar, vegetables, milk, lard, and oats and barley were being imported in large and increasing quantities every year. For the sake of simplicity he would deal only with breadstuffs, which the people of this country must have in regular quantities, and for which they could not be expected to pay fluctuating and enhanced prices. The national annual consumption of wheat and flour amounted to over 28,000,000 quarters, a steadily increasing quantity; 19,000,000 quarters, also an increasing quantity, were imported from foreign and possibly hostile countries, and from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 were imported from India, Australasia, and Canada. This was now a decreasing quantity. The balance of between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 quarters we produced at home, not including wheat used for seed and farm purposes. Five out of every six of the people in the kingdom were fed on imported breadstuffs, and of these five, four, or two-thirds of the population, were fed on foreign imports, and the number would grow larger and larger every year. It was difficult to ascertain what were the reserves of breadstuffs in the country, but he doubted whether they ever exceeded three months' supply, and they often sank below one mouth's supply. On January 1 this year the amount of maize, wheat and flour in the country was only 2,133,000 quarters, or less than three weeks' supply. In the event of a declaration of war a monopoly would be created, the breadstuffs being in private hands. Our present dependence on foreign food supplies was of modern growth, and unprecedented in the history of the world. All the other Great Powers were practically self-supporting. France was self-supporting. In the Franco-Prussian War France was never in danger of starvation, except in beleaguered
  644
  towns, and then only from want of commissariat organisation and foresight. Russia and the United States were not only self-supporting, but were also two of the largest grain exporting countries in the world. At their good pleasure they fed more than four-sevenths of our population. The countries forming the Triple Alliance produced three-fourths of their supply in time of peace, and in war time could support themselves if necessary. During the ten years from 1883 to 1893, Germany, notwithstanding her great increase in industrial prosperity, had increased her wheat area by 300,000 acres. England alone, with a world-wide empire and with the largest industrial population relatively to her area that had ever been known, lived from hand to mouth and imported five-sixths of her food supply. Two-thirds of it came from countries over whose internal policy England had no control, and against whose commercial and fiscal policy she had deprived herself of all means of retaliation. In 1812, when we were fighting France and America, and when the population was half what it was now, we imported no wheat or flour; we were self-supporting. Yet it was a remarkable fact that the price of the quartern loaf rose to 1s. 8d., and there were bread riots in many of our large towns. That was significant as showing the sensitiveness of the price of bread. In 1840 the population of Great Britain was 17½ millions, and of that population 16½ millions were fed on home-grown wheat. Ireland was self-supporting. In 1843 Cobden estimated that of the annual national consumption of 21,000,000 quarters we only imported one million. When Cobden and his disciples agitated for the repeal of the Corn Laws 50 years ago they did not anticipate the present state of affairs. He would read one or two extracts from Cobden's speeches. The following was from a speech of his delivered after the American war, and in connection with the cotton famine:—
  "I doubt the wisdom, I certainly doubt the prudence, of a great body of industrial people allowing themselves so continually to live in dependence upon foreign Powers for the supply of food and raw material, knowing that a system of warfare exists by which, at any moment without notice—without any help on their part or means of prevention—they are liable to have

  645
  the raw material or the food withdrawn from them—cut off, without any power to resist or hinder it."
  Then, in 1844, Cobden said:—
  "These philosophical men, so profoundly ignorant of what is immediately around them, will tell us that Free Trade will throw their land out of cultivation. I predict with Lord Ducie and others that, so far from throwing land out of use, Free Trade in corn is the very way to increase the production at home, and stimulate the cultivation of the poorer soils by compelling the application of more capital and labour to them. We do not—"
  (in consequence of Free Trade in corn)
  "anticipate having one quarter less corn from the soil of this country."
  He thought that the House would agree that, whatever else Cobden was, he was a very poor prophet. He was of opinion that if Cobden had lived to the present day he would, in view of the total failure of his prophecies, have himself advocated the reimposition of the corn duties. Since 1845 our home production of wheat had steadily de creased, while the population and imports had as steadily increased. The wheat area of this country 40 years ago was 4,199,812 acres, but in 1896 it was only 1,734,118 acres, and now we had 14,000,000 more people to feed. Since 1853 we had had no war to test the situation, and in the meantime other nations had largely increased the number of their battleships and fast cruisers, or commerce destroyers. It should be borne in mind that the Crimean war was in no sense a naval war, and that our commerce was never threatened. Yet the mere fact that we were at war sent wheat up from 55s. to 75s. per quarter, and at that lime the quartern loaf in London cost 1s. to 1s. 4d. He thought the conclusion they were bound to arrive at was, that there was absolutely nothing in history to justify the belief that any country—particularly an island Empire like our own-could afford to depend so largely on foreign imports for its food. In the words of Lord Carnavon—
  "Great Britain, with its imports of raw materials and foods interfered with, would be in danger of becoming, instead of a great Empire, a pauperised, discontented, over-populated island in the North Sea."
  646
  Dealing with the risks involved in the event of war, he said everyone who read the daily papers must admit that the possibility of our being involved in a European war was not an impossible contingency. It was a national risk against which we were bound to insure. The question was, were we properly insured? Was our great industrial population properly and reasonably insured against famine prices for food, particularly bread, in the event of such a calamity as a European war? He submitted that we were not. ["Hear, hear!"] They would probably be told that the fleet was supreme at sea, and that our shores could not be invaded; that food supplies could always be landed on the indented shores of these islands, war or no war; that foreign countries would never deprive themselves of the benefit of our markets; that it was an economic necessity for us to buy food in the cheapest markets: that the present position was inevitable; and that nothing must be done to raise the price of bread in the slightest degree. He desired shortly to examine these statements. For the purposes of his argument he would admit our fleet was supreme at sea against any possible combination, though he would point out, in passing, that this could only be certainly established by a practical test. But he admitted that we had, or were determined to have, an invincible Navy, and that our shores were safe from blockade. We could not, however, compel foreign, and possibly hostile, countries to supply us with food, however strong our Navy. Our reserve of wheat was at present completely out of our control. We got one-fifth of our yearly supply from Russia, two-fifths from the United States and the Argentine. Russia, for her own needs, prohibited the export of wheat in 1891. Let them take an extreme case. Suppose Russia again prohibited the export of wheat in order to put us in a difficulty, and at the same time suppose the crops in the United States failed. What remedy had we got. Absolutely none. If this was done in early summer we should be deprived of two-fifths of our wheat supply for 15 mouths. We could not grow wheat by Act of Parliament, and nowhere else in the world could we get at short notice 18,000,000 quarters of wheat. Again, assuming

  647
  foreign countries did not prohibit exports, the question of landing food supplies on our shores became a question of commercial risk in time of war. One or two hostile cruisers—even if our fleet was invincible—turned loose in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean would raise the rates of Marine Insurance and of seamen's wages, which would mean a large rise in the price to the consumer. That was an element which high authorities seemed altogether to ignore. During the American Civil War the rates of insurance in blockade runners (no ordinary steamers ran) rose 900 per cent.; seamen's wages rose 300 per cent.; and salt bought for 30s. per ton was sold for £340 per ton, after having run the blockade. No doubt that was an extreme case, but we were in a far more vulnerable position than the Southern States were at that time, because our necessities were greater and we imported large quantities of food. We could not be blockaded as the Southern Ports were. But the Alabama drove the American flag off the seas, and some said American trade had never recovered from the loss that was then inflicted. One or two modern Alabamas would create a sense of insecurity and raise insurance rates and the price of bread by leaps and bounds. Let the House consider the ocean routes by which our grain ships came. Russian wheat was brought chiefly from Odessa and through the Dardanelles, a distance of 4,000 miles. American and Argentine wheat came across the Atlantic and from the Pacific; and Australian and Indian came round the Cape, distances of from 3,000 to 12,000 miles. However strong our Navy, how could we hope to keep down insurance rates under these circumstances—in a war with some naval Power that possessed cruisers capable of steaming 30 knots or more? With regard to the question of contraband of war, when they remembered that at the present moment six of the great civilised Powers of the world were blockading Crete and preventing provisions being landed, they must come to the conclusion that it was a recognised method of civilised warfare to prevent the necessaries of life getting into the possession of an enemy even if carried in neutral
  648
  bottoms. He declined to admit that the present position was inevitable, or that we were bound to import our food from the cheapest markets. We did not apply any economic argument of that kind to our Navy. Whatever an invincible navy cost us, we were prepared to pay. It was equally necessary to insure against famine priced goods. It was a question of national insurance within reasonable limits, and the rate, when ascertained, should be paid by the Imperial Exchequer. The cost would be felt very little by the population at large, and it would secure us against what might be a dreadful national calamity. He thought he had said enough to show that there was a strong and urgent primâ facie case for a Government inquiry into the subject, and that was all his Motion asked. It was not his business to suggest remedies, but he would put those in which he personally believed before the House, without, however, desiring in any way to commit any Member to them who might be disposed to support his Motion as it stood. The first of these was the Commercial Federation of our colonies. The Secretary to the Colonies in his speech, at the Canada Club Dinner on March 25th 1896, advocated a system founded on the principle of the German Zollverein. His remarks were made with reference to the following Resolution which had been passed at the Ottawa Conference in 1894:—
  "That this conference records its belief in the advisability of a Customs reform between Great Britain and her colonies, by which trade within the Empire may be placed upon a more favourable footing to that which is carried on with foreign countries."
  If that meant that we were to obtain our food supplies from our colonies on better terms than from foreign countries, it was a partial remedy for the state of things he had described. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that,
  "at any rate a proposition of that kind is entitled to our respectful consideration, and if we object to it we ought, I think, to propose an alternative, and we ought to say at once that all we have said, all we have done, all we have thought about Imperial unity has been thrown away, and that that idea must be abandoned as an empty dream."
  Further, in speaking of the principle of Free Trade, which was involved in his

  649
  first remarks, the right hon. Gentleman, said,
  "I have not such a pedantic admiration for it that if sufficient advantage were offered me I would not consider a deviation from the strict doctrine."
  He hoped and believed the right hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity, when the representatives of our colonies would shortly be in our great City, of advancing this idea of commercial federation further. ["Hear, hear!"] One great danger in connection with our food supply might be avoided if, instead of getting our wheat from America, Argentina, and Russia, we were to obtain it from Australasia, India, and Canada. There were at the present moment over 200,000,000 acres in Central and Western Canada waiting for the plough, and we could with preferential duties supply ourselves with all the breadstuffs that we needed across the shortest Atlantic route and the one furthest away from hostile ports. The danger of absolute dependence on foreign countries would thus be done away with. Here was surely a direction of inquiry to which the Government might usefully turn their attention. ["Hear, hear!"] The next remedy was the increase of our wheat production at home. We required a wheat reserve, and the test place to have it was in our barnyards and stackyards. ["Hear, hear!"] It was sometimes said that agriculture at home was played out, that nature was against it, and that it might as well be given up. Personally he could not subscribe to that doctrine. At the present time there were less than 2,000,000 acres of wheat land in the United Kingdom. Quadruple this area and 8,000,000 acres—one-sixth of the cultivable area of the United Kingdom—would give us practically all, or nearly all, the breadstuffs we required. The nature of the land was also admirably suited for the purpose, and the problem he had been endeavouring to place before the House would be solved. On the point of the productiveness of the land the hon. Member quoted from the evidence of Mr. W. G. Harris, from the County of Devon, who gave testimony on this question before the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and whose evidence had never been contradicted, showing that the land of the United Kingdom was, under equal economic conditions,
  650
  50s. per acre more productive than the foreign land whose produce beat it in our markets. At present the British farmer was undersold in the market because his own fiscal system was against him. He should probably be told he was talking protection. He was not afraid of the accusation, although he did not wish to commit anybody except himself. But he should appeal to the highest individual political authority whom he recognised. He meant the present Prime Minister of England. Lord Salisbury, speaking at a dinner at the Hotel Metropole, of the Associated Chambers of Commerce on March 10th last, having alluded to the Protectionist attitude of France and America, said:—
  "Do not imagine for a moment that I am going to be heterodox. I do not doubt that Free Trade is the policy for this country, which this country will continue to pursue … I refer to it for another purpose. You cannot say that you are alone right and all other nations wrong. You would, in that case, place yourself in the position of the celebrated dissentient Irish juryman, who told his brother jurymen that he had never met eleven such obstinate people in his life. Is it not possible there is no principle, and that Free Trade is good for one country, and for the resources, the temper, and the climate of one nation and not another."
  If that was true, as he believed it was, then Free Trade was a question, not of principle, but of expediency, and it became at once a proper subject of Government inquiry. Lord Salisbury on the same occasion said:—
  "I cannot conceal from myself … that we are injured by the knowledge other nations have that, under no circumstances, shall we betake ourselves to any kind of retaliation. You might as well send a party to take a fortress without guns as to enter upon this warfare with such an inability as that."
  He confessed, when he read these words he came to the conclusion—and he was very glad to think it—that this distinguished Statesman was rather halfhearted in his devotion to the principle of Free Trade. At all events, taking the quotations as he had read them, he subscribed at once to the doctrine that this was not a question of principle but only a question of expediency—a question which for certain purposes and under certain conditions might be inquired into with the object, not of imposing protective duties for the mere sake of

  651
  protection, but in order to encourage the production of breadstuff's on the land of this kingdom. The other remedy he suggested was a reserve in State granaries. One objection advanced against this proposal was that it would cost too much. He submitted that if it were absolutely necessary to have a reserve of wheat in this country, the question of cost ought not to be an insuperable objection. He contended that it would not cost too much, while, so far as the first cost was concerned, it would not be a throwing away of money, but would simply be an investment. The money would be there in wheat instead of in gold. By the adoption of the system of elevators, which was so prevalent in America, the wheat could be stored away in bulk, could be turned over in the elevator inside of 24 hours, and could be kept ventilated, clean, and in wholesome condition. Wheat at the present time, he pointed out, was stored at Liverpool, Malta, and other places. Perhaps the most serious objection to this proposed remedy was that it would be an undue interference with trade. He did not himself see how it could unduly interfere with trade if done gradually and tentatively, and if it did it would be only for a very short time. The wheat required as a reserve would go to the granaries and would not affect the ordinary now of wheat into the country nor interfere with the markets. He would illustrate his meaning by the example of a mill-dam on a river. The dam, when completed, provided a reserve of water when the river ran low, but in no way lessened or interfered with the flow of water to the sea. In the same way a national reserve of wheat would provide for a contingency, but, when complete, and, if always maintained, would not affect the ordinary flow of the wheat trade. He ventured to think he had made some kind of case in the direction of his Motion. The constituencies of this country, and particularly the industrial constituencies, held the Government they had returned to power responsible for an adequate Navy to guard our shores and preserve our markets. For the same reason they would hold the Government responsible for providing some security against the famine price of food in time of war. [Cheers.] He begged to move the Resolution.
  MR. ROBERT YERBURGH (), in seconding the Resolution so ably and exhaustively moved by his hon. Friend, desired to make clear the position of himself and his hon. Friends on two points. In the first place this was not a class question in any degree, and if in any way it could be so regarded then he would venture to say it was a class question affecting above all the great industrial classes of the country; and, in that connection, The Times, in a leading article upon the rise in the price of bread last autumn, pointed out that there were classes not prepared for even the slightest increase in the price of bread. In the second place they did not come before, the House as alarmists or panic-mongers. His hon. Friend had alluded to a number of representative bodies who had passed resolutions in the sense of the Motion before the House, but he had omitted to mention the London Chamber of Commerce, who, a few days ago, passed a similar resolution. He would mention another point which would be familiar to those who had studied this subject, and that was that the foreign Press, and notably the French and German Press, had been devoting particular attention to this feature in our defence; and writers of authority, whose names would be familiar to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir C. Dilke) had pointed out that the most effectual way of dealing with us would be by fitting out a fleet of modern Alabamas to prey upon our commerce, and interfere with our food supplies. With regard to these food supplies, he pointed out as an interesting fact, he had worked out carefully that at the beginning of the century one person out of 14 of our population was dependent on foreign supplies; in the years of the Crimean war, 1854–5, one out of every seven was so dependent, and at the present time six out of every seven of our population depended on food supplies from abroad. Last year there was a slight increase in the acreage of land under wheat and a large increase in the yield, the harvest being largely in excess of the previous year, though not of preceding years. Taking into consideration the normal increase of our population, and assigning to that increase the same amount of wheat consumption as at present, in 1906 our increased population would require two and a quarter millions

  653
  of quarters of wheat, and in 1916 a further increase of four and a-half millions of quarters; that was to say, that in 1916 our increased population would require more wheat to support them than was produced in. the year of a short harvest, the year before last. As regards importation, he had often seen it stated that the lowest level of prices had been readied, and that we may in future look for an increase in prices that will make it worth while for our farmers to grow more wheat. If those who held that view would refer to the Reports of our representatives in Russia, in Argentina, and elsewhere, they would see that those Reports told of enormous tracts of land not yet brought under the plough, and from which wheat could be produced and imported into this country in enormously increased quantities. This disposed of the expectation of an increased supply from our own farmers. What would be our position under a great war? It was perfectly obvious that the very first thing that would happen would be an increase in the price of bread, an increase which would press hardly, as The Times' article to which he had alluded, pointed out, on large classes of our population. The next point would be—of course this was mere hypothesis—an attempt on the part of foreign speculators to create a "corner" in the wheat market, and in the next place wheat would be declared contraband of war. In 1794 we ourselves declared provisions contraband of war, making no distinction between provisions destined for military or civil consumption. The proposition was disputed by the United States, and we drew up a treaty with the United States, but the special point as to the conditions under which provisions should be declared contraband was left entirely untouched; all that was laid down was that they would be so declared under certain circumstances, but, to save the difficulties that might arise, parties who had their goods seized were to be indemnified. In the year 1885 France, then at war with China, declared rice contraband on the special ground that rice was necessary for the Chinese. Now rice was not more necessary to the Chinese than wheat for us, and judging from experience it might be assumed that in case of war France would declare wheat contraband of war. If anyone should be disposed to contest that point then surely the action of the allied
  654
  Powers in relation to Crete would dispose of the argument. Provisions had been declared contraband when destined for the forces operating in the interior of the island. Here in England we possessed a Volunteer force scattered all over the country, and it was practically part of the civil population, and to make a distinction between the food destined for the civil population and for the Volunteers was absolutely impossible. Therefore, we must take it that wheat would be declared contraband of war, and at the commencement of hostilities we should have bread driven up to an alarming price, not very encouraging auspices under which to commence what might prove to be a life-and-death struggle. He would like to put this to his right hon. Friend who would reply on this Motion. From our wars with France from 1793 to 1812 or thereabouts we, after a protracted struggle, emerged victorious, and at that time the country was practically self-supporting; but in spite of that on two occasions certainly there were most serious riots in the country. History tells how serious were the disturbances, and how the Habeas Corpus Act had to be suspended, and the "Annual Register" for 1812 stated that riots in various parts of the country were caused by the increase in the price of provisions. There was one point his hon. Friend had not dealt with, and that was the position our Army and Navy would occupy in case of our going to war under these conditions. He had seen it stated that the Admiralty had arranged for a certain force of cruisers to be detached, whose duty it would be to protect our commerce and the importation of our food supplies; but the question he would like to put to the representative of the Admiralty was this, whether—in case of necessity, if we were self-supporting and not dependent on foreign food supplies—it would not he in the power of the Admiralty, supposing the question arose, to withdraw those cruisers from the protection of commerce for offensive operations against the enemy? He had read a very interesting speech by the Duke of Devonshire on the position of the Volunteers, in which he laid great stress on their value for home defence, and he said no opportunity should be lost of so defending a vital point as to give the Fleet liberty of action and that freedom which was

  655
  essential for its proper use. Now, if this vital point of food supply was in some way attended to and placed beyond risk of danger or hazard of interference, would not the fleet pet that further liberty of action upon which the Duke of Devonshire laid so much stress? The Army, Lord Wolseley held, would come into play in case of any disaster by storm or battle happening to our fleet. There were some hon. Gentlemen, no doubt, who held that if our fleet were lost all would be lost; but would the Army be able to operate with any efficiency if it had behind it a sullen, discontented population, ready to take to riot and pillage under the stress of hunger and fear of starvation? The Army could not hope to operate effectively, and there would be no resource but unconditional surrender and loss of empire. With the national food supplies secure the Army would be in a position to offer effective defence. That acknowledged authority on naval warfare, Captain Mahan, said in his book that if there was not that difference in personnel and population which would make one battle or campaign decisive, reserve strength must begin to tell, the organised reserve, the reserve of a seafaring population, the reserve of mechanical skill, the reserve of wealth. We had the three last, but should be unable to make use of our reserve strength, if dependent on foreign supplies we could not obtain, we should be forced to capitulate. His hon. Friend had pointed out that something like 51 per cent, of their wheat supply came from Russia and from the Balkan States. Russia, controlling, as everyone, he thought, must admit, the Dardanelles, had control of the whole of that wheat supply. That being so, what would be the position of this country with an alliance of France and Russia against them? A gentleman who was largely engaged in the wheat trade, and who formerly sat in that House—Mr. Harris—informed him that it would be perfectly possible for France, through her agents, within three weeks to buy "futures" in America to the extent of from 10 to 12 million quarters. So that they would have something like 51 per cent, in the hands of Russia, and this other amount in the hands of France, making altogether some 76 per cent, of the exports which would be controlled by those two Powers. He asked the House whether that was a posi
  656
  tion in which this country ought to allow itself to be placed? ["Hear, hear!"] He desired to say that he would never be a party to a proposal which would in any way tend to increase the food of the people, but he did not think that would be brought about by the suggestion of his hon. Friend for the establishment of a wheat reserve in granaries built by public funds. The cost which would be involved by the adoption of this proposal might be met by reimposing the old shilling registration duty upon wheat which was taken off by Mr. Lowe. It might be said that that was protection. His answer to that objection was that the duty was left on by Sir Robert Peel and that it remained on while the Liberal Party were in office some 16 years, during ten of which Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it being treated simply as a means of raising revenue. That duty would work out at between £1,000,000 and £1,200,000. It could not be said that this proposal of his would in any way raise the price of bread, for, from inquiries among the bakers, he understood it was the invariable custom of the trade not to add anything to the price of the loaf until wheat had gone up 5s. a quarter. It was his firm conviction that, if this country was not dependent on the foreigner for its bread supplies, in time of war their Navy would have that increased liberty of action which was so ardently desired by the Duke of Devonshire, that the Army would have its defensive power largely increased, and that, above all, it would add largely to the chance of preserving peace. Lord Dufferin had pointed out in most powerful language that, beyond all shadow of doubt, the stronger a, country was the less danger there was of war, and he submitted to the House that, with a wheat reserve, their country must be stronger, and, therefore, was in less danger of war.[Cheers.]
  SIR CHARLES DILKE ()said the terms of the Motion were so vague and general, and, indeed, so inoffensive, that he had little objection to them. The proposition that the peculiar position in which this country stood as regarded its food supplies must be a source of certain anxiety to the Government, and that it was a matter which they should consider did not take them very far, because that consideration might take the

  657
  form of an increased supply of cruisers, for example, or of a suggestion for insuring against war risks, or many other proposals. Therefore, if he rose, as he did, to rather strongly object to a great deal that had been said, it was not an objection to the terms of the Resolution so much as to the speeches which had been made in support of the Resolution. Those speeches had been largely concerned with a time of war, and it was to that side of the question that the Motion called the attention of the House. If it were not for that, this would be supposed by the House to be a Protectionist Motion in disguise. He certainly noticed a very strong flavour of protection in the speech of the mover. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not propose, however, to discuss what might be behind the Motion so much as the grounds upon which the Motion itself was put forward. The hon. Mover began by telling the House that their wheat supply came chiefly from foreign, and possibly from hostile countries, and by those countries he meant particularly Russia and the United States. He also told the House that two-fifths of their wheat supply came through the Dardanelles—a long and most dangerous line of trade he admitted. But two-fifths of their trade did not come through the Dardanelles.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I said one-fifth.
  SIR C. DILKE: The hon. Member who seconded him said 51 per cent.
  MR. YERBURGH: Of wheat.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid he denied that statement altogether as a matter of fact. He did not admit cither the figure two-fifths or even the correction.
  MR. SETON-KARR.: In the Statistical Abstract for 1895, the amount of wheat imported from Russia is given as nearly six million quarters.
  SIR C. DILKE: I absolutely admit the figures for 1895, but that was an exceptional year, and the figures are different to those for 20 years. The United States send us half the total importation of wheat into this country.
  MR. YERBURGH: The figures I gave were taken from the Corn Year Book. According to that authority, for this last year 47,970,000 quarters was the total exports of wheat, and 51 per cent, of this came through the Dardanelles in 1895.
  SIR C. DILKE: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement with regard
  658
  to the figures he has there. All I can say is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet and I have two different sets of figures here. They don't agree, but they both agree sufficiently to absolutely contradict the statement just made.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has questioned a matter of fact which should be cleared up. I have the figures here for 1894 as well as for 1895. He said 1895 was an abnormal year, but as a matter of fact the total importation from Russia in 1895 was exceeded by the importation in 1894.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid that Russia now counted far less than formerly as a supply market for this country for wheat, and the United States sent the largest amount of wheat to this country. No doubt the trade with Southern Russia would be jeopardised in time of war, but if we could be fed from the United States, South America, Canada, India, and Australia, we were practically independent of a supply from Southern Russia. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for St. Helens said the great bulk of our wheat supply now came from foreign and possibly hostile countries, in which he doubtless included the United States, and he argued that the danger was not that the wheat was liable to capture in coining across the sea, but that those countries might prevent it coming out at all. Unless those countries were actually engaged in hostilities with us the interest they would have in feeding us in time of war would be so enormously great that they would let nothing interfere with their trade interests. The hon. Gentleman held out the prospect that in the event of war the Government would have to cope with bread riots, caused by the increase in the price of food. There would be an increase in certain foods, no doubt, but it must be remembered that, as regarded the working classes, it probably would be accompanied by a rise in wages, because the Army, Navy, and manufacturing departments of the country would be busily engaged. But even if there were no rise in wages there would be ways of guarding against the starvation of the working classes through high prices. The Government might take steps to prevent a rise of prices to the working classes. ["How?"] Of course there would not be enough food

  659
  of one class for everybody—wheat for instance—but of certain classes of food there were great reserves. ["What classes?"] There were, for example, large stores of dried peas and lentils. [A laugh.] For a time there would be a certain pinch, but it would only concern certain classes of food here and there. If our ports were open at all there would be such a temptation to foreigners to pour food into the country that food would come in. The real question was whether we could be entirely blockaded and shut up. He admitted that we were highly vulnerable, and it was because we were so that he was in favour of large expenditure upon the defences of the Empire. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed, however, that in the event of us losing command of the sea our enemies, if they were numerous enough, would be much more likely to strike at our heart than to attempt to gradually starve us. It had been said that in time of war wheat would very likely be treated as contraband of war. It was true that in recent years articles of contraband had increased. We ourselves had been far from sufficiently careful upon this question, but he was willing to admit that the matter of contraband was largely one of the stronger side. If we had a great combination of Powers against us we must be prepared for them putting aside the works on international law written by the great international lawyers. It was, however, highly probable that the United States would be neutral in the event of such a great war as was anticipated, and the Powers against us would not be likely to take any step in respect to contraband which would be likely to bring the United States down upon them. The hon. Member for St. Helens made four suggestions. In the first place he proposed a commercial federation with our colonies. He could not see how in any comparatively brief course of time that would affect the question before the House. It was possible to conceive that advantages offered to our colonies might induce them to produce artificially in the course of a good many years more wheat than they did now, but it would take time for the change to operate, and the risks to this country were perhaps not so many years ahead as to give time for the change to be brought about. Besides, it was possible that any advantage we might
  660
  gain by adopting the hon. Member's suggestion we might lose by discouraging the freer market in Southern Russia and other portions of the world. As to the second suggestion, he thought it was that there should be a bounty put on wheat grown at home. [Dissent.] Oh, no; the hon. Member did not specify, but what he suggested meant that or nothing. ["Hear, hear!"] Then he threw out the suggestion for the cultivation of waste land in the neighbourhood of London by pauper labour. He had some experience in this matter, and he was anxious to see the experiment settled; but he did not think the country would find that it had done much towards its wheat supply by the cultivation of London's waste lands by pauper labour. ["Hear, hear!"] He came to the third suggestion, and it was the most important, and it had been developed by the Member for Chester—public granaries in which wheat should be stored. Very little guidance was given to them in this matter, and the hon. Member who made the Motion gave them no information at all; he talked of a tentative trial of the system. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion distinctly told them that he would not be a party to the raising of the price of wheat, and he thought that all that was contemplated might be done by a shilling duty, which would not affect prices in any way. That was a matter on which, he was afraid, they could not agree. The hon. Member gave the House no figures at all to suggest how far this 1s. duty would carry them with a food supply in time of war. For his part he should be more hopeful if the same amount of money was spent on national defences. [Cheers.] The hon. Member who seconded the Motion told the House he was no alarmist, but he put before them the danger as to covering the seas with Alabamas. As between the French plan of destroying this country by preying on their trade and the German view of invasion after command of the sea was lost, he adhered to the latter rather than to the former. He did not believe that starvation and suffocation would be so easy as a policy of invasion. The hon. Member said that if they were self-supporting their cruisers could be used as a striking force; but, if they were to lay up their cruisers simply because they were not wanted for protecting their food supplies, of course,

  661
  the whole foreign trade would be destroyed, and one of the great purposes for which the Navy existed would fail. They would have to guard the trade route, not only to the Cape, but from the Cape to India, and from India to China; and the great length of the trade routes would prevent the withdrawing of the cruisers in time of war. The general view he took of the Motion was that it was somewhat vague and harmless, and he did not think that much good would come from carrying it
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER ()said apparently his right hon. Friend who had just sat down would put all his eggs in one basket. He had not a word to say against any reasonable increase of the Navy which any responsible Government might think necessary, but if he were asked to rely absolutely on the Navy to protect the country and feed their population, he could not agree with his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend was like the commander of a garrison who relied solely on sorties, making no provision for feeding the garrison and the population. It was notorious that we often had not more than three or four weeks' supply of wheat or Hour in the country. His right hon. Friend, however, said something about lentils and peas. [Laughter.] How long did he think this country would allow warlike operations to go on if they were driven to food of that kind? Then the right hon. Baronet said Paris held out some time, and they were told that at all events they had the example of Paris in I the diet of rats. [Laughter.] They wanted to be in a position to give their people wholesome food. He was not going to say that help from outside should be dispensed with. What he suggested was that they should be in a position to rely largely on their resources at home; and, secondly, on those friendly elements of the Empire which would be anxious to send supplies. ["Hear, hear!"] They could get enough from Canada alone to feed them for 12 months. He joined his hon. Friends in deprecating any serious addition to the cost of living in England, but under a sliding scale a duty which ceased when the price reached, say, 40s. or thereabouts per quarter, could under no circumstances be a hardship to the people this country. There were many
  662
  people who went about the country saying that the imposition of a tax on corn would immediately result in famine prices for bread; and the mention of the fact that in 1812 corn stood at an average price of 126s. per quarter was always accompanied by denunciations of the selfish landowning class, who starved the poor by forcing up prices to that extraordinary point. But at that date and in the early days of the century, when prices were high, there was no duty save the shilling registration fee. In fact, when prices were highest duties were lowest. ["Hear, hear!"] He would point out also that the history of this and other countries showed that the imposition of a duty of any given amount by no means involved a rise in prices to a proportionate amount. But what would be the effect of a rise of 5s. in the price of corn on the daily expenses of the people? A full-grown man was capable of consuming 11b. of bread per day. The rations served out to our troops were computed at that rate. An increase of 5s. in the selling price of wheat would affect the price of 11b. of bread to the amount of one-half a farthing. Multiplying that amount by the number of days in the year, it would be found that every full-grown person would have his baker's bill increased by the sum of 3s. 9½d. in the whole course of the year; and yet they were constantly being told that a duty which would involve a rise of 5s. in the quarter of wheat would involve the starvation of the people. On the other hand, the duties which he would abolish on tea, coffee, cocoa, chicory, and dried fruits, articles which we could not produce at home, from which we raised a revenue of from four and a-half to five millions sterling a year, fell upon each individual consumer to the amount, speaking roughly, of 2s. 2½d. in the course of the year, and deducting that amount from the 3s. 9½., they would find that the net loss to the people involved in the adoption of the system of protection which he advocated, would be only 1s. 7d. a year. He was sure that, under that system, the working classes would be in a position to confront without any serious alarm a possible increase in their baker's bill, of a few shillings a year when balanced against a reduction in their grocer's bill, and accompanied by increased wages as the outcome of a

  663
  restoration of agricultural prosperity. The only suggested alternative to the system he proposed was the establishment of State granaries. He presumed that meant that the State should buy large quantities of wheat, and so become a monopolist in the corndealing business of the country. ["Hear, hear"] That was a vista which he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not view with any great equanimity. ["Hear, hear!"] The effect on our finances of the imposition of a duty should also be borne in mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, replying to a question on the subject last year, said the shilling duty, generally known as the registration fee, which was so unwisely and mischievously abolished by Mr. Lowe, would produce about £2,450,000 a year. A duty of 5s. would produce 12¾ millions, and a duty, of 10s. would produce upwards of 24 millions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the late Government had declared that our present fiscal system would be unable to bear the strain that might be imposed upon it in the future; and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that our present fiscal system could not go on providing us with unlimited revenue. Therefore, those who deliberately excluded from the possibilities of the near future a return on a large scale to a system of indirect taxation were cutting themselves off from the only source of revenue that would be available in a time of real pressure in this country. He had disposed of the contention that, if the arrangements suggested were made, the population of the country would be called on to make any great sacrifice. He hoped the Government would not fail to have recourse to the only remedy which could prove efficacious, when they took practical measures to protect the country against dangers to its food supply.
  MR. GEORGE LAMBERT ()said that a very interesting discussion had been initiated. Although the question was one of an inadequate food supply, very little had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to depressed agriculture. They were not nearly so keen on that point now as when the late Government was in office. The remedy which had been propounded by the right hon. Member for Thanet would not receive much sympathy
  664
  from the poorer classes in the country; and he thought it was very impolitic to buoy up agriculturists with hopes that the old reign of protection would some day return. He wondered that among all the remedies suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite, no mention had been made of the great remedy of the President of the Local Government Board—bimetallism. Protection, in the minds of a great many, meant not so much greater food supplies for the people as higher rents for the landlords. As had been said by the right hon. Member for Bodmin, the protectionists added a new phrase to the Lord's Prayer—"Give us this day our daily bread, but not too cheap." It had been asserted that bakers did not put up the price of bread till wheat had risen 5s. a quarter. He found that they put up the price directly there was even a prospect of a rise in wheat; but when wheat went down 5s. a quarter, the bakers did not reduce the price of bread. If protection were to be restored, it should not begin with the food of the people. It should begin with manufactured goods, and that was a long way off. In other countries protection had not proved a remedy against agricultural depression; and he believed that it was responsible for the great discontent of the poorer classes which was exhibited at the last Presidential Election in the United States. Whatever was to be said of agriculture, it must be admitted that the agricultural labourer—who could not be left out of account—had enormously improved his position under the system of free trade. Mr. Little, in a Report of the Labour Commission, declared that, by a quiet revolution, from one-third to one-quarter of the profits of the landlord and the farmer had been transferred to the labourer.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not keeping to the question before the House. The question of the effect of protection upon the agricultural labourer is not the question before the House.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid he wished to show that if we had to rely on increased home-production, we could not depend on protection to secure that result. The question of national granaries wag argued in another place about two years ago, and did not receive much support. It was a reversion to the methods of the time of the Pharaohs. If they were established,

  665
  they would have to hold some 10,000,000 quarters of wheat, and if the price of wheat fell considerably, the Exchequer would be involved in an enormous deficit. Moreover, the granaries would chiefly afford a paradise for rats. If the productive capacity of the laud were to be increased, the excessive burdens on land, which were crippling agriculture, must be lightened. One farmer in Berkshire and Oxfordshire told the Agricultural Commission that the tenant farmers had been paying the rents out of capital so long that their possibilities of improving the methods and the capacity of the land were greatly reduced. None of the artificial remedies which had been suggested would improve the productive powers of the soil. To do that, we must take a leaf out of the book of our foreign competitors, teach the farmer to produce more cheaply, and cheapen the means of transport and communication. With such a strong Navy as we possessed, there could not be much danger of a blockade which would shut off our food supplies.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB ()dealing with the various remedies that had been suggested, said it appeared to be a serious thing to propose that a Minister of the Crown should become the biggest corn dealer in the country; and that the House of Commons should be turned into the bulls and bears of the Stock Exchange. The arrangement of public granaries in which reserves of four months' supplies should be kept, was one which would not commend itself to reasonable people. With regard to the idea of a bounty on wheat production, he held that the agricultural produce of this country was unfairly treated by reason of the fact that it contributes to Imperial and local burdens, while foreign and colonial imported wheat contributed nothing. He could not see why the foreigner should altogether escape his contribution so as to equalise competition and place foreign produce in home markets on the same footing as our own. As to commercial federation with the colonies, that was by itself no remedy at all, because he did not see that colonial produce was exposed to less risk than foreign produce. [Cheers.] Wheat from India or Australia would, in the event supposed, be under exactly the same risk as foreign wheat on the ocean. But he could understand commercial
  666
  federation if it was associated with complete federation for defence. [Cheers.] If we were to enter into commercial federation with advantages to our colonies, to encourage them to grow wheat and other things to compete against our own farmers at home, he wanted to know how they were going to share in the burden and expense of protecting that sea-borne wheat upon the ocean? ["Hear, hear!"] He could not see any sense in such a policy unless it was accompanied by an undertaking on the part of the colony entering into the federation to bear the same.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I never advocated free importation of colonial produce, but simply preferential tariffs which would charge the colonists less than the foreigner.
  SIR J. COLOMBreplied that the point they had to bear in mind was the risk of sea-going commerce in war, and if advantages were given to a colony to enable it to send produce in time of war, that colony was equally bound to share the responsibility and expense of the protection of its commerce coming to us. The time had really come to face this question of joint action and joint responsibility in the maintenance of the fleet, which was of equal value and necessity to the colony as to the mother country. He did not think the present state of things could long continue. Canada was a considerable mercantile power of the world in ships, and yet Canada contributed nothing whatever to the expense of the sea-going fleet which protected her ships. Such experience as we had showed that the country that was most powerful at sea did not, in the end, suffer so much. At the commencement of the war 1812–14 with the United States, the States had about 50 millions sterling of sea trade, and at the conclusion this had dwindled down to 4½ millions; while, on the other hand, we commenced that war with a sea-borne commerce of the value of 64 millions sterling, and at the conclusion it had risen to 87 millions. The economic problem resolved itself into a question of prices, and the question of prices was affected by war risk, and the war risk would be precisely a question of confidence in the Navy, and that should never be lost sight of. If we got into war to-morrow, of course there

  667
  would be a rise in the price of bread. And not only would the price of food rise by reason of the war risk, but the price of all raw material would rise too. On the other hand, manufactures exported to foreign countries would increase in value and in price when placed on the foreign market, because the price of delivery at the foreign port would be enhanced. Thus would our competing power be seriously injured. The real question, he thought, was one of insurance with a Government guarantee. There was no department of the Government charged with considering all the economic questions involved, and he thought the time had come when there should be, perhaps associated with the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty some body of commercial men who could advise the Admiralty and the Government upon these matters.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, who was received with Ministerial cheers: There are two interesting peculiarities, among others, which mark the instructive Debate to which we have listened this evening. The first is that my hon. Friend has so contrived the terms of his Motion that he has made it a suitable text apparently for almost even Gentleman who wishes to agitate, and is in the habit of agitating some special views in the House—["hear, hear!" and laughter]—be those views what they may. My gallant Friend who has just sat down takes a strong view as to a colonial federation for the defence of the Empire, and very property, and has given us some lengthy observations on that subject. The mover of the Motion takes a strong view on colonial federation for commercial purposes, and has brought forward that view. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet is a long-tried advocate of agricultural protection, and it is unnecessary to say that on this occasion he has not lost the opportunity of bringing forward that subject. [Laughter.] Then there is the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the South Molton Division, who is never able to get up in this House without attacking the exorbitant rents of landlords, and, remote as that subject might at first seem to be from the food supply of the nation and the commercial defence of the Empire, he has succeeded,
  668
  and at considerable length, in introducing that topic also into our Debate. [Laughter.] I think the House will feel that that peculiarity of the Debate necessarily precludes me, as speaking for the Government, from covering the whole field which has been covered by hon. Gentlemen—["hear, hear!" and laughter]—and I can only express my thankfulness that one topic, certainly as relevant to this subject as many which have been raised, and which has, I think, been mentioned, namely, that of bimetallism—[Laughter.]—has not been added to the numerous topics which it has been thought fit to deal with in our speeches to-night. The second peculiarity of the Motion is that, while in the terms which have been put on the Paper, it commands a universal assent—a chorus of assent in which I at all events mean to introduce no discordant note—the actual speakers when they came to put forward in detail their special views as to how the difficulties alluded to in the Resolution should be met, have expressed the most vehement divergence of opinion, a divergence of opinion not at all corresponding to the division of Parties, but making itself quite as plain among my Friends on this side of the House as among hon. Gentlemen opposite. For example, the Mover of the Motion expressed, among other things, a decided desire to see some form of bounty or protection extended to home-grown wheat; the Seconder of the Motion said that whatever else he would agree to, nothing in the world would make him agree to that. [Laughter.] My right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet made an able and excellent protectionist speech, but he was followed by other Gentlemen also on this side of the House, who pointed out that they certainly could not follow him, at all events, on those lines, in attempting to secure for this country a food supply in case of war. Passing from these irregularities of the Debate to the main arguments that have been advanced, perhaps I may begin with a very brief consideration of the two or three projects which have been put before us for dealing with this Question. On Protection I really have nothing to say. It is too large a question to discuss in detail, and stray references to what has fallen from my hon. Friends, or to arguments from the other side, would really conduce very

  669
  little to elucidate the subject. I would only remind the House that, though it may be true, and I think it is true, that the apostles of Free Trade have too much elevated themselves into a sect professing a peculiar orthodoxy—["hear, hear!"]—and basing themselves upon certain perfectly sound abstract arguments, they have been too apt to found upon those abstract arguments rules of public policy which they sometimes assume are true to all nations, races, and times. Though I think they have erred in this excessive and abstract treatment of the subject, the broad political fact—I will not travel into economical fact—is that for various historical reasons, partly-arising out of the enormously high price of bread which prevailed during the late war. partly out of the great controversy ending in the abolition of the Corn Laws, the masses of this country view with ineradicable prejudice the notion of any return to anything at all resembling the old Protective duties that used to be levied. [Cheers.] That is my own personal belief. I am not arguing the merits of this question: I am merely bringing before my hon. Friends, as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite, the fact which I think a little experience has probably persuaded them of, that it is perfectly useless to say to an agricultural labourer, for example, that the result of Free Trade is that the value of farms has gone down, and that the farmer as a result of losing his profits cannot give so much employment to agricultural labourers. That may be true; in many parts of the country I am convinced it is true—[Sir H. VINCENT: "Hear, hear!"]:—but, true or not, I venture to say that we have got to deal with political forces as we find them, and we must recognise that the historical prejudice, if you will, but the historical conviction in any case, which has been driven into the minds of the labouring classes of this country with regard to protection of food is so deeply ingrained in them that I do not believe my right hon. Friend's propaganda, however ably conducted, is likely to have very much effect upon their views. I puss from that to the plan which the seconder of
  670
  this Motion has dwelt upon. He wants to see us spend a capital sum, which, together with the annual cost of maintaining this system, would impose, I imagine, on the Chancellor of the Exchequer an annual burden which my hon. Friend, I think, put at about £900,000 a year, but which I am afraid less sanguine calculators would put a great deal higher. The basis of my hon. Friend's calculation was that money could be borrowed at 2 per cent. I do not think, whatever the rate of interest may be at present, that any Chancellor of the Exchequer would venture to carry out a commercial undertaking involving a capital expenditure, of some 20 millions of money, on the basis of being able to borrow that money at 2 per cent. But my hon. Friend altogether abstained from dealing with the difficulty attaching to this plan, quite apart from the financial difficulty which has been alluded to —namely, that if you are going to establish granaries in which a third of the annual consumption of the whole people is to be contained, you inevitably turn the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being into a great corn factor and corn dealer. ["Hear, hear!"] In so doing you would entirely alter the position of the administration at the head of the Government of this country. It is impossible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be a buyer and seller on the prodigious scale implied by my hon. Friends plan without making him interfere with prices, and without bringing down on his head an avalanche of criticism and of public feeling which even in quiet times would make his life anything but a happy one, and would make his position absolutely intolerable. The third plan proposed by the mover was that of a commercial Zollverein between England and her colonies, and for this purpose with the wheat-growing colonies. I am one of those who look with considerable longing towards some closer union—[Cheers.]—with our colonies, based, I should hope, both on commercial and on military considerations. I must confess, however, that I do not quite see how this proposal of the seconder of the Motion really touches the difficulty in

  671
  which Great Britain finds herself at this moment. He did not clearly explain, in the first place, how this Zollverein was to increase the area of wheat production. When we are told by the hon. Member and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet that Canada has at this moment virgin soil for a sufficient area of wheat we should require without going to Russia or Argentina, I do not doubt the fact, but I do doubt that by any arrangement with Canada we could provide Canada with the population or the capital to convert vast areas of uncultivated plain into grain-producing territory. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] My hon. Friends do not suggest the methods by which the population can suddenly be transferred to Canada, by which she should be enabled to make this enormous addition to her wheat supply. I hope the time will come when this virgin soil may be used; but nothing has been suggested to bring it within the immediate range of practical politics. Those who advocate a Zollverein as a remedy for the difficulties forget from what cause our difficulties principally arise. They seem to assume that the difficulty of finding food for England in time of war arises from the fact, that the nations which chiefly produce our food supply will refuse to allow it to leave their shores and come to ours. I admit that might be met by inducing our colonies, if they could be induced, to supply all the wheat we require. But is that danger a real one? I do not think so. The hon. Members appear to assume, though they have not distinctly said so, that there is to be an alliance of Russia, and America against us. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Russia and France!"] Russia and France will not do it. I am now dealing with the argument that nations will refuse to supply us, and that we shall not be able to import. But that danger is not serious or imminent unless you can conceive America and Russia agreeing together in order to injure w and in order to destroy their most profitable source of exportation.
  MR. YERBURGHsaid that Russia and France had not been touched upon in the Debate, but he was advised by one of the great dealers that the present system of dealing in grain was largely in "futures," and in this case wheat might be withdrawn from our consumption.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Apart from the buying of "futures," we have nothing to fear that other nations will refuse to send us corn. But as to "futures," if France can buy "futures" England can do so as well. [Cheers.] While it would pay us to buy "futures" if we cannot get corn, it would not pay France to do so, because she does not want the corn. Thus France, being at war with us, would have her whole financial as well as military system strained to the utmost to buy corn she does not consume. That particular danger, arising from the special methods of dealing with corn found to prevail in America, is not one which it is necessary to provide against. I ought now to touch on the dangers, real or supposed—and I do not minimise them—from which those remedies are intended to protect us. What are they? First, there is the danger arising from bread riots and general disorder prevailing among the wage-earning classes of the community when they found the pinch of starvation in consequence of war. I do not think there is any distinction in this matter to be drawn between one class of the community and another. If this country goes to war depend upon it it will only go to war if the Government of the day feels it has behind it the sentiment of the people; and if this people are resolved to go to war I am confident that they are prepared to undergo the hardships entailed upon them by war. I do not believe that the immediate result of raising the price of grain would be to induce the general disorder which the hon. Gentleman anticipates. I admit that we have an experience, but it is an experience which may reassure us. I cannot imagine that any section of the population is likely to be

  673
  put to a much greater strain than was the population of Lancashire during the time of the cotton famine. The population of Lancashire during the cotton famine never exhibited any of these disorderly symptoms of which my hon. Friend is afraid; but they so held themselves up as an example for all time of how patiently great misfortunes can be borne by the working classes of this country. [Cheers.] What is the second danger? It is that foreigners will refuse to send us their corn. I have dealt with that; but there remains what I believe is the real and great danger—not the danger of riots or of foreigners refusing to send corn in—but the impossibility we shall be under, through the blockade of our coasts, of getting corn in. I do not wish to minimise that. I think it is a possible one. I will not argue whether food would be regarded as contraband of war. In that matter I associate myself with the views of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean when he laid it down that the laws of international warfare are determined in any particular case by the stronger party; and if in a war we were the weaker party, and if we could find no allies outside our shores having in this matter a common interest with ourselves, I admit that it might happen a combination of foreign Powers should declare it would be a contraband of war and should insist that neutrals should not carry it to our shores. Yes, but what would the neutrals say? [Cheers.] The case I put is that of the weaker party being ourselves, which I hope may not be the case; but if we are at war with Russia and France, what would be the attitude of the United States to any such declaration of international law as my hon. Friend fears? The United States have never admitted, in the first place, that food was contraband, even in cases where there have been no great Imperial interests to observe by maintaining the opposite doctrine. In this case their theoretical prepossessions would be stimulated by the
  674
  strongest motives of personal interest. Half the exports from the United States are exports of breadstuffs to this country. To stop those exports—and by hypothesis this is necessary—would make the United States feel that they had a vital interest in associating themselves with us in combating this doctrine of international law. While I have fair confidence that we alone should be strong enough to meet any combination of Powers likely to be brought against us, I say that the United States and us in alliance are strong enough to meet any conceivable combination, even if that combination should include all the rest of the civilised world. [Cheers.] Therefore, I confess that I do not think it likely we shall suffer much from any declaration on that point addressed to us by European nations. Of course, in the final resort our security in this case depends on the Navy of the country. [Cheers.] If you have a Navy adequate to protect you, everybody will, I think, feel that though the price of bread may for the moment spring up to an alarming extent, though there might be difficulties and embarrassments, though the pinch will in the long run be severely felt, yet, if the Navy is adequate to the duties east upon it, there need be no ultimate fear of being starved into submission by any combination which may be allied against us. Therefore, this Debate comes round to whether our Navy is or is not equal to the duties cast upon it. On that question it would be more for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty than for me to speak. But he has already expressed in detail his views with so much clearness, and he so adequately represents the Government of which he is a Member, that really I have nothing to add to what he has said. But I frankly accept on my own behalf, and on behalf of the Government, the responsibility which the Resolution throws upon us. In the last resort, as I have said, it means responsibility for our Navy, and when my hon. Friend asks the House to lay down the proposition that the

  675
  strength of our Navy, not merely for the purpose of defending our shores but our commerce—whether that commerce be commerce in food stuffs or other raw materials on which, only in a little less degree, we are dependent—rests with the Government, I heartily accept it. It is a matter which, in the words of the Motion, "demands the serious consideration of the Government," and that serious consideration it most certainly will have, and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is the last occupant of his great office who is likely to watch with otherwise than the keenest and most vigilant attention the naval construction and programme of other nations with whom—though far be the possibility of its ever happening—we might by some conceivable mischance be brought into collision. We recognise the necessity under which this country lies for having that Navy; we recognise that we, the Government, are responsible for the adequacy of that Navy, and the House is right in throwing upon us responsibility for that Navy; and in assenting to the Motion we only give another proof that it is a responsibility we do not fear and from which we have no desire to shrink. [Cheers.]
  MR. W. ALLAN ()said they had all listened with interest to the patriotic sentiments of the First Lord of the Treasury. The whole question lay in a nutshell. It was not a question of granaries or alliances with other nations, but whether in the event of war we could keep our highways on the sea open, so as to bring food into this country. It was a subject in which he had for some time taken an interest, and long ago he came to the conclusion that the only way to supply this country in the event of war was to have plenty of ships on the sea. Before other nations could establish a blockade of Britain, our fleets would have to be destroyed, and who would destroy them? During the time of the American War the Alabama swept the whole of the commerce of the United States from the
  676
  sea. Should we be in that position in the event of war? If we sent vessels to America for breadstuffs they would have to be convoyed by fast-sailing cruisers. He was in great sympathy with the building of these cruisers, but the commercial aspect of the question was terrible when you looked at it, it was so large. The whole question rested on the Navy. It was the duty of the country to have a great number of fast cruisers, whose speed could keep up with merchant ships in going across to America or Argentina for foodstuffs. If they could not convoy merchant ships in this way, the latter would be captured. The money required for the Navy, although it might appear large, would increase from year to year, but we could not maintain the dignity of the country or feed the country during war unless we had a powerful Navy.
  Motion put, and agreed to.

  MONEY-LENDING.
  Select Committee appointed to inquire into the alleged evils attending money-lending transactions at high rates of interest, or under oppressive conditions as to repayment, between the poorer classes and professional money lenders, and to report thereon.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Mr. Yerburgh.)
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present:—
  The House was Adjourned at Five Minutes before Eight of the Clock till To-morrow.